Just because the truth hurts, seems inconceivable, or just doesn't fit your narrative doesn't make it so. If you're in a cover band, no one in the bar has heard of you, and no one cares. They'll forget your name 5 seconds after you say it (after every song).Nah, it's just your opinion. Worth every penny paid for it....
Depends on your definition of cover. I'm pretty sure SRV had to have permission from the Hendrix estate or pay royalties to whoever owns the rights to release it though. Same name, same theme, same melodies: it's a cover to me.
Again, your opinion, and worth every penny paid for it. You have no authority in my world.
This. ^^^ Right here. ^^^
Hmm.
You ask, "Why do people criticize...?"
Well, firstly because they're humans, and humans do that kind of thing.
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!")
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
It would appear that one needs permission from the Hendrix Estate to simply invoke his name.
I wouldn’t want to herd all the cats running amok in the world between your ears.
We covered "Feeling Stronger Every Day" by Chicago without a horn section, and had no complaints. We were never a 'tribute' band, where the bar is higher to 'play it just like the record'. That said, there were some that we did, and no matter what we played, we kicked its ass. We used to do "Time" by Pink Floyd. Once, we had people bowing in front of me during the solo, doing the "Wayne's World" 'we are not worthy' schtick. Darn near laughed my ass off, but didn't miss a note. Interestingly, most of the real acts don't 'play it like the record' either, Gilmour in particular. Some folks just like telling other folks what they have to do. Homey don't play dat.
You don't have the capability.
If no one cares, then your whole point is moot.
LOL! Yup....This thread should be moved to TGP
