Most of the music consuming public (pop music) wants to hear it like the original, because that's what they know.

Artists and appreciators of individuality want to hear something unique.

 

If we covered a song identically to the original what would we achieve?

I don't think there is any right or wrong answer. I play in a covers band and sometimes we get a real joy out of trying to play a song just like the original. Other times we enjoying twisting and changing them.

In our band, I would guess that for more complex songs (i.e. Scenes From an Italian Restaurant) we are happy to try to duplicate the original, while for other songs that are simpler, or are more frequently covered, we tend to experiment with them more.

 

I love hearing songs/pieces I know well sounding completely different! I may not like a cover version, but I'll always listen just cos I think it's so interesting to see how different people interpret the same basic idea.

 

Why are performers criticised for playing it their own way? We hear a cover on the radio or wherever and so many times there`ll be someone saying "Oh its not like the original!"

You have to look at who is doing the criticizing. Most consumers of music like what they know. If you play what they know and make it sound different, they're uncomfortable. It's a familiar song that they expect to feel about the way they've felt in the past, but it isn't being played in a familiar way so they're unsure how to feel.

But then there are knowledgeable consumers of music who appreciate hearing a familiar tune played in a different way, especially if it's played well, and they will respond with appreciation - by dancing, singing along, smiling, applauding.

I think many of us have had the experience of people requesting 1 song over and over because it's the only song they know, or requesting music that is entirely unlike the music you're playing (my favorite was a request for some Michael Jackson - for my blues band), or people going crazy over very bad jammed versions of their favorite song (Brown Eyed Girl, anyone?). It depends on who you're playing for - do you want to make the average un-knowledgeable person happy, or would you rather get appreciation from people who really understand what's going on musically?

 

Most consumers of music like what they know. .

Even jazz with its 3% of total music sales gets hit by this one. I mean rather then check out this new cat straight out of Boston if someone sees a name they recognize such as Monk or Trane. chances are they will go with the name they know and not buy the new performers work. Yet the young lions are the ones that the record sale actually helps. Most of our familiar faces are dead and don't actually get any money from it.

So I say try to get a balance in what you buy.

 

Great responses, some very pertinent points very well made. I`m learning lots about musicianship from you more experienced guys, thank you.

 

If we covered a song identically to the original what would we achieve? Would we not become clones? Would we be re-inventing the wheel? Rather, don`t we enjoy listening to someone else giving the song their own take on it? We get to hear a part of their personality in the notes and phrases they choose to express or refrain etc.

Maybe there is the possibility of becoming clones. However someone one told me that if I want to sound like myself then I should copy something someone else has played as closely as I can. This may sound counter-intuitive, and I don't know what the results would be for everyone. But consider someone like Brecker who, according to an interview I recently read, learned to play stuff he heard on his dad's jazz records. He played along with the records. He ultimately developed his own style. I think others have too by going that route.

 

I think alot of it is like jazz itself, the audience knows the song, they need the sign posts along the way, you can vary a bit, but if you get too far adrift you lose the crowd.

My bands did some songs as close as we could get them, and then on others we put our own twist on them. I sang and played tenor on Low rider and would walk the bar, that got the crowd going. the arrangment was pretty true to the original but there were some variations.

 

I have found that if your version is clearly "better" than the original no one complains...

 

This is probably the bottom line. I might re-phrase it to say "as good or better," for the simple reason that I can enjoy different versions of the same tune equally.

But a lot depends on the type of music. In jazz, I think it is expected that no one will play the same tune exactly the same. And, in fact, even the original artist will vary it. Listen to a Miles Davis studio recording, then listen to a live recording of the same tunes. You'll hear a significant difference.

At the other extreme, in the pop/rock world, in many cases the audience wants to hear the tunes exactly like they were recorded (one of the reasons I don't like to play pop music).

