# Why do 'original' bands hold 'cover' bands in such low regard?



## dacookster (Feb 21, 2012)

Just curious---there seems to be a slight degree of

'I play original music therefore everyone that plays covers is lowlife' sentiment.

Why?


----------



## metal_sam14 (Feb 21, 2012)

My best guess is because it is really hard to make any kind of decent money off of original music that you put all your hard work into.

yet it is a lot easier to start a cover band and make a killing off playing other peoples songs. 

my opinion anyway


----------



## Riffer (Feb 21, 2012)

Honestly I don't know. I play in a cover band to have fun and make some extra cash on the side. It actually takes a lot of skill to play covers. You're playing 50 songs a night that span a variety of genres and you have to learn the in's and out's of the songs. I love being in an original band though as well. Theres nothing like playing your own music that you wrote and having people dig it. I don't know where this hatred comes from. I think some of it is jealousy and part of it is that people think that a cover band is in some way cheating since you're playing other peoples songs or degrading to your musicianship. Whatever though, it's a ton of fun playing both originals and covers


----------



## getaway_fromme (Feb 21, 2012)

I wouldn't call everyone who plays covers a "lowlife", but as a musician who makes a living off of music, who also wants to promote my OWN music, it takes talent to make music, and some skill....but more talent..

Covers, on the other hand, take skill. You don't have to be uber talented, you have to be able to practice practice practice until you get it right the way someone else made it..

I have a problem with it because of the money part, quite honestly. I will not go out to see a cover band. or a tribute band. Ever. I pay money to see original music or some Western music from a composer. That's not the same thing as a band.

Fuck ya I'm jealous. Someone else learns someone else's song and makes more money than the people who are making original music and can't get any gigs? 

Come on. Original music takes so so so much time to create, master, teach other people in your band. And with covers, you just learn it off the cd. I'm sorry but that is ass backwards to me.

I also realize people want to go and see cover bands doing some great music that they are familiar with.

But yes, the composer in me is pissed off. Especially since you're making money off the band's music and they don't see a cut of it. CD sales do not count.

Hell fuckin ya I'm jealous  It doesn't mean they suck, but yes, I lose respect for "cover bands". Write your own fucking music.


----------



## dacookster (Feb 21, 2012)

metal_sam14 said:


> My best guess is because it is really hard to make any kind of decent money off of original music that you put all your hard work into.
> 
> yet it is a lot easier to start a cover band and make a killing off playing other peoples songs.
> 
> my opinion anyway



Good opinion. Yet there are several factors that come into play. I've been on both sides of the stick. 

1) Any band is difficult to start. Finding the right personnel is always a struggle

2) For making decent money---a cover band, at least in this area, has to provide it's own sound and lighting. I've got $20k invested in our sound/light rig. 

Myself, I love playing music, be it original or covers. And I view musicians as musicians---I judge based upon how good it sounds and how well they play and perform.


----------



## metal_sam14 (Feb 21, 2012)

I should have added, that is not totally my opinion, it is how I think a number of people see the whole original vs cover thing, I could be totally wrong


----------



## SpaceDock (Feb 21, 2012)

I always had a harder time with covers.


----------



## Floppystrings (Feb 21, 2012)

If I starting making Picasso style paintings that used the same colors and techniques and you think it is "good" then you ignore the fundamental foundation that is art for a cheap forgery that mimics the expressions and emotions of the original artist.

Unless it is better, then that is ok...

lol


----------



## Explorer (Feb 21, 2012)

Most of the population can't play a musical instrument. That means that any band is full of people with skill beyond most of the audience. 

If an originals band wants to say something insulting about my taking the wedding gig or bar gig away from them... I'll never know, because I'm working. 

I know that bands sometimes work covers, and then go on to write and record original material. A lot of people do the gigs because they pay while letting someone work their chops. 

As far as I know, Frank Sinatra didn't write his own material. Audiences didn't care. 

Originals bands might well be correct that cover bands suck. That's why relatively unknown groups like the Beatles never worked to the point where they had the chops and credibility to record their own stuff. If only they had avoided that covers route and just played in the basement, who knows what they might have achieved?


----------



## 3074326 (Feb 21, 2012)

I don't have a problem with them, other than the three cover bands that won money in a battle of the bands when my old band played in one. We were under the impression it was all-originals. Nope. Three cover bands won all the prize money that we really needed for an upcoming tour. Not to say we would have won, but still. 

I don't have a problem with them unless it's a situation like that.


----------



## Blasphemer (Feb 21, 2012)

For me, it's because playing an instrument is pretty easy if you have the time. It's writing the songs that takes talent.

Also, where I live, people always hold shitty cover bands in higher regard than original music, and it just pisses me off.


----------



## hutchman (Feb 22, 2012)

I just hate that really good musicians and bands play to no one and get paid shit, where as a very mediocre cover band will have a place rocking and get paid heaps, purely on the fact that people recognize the songs.

I have actually started a cover band to pay for my real band. I guarantee you that I will make a fortune of this cover thing and I also guarantee you that the cover act will be pretty bad.


----------



## dacookster (Feb 22, 2012)

How is a cover band any different from a theater group that performs Shakespeare?

And there's nothing in regards to talent that determines how successful anyone is in this industry. 

The market determines what musicians do.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (Feb 22, 2012)

i think covers are cool for the most part...if done right.

reminds me of when someone does the star spangled banner at a sporting event...

...some can do it justice while others slaughter it. we usually hear about the latter.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 22, 2012)

One thought about covers, and popular music in general: We're perceiving such music through the Filter of Time. A old friend on Sonic State talked about it this way:

Filter of Time Theory predicts that music/art from a particular period will look/sound better than it actually was. That's because the stuff which didn't cut it after that time period doesn't make a comeback.

The FoTT means that a covers band will have nothing but proven music on its playlist. 

In contrast, an originals band will have music which not only hasn't been through the Filter of Time, but which hasn't even succeeded in its contemporary marketplace. 

How rare is it that one likes every song on an album? It's a pretty rare artist for which I like even half the pieces. 

Yet, many original bands think that their music is at the level of what charted and is now being covered. They're upset at the competition, yet completely miss why a covers band has the gig: they're playing 100% good music as was judged by the marketplace. They might even play less than 100% covers, and slip in a few originals, so they get that exposure and stage time on their own stuff as well. 

I know, it's about the art as opposed to making a living for some, but whenever those accusations of selling out are made, I have to remember the words of Bill Withers: "Regarding selling out, if you see a store saying 'Sold out!'... that's a bad thing? Only a fool thinks the store didn't have what people wanted. Only a fool tries to make a living by selling what people don't want."

I have to laugh. You can't sell out if no one wants what you're selling.


----------



## pentecost (Feb 22, 2012)

i built my musical chops as a classically trained pianist...
i guess you could say i was a Rachmaninoff cover artist 

honestly though, i'm impressed when i hear good music whether it's the original artist or not. talent is talent... unless you're trying to cover Sinatra


----------



## flavenstein (Feb 22, 2012)

dacookster said:


> How is a cover band any different from a theater group that performs Shakespeare?



This is a good point, and there's an even closer analogy in the classical music world. For instance, I'd be a pretty lucky guy if I could see Marc-André Hamelin premiere one of his own compositions. On the other hand, on any given week with little effort I could find an orchestra playing Beethoven or Mahler.

Point is, people want to hear what they know and are familiar with. The classical music performance industry would not survive if it limited itself to premiering works by contemporary composers. 

As for all the negative sentiments in this forum about cover bands, I would suspect there is some bias because a lot of the members here are original artists who want their music to be heard (which is a good thing).


----------



## Explorer (Feb 22, 2012)

For those who are afraid to discuss their views publicly, and would rather let me know privately: It's a forum. It's for discussion, and everyone (well, the well adjusted at least) aren't expecting others to have the same views. 

Private communications have their place, but really, post your viewpoint. If you're afraid to talk publicly about why your originals band is better than a cover band... that says a lot about your ability to handle your band's promotional efforts. *laugh*


----------



## Varcolac (Feb 22, 2012)

I have no problem with cover bands. Hell, I played for a year in a jazz big band; asides from the solos it was 100% reading off the lead sheets and doing our best to sound like Glenn bloody Miller. I do open mic blues jams every now and then as well, and that's 100% old songs in an easily-recycled format.

As for bands that start as cover bands and attempt to grow from there, I've had some bad experiences. One band started as a '60s ska and reggae cover band. It was good music. People enjoyed it, we had fairly huge crowds at our shows, and this despite the fact that the people we were playing to weren't familiar with the material (the youth of today aren't exactly known for their '60s Jamaican vinyl collections). I wanted the band to go somewhere though; I wrote some songs, pretty good songs, I thought. Half of the band were too far inside their comfort zone of playing the same covers every night. Nobody really took up on my writing initiative, and so we played a set of ten covers and one or two originals for months. The band eventually disbanded due to this conflict between the warm fuzzy comfort zone of covers and making the step into the uncharted voids of original material. Ah well. Good times while it lasted.

I still don't have anything against cover bands; I just have some issues with the transition from covers to originals, and that's entirely due to my own experience.


----------



## Edika (Feb 22, 2012)

I would like to add also that how you view this is a matter of age, maturity and understanding of situations. It has to do with your expectations, misconceptions, ambitions and genre of music you play.
For example if going out for a drink with friend and going to a bar that has live music with no ticket where a band plays cool rock/pop/known songs very very well is something that would be acceptable from most people. In this case it is not "required" by the audience to listen to original pieces. You can play original pieces and "test" them in a way. Going to a concert expecting original songs and listening to covers is not usually accepted by the audience but it is also rather uncommon. I have only witnessed that in very topic events with bands that are just starting out and usually playing metal.
I agree with Explorer on this and having witnessed how most musicians struggle for a living I would say that I have nothing against cover bands as long as they play the songs well. It is a way to play more frequently live, play fun songs and get some money in your pocket. 
Don't forget that some people are not interested in composing music, they just want to play music and have fun.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm shocked by the, "Pfffft, playing an instrument is easy, only writing music is hard," sentiments I've seen expressed in this thread and I would like to call bullshit. 

Ever notice how pretty much every successful pop song is 95% exactly the same? If you're paying attention (note: Nickelback fucking did this...) and analyse the songs writing a hit song is not hard. It's actually fairly easy. 

A hell of a lot easier than learning to play like Tosin. 


I don't have a problem with cover bands. People playing music, having a good time and making other people have a good time. Sounds good to me.


----------



## Double A (Feb 22, 2012)

I don't like cover bands because cover bands are not saying anything. They are playing another band's artistic expression for cash. To me, that is artistically bankrupt.

My band has played covers, stuff like Sepultura's Desperate Cry or Testament's DNR, but that is not the focus of what we do. I have a mind of my own and I want to say what I have to say with my music because music is not something I really do for money, it is something I love to do and have to do.

I would like to clarify that I am not saying anything about the individuals in cover bands themselves, I just find the idea of cover bands offputting.


----------



## Edika (Feb 22, 2012)

I think that most of the musicians that are against cover bands are playing mainly metal/extreme music and some rock where there is a mentality of self expression through original compositions. This is something that is actually encouraged in this musical sphere and the occasional cover is regarded as a tribute to influences and to get the public excited when you are rather unknown. Now it might work if you are very passionate about the one music genre they play and they have not exactly thought of being a musician as a profession, have a fall back or if they chose it as a profession they are very driven and either have success, some success or fail.

There are however musicians that like other kind of music genres that are not so much into making your own music, are very good musicians and actually want to make a living out of playing music. These are mostly classical and session musicians. If you hear a recording of the same orchestral piece by one orchestra and another it is not the same and you might find one superior to the other. That was covered already (pun intended) but I wanted to reinstate this. I have many friends that are classical musicians that don't have the slightest desire to compose something but here's the trick. It is very difficult to perform a piece and give a personal character, convey the emotions of the composition and stay true to the piece. Session musicians play other people's compositions and usually can outplay most of the original recording musicians. Some of them might have made their own recordings and some of them not.
Most jazz/blues musicians start by playing known songs to learn stuff and understand the way the original composers thought, take something from it and create their own style.

While there it is a different kind of feeling composing your own music, playing it live and having acceptance by the audience, having an income by playing music and only music and doing nothing is more important. And if we are to take bands into account have you not been in a band that one or two people write the music (one might be you or not)? In this sense are you not just a person covering someone else music? The least these band members do is voice their opinions about riffs other members do or just change some notes or give an idea on an existing idea. Isn't that covering a band and not actually creating something? Then what? One man bands to have total control over music? Where's the fun in playing with other people? And are you doing it for artistic expression (aka hobby) or to make a name in the music profession?

I know that there are a lot of sides to each story and I have taken some extreme examples, since there are people creating their own music alone which is awesome, there are talentless people playing in cover bands that make a good living and so on. Someone can be an excellent player and an awful composer and vice versa. It doesn't mean we should condemn one or the other since each of them provide entertainment for the rest.


----------



## Demiurge (Feb 22, 2012)

Trashing on cover bands is kind of silly- they fill a need in the market, where there is a much larger market involving people going-out on a weekend night with friends who want to hear familiar music in the background versus people "going to shows" where music is the focus.

Cover artists are filling a need, and any contempt aimed at them really ends-up aimed at the audience as well... and then, really, _that_ audience really wouldn't be your ideal audience anyway?


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Feb 22, 2012)

I've been calling sub par cover bands resurrectionists lately. You know the type, blow the dust off some ancient vinyl, parasite from the talent contained on said vinyl and expose the unsuspecting general public to it.

There's a few young blues guys at some of the jams I go to regularly and their unoriginality really disturbs me. It seems there's a trend going on in London for young guys to reject electronic music and reengage with Dylan, Clapton, you know sentimental blues and folk musicians from 50 years ago. Some of their record collections go back even further.

I asked a few of them, for my "scientific survey" was there musical direction a backlash against "electronic pop music?". The answer from all was "Yes, we have grown weary of the drum machine."

Generally they all liked Motown.

I also asked them when they were going to write their own music and what would it sound like. They all got a bit confused and made excuses to leave this "challenging" conversation.


Mediocrity is such a disappointing ambition in others, don't you think? Whatever happened to unique forms of self expression?


Anyway, now I've complained about the misdirected back lash against the pop market by the disaffected youth, onto covers bands.

Covers bands are great, you go to your event, enjoy the company of good people and go home. Original bands generally make music that demands to be listened to, forsaking conversation. Risk (original) Vs. No Risk (covers).

There's been pro cover bands and look alike covers for ages, sometimes charging more than the real artists. A land lord friend of mine was telling me about a record label approved cover band which cost £2,000 a gig.

I've done a lot of functions and parties with covers/traditional/original combined repetoire. In my experience the worst thing to do was play too well, as the audience stop chatting and sharing time with their friends at THEIR PARTY to listen to the band. It's almost inhumane to be too good. Oh well, we did many repeat gigs and were successful at it.

Recently there was a Beatles look a like at an older friends party. Wigs, Voxes and Rickenbackers. Completely destroyed the event as it was so loud no could chat to people they hadn't seen in years. Even the babies were drowned out by the convincing twang.

Bloody musicians. 

The only thing that counts IMO is; was it the right music for the circumstances? If so, it's great music, whatever and by whoever.


----------



## thedonal (Feb 22, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Most of the population can't play a musical instrument. That means that any band is full of people with skill beyond most of the audience.
> 
> If an originals band wants to say something insulting about my taking the wedding gig or bar gig away from them... I'll never know, because I'm working.
> 
> ...


 

I almost mis-read your last paragraph and started forming a response!! 

I used to play covers several times a week and WORSE!! I used backing tracks. Yes- backing tracks. Really. Surely the worst of the worst!  Though I did spend many hours learning the songs and creating most of those backing tracks myself... That was a real education.

I've also played in completely original bands who have wanted to introduce covers and I fought against it.

Personally, I like to keep it seperate. I think that if you're not careful, adding covers to a set (just to please the crowd) could be an excuse for not writing songs (and the last long term band I was in wrote less and less with every year and gigged the same).

Writing/playing your own material is a real artistic achievement which is surely the peak of dedication to this art. However, this takes a lot of dedication and not everyone wants this. That doesn't invalidate them as musicians or bands. 

And lets face it- geting paid as an originals band is challenging to say the least- even if you make it. Most London venues/promoters really work hard to get out of paying the musicians (this REALLY fucks me off, to be honest, but I can see several sides to it).

I don't want to just bring it down to money (it's not all about that for many people), but musical instruments require a fair amount of investment- especially gear that you can gig night after night, month after month without screwing up on you. It'd be nice to get some of that back.


Personally, I just don't like shit covers bands (who does?!)- especally those that get residential bookings and everyone seems to think are great. So that's a form of jealousy, even if I realise that the general population are more attracted to 'average' as it requires less effort to appreciate (hence the state of the charts these days).

I also dislike the whole x-factor type covers culture and huge samples from songs that are just excuses for creative laziness and quick buck-making while leaving the more creative and interesting bands to get less exposure. But that's a different conversation entirely.

But covers bands in general- nope. Good luck to 'em. I might even join one again myself...


----------



## lemeker (Feb 22, 2012)

There's nothing wrong with cover bands or people playing covers. For one, it shows your influences for the most part, most people don't learn songs that they don't like do they? Its a quick way to build skills........to learn technique, to have something to study, so that you have a full arsenal when it comes time to start your own writing process.

As far as making money....some of you just need to get over it and realize that many "Original" bands that supposedly do originals.....wow well they actually do covers and make money at it too......ok for instance (hate em or not and its really irrelevant) Bullet, started out as a cover band......uhhhmmm lets see how bout Pantera covering the almighty Sabbath, how bout the Stones, Beatles, Clapton, Jeff Beck............the list goes on.....


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 22, 2012)

If all you play is other ppl's songs why should anyone listen to you? Covers are fine every now and then, but to only play covers = WACK.


----------



## SenorDingDong (Feb 22, 2012)

I think it is because writing music takes so much hard work and dedication (depending, of course, on the band), whereas covering music requires tabs and some free time. This is not to say covers are always easy, but let's face it--when's the last time you saw a Dream Theater cover band in your area?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 22, 2012)

Right. It requires all the skill and a smaller portion of the creative capacity (cover bands typically apply their own interpretation so there still is a creative aspect it's just less prominent than in an original composition).


----------



## Loomer (Feb 22, 2012)

Because cover bands are fucking lame. 

It really is that simple..


----------



## Lagtastic (Feb 22, 2012)

I had much more fun playing originals. I never saw much(any) money doing it most likely because I'm not a strong songwriter.

I've had a good time playing in a locally successful cover bands as well. To me playing in a cover band is having fun playing live with friends, getting half-drunk on the house, and getting paid to setup, tear down, and transport your gear.


----------



## kerska (Feb 22, 2012)

I don't mind cover bands if they take a song and kind of make it their own. There's a few unique cover artists out there like Richard Cheese and Dirty Loops to name a couple.

I worked at a music store years back and a few of the older guys that worked there were in a cover band together. They were really only doing the cover band thing because no one liked their original music. 

If I made original music and people hated it then....well...no. I would just continue to write my own music because I write most of my music for myself and for the sake of creating music.


----------



## thedonal (Feb 22, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> If all you play is other ppl's songs why should anyone listen to you? Covers are fine every now and then, but to only play covers = WACK.


 
Why? Different gigs for different situations.

That's a completely narrowminded view.


----------



## thedonal (Feb 22, 2012)

lemeker said:


> There's nothing wrong with cover bands or people playing covers. For one, it shows your influences for the most part, most people don't learn songs that they don't like do they? Its a quick way to build skills........to learn technique, to have something to study, so that you have a full arsenal when it comes time to start your own writing process.
> 
> As far as making money....some of you just need to get over it and realize that many "Original" bands that supposedly do originals.....wow well they actually do covers and make money at it too......ok for instance (hate em or not and its really irrelevant) Bullet, started out as a cover band......uhhhmmm lets see how bout Pantera covering the almighty Sabbath, how bout the Stones, Beatles, Clapton, Jeff Beck............the list goes on.....


 
Most of Jeff Beck's career is based on covers. But people still worship him as a musical god!


----------



## SenorDingDong (Feb 22, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Right. It requires all the skill and a smaller portion of the creative capacity (cover bands typically apply their own interpretation so there still is a creative aspect it's just less prominent than in an original composition).



Most of the time, at least as far as I have seen, cover bands just try to imitate. While that isn't much different from the metal scene itself (let's be honest guys, we're not exactly falling over ourselves with envy due to the originality of the music being put out), there is a lot to be said about what goes into the creative process, even if that process does involve a vast quantity of imitation, because imitation is inevitable--it's how we learn.

Case in point (since I write); it is a lot easier to copy a book word for word than it is to create something, however similar it may be to another writer's style and story line, from scratch.


----------



## Riffer (Feb 22, 2012)

When it comes down to it for me it's just the simple fact that, I FUCKING LOVE PLAYING MY GUITAR! I would gladly play with a pop artist like Katy Perry and play nothing but pre written pop songs while touring the world and playing my guitar. I would also glady play in a shitty bar with a metal band that nobody has ever heard of and sweat my ass off for no money. My guitar is part of me.


----------



## Blasphemer (Feb 22, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> I'm shocked by the, "Pfffft, playing an instrument is easy, only writing music is hard," sentiments I've seen expressed in this thread and I would like to call bullshit.
> 
> Ever notice how pretty much every successful pop song is 95% exactly the same? If you're paying attention (note: Nickelback fucking did this...) and analyse the songs writing a hit song is not hard. It's actually fairly easy.
> 
> A hell of a lot easier than learning to play like Tosin.



Well, when I said that writing music takes talent, I didnt say "Writing super-shitty radio friendly music takes talent", did I? 

And, just because you can play like Tosin doesn't mean you can write Point to Point or Weightless.


And I saw classical music references being brought up. Another reason I hate cover bands is because at my university, the music program is essentially taught to be cover artists of old white dudes from 300 years ago. Creativity and Original Music is pretty stifled and swept under the rug by the faculty. Sure, playing Bach and Barrios is great, challenging, and opens up your mind, but I don't want to just play other peoples music. I have my own voice I want to express, UMO Music program...

assholes...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 22, 2012)

thedonal said:


> Why? Different gigs for different situations.
> 
> That's a completely narrowminded view.



I don't like it = narrowminded. Butthurt much? Walk it off.

As far as I'm concerned if I buy a ticket to your show I want to see what's unique about you. If I'm just going to watch you play someone else's songs note for note I might as well have bought a ticket to their show. Opinions will vary. Get used to it.


----------



## kerska (Feb 22, 2012)

Riffer said:


> When it comes down to it for me it's just the simple fact that, I FUCKING LOVE PLAYING MY GUITAR! I would gladly play with a pop artist like Katy Perry and play nothing but pre written pop songs while touring the world and playing my guitar. I would also glady play in a shitty bar with a metal band that nobody has ever heard of and sweat my ass off for no money. My guitar is part of me.


----------



## goherpsNderp (Feb 22, 2012)

i'd like to see a cover band play absolutely ZERO 'four chord songs'. it would be a pretty short night.

i mean absolutely no offense to cover bands, but rather that it disturbs me how the 'four chord' phenomenon has exploited the minds of listeners for decades. to me i see it as something that has corrupted music into just a product. a manufactured, packaged, soilent green (not the band, but they are awesome lol) thing that everyone consumes and say they enjoy it so much when in fact it was programmed that way to exploit and target the G-spot of the brain. although i realize there is a finite (although extremely large) amount of original ideas and riffs that can be created, i feel that there is so much more creativity and wonderful things in music yet to be discovered that it makes me sad to watch so many people drunkenly sing along to the same hits of the old days and refuse to open their eyes to newer things and be apart of music moving forward.

these bands that bust their asses and write their own stuff and stay true to themselves are lonely pioneers that venture into uncharted territories without people filling tip jars to the brim because they aren't cookie cutter. i think it's a part of being an artist (not going to say starving) that you have to accept that recognition may never come and not all labor bears fruits. you should at least know in your hearts you're pushing forward and doing new things instead of cashing out. you're free to do either, should you choose.

/rant
/notusedtowakingupat445amforwork


...the short answer would be because of the situations and events cover bands are at. they're at bars, parties, and celebratory events. do you think people go there simply to see them play? sure there are cover bands that build reputations and are skilled and people frequent places to see them. but for the most part people are at those places to have a good time and talk with friends, drink, etc. whereas at an actual show, the bands command the attention. have you noticed how even when an opening band is the best act there, they usually don't get as much cheer and praise as the headlining band? especially if they are a new act. too few people "know" their stuff so they just kind of listen and keep quiet. people will "get into" something familiar. they can sing along and dance, and might feel like they're having more fun. *shrug*

some cover bands do have a lot of expenses but i would strongly argue that that's not all, and depending on what type of cover band, could be in the minority. every cover band i've seen was at venues with the audio setup already there. wedding bands though would need either their own setup or one provided. same for parties etc. im sure there are other situations im not thinking of that would require them bring their own PA.


----------



## Randy (Feb 22, 2012)

Sorry if anybody touched on this before but there's a lotta text here and I'm kinda busy ATM. I'll go back and read through this when I get a break.

For my , I started out playing in a cover band. There was a lot of work involved initially(learning the material, playing 4 hour shows, etc.) but after you got into your rhythm, it was pretty easy. You get gigs reliably, you get paid, you get laid and the crowds are HUGE.

After we decided to transition into doing originals, things change. You have to book different venues, you DO NOT get paid, you (for the most part) DO NOT get laid, the crowds are significantly smaller and it takes much longer to "break". Plus, you have to fund your own recordings, fund your own merch (which is the only way to make money), etc.

Having gone through all this, I had a few friends that became the new "hometown cover band" on the heels of my transitioning into an all original band. When you're playing to an 'eh' crowd, being bullied around by club owners and broke while your friends are bragging about playing infront of 500+ people a night, making bank and staying out all night partying.... yeah, you get a little bitter and lose a bit of respect. 

Part of the resentment is totally Haterade but the other part comes from the cockiness of "cover bands" that comes from thinking people are there to hear YOU, when they're actually there to hear, essentially, a living jukebox.


----------



## jam3v (Feb 22, 2012)

I can only assume the people who think "cover bands are easy" have simply never been in one.

You still have to make flyers, network, book shows, get paid shit for a while, play crappy venues to pay your dues, learn LOTS of music, rehearse often, play WELL, constantly learn new material, find ways to to be original with other peoples' music, keep the crowd involved, etc etc etc

Let's face it.. 90% of "original bands" are garbage anyway. Anyone who plays an instrument can go home and write a shitty tune then get booked to open at one of those "we'll do anything to play for free" shows with 10 other bands.

The cover bands I've seen in my day have put more effort into their craft than MOST original bands I've seen locally in the "scene." They can't piggy back on someone else's success as they're being booked to "headline" the night most of the time.

Do what you love, do it well, and stop demeaning others because they chose a different path.


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Feb 22, 2012)

JWGriebel said:


> Most of the time, at least as far as I have seen, cover bands just try to imitate. While that isn't much different from the metal scene itself (let's be honest guys, we're not exactly falling over ourselves with envy due to the originality of the music being put out), there is a lot to be said about what goes into the creative process, even if that process does involve a vast quantity of imitation because imitation is inevitable--it's how we learn.
> 
> Case in point (since I write); it is a lot easier to copy a book word for word than it is to create something, however similar it may be to another writer's style and story line, from scratch.



I came in here to post this, essentially. Like most of us in this thread, I've done the cover band thing too. I was having trouble putting the band together that I wanted, so I dusted off my blues chops and joined a local bar band. I quit after 6 months. I hated it. Half of us wanted to make each of the songs our own (basically not play it *exactly* like the record) and the other half kept getting on our asses because we took too many liberties and "people want to hear it note for note." 

The frontman was constantly bitching about how hard it was for him to sing for four hours a night ("you guys just don't know how it is"). He would call out every song on the spot and refused to even roughly follow a setlist.

Everyone disliked one another and talked about each other behind their backs. Even the other guitarist and I, who I made fast friends with...we'd do nothing but bitch about the rest of the band when we'd go out for a beer or whatever. 

I say all this to highlight that there was no creative vision to hold it together, no common goal, no "us against the world" feeling like you get when you go up onstage and play music you truly believe in with other people who believe in it too. That kind of thing can help make personality differences in a band tolerable, because its not about you, its about the music. Thats impossible when you're basically a very loud jukebox. So in a cover band you almost have treat it like work and accept that these are the people you have to deal with (fuck that shit), which I really would rather not do. With that comes politics and perpetually sandy vaginas. 

tl;dr: being in a cover band is too close to a job.


----------



## thedonal (Feb 22, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> I don't like it = narrowminded. Butthurt much? Walk it off.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned if I buy a ticket to your show I want to see what's unique about you. If I'm just going to watch you play someone else's songs note for note I might as well have bought a ticket to their show. Opinions will vary. Get used to it.


 
I think you're missing the point somewhat.

Firstly- "Pure Cover bands=whack"? Yes. A broad statement that strikes me as narrow minded. There you go. that's my opinion. 

It's a bit disappointing to read a lot of the statements in this thread, considering that I've generally found this forum very musically open minded (particularly considering 7 strings are mostly a metal guitar thing).

Secondly- most cover bands I've seen recently have been booked entertainment in pubs- ie I'm not paying to see them. It's no problem- if I don't like the band, I go somewhere else.

Thirdly- Why would you actually pay to go to see a pure covers band? There'd be a reason for that, surely? Mates? Tribute act? They're just very, very good? If not, they're just another band on the bill. So what? Go to the bar while they're playing and just watch the band you're there to see. It's easy.


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 22, 2012)

jam3v said:


> 90% of "original bands" are garbage anyway. Anyone who plays an instrument can go home and write a shitty tune then get booked to open at one of those "we'll do anything to play for free" shows with 10 other bands.


 
^ This gave me a music boner. Just because it's original doesn't make it *good*. Just because you can shred and/or you have uber-talent doesn't make your music _*good*_. 

Music is and always will be in the eye of the beholder. I've known a lot of badass talented musicians (and seen a lot more on the interweb e.g. Rusty Cooley) that can't write something as "simple" and catchy as a Bruno Mars song... 

And when it comes to the argument that it's harder to write and original than learn a cover... well, for me, it's completely the other way around. My music comes easy to me, but trying to memorize other people's music and learn their styles is unnatural.

Also, and no offense because I honestly believe a lot of guys on here are crazy talented to the point where I'm jealous... but... seriously... how many djent, ambidjent, djentcore, djentcetera *original* posts on here do I see every day.  Yeah, that's definitely more difficult/talented than covering Purple Haze... 

There's little truly innovative and creative shit out there... most "new" music is just an evolution of a trend anyways.

"Almost ten years before Jimi Hendrix would electrify the rock world with his high-voltage voodoo blues, Buddy Guy was shocking juke joint patrons... with his own brand of high-octane blues. Ironically, when Buddys playing technique and flamboyant showmanship were later revealed to crossover audiences in the late Sixties, it was erroneously assumed that he was imitating Hendrix.... He was playing behind his head long before Hendrix."

Back on topic... There are def pros and cons to both... but a well done cover can be just as good as an original IMO...


tl;dr I'm a musical Sasha Grey... I fucking love it all.


----------



## steve1 (Feb 22, 2012)

For me, if I want to go and see live music it'll be original music. When seeing a cover band it's normally more of a social occasion with additional entertainment. If I'm honest I prefer it when the two worlds remain separate, but as long as its good music played well, all is good really.


----------



## signalgrey (Feb 22, 2012)

because cover bands are entertaining to people who dont give two shits about what is going into their ears. Its a great way to make a buck, but no one will respect you THAT much.

Playing original material is a different game. Apples and oranges really.


----------



## Double A (Feb 22, 2012)

jam3v said:


> I can only assume the people who think "cover bands are easy" have simply never been in one.
> 
> You still have to make flyers, network, book shows, get paid shit for a while, play crappy venues to pay your dues, learn LOTS of music, rehearse often, play WELL, constantly learn new material, find ways to to be original with other peoples' music, keep the crowd involved, etc etc etc
> 
> Let's face it.. 90% of "original bands" are garbage anyway. Anyone who plays an instrument can go home and write a shitty tune then get booked to open at one of those "we'll do anything to play for free" shows with 10 other bands.


I would rather be in a shitty original band playing music I love and meaning 100 percent than be in a cover band playing other peoples tunes and phoning it in to make cash while not really caring about the music.

To me, it is a matter of my integrity.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 22, 2012)

When I was a kid, there was a great frustration with one band which wasn't touring. A show was developed which wasn't that actual band, "but an incredible simulation."

Beatlemania Stage Show -. Official Internationally Touring Production

To be honest, I'm a little surprised there's a touring company at this point. 



AxeHappy said:


> I'm shocked by the, "Pfffft, playing an instrument is easy, only writing music is hard," sentiments I've seen expressed in this thread and I would like to call bullshit.
> 
> Ever notice how pretty much every successful pop song is 95% exactly the same? If you're paying attention (note: Nickelback fucking did this...) and analyse the songs writing a hit song is not hard. It's actually fairly easy.



I'm going to disagree. I think it's often easy to analyze a successful song. It's not easy to make one in the first place. 

It's like those people who can endlessly play the songs of their favorite artist(s), but who can't generate amazing playing and solos on their own. 

To say it's easy to write a successful pop song because you can identify the parts and structure is to say that you can build a house because you know how it went together. I wouldn't want to live in a house I built because I would expect it to collapse from my not knowing what I was doing.


----------



## getaway_fromme (Feb 22, 2012)

Ok....Difference between Western Art Music (classical) and Bands?

Classical compositions were written for OTHER people to play.

Original music is written for THE BAND WHO WROTE IT TO PLAY! (and make money sometimes). There are of course, exceptions to this (cover bands)

Yes, they are different beasts. Composers make their LIVING off of selling sheet music. Bands just want to play THEIR stuff and make it big and famous that way.


NO they are NOT the same. Sorry.


----------



## Riffer (Feb 22, 2012)

My dream job would be playing guitar in a backing band for a famous singer or group. Or being a session musician. I see no lack of integrity in playing covers to sharpen your skills. It not at easy as everyone thinks. I love a lot of different music and love learning new things. I never look at myself as better then anybody when it comes to me playing in a cover band. The people I've met that bash cover bands or say that it's "lame" or I "sold out" obviously don't get it and are not thinking about it with an open mind.


----------



## getaway_fromme (Feb 22, 2012)

^ No, it has nothing to do with an open mind. We just don't agree with you. And there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 22, 2012)

thedonal said:


> I think you're missing the point somewhat.
> 
> Firstly- "Pure Cover bands=whack"? Yes. A broad statement that strikes me as narrow minded. There you go. that's my opinion.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure you even have a point. I don't like something. You don't mind it. Good for you. Agree to disagree. I don't really wish to discuss this [moot] point further.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 22, 2012)

getaway_fromme said:


> ^ No, it has nothing to do with an open mind. We just don't agree with you. And there's nothing wrong with that.



Precisely. The whole point of being open-minded is the ability to disagree w/o forcing your view on the other party lest they be narrow-minded...


----------



## Riffer (Feb 22, 2012)

getaway_fromme said:


> ^ No, it has nothing to do with an open mind. We just don't agree with you. And there's nothing wrong with that.


 That might be true for you. But I said the people "I've met". They simply just go "That shit's lame. Why don't you play metal?" Then when I ask for a reason why it's lame they don't have an answer and just default in saying that it just "Is".


----------



## Diggy (Feb 22, 2012)

Cover bands are more boring and less interesting than the worst original bands.. IMO of course. 

To me, it's not just the riffs, beats, lyrics, chords, leads... that makes a song great.. its the little things in the style of musicians that wrote it and gave it life.

That being said, do what you gotta do. Playing music while getting paid is the American Dream!.. and chicks dig performers.


----------



## jam3v (Feb 22, 2012)

Double A said:


> I would rather be in a shitty original band playing music I love and meaning 100 percent than be in a cover band playing other peoples tunes and phoning it in to make cash while not really caring about the music.
> 
> To me, it is a matter of my integrity.



I definitely understand what you're saying, but much like life, music is what you make of it.

For me, the cover band was more about partying, having fun, and just letting loose. I could also still hold a career without having to go on tour across the country to be somewhat successful. It wasn't about fulfilling or realizing some personal musical ambition.

But that doesn't mean it wasn't very demanding, because it was.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 22, 2012)

Diggy said:


> Cover bands are more boring and less interesting than the worst original bands.. IMO of course.
> 
> To me, it's not just the riffs, beats, lyrics, chords, leads... that makes a song great.. its the little things in the style of musicians that wrote it and gave it life.
> 
> That being said, do what you gotta do. Playing music while getting paid is the American Dream!.. and chicks dig performers.


----------



## jam3v (Feb 22, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Precisely. The whole point of being open-minded is the ability to disagree w/o forcing your view on the other party lest they be narrow-minded...



Being open-minded also means that just because you don't find value in something doesn't mean you should discredit it or put down others for appreciating it.



Konfyouzd said:


> If all you play is other ppl's songs why should anyone listen to you? Covers are fine every now and then, but to only play covers = WACK.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 22, 2012)

The OP asked a question and I answered it. Can't handle criticism don't ask the question. Or grow some thicker skin.

Some people think playing ERGs is dumb... I play them and the world keeps spinnin'...


----------



## jam3v (Feb 22, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> The OP asked a question and I answered it. Can't handle criticism don't ask the question. Or grow some thicker skin.
> 
> Some people think playing ERGs is dumb... I play them and the world keeps spinnin'...



I don't think anyone was offended - I'm just letting you know why people are calling you closed-minded.


----------



## thedonal (Feb 22, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> I'm not sure you even have a point. I don't like something. You don't mind it. Good for you. Agree to disagree. I don't really wish to discuss this [moot] point further.



Fair enough. 

You're absolutely right- everyone has an opinion. Ours differ. Maybe it was just around the way it was presented- more as a judgement than a point of preference- ie the difference between "I don't really like listening to covers bands" as opposed to "covers bands=wack". Which I don't see as moot. 

Plus I really don't like the word "wack". It's dumb in a 12 year old's RnB chart song way that really adds nothing to anything.

But there you go....

No hard feelings dude. Life's too short etc.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 22, 2012)

thedonal said:


> Plus I really don't like the word "wack". It's dumb in a 12 year old's RnB chart song way that really adds nothing to anything.



Oh the irony... Passive aggression... So grown up.


----------



## Randy (Feb 22, 2012)

All I'm saying is that, when I was in a cover band, a "good night" or a "bad night" was decided on whether or not there was a DJ playing within driving distance of the gig. To say that a DJ is your direct competition, IMO, doesn't speak well to the artistic integrity of your pursuit. 

Now, there are exceptions to this. Not to sound like a hipster but if you play music that is obscure or speaks specifically to you, and do your best to pay homage to it... there's something there, IMO. If you'd go on stage and play the same material, to nobody and for free, then I can respect that.

And, counter argument for all the people saying "Oh, you're all dogpiling cover bands because you haven't done it before". I've played in cover bands for over 10 years and I played EXCLUSIVELY in a cover band for 4 years. I know it takes work but that doesn't necessarily make you an artist.


----------



## thedonal (Feb 22, 2012)

"Oh the irony... Passive aggression... So grown up. "

How is that passive aggressive? I made a very direct statement of dislike. It can really turn me off from a even well made point (to which such a word is rarely attached).


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 22, 2012)

Clearly that flew over your head. That or I managed to misread the intentions of your post. Either way let's just leave it alone and let the thread breathe.


----------



## thedonal (Feb 22, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Clearly that flew over your head. That or I managed to misread the intentions of your post. Either way let's just leave it alone and let the thread breathe.



Yep. Fair play.


----------



## prh (Feb 22, 2012)

dacookster said:


> How is a cover band any different from a theater group that performs Shakespeare?
> 
> And there's nothing in regards to talent that determines how successful anyone is in this industry.
> 
> The market determines what musicians do.



i wouldnt say it is the same, firstly because most music exists in the form that it is intended to be performed (sound) whereas to perform shakespeare you cant just pop on your DVD of the original theatre company doing Hamlet and copy the way they do it  which is why we dont generally think of orchestras as cover bands too

and also i would say that talent determines a fair bit of how successful people are. sure there are producer-invented pop stars who dont seem overtly talented, but there is no way any of the artists who have gradually built up their fanbases would have got to where they are without being recognised for their talent

and the market doesnt wholly determine what musicians do either (imo), dream theater are still writing 10 minute long prog metal songs and get nominated for a grammy. yes their sound stays kinda in tune with whats happening in modern music, but not at all on the same level as other grammy nominated artists

sorry for not agreeing with your entire post


----------



## fps (Feb 22, 2012)

If you mean bands who play rock music as a tribute act, like Slayer or David Bowie covers bands, it's because they're taking someone else's music and just reproducing it. 

If you mean proper live bands who play huge varieties of music, like live funk bands for clubs, I don't think there's any low regard for them, in fact the broad setlist, PAID gigs in front of club-goers and need to respond to a live environment and new tracks quickly often means they have far better chops and tightness than 99% of originals bands who ever play.


----------



## eaeolian (Feb 22, 2012)

Loomer said:


> Because cover bands are fucking lame.
> 
> It really is that simple..



Eh, whatever. There's as much talent in my cover band(s) as my original music band - and, quite frankly, the venues are different, anyway, for the most part. Division is not going to be playing restaurant happy hours, and neither is my metal cover band. My pop cover band? No problem, thanks for the paycheck, oh and I get to work outside my comfort zone and become a better musician while I'm at it? Awesome.

There's a place for both. Now DJs, on the other hand...


----------



## thedonal (Feb 22, 2012)

I wouldn't necessarily knock DJs to be honest. In the right circles (mainly electronic dance music, but rock/indie clubs after band playing hours as well- used to rock up to some fantastic indie and northern soul nights after a hard evening's gigging with a mate- great way to unwind) a good DJ is fine.

This completely excludes the 'worst dj in the world that you often find at weddings' that my nearest pub tends to employ (disco nights..).


----------



## Edika (Feb 22, 2012)

Not to derail the thread a lot but one of the thinks I hate about DJ's is that some of them claim that they are musicians (not all of them mind you). Most of them have an ego beyond and above with, what would most sane people consider, no reason at all. So if you think cover bands are bad then don't get me started on DJ's.


----------



## prh (Feb 23, 2012)

also

DIRTY LOOPS


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Feb 23, 2012)

@JWGriebel: when's the last time you saw a Dream Theater cover band in your area?

I've performed DT covers live (Metropolis, Pull me under and Erotomania). Last time I saw a DT cover was Tomera, they performed "Under a Glass Moon". Check them out, you might like 'em.


----------



## Powermetalbass (Feb 26, 2012)

metal_sam14 said:


> My best guess is because it is really hard to make any kind of decent money off of original music that you put all your hard work into.
> 
> yet it is a lot easier to start a cover band and make a killing off playing other peoples songs.
> 
> my opinion anyway



/Thread


----------



## Jarlesworth (Feb 26, 2012)

If I want to hear someone else's song exactly how it's already played, I would much rather go to the original artists show and support them for writing it, not somebody making money off of the original artist's music. It's cool to put covers up on Youtube, or play a cover or two at one of your shows with the majority of the music being your own original music, but to just be a full-on cover band is pointless IMO. I feel like it's also better if you play the songs in your own style instead of playing it exactly the same. I don't hate cover bands, though, I just don't see the point.


----------



## Azure (Feb 26, 2012)

Cover bands wouldn't exist without Original bands.


----------



## bhakan (Feb 26, 2012)

This has probably already been posted, but I only skimmed the thread

I think the reason original bands dislike cover bands is frustration. I know its frustrating for me when someone asks me to play some simple well known song or riff or something and are absolutely floored by how great I am, but when I show them a riff that is way more intricate and interesting, I get a "yea, I guess that's cool," even though I spent 30 seconds learning the first one and weeks mastering the second. When original bands see cover bands doing way better than they ever will with someone else's songs, It's a frustrating and the cover band becomes almost a scapegoat for the music industry.


----------



## Ckackley (Feb 26, 2012)

I don't have a problem with GOOD cover bands. It's the mediocre or down right terrible cover bands that get me. I saw a cover band the other night totally SUCK .. But as long as people could vaguely recognize the song they were drinking , dancing and loving it. They made good money that night too. That's the shit part. My all originals band on it's best night won't make half as much as a cover band on their worst. There's the only rub for me.


----------



## bukkakeONyoMAMA (Feb 26, 2012)

ive played in both....both are rewarding in their own way.....but i too am guilty of judging other cover/tribute bands if they suck really bad...if your gonna cover a classic, you better be really good at it.... (shameless plug)>>>my TOOL tribute band..>>>>


----------



## oddcam (Feb 27, 2012)

Because writing a song makes you an artist, and covering a song makes you a performer. Its the difference between _playing_ Bach and _being_ Bach. Band members who don't write the music are also only performers.
At a gig, however, performance is key, so 'original' bands and cover bands do the same thing.
I guess the main difference is that one creates, the other imitates. One plays to an audience, the other plays to a muse.

The haughy-taughty resentment probably comes from the fact that most original songs aren't that great, and so the creator is not "appreciated" while the cover performers are, because they are playing music already established as being great.


----------



## Jarlesworth (Feb 27, 2012)

oddcam said:


> The haughy-taughty resentment probably comes from the fact that most original songs aren't that great, and so the creator is not "appreciated" while the cover performers are, because they are playing music already established as being great.



I'd have to agree and disagree with you.. as most original songs aren't that great, there are also a lot of great ones out there, but they just don't draw nearly as much attention as cover songs, great or not. If you're not that big and you have some amazing original songs you won't get that much more credit than if your songs all suck, or at least for a good while. Cover bands on the other hand will get a lot of recognition as soon as they play a song that everybody loves.


----------



## jam3v (Feb 27, 2012)

oddcam said:


> Because writing a song makes you an artist, and covering a song makes you a performer. Its the difference between _playing_ Bach and _being_ Bach. Band members who don't write the music are also only performers.
> At a gig, however, performance is key, so 'original' bands and cover bands do the same thing.
> I guess the main difference is that one creates, the other imitates. One plays to an audience, the other plays to a muse.
> 
> The haughy-taughty resentment probably comes from the fact that most original songs aren't that great, and so the creator is not "appreciated" while the cover performers are, because they are playing music already established as being great.



Perfectly articulated.


----------



## suffo20 (Feb 27, 2012)

I have been on both sides as well! For me its the frustration of cover bands that suck really bad but still get paid good money to do it! That bothers me! On the other hand if the cover band is good then I have no problem with it to be honest! I hate seeing cover bands that get all this attention and you go see them play to see what the hype is all about and they end up sucking bad! But I have seen some great cover bands as well!


----------



## Andromalia (Feb 27, 2012)

I don't know. Actually for most of the time since the invention of printing, people have been playing other people's music. Especially since Beethoven, Wagner and Mozart are, except if there was a plague of zombiism I wasn't aware about, dead.
Some of the greatest musicians ever didn't play a single composition of their own. for a quite good reason, composing for an orchestra isn't writing a small band song. First one to tell me Yehudi Menuhin wasn't at the top gets hit by a large trout.

It's something relatively new that people composing music are able to broadcast it to millions and that two people at different places can hear the same band. Before that, Mozart couldn't direct his operas at two different places at once. To broadcats it, he _had _to have it played by other people.

My point is, covers or originals have nothing to do with musical ability. Composing a song people like, is actually not the same as writing a song _you _like. Face it, what appeals the most to people are 4/4 three chords stuff mith a melody mixed in. I doubt technical death emtla will ever appeal to a large audience, because people don't want to have to actually have to listen to enjoy it. Successful music is heard, not listened to.


----------



## punydevil (Aug 8, 2013)

As a member of a cover band and somebody who writes and records original music, I see both sides. I won't go to a bar to hear someone do what I do, i.e. play covers. But a lot of people will, mostly my friends who think it's cool a 50-year old white collar professional is in a rock band. On the other hand, how many private parties have you been to with an original band? It doesn't work unless all 200 of your party guests have similar tastes and are patient listeners. 90% of our gigs are private functions and fundraisers and we play a wide array of music that everyone can enjoy at some level. For the most part, I say let the original bands have the vast majority of the bar gigs because that's where the music I'll enjoy (and cover later) comes from. But I shouldn't have to stay off a stage because I'm not playing original music. I enjoy playing and singing too. Besides, there are a whole lot of original bands who should never subject the general public to their music. Would you rather hear a solid cover of Ziggy Stardust or Born to Run or some original Creed, Evanescence, or Nickleback? Some bands don't have the right to be snobby.


----------



## Rev2010 (Aug 8, 2013)

Wow, nearly 18 month old necro-bump first post....

I guess this thread is 4 pages long, is a good topic, and is still viable to discuss so I'll lend my opinion as a preferred original artist. I greatly prefer writing my own material. I've never once covered a single song but there are 2-3 I want to cover and still plan to. I love when an original band does the surprise cover, I think it's awesome! U2 for example has done that many times and they even sometimes just do a piece in the middle of one of their own songs and it gives me goosebumps how awesome it is. Full on cover bands though I just flat out don't care for. I don't hate on them, I just don't get the point of playing nothing but other people's shit for a whole set for every gig. And yeah I get the money aspect but a cover band is never ever as good as the original and everyone knows it's not the actual band so I still don't get why one prefers a live cover band over a DJ spinning the actual songs.

I saw Ray Manzarek and Robbie Krieger play live under Riders on the Storm. It was AMAZING! The closest someone of my age could get to seeing The Doors live. Well... about a year or more later I got an "alert" that Riders on the Storm were playing live at BB Kings. I thought it was strange to play at such a small venue but I bought tickets immediately....

.... turned out to be a f*u*cking cover band!!! A lame one too. There we were sitting at the front row of tables and these guys come out and the singer, who seemed to think he really was Morrison, is lamenting all sorts of lame bullshit with, "Yeah, let's have a F*U*CKING great f*u*cking time". And other shit like, "Fuuuuuck yeah let's fuuuucking rock on motherf*u*ckers YEOW!!!!".

It was just so sad we got up and left. 

Just to add to this... I wouldn't go visit a museum to see copies of paintings or artifacts either. Full on cover bands come off a bit like karaoke with instruments to me. It's fun if you're participating, but as a viewer I'm personally not really into it. I don't hate it, like if I'm somewhere and a cover band plays I don't get all hiffy, I might actually enjoy a piece or two. I'm merely saying I don't go out with the intention of seeing them nor did I hire one for my wedding. We played CD's of our favorite songs.


Rev.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Aug 8, 2013)

I used to think it was a bit of a cop-out... Until I was at a show where there was a really good cover band playing all the songs everyone wanted to hear. And that's when I understood it. Not only do you get to listen to and sing along to the songs you love, you also get it performed live in front of you. You get the live performance aspect of it added in.

Cover bands are especially successful at parties and smaller festivals and such!


----------



## wankerness (Aug 8, 2013)

dacookster said:


> How is a cover band any different from a theater group that performs Shakespeare?
> .



Hmm, maybe cause theater groups are basically never writing their own material cause it's a totally different thing? People who write plays are rarely actors/directors/etc and writing is rarely a collaborative effort. >

EDIT: cool, someone necro'd this bigtime, didn't notice


----------



## yingmin (Aug 8, 2013)

Fundamentally, it's a conflict between art and entertainment. Bands who write their own music generally perceive themselves as artists making a statement with their music. Sure, they want to entertain, but the art is what's important. Therefore, someone who plays other people's music and gets paid for it is "cheating", or in more extreme cases, devaluing the very act of being a musician. But people in cover bands aren't trying to be artistic, generally speaking; their purpose is to entertain. That's a big part of why Nickelback gets as much heat as they do: they have no pretense of making an artistic statement, and write music solely to entertain people. There's such a conflict between art an entertainment, not just in music but in all forms of art, because of the idea that anything created with audience appeal in mind is, ipso facto, without artistic merit.


----------



## thebunfather (Aug 8, 2013)

I've played in both and prefer writing AND performing original material. However, depending on where you live and the "scene" (or lack thereof), you may not get a chance to perform these masterpieces that you worked so hard on. In my area, you will be hard pressed to find any decent original music (with metal and it's sub-genres being the hardest to find) let alone a venue to play in. If you do find a venue and put together a show, don't expect a crowd. I love writing and getting my music out there, but there's something about performing that's pretty attractive, too.

That's where the cover bands come in. Although there are very few local original venues, damn near every bar has a cover band playing at least one night per weekend. At an average of $100/man, to boot. Does playing covers suck? Yep. Does it take time and effort? Yep. Do you get paid for it (funding more gear)? Yep. Can you have fun with it? Yep. I see it as another aspect of being a well rounded musician. I've had to learn a ton of shit that I wouldn't have learned otherwise, and it added new elements to my playing and originality. Overall, it wasn't as bad of an experience as it would seem.


The truly sad part of the situation is the demand for cover bands and lack of demand for original bands. Bars/clubs have tried to do original shows, promoted it, did everything they could, only to lose their ass at the end of the night. Meanwhile they can pay a cover band and still make a killing at the end of the night. It boils down to supply and demand. If you want to play, and not tour, you need to play to the audience you have available to you. 

I can completely see why cover bands get shit on. There something special about writing and performing you own music. I gotta say that playing covers isn't all bad, though. Getting paid to do what you love to do? Why not?


----------



## GunpointMetal (Aug 9, 2013)

There's a cover band around here that I appreciate cause they do live karaoke, so they never know what they're gonna play next, who the singer is gonna be, and they have like seven guys and all sorts of wacky instrumentation that they throw in, so its more like a variety show featuring songs you know. 

Shitty top forty bar bands can .... right off, though. Usually its a bunch a guys who used to be in original bands, but instead of honing their chops and creating, they decided to play what was within their current abilities and find a way to make money at it. Anytime I've ever heard one of these bands bust out an original its some half-assed lame-lyriced imitation of a song they already played, usually right down to the chord progression. I also don't really like tribute bands...at least some cover bands still have their own personality. Every time I've seen a tribute band, its like they think they need to pretend to be the band they're covering. Its kinda like art students who go on to make copies of paintings for chain stores, I guess. 

"I wanted to be an artists, but my own stuff sucked, so now I just copy other people, because really, all I wanted was the attention that an artist receives."


----------



## protest (Aug 9, 2013)

There's a few reasons guys in original bands probably don't like cover bands:

1)Actually writing music is usually harder than just playing someone else's songs.
2)Cover bands often get more gigs, and therefore in the eyes of guys in original bands, those cover bands are taking shows, exposure, and money away from them.

The truth is though, that people would rather hear some random dude's in their 40's play Pearl Jam, than some other random dude's in their 40's play their own songs, let alone some 20 year old kids djenting all over the place.

People go to bars to drink and watch some drunk chick sing a long to Bon Jovi, not listen to your 13:52 metal/jazz/blues/metal/eastern music/metal epic.

In all honesty though the bars that people around my age go to don't usually have bands in any form, and you'd be lucky to hear any actual rock songs. It's all blaring pop and house music, and more club like than a bar. Makes me feel like an old man lol.


----------



## lucasreis (Aug 9, 2013)

At this point I would play in a cover band just to have fun, but not in a band covering just one band material, I would play in some sort of jukebox kind of band that played a variety of styles just to have fun, as I like to play covers on guitar and bass at home, it's just fun to play known material.

However, if I were to start anything serious, I would want to play my own material. All bands I had were original material with some covers in between, but I would never play in a band that covers just one band, to me, it kinda sucks, but I don't have anything against those bands.

I like the idea of a tribute band when a band doesn't exist anymore. I heard of a Nirvana cover band that is really faithful in the way they play and present themselves, I also like the idea of the Beatles tribute bands and stuff like that, but I just can't bring myself to like a cover band that covers just one band when the original is alive and kicking and still doing shows. As a tribute, I think it's fine, otherwise, I think it's lame.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Aug 9, 2013)

protest said:


> There's a few reasons guys in original bands probably don't like cover bands:
> 
> 1)Actually writing music is usually harder than just playing someone else's songs.
> 2)Cover bands often get more gigs, and therefore in the eyes of guys in original bands, those cover bands are taking shows, exposure, and money away from them.
> ...


 

that's why I don't go to bars unless I'm playing....some dumb bitch is gonna put every ....ing Nicki Minaj song on in a row, followed by the only two Pearl Jam songs anyone knows, followed by at least two Journey songs (.... JOURNEY). Then it repeats.....But I'd rather sit through that than some dentist who thinks he's SRV playing Top Forty from the 70's and singing "harmonies" with his buddies.


----------



## EcoliUVA (Aug 9, 2013)

It's a matter of perspective. The people hating on cover bands tend to be musicians, whereas the audience of a cover band tends to be the 95% of the world who aren't musicians. We're a small sub-sub-sub-category here at ss.org, and it's easy to forget about other viewpoints when you're surrounded (so to speak) by your own ilk. 

Kind of how religion works, now that I think about it...hail djod? 

Personally, I'm in the "I just wanna play my guitar with other people. Prease?" mindset. Could be that I'm late to the game and have only been at it heavy for ~6 years. I tried the cover band thing for this reason. It wasn't for me, ultimately, but I can see the appeal. I wouldn't show any open disrespect to anyone in a cover band (unless they're a self-righteous douchenozzle about it) but I also wouldn't pay to see one.


----------



## MetalBuddah (Aug 9, 2013)

I feel like cover bands are the same as a choir/violin trio/orchestra/pianist performing classic works or music. Those kinds of people (me being one of them as a professional singer for 11 years) don't usually get hate for performing old music but cover bands do  Boggles my mind.


----------



## lucasreis (Aug 9, 2013)

protest said:


> There's a few reasons guys in original bands probably don't like cover bands:
> 
> 1)Actually writing music is usually harder than just playing someone else's songs.
> 2)Cover bands often get more gigs, and therefore in the eyes of guys in original bands, those cover bands are taking shows, exposure, and money away from them.
> ...



This kinda pisses me off not as someone who plays instruments, but as someone who enjoys live shows. I have a cousin who always tells me the night bar cover drunken-bon-jovi-covers-and-other-predictable-classic-rock-cover-stuff bands are just like the live shows from original bands that I like to watch. And I'm always telling him that... no... seing a real band is a whole different experience. He wouldn't survive in a metal concert, and he is way younger than me, but he seems to be in his 40's in his way of life lol


----------



## Riffer (Aug 9, 2013)

I really am suprised by some of the harsh feelings towards cover bands in this thread. I'm 27 and in a cover band. Not in my 40's like some people have been saying. It's a ton of fun and I get to hang out with my friends when they come see me play, get free drinks, talk to girls, get money to buy new gear or motorcycle parts, and just have an all around blast. Also it definitely helps your playing when you have a 80+ song list you have to know at all times, plus keeping up with the latest popular songs and learning them as fast as possible.

Haters gonna hate


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Aug 9, 2013)

I play in a cover band that does a few originals - 90% covers basically.

It's all about the goal of the band. Original bands are typically looking to sell there own music and reach as wide an audience as possible, and quit your day job eventually.

Outside of dedicated tribute bands, cover bands are concerned with entertaining the audience that happens to be on hand. the idea is to play familar music the audience already knows and loves. The goal is typically to play the best local bars and events. Usually work a day job too.

They are different beasts, and i find they rarely compete with one another in the real world. A bar that wants a cover band is not going to hire you original metal outfit, and the Bars that cater to original music won't hire a cover band.

Almost apples and oranges. I will say, even playing covers, one can still pour their heart and soul into a performance.


----------



## TheWarAgainstTime (Aug 9, 2013)

Both of my bands are "original" bands, but we don't bash on cover bands at all. Hell, both of my bands have played at least one cover live at one point, and the crowd response was awesome  

That being said, I do prefer playing original stuff because it feels good knowing that the music that you've written is being heard and sometimes even enjoyed by people in the crowd


----------



## jwade (Aug 9, 2013)

Man, the people who want to trash cover acts really need to just take a look in the mirror and figure out why whatever they're doing with their own music isn't working instead of focusing on what someone else is doing. Is it wrong for a bunch of dudes to jump onstage and play some covers and have a few beers and rock out to shit with the crowd? I don't think so. I think it's preferable to going out and hearing some DJ just playing shit from itunes.

The only time I take issue with cover bands is when they go into the studio to record extremely accurate versions of other people's songs. THAT bothers me, a lot.


----------



## ghostred7 (Aug 9, 2013)

All I'm going to say on the subject is this (if it's already mentioned apologies for missing it...know someone already mentioned Beck).

Other well known bands, aside from Beck, have either broken through, or are more known for their covers...

Van Halen - You Really Got Me ...really their 1st big single. Sure Eruption was awesome for its time... their remake is what initially kept them on the air. 
Hendrix - All Along The Watchtower, Star Spangled Banner - nuff said
Stevie Ray Vaughan - half his career
Black Crowes - Hard to Handle
....and so on.

IMO, it takes just as much talent/musicianship/skill/whateveryoucallit to take a known song, cover it, make it sound like your song, and release it without pissing off the fanbase of the original.

Also, what about songs that are written by 3rd parties and released by 2 artists at the same time? Who calls whos a cover? Two of Diane Warren's soundtrack songs I can think of... Aerosmith/Mark Chesnutt - I Don't Wanna Miss a Thing and 2 others with "How Do I live".


----------



## GunpointMetal (Aug 9, 2013)

I'd rather listen to the DJ with the iPod. When I see more than one really good/interesting cover band maybe I'll change my mind.


----------



## Interloper (Aug 9, 2013)

I certainly don't look down on cover bands. In fact, I appreciate just how much effort you still have to put into getting the right people together and getting the songs just right and arranging gigs, rehearsals, budget etc.

All that being said, it is quite a bit harder to do all of that AND write, arrange and perform your own songs. Add in the fact that you are putting everything on the line and for less money than the band that plays 90's covers and has it's own weekly slot at whatever bar they call home and it's easy to see why some people might scoff at the cover bands.


----------



## wankerness (Aug 10, 2013)

Covers are like, only morally acceptable to me if the artist has proven himself otherwise. Like, if an artist throws a couple covers on their LP it's fine with me if they manage to integrate it with the rest of their sound and make it their own. This is why Jeff Buckley's hallelujah is a masterwork. There are a lot of other covers that I like a lot, but I can't think of any that are from bands that do mainly covers. Also, it seems like when established bands release a full-blown cover album they tend to be one of the worst in their discography (ex Slayer, A Perfect Circle, Tori Amos, Rage Against the Machine).

Still, covers piss me off after spending day after day listening to American Idol, Straight No Chaser and Jack Johnson pandora stations at work. Jeff Buckley's version of Hallelujah comes on and the reaction is "wow this is awful, put on the Rufus Wainright or Lee Dewyze version!" Bland retreads really bother me. If covers are done as one-offs from some no-namer that are commercially released then I find them parasitic. 

Cover BANDS are fine with me, it's not like they make CDs anyway and unfortunately they're usually better than the average local band that writes their own material!


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Aug 10, 2013)

VBCheeseGrater said:


> I play in a cover band that does a few originals - 90% covers basically.
> 
> It's all about the goal of the band. Original bands are typically looking to sell there own music and reach as wide an audience as possible, and quit your day job eventually.
> 
> ...



The only sense in which cover bands and original bands rarely compete with each other is that cover bands are so universally preferred for most small scale venues that the playing field isn't level enough to even call it a competition. Original bands that want to get off the ground have to play shows, and unless they manage to skip the "local band" phase they're going to be shut out at almost every turn by cover bands simply because cover bands will draw and hold a larger audience at any given skill level.


----------



## craigny (Aug 10, 2013)

I play in an original band and don't bash any cover bands. I respect them and enjoy them. To me it's harder practicing a Catalog of covers than working on my original music. It's a different kind of challenge. A good cover band is awesome to watch and hard to be. We throw in the occasional cover

Ill tell ya this. Good cover bands DRAW CROWDS. and make $


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Aug 10, 2013)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> The only sense in which cover bands and original bands rarely compete with each other is that cover bands are so universally preferred for most small scale venues that the playing field isn't level enough to even call it a competition. Original bands that want to get off the ground have to play shows, and unless they manage to skip the "local band" phase they're going to be shut out at almost every turn by cover bands simply because cover bands will draw and hold a larger audience at any given skill level.



We had an original band Sea of Souls around here that packed every local bar they played. Could play anywhere they wanted. Why? Because they were GOOD. So yeah i guess there is some competition you are right. But the solution is to tighten up, and make your product in demand, not complain about the other guy like some seem to do.

We played with a band last night who has way more local clout than us. We played, they went on, and it was evident right away we were the better band at least tight and talentwise. But theyve been grinding around here for years, and we are still working our way up...we have to put in the work!!!! That goes for any band.


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Aug 10, 2013)

I people focused on their own original material, promoting it, and putting out a great sounding release both musically/production-wise. They wouldn't need to worry about cover bands stealing their thunder, there's no reason to bicker about it there's bands out there playing original material making more than cover bands ever will.

As far as getting gigs, put yourself in the venue owner's position. He can either get you and your band up there, while you bring a couple of friends and a handful of fans out to come see you. Or he can get a band performing cover music that will not only bring the same if not larger group of people your band would, but also random guests who would enjoy the majority of the music?

It's a fairly simple and easy decision, he can either make a large amount of income in a night, or he could maybe break even. 

I think it's simple, I don't hate cover bands and I've seen a few of them. Totally enjoyed it every time because they were all talented and could play very well.

As a prime example, we have a Hookah Bar near my home called the Funky Buddha, amazing place. Every monday, any musicians that want to perform or just jump on stage and play with the other dudes up there are free to do so. It's usually a packed night because people bring their friends in to hear them play some original stuff, you can go on stage and play original material also with your band members. Inbetween sets, someone will go up and pick up an instrument, start noodling around while the others learn the progression and add stuff along. These jams end up sounding amazing most of the time and are continuously interesting, but they ALWAYS clear the house out because as awesome as it sounds, people don't want to hear that stuff. Here's an example of one of these jam nights.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Aug 10, 2013)

VBCheeseGrater said:


> We had an original band Sea of Souls around here that packed every local bar they played. Could play anywhere they wanted. Why? Because they were GOOD.



That's great, but as soon as they leave that area they're going to resume the uphill battle against cover bands to get shows, and the same will continue to happen in every area they visit until they manage to move beyond playing bars and parties. Say what you will about their staying power, but cover bands will always have an easier time getting their foot in the door than original bands. That's not an excuse, it's a fact.


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 10, 2013)

I've been in both, and while I don't dislike cover bands, I do think playing a cover isn't "art" very much, unless its going to be something different. Creating music is art, and I hold that in higher regard than technical ability. Same with graphic art, movies, pretty much anything creative. That's what advances the art. JMO. That being said, I would hold no low opinions of a cover band that is creating original music on the side.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 11, 2013)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> The only sense in which cover bands and original bands rarely compete with each other is that cover bands are so universally preferred for most small scale venues that the playing field isn't level enough to even call it a competition. Original bands that want to get off the ground have to play shows, and unless they manage to skip the "local band" phase they're going to be shut out at almost every turn by cover bands simply because *cover bands will draw and hold a larger audience at any given skill level.*



It's not necessarily that the playing field isn't level. It's that the hit-to-uncharted ratio is better with cover bands. 

But that same situation happens wherever you have new unvetted material competing with proven material. That's true whether we're talking about radio, small venues, album signings and sales, and so on. 



VBCheeseGrater said:


> *We had an original band Sea of Souls around here that packed every local bar they played. Could play anywhere they wanted. Why? Because they were GOOD.* So yeah i guess there is some competition you are right. *But the solution is to tighten up, and make your product in demand, not complain about the other guy like some seem to do.*
> 
> We played with a band last night who has way more local clout than us. We played, they went on, and it was evident right away we were the better band at least tight and talentwise. *But they've been grinding around here for years, and we are still working our way up...we have to put in the work!!!! That goes for any band.*



And that's the other thing... it takes work over time to build a reputation. If a band as a good reputation, then people will seek them out.

And if material has a good reputation, then people will seek it out as well.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Aug 11, 2013)

Explorer said:


> It's not necessarily that the playing field isn't level. It's that the hit-to-uncharted ratio is better with cover bands.
> 
> But that same situation happens wherever you have new unvetted material competing with proven material. That's true whether we're talking about radio, small venues, album signings and sales, and so on.



I agree, but it absolutely is that the playing field isn't level; there really isn't a better way to describe it. All else equal, a small venue is going to prefer the cover band.


----------



## satchmo72 (Aug 11, 2013)

Azure said:


> Cover bands wouldn't exist without Original bands.



Although obvious, this is it. Hopefully there will always be both.


----------



## BaDaML (Aug 20, 2013)

I have found, quite often, that the musicians stating cover bands suck, no artistic integrity, etc., are often not very good. To listen to them talk about how they are creating original material expressing themselves, often what they are playing is just rehashed crap, with nothing original to offer.

I have also noticed that lots of times those pushing originals instead of covers are not very disciplined. Creating art and expressing yourself is one thing, but playing something different each time is another. Playing covers takes skill and attention to detail, at least to do it well. If you can't do that, chances are your original arent very original, and probably not very good either.

Just my opinion, and yes, I have played in both kinds of bands. Both are fun in their own way.


----------



## rjnix_0329 (Aug 20, 2013)

Creativity. A lot of people who are creative don't understand or appreciate music that is simply regurgitated or logical. The keyboardist in my band, for example, has absolutely zero appreciation for technical ability. If the song doesn't speak to him as a creative outlet for the performer, he could not care less how well its played. 

Personally, I can appreciate a really good cover tune or a perfectly executed shred, but I see where he is coming from. There is nothing like an original, tight band playing their tunes with raw passion, energy, and fresh excitement.


----------



## abandonist (Aug 20, 2013)

Old v New.

Forever and Ever,


----------



## Rizzo (Aug 21, 2013)

It's simple to me: the first type of musican works his ass off to express himself and himself only, and rarely earns a reasonable amount of money to live by. The second type of musician does nothing but feeding on others' work, and is just merely executing songs, and more often earns a lot from this.
Well it's a choice of life economically speaking, but generally and musically speaking it always pisses me off. If you can't speak for yourself musically, then simply keep your "mouth" shut.


----------



## Nats (Aug 21, 2013)

Because cover acts are a cheap cash grab and sometimes I unknowingly wind up at bars with a group of people where there's a cover band playing, they're charging more than 5 bucks at the door, and no one wants to go to another place. Then you're stuck hearing Summer of 69 and Boys of Summer, hoping someone poisoned your drink. The bands usually act all cocky like they wrote these songs themselves and drunken, washed up women go gaga over them.


----------



## Riffer (Aug 22, 2013)




----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Aug 22, 2013)

Rizzo said:


> If you can't speak for yourself musically, then simply keep your "mouth" shut.



I agree with this to a large extent, but it does ignore music's role as a cultural glue. Not all music is meant to "say" something.


----------



## Rizzo (Aug 23, 2013)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> I agree with this to a large extent, but it does ignore music's role as a cultural glue. Not all music is meant to "say" something.


More than anything, i'm referring to the "be able to express yourself" VS "feed on others' success" argument.
And regarding what you just stated, in my opinion some art that "is not meant to say anything" is just bullshit. But that's another argument already.


----------



## fps (Aug 23, 2013)

Rizzo said:


> If you can't speak for yourself musically, then simply keep your "mouth" shut.



I don't know, I've heard a lot of local bands, many of those are so hopelessly derivative and rubbish I'd rather have heard the source material, and they too should totally have kept their mouths shut. 

I've got nothing against anything, if your originals band is good it will get where it needs to go. I agree with the cultural glue argument, and no not all music needs to be new or say something new.


----------



## oompa (Aug 23, 2013)

There are many ways to interpret and enjoy music.

I am guessing some focus more on the creative part of it, creating it, writing it etc, and less on the performing part.

I am normally not interested in covers, especially when they're on regular full-length albums by artists, but there are hundreds of exceptions for me too, there are even bands I love that make covers almost exclusively.

I also think some people interpret the situation as "this band makes this song better - yeah but that other band -wrote- it" etc. which might just mean people who are conversing on the topic are talking about two different things without ever realising it


----------



## Carl James (Jul 9, 2018)

As an example in our area we have probably 200 cover bands. Every single one and I mean EVERY single one are playing the same boring "classic rock" songs from the same era. Its as if they are swapping set lists and all are trapped in this time period between 1972 - 1979. It wouldn't be so bad except for a couple of things:

1. Every single band (but maybe 2 or 3) is over amplified, grossly under talented and no one is a true vocalist. Some can sing ... barely. Not a single one has any sense of musical dynamics, or an ear for harmonies or how to manage sound and that is not an exaggeration. When you are playing a restaurant for example and the db meter on my phone is reading 128 decibels for a 20 x 30 ft lounge? guess what/ You are to F#@king loud and as patrons get up and leave you should take the hint and turn it down!

2. Our area is cheap and will not pay more than $200.00 for a 4 or 5 piece act to play 3 - 4 hours. If you are a Solo, duo or trio, its even less. No matter how good you may be.

3. Several "musicians" are playing 3 - 4 hours for $50.00 and a meal. These whores are the worst as far as any real talent is concerned and they are undercutting the ability of any musicians to earn a fair wage. In fact, one young lady was going around introducing herself to establishments and saying she will play for $50.00 LESS than what that establishment was already paying artists. She didn't last long in our area thankfully.

4. As far as Original music goes there are a handful of excellent writers but, they do house concerts of their own music mainly and on rare occasion will do a public venue throwing in some of the lesser known covers and guess what they always pack an establishment because they are not doing what the public thinks they want. But they still can't get a fair wage. Honestly the only thing worse than our little cover band hell is the tribute acts who only play one artists entire catalog. How stifling to ones own creativity! These poor people never evolved beyond worshipping Journey, the Eagles, Joni Mitchell etc. and they desperately need lives of their own. How sad.


----------



## Hollowway (Jul 9, 2018)

Personally, I value original music more than covers. But I’ve played in bands that did both, and had a good time in each. I think the issue is that there is very little creativity in playing cover songs, when compared to originals. The proficiency and technique are there, but the creative aspect is substantially less involved. So, it’s more of a performance. Personally, I value creativity above all else in art. For instance, I’m well aware that it took zero skill for John Cage to play 4’ 33”, but I still think that is one of the coolest performances out there. I also am much more into modern art, even though many criticize it as, “something a 5 year old could paint.” And, I have much less regard for artists that just reproduce a portrait, making it look as accurate as a photo. I respect it, but I’m just not as impressed with it. I just like new, different, original. FWIW I’m also the guy that will blow past the conventionally good looking girl in the bar, and make a bee line to the weird looking girl.


----------



## budda (Jul 9, 2018)

Did @Carl James join just to bump this thread?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 9, 2018)

budda said:


> Did @Carl James join just to bump this thread?



For whatever reason, this time of year, we get a decent influx of folks coming in to bump really old threads. Two folks bumped multiple 10+ year old threads. 

Probably folks just finding the place via Google Search. 

The best part is they get snippy when I politely mention the age of the thread and close it. It's like "dude, that guy who you're trying to talk to hasn't even logged in since 2008, I'm sure he's decided what amp to buy by now".


----------



## prlgmnr (Jul 9, 2018)

Carl James said:


> Several "musicians" are playing for $50.00... one young lady was saying she will play for $50.00 LESS .... didn't last long....



You don't say.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 9, 2018)

Carl James said:


> they are undercutting the ability of any musicians to earn a fair wage.


Are they really though? Do you expect that if it wasn't for cover bands, restaurants would be hiring all our experimental grind-noise-country-core-experimental-djent bands for permanent gigs making wages we could live off of? 

Also, took me a while to realize I was reading a really old thread 'cause all the regulars are still here.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 9, 2018)

Carl James said:


> As an example in our area we have probably 200 cover bands. Every single one and I mean EVERY single one are playing the same boring "classic rock" songs from the same era. Its as if they are swapping set lists and all are trapped in this time period between 1972 - 1979. It wouldn't be so bad except for a couple of things:
> 
> 1. Every single band (but maybe 2 or 3) is over amplified, grossly under talented and no one is a true vocalist. Some can sing ... barely. Not a single one has any sense of musical dynamics, or an ear for harmonies or how to manage sound and that is not an exaggeration. When you are playing a restaurant for example and the db meter on my phone is reading 128 decibels for a 20 x 30 ft lounge? guess what/ You are to F#@king loud and as patrons get up and leave you should take the hint and turn it down!
> 
> ...



There are different approached to being in a band, for sure.

Most cover bands are playing the same songs, simply because people want to hear the same songs. Also, there are some songs that are more difficult to pull off live. While some of us see that as a challenge, most folks in cover bands are looking at the logistics involved in playing a four hour long set, and don't care to learn too many challenging songs to fill that time, so they go for "Brown Eyed Girl" and whichever proportion of CCR's catalogue has the same chord changed as "Brown Eyed Girl," because they just want to get hired. Playing four hours of "Brown Eyed Girl and other similar hits" gets more positive reactions from the general public than a band who plays "Du Hast" (Rammstein) followed by "Don't Bring Me Down" (ELO) followed by "Cotton Eyed Joe," even if they are all big hits, the audience will get fatigued from trying to figure out what your cover band is all about and go across the street to hear "The Top 40 Cover Band" band play "Brown Eyed Girl," "Under My Thumb," and maybe "Hey YA," because the audience doesn't give two shits that those songs all have exactly the same chord changes.

1. In my area, I was in a cover band who made it a damned point to play as quietly as was possible to make music, then we ran everything through the PA system. We were able to book venues where everyone else was getting turned away for being too loud. That meant, of course, no tube amps, and very specific cymbals to keep things under control. We still got noise complaints - why? Because some older folks like to hang out in bars, too, and they can't fucking stand to hear any music loud enough to come through over the static in their heads, and yet other folks were there to listen or to dance or whatever. So, there is no magical goldielocks volume that pleases everyone.

2/3. Even when people are undercutting your price, you can still charge whatever you're worth. Maybe that young lady plays for a meal only, but if you can guarantee more people will come out to see you than will come out to see here, then you can negotiate a higher price and the venue operator would be stupid to turn you away. We have the same crap in my area - there are a handful of folks who will play for nothing, and will promptly drive people away from the place. Incidentally, most of these are original acts.  Also, it's not about being good in your own mind, it's about marketing. Period. If people pay money to come see you, then you will make money. If not, then likely not.

4. There are ways to do covers in your own style. Granted, when people go out to see a cover band, that's not at all what they expect, but I've done it before and it was a blast, and we even managed to get together a small local following once, but it took years and a lot of places wouldn't rebook us that first year, because, even though we were playing the same songs other cover bands were playing, we were mashing them up with other songs and we were inserting a lot of random and abrupt shifts in style and tempo, and it took a long time to get people to care about that. For example, we played "Take On Me" by A-Ha, starting out the intro and first verse in the usual 80's pop style, but then went into a minimalist ambient second verse and full throttle modern metal breakdown and solo, then back to the usual style for the third verse. It took us a month to arrange the song that way, and not a single person in the audience knew what was going on the first time we busted that out, but, months later, people were requesting we play more 80's pop songs that way.

And that's the core of this whole covers-vs-originals thing. If you are in an original band, who plays deathcore, and you do a deathcore version of "Brown Eyed Girl," no one (well, probably someone  ) is going to say you are a boring sell out. If you are in X-style original band and do a cover of Y-style song reworked into X-style, then you're okay. You could even do an entire set this way, and still be an original band, I suppose. But if you are a "cover band," and you cover Y-style song, it had better be done in Y-style. People play in cover bands to get to play out. It's not about pushing the limits of art, but then, real life is rarely ever about that anyway. And frankly, if you are in an original band that sounds just like all of the other original bands from your specified genre, then what's the difference, fundamentally?


----------



## wankerness (Jul 9, 2018)

With a thread like this where the topic is still relevant I don't really see the problem with a necro. Unless you're like, trying to argue against something presented 6 years ago  I bumped a thread from years ago the other day cause it was just the name of an artist, and it bugs me when there are multiple threads about the same band floating around. Maybe there's something wrong with me.

Regardless, cover bands drive me nuts, but often they drive the musicians in the band nuts, too! I know a guy here in town that's a Dream Theater die-hard (he has a bunch of the Ernie Ball signatures and even the picasso guitar sig from the Awake era, he can play basically every song in their catalog, he's also into some djent, etc) who just plain does not play anything he likes, ever, because he says things like "we have to play songs that people like!!!" He had to play non-ironic covers of Crazy Bitch and Break Stuff the last time I saw him.


----------



## JohnIce (Jul 9, 2018)

I think people don't like cover bands because unlike original bands, they can absolutely misinterpret a great song and perform it in a tasteless/overly pep/overly dramatic, fake emotional way that the original songwriter never would have. If an original band has shitty taste they'll write shitty songs and that's that, I can still respect the hustle even if I don't like it. They're not hurting anybody. But a cover band with shitty taste can take truly great, emotionally charged songs that people have a deep connection and love for, and ruin them completely, smiling and dancing like idiots while doing it. And on the off chance that some people DO enjoy it, if anything it's an even greater credit to the original songwriter, not the cover band.

This applies not only to party bands but also EVERY SINGLE YOUTUBE METALCORE COVER OF FAMOUS POP SONGS!! Can't stress this enough, no matter how good your band is, if you fucking start metalcore screaming over Ed Sheeran's latest hit song your band is complete shit and you should have your knuckles whipped and your car keyed and your cat shaved. You shitheel. STOP IT.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Jul 9, 2018)

JohnIce said:


> This applies not only to party bands but also EVERY SINGLE YOUTUBE METALCORE COVER OF FAMOUS POP SONGS!! Can't stress this enough, no matter how good your band is, if you fucking start metalcore screaming over Ed Sheeran's latest hit song your band is complete shit and you should have your knuckles whipped and your car keyed and your cat shaved. You shitheel. STOP IT.


This is seriously probably the worst thing to happen to heavy music since Disturbed made a second album. Those covers are the worst fucking thing ever.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Jul 9, 2018)

wankerness said:


> With a thread like this where the topic is still relevant I don't really see the problem with a necro. Unless you're like, trying to argue against something presented 6 years ago  I bumped a thread from years ago the other day cause it was just the name of an artist, and it bugs me when there are multiple threads about the same band floating around. Maybe there's something wrong with me.
> 
> Regardless, cover bands drive me nuts, but often they drive the musicians in the band nuts, too! I know a guy here in town that's a Dream Theater die-hard (he has a bunch of the Ernie Ball signatures and even the picasso guitar sig from the Awake era, he can play basically every song in their catalog, he's also into some djent, etc) who just plain does not play anything he likes, ever, because he says things like "we have to play songs that people like!!!" He had to play non-ironic covers of Crazy Bitch and Break Stuff the last time I saw him.



This post made me so sad.


----------



## MFB (Jul 9, 2018)

GunpointMetal said:


> This is seriously probably the worst thing to happen to heavy music since Disturbed made a second album. Those covers are the worst fucking thing ever.



Excuse you, but "Believe" is a solid album from start to finish to this day.

Also, fuck Weezer for their shitty fucking TOTO covers. Africa was good until those fucking hacks came and sucked all the life out of it into a monotune joke. And how do you fuck up the drum groove from Roseanna? If you ask their drummer, he'll say "easily," and then proceed to do it. Fucking, eat shit Weezer.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 9, 2018)

MFB said:


> fucking TOTO covers


Is it just me, or has everyone and their cousin covered this recently?


----------



## JohnIce (Jul 9, 2018)

TedEH said:


> Is it just me, or has everyone and their cousin covered this recently?



Maybe it's going through the same thing that Journey did with Don't Stop Believing a few years ago. Massive surge in popularity 30 years after release.

Not complaining, Toto is the tits  I actually did a full-on Toto tribute gig with a 9-piece band a few years ago, 20-ish songs, definitely the most difficult gig I've ever done (Steve Lukather is a monster), but fun as hell! Two keyboardists, dedicated percussionist, 5 singers, would hate to tour like that but as a one-off it was a blast


----------



## toolsound (Jul 9, 2018)

All of the arguments against cover bands are ridiculous and easily countered. For example:

"Cover bands only care about money, and that's lame."

1. How do you know they only care about money? Maybe they also enjoy playing music and getting laid.
2. Even if they do, who cares? Most humans want to enjoy their work and make some cash to support themselves. If cover bands can do that, I say good for them!
3. If you care about the money side of things, you should also be angry at the audiences paying to attend these shows, the venues hosting them, etc. 
4. There are probably plenty of "original music" bands that also continue playing shows just to make money. I bet plenty of bands get tired of being on tour, but they want/need that almighty dollar.
5. There is no 5. Time to stop holding this terrible and wrong opinion.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 10, 2018)

The guy who wrote "Africa" had not been to Africa prior to writing the song. He was relating things he heard about Africa from missionaries in Catholic school. Does that mean Toto is akin to a cover band?


----------



## TedEH (Jul 10, 2018)

I'm pretty sure that most of the "arguments against cover bands" are just resentment at the fact that there's more "success"/money to be made in covers than in the original music that we (sometimes incorrectly) think of as being less effort. Blend that in with some snobbery and gatekeeping over whether or not you're a "real musician" if you don't write everything that you play yourself. It's pretty transparent, IMO. Making music is a venture in which most definitions of success are hard to come by, so naturally we're going to resent those who are doing well for themselves on some level, especially if we can find an easy way to "prove" that we're "better than them".

Here's some food for thought - lots of bands only have one song-writer or have been playing the same songs for years. If you join an original band, learn all their material, then go play shows with them, is that really any better than covering an established song? The majority of people in the band are still just playing music that someone else came up with. I'm all for giving good song writers credit where it's due, but even in "original" bands, it's incredibly common that not everyone contributed to the writing, and/or that you just keep "playing the hits" forever. Two of the bands I'm in still play songs they wrote 10 years ago.


----------



## wankerness (Jul 10, 2018)

I am envious of people that apparently live in an area where anyone will even BOOK a non-cover band!


----------



## GunpointMetal (Jul 10, 2018)

The only thing I think is dumb is charging a door/ticket price for cover/tribute acts. To me that's like paying $5/$10/$15 to be in a place that has a jukebox.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 10, 2018)

Taking it one step further, Led Zeppelin was one of the most successful rock bands ever, and a huge portion of their songs, particularly early on, were either covers of other people's music or rip offs of other people's music. The first album, for example:

"Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" by "traditional, arranged by Jimmy Page," sounds a hell of a lot like "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" written by Anne Bredon and performed by Joan Baez, just transposed down a whole step. The band was widely known to have been fans of Baez.
"Dazed and Confused" by Jimmy Page sounds a hell of a lot like "Dazed and Confused" by Jake Holmes. This was the song where Page famously played his guitar with a violin bow. The "other" song was played by Holmes on a cello. Holmes had performed the song as opening act for the Yardbirds, a band for which Page played bass at the time.
"Black Mountain Side" by Jimmy Page sounds very similar to "Down by Blackwaterside" by Burt Jansch. Al Steward was performing a cover of the Burt Jansch song, but in DADGAD tuning. Page was a session player in Steward's band around that time, too. Coincidentally, the Led Zeppelin version was in DADGAD tuning.
"How Many More Times" by Led Zeppelin is almost exactly the same main riff as "How Many More Years" by Howlin Wolf. The band was accused of ripping off numerous songs from Howlin Wolf. Later parts in the song exactly quote "The Hunter" by Booker T. Jones and both "Beck's Bolero" and "The Shapes of Things" by Jeff Beck, the former of which Page was a session guitarist in the studio and the latter which Page played along side Beck in the Yardbirds, none of which were credited.

Take away the credited cover songs, and that leaves three songs that were original, as far as we currently know.

Now, before you condemn me as a Zeppelin hater or whatever, that's not really where I'm going with this...

Even though the band ripped off all of those lyrics and riffs, which was dishonest as hell, they still played each song on the album in a way that no one had before them, so they still were "original" in the sense that they offered something new.

Every band ever has taken ideas from somewhere outside of the band itself, so there is no black&white divide between "covers" and "originals," but rather, a spectrum in between two ends of a continuum. If you want to compare bands and chart them as "more original" and "less original," then that's fine, but I guarantee that the "most original" bands out there are not going to be you guys' favourite bands.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 10, 2018)

GunpointMetal said:


> The only thing I think is dumb is charging a door/ticket price for cover/tribute acts. To me that's like paying $5/$10/$15 to be in a place that has a jukebox.



Depending on mood, I really enjoy live music. If the band isn't bad: decent song selection and solid playing, I don't have a problem dropping a little bit of cash at the door. Supporting your local music scene isn't a bad thing.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Jul 10, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Depending on mood, I really enjoy live music. If the band isn't bad: decent song selection and solid playing, I don't have a problem dropping a little bit of cash at the door. Supporting your local music scene isn't a bad thing.


When I'm "supporting the local scene" I think of it more like buying art, and I'm not paying for a remakes of classic paintings. I do go to 1-4 shows a week with original bands and smaller touring bands that come through, so its not like I'm not supporting the scene. If a bar/venue things that a Talking Heads tribute act is gonna bring enough people to keep the bar busy (and they do, they bring a lot of people) then THEY can pay for the entertainment for the night. I'd rather pay $15 and take a chance on something I've never heard before then spend that same money KNOWING that 2/3 of the playlist is gonna be lame as fuck with a classic/modern rock cover band.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 10, 2018)

GunpointMetal said:


> When I'm "supporting the local scene" I think of it more like buying art, and I'm not paying for a remakes of classic paintings. I do go to 1-4 shows a week with original bands and smaller touring bands that come through, so its not like I'm not supporting the scene. If a bar/venue things that a Talking Heads tribute act is gonna bring enough people to keep the bar busy (and they do, they bring a lot of people) then THEY can pay for the entertainment for the night. I'd rather pay $15 and take a chance on something I've never heard before then spend that same money KNOWING that 2/3 of the playlist is gonna be lame as fuck with a classic/modern rock cover band.



If I'm hearing it, and digging it, I'm cool paying for it. And if I don't at all enjoy it, I'm just out a few dollars that went to supporting local music.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 10, 2018)

GunpointMetal said:


> The only thing I think is dumb is charging a door/ticket price for cover/tribute acts.


But you're not paying for the songs, you're paying for the performance at that point. Do you also not tip buskers because they didn't write their songs? Who wrote the song isn't the point.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Jul 10, 2018)

Honestly, I only tip buskers if I stop to listen, and I'm probably not gonna stop to listen if its a cover song, unless its in a wildly different style or something, and at that point, its barely a cover. I'm not opposed to cover SONGS. I like it when a band can take something that's outside their wheelhouse and make it into something that sounds like them. I just don't get any enjoyment from bands that just do one band's catalog/set and dress up like the band, or classic/modern rock covers that are just playing straight-ahead covers of the same songs that have been all over the radio for the last 50 years. At least the tribute acts are actually putting on a show, and if you're really into the band and they don't tour anymore I can see someone paying for that experience (someone who isn't me, anyways). But a full-on cover band is literally background noise to a place to get a few beers, and I'm not paying extra for that environment. I'll go someplace where a cover band is playing to hang out or something, but I'm definitely not paying to get in. Maybe that makes me an asshole, I don't care, to me that's like a bar saying "Hey, we have house music playing over the stereo tonight, $10 cover!".


----------



## TedEH (Jul 10, 2018)

GunpointMetal said:


> "Hey, we have house music playing over the stereo tonight, $10 cover!"


Correct me if I'm wrong, but bars that play music (be it bands, or just cds or whatever) are supposed to pay a licensing fee for those things, aren't they? And that cost gets rolled into the price of your beer. So even if you're not paying for a cover, you're still paying, albeit very indirectly, to be entertained.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Jul 10, 2018)

TedEH said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but bars that play music (be it bands, or just cds or whatever) are supposed to pay a licensing fee for those things, aren't they? And that cost gets rolled into the price of your beer. So even if you're not paying for a cover, you're still paying, albeit very indirectly, to be entertained.


And that's how it should be. But I'm not paying an ADDITIONAL entrance fee.


----------



## JohnIce (Jul 10, 2018)

TedEH said:


> Here's some food for thought - lots of bands only have one song-writer or have been playing the same songs for years. If you join an original band, learn all their material, then go play shows with them, is that really any better than covering an established song? The majority of people in the band are still just playing music that someone else came up with. I'm all for giving good song writers credit where it's due, but even in "original" bands, it's incredibly common that not everyone contributed to the writing, and/or that you just keep "playing the hits" forever. Two of the bands I'm in still play songs they wrote 10 years ago.



For me it's about communication, really. Even a band that has only one songwriter, a revolving door of members and keeps playing 30 year old songs, still has a story to tell. They have an image and a vibe that they're communicating, basically a "brand". This obviously applies to solo artists too, for example Prince, Elton John, Ozzy, etc. That takes just as much effort to establish as the songs themselves, and elevates the music even higher. A cover band simply does not have that. To me, that's the big difference. When Tommy Thayer dresses up as Ace Frehley to do a KISS show he's still telling the story that is KISS, with everything that entails. A cover band playing Detroit Rock City at a bar, isn't doing 5% of that. So even if you are, say, Nicko McBrain (joined after the biggest record, has 1 measly songwriting credit after 36 years in Iron Maiden), I wouldn't compare that to being in a cover band at all.

Sure you have cover acts like Rodrigo y Gabriela, or Dirty Loops. They are absolutely telling their own story and are infusing a heap of creativity and originality into what they do. But this is obviously not the kind of cover acts that people tend to have an issue with in my experience.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 10, 2018)

JohnIce said:


> A cover band playing Detroit Rock City at a bar, isn't doing 5% of that.


You're also not paying the full ticket price to see KISS either.



JohnIce said:


> They have an image and a vibe that they're communicating, basically a "brand".


Cover bands also have this, but not in the same sense. There's a lot of work that goes into representing yourself as a business and establishing relationships with the venues you'd be working with regularly and things like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not by any means saying that watching a cover band is just as good as seeing the original artists play the same songs, I just am not behind getting all dismissive of cover bands for no good reason. It's not "easier" or "lazy", they're not lesser musicians, they don't get money just thrown at them for no reason, etc.


----------



## Strobe (Jul 10, 2018)

At some point, people stop seeking out new music and just want to hear the music of their youth on repeat. They start saying things like "music today sucks, it just does not compare to the good old days". I always found this very common tendency to be kind of sad. Cover bands cater to this listener.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think playing in a cover band is a bad thing. I have played/sang in several cover bands. I just kind of hope I do not ever become that guy who cannot appreciate new music. That guy is pretty common though, and playing for him/her pays better.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Jul 10, 2018)

I'm the lazy one because I don't wanna learn 400 songs, lol. You definitely have to have ability to be in a cover band, I just don't understand how we got the place where a cover band gets paid $1500 for a gig and a three band tour package is only worth $450.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 10, 2018)

Pshft, your average cover band isn't making anything near $1500/gig. Sure, some are, but those are extreme cases. Do we want to compare extreme high end of the pay scales between cover bands and original bands? Because that's likely not going to help your point.

Your garden variety cover band is probably making about $300/night, whereas your garden variety original band is probably not making anything. Either way, I don't get the hatred. I could get a job bartending somewhere halfway busy and probably make more in tips alone than I'd make splitting $300 with four buddies.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 10, 2018)

GunpointMetal said:


> I just don't understand how we got the place where a cover band gets paid $1500 for a gig


My gut reaction is just that they are serving a larger and more reliable audience. They're also playing in venues that can afford it. It's one thing to say "I value a band as x, so we should pay them x", but that money has to come from somewhere. Restaurant patrons potentially bring enough money into a place to support that model - but I don't think I've ever played a show that brought in enough money to justify that kind of payout. A $10 door charge and maybe a beer doesn't give you a lot of money to throw at what inevitably has to be multiple bands to get enough draw in to the venue in the first place.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Jul 10, 2018)

bostjan said:


> Your garden variety cover band is probably making about $300/night, whereas your garden variety original band is probably not making anything. Either way, I don't get the hatred. I could get a job bartending somewhere halfway busy and probably make more in tips alone than I'd make splitting $300 with four buddies.


The only cover bands around here working for $300/night only work on their buddies back porch for BBQs. 
What does a bartending job have to do with anything? I make a lot more at my day job then I ever will with music, too.


----------



## JohnIce (Jul 10, 2018)

TedEH said:


> Cover bands also have this, but not in the same sense. There's a lot of work that goes into representing yourself as a business and establishing relationships with the venues you'd be working with regularly and things like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not by any means saying that watching a cover band is just as good as seeing the original artists play the same songs, I just am not behind getting all dismissive of cover bands for no good reason. It's not "easier" or "lazy", they're not lesser musicians, they don't get money just thrown at them for no reason, etc.



Apples and oranges, I think. Representing yourself isn't in and of itself an artistic endeavour, anyone who's ever been to a job interview knows there's right and wrong ways to act/dress professionally. I'd equate the "image" of a cover band to that. The image of someone like Björk, Nick Cave, Sex Pistols or Meshuggah is something else entirely. For original artists that presentation is an integral part of the art, whereas for a cover band it literally is just a matter of looking professional and not turning anyone off. Two entirely different things in my opinion.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Jul 10, 2018)

JohnIce said:


> Apples and oranges, I think. Representing yourself isn't in and of itself an artistic endeavour, anyone who's ever been to a job interview knows there's right and wrong ways to act/dress professionally. I'd equate the "image" of a cover band to that. The image of someone like Björk, Nick Cave, Sex Pistols or Meshuggah is something else entirely. For original artists that presentation is an integral part of the art, whereas for a cover band it literally is just a matter of looking professional and not turning anyone off. Two entirely different things in my opinion.



Well said - it's 2 different end goals, 2 different services even. Cover band's job is to make sure the patrons at whatever establishment they are playing enjoy themselves, plain and simple. You do what you have to do. I've probably hindered a few cover bands i've been in because there is some stuff i just wont play, because i want to enjoy myself as well and once we hit like 50% songs I can't stand, I have to move on. Next cover band i join i'll probably say eff it and just play the so called "panty droppers" - because you can be playing a shit song, but if the crowd is rocking, that will make up for it!


----------



## TedEH (Jul 10, 2018)

Different sure. My point is not that those two are comparable directly, but that one stands in a similar place to the other for each type of band just in terms of doing-what-needs-to-be-done. In other words, as a response to "cover bands have it so easy cause they don't have to market themselves or have an image". They certainly do. And it's not necessarily easier. It's just a very different process.


----------



## JohnIce (Jul 10, 2018)

TedEH said:


> In other words, as a response to "cover bands have it so easy cause they don't have to market themselves or have an image". They certainly do. And it's not necessarily easier. It's just a very different process.



I would say it's a million times easier, but to each their own  I just rate creativity/innovation as inherently more difficult than anything that can be mimicked, practiced or conformed to, so in my world playing Flight of the Bumblebee at 300bpm is easier than coming up with the "Got Milk?" slogan, but that's just how I look at it. You certainly don't have to agree, we already established they're so different that it's hardly comparable.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 10, 2018)

JohnIce said:


> You certainly don't have to agree, we already established they're so different that it's hardly comparable.


I don't reaaaally agree, but you're right, it's not a meaningful comparison.

The meat of my point is just that I'm not big on being dismissive of cover bands as being "below us" for whatever reasons.

Edit: Arguably, I try not to be dismissive of whatever people like to do just in general. Because why sh*t on people for doing their thing?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Jul 10, 2018)

Here's my take:
*Cover bands don't get the 'rep' because it's kind of phoning it in.
*
If you want to make music, you have two options. You can either make your own, or play other people's. Both are a blast. Both take talent and ability, but different amounts of both.
I would argue that to create original pieces takes more talent, and to play covers (well) takes a bit more ability. Your phrasing needs to be dynamic and on point, your playing needs to be flexible, you need to be able to tone-match, etc. Doing your own thing doesn't necessarily require as much flexibility in the skill department.

What it does require, however, is a whole lot more work.
If you're creating and gigging your own music, it says something. Because in order for that to be, you need to create the music in the first place (already lost people like me, can't do it), then you need to record it which is either a significant time investment, or a noticeable monetary investment. Then you need to play show after show after show after show to amass any amount of following. GETTING that number of shows as a newer original band has got to be difficult, let alone managing to grab the interest of enough people to create even a local demand for your band. Your genre is polarizing, I don't care which one it is. There will be people that hate it. Your list of venues that will have you is limited. Getting your foot through the door taking this route is a pretty substantial undertaking.

If you're gigging with covers, it's a whole different ballgame.
You still need to play show after show until you make a name for yourself, but as a whole, you're a much safer quantity. If I own a bar and I want live music, am I going to bring on some guy's band that most of my patrons probably don't know and may not like? Or am I going to bring in the guys that are going to play Aerosmith and GNR?
With cover bands, you know that nobody is going to _dislike_ the music, and that's the biggest part- you want people to associate _happy thoughts_ with your venue. As a result, it's easier to get your foot through the door with a cover band. To pile on to that, it's a *lot *easier to get into mid-sized venues as well since the material is almost universally enjoyed. The end-game ceiling is way lower for sure, but now you're only talking about a sliver of bands. You also don't have to deal with recording, since none of it is even your material. There's less investment. It's lower risk for you, it's lower risk for the venues, and it's lower risk for the patrons. It's essentially gigging on 'easy mode,' and that's fine. Great way to jam with some mates, meet some people, enjoy your instrument, and make some side cash.

That's not to say that both don't take effort, and that making either one work is a small feat at all. They're just different animals.
And I don't think that it's 'hate' so much as it is just 'different.' Most musicians that I know think it's just *the absolute shit* that you play music at all, end of story (and take the occasional jab at studio wizards, I guess ). But I don't think anyone would argue that being an original band doesn't take _just a little bit more, _and people tend to recognize that.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 10, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> But I don't think anyone would argue that being an original band takes _just a little bit more_


I'm going to disagree. It doesn't take more. Different, yes. More, no. Just my .


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Jul 10, 2018)

TedEH said:


> I'm going to disagree. It doesn't take more. Different, yes. More, no. Just my .



I suppose, to an extent. That's largely the theme of what I was trying to say.
Different people find different things to be different levels of difficult (say that 10 times fast )

I stick to my stance that being your own band takes a bit extra, but I totally see what you're saying. It's a personal thing for each player, I think.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> And I don't think that it's 'hate' so much as it is just 'different.' Most musicians that I know think it's just *the absolute shit* that you play music at all, end of story



This is the take-home line from that post. Do you and don't trip about what other people are thinking because odds are they're actually in your corner on this one.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 10, 2018)

When you look at how many original acts out there consist of at least one member who doesn't have the foggiest clue of any music knowledge beyond the name of the instrument on which they are banging, I don't think you can really make any universal statements about how hard it is to be a part of an original band. 

In a cover band, if you are faking it, people will figure that out pretty much instantly, and your band will promptly run out of opportunities. In an original band, it is possible to fake it for decades without tipping anyone off. Just look at Courtney Love's career.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 10, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> If you want to make music, you have two options.



Or, option three, you do both like just about every musician in a "professional" cover or tribute band I've ever known or talked to. 

I don't know why everyone seems set on making this an "either/or" situation. 

If you want to be a professional musician you need to branch out and take all kinds of gigs, whether that means being a bar cover band, doing weddings, recording, being a touring hired gun, etc. They're all tools to keep making money from playing.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Jul 10, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Or, option three, you do both like just about every musician in a "professional" cover or tribute band I've ever known or talked to.
> 
> I don't know why everyone seems set on making this an "either/or" situation.



I don't disagree, the question is just phrased in a binary fashion.
And either way, realistically, you have your 'main' project that you prioritize.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 10, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know why everyone seems set on making this an "either/or" situation.



Not me. 



bostjan said:


> there is no black&white divide between "covers" and "originals," but rather, a spectrum in between two ends of a continuum.



I spent pretty much my entire teens and twenties in both cover and original bands. Playing music is fun, playing music with other people is more fun. Playing music with other groups of other people is most fun.  I even played in a country band for a time, and I am certainly not an avid listener of the genre, but playing 4 different instruments with the same band was really fun, even if most of the songs only had 3-5 chords total in them.


----------



## MrBouleDeBowling (Jul 10, 2018)

I don't hold these bands in low regards. They want to play the classics and they love playing their instruments. They'll play gigs, parties, wedding, local fests not related to music and have a blast doing it. That's fine. 

I'm more sad/jealous about people not giving two shits about a local artist pouring his heart and soul into creating something because they only want to hear the Enter Sandman/Back In Black/Smell Like Teen Spirits kind of songs that a bazillion cover bands already play.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 11, 2018)

On some level I think I have almost more respect for people who pull off the cover band thing. The members of original bands I've spent time with, on average, are more lazy (in terms of music, not in general per se), have much less realistic goals, expect a lot more of the people around them without giving them much to work with, etc. I'm generalizing of course, but most of the people I've met who play original stuff don't treat it very professionally at all. Some do, of course. But in my very limited experience, most don't.


----------



## Sogradde (Jul 11, 2018)

JohnIce said:


> This applies not only to party bands but also EVERY SINGLE YOUTUBE METALCORE COVER OF FAMOUS POP SONGS!! Can't stress this enough, no matter how good your band is, if you fucking start metalcore screaming over Ed Sheeran's latest hit song your band is complete shit and you should have your knuckles whipped and your car keyed and your cat shaved. You shitheel. STOP IT.


This hurt.


----------



## Riffer (Jul 12, 2018)

I'm in a successful cover band and it's really just a ton of fun but also a shit ton of work. We play clubs/bars/casinos and in the last 2 years gotten into more weddings and private events. Dealing with a constant changing song list can be very daunting. Trying to learn new songs fast and have them ready for gigs while also making sure we still can pull out any of our other 150-200 songs at a moments notice takes a lot of work from each member of the band. We sometimes travel 2 1/2 hours one way to play at a club that doesn't provide sound or lights. We invested in our own lights so we have to lug those around and set everything up ourselves. Sometimes its a 12 hour (or more) day when doing a wedding or private event after travel time, setting up, waiting around to play, playing for 3-4 hours, tearing down, loading out, and traveling back home. I am regularly getting home at 4-5am.

Someone mentioned the pay that cover bands get. For clubs we make anywhere from $1,300-$2,500. For weddings/privates we make anywhere from $4,000-$10,000. I love being in a cover band. It has helped me pay for a lot of cool stuff I've wanted and I've made tons of great friends from playing out in the cover scene and I've gotten a lot better as a player just being able to play a wide range of songs from different genres. All the players in my band are great at their instruments and all have music theory training. I'm actually the only one that was self taught. We combine songs and make mashups or long medleys and bring it every night when it comes to energy. You have to keep the party going for 4 hours and that can be tough sometimes but with the money we get paid we need to be on our game at all times.


----------



## wankerness (Jul 12, 2018)

Riffer said:


> I'm in a successful cover band and it's really just a ton of fun but also a shit ton of work. We play clubs/bars/casinos and in the last 2 years gotten into more weddings and private events. Dealing with a constant changing song list can be very daunting. Trying to learn new songs fast and have them ready for gigs while also making sure we still can pull out any of our other 150-200 songs at a moments notice takes a lot of work from each member of the band. We sometimes travel 2 1/2 hours one way to play at a club that doesn't provide sound or lights. We invested in our own lights so we have to lug those around and set everything up ourselves. Sometimes its a 12 hour (or more) day when doing a wedding or private event after travel time, setting up, waiting around to play, playing for 3-4 hours, tearing down, loading out, and traveling back home. I am regularly getting home at 4-5am.
> 
> Someone mentioned the pay that cover bands get. For clubs we make anywhere from $1,300-$2,500. For weddings/privates we make anywhere from $4,000-$10,000. I love being in a cover band. It has helped me pay for a lot of cool stuff I've wanted and I've made tons of great friends from playing out in the cover scene and I've gotten a lot better as a player just being able to play a wide range of songs from different genres. All the players in my band are great at their instruments and all have music theory training. I'm actually the only one that was self taught. We combine songs and make mashups or long medleys and bring it every night when it comes to energy. You have to keep the party going for 4 hours and that can be tough sometimes but with the money we get paid we need to be on our game at all times.



I know that's all true, but basically what you're saying is mostly still true of being in a band that plays original music, only you get more gigs, get paid a lot more, and don't have to devote any time to writing! Well, the 4 hour gig thing isn't true, no one would want to listen to an original band for that long and they wouldn't have enough material besides. And, obviously you have more songs to draw from.  If I was in a cover band again I'd have to put together a "real book" that had all the riffs. My memory sucks compared to when I was a high schooler.


----------



## sevenfoxes (Jul 12, 2018)

I actually think it's way easier to write and play your own songs. You get to do whatever you want to do. There's a certain freedom to it that makes it a lot more enjoyable.

With covers, you have to spend time not just learning all the notes of a song, but how those notes are played, and what techniques are being implied. It's difficult because every musician has their own style, and you have to learn how to mimic that style. You have to memorize the song so well that you actually get sick of hearing it. It can become fatiguing. You also have to have a versitile rig, and figure out what sounds, settings, and fx work best for any given cover. Of course, none of this is true if you are just doing some crappy garage band rendition, but to be a serious cover band, you have to care about attributes of asong that you never really thought about before.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 12, 2018)

You could sort of do the same thing the other way around. Original bands don't need to organize constantly-rotating set lists, play really long sets, less often need to provide full PA/gear, spend less time nailing riffs that people are going to be criticizing them for "playing wrong", spending time tone-matching a bunch of different sounds, marketing yourself out to event organizers etc. I sort of see it being a lot more formal and business-like, as opposed to the very loose approach of original bands where you can just chill and play music when you feel like it for the most part.


----------



## wankerness (Jul 12, 2018)

JohnIce said:


> Apples and oranges, I think. Representing yourself isn't in and of itself an artistic endeavour, anyone who's ever been to a job interview knows there's right and wrong ways to act/dress professionally. I'd equate the "image" of a cover band to that. The image of someone like Björk, Nick Cave, Sex Pistols or Meshuggah is something else entirely. For original artists that presentation is an integral part of the art, whereas for a cover band it literally is just a matter of looking professional and not turning anyone off. Two entirely different things in my opinion.



Well, there are some cover bands out there, mainly ones of 80s hair metal or like, Kiss songs, that do have to be all about the look as well. I guess they didn't have to come up with it themselves, though?


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Jul 12, 2018)

Haven't read much of the recent posts, but I sort of resent covers. I love doing them, but I hate spending a couple hours recording a cover and it getting hundreds of thousands of views, meanwhile my original songs, which I spend days/weeks writing and recording just sort of fester and get like 90 views. It's a little disheartening and shows the effort gap. You don't have to market covers nearly as heavily as original music. The fact that it's known material sort of gives it a pre-baked amount of exposure.


----------



## crazyprofessor (Jul 12, 2018)

I tried to do original bands for the longest time. I really wanted to and I still do. I just could never hook up with anyone who was not a complete flake. 

I am 49 now and perhaps the train left the station on my dream of becoming a rockstar, so I've been in coverbands for the last 7-8 years. It works, in the sense that it allows me to be on a stage and play and have fun. I try to infuse my own original, improvised leads to the extent possible. Still longing for an original band though. 

I also take some condescending shit from "original" bands. I say "original" because if your idea of original is to play 1-4-5 blues songs all night and still feel the need to look down at coverbands, fuck you ;-).


----------



## JohnIce (Jul 13, 2018)

wankerness said:


> Well, there are some cover bands out there, mainly ones of 80s hair metal or like, Kiss songs, that do have to be all about the look as well. I guess they didn't have to come up with it themselves, though?



Yeah, that's kind of what I'm getting at  Coming up with something vs. simply copying it is such a significant difference to me, regardless of how much effort and skill it took to make a faithful copy. I'm sure a lot of Kiss cover bands have better players than Gene Simmons  It goes for original bands too, Trivium is a great example that being skilled enough to do Metallica better than Metallica still won't make you as popular as Metallica.


----------



## RichRuss (Sep 1, 2019)

dacookster said:


> Just curious---there seems to be a slight degree of
> 
> 'I play original music therefore everyone that plays covers is lowlife' sentiment.
> 
> Why?



The _original_ vs _cover_ music is a great debate that will determine the very survival of music as an art form.
_True_ art is an original creation. True musicians create original music. It's easy to learn a cover song because someone else did the _real_ work of creating it. Copy cats experience a vicarious pseudo-star fantasy, which is reinforced by peer pressure and brain-dead bar drunks' thirst for cover songs.

It's _way way_ harder to develop your own artistic talent in a world where audiences demand bands to be human jukeboxes (the tail wagging the dog). Being a true artist is a daunting challenge. The isolation and fear of rejection causes most people to sacrifice their artistic integrity like sniveling cowards. So the vast majority of musicians only play cover songs and the vast majority of gigs hire only cover bands.

This ubiquitous practice has engendered a copycat culture and the inevitable demise of music. As music goes, so goes the future of humanity. The perpetrators live in denial leading us in a headlong rush on a downward spiral into the abyss. A keen creative culture is imperative and artists are ultimately responsible for the state of the art, and our last best hope for survival on earth.


----------



## c7spheres (Sep 1, 2019)

RichRuss said:


> The _original_ vs _cover_ music is a great debate that will determine the very survival of music as an art form.
> _True_ art is an original creation. True musicians create original music. It's easy to learn a cover song because someone else did the _real_ work of creating it. Copy cats experience a vicarious pseudo-star fantasy, which is reinforced by peer pressure and brain-dead bar drunks' thirst for cover songs.
> 
> It's _way way_ harder to develop your own artistic talent in a world where audiences demand bands to be human jukeboxes (the tail wagging the dog). Being a true artist is a daunting challenge. The isolation and fear of rejection causes most people to sacrifice their artistic integrity like sniveling cowards. So the vast majority of musicians only play cover songs and the vast majority of gigs hire only cover bands.
> ...


 Amen, Preach on brother : ) It's vastly more difficult to write an original song that is considered good or good enough by not only others, but by your own standards than it is to play a cover song. A cover song can be obtained by just about anyone willing to put in the time and effort to gain the physical/technical skill required to do it. Creating art from nothing and from within yourself is a totally different thing. 
- This is where I've always drawn the line between a musician and an artist. The mind is different. A musician can play covers and even write original music, good music even, but they never seem to be vested in the emotional / spritual connections involved. An artist creates because they have an actual need to do it. They do it regardless if anyone ever sees or hears what they did. They do it alone and have no care for if they ever make it "big" etc. They create what they create and then when comfortable or in need of cash put it out there to see what can be done with it and how it does. They don't write with the market/ audience in mind. They write with whatever is in their mind in mind. Not to put down on musicans or artists in any way though. Everyone has their thing its just one way of looking at it.


----------



## MetalHex (Sep 1, 2019)

Cover bands.....this does not include tribute bands right? I wouldnt ever care to go see a Metallica cover band because Metallica is still alive and well.

But last week I saw the Austrailian Pink Floyd band and it was one of the greatest shows I've ever been to; (of course Pink Floyd is kinda all done as a band IMO without Waters, Gilmour and Wright playing together.)

A couple years ago I saw Rain, a Beatles tribute band. Again, amazing. 

But yeah, a cover band of a band that is still alive and well is weak.


----------



## RichRuss (Sep 1, 2019)

Across the board, from education to entertainment, the widespread predominance of cover songs has crippled the creative culture. Because musicians spend all their time playing cover songs there's no time left to create new originals. Since original talent takes way more time to develop, it needs more nurturing by musicians and society at large. Unfortunately, the exact opposite is happening and the art of music, and culture in general, is withering on the vine. As music goes, so goes the future of humanity. 

The life of any form of art depends on a robust creative culture, but instead we have an army of artificial clones making a mockery of music. Whether it's due to apathy or ignorance, no one seems to know or care about the critical condition. Though marginalized as a trivial hobby, Art is truly the last best hope for survival of our species. Artists are responsible for the state of the art and will decide the fate.


----------



## c7spheres (Sep 1, 2019)

My song I write admittedly aren't radio ready/popular type songs, but I get so much more satisfaction creating than parroting covers. I stopped learning covers long ago. If anything I just learn a riff I hear if I really like it.


----------



## Demiurge (Sep 1, 2019)

So, what's the take if one were to argue that the idea of the "singer/songwriter/exclusive performer of their own music" is really something that's only several decades old? Should we be scolding performers of classical music, theatrical musicals, big band jazz, along with the poor guy playing Mustang Sally at the pub to keep his electricity on?

Perhaps there is the inconvenient truth that making it in music doesn't always involve becoming a celebrated independent artist. Maybe it involves a grind that includes playing music that someone else wrote to a willing audience. That's not the death of art or culture- that_ is_ art and culture.


----------



## gnoll (Sep 1, 2019)

Demiurge said:


> So, what's the take if one were to argue that the idea of the "singer/songwriter/exclusive performer of their own music" is really something that's only several decades old? Should we be scolding performers of classical music, theatrical musicals, big band jazz, along with the poor guy playing Mustang Sally at the pub to keep his electricity on?
> 
> Perhaps there is the inconvenient truth that making it in music doesn't always involve becoming a celebrated independent artist. Maybe it involves a grind that includes playing music that someone else wrote to a willing audience. That's not the death of art or culture- that_ is_ art and culture.



To put a subjective spin on it though, is that what music/art _should _be?

Is it preferable for music be a lame, boring job that people do for minimum wage because they have to, playing music that someone else wrote, not because they like it, but because they must in order to survive?

OR is it preferable for music to be something that people create because they are passionate about it and have a real artistic vision? Because they really have a want or even a need to create something special and worthwhile that they can actually be proud of?

People can play covers if they like to, or if they need the income from it, or for whatever reason. But it does sadden me a bit that there's not more artistic integrity in this world than there is. Few people seem to care about actually creating something. I think that's a shame.


----------



## Demiurge (Sep 1, 2019)

^Is it a matter of "artistic integrity"? Composing is fun and challenging- even people who are great instrumentalists might not excel at it. It seems unfair to imply that those who play covers have less integrity. 

Also, I think that the entire argument about value of music & culture being denigrated is based on a false premise. Music is a part of many people's lives all over the world. Nearly anything anyone wants to hear is a few mouse-clicks or phone-taps away. Recording music is more accessible than it ever has been. There is so much music out there- original music- that one could probably go the rest of their life without hearing the same composition twice. What's the deficiency? Is it the not-so-subtle implication that the "right" kinds of music aren't popular enough.


----------



## gnoll (Sep 1, 2019)

Demiurge said:


> What's the deficiency? Is it the not-so-subtle implication that the "right" kinds of music aren't popular enough.



I mean I guess this is part of it, although I feel no need to be subtle about it?

I wish most music and other forms of art/culture I come across didn't strike me as bland and uninspired. And I wish that the relatively few things that _don't_ strike me as bland and uninspired were appreciated to a larger degree.

Again, people can play covers if they want to, that's fine. But I think the world would be a bit more interesting if people used that time and energy to create something original. In the same way I wish movie budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars weren't used to remake movies that already exist, but rather to try and tell a new, original story that came from someone with some sort of artistic vision.

I can't subscribe to the notion that there is "enough" music and art out there and that it doesn't matter. To me it does matter.


----------



## MetalHex (Sep 1, 2019)

Do you blame the band's, or the fans? You know theres usually a good demand for cover bands. Musicians realized they can make decent money playing songs that people want to here, so they supply that music. All of the cougars that are going out on ladies night, reminiscing about their high school days, want to hear the music of Bon Jovi, Heart, Def Leppard for nostalgic reasons mainly. I would imagine they wouldnt go out for ladies night to watch some band theyve never heard of doing songs they dont know.

Do you wonder why theres so much degenerate shows on TV with so much love affairs and violence and profanity instead of beautiful, moral, nurturing material? It's because they have high ratings from viewers. So, its a two way street.

"Art is truly the last best hope for survival of our species. Artists are responsible for the state of the art and will decide the fate."

I largely agree with this. Without going on a rant, Imo, in the coming deacdes, art will become less and less, less pure and creative and more nonsensical rubbish


----------



## gnoll (Sep 1, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Do you blame the band's, or the fans? You know theres usually a good demand for cover bands. Musicians realized they can make decent money playing songs that people want to here, so they supply that music. All of the cougars that are going out on ladies night, reminiscing about their high school days, want to hear the music of Bon Jovi, Heart, Def Leppard for nostalgic reasons mainly. I would imagine they wouldnt go out for ladies night to watch some band theyve never heard of doing songs they dont know.



I don't "blame" anybody. I just think it would be nice if people had more interest in creating things and more appreciation for said created things, is all.



MetalHex said:


> Do you wonder why theres so much degenerate shows on TV with so much love affairs and violence and profanity instead of beautiful, moral, nurturing material? It's because they have high ratings from viewers. So, its a two way street.



Beautiful, moral, nurturing material sounds pretty lame to be fair, lol. I think sex, violence and profanity on TV is great if it's in line with the creator's vision.


----------



## c7spheres (Sep 1, 2019)

- It's like the difference of looking at an art print or recreation of a painting vs the real deal. It's just not as satisfying, and the creator's mind is in a totally different place probably too. Nothing wrong with it other than it's just not satisfying. 
-As another example I'd rather hear the Lynryd Skynyrd version of Simple Man than the Shine Down version every single time, though the Shine Down version arguably has better production, better singer (technical skills) etc. The Shine Down version sounds forced, fake, processed, exaggerated etc to me and really turns me off. The singer just doesn't "get it" , imo, I get no emotional content/ feeling from it. In fact it annoys me. The original version really touches me. If I had a doll I'd show you where on the doll they touched me : )
- An example of a band that did a respectable and as good as anyone could ask job on a cover to me and "gets it" was the Pantera Planet Caravan cover. It was really good and payed tribute.
- There's to many bands hopping on the cover song gravy train like Shine Down, Disturbed etc. and go to any bar and whether it's rock , hip hop etc. Almost everything is a cover. It's a way to gain recognition of other bands/ artists hard work and all it requires in most cases is a good marketing campaign and auto-tune plugins. The rest can be outsourced by hired guns.


----------



## Karmaic (Sep 1, 2019)

Personally, I dont have anything against cover bands. But Ill never pay money or go out of my way to listen to a cover band. If I want to hear a song, Ill play the real thing on my iphone. 

Original bands however, Ill go out of my way to listen to one. I want to hear new music. New bands. Or original bands that I like. 

If youre in an original band and its just not getting any traction, keep at it. Play more shows. Upload more content on social media. Have all your friends share it/repost it. Just keep plugging away. If youre good, good as in, the music sounds good, youll eventually get noticed. Especially in this day and age with the internet. Dont get discouraged because you didnt get signed after your first 3 gigs.


----------



## Smoked Porter (Sep 2, 2019)

RichRuss said:


> The _original_ vs _cover_ music is a great debate that will determine the very survival of music as an art form.



Not really. This topic is about as important and interesting as the pineapple vs no pineapple on pizza debate.


----------



## Aumann (Sep 2, 2019)

Not that i hate cover bands for doing this, but in general they are paid better than musicians who make original music and on often are even placed above bands with original music in the lineup. Logical if you think about it, as its easier to entertain people with music they know, but still, leaves a bitter taste. 

They also tend to equate what they are doing with creative bands, while they skip the hardest part: writing good songs. Like DJ's i consider them entertainers more than artists, as there's not much creativity in the entire process. 

It's also just not interesting to listen to for me, as i want to discover cool stuff i haven't heard. 

That said, everyone can do whatever he/she likes.


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 2, 2019)

I reread a few of the contributions to this topic and one interesting question was:
"What's different between a cover band and a theatre troupe playing shakespeare".

Well, Shakespeare is dead, to begin with. To stick with music, most music authors are dead. A small percentage of them are still living and performing their own stuff, most of them performing modern music: rap, rock, RnB etc.

How will it pan out in the future ?* We don't know. One of the main differences between authors of the past is that they didn't record their music themselves, because of a lack of technical options to do so. Today's artists are recorded, filmed, and their performances will be available forever. Will there be Metallica cover bands in 100 years or will people be content with watching the low-res 21st century videos ? Meanwhile, all of our recorded Beethoven music will be covers.
The cover vs own music debate arose with the birth of recorded music and is something that won't last, it's just popular because of the newness of the situation. Soon dust will settle. Over time more and more artists will get recorded and the pre-recording era of music will disappear farther and farther in time.

*Musician's answer: left or right


----------



## NorCal_Val (Sep 4, 2019)

Karmaic said:


> Personally, I dont have anything against cover bands. But Ill never pay money or go out of my way to listen to a cover band. If I want to hear a song, Ill play the real thing on my iphone.
> 
> Original bands however, Ill go out of my way to listen to one. I want to hear new music. New bands. Or original bands that I like.



This.
(But I loathe “tribute” bands)


----------



## Ilia Tilev (Sep 4, 2019)

That can't be a serious question?


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 4, 2019)

Given my original work and the fact that I very happily play in an Iron Maiden tribute band, I find this sort of discourse incredibly amusing. I also do a lot of session work, which more often than not implies my own arrangements being in someone else's song, so is this some sort of "in between situation"?

There is no competition, the people out there watching that band play More Than a Feeling or You Give Love a Bad Name would NOT going go out there to see that lovely prog or death metal festival even if the Plague of Covers was to exterminate all cover bands in one fell swoop, yet I often hear people whinging they don't get spots as an original band BECAUSE of cover bands, as if the two aspects were competing in any way shape or form (I honestly find that that isn't the case at all in most countries I played in).

What I tend to see happening is that many bands or artists that do not succeed in scoring gigs or making a good enough profit from them from things to be sustainable are prone to finding the culprit outside of themselves: music scene is shit and only caters to discardable pop, cover bands are saturating the market, the world doesn't acknowledge their undisputable, supreme talent and artistry, you name it. More often than not, they let the emotional investment give way to self entitlement - the world basically owes them unfaltering devotion because they are so awesome. Never mind that they truly believed they would not need to do the grind in order to have a mere small chance of success, that for every successful act they see 10000 fell along the way and that generating and maintaining a career with one's own music implies a very solid and cleverly managed vision of business, because it is what is: art is lovely, but a career is your business, and you're the one to find solutions (in B4 "sellouts") to sell your product. Stagnation, believing you can take it a bit easier on the promotion side, neglecting the fanbase, sitting on your ass waiting to be booked, having unreal expectations of the size of the audience for your product, not understanding who and where your target audience is... these are just a few of the temptations that can kill the business side even before the band is steadily capable of going on the road, not to mention many bands, I'm sorry to say it, simply suck (it's fine if they're having fun, mind you), be it at playing, behaving professionally on the road, maintaining healthy relationships between themselves and with the venues, managers, road crews etc..

Fun fact: a bunch of people bought my original music at the Maiden tribute gigs, and they proactively asked me beforehand to bring the CDs along, and we are super keen on having good original bands opening for us since we tend to play for large audiences and it's a way for them to have a bigger pool of potential new fans - this shit is NOT a black and white situation in the slightest.


----------



## Aumann (Sep 4, 2019)

Fred the Shred said:


> Given my original work and the fact that I very happily play in an Iron Maiden tribute band, I find this sort of discourse incredibly amusing. I also do a lot of session work, which more often than not implies my own arrangements being in someone else's song, so is this some sort of "in between situation"?
> 
> There is no competition, the people out there watching that band play More Than a Feeling or You Give Love a Bad Name would NOT going go out there to see that lovely prog or death metal festival even if the Plague of Covers was to exterminate all cover bands in one fell swoop, yet I often hear people whinging they don't get spots as an original band BECAUSE of cover bands, as if the two aspects were competing in any way shape or form (I honestly find that that isn't the case at all in most countries I played in).
> 
> ...



