Why do people criticize guitar covers or band covers?

George25

New Member
Im talking about the ones the did a great performance, but when improvisation is added specially on the solo parts people start criticizing because it missed some notes or it didnt sounded like the original. isn't what covers all about? be original and improvise if you can?
 
Last edited:
Well, some folks want to hear the song "exactly" like the original and some folks, like me, would rather hear a musicians "take" on a song, not a robotic exact replication of the original.
But I believe in clubs and things like that, most people expect it exactly like the record.
Many guitar players like to cop the guitar parts exactly, others don't.
Some songs do lend themselves (speaking of guitar parts here) to pretty much nailing the guitar parts...examples for me would be Rikki Don't lose that number and Kid Charlemagne.
Just my opinions of course!
No science or math was use to come up with my opinion!
 
In my opinion, yes. Though if you stand in for many working bands, you might find that they will want you to play note-for note.

I'm not a huge fan of covers, because I like to write my own stuff and express myself. But, it's a good way to get your foot in the door with the locals and get stand-in gigs. Depends too, on the venue. House bands that specialize - some of these CW venues (for example), are rabid about you hitting every-note and exactly. Blues, too.. Just has been my experience.

Understandable to a degree, I suppose, in that people Are passionate about the music they like.. and if you are standing in at "The House of Blues" ..you better not improvise much to any extent. I guess we are to honor the original artist and suspend belief in those who enjoy that music in venues like that, and to that point.

To me though, Replication sounds lifeless. For me, music is all about expressing yourself..

It's all CW around here.. I rarely stand-in for CW Bands anymore. Lots of work in that area hereabouts, but.. Kinda done all that note-for-note cardboard cutout stuff.
 
Music is ephemeral, and performances will vary. I perform in a couple of bands, and one of them is a tribute to David Bowie. As the band's only guitarist, I'm responsible for recreating soundscapes, tones, and specific performances by some ferociously talented players. Given that context, I feel that I need to play Robert Fripp's solo from "Fashion" exactly as written. But, in other songs, I take the liberty of changing some of the solo material and improvising a few segments - while staying within the style / tone / spirit of the original. It's a balance, and I recognize that some people might say that in a TRIBUTE band, we should constrain ourselves to only what was recorded. No one has ever gotten picky about it with me, but I do understand. At the same time, what makes live music magical is the moments of surprise.

I'm a big fan of the opera, and have been a subscriber to the Seattle Opera for more than a decade. What makes one performance of an opera different from any other? Essentially, this is a "cover" tune. Orchestras don't "jam" or improvise; the instrumental musicians are playing parts that are precisely written, and the singers are performing parts whose notes / embellishments / timing are pre-designated. So, even with the same cast and orchestra, on different nights of the same run of performances, what makes "that one" instance so special? I've heard opera regulars (who have sat near us for 10 years) say after a performance that "too much liberty" was taken by either a singer or the orchestra. I respect that, and I also think if we only want to hear a recreation of a specific recorded version WITH ZERO VARIANCE FROM THAT VERSION, then play the recording. That's fine :) I like live music because something special and dangerous and magical might happen.
 
Im talking about the ones the did a great performance, but when improvisation is added specially on the solo parts people start criticizing because it missed some notes or it didnt sounded like the original. isn't what covers all about? be original and improvise if you can?
Hmm.

You ask, "Why do people criticize...?"

Well, firstly because they're humans, and humans do that kind of thing. :rolleyes:

Secondly, because they may not have the same expectations that you have, re: covers. The idea you express ("isn't what covers all about? be original and improvise if you can?") is exactly the kind of thing a creative musician tends to say. But a club owner who's just trying to keep the patrons happy (so they keep buying drinks) doesn't care about that at all. If "be original and improvise if you can" keeps the patrons buying, he would subscribe to your idea. But maybe it doesn't. If "make it sound exactly like the radio cut playing in the background" makes the patrons happier and spendy-er, then the club owner will prefer that approach.

Thirdly, because the kind of person who even notices the improvisation and the originality is not a normal audience-member. He is more likely to be a "close listener," who is more analytical than a typical audience-member. And with that kind of listener, you run three (interrelated) risks:
1. He may know the original note-for-note, tone-for-tone, and be anticipating a particular passage he especially loves. If he doesn't hear it, he'll be disappointed.
2. He may not, as a matter of taste, prefer the changes you make over the original. After comparing them in his mind, he may be disappointed that you didn't (in his own opinion) improve upon the original, but merely detracted from it.
3. He may be a musician, or someone able to tell whether your version requires more or less skill than the original. If he suspects that the reason you departed from the original is because you don't have the skill to play the original, he'll be disappointed because it makes him aware he's listening to an inferior musician. (This applies even if you, yourself, are actually quite good.)

None of that means you have to surrender to these other persons' viewpoints and play every cover note-for-note.

It just means that you shouldn't be surprised if they aren't perfectly thrilled, when you opt to follow the instincts of a creative musician, and they weren't expecting you to do so.

P.S. One way to overcome the disappointment of the "close listener" is to play both the original solo and your own personalized extension of it, increasing its overall length. (Alternatively, you can play the original solo during the bridge, but take an outro solo that you customize.) By doing this, you assure the "close listener" that you're not departing from the original due to inferior skill, but only because you have at least as much skill as the original artist, plus some additional "things to say." (But make sure your additions are "tasty!")
 
IMHO - 2 greatest cover songs ever recorded -
No Quarter - TOOL
Astronomy Domine - Voi Vod

I'm kind of somewhere in the middle - I think covers are great - I think they can be exceptional when they are slightly rearranged...
You won't hear me complaining about people that do covers - note for note is great - rearranged is great.
 
As the good doctor said, other musicians, not the normal public will notice changes in a solo. Sadly, many musicians feel the need to put down other musicians. Don't get me wrong, I think some remakes, like "Higher Ground" are phenomenal, where others like the "Sound of Silence" disappoint me to no end. In my cover band, there are some songs where I play the solos note for note, but they are VERY rare. I've NEVER had a non musician notice the difference. Surprisingly, thanks to the Axe, they are surprised by the tones (and synths, etc), I'm able to add to songs.
 
After one of our performances, someone commented on the band's FB page about our version of "Slow Burn", saying that while my recreation of Pete Townshend's guitar part is technically spot-on, they were let down because (1) was playing the "wrong" kind of guitar (I use a Strandberg Boden for most of the rock tunes) and (2) I didn't LOOK like Pete Townshend. :)

That's a fair observation. I don't play Pete's style of instrument, and I don't look like him. I am not Pete Townshend. I can be confident of this, because I regularly check. Throughout the course of our 2+ hour show, I also bear little physical resemblance to Adrian Belew, Robert Fripp, Carlos Alomar, Reeves Gabrels, Mick Ronson, SRV, Peter Frampton, Earl Slick, Gerry Leonard, Nile Rodgers, Mick Wayne, or David Bowie (who played many great guitar parts himself). I work very hard to recreate their tones and performances, but I don't have time for plastic surgery and a costume change between most songs. So, I ask for some suspension of disbelief.

From a performance perspective, with songs or solos that are hugely iconic, there isn't much middle ground. You just have to either deliver it verbatim, or completely change it to make it your own. If a band is playing a killer cover of "Beat It", but the guitarist makes up their own solo, I'm going to be skeptical. But, I can be happily wrong about this: I saw a band in Vegas covering that tune, almost perfectly, and the guitarist delivered a scorching original solo that blew my mind. But if that guitarist were really committed, she would work harder to look like EVH :)
 
Sleestak - you speak a lot of sense (and are also very amusing to boot!)

As a Bowie fan who had chosen to hear your band on that basis, I suspect I would want to hear as faithful a recreation of possible - although not expecting the plastic surgery between songs (ok maybe during the interval). However if it was a general covers band then you are playing to a different crowd who are looking for a variety of songs, and may not even be that au fais with the nuances of each song.

Ultimaltely though, I guess what really matters (in my humble opinion at least) is whether the evening is fun!

To all you perfectionist replicators and also to the enthusiastic improvisers, just put your heart into it. If people criticise then, then that that genuinely says more about them than you.

good weekend all.

Cheers Gilesy
 
For those that think a "casual listener" won't notice you didn't play the same solo, I think you're very wrong depending on the artist/song.

Many great solos are very "singable" and are absolutely a part of the composition whether or not they were composed or improvised.

Casual listeners are hooked by the rhythm and the melodies, IMO. A great melodic (singable) solo will absolutely be noticed.

If I'm listening to a cover I want to hear one of two things: a very accurate recreation OR an original arrangement that maintains enough of the core song that people know what it is... Even if it takes a minute to figure out.

I have never been a covers guy - I started playing at 16 and started writing originals at 18 and that's been all really ever done since.

Years ago my original band did a jazzy pop version of Crazy Train with our female vocalist. Right after we got it where we were just about happy, The Osbournes debuted on TV with that jazz version... And we decided people would think we were stealing that idea, so we dropped it. That's the last cover song I ever worked on ;)

I did try to convince them that Goodbye to Romance would be excellent recast as a female sung pop tune... And then discovered the Dweezil Zappa / Lisa Loeb version. Excellent cover!
 
Hi Unix-Guy your observation about some audience members is true I’m sure, but the solo is not the only thing that defines how accurate a recreation it is, and while there are undoubtedly punters who will spot the differences at the lowest level of detail, I’d argue the recreation of the keyboard sounds, vocalist similarity or even something as fundamental as the balance between the instruments will affect many people’s views even more as to whether “it sounded like the original”.
 
Last edited:
I was fired long ago from a band (or asked gently to 'step aside') as I didn't mind doing covers, but note for note was dull. I made no radical changes to the songs, but different breakdowns, some acapella drops, medleys or mashups of songs that had similar chords. It came down to what they wanted to hear from the audience...they wanted to hear 'that sounded just like the recording', and I wanted to hear 'what a cool take on that song'. Show off our musicianship and invention.

I was not sad to leave.
 
SRV's version of Little Wing is a favorite cover of mine. Hendrix's original is amazing in it's own right (love his vocals on it), but it's really short. SRV's tone and interpretation of it gives me goosebumps. That said, I prefer Hendrix's version of Voodoo Child (Slight Return).
 
I'm in the camp that if you're a bar band doing covers, you play them exactly like the original. I always work out the note-for-note solos and embellishments. I consider bands that don't to be lazy. Arrangement changes and extended jams are okay as long as you've already hit on all the major components of the song.


That's just my two cents - and it's actually worth even less. If people are coming to see you, you're doing it right. If they're not coming to see you, you're not.
 
Im talking about the ones the did a great performance, but when improvisation is added specially on the solo parts people start criticizing because it missed some notes or it didnt sounded like the original. isn't what covers all about? be original and improvise if you can?
No one in a bar is going to hear you go off-book and want to know more about the talented and amazing guitar dude no one knows playing in the cover band that just fucked up the iconic classic solo from the song that’s been near and dear to their heart since they were a kid/won the big game/got that first handy in the car in high school from ole whats-her-name.

The job of a cover band is to get the job done. You are there to provide a product. The people want Transformers, not Go-Bots. Your individual achievement in guitar is not welcome.

Sorry bud that’s cold, tough love.
 
SRV's version of Little Wing is a favorite cover of mine. Hendrix's original is amazing in it's own right (love his vocals on it), but it's really short. SRV's tone and interpretation of it gives me goosebumps. That said, I prefer Hendrix's version of Voodoo Child (Slight Return).
That wasn’t really a cover though, just like Jimi’s “All Along the Watchtower” wasn’t really a cover, either. It was a complete reworking of the theme, not the song.
 
Back
Top Bottom