With blues tunes (and I realize there is overlap between some of these categories), I think it's much closer to "jazz" in that there is room for improvising and changing the arrangements without the audience getting upset or confused. I've heard many blues tunes done in different ways that can all sound good. Personally, I don't like to hear a band (especially one I'm playing in) do every tune exactly the same way every time. There are exceptions of course. And if you go too far afield, leaving all the "hooks" or signature lines out of a tune, then no one will recognize what you are playing. For example, a tune like "Honky Tonk" requires a lot of the original licks to sound authentic. You can add some of your own interpretation as long as you hit the main signature lines as well.

Best approach is learn a tune from the original recording, and go from there.

 

A tune should never be played the same way twice..
I.E- Jazz is all about originality. How could we contribute to this art form if we just played tunes the same way?
The Modern Jazz 4tet had the same philosophy..

NB

 

Mike, VALERIE is great by either the Zutons or Amy Winehouse,I think if it is good it doesnt matter whos version it is .I heard a ska group play Hotel California and when they started I was a bit non - plussed but when it came to the chorus instead of singing they just blasted the music using Sax,Trumpet and Trombone at a faster speed and it was awesome

 

I think it depends on the context. I don't tend to enjoy playing the same solo that someone else played, even if it's a classic. My feeling is that that was their statement and mine, for better or worse, is mine. I don't mind playing original arrangements if they're good arrangements and, as Fader says, the audience usually doesn't notice if you spice it up a bit as long as it's done well.

On the other hand, I greatly admire musicians who freshen up their material. Dave Matthews, Sting, and James Taylor have improved (in some cases) previous versions of their own songs as well as the covers they do. JT's version of "Everyday" couldn't be more different than Buddy Holly's, thus avoiding any obvious comparison. I have heard a dozen versions of "King of Pain" and "Message in a Bottle" by Sting that were all vastly different in mood, yet all equally effective. George Garzone did a brilliant tribute to Stan Getz, yet none of the material was played in Getz's style.

I am (guilty pleasure) a massive fan of Billy Joel. (Just the Way You Are is the reason I wanted to play sax). When I saw Billy on his last tour I really liked that he hauled out some of his favourite non-hits, the B-sides as it were. At the same time, I was disappointed that he had Carl Fischer play Freddie Hubbard's "Zanzibar" solo note-for-note. That was Freddie being Freddie and it's a great solo, but Fischer is obviously a great player and it would have sounded more authentic (IMO) to let him just blow in the spirit of Freddie. I love "Scenes From an Italian Restaurant", but there's no need to emulate what Richie Cannata did on clarinet in the "dixie" section. Richie's one of my favourite rock & roll saxophonists, and it's really cool that he actually played clarinet on the album, but it ain't exactly a classic solo.

I say: give the audience credit and play the music well and with integrity. They'll dig it...or at least most of them.

 

I do it my way.

 

Interesting topic Mike.

I think if people love or like the first version and someone does a cover, it has to be really good to stand up. So I think if it is an original version and genuinely good, people are happy. That's puts anyone under pressure though, to do a version that does a song justice.....

One thing I hate though: is when on shows like X factor, they always choose the same hundred songs, then do them to DEATH. As if it has to cater to mainstream, who only know about a hundred songs?
IMO, some songs should just not be done anymore (unless is a truly unique version) like: over the rainbow for example. I think you really kill a song when you do it do death.

 

Ya know, if I were to write a book on my sax life, this thread could be a chapter on its own.

Listening to some music moves me quite profoundly, but in my way. When I listen I try to imagine how the performer is transferring their feelings through the song. They`re telling a story not just in words but in sound. When I play, I try to reverse that flow and transfer the feelings back. For me, thats what its all about.

Of course, the holy grail would be to get ones thoughts and feelings to flow through your instrument without impedent, as a perfect portrayal.

I feel like I have the basic core understood, I "just" need to get the technicalities worked out and then absorb that understanding.

Does anyone get me?

