Playing exactly as per the original.

[TimR]

This is something I've only just become aware of. And will explain how we all hear music slightly differently and why 'playing it exactly as per the original' can never happen.

 

I've long wondered why musicians will say we play this exactly as per the original and then post a YouTube clip, which to me, is a pretty rough approximation.

 

And why some bands I go to see got a massive reaction from some pretty appalling musicianship. Most of the audience are listening to music that's already built into their memory and the notes we play are just firing off those neurons. 

 

I once played Baggy Trousers in a band and something wasn't right with the keyboard part, I eventually tracked it down to the keys playing Fmaj chord instead of Fmaj/C. Not a biggie but wasn't right to my ears. No one else in the band could hear any difference. 

 

All due to Top Down Processing. 

 

What you are listening to isn't what you are hearing. 

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28683-how-trippy-version-of-mariah-carey-christmas-hit-fools-the-brain/

 

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by TimR

[Maude]

I always said this. 

It's like the live band are the video to the audio track being played in the punters heads. 

In the heat of the moment wrong notes, melodies, etc don't matter to the punters. But mobile phone footage is where is all falls down. That great band they saw last night suddenly seems incredibly shite when they look/listen back to the videos they took. 

I've found it's a sliding scale though when you're doing more genre specific music. Run of the mill pub bands, nobody worries. Tribute or genre specific and people start paying more attention, even get a bit fanatical. But then the reward is higher when you get it right, which I like. 

[MacDaddy]

But the original performer doesn't always perform their bass line like on the original.

eg listen to the Ox play Substitue in the 60's, 70's, and 90's. Different each time. Still awesome though

[uk_lefty]

It's one of the great things about being in a covers band and why I love playing songs off films. You're just triggering memories, so you don't need the horn section or the keyboard parts, or the intricate solo, as long as you're 80% there and having a good time.

[Twincam]

I think it's OK for bands not to play exactly like the original. 

If its say a specific band cover group then as original as possible, but still some differences are ok.

 

If more general genre covering then more leeway I suppose. 

 

The biggest thing is that everyone is playing in tune, same key and so on.

Seen a few bands where they, have even started off playing entirely different songs from one another! 😄 

[Dan Dare]

I agree it's not necessary (or even possible in many cases) to slavishly copy an original. It often can't be done if you don't have the same instrumental or vocal line-up available. Ditto changing the key. What suited the singer on the original may not suit your singer. However, changing the melody or harmonic structure/chords is another matter, especially if it's done to make it simpler to play. That's a major no-no.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Dan Dare

[SteveXFR]

If you see the original band play the song live they'll rarely play it exactly as the record. I guess they would get bored reciting it exactly the same every night on a long tour so they have some fun with it. Why not do the same I a cover band? 

 

[Russ]

If you're in a tribute band, yes, play it as closely as possible to the recorded version. People will notice if you don't, and it'll take them out of the moment. 

 

Otherwise, get the tone, notes and general feel right and you're probably good. 

[TimR]

I think the point is, if you have instruments missing or don't play parts, the listener fills in the gaps subconsciously. They're hearing what they expect to hear, not always what you're playing. 

 

It's the same as sight. A large proportion of what you are seeing is being made up by your brain and what you're expecting to see.

[Downunderwonder]

I don't go to many concerts but when I do it's like a really really really good cover band is playing.

 

Having played countless gigs with just an acoustic guitar and a hand drummer it indeed is amazing how much the brain can fill in the missing bits.

[DaytonaRik]

I've always said that the once the bad starts, in the punters mind they're listening to the memories of the track, and not what is actually being presented to the brain via the ears!

 

Whilst to the punter the 'close enough' works, for professional pride I do like pulling apart tracks and getting the nuances of various bass parts just right!  I'm currently revisiting Velvet Revolver's Fall To Pieces and trying to work out just what Duff is playing at certain points is a fun challenge.

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by DaytonaRik

[NicoMcJ]

Compare James Hetfield’s recorded guitar parts to those he plays live.  Entirely different but, as someone said above, close enough for people to make the connection.

[interpol52]

On 01/02/2022 at 13:46, MacDaddy said:

But the original performer doesn't always perform their bass line like on the original.

eg listen to the Ox play Substitue in the 60's, 70's, and 90's. Different each time. Still awesome though

 

Realising this was a real game changer for me.

 

The most recognisable parts of a song I try to play as the original, but if an open E was used instead of a 7th fret on the A string for 1 note of one bar in the second verse then I'm not fussed. Unless of course that part is integral to the overall sound of that part of the song.

 

I've had the Standing in the Shadows of Motown book for years and never really tried to get a whole song note for note accurate to the notation. Mainly because Jamerson probably improvised many of the lines and varied what he played from one performance to the next - apart from the foundation lines of the songs. 

 

All that said, there is something oddly satisfying about knowing a song note for note. So, erm, yeah, I've just contradicted myself.

[ambient]

I’m not sure it really matters. As others have said, many times a live performance by the band that recorded the song will be quite different to the recorded version. 
 

Often it’s just not possible to recreate the original recording.

 

A lot of the older artists aren’t able to sing in the original keys anymore.

 

I think you need to capture the essence of the song, that’s more important.

[MacDaddy]

2 hours ago, interpol52 said:

 

Realising this was a real game changer for me.

