"Would you say a classical symphony is covering Beethoven?"
Good one, Dave! "The London Philharmonic Cover Orchestra"?
Yes, basically all orchestras are 'cover bands'. How stupid is that??
Yeah, I've had this peeve for quite awhile too. My western swing band, Beats Walkin', was early on termed a 'cover band' by the local radio station, regardless of the quality of our music, so we get very little airplay or attention, while they will play, ad nauseum, every goldarn 'singer-songwriter' who can play 3 chords on a jangly guitar, because they do 'original music' (and a lot of it sucks).
At least we're in pretty good company. Asleep at the Wheel is a cover band too, right?
Just this week I started turning down work because the music gives me ear worms...
Egad! And here I thought I was the only one turning down sessions?! Lately, I've been turning down more than half the session offers I get. I find it very hard to get enthused and creative playing stuff I just don't care for. Many songwriters nowadays seem addicted to either NCS, or this pseudo-alt/country-folk-rock/roots stuff.
"It's basically a 3-chord song in the key of G. I just put the Bb7+13 in to give it a kind of hook".
I object to the term "cover band" out of hand as being elitist and demeaning. Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Linda Ronstadt, et al. were "cover" singers?
I don't think so.
As great a societal influence as Bob Dylan was/is, he lowered the bar of songwriting with his 1. melodies geared for poor vocal technique, 2. indecipherable metaphors, 3. 3-lesson guitar technique, and 4. Cracker-Jack box harmonica playing. The window of opportunity got blown wide open in 1965, IMHO.
Old fart rant over. Flame suit on. Thanks for the indulgence. Don't beat me up too hard.
My rig: Infinity and Telonics.
Son, we live in a world with walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with steel guitars. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg?
No flame suit required. You are exactly right. As much as I like the first 5 years worth of Dylan's recordings, he inspired a lot of people who should have remained uninspired and it has now gone on for the better part of two generations. Hacks, I tell you, hacks.
I wasn't paying attention when the disdain for "cover artists" began. It seems to be largely a post 1970s or later phenomenon. I guess if you have no discernible talent for singing or songwriting but still feel the world must hear you, it's useful to disdain those who do. Mebbe it's just new-fangled narcissism.
Similarly, I think Aretha Franklin has some responsibility for inspiring the melisma I am overrun with ever time I make the mistake of listening to a fem vocalist on the radio.
The term "cover" band has always bugged me, especially since it's usually tossed out as a derogatory term by "artists" who write original "crap." I would rather play a good cover than original crap. To muse, or not to muse...that is the question. Many of us wish good songwriting came easy...unfortunately most times it doesn't. So, are those of us who aren't blessed with a "muse" supposed to pack it in and NOT play at all? I don't think so. I understand that all classic songs started out as an original, but let's let the "originals" deemed to be future classics earn their way over time, OK?
I could not write a decent song(melody or lyrics) if my life depended on it. I do,however,enjoy playing songs written by others. Does playing someone else's material diminish my efforts? I also have little interest in any song that isn't at least thirty years old. I have no problem with people playing and listening to what is passed off as music today; just warn me so I can run. Herb, you are so right!
Clyde
The "cover" band and original thing is definitely one of my peeves as well. I figure I've spent the last 40 years or so trying to be the best player I can be. I haven't written very much, now and then I have collaborated with others on a tune or two, but my forte is playing and arranging. I find it insulting when I hear these yahoos going gaga over an original piece of crap with no redeeming artistic value when the reality is that most of these so called "artists" couldn't learn someone eles's song if they had to.
Seems like this could be a good rant for many of us.
I spent 15 years playing in a swing band that did only 30's and 40's music, then I spent a few with another band that only did, same era, American songbook. I enjoyed playing those songs as much on the last day as I did on the first. The beauty of doing "covers", is you can pick the ones that have the most musicality and/or meaning for you, which isn't to say that I don't also enjoy playing originals, if they have substance.
If you go back and listen to the singers, from the earlier periods, it was about "delivering" the song and the artistry of the delivery. From what I've heard today, and because of our obsession with the "stars", the song has simply become a vehicle for the singer's self-promotion.
