Is originality dead?

[lownote]

[size=4][color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Looking at Norfolk Band Network on FB I was struck that there seem to be an awful lot of bands who ID themselves as 'cover bands' or 'influenced by...' So where's all the originality gone? [/font][/color][/size][size=4][color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Did the seminal 60s and 70s groups do covers? " We're called The Who and we're going to be doing Chuck Berry numbers..." [/font][/color][/size]

[size=4][color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]By way of balance I am impressed at the number of young bands who [u]are[/u] inventive, either in versioning or coming up with originals. Last Sunday I saw the awesome Dove and Boweevil do Stormy Monday so differently I didn't recognise it until half way through. [/font][/color][/size]

[size=4][color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Am I being a Victor Meldrew here? Is being a covers band a cop out? And how to make playing covers fresh and standout? Not wanting to wind anyone up or upset them, being fairly new to the band world just wanting to learn something. [/font][/color][/size]

[size=4][color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]EDITED [/font][/color][/size]

Edited August 2, 2017 by lownote12

[PaulWarning]

another covers verses originals thread coming up, the way I see it is young bands tend to be originals where as the older you get the more pointless it seems, you're never going to get anywhere, having said that the band I play in have just released a new album (and on vinyl!) we usually do about 6 or 7 of our own songs in a 2 hour pub set, occasionally we'll do an all originals set but we don't normally get paid for those. If you want regular gigs without spending all your time going up and down the motorway network you're probably going to have to do covers.

[lojo]

I would guess all inventive artists over the last century's have started out covering those that came before

There's room for everything , why be down on those enjoying covers both players and audiences, it's possible to love lots of old and new stuff at the same time

I guess there is always less new ways to make music as time moves on

Edited August 2, 2017 by lojo

[KevB]

Both the Beatles and The Stones essentially started out as cover bands, I'd be amazed if the Who didnt do some covers in thier early years too but I'm less familiar with their history. I get where the OP is coming from, however there are plenty of folks ploughing their own furrow.

[Yank]

There have always been cover/function bands. People like to hear songs that they know and are willing to pay musicians. Why would this bother you?

[AndyTravis]

Dunno, I'll have to ask the guy I'm copying from...

[radiophonic]

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1501662138' post='3346237']
another covers verses originals thread coming up, the way I see it is young bands tend to be originals where as the older you get the more pointless it seems, you're never going to get anywhere, having said that the band I play in have just released a new album (and on vinyl!) we usually do about 6 or 7 of our own songs in a 2 hour pub set, occasionally we'll do an all originals set but we don't normally get paid for those. If you want regular gigs without spending all your time going up and down the motorway network you're probably going to have to do covers.
[/quote]

What do you mean by regular? If you play originals in Nottingham, it's a totally different scene from covers bands. We play a fair bit around the city, but it's more arts-scene based. Sometimes it's the same 'pub gig' venues but the promoters/organisers aren't the same at all. We occasionally play regular pub gigs (as opposed to places like the Maze or whatever), but those places largely expect/demand covers bands playing classic rock or classic punk, close to the recorded version. It also depends on what success looks like to you. If your aim is to make money, then covers is the safe - probably the only - option. If your aim is to develop a musical idea, execute it in front of an audience and get a reaction, then getting paid has never been guaranteed. I like the fact that I don't have to even think about pandering to an audience's expectations... although doing folk related stuff does put you in contact with people who still think Dylan is Judas for plugging in! We've been asked to do a slot at a Folk club next month, but I'm still taking a looper and a delay pedal.

[Coilte]

I'm pretty sure there was never an artist or band who was not influenced in some way by what went before. It is the nature of the beast.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Coilte

[Cat Burrito]

[quote name='lownote12' timestamp='1501661366' post='3346226'][color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Am I being a Victor Meldrew here? [/font][/color][/quote]

Possibly a little bit, yes.

I've spent 30 years playing in original bands (still do) and more recently over the last 10yrs have had covers side projects. It's really stretched my playing. I've seen plenty of originals bands that aren't very original at all & as stated a LOT of classic artists from the 50s / 60s regularly did covers - not just Beatles / Stones but look at the Stax / Motown acts or the early pioneers of rock 'n' roll music who all did each others songs.