 

The most recognisable parts of a song I try to play as the original, but if an open E was used instead of a 7th fret on the A string for 1 note of one bar in the second verse then I'm not fussed. Unless of course that part is integral to the overall sound of that part of the song.

 

I've had the Standing in the Shadows of Motown book for years and never really tried to get a whole song note for note accurate to the notation. Mainly because Jamerson probably improvised many of the lines and varied what he played from one performance to the next - apart from the foundation lines of the songs. 

 

All that said, there is something oddly satisfying about knowing a song note for note. So, erm, yeah, I've just contradicted myself.

 

1 hour ago, ambient said:

I’m not sure it really matters. As others have said, many times a live performance by the band that recorded the song will be quite different to the recorded version. 
 

Often it’s just not possible to recreate the original recording.

 

A lot of the older artists aren’t able to sing in the original keys anymore.

 

I think you need to capture the essence of the song, that’s more important.

 

A case in point:

 When Darryl Jones asked Keith Richards how a particular 'Stones bass part went, and Keith replied "you're the bass player, you tell me".

[TimR]

2 hours ago, ambient said:

Often it’s just not possible to recreate the original recording.

 

 

There are many many tunes that I've heard many many times and noticed something that I've not heard before. 

 

The idea that your audience are all musical maestros who have studied all the pieces you are going to play intimately, and then going to sit down afterwards and write a musical critique about how the vocalists intonation in the second bar wasn't quite the same as Freddie and the Bass drum was a quarter note lower than Rogers and the reverb was 10ms too much, is probably not going to fly.

 

And in any case. As long as the words are pretty close, they're all hearing Freddie in their heads and singing loudly, and probably don't even know who John was. 

[Steve Browning]

2 hours ago, TimR said:

 

And in any case. As long as the words are pretty close, they're all hearing Freddie in their heads and singing loudly, and probably don't even know who John was. 

Peasants. 

[chris_b]

Why would anyone in a regular cover band want to play every song note for note, or even try to get the same sound? What is the point of doing that?

 

I dep with a guy who has a different arrangement to at least a couple of his original songs every time I play with him. Another band told me they liked that I played their songs differently to the regular guy.

 

You want to play hits from the 60's, 70's and other decades? Do you even know if that's the original band playing? Many of those guys had to learn what the session guys came up with!

[DaytonaRik]

Oddly enough, I really like the fact with some of our tracks we remain as true as we can to the version that we're playing...we just choose different arrangements sometimes e.g. Gothard's version of Hush, Muse's take on Feeling Good, Taking Dawn's take on The Chain - but they offer their own challenge to get right.  I'm not one for copying an exact bass tone as they're all rock tracks with pretty much a similar bass through each with the odd exception that can be managed by tone/volume adjustments.

 

My old original's band rehearsed relentlessly to make sure that we *DID* play everything exactly the same way as we recorded it each time.

[dclaassen]

I personally think it is more important to make sure the crowd is enjoying themselves. This is often best accomplished with the energy you get from feeling and reacting to the music, and altering what you are doing musically to help that whole process along. For me, this means a good jam on a great song. I cannot imagine doing something like "Freebird" exactly the same every single time. You do need to give a shoutout to some iconic licks, like Clapton's intro to "Wonderful Tonight" or some Merle Haggard songs, but, other times, the crowd will love it, and I love playing it, even when it is not close to the original. 

[Lozz196]

In my classic rock band - which doesn`t gig btw, no singer - we try to play as exact to the originals as possible, and purposely pick difficult songs. The theory is we know we`re not going to gig, so we choose harder to play material in an effort to hopefully better ourselves musically. After all as much fun as it would be to belt out the easy songs after a while that would be a tad tedious, this method holds the interest, especially when with each time we go through the songs we can hear the improvement. I`ve really progressed on bass in the 2 years I`ve been with this band, I can now play stuff that 3 or 4 years ago I would have thought was way beyond me.

[Doddy]

I've heard, and played with, a load of cover bands who claim to play exactly like the originals, and I can safely say that absolutely none of them ever actually have. Some get close (usually the ones who have everything charted), but most are quite a way off. But, you know what? As long as the important parts are there, it's not a problem. 

 

[BassAdder60]

I only learn the approx bass line and “ad-lib” over the song as required 

 

You have to take into account many songs are heavily produced in a studio with extra instruments added etc

 

Performing live playing covers means it’s our bands version of the song.

 

If you want an exact version then most live bands vary and embellish it often changing it on the night to suit the performance.

I guess if you are playing “ standards” such as Jazz etc then exact has a place but in my opinion it prevents the musician from being creative 

It’s more about the performance than the accuracy in my opinion 

[Doddy]

48 minutes ago, BassAdder27 said:

I guess if you are playing “ standards” such as Jazz etc then exact has a place but in my opinion it prevents the musician from being creative 

It’s more about the performance than the accuracy in my opinion 

No one playing Jazz standards is playing anything that is exact to any recording. It's generally a far more creative scenario than the majority of rock cover bands.

[RhysP]

51 minutes ago, BassAdder27 said:

I guess if you are playing “ standards” such as Jazz etc then exact has a place but in my opinion it prevents the musician from being creative 

This is the exact opposite of how jazz works.