 

Regarding "Over the Rainbow", I'm fine with some reinterpretations but there are some songs where the melody has to be respected, at least in the opening chorus. If a singer is going to interpret this song, for Pete's sake get the minor 6th in phrase two or pick another song. That's one of the beautiful things about Harold Arlen's composition. I despise the version by that dead Hawaiian guy because the whole bridge is just massacred. (Yes, I know, lots of people disagree. This is just my opinion)

Likewise, I know Etta James did a great version of "At Last", but EVERY singer I work with sings it as though Etta's version is the actual melody. I have suggested, on more than one occasion, that they try to listen to an earlier version just to hear what the original melody was, and THEN interpret that melody in their own way. I enjoy American Idol as mind candy, but I would like to see a moratorium on "Over the Rainbow" and "At Last" for the above reason.

 

Likewise, I know Etta James did a great version of "At Last", but EVERY singer I work with sings it as though Etta's version is the actual melody. I have suggested, on more than one occasion, that they try to listen to an earlier version just to hear what the original melody was, and THEN interpret that melody in their own way.

This is a point I was trying to make also. It applies to a lot of tunes, especially in the blues genre that reaches back into the '40s & '50s (and even earlier for some tunes). What happens is a great tune gets redone over and over, recorded by lots of players, then later players pick it up off the more recent versions and in some cases a lot of the original feeling is lost. Best examples would be some blues tunes that were picked up by rock musicians in the '60s & '70s, sometimes played well, more often butchered. Then a modern player copies those versions with no reference or knowledge of the original recording.

If you want to play something like "Let the Good Times Roll," go back and check out the Louis Jordan version first. Then see what BB King & others did with it. That way you'll have a much deeper grasp of the tune. Not that you have to copy any version by rote, just have the frame of reference.

 

Extensive soloing in a bar band should be avoided, so I am told.
To me the context would be significant.

IMO it's kinda "out there" if a guitarist solos in a three piece r&r band with only bass and drums.
In jazz, it would be common.

Yeah, I know, Hendrix could do whatever he wanted.

 

I agree with many of the posters here: if you want to do a cover, I think it's better to go right back to the original version: to hear the original song and its emotion.
Then, I usually listen to other versions. Then do my own version. That's what I try and do.

 

"There's a guy named Buddy - plays the drums like thunder. But the melody is six feet under! Please don't bury the tune".

- Mel Torme lyric

(Of course he also wrote a loving bio of Buddy Rich)

- Ed

 

I think doing a cover is a way to actually play a tune that you love, while being able to "fix", or change the parts that you think could be done better. It's an opportunity to show respect to a band or musician you admire and add your own twist to the work of another artist.

 

Dredging up a long dead thread, but I haven't dipped my beak in this particular sub forum before...

Tired of playing the same old thing over and over repeatedly, (ain't that a bit of irony, complaining again about rehashing music that's been done before ), feel the need to "express yourself". All well and good, but try to stop and think first... who is paying you to play this gig? Do they give a rat's bohonkus about your feelings at the moment? Bet not. They are all about their own feelings, and why they are there. What if you are feeling really down about some personal problem but both the event (which really belongs to the paying customer) and tune call for something a bit more upbeat?

Furthermore, most of the audience (if not 100% of them) have zero musical training and think a chord is something you tie up a package with. As for chord changes... nothing could be further removed from their minds. Best bet is to play the melody they are familiar with with a little embellishment here and there. Long, improvisational solos would be casting pearls before swine anyway. Save it for jam sessions, or self pleasuring at home, or gigs in actual Jazz Clubs. After all, the way to get more paying gigs, and more pay per gig, is to become popular, and the way to become popular is to give the customer what they want/are familiar with.

I've seen covers that are so heavily improvised that the only way to know what "song" they are playing is to see the title. Why bother to tack a title on it at all... it's really an "Improvisation in C#" or some such. Not conducive to popularity enhancement, unless you are already playing true Jazz Clubs.