If the world is full of covers / tribute acts, start your own band and build it around what you want. If it is good, people will come to you. It's what I have done in the past and at times it has been hard work, but rewarding & it has meant 30yrs of always playing in the bands I want to be in at that time.

I'm afraid that I've never understood the covers vs originals debate. Music is either music you like or don't.

[ahpook]

[quote name='lownote12' timestamp='1501661366' post='3346226']
[size=4][color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Imagine if all the seminal 60s and 70s groups had been cover bands. " We're called The Who and we're going to be doing Chuck Berry numbers..." [/font][/color][/size]
[/quote]

No, that was the Beatles.

Edited August 2, 2017 by ahpook

[KevB]

I suppose in theory the longer any art form goes on then the chances of someone doing something that hasn't been done before becomes less. However its how critical you get of what comprises 'original'. There must be tons of novels written every year that would be classed as 'original' yet there are probably parts of every story that has at least some similarity to one that has been done before by now, I guess the devil is in the detail.

[BigRedX]

There's nothing wrong with being "influenced by…"

Of course if we are playing songs we wrote ourselves we'd like to think that in some way what we are producing was new and different, but the reality is, that if you declare your influences it makes it a lot easier for audiences and venues/promoters to get a handle on your band and therefore you are more likely to be able to get gigs and attract an audience. Getting repeat bookings and keeping your audience coming back will depend on how entertaining your band is, but admitting your influences is useful in getting your foot in the door in the first place.

It was a lot easier for The Terrortones to get gigs once we had aligned ourselves with the psychobilly genre, even though of the various influences we cited, it was probably the least relevant.

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='radiophonic' timestamp='1501663612' post='3346273']
What do you mean by regular? If you play originals in Nottingham, it's a totally different scene from covers bands. We play a fair bit around the city, but it's more arts-scene based. Sometimes it's the same 'pub gig' venues but the promoters/organisers aren't the same at all. We occasionally play regular pub gigs (as opposed to places like the Maze or whatever), but those places largely expect/demand covers bands playing classic rock or classic punk, close to the recorded version. It also depends on what success looks like to you. If your aim is to make money, then covers is the safe - probably the only - option. If your aim is to develop a musical idea, execute it in front of an audience and get a reaction, then getting paid has never been guaranteed. I like the fact that I don't have to even think about pandering to an audience's expectations... although doing folk related stuff does put you in contact with people who still think Dylan is Judas for plugging in! We've been asked to do a slot at a Folk club next month, but I'm still taking a looper and a delay pedal.
[/quote]Don't know much about the folk scene tbh, we like to play most weekends. Originals gigs, unless you're supporting a 'name' act tend to be very poorly paid, if at all, poorly attended, mid week gigs, very depressing, we can pull it off occasionally as with our album launch party at the Lord Robert but you can't expect the same people to keep attending regular local originals gigs, as I said you have to do a lot of travelling if you in an originals Punk band, which if you've got a job can prove very difficult, as our Drummer found out when he was in an originals only band

Edited August 2, 2017 by PaulWarning

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='KevB' timestamp='1501662699' post='3346257']
Both the Beatles and The Stones essentially started out as cover bands, I'd be amazed if the Who didnt do some covers in thier early years too but I'm less familiar with their history.
[/quote]

Indeed they did! Their "thing" was loud and aggressive covers of rhythm'n'blues songs - supposedly the first song Keith Moon played with them at his audition was Bo Diddley's [i]Roadrunner[/i]. As they got more attention, Kit Lambert encouraged Pete Townshend's early writing efforts, but when the time came to choose the songs for their first album, there was a lot of dispute about the balance of original songs to covers. Roger Daltrey is said to have been particularly keen to stick with the R'n'B/Motown material that still made up the bulk of their live set.

