Douchebag wrote:
I played drums when I was younger, but when I hit College I pretty much lost all the time or energy to want to play anymore. I never performed in a band, just fucked around with friends in the garage (giggity).
I just really hope this doesn't turn into a "Well you're not in a band, so your opinion doesn't matter" arguments. I've been to plenty of concerts in my life to be able to judge talent and offer an opinion. I just don't see the reason why someone would want to see a cover band. Personally I think it’s the lowest a musician can get on the totem pole and playing songs for people who just want to hear “Pour Some Sugar on Me” for the millionith time is not very appealing. If you are just jamming with friends and having a good time, then great. I actually had a great time when I went to Gallery Caberet for that very reason. But making a living playing someone elses music in shitty bars is really not my thing. And that’s where the tribute acts and professional cover bands really lose me.
I don’t think any aspiring rock musician grows up saying “When I get older, I’m going to play in a cover band some day”. Obviously they failed at writing their own material so they moved on to performing songs that are already successful. That’s where my opinion of talent level comes from. If you can play exactly like Slash you obviously have talent. But if you cannot write a single song that would appeal to any audience, then you are obviously trailing Slash in the talent department. I think there’s been a lot of twisting of other’s words in this thread, and if I am guilty of it myself then I apologize. This thread really turned into an ugly hot mess, when all I originally wanted to do was rip on tribute bands. I’m
sorry it came to this.
No, this is not a "you don't play so your opinion sucks" argument at all. I'm just trying to understand you better so I understand your argument better. Counterintuitively, your opinion as a non band member has more bearing on this case as your mindset is considerably more common than that of those with the "band mindset". In any case, I don't mean to begrudge you your opinion. I do indeed respect it and wish to use your points to have a serious conversation.
It's funny, but you hit on something interesting there. I bolded your comment. You had fun. That's very rewarding for a band. Honestly it's probably number 1 or number 2 on this list of goals for me as a player. Although 10 of 20 tunes were covers, you still had fun with the tunes, atmosphere and drinks and that made me seriously happy!
Our last set we played about half and half originals to covers. I would not like to be considered a "cover band" and quite honestly I'm most proud of the way that we played our originals. Those for me were ridiculously fun, and I certainly enjoyed the crowd reaction we received after "Gretzky", "Taller", and "Slightly Left of Insanity". Hearing a clap or a whistle after your song that you labored under is gleeful, hearing a bar do what they did at the last show was stunning to me. So in a way, I share your view that bands who play originals are a little more entertaining to the performers.
Now for the disagree parts.
I think that it takes serious ball sack to play live, as covers, tributes, or originals. It's not something a lot of people can really do. That is worth
something.I think it's a bit dishonest to say that a cover band "failed" at writing their own material. Sometimes it's a matter of circumstance what you're going to play. Frank and Doug touched on it, if you're not playing covers you're not making any money. That and to earn the right to play straight originals live, you MUST pay your dues. It's like sure there's a Starlin Castro or Steven Strausburgs out there but most bands must toil in the minors before getting a cuppa coffee. We're not low on the totem poll, we're just getting our feet wet and hoping for a break. And we've written what I feel are some VERY good songs. It's just that when you're Beneath 51, no one wants to pay you to play shit they've never heard of. You get your foot in by playing covers that people can say "Shit I know this song and I'll croak it out with the band" and then you can play your material. That, and I've never met a player who covers who does not have any original material somewhere. All players are writers to some degree.
I would also like to comment that covering songs can be quite rewarding and does indeed allow for some creative license and personalization. Never had we chosen a cover and played it note for note the way it was written. We add our our flair, our own personal touches. Doug played a couple covers with us, and you can certainly see in "Sonic Reducer" that he took an idea for a lead, and completely reworked it, which in MY opinion takes considerable talent.
Frank mentioned it earlier but we're not exactly picking out "sugar" or "Sweet caroline" as our covers. We picked some off the wall shit like "Wolf Like Me" or "Cellphones Ringing in the Pockets of the Dead" so that we're not playing out the same old covers that everyone is playing.
In short, I don't believe that the source of the material makes a musician a quality musician or not. I believe it's about heart. There's plenty of musicians at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra that never play original material, resigning themselves to playing Chopin or Wagner "covers" in perpetuity. That's not making them any less brilliant.
again, this is no mess dude, I'm just having a conversation with ya. Hope you catch what I'm a slingin.
_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
"
