# Covers: Faithfull To Original Or OK To Change It Up?



## keto (May 23, 2006)

*I believe there are no right or wrong answers here. Just wondering what everyone thinks.*

So I engaged in a long long debate with my buddy and bandmate last night. We have polar opposite opinions on this subject.

To paraphrase some of the things he was saying:
1. even by the original band, he'd rather hear a note for note and same key reproduction of the original, and has been very disappointed at some big name concerts (he named Metallica specifically, said the show sounds nothing like the records)
1a. Changing a song by half a step changes the sound so much he can't listen to it or (1b.) (a big one for him) practice along with it
2. including using the same tones and effects on guitars
3. cover bands that change things up are mostly doing so to mask deficiencies in their playing
4. he did concede that in extremely rare circumstances, a different artist cover could add merit to a song
5. he goes so far as to say that original artists should never release material that they cannot cover faithfully themselves - including complex, multi tracked vocal or instrumental pieces. And, no, it's not OK to reproduce the missing elements with pre-recorded background tracks

I will also note that he's not as 'historically aware' about music as I am, and probably doesn't realize how many radio songs he hears are not written by the artists on the radio.

On my side,
1. I'd rather hear some artistic interpretation, even by the original artist. I DON'T want to go to a concert and just hear the CD reproduced note for note. Hell, original artists change the key all the time, generally going lower to make singing parts doable as the singers lose range with age.
1a. I don't hear the difference, especially if it's just a half step. Point 1b, practice along in the original key until you know the song well enough to play it without, then change key
2. a large percentage of guitar players (not all, or even a majority - I just don't know the stats here and doubt they have ever been studied) are gear whores, and change out their rigs often enough to make this impossible. The example I used was Mike from Pearl Jam - he used primarily an old Strat for at least the first PJ album, and doesn't use a Strat much in concert, plus has an ever changing amp lineup and pedal arrangement.
3. While there may be some truth in this, it's by no means universally true. There are mega proficient musicians playing in bars, playing covers that they put their own little bit of spin on. They can get away with it all night every night if they stay faithfull to the beat and melody, and hell even if they change it right up, that's their business! If people hate it, they won't pay to hear it, but that doesn't make for a 'right or wrong' argument.
4. Well all right, I got buddy to give me a point lol
5. This one just flabbergasted me. Imagine the music we would have missed out on in the past 50 years. OK, I'm not a big fan of pre recorded backgrounds, but if it's good enough for The Who (Baba O'Reilly) I can live with it! Just don't give me lip synched lead vocals, thank you very much.

He thinks he's among the majority opinion. I know that we as musicians don't necessarily represent the overall public opinion, but I can't imagine he's right.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

I change originals to fit the arrangement of instrumentation I am playing with. The Reggae world has covered about every song going. I do like to hear the original key though. I do notice the difference. 

Never been a note for note.. how do you know how many overdubs there has been? For covering songs these days I tend to go to live versions and figure out how THEY get around the problem.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

keto said:


> *I believe there are no right or wrong answers here. Just wondering what everyone thinks.*
> 
> So I engaged in a long long debate with my buddy and bandmate last night. We have polar opposite opinions on this subject.
> 
> He thinks he's among the majority opinion. I know that we as musicians don't necessarily represent the overall public opinion, but I can't imagine he's right.


_I broke out number 1 & 1a to respond to it individually if that's OK._

*Him*
1. even by the original band, he'd rather hear a note for note and same key reproduction of the original, and has been very disappointed at some big name concerts (he named Metallica specifically, said the show sounds nothing like the records)
1a. Changing a song by half a step changes the sound so much he can't listen to it or (1b.) (a big one for him) practice along with it.

*You
*1. I'd rather hear some artistic interpretation, even by the original artist. I DON'T want to go to a concert and just hear the CD reproduced note for note. Hell, original artists change the key all the time, generally going lower to make singing parts doable as the singers lose range with age.
1a. I don't hear the difference, especially if it's just a half step. Point 1b, practice along in the original key until you know the song well enough to play it without, then change key.


_I listened to the original U-tube video of Joey - Concrete Blond this morning and loved it. Next I listened to a newer version that changed the speed a little and Johnette sang it differently, still good but different. I must admit for that reason, I did not like the newer version so I guess I have to agree with him._
_
As for changing the key 1/2 step. I can't tell the difference after I have changed an original SRV song up one step for learning purposes. 2 steps and yes it's noticeable.
Also, I've stayed away from playing "My Own Way To Rock" all these years because Burton did it just out of my key range. I was listening to a 2010 version recently only to realize that he was singing it one step down. I couldn't tell until I grabbed my guitar. Of course, I play piano on this one. For this reason, I will have to agree with you._


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I like it to be either dead on, or a totally unique homage.
the ones that miss the original by like 10% are a big let down.