[chris_b]

[quote name='lownote12' timestamp='1501661366' post='3346226']
[size=4][color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Imagine if all the seminal 60s and 70s groups had been cover bands. " We're called The Who and we're going to be doing Chuck Berry numbers..." [/font][/color][/size]
[/quote]

But they all did start out as cover bands and continued to play covers as they became better at originals. The Beatles covered rock and roll, the Stones Chuck and Jimmy Reed, The Who covered Motown, etc etc.

I love these threads.

I'd rather see a good cover band. They usually play better songs.

Too many originals bands are not original at all.

[wateroftyne]

The Who totally started out doing covers, as many original bands do.

[DaveFry]

5mins 30secs in :

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8OY2MKVhpY[/media]

[Delberthot]

[quote name='lownote12' timestamp='1501661366' post='3346226']
[color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Looking at Norfolk Band Network on FB and I'm depressed by the number of groups who proudly ID themselves as 'cover bands' or 'influenced by...' [/font][/color]

[color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Imagine if all the seminal 60s and 70s groups had been cover bands. " We're called The Who and we're going to be doing Chuck Berry numbers..." [/font][/color]

[color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Now clearly there is a market for really good tribute bands. It's probably an art in itself. But you get the impression with the cover bands I'm talking about that what they're really saying is "we'd like to play something and the easiest thing is to copy someone else, probably badly.". [/font][/color]

[color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]By way of balance I am impressed at the number of young bands who [u]are[/u] inventive, either in versioning or coming up with originals. And covering someone else's work but with skill and creative variation has got to be OK . Last Sunday I saw the awesome Dove and Boweevil do Stormy Monday so differently I didn't recognise it until half way through. [/font][/color]

[color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]What bugs me about 'covers bands' is that they're so proud that poor imitation is a valid musical identity. [/font][/color]

[color=#5A5A5A][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Am I being a Victor Meldrew here? [/font][/color]
[/quote]

Yes you are.

I've always played in covers bands and enjoyed the vast majority of it. I've never ever wanted to be in an originals band.

In fact most of my playing career has been split between a wedding/function band and a rock covers band. The former is also heresy in certain parts apparently but you try playing originals at someone's wedding and see how many bookings you get.

The biggest challenge in playing in a covers band is trying to play something different to what last week's band did. no one wants to go to a pub and hear Sex On Fire or All right Now every week.

TBH the problem you have with covers bands is your problem but if you don't like covers bands then don't go to listen to them. Music is music and most bands do covers. Motorhead are about to release an album of covers they have done over the years, GnR have done Knocking on Heavens Door since they began playing, The Chilis released an album a few years ago called Under the Covers which unsurprisingly is entirely covers. I doubt there are many bands who haven't released covers. Hell Muse covered Feeling Good FFS.

I don't understand the snobbery associated with playing covers. I enjoy it, the rest of the band enjoy it, the audience listening to us enjoy it so what's the problem?

[PaulWarning]

the Who, Beatles and Stones were such good songwriters because they learnt their craft from covering other peoples songs, as do the vast majority of songwriters

[BigRedX]

However you don't need to be able to play a song to appreciate it and nick the bits you like from it to use in one of your own compositions.

[mikel]

I started out playing originals, in 1970, it was easier than trying to learn other peoples stuff. Also, all the bands where I lived were trying to make there own music so there was a competitive edge to it. The gig market for originals was small even then. Continued with another originals band until about 82, and the reality set in that we were not going to be recording artists or indeed great songwriters.

Since then I have played covers in a variety of bands, from Blues, Rock, Pop, Fusion and at the moment, Funk. We make it interesting, for us at least, in the Funk band, by changing arrangements and making unlikely songs Funky. Just because you play covers does not mean you cant be creative or original.

[lownote]

Thanks guys, I stand corrected... sorry, didn't realise I'd ruffle so many feathers. And I've learned something, which was the object of asking.

[wateroftyne]

No ruffled feathers - just different points of view :-)

[mikel]

/\ Agreed. Bring something original to the covers you do. Keep it interesting.

[lownote]

[quote name='mikel' timestamp='1501667565' post='3346342']
/\ Agreed. Bring something original to the covers you do. Keep it interesting.
[/quote]

and that is the lesson I will take away