As much as I, and we all, rant about the "cover band" thing, there is one big reason newer bands have to write songs - publishing. Just try to get signed to a record label as, let's say, an independent rock or alt-country band playing somebody else's tunes. I don't think that's generally gonna work. I assume a lot of that is simply royalties - everybody simply wants to make more money, right? If you write your own, you get royalty dough. If you play others', you gotta pay royalty dough. We all pretty much agree that the modern music biz is purely about making as much money as possible, right? I think that's a big part of the motivation to push for "original" music.
But I still never understood the stigma about playing other peoples' songs. I agree that Mr. Zimmerman probably opened the floodgates wide to the idea that anybody could write, but obviously he wasn't alone or even the first. I think the ubiquitous self-authorship model started quite a bit earlier with people like Chuck Berry, Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison, and many others. If current popular songwriting output was anywhere near as good as any of this stuff, I'd be doin' cartwheels.
Clyde Bloodworth wrote:I could not write a decent song(melody or lyrics) if my life depended on it. I do,however,enjoy playing songs written by others. Does playing someone else's material diminish my efforts? I also have little interest in any song that isn't at least thirty years old. I have no problem with people playing and listening to what is passed off as music today; just warn me so I can run. Herb, you are so right!
Clyde
Clyde, I've never heard you play a tune that you didn't own after you finished! How you doin', anyway?
Mitch
I agree that Aretha Franklin's use of melisma (the singing of many notes over a single syllable) may have inspired other vocalists to try the technique, but the most blatant and egregious use of melisma lands squarely on the larynx of Reba McIntyre.
I met Reba a couple times years ago when she was just starting out, and she seemed like a really nice Oklahoma country girl, but GIRLFRIEND! Put the 25-note phrase endings to rest, puh-leeeze!
My rig: Infinity and Telonics.
Son, we live in a world with walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with steel guitars. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg?
chas smith wrote: One of the club owners told us before we went on, "If I hear anything that sounds like a melody or rhythm, you're out of here."
That would have been my que for a very fast exit.
I have tried playing in a country rock group twice and dumped it after the first session both times. If they want crash bang drums, screaming guitars, hammering bass; I am gone. They wanted me to "Just jump in and hang on the beat."
Music is still music in my life. If they want noise, go stand out in the middle of traffic!
(I am not right all of the time but I sure like to think I am!)
IMO, it's not quite fair to single out Aretha as responsible for the ocean of melisma that modern pop music is drowning in. Though I'm not a deep student of the style, I think her approach is squarely in the tradition of the gospel music she came from originally.
And, again IMO, her use of melisma, at least in her earlier days, really works in a highly musical way. It's not her fault if the legions of emulators mistake the surface for the substance. (I haven't heard her recently--I wouldn't be surprised if she's descended into self-caricature, as happens to too many artists who fall victim to pandering to the shallower enthusiasms of their audience.)
I agree about Reba--it's a shame because if she'd quit trying to be Whitney Houston she really can be a first-class singer, as she sometimes showed in the early part of her career.
tough crowd.
what I think I am hearing amongst other gripes is a disdain for three chord songs with simple progressions? well there goes 90% of my favorite songs of all time i guess...I gotta get my weedgie board out so I contact Hank Sr. on the other side and tell him he wasnt worth a damn.
Ben, I think what I'm hearing is complaints about songs that don't really have progressions, i.e. strong harmonic or melodic movement with tension and release, but just meander along in vague droning tonality. Hank would be quite safe from that criticism.
Brint Hannay wrote:Ben, I think what I'm hearing is complaints about songs that don't really have progressions, i.e. strong harmonic or melodic movement with tension and release, but just meander along in vague droning tonality. Hank would be quite safe from that criticism.
I think that was the orginal complaint, but it seems to have morphed into an all encompassing gripe fest about everything from alt country to dylan, with several people distinctly mentioning their contempt for "3 chord" progressions.
I am guessing we dont have alot of songwriters here.