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2013)

Please yes change it up! Make it your own!

But I tend to like funk/jam stuff so when someone bends and twists it in to that genre I really go freaking nuts.

I was *just* bopping my head to this Soulive cover of...Tears for Fears...thinking I totally have to re-work something 80's with my latin/funk/jam thing I have going on now. Because it kicks ass.

[video=youtube;CaC4QeDxi7I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaC4QeDxi7I[/video]


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

I'm predominantly a blues player, and what I love about the blues is its improvised nature. There are many interpretations of the same songs by many artists, and the artists themselves are always mixing things up and never playing the same thing twice. Same goes for jazz.

I prefer listening to live recorded music over studio recordings because it is real and honest interesting when the players colour outside of the lines.

I appreciate cover bands that reproduce songs "note for note", but I am not a fan of one player putting another player down for doing their own thing. Music is art... imagine if painters all painted the Mona Lisa over and over again while other painters scoffed at their work because the brush strokes were not exactly reproduced!


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

One of the bands I'm in does a cover of Hurt with 3 basses and a female singer. I suspect it might make your friend scream but we had a lot of fun doing it. It's at http://www.myspace.com/grooveiron if you want to form your own opinion.


----------



## ledfloyd (Apr 1, 2011)

I would be so PO'ed if a band played their songs exactly like the recorded versions [Roger Waters excepted] at a show I went to.


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2013)

nkjanssen said:


> Speaking of which, definitely no bopping here, but I prefer the "Donnie Darko" version of "Mad World" to the original Tears for Fears version. I think the melancholy mood of the music suits the lyrics better than the original...


I'm still partial to the upbeat original, though the down tempo and darker version is great. I freakin' love the way they used Head Over Heels in the intro to their school in that movie -- fit so perfectly.


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

I'm someone that absolutely loves to see bands attempt their own interpretation of a cover. Yes, some (many?) may fail, but when it works then it's freaking brilliant.

There was an Australian comedy/chat TV show way back when that each week had a different band doing Stairway to Heaven in a different musical style. The results ranged from http://youtu.be/tymAkVrm1z0 to http://youtu.be/MKxpxm1Aus4 Many were awful, but all were fun.

And this to my mind is a GREAT cover:

[video=youtube_share;9nv9zJif2G8]http://youtu.be/9nv9zJif2G8[/video]

Neil


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I am absolutely without exception in the "make it your own" camp. Interpret and rearrange all you want. If it fails, it's not for want of trying. If you wrote the tune, what gives someone else the right to tell you you can't do it differently than the recording (this has happened to me)? If you're covering a tune, I'd rather hear something original done to it than an exact copy. If I wanted an exact copy I'd stay at home and listen to the original. The Stones and Led Zeppelin jam it, so that's good enough for me, plus they have done great covers in my opinion.

What happens when an artist dies or a band changes? Does the music die with them? What of music created before the recording era, or does this only apply to newer stuff? Listen to several recordings of the same Bach piece and tell me they're the same. Dylan, Mason, and Hendrix and All Along The Watchtower? SRV and Little Wing? Stones and half the Berry catalogue? Every classic rock band ever started and whatever classic blues tune?

On a lesser level, the best band I ever played with did mostly originals (we had one very good songwriter) which changed by the moment, jammed out, and spontaneous on the fly arrangements. The few covers we did were done the same way. Mind you, that band had between 2 and 5 music degrees on stage at any one time, many of us teachers, all of us seasoned pros with tons of performance, recording, and teaching experience. Any time someone told us something didn't sound the same as the last time they heard us, we replied with thanks. We didn't like to leave our little neck of the woods (day jobs and the like), but we always packed the house. Interesting band in that every member could do a solo act but chose to contribute to the collective because it worked.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

With the sole possible exception of Clapton's acoustic version of "Layla" (which should be tried as an adult so that the penalty is stiffer), I'm also up for any fresh take on the familiar. 