Just something I think we should all bear in mind when taking a paying gig. ;-)

 

What an interesting thread! I wonder about this sometimes, and I agree with some of the other posters. It depends on context, the context of the original tune, and what the tune is and what type of music. In the mall the other day the radio was playing a cover of "The Christmas Song" by a girl singer in a folk style. It was a nice idea but I felt a bit of a stretch for that song, didn't work for me. But the average Old Navy listener is probably not too familiar with Nat King Cole's first hit, as there have been so many artists to cover this song over the years that all they remember is the lyric. Like someone else said, something was lost in translation, when you have worked with so many translators, it's like whisper down the lane and the original message is totally garbled. At least the lyrics being written down somewhere is the one saving grace so that you actually recognize the song!

I make a living doing covers, but I also have a real passion for jazz and when I'm on tour break, I have a dectet that plays a mix of original material and covers. We do a straight-off-the-record arrangement of Space Oddity and people go crazy. Even at a pretty hip jazz club. Then we do a burning arrangement of Joe Henderson's "Punjab" and nobody cares. Because they don't know it! Even your typical jazz fan knows Bowie better than Joe Henderson, it seems! Then we do the trombonist's arrangement of Moonglow and people really dig that, it's something they sort of know. And then we do some originals and they'll dig that, because we finally reigned them in with a few covers! Even in a project which I consider to be a complete artistic outlet for me, not a money gig by any means, or something I have anything riding on, these same principles apply. If you don't play things that people know you are going to lose relevance. Especially at a jazz club: the listeners know the standards, and they know the popular tunes, and if you don't have a healthy dose of either you are going to lose them quick.

 

the listeners know the standards, and they know the popular tunes, and if you don't have a healthy dose of either you are going to lose them quick.

All great points Razzy!

Then there's a third category that I've found very effective: Tunes that an audience will recognize, but don't really know from where or when (and these are tunes that don't get played by every band out there--that's important). The sort of thing where they will come up to you afterward and say "wow, that was a great tune, I've heard it somewhere, what is it?" 'Harlem Nocturne' is my favorite in this category. Everyone has heard it, but most don't know where they heard it, and everyone likes it. You have to really search for these type of tunes, though. They were very popular at one time and maybe used as a soundtrack in a movie, then sort of disappeared. If you have a blues-based band, try some Louis Jordan stuff. It will tend to fit this mode. And yeah, you have to play them authentically, without changing it too much, except when soloing maybe.

 

I feel that adding your own spin on it, is exciting. But, if played in the same arrangement as the original, it can also be amazing, just depends on the song.
I seen the Melvins play an alice cooper cover, and a Kiss cover. I don't like Kiss, at all. The Melvins version was SLOW and I like it better than the original. The cooper cover was also, slow, but i don't like cooper either. They did do a wings song, I like them both for different reasons.
I seen Tool play "No quarter," by zepplin and they put their own spin on it, and I thought that was very interesting. It puts me in the headspace, as if these artists came up with it themselves they would affect the song this way.
Other times I like songs played the same way. "Knock on wood," "get on the good foot," or "It serves you right to suffer," are very good played straight with no alteration.
Sometimes, as above poster pointed out, the original feeling can get lost or misconstrued.
I saw a ska version of "angel of death," and thought it wasn't any good.
I never get tired of any versian of " In a sentimental mood," though. Or "blue in green."
To some extent a little tweak, as it were, can change the song and make fresh, in other ways it can ruin it. It's a catch 22.

 

Behavioral psychologist agree that almost everything we have done resulted from copying other people.

 

Behaviorists are full of crap.

 

Where would the world be without covers like this or this?

Do it your way man.

 

Gospel instrumentals (by there very nature) are all covers of other people's work. The audience is supposed to hear your interpretation on your instrument and then think about the lyrics they know as sung by someone else they heard earlier or that they sung themselves as hymns.

The problem is that sometimes I change up the piece too much. I know this because, when after a performance, old folks will come up and tell me how pretty my music was. And then they will ask me what song it was supposed to be? When I tell them it was an old standard, like Amazing Grace or something similar, they often just look puzzled. After this happened several times, I started adding little breaks in the score where we play a straight chorus of the original piece. It adds a nice effect to the music and allows some of the old folks to have an "ah-hah" moment. :bluewink: