Let's Define "Cover Band"

[Highfox]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1469072575' post='3095523']
"Just a cover"

So we can also say, "just an original" ?

Blue
[/quote]
Just keep out there Blue doing what makes you happy and don't worry about trying to categorize it.

The main band I play in have enough material to do a couple of sets of originals and enough covers (all beit our own takes on) to to do the same when required.

[bassbiscuits]

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1469044736' post='3095393']
Covers bands play music that the people in the band hate but the punters love.
Originals bands play music that the people in the band love but the punters hate.


[/quote]

Ha ha! Very good

[blue]

[quote name='Highfox' timestamp='1469087221' post='3095565']

Just keep out there Blue doing what makes you happy and don't worry about trying to categorize it.

The main band I play in have enough material to do a couple of sets of originals and enough covers (all beit our own takes on) to to do the same when required.
[/quote]

I think my question was reasonable.

Having originals is actually nice and can be worked into our sets easily. We have 2 CDs of original material.

Blue

[Coilte]

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1469044736' post='3095393']
Covers bands play music that the people in the band hate but the punters love.
Originals bands play music that the people in the band love but the punters hate.


[/quote]



True.dat....!!!

[RockfordStone]

a band that plays songs made famous by someone else.
a tribute band is the same but narrows down to a band, era or genre.

normally in this country, such bands are set up with the intention of playing to make money from functions, weddings or pubs etc.

i don't think it really matters what you call them, covers band, function band, bar band.... who cares?

Edited July 21, 2016 by RockfordStone

[paul h]

Blue, is the "top 40" band still a thing?

[Stylon Pilson]

Well, given how easy it was to define "covers band", I'm feeling pretty confident at having a stab at defining "professional" and "heft". Anyone with me?

S.P.

[TimR]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1469042735' post='3095366']
...

It seems like in the UK "Cover Band"means "Mustang Sally" and "Moon Dance". This has always been confusing to me because that's not the case in the US.

How do you personally define cover band?

Blue
[/quote]

Ok. In the UK we have a strong tradition of sing along drinking songs.

From old rugby songs through to wartime Vera Lynne songs, traditional East End of London "Roll out the barrel" Chas and Dave type songs. Often around a badly tuned piano.

This is what the Beatles picked up on. Traditional Irish songs and Sea shanties that were sung in the pubs around the docks in Liverpool.

That's essentially why the UK crowd are always asking you to 'play something we know'. They're not after a song they've heard before, they're after a song they know the words to and can sing along to.

There are a lot of what we call 'musos' on BassChat who like to think they're above that and that their job is to educate the punters and bring in alternative music to the traditional songs.

All very admirable but I think they're somewhat missing the point.

[Musicman20]

Usually a cover band is covering popular songs, maybe slightly shaking up the format of the song, and making a profit from it.

I don't think I'd ever 'work' in a covers band unless I earnt a healthy amount of money from it. I tried it at 16 with a few older lads and it was fun, (mainly because we hit the wave of Brit pop/indie revival in the 90s) and I've tried it a few times since, but it never feels the same as writing music, recording your own music, and gigging it to people who enjoy your music.

Writing with people you really connect with - that....is simply the best thing about being in a band.

[luckydog]

I think there's also an artistic line between what is typically recognised as a covers/bar band and an originals band. For example, Coltrane's version of 'My Favorite Things' has so much original interpretive content that is primarily artistic despite not being self penned. He also makes no attempt to sound like Julie Andrews !

If the primary motivation of a band is original art, then it won't be thought of as a covers band even when playing non-self penned material. If motivtion is primarily presentation of commercially popular material in a broadly similar form to the original artist, then it will be thought of as a covers band.

And all points in between. The %age of artistic content I think is what puts a band somewhere along the scale. Choosing obscure material to cover doesn't affect this, though many peeps will likely not know if it's self-penned or not and assume the material is the band's original work. One can fool some of the people some of the time. Writers should always be credited if it's not original, verbally, during performamces IMO. And royalties paid one way or another !

LD

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='4stringslow' timestamp='1469045715' post='3095408']
Perhaps we should take a climb back up the taxonomic tree and start at the type of music being played, regardless of the style genre. Thus original or non-original - surely that's a non-contentious starting point?
[/quote]

*rolls up sleeves*

Have we ordered the taxa incorrectly? Historically (and from what I've seen today) jazz bands give little thought as to whether they want to focus on "covers" or self-penned material; a set will often comprise their interpretations of various standards and other tunes, maybe along with a couple of pieces written by the band members. I have encountered jazz bands who mostly focus on writing their own pieces, just like I've encountered some who are happy to just take tunes out of the Real Book and haul those into new territory, but nobody seems to be too worried about whether they're an "originals" band or not.

(Ditto orchestras - I know a lot of them will crowbar a modern composer's piece into the first half before they play what you actually paid to hear, but it's not often written by the feller waving his stick around at the front.)

The distinction does seem to be a bit more endemic to rock/pop music, and then I wonder...has the distinction been reinforced artificially by pub landlords who want to eliminate the risk that the band they're booking will play a 2-hour doom-sludge-improv set?

[TimR]

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1469094502' post='3095627']


*rolls up sleeves*

Have we ordered the taxa incorrectly? Historically (and from what I've seen today) jazz bands give little thought as to whether they want to focus on "covers" or self-penned material; a set will often comprise their interpretations of various standards and other tunes, maybe along with a couple of pieces written by the band members. I have encountered jazz bands who mostly focus on writing their own pieces, just like I've encountered some who are happy to just take tunes out of the Real Book and haul those into new territory, but nobody seems to be too worried about whether they're an "originals" band or not.

(Ditto orchestras - I know a lot of them will crowbar a modern composer's piece into the first half before they play what you actually paid to hear, but it's not often written by the feller waving his stick around at the front.)

The distinction does seem to be a bit more endemic to rock/pop music, and then I wonder...has the distinction been reinforced artificially by pub landlords who want to eliminate the risk that the band they're booking will play a 2-hour doom-sludge-improv set?
[/quote]

There are a lot of OCD musicians out there who are more to blame. Particularly in the very highly paid wedding and function area. Bands who spend hours getting to sound exactly like the original recorded versions.

I think with Jazz and Classical, there are no, de facto, original recorded versions. By the time recording was invented, the idea of improv was so embedded in jazz and there were so many orchestras playing classical that it becomes a mute point.

For many the whole idea of covering a recording artists recording is capturing the recording, not capturing the spirit of the song.

Then when you get people like Simon Cowell saying "Well done, you took that song and made it your own.", it's like it's a compliment and that no one else can do that kind of thing.

It's a shame really.

At the other end of the spectrum you get musicians who just busk songs and leave out important aspects of a song because they can't make the bridge fit etc.

[RockfordStone]

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1469094502' post='3095627']
doom-sludge-improv set
[/quote]
i don't know what that is, but i want to hear it.... and then cover it...

[FinnDave]

[quote name='RockfordStone' timestamp='1469095211' post='3095635']
i don't know what that is, but i want to hear it.... and then cover it...
[/quote]

Yes, but cover it with what?

[RhysP]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1469070788' post='3095519']
Both of your definitions are a bit narrow in nature IMO, but I get where your coming from.
[/quote]

I was being somewhat less than serious.

[ras52]

[quote name='FinnDave' timestamp='1469095836' post='3095640']
Yes, but cover it with what?
[/quote]

Doom-sludge.

[ras52]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1469095104' post='3095632']
Then when you get people like Simon Cowell saying "Well done, you took that song and made it your own.", it's like it's a compliment and that no one else can do that kind of thing.

It's a shame really.
[/quote]

Not sure if I'm reading you correctly, but why's it a shame? I sooner hear a "original" performance (in which the performer has some emotional investment) than an accurate but lifeless replication of someone else's performance.

[TimR]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1469096215' post='3095645']


Not sure if I'm reading you correctly, but why's it a shame? I sooner hear a "original" performance (in which the performer has some emotional investment) than an accurate but lifeless replication of someone else's performance.
[/quote]

Yes. That's my point. It's a shame that the public think it's something special when someone sings a cover on a TV show that sounds a bit different to the original recording.

I have a hard time convincing the band I play with to try anything with strings, keys, brass etc as we're a three piece. All it takes is a little imagination and you're off.

[ras52]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1469097776' post='3095669']
Yes. That's my point. It's a shame that the public think it's something special when someone sings a cover on a TV show that sounds a bit different to the original recording.

I have a hard time convincing the band I play with to try anything with strings, keys, brass etc as we're a three piece. All it takes is a little imagination and you're off.
[/quote]

Ah, you'd rather it was the norm than seen as something special/

Oddly enough, since you mentioned Mr Cowell, the X Factor live shows are actually notable for imaginative re-interpretations. I think as long as the song is recognisable, the punters are happy.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1469048804' post='3095444']
I was once in a band called Brentford Nylons.

We did loose covers.
[/quote]

Brent Ford and the Nylons perform a cover song (or two) ....

[media]http://youtu.be/jUlYV4L60HU[/media]

By the way, the vocalist is John Mostyn who was involved in 2 Tone records and later manager of The Beat and then Fine Young Cannibals and others.

Edited July 21, 2016 by EssentialTension

[TimR]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1469098388' post='3095676']


Ah, you'd rather it was the norm than seen as something special/

Oddly enough, since you mentioned Mr Cowell, the X Factor live shows are actually notable for imaginative re-interpretations. I think as long as the song is recognisable, the punters are happy.
[/quote]

Not the norm, but it's not hard to 'reimagine' a tune using different instrumentation and applying a slightly different style.

.

Edited July 21, 2016 by TimR

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1469099444' post='3095691']
Not the norm, but it's not hard to 'reimagine' a tune using different instrumentation and applying a slightly different style.

.
[/quote]

http://youtu.be/f5Cyd7jJ-bA

http://youtu.be/TxEQfvxponI

[SpondonBassed]

I've always believed that "Cover Band" means a group of musicians who do not perform material of their own. When I see how that looks in type it seems like a negative statement but I don't mean it that way. It's just the most concise way I can think to answer your question.

How is that different to your scene?

[Highfox]

[quote name='SpondonBassed' timestamp='1469103079' post='3095746']
I've always believed that "Cover Band" means a group of musicians who do not perform material of their own. When I see how that looks in type it seems like a negative statement but I don't mean it that way. It's just the most concise way I can think to answer your question.

How is that different to your scene?
[/quote]
+1

[SpondonBassed]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1469061202' post='3095515']
My definition of a cover band? One that is working and earning.

The general rule for our cover band is that any song we play has to have been a top 30 hit.

We aim to play songs which the audience knows, likes a lot, can dance to, will sing with us and isn't played by every other cover band.
[/quote]

Great answer. Makes a lot of sense unless you're riding a hobby horse.

Never having played and got paid, I include myself as a jockey. I have far too much time on my hands and can afford to be self indulgent... "which is nice" heeheehee.

Asking a question like the OP on a site like this is just begging for sweeping generalisations, such is the range of ability or indeed interest in playing. When you get answers from those who are playing to feed themselves and their families however, I'd go with that. It's real.