In the case of the above Beck/May cover of the Shangri-Las classic, it isn't a new arrangement so much as the original arrangement that took advantage of the opportunity to insert an extended solo over the chord changes. Back in the day, my old band used to do a version of Dylan's "Ballad of a Thin Man" the way that the Robin Trower-era Procol Harum would have done it. Sounded very similar to "Walkin' in the Sand" in some ways, actually, though with noticeably less competent soloing. The same band found that virtually every Buddy Holly song lent itself to a reggae arrangement, and we'd do that for our own amusement sometimes.

People tend to enjoy listening to musicians that are enjoying themselves. Sometimes, they are enjoying themselves as a function of flawlessly recreating a tune they all love and respect. And sometimes they are enjoying themselves by taking something familiar to all, and giving it a quarter twist that can make it seem new again.

For myself, I prefer rearranged covers that do not attempt to make the tune significantly simpler OR more complex than the original. So, no dropped chords, and no weird added ones, or bizarre key or tempo changes. That still leaves a lot of room for difference and new arrangement.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

I've been in the same cover band for 8 years nows. We are constantly complimented on how good we at at sounding like the record. I would bet that 90% of the listening audience wants to hear it that way. If you are going to make it your own, it better be good. I've heard a few bands pull it off very well, but more that sound like shit.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

As per the original poster, there are no right or wrong answers to this one.

Having said that however, there's a big differenct to me in someone putting their own spin on a cover and someone who simply doesn't have the ears or work ethic to figure out the chords.

Sadly in bars, you're getting the latter much of the time. Some guys use this as an excuse to hide a lack of skill or just apathy.

"We're doing it our way" often means 'we couldn't or didn't bother to figure it out correctly".

I like learning it as close to the original as possible and THEN making changes to the arrangement.

I figure I sort of owe that to the composer.

Additionally I've heard the same nonesense from all original bands who often like to criticize cover bands. Often those bands simply couldn't pull off a decent cover.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Milkman said:


> Having said that however, there's a big differenct to me in someone putting their own spin on a cover and someone who simply doesn't have the ears or work ethic to figure out the chords.
> 
> Sadly in bars, you're getting the latter much of the time. Some guys use this as an excuse to hide a lack of skill or just apathy.
> 
> "We're doing it our way" often means 'we couldn't or didn't bother to figure it out correctly".


Considering how much money a bar band earns, I am willing to overlook a degree of apathy.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

dradlin said:


> Considering how much money a bar band earns, I am willing to overlook a degree of apathy.




Well if it came down to that, nobody would ever show up to play.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Own the song...make it your own. Put a bit of yourself in there. Not everyone can sing in the same key as the original performer (sometimes not even the original performer after a time), and no one can sing off key as well as Neil. Be creative, have fun, sometimes making mistakes can take you places you like, so make them twice so it sounds like it's supposed to be there largetongue


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

When it comes to live original music, while I appreciate the technical merit of a band like Dream Theatre playing their songs note-for-note, I found that concert boring. I'm much happier watching a band tinker with their songs, play with arrangement, play with tempo, change the character entirely sometimes. To me music shouldn't be concrete. It needs to be flexible.

In terms of covers, in my bar-band, we do a lot of songs like the album, but we also do a lot where we try to put a different spin on them. It's not that we can't play the song the way it is, but we just feel it's better/more exciting/suits our setlist better with a different approach. Sometimes it's something simple like kicking the tempo up a bit, or throwing a solo in where there isn't one. Other times we play with arrangements, especially with songs that fade out on the record - we'll go back to a chorus, back to the bridge, whatever feels right and sounds good.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

Interesting - I had this conversation with my wife this morning. We were listening to Ben Folds' version of "Tiny Dancer" on the radio and both agreed that there was really no point in pretty much re-creating the original.

So, yes, change it up!

We often have this conversation in our band as well. Our usual conclusion is that we need to include the important elements of the song that make it recognizable - chord progression, melody, lyrics, essential riffs... but otherwise, anything goes. We change keys all the time, simply to make things singable or to fit in harmonies or because they tuned down a semi-tone in the original; and we regularly change instrumentation simply because we don't play the instruments used in the original. Also, we often take tunes and make them more "organic" - particularly tunes from the 80's which were largely over-produced and/or synthesized, but were still great tunes.

And yes, we often change tunes to work around our limitations as musicians. I don't have a problem with that - you should never pass up on a great tune because you can't render a perfect reproduction - a great tune is a great tune, and people want to hear great tunes. 

(I would also argue that insisting on note-for-note reproductions also reveals limitations in one's musicianship.)


----------



## sambonee (Dec 20, 2007)

I believe that there is skill in rendering the same version as the recording. I would classify it in the realm of "simplified" classical music. your only outlet is feel and tempo. I regret to say that there isn't too much of a challenge for the musician in the "pop/rock" world. There's also the interest level of the musicians. I found myself getting boared picking out note for note on a solo unless it was absoulutely amazing. I would say that the only solos that I would fully learn were the ones by Charlie Parker on his Alto Sax. One of the alltime world's best musicians. come to think of it, Bach is another of the all time best. he wasn't even discovered until about 100 years after his birth by Motzart (found in the archives). he was a small town organist with like 10 kids. it was said that he would compose his preludes and fugues by going over to the pianofotre, improvising the entire piece, then walking over to his desk and notating the whole thing in one shot! for any of you who know Bach, that is almost unbelieveable. when you hear his music and how perfect it is, it helps to believe this last statement.

Given that there are literally none (that I know of ) in the pop world who are composing their solos on the staff before performing them, I would say that we're all improvising anyway. It's about the effect you want to leave. there is a crowd for each camp. 

I personally believe that it's more musically challenging to improvise and create within a context than it is to reproduce music. the only exception would be challenging pieces (which are mostly found in classical and jazz music) with a few excpetions in rock/blues/pop.

I rearrange my covers all the time. It's because I'm lazy, I have a low singing range, I want to keep myself interested in the song, and I like thrwing curve balls over the plate. 

My new thing is arranging two to four songs into one. I usually sing them all over the same chord progression the whole time and rearrange the rhythm of the vocal line to fit the new progression. I find that songs with an A B and C section are best as they are most difficult to accommodate. my recent fav is Franklin's Towers (dead), Down by the river (Neil), and Down by the Seaside (Zeppelin). I always get may compliments on that one, and only about 1-2 people who actually know all three songs.

that's my 4 cents!! ciao friends.

ps, I really like this site. I find the people to be nice, and polite, while still having opinions. I have been a part of other sites where common courtesy was not common. Thanks everyone, OH and someone please buy my Ceriatone head. it's gootttaaa go!!!! :bullbeg:


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

> [a great tune is a great tune, and people want to hear great tunes./QUOTE]
> 
> No truer words have been spoken. I just like to get there without boring myself. I have played some covers tunes for a lot of years. They tend to take on a life of their own sometimes. But after playing stuff for 25 yrs you get a lot of chances to try different treatments of the same song.
> 
> I have learned some jazz solos which are good technical things to learn.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

I love hearing a band breath new life into a song that they've been playing for umpteen yrs. & have likely gotten bored of. Nothing worse than paying big bucks to witness someone going through the motions, if I want to hear note-for-note then I'll stay at home & listen to the album.


----------



## OldGuitarPlayer (Feb 25, 2013)

I play in a blues trio. We play traditional blues, not SRV. Hardly anyone ever does a blues song like the original version. Blues fans are usually drunk & stoned and all they care about is that you play a good shuffle they can dance to.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

OldGuitarPlayer said:


> I play in a blues trio. We play traditional blues, not SRV. Hardly anyone ever does a blues song like the original version. Blues fans are usually drunk & stoned and all they care about is that you play a good shuffle they can dance to.


How many versions of "Mustang Sally" is there. Then there is Caledonia and tons of other great standards. I have enjoyed many versions, and disliked a few too.


----------



## OldGuitarPlayer (Feb 25, 2013)

Jim DaddyO said:


> How many versions of "Mustang Sally" is there. Then there is Caledonia and tons of other great standards. I have enjoyed many versions, and disliked a few too.


We don't play _Mustang Sally_ and never will. Since I am the singer and vocalist I choose most of the material. Muddy Waters, Sonny Boy Williamson, Albert Collins, Albert King, T-Bone Walker, Clarence Gatemouth Brown and Jimmy Reed are more our thing.

Lol @ Mustang Sally...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Sometimes, a tune is complex or virtuosic or long enough that playing it faithfully is an accomplishment that folks appreciate the way in which the performers "didn't leave anything out". Certainly not true of all tunes, but for those where it is true, doing a different arrangement would feel like a letdown. I know I sure as hell wouldn't want anyone to give a prog-rock tune the "acoustic Layla" treatment.

And other tunes have a ritualistic aspect to them which demands faithful covering. If someone plays "Like a Rolling Stone", you want to be able to sing along "after he took from you, everything he could steeeeeeaaaaaaaaalllllll.....HOW DOES IT FEEL?", and any attempt to deprive you of that is sacrilege.