While i largely agree with you, there is a core of truth in what the complainers (including myself) say, at least in Belgium where i play.
Smaller and upcoming bands do struggle to get past cover bands. Because cover bands just attract more audience. The mentality of many people in Belgium is: Why would i spend money on a band i don't know. There's no real desire to discover and they just want to sing along songs they know, which i fully understand.

It's just easier to get a lot of gigs and bigger gigs if you are a cover band because of that, so when cover band members brag about it, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of musicians who worked hard to write their own material. And this i understand also, everyone wants to achieve their dreams and probably believes in what they make.

That being said, as stated above, it's completely normal that people gravitate more towards songs they know. It's just a reality people have to accept, and past a certain point it isn't the case anymore. Once a certain fanbase is acquired and people gravitate to your shows, you're past the point of being put behind cover bands. So, indeed, it's just a matter of getting better at songwriting, playing live, getting better at promoting and entertaining good relationships with venues, other musicians etc... Anyone who says coverbands ruin the industry, is delusional.

Anyway, music is so diverse, it has so many different goals and everyone looks for something different in music. It's not hard to understand that and thus tolerate all forms of it. And always looking for black sheep to blame isn't productive.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 4, 2019)

Aumann said:


> While i largely agree with you, there is a core of truth in what the complainers (including myself) say, at least in Belgium where i play.
> Smaller and upcoming bands do struggle to get past cover bands. Because cover bands just attract more audience. The mentality of many people in Belgium is: Why would i spend money on a band i don't know. There's no real desire to discover and they just want to sing along songs they know, which i fully understand.
> 
> It's just easier to get a lot of gigs and bigger gigs if you are a cover band because of that, so when cover band members brag about it, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of musicians who worked hard to write their own material. And this i understand also, everyone wants to achieve their dreams and probably believes in what they make.
> ...



Whenever you are creating something, people will know nothing about it until you show it to them - that is why the internet has vastly improved one's chances of being heard beforehand, since you are not relying on a bunch of gatekeepers (which are a bloody constant in many scenes) to even have a chance to play Sleezy Jim's greasy joint for 20 drunk dudes. It's a matter of staying humble and working one's way up, and also of being very aware of how hard it is and how stacked the odds are against any new project coming out.

Contrary to original vs cover bands, however, there is a lot of competition for the same slots between cover bands. The better you are and the more you dominate your niche, the better your chances to make it, but since the songs exist already, there can always be a hot shot new kid on the block that can take business away from you, and that forces professional cover bands to always be on their toes and making sure the shows are flawlessly done and entertaining - it's a different market altogether in the end.



Aumann said:


> Anyway, music is so diverse, it has so many different goals and everyone looks for something different in music. It's not hard to understand that and thus tolerate all forms of it. And always looking for black sheep to blame isn't productive.



Yes - the problem typically resides in ourselves, be it on the choice of the style of music we play, our shortcomings on the execution or business fronts, or the inability to cope with the fact that some styles of music are bound to have a smaller target audience - in many cases, much, much smaller - than others. Of course you can have far greater difficulty depending on location, which brings the question: are you willing to relocate to a more favourable environment in which to thrive? If the answer is "no", which is absolutely understandable, then you need to work with what you have, knowing that you're bound to have a far smaller chance of success for the often inhuman effort you'll have to put into getting the band out there.


----------



## Aumann (Sep 4, 2019)

Fred the Shred said:


> knowing that you're bound to have a far smaller chance of success for the often inhuman effort you'll have to put into getting the band out there.



This part is something i witness repeatedly, especially when producing/recording local bands. Many just don't have a sound work ethic.
Especially nowadays, being a musician also goes hand in hand with being an entrepreneur. Being able to DIY your social media promotion, entertain contacts, create an image and atmosphere and ofcourse: write good songs. It's hard, and i think people underestimate it routinely. It requires a lot of dedication and acceptance of getting little to nothing in return for a long while apart from pleasure.
There's more bands out there than ever, so you need to stick out and give people a reason to be interested. That's something you'll only find through hard work.

But whoops... veering off topic here


----------



## Ilia Tilev (Sep 5, 2019)

Aumann said:


> While i largely agree with you, there is a core of truth in what the complainers (including myself) say, at least in Belgium where i play.
> Smaller and upcoming bands do struggle to get past cover bands. Because cover bands just attract more audience. The mentality of many people in Belgium is: Why would i spend money on a band i don't know. There's no real desire to discover and they just want to sing along songs they know, which i fully understand.



In my country it's the same thing.. People listen to the same old bad covers and they just attract more people.. If you have something original no one pays attention.. Seriously how many times you should play The Trooper in one concert?


----------



## GunpointMetal (Sep 5, 2019)

It's nothing to hold in low regard, and tribute bands require a lot of work. Not a fan of "Top 40 or the Last 40" bands though...you don't pay people to show up and do karaoke....why would you pay them to do it with instruments?


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 6, 2019)

Ilia Tilev said:


> Seriously how many times you should play The Trooper in one concert?



One.

As for people not paying attention to original music, that can be many things, which may include playing to the wrong target audience, poor performance, songs that fail to capture people's attention (and the opening couple of songs in particular are crucial for that), super niche genre which leads to having a lot more trouble and work to pinpoint the target audience, etc.. 

Some bands, by virtue of poor promotion or sheer bad luck with managing to have their promotion yield good results and the amount of word of mouth (or "shares", in internetish) to get the ball rolling, are unfortunately met with but a fraction of the success they'd deserve, but that is the way of things - 1 in some 10000 bands reaches the bare bones of the "made it" level, even less make it big and from that to super star status you're in firm "needle in a haystack" territory. But let us not kid ourselves here - we all know that most bands are simply not that good in at least one aspect that is necessary for continued success, and it's a lot easier to just point the finger at the evil cover bands / shit genres / sellouts / audience being uncultured swines / the world conspiring against us!


----------



## Tuned (Sep 6, 2019)

I got a new job and moved to a seaside resort city and rent a flat 600 yards from the public open promenade part of it, and it literally hurts to listen to the same covers every f---ng night whenever I walk our dog or go to bed. IDK if it is perfect with the visitors of the city when the they come every other day of their short vacations and hear the same stuff over and over, but for myself, after 8 months of this I 've had quite enough, thank you. I think I can discern a common song harmony now even on the edge of hearing.

On another note, I do agree many will stop to listen a song they know rather than intentionally spend 40 minutes of time on something they don't know; also, that many bands believe they can/would/will attract and retain attention if they play covers, and that they may be right there. But, if the OP intends to ask players why there is such attitude toward players, that is yet another thing. It is a mix of 'oh well, we both know I can do it no worse than you, but this belongs to none of us so why are you pulling the blanket toward yourself' and 'there's that great sweet moment coming...right now... wait, what?! you sc**d it!' and 'yeah... wannabe', and maybe something else. To me, I was lucky to see Dimebag Darrell on stage and jump off the stage (and unlucky to have their nazi bouncer gladly and nastily harm my thumb's joint), and then see Santana, and then see Dream Theater, and then open for HellRaiser - one of the bands I grew up to, and (almost!) open for Arch Enemy in my city (my band had the opportunity to but felt we were too fresh and not yet playing well 'together' to so we chose not to), but I can't recollect such or comparable emotions from anyone's cover band playing anyone's cover songs. I am sure even if Dream Theater played Dimebag or Arch Enemy played Dream Theater at an instance, It would've been cool but for one song.

In fact, Dimebag was already playing with Damagepan at the time, and they did play 'Walk' and let a guy from the audience sing, but that qualifies for one special kind of a cover I think. That was their only cover at the show too.
Now, how does the lyrics of 'Walk' go?

' You can't be something you're not,
Be yourself
By yourself
Stay away for me.
A lesson learned in life
Known from the dawn of time...

...Walk on home, boy!'


----------



## A-Branger (Sep 7, 2019)

GunpointMetal said:


> Not a fan of "Top 40 or the Last 40" bands though...you don't pay people to show up and do karaoke....why would you pay them to do it with instruments?



because its way far better than a DJ playing that track.

majority of those bands do gigs for weddings, events, corporate stuff. HAving aband is way better than just having a DJ. It might be the same music, but the vibe is different.


----------



## Exchanger (Sep 9, 2019)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> I've performed DT covers live (Metropolis, Pull me under and Erotomania). Last time I saw a DT cover was Tomera, they performed "Under a Glass Moon". Check them out, you might like 'em.



To-Mera is basically the prototype for Haken so they are de facto awesome 



MetalHex said:


> But last week I saw the Austrailian Pink Floyd band and it was one of the greatest shows I've ever been to



Actually the APFS is known for being the one example of a tribute band being really good, some even say better than the original. That being said they are also sometimes considered to be the exception to the rule.
Personally, as much as I enjoy Pink Floyd and The Wall, I don't really see the appeal of seeing some other guys do it, especially with a work that's so personal to the author (Waters). Then again it would be perfectly fine for a theater piece, so that's just some weird irrational standard I have there...and then it's also perfectly fine to see an orchestra play classical pieces.
As mentionned before, the "playing your own material vs someone else's" debate made no sense until recorded music was a thing. Before court composers who could put their name on a score, I guess most music was just learned by hear, through tradition, with folk standards that everyone would play in their own way, maybe exchanged via travelling minstrels...the boundary between creation and performance propabably didn't exist as we know it. Music as self-expression as opposed to music for entertainement purposes is probably also quite a modern concept.

A lot of us complain about lack of originality, or about the crowds only demanding the same re-hashed stuff, yet how many of us go see art movies instead of just your go-to blockbusters ? Maybe some of you actually support your local movie-making or theater scene, but my point is that we as musicians are looking for something specific in music and have mostly grown tired of the popular / radio /top 50 / you name it stuff - for some of us who have been immersed in less mainstream music since youth, we never even started to like it. But that's not what the average listener wants. We can't blame them for it and to say that non-musicians are never curious or patient enough to try something new would be very false as well. It's just that there is a balance between familiarity and novelty and everyone has his/her own version of it. We just need to remember as musicians, that because we spent so much time with music, our balance is gonna be shifted. I personally have no interest in seeing cover bands but why despise them ? To be fair I think I would enjoy playing the music I love on stage (that just doesn't happen because my tastes are not the most shared...and I like music that's too complicated for me to play  ).

One question I didn't see pop up so far is intellectual property...if you make a buck playing someone else's msuic, you technically owe them part of your revenues, I'm not so sure coverbands are all properly declaring what they do and paying the fees. And let's face it, copyrighting is a tool for those who already own to own more, not so much to protect small artists (and again this is all a fairly recent concept). And because it's against the law doesn't mean it's morally wrong, but still, it's a bit of a gray area there.
If you write your own stuff, at least you're certain you're not stealing from anyone, are you ?

Then again, what is originality ? One might write their own material, but if it's the same chords, riffs, and tropes, we've heard a million times, or just another band in a saturated scene that's just following a trend...is imitation so much better than straight up covering ? At least the latter is honest about what it does.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 9, 2019)

Exchanger said:


> One question I didn't see pop up so far is intellectual property...if you make a buck playing someone else's msuic, you technically owe them part of your revenues, I'm not so sure coverbands are all properly declaring what they do and paying the fees. And let's face it, copyrighting is a tool for those who already own to own more, not so much to protect small artists (and again this is all a fairly recent concept). And because it's against the law doesn't mean it's morally wrong, but still, it's a bit of a gray area there.
> If you write your own stuff, at least you're certain you're not stealing from anyone, are you ?



Cover bands aren't supposed to pay royalties - venues are in most countries. We are required to present a setlist if requested to do so so that the part of the venue's licencing fee destined to artist royalties is duly processed (which is a non-issue for us as it's obvious we only play Iron Maiden stuff), and this is how it works in most countries I've played in, and I'm fairly certain Holland works this way too, if you care to check it out. It applies to your own music as well, mind you!

On topic, I just presume this stuff is often very wrongly portrayed as an "us vs them" scenario on a fictional competitive paradigm of a global market all bands are trying to conquer, and the hostility tends to be based on blatantly false arguments such as "you don't want / can / have the ability to write original music" or "you sold out" which don't apply to the majority of professional musicians in the circuit. It's actually not just false, but rather evil in its nature as it can often be translated to "if your original music doesn't pay the bills, then you should go flip burgers at McDonald's or something as opposed to making a living doing something you like". And once again, I play sessions. So did Ozzy's band every step of the way, or there would be no Ozzy. So what are the session musicians, I ask again? In between? Kinda sorta sellouts? It's not really a cover if it wasn't recorded yet, but if you play after the OG session man that recorded a couple albums, your live set is 68% covers which gives you +8 to sellout? I truly think that the way the people looking for reasons to "hate" cover / tribute bands tend to forego reason other than the confirmation bias required to attain "it's not that we can't do the footwork necessary to get booked properly / are shit at what we do / are as professional as your average UPS delivery dude throwing a plasma TV over a fence but rather the EVIL COVER BANDS stealing all the space that would totally be ours, as all the audience attending live gigs is DYING to hear our new Progressive Salsa Grindcore Screamo stuff".

The covers market is indeed saturated with people playing the exact same "dead horse beaten to a pulp, then ressurected, killed again, and beaten some more" sets, but that is a consequence of a very stale, "play it safe" market, which is what the top 40 aiming stuff tends to be for the most part, and the "sure winners" are often the easy way to fill a set list and put together a setlist that doesn't make people raise an eyebrow when it's time to book the band.


----------



## Exchanger (Sep 9, 2019)

Fred the Shred said:


> Cover bands aren't supposed to pay royalties - venues are in most countries. We are required to present a setlist if requested to do so so that the part of the venue's licencing fee destined to artist royalties is duly processed (which is a non-issue for us as it's obvious we only play Iron Maiden stuff), and this is how it works in most countries I've played in, and I'm fairly certain Holland works this way too, if you care to check it out. It applies to your own music as well, mind you!



I'm actually from France, and as far as I know, there you have to declare what you play to a national organisation who takes care of all this copyright business (SACEM). This role might indeed fall to the venue as well, but last time I talked about this was 8 years ago or so, so it's kind of hazy.
I fail to see how it's fair though, if the finance is exactly the same whether you play someone else's material our your own. Again, I'm not an avid defender of copyright laws, but if we've established that these things matter, then the system should reflect it, right ?
Obviously you have experience with this, maybe you can help me make sense out of it (for example, you say the venue has to pay a licensing fee anyway, whether royalties are owed or not, so why is there still a fee when no royalties are involved ? Maybe I just misunderstood you ?)



Fred the Shred said:


> are as professional as your average UPS delivery dude throwing a plasma TV over a fence but rather the EVIL COVER BANDS stealing all the space that would totally be ours, as all the audience attending live gigs is DYING to hear our new Progressive Salsa Grindcore Screamo stuff



 haha
I agree this "competition" is probably mostly artificial nonsense.
At the core though, every listener as only so much attention and time to devote to (live) music (including myself) so we have to make choices. So as a musician when someone else gets attention we can't help but _feel_ as if it's a loss (even if there is no overlap between the types of audience). If you can't get past that feeling then you need a scapegoat.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 9, 2019)

Royalties are always owed whenever registered (i.e. copyrighted) performance arts are involved per most countries' laws. The value is included, in most cases, in the licence for live performance paid by the venues. Typically, it's easier for the venues to gather the info of the setlists / authors and send those to whatever organism is maintaining the royalty distribution, and it's a similar procedure to what one would find a radio doing, and it actually applies to PA stuff as well without any kind of live music involved, at a different rate (i.e. mechanical reproduction rights). The fee is paid as a licence, the majority of which goes to the city halls as a way of helping with funding in some countries, or enter the global tax "cake" beforehand in others (personally, I don't give a damn as long as I get what's rightfully mine  ), and it covers any *potential* royalties, so it's basically saying that you'll pay regardless, but the state / city hall will have to give up part of the money as compensation.


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 9, 2019)

It's a good thing the venues have to do it otherwise every band would need an accountant. In France it's TWO state organisms collecting tax due for different reasons... plus it's all pooled and averaged out, ie, most of the tax money earned during your performance won't go to Maiden but be distributed to artists according to a list supposedly reflective of how many times statistically an author is entitled to revenue.

To summarise, you play Maiden covers, but 50% of the fee will go to the artist selling 50% of the records in France. Maiden will likely get their 0.5% or something.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 10, 2019)

It works like in Portugal then - it's usually an averaged percentage based on the aggregate of communicated playlists, although I can't even be sure of what sort of calculation they perform!


----------



## Exchanger (Sep 10, 2019)

Ok I see, thanks for your explanations 

If anything this system only gives incentive to play the most popular music possible, since you'd want to attract the biggest crowd, but there is no gain to be obtained by playing lesser known / your own material. So the top 50 who earn decent royalties will keep doing so, intermediate artists who get a ridiculous fraction will keep doing so, and smaller bands will never have any advantage in this. Clearly not oriented towards fostering creativity


----------



## ManOnTheEdge (Sep 10, 2019)

My opinion on the subject has changed over time.

As someone in bands playing original music, I was envious of people doing covers making “easy” money

As a music fan, my first gig (before I played an instrument) was a Led Zeppelin tribute and they were brilliant. Last year I saw the Illegal Eagles with my wife and “bump” they were well polished fantastic musicians who put on a great show (my son, now no longer a bump, does like a bit of country)

I think we all get bogged down In analysing these things, I will support local music but I also like some “fast food” and seeing musicians on a stage having fun regardless of who wrote the song.

Would it be easier if we called them “standards” rather than covers?


----------



## Karmaic (Sep 11, 2019)

Fred the Shred said:


> I'm sorry to say it, many bands simply suck



This^

In reality, it doesn't matter if they're having fun playing. The audience listening to their garbage isnt having a good time. In return, their band is going to fail. If your band has solid, original material, as in, it sounds good, youll get a following, and more than likely invited to play some bigger venues with other bands. Good sounding music doesnt fail, know what I mean? But of course, playing to the right audience helps a lot too. Chances are, a hard rock band isnt going to impress a jazz crowd. But who knows, maybe, if they dont suck. 

Ive seen quite a few local screamo thrash metal bands fail. And theyre reason was always..."This area sucks!"...."People dont appreciate us!"...."Nobody knows good music!" Etc etc. Umm, no. You sound like shit. Some funk bands too. Just absolute garbage. Many of them were quite skilled guitarists, but when it came to writing original material, it was horrible! Like wtf. I find 99% of thrash metal unbearable to listen to. Same goes for a lot of tech death metal. Its just not very harmonic to my ears. If I have to strain to try and pick up the beat, Im not interested. And I like to be able to hear at least 1 audible lyric.


----------

