Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 259
Loc: Too close to Nashville
I love doing both. Many bands (or solo singers) do only their originals because they lack the musicianship to convincingly cover great songs done by others. They can only play little stuff they make up themselves. I am not saying that is the case here at the Planet.
Not doing covers is a whopper of a mistake, because you can learn tons about songwriting and arranging from doing covers, which immensely improves the quality of your originals. You can reach higher standing on the shoulders of others than fumbling around on your own in the dark.
Some of my favorite recordings of all time are the Motown covers the Beatles did, and other covers which they made sound like they were their own songs. The early Stones did the same thing. Look at what the Beach Boys did to "Sloop John B". Even Van Halen did a tasty rendition of "You Really Got Me" by the Kinks.
On the flip side, most of the "professional" bands who do covers make the mistake of aping the original without adding anything new or making it their own. In which case, it strikes me as watered down and lackluster. Why bother, if you're not going to add something? Motley Crue's "Smokin' in the Boys' Room" comes to mind. At least LeAnn Rimes -- who I detest as just one of a trillion females with a great voice and nothing original to add -- covered "Smokin' in the Boys' Room" in her own way, and her version beats the hell out of Motley Crue.
I recently heard Limp Bizkit's version of "Behind Blue Eyes" and kind of liked the original stamp they put on it. Although they had to leave out the rock part entirely because they lack the musicianship to pull it off. That's the price rappers pay when they try to do real music.
Oddly enough, I don't think there are very many credible covers of Beatles songs. I liked Earth, Wind and Fire's "Got To Get You Back In My Life", but it wasn't better than the Beatles. The "Lads from Liverpool" put out a lot of material that is really hard to cover well, like Tomorrow Never Knows, I Am The Walrus, Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite. Surprisingly, The Ventures pulled off a really neat version of Strawberry Fields Forever. I thought Elton John's cover of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" unfortunately sounded like a parody. He failed to capture any of the psychedelic, transcendent quality of the song.
Have you heard any covers of Beatles songs that surpassed the original? Yet, I feel the Beatles surpassed the originals on You Really Got A Hold On Me, Money, Twist And Shout, Anna, Please Mr Postman, Roll Over Beethoven, Bad Boy, Slow Down. Although I adore the original version of "Money" by Barrett Strong and also the way the Stones did it. And the original "Please Mr Postman" by the Marvelettes is hard to beat, But the Beatles took what they did, and built on it.
For my old band we had a greta singer and lead player so if there was a song I wanted to sing or paly lead guitar on I used to record a cover as an "audition" of what I could do with it....i really wanted to do the Bowie version of man who sold the world since the nirvanna version blows so much but got the lead vocal for it and they insisted on the shit nirvanan version
I have recorded covers before. But generally not something I release. I mean I think I posted by "Beatles as Rawk" cover for some VSP challenge...long ago, I posted an obscure Seger cover.
Two different motivations. The Beatles was just some cheeky fun for a challenge...the Seger was actually a song I heard that was--well, I thought it was a FAR better SONG...than it was a record. So that was more artistically motivated. And honestly--I think, being obscure, had I not been clear it was a cover--it sounded like a "Jamie Lang record"...I imagine not many would've know it. It was a vocal challenge to NOT do an impression of such an iconic voice.
Now, I LEARN a lot of covers...from a compositional stand point. And what I mean by that--is that I don't usually learn them on a level like "I'm going to learn THE bass line"...or "THE" guitar part like I would need to in order to go on tour with them...but, more learning the progression implied by ALL the changes...under the melody.
I will stop when I'm listening to a record and pick up the guitar when I hear something that tickles my fancy and yet I go "what IS that...?"
Deeper - if you haven't already - check out Michael Steele's stuff. He has a looooong list of completed covers that are excellent. Buddy puts the work in.
Oh... I see you listen to the Beatles cover. Anyway, yeah he's got dozens of good ones.
Also, there's a guy who does really sonically meticulous covers of music I absolutely hate--super knob jockety kidns of 80s records...on Youtube...but, that's the OTHER part of "recording covers" in a home studio setting: learning how to duplicate sounds is GREAT ear training. And you end up learning things you didn't THINK you would about sounds you "love"...it allows you to learn and experiment with recording technique on your gear, in your room...but, on material that kind of has a model for success.
#1930105 - 09/22/2405:50 PMRe: Do you ever record covers? Or only originals?
[Re: Popmann]
TimsterTimster
Artist #'s - 130, 298, 412
Loquacious Planeteer
Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 44201
Loc: Center of the Universe
Shit Nirvana cover? Really? About a thousand times better than Bowie's. May be the first time we ever disagreed.
Somewhere, I have a half completed version of brain damage. I nailed the keys. Buy, got discouraged because I didn't go into eclipse.
I play this song all the time.