OGP, nice list of material.  Gotta say that even though I like Gary Clark Jr., when I realized his _Bright Lights Big City _tune made only very tangential reference to the Jimmy Reed tune, I was a little disappointed. But add some Slim Harpo and Guitar Slim to your list, and we're in business!


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

It's best if you do your thing--even with your own music...
Some groups sound so much like the album it's not that interesting.

I could have stayed at home, invited over some friends, put on the album and stared at a poster of the band.

I have played some songs very similar tot he original, but prefer to put my own spin on them.
I find it more fun, more interesting and more musical.
I'm not a parrot--I don't care if anyone thinks it's due to deficiencies--although sometimes I can't play the original exactly--but so what?
I can't play the song at all?

I like to have fun when I play--and if that involves changing around the arrangement--even if I dump the signature part of the song--that's my thing.
And you are allowed to totally despise my version if you want to.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

zontar said:


> I like to have fun when I play--and if that involves changing around the arrangement--even if I dump the signature part of the song--that's my thing.


Good point! I totally forgot about the most important reason to change up a tune - it's fun! 

We have a ton of fun with our country version of Zeppelin's "Rock and Roll".


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

I'm with Keith Richards on this subject. There's no definitive version of a song, just "versions" on different nights. I like music for the visceral, emotional content - a static cover of a song every time is boring AFIC.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

OldGuitarPlayer said:


> Jim DaddyO said:
> 
> 
> > How many versions of "Mustang Sally" is there. Then there is Caledonia and tons of other great standards. I have enjoyed many versions, and disliked a few too.
> ...


Thank you. Mustang Sally is the "blues" equivalent of Sweet Caroline. Shudder.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Roryfan said:


> Thank you. Mustang Sally is the "blues" equivalent of Sweet Caroline. Shudder.


Say what you will about Mustang Sally, I still really like this version-
[video=youtube;3TYWYDqr-TA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TYWYDqr-TA[/video]


----------



## Getcha*Pull (Jun 25, 2013)

I personally feel that if the player can pull it off clean, it doesn't really matter so much 1 way or the other.
This is my favorite guitar cover artist. I'm sure there are many more talented artists out there, but I find a lot of his covers to be as good or better than the originals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpJr9NFFEPk
Sorry for the link, I'm not sure yet how to post it so the video shows up in the thread yet


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

as a band that plays covers...but also originals...we try to stay somewhat true to the original...but make it sound more like us...

an example...
http://www.reverbnation.com/themethodcanada/song/16837893-daytripper-live


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I like Mustang Sally, but it has to be played tough, like Buddy Guy does. Good vid!


----------



## urko99 (Mar 30, 2009)

OldGuitarPlayer said:


> We don't play _Mustang Sally_ and never will. Since I am the singer and vocalist I choose most of the material. Muddy Waters, Sonny Boy Williamson, Albert Collins, Albert King, T-Bone Walker, Clarence Gatemouth Brown and Jimmy Reed are more our thing.
> 
> Lol @ Mustang Sally...


Mustang Sally has become the "Brown Eyed Girl" of the blues. Our Band will never play it either, even though it still gets requested.


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

I go to concerts because generally speaking it is not note for note compared to the recorded version. I LIKE different. if its note for note like the CD, I an stay home and listen to the CD.

the black keys do a great job of changing it up subtly....as do the foo fighters. the last show they played times like these starting out as an acoustic number then BAM full out electric. awesome. 

covers should be done in the style of the covering artist. IE. if Metallica were to cover the beatles, I'd want to hear it with a metallica flare to it.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

blam said:


> covers should be done in the style of the covering artist. IE. if Metallica were to cover the beatles, I'd want to hear it with a metallica flare to it.



You mean like this...
[video=youtube;lcF0O9lLb6Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcF0O9lLb6Y[/video]


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

Hamstrung said:


> You mean like this...


Brilliant, and speaking of Metallica - this is both a great mix and a great cover:

[video=youtube_share;zyEXhA9EJ0g]http://youtu.be/zyEXhA9EJ0g[/video]

But speaking of covers, these are silly, but fun ones from an old Australian TV show:

The Beatnix
The Far Gone Beauties
The Australian Doors
The Rock Lobsters

Well you get the general idea... I'll get me coat.

Neil


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

Hamstrung said:


> You mean like this...
> [video=youtube;lcF0O9lLb6Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcF0O9lLb6Y[/video]


ha! what a coincindence. I just pulled those 2 names out of no where


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Option1 said:


> The Beatnix


I've seen this & heard the album from the show--good stuff--almost makes me want to have access to time travel so I can take this back in time to George Martin & the Beatles---see how history changes.


