Which is harder, covers or originals?

[Newfoundfreedom]

I've just been watching back a few videos from my old, and current bands. The first was a covers band, the second and current band does all originals. 

 

It got me thinking. Which is harder? 

 

To clarify, I'm not talking about which is harder to play. That very much depends on your own personal ability and the type of music. I'm thinking more psychologically. 

 

I know for many of you, especially semi professional, professional, and seasoned musicians, it probably won't make much difference, and you can probably play anything with your eyes closed and enjoy every minute of it.

 

But, from the perspective of someone who really struggles with putting themselves out there (see the "performance anxiety' thread). Is it harder to play original music, and bare your heart and soul, and put your own personal creativity out there for all to see, or is it harder to play covers that people know, and will maybe notice every wrong note and lyric you play, and have something to judge you against. 

 

(Maybe "harder" is the wrong word.)

 

Personally, I find it much more enjoyable to create a new song, than to spend hours learning a cover.

 

But when playing original music livе that the audience doesn't know, the feedback can often be minimal. Whereas playing a cover (even badly) will often get the crowd going. 

 

Personally, I hate learning covers. It's like doing homework at school. Yeah, you get there in the end, but I get absolutely no enjoyment from it.

I'd much rather put my time and energy into creating something new than learning an existing song, whereas the audience generally love something they know and can sing along to.

But if nobody spent the time creating original music, then there would be no music for covers bands to cover. 

 

So which do you prefer? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Newfoundfreedom

[ambient]

I prefer creating to reproducing.

Edited March 19, 2022 by ambient

[OliverBlackman]

I like both. It is definitely harder to engage an audience with originals that they are not already familiar with and even more so as an amateur band in the local pub or small venue. Seeing the audience dancing/ singing along ect gives a certain energy that makes covers more satisfying to play. 
 

However, I have never played for a big artist on large stages/ festivals and I imagine that is a fantastic experience and those I know who do that prefer it over the function gigs. 

[40hz]

I do both. I find covers harder, as people can tell when you make mistakes. With originals I can always feign that I 'meant it' 😀

[Downunderwonder]

The thrill of audience enthusiasm for something you've created is quite powerful.

[chris_b]

I've played in cover bands and original bands and many that are a mixture of both.

 

It's all music and if you play the songs right they are both equally satisfying.

[neepheid]

It's harder to make money with originals.

 

I do both, FWIW.

[Lozz196]

I think it’s harder to win over an audience with original material, even if they’re into the style you play. 

[Doctor J]

I think more work goes into writing and rehearsing an original set than regurgitating a selection of music which already exists. I've played in both original and cover bands, in the last 30+ years. My stints in cover bands were always when standing in, helping out mates with cover bands while they searched for replacement members. I don't find playing covers stimulating at all. The money helps but there is no artistic fulfilment in it, for me at least. I appreciate how pretentious this sounds.

 

I much prefer the attention to detail of originals and am happy to live or die on the strength of our music. My attitude is that if we're happy to cut one of our songs from the set to make space for a song written by someone else, then we need to write better music. The type of music I tend to play tends to be quite extreme - of quite selective appeal, if I may - so the adulation of punters is never something I ever became accustomed to and never feel it's missing in my life 😉

 

I'd rather play to a largely empty room and be met with indifference, but be proud of the music, than play Sweet Caroline to a bunch of singing and dancing oul ones. The creative process is the where the satisfaction lies, for me. It's definitely not where the money is, however.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Doctor J

[SH73]

9 hours ago, Newfoundfreedom said:

 

 

Personally, I find it much more enjoyable to create a new song, than to spend hours learning a cover.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This, 110% it's your song, your feelings, emotions and personal touch.

 

And the bonus is, when/if you play it live no one can criticise " oh ,that's not how the intro or chorus is played in the original".

 

[Delberthot]

I've never played originals and have never had the urge. I get a great deal of pleasure from learning new songs and playing them to an audience.

 

I've also never understood the musical snobbery that some people have regarding playing covers vs originals. After all the Beatles, Stones, Chili Peppers all played covers. It's all music after all.

 

No one gets their panties in a twist when an orchestra "covers" some long dead composers music do they?

[Muzz]

I've always found writing my part for originals much easier than learning covers (for a given value of 'cover', obv - some straightforward i,iv,v stuff is obviously easy), although I did have an odd experience over the last couple of years when we revived a 30-year old originals band for a few one-off gigs, and I had to re-learn my original bass parts I hadn't played in three decades; there was an amount of 'What was I doing/thinking there?' going on...

 

Interesting covers can stretch you out of your comfort zone (in fact I'm always pleased to have to do this) and expand your skill set more readily than originals...plus there's the additional challenge of making an interesting cover out of the source material which works with the band members available...this is made trickier by the fact that my main covers band is a trio...case in point; we have La Vida Loca on the potential new songs set (picked by the geeetarist/singist/BL); I'm dying to rehearse this and hear how he's got this in his head for acountic/bass/drums... 🙂

 

I do love both, though...

[Newfoundfreedom]

There's definitely merit to both. I wasn't trying to start the age old "which is better" debate again. That's been done to death, and the answer is neither. 

 

As I said, it was more of a, which do people, on an individual basis find easier / harder. 

 

I know most seasoned musicians won't bat an eyelid either way. But I find it really difficult to learn covers. It always feels like hard work, grinding through a song. I know some people absolutely love it, and get great satisfaction from nailing a part. For me personally, I get far more pleasure from the creative side of writing and creating my own parts. There's absolutely no snobbery in that, in fact the opposite is probably true. I'm probably not good enough to nail a lot of the parts I would have to play in a covers band. 

 

I guess to sum it up simply for me. Covers feel like work, originals feel like leisure. 

[Nail Soup]

In my original stint playing in bands, it was all originals bands (apart from one Ramones trib who did a handful of gigs). That was 'pre-children'.

When the kids got older, I started doing live music again... first open mics (mix of covers and originals) then formed a covers band. Main reason for covers was easier to get gigs... I didn't think there was any option for the older musician to get originals gigs. However I have since seen from some BC members that it is in fact possible.

 

I have an outlet for original music in home recording.

 

To answer the OP question... for me originals are easier. I consider myself quite able to write songs or parts for songs, but I don't have a great ear or chops so not good out copying what someone else is doing. Although there's lots of help out there now for covers.... tab, vids etc so my ears are less of an issue.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Nail Soup

[Misdee]

The hardest thing is coming up with original music that is so good that other lesser mortals want to do covers of it.

 

Playing original material is one thing. Playing original material that has genuine widespread appeal to people other than those that created it is another matter entirely. It's the musical equivalent of making it as a Premier League footballer. Many are called but few are chosen.

 

I used to love creating bass parts  when I played in bands doing original material and imminently sharing our genius with the rest of the world. Now that I am of an age where I have come to terms with the idea that the world might have to miss out I really enjoy playing covers.

 

Playing covers can really bring your playing on because you have a template in the original version that you have to recreate effectively. It can also be a creative process if you are doing a version of the song rather than staying faithful to the original.

 

So in short, I really enjoy playing both!🙂

[Leonard Smalls]

33 minutes ago, Misdee said:

The hardest thing is coming up with original music that is so good that other lesser mortals want to do covers of it.

 

 

Music that's popular, or has been in the charts, is not necessarily "good", as that's an entirely subjective opinion...

I find most folks down the pub just want something simple and recognisable to shout along to, like Robbie's "Anal" (😁) or "Yer Sex is On Fire m8!"; if you start doing covers of Primus' "Frizzle Fry" album, or attempt ELP's version of "Pictures at an Exhibition" you'd definitely have some trouble with your average punter!

[ambient]

I guess this is related to a question posed by someone I know on Facebook recently:

 

‘do you consider yourself an artist or an entertainer?’

 

I started off by playing original music with various bands, I then began playing in covers bands, and left original music behind. I did stints on cruise ships, and played in theatre pit bands. 
 

It was during my music degree course - that I’d enrolled on to get better at playing covers - that I realised I much preferred creating original music.

 

Apart from the occasional jazz gig, it’s all I do now. I’ve moved into teaching music, I’m currently training to be a lecturer in music at BCU. I simply get far more pleasure and a greater sense of achievement from creating something original than I ever did playing sex on fire at Rob and Julie’s wedding reception. The only thing I would like to do more of from my past life, is musical theatre, I really did enjoy that.

 

We’re all different though, as long as you derive pleasure from your musical pursuits, that’s all that matters.

[Skybone]

It is all subjective of course.

 

My preference has always been to play original material over covers. Don't mind doing the odd cover, but always think that there's more scrutiny on people playing covers, cue the "you played that bit wrong", "they didn't play it like that on the album", etc. comments (usually from the guitarist). But, I do like the challenge of coming up with a line that compliments the song, and adds something else to it as well. 

 

I can see the gratification of playing covers, especially when gigging. Playing music that people know and will react to (whether you play it "correctly" or otherwise), is part of the reason why we do what we do.

 

32 minutes ago, ambient said:

We’re all different though, as long as you derive pleasure from your musical pursuits, that’s all that matters.

 

Can't really say more than that.

[Muzz]

1 hour ago, ambient said:

... playing sex on fire at Rob and Julie’s wedding reception.

 

Pretty shady, to be honest.

[Marvin]

I actually find copying other people's songs more difficult (most covers bands don't cover a song they try to copy it).

 

You get given a song to play and the part or line is occasionally counter to what you might intuitively play, or hear.

 

Perhaps it's because I'm inatetely lazy I prefer to just play what I feel...which is what I've only been able to do in the couple of original bands I've been in.

[Bassassin]

Originals, by a big margin. The caveat is that for most of the bands I've been in, I've been the main writer/co-writer - so obviously I have an attachment to & belief in the material that probably wouldn't be there if I was just playing bass on someone else's songs.

 

On the other hand I find covers sets hard work - learning & rehearsing them feels like a chore and gigging them rapidly becomes stale and repetitive. I suppose it's only reasonable though - 99.9% of paying gigs I've had have been covers so it's only right it should feel like a job!

[Downunderwonder]

10 hours ago, ambient said:

 

‘do you consider yourself an artist or an entertainer?'

Begs another question.

 

''What do you call an artist who isn't an entertainer?''

 

Nothing complimentary most of the time.

[ambient]

4 minutes ago, Downunderwonder said:

Begs another question.

 

''What do you call an artist who isn't an entertainer?''

 

Nothing complimentary most of the time.

It would surely depend entirely on who and where they are, and what they do?
 

For many genres of music, and artists it’s the music itself that’s important to the audience.

I’ve played in laptop ensembles and performed solo bass stuff, the audience don’t expect you to be entertaining, they’re there to experience the music.

 

The show is an experience for them sonically and there’s often a visual element with film/video or software generated image.

 

[Downunderwonder]

8 minutes ago, ambient said:

experience the music

I count that as entertainment!

 

It would be the minimum standard when they would give polite applause, even better if they would recommend friends, ranging up to foot stomping cheering singing along and coming back with friends.

 

Otherwise it's not going to garner any compliments, not entertaining, not going to go far.

[chris_b]

So when you join an originals band, who have the set already written, you're actually joining a cover band?