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2013)

[video=youtube;amiBTezWKqQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amiBTezWKqQ[/video]

full movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZi_lOaBCRA


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

laristotle said:


> [video=youtube;amiBTezWKqQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amiBTezWKqQ[/video]
> 
> full movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZi_lOaBCRA


More a tribute or homage than a cover--but still cool--and if we still had the Like button, I'd have used it.


----------



## Shark (Jun 10, 2010)

I like it when bands are enjoying themselves and sound good. Accuracy to the original is way down the list compared to those two points. I remember seeing Midnight Oil in '88 and they came on, played the songs exactly as on their albums and left. Yuck. That was like paying a lot of money to listen to a CD, but with closely confined sweaty people thrown in. Meh. 

I never saw Jimi live, but I love the way he improvises on the live videos. That's the difference between music and just playing a song.

On the other hand, my brother-in-law hates live music because it's not perfectly true to his CDs.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

With me it depends on the song, the circumstance, the peformer as well as their intention and abilities.
If a band/performer is doing a song that has a long standing personal connection to me as one of my favourites I tend to want to hear it accurately arranged and played however there's always exceptions. Sometimes you hear an old familiar song with a new arrangment or twist that refreshes it. 
Sometimes it's just indulgent and weird. The judgement on which it is lies with the listener.

As a player in a cover band I try to be as true to the original as my abilities allow. The rationale is two part. One, I get attempt to live out my private fantasy of playing my old favourites like my musical heros instead of just listening to it. Part two is that if anyone is inclined to sit and listen to us play then chances are they want a familiar arrangment of the song. A side note here, I'm not a professional musician and my abilities limit the amount of liberty I can take with a song anyway. At the same time my abilities limit the ability to do it note for note as well! 
Therefore when you see us play we're hopefully good enough that you'll have no trouble figuring out what we're playing but if you're looking for a pitch perfect note for note performance you may be disappointed.


I can enjoy other cover bands like that. It's the fun factor. If they look like they're enjoying it and are reasonably adept at playing a familiar tune the way you're used to hearing it then most people will enjoy it. If they feel the need to completely bugger the arrangement just to prove something then they should write their own songs. Put that creativity to work and maybe create their own classic. I tend towards wanting at least the traditional arrangement if a cover band is doing something. Note for note is not necessarily required. 


I've seen bands before that simply fudge a part of a song because nobody knew how to play it correctly but used the excuse "we're playing it our own way". To me that's disingenuous. In that case you're not making an artistic choice you're just trying to put a spin on the fact that you don't have the skill to pull it off. 


With professional bands I feel much the same way regarding circumstance and intent. If a band is doing their own tunes they can do whatever the hell they want with it but how well it goes over with me depends on the same factors. Is it an old favourite of mine? If so I probably want it fairly close to original. Disappointing examples are when a band does a "medly" of their biggest songs. Doing acoustic versions of hard rockers (except maybe when they start out that way then blast into the original version, that can be cool). I remember seeing Steve Miller once doing "Fly Like An Eagle" and in the middle he had some nosensical rap section thrown in. Like nails on a freaking chalk board! Blew the whole vibe of the song. 


Again, there are exceptions. Clapton's acoustic take on Layla wasn't bad (still prefer the original)
I used to love listening to the live version of Whole Lotta Love which was a big departure from the Zep 2 version or take someone like Jimi Hendrix (as mentioned), when you're that freaking talented then chances are any arrangement you pick will be entertaining. 


So I guess this is my long winded way of saying there's no set rule about this for me. Sometimes I like note-for-note sometimes I like creative diversions. For the artist determining when, where and how to do this is where the true talent lies.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Hamstrung said:


> Sometimes I like note-for-note sometimes I like creative diversions.


That's me. As an musician and an audience member.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Even if I don't like it as much as the original studio version I can still appreciate the musical deviations


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

I appreciate deviants...

Neil


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

Love this:

[video=youtube_share;xhGnuHuD5Fc]http://youtu.be/xhGnuHuD5Fc[/video]

Neil


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

Apart from the female vocals, this one is more faithful to the original than most:

[video=youtube_share;PsnYrH3BUP8]http://youtu.be/PsnYrH3BUP8[/video]

The original: http://youtu.be/D4iIVNzbdrM

Neil


----------