A million years ago I made the mistake of not learning covers, thinking "my art" was more important. I love playing my campfire versions of covers now and it has helped my playing a lot. still shit, still fun.
Shit Nirvana cover? Really? About a thousand times better than Bowie's. May be
i say shit cover to trigger the Nirvanna fans Theres a greta Bowie live version with cool drums on the intro and the songs rocks as opposed to be being a little dirgey with nirvanna
Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 55728
Loc: San Miguel de Allende, Mexico ...
I think it’s unreasonable to expect a cover of a Beatles song to “outdo the original.“
I also think we get into a little unknown territory here regarding the difference between a cover and a new arrangement. My days of trying to perfect covers of anything or over. I’ve done it, I got pretty good at it, I don’t need to do it anymore.
But I have taken songs that I like and reimagined them, and they ended up on my CDs. I’m pretty proud of them.
I usually hate new arrangements of Beatles songs—feels either cheap or sacrilegious—but here are two of mine that I think are far enough removed while still honoring the original compositions:
In the studio I’ve done both. When I cover something, I’ll do it my way, which is typically not a totally reenvisioned version, more like re-cast in a different style. Our band is all 70s harmony covers. The learning that comes with covering songs can’t be underestimated. Great for songwriters too.
While I’ve not done clones, that’s also a great way to become a much better musician plus learn engineering. It’s a lot of work to learn parts, tones, feel from the established hit artists. It’s not necessary to be a good song writer or competent musician. But, I’ve never heard anyone who’s truly an accomplished musician discount the virtues of learning how their favorite songs are played/assembled. If you can play exact parts off of records but choose not to, that’s different from downplaying covers, tribute bands or note for note versions as a waste of time.
_________________________
kel
"I love what you guys are trying to do up there" ...from an audience member at one of my gigs. Gear: Fender Medium pick
These arrangements are quite different from the original, and no harm meant, but I don't see how you can claim they "honor the originals" -- other than the mere fact that you did them in the first place, which is honoring them.
That said, I really "Doug" your version of "Yesterday." That is exactly the kind of music I like to listen to late at night as I drift off to sleep. I think the casual listener might not recognize what song you are doing, but that's okay. "Rain" was excellent, too, and deserves further listening. That's one of the Beatles greatest songs, and languishes in "relative" obscurity because it was a flip-side and not on an album (until Past Masters).
Observations on the photograph: (1) You have an extraordinary drummer. I say this because he has very clean drums and is wearing a very clean shirt, and I've never met drummers that clean. That is out of the ordinary. Also, his eyes are closed, like he's really enjoying the music. Not to mention his choice of drums... He 'looks like' he is a tasteful drummer/percussionist who doesn't overplay.
(2) I like how focused the young bassist is on following you! Were you confusing him with 11th chords and partial chords? Congratulations on finding such a young bassist who can handle your jazzy chords.
(3) I didn't know Casio made keyboards good enough for a master piano-tickler like yourself.
Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 55728
Loc: San Miguel de Allende, Mexico ...
Thanks, Deeper. I’d have to disagree with you about whether or not these honor the originals, and especially “yesterday.“ The entire opening sequence is based on the opening two notes of yesterday, when he sings the words “yesterday…“ I build other sections of the song around those two notes as well. I don’t think “honoring“ a song means imitating it.
When I moved here 20 years ago this October, Drummer Victor Monterrubio was the first drummer I played with and he still my Drummer of choice for most kind of music. The last 10 years or so, he’s come to view me not as a bandleader, and thus with a certain level of distrust, but more as a close friend. It’s always a pleasure to work with him. Ironically, someone broke into his vehicle in Broad daylight yesterday stole his snare and all of his symbols when his car was parked in front of his house.
Ruben, the bass player was someone I heard about 11 years ago, and unlike many of the Mexican musicians I’ve encountered, he really got the concept of how to play both American and British rock with conviction. It might seem simple, but there’s something missing with a lot of players down here when it comes to those genres.
I approached him and asked if he liked jazz and Latin and he said he did but he didn’t have a lot of experience. I hired him and now he’s my number one guy down here, and a very good partner for Victor in the rhythm section. About a year ago he came to me and asked if I wanted to train him in real estate, and now we are part of a three person team called the three amigos and he’s learning to sell real estate my way. And we still play together a lot.
Registered: 09/27/00
Posts: 19432
Loc: Sacramento, CA, USA
I agree with what has been said here about recording meticulous covers as a valuable learning tool or challenge, but don’t see the point in releasing them apart from showing off your skills to your peers.
I play with a pretty regionally popular Santana tribute band, and we try to give our audiences what they want… Which is sounding as close to their favorite records as we can. So they can feel like they are hearing their favorite “legendary” artists live without having to fork out hundreds of dollars. There are lots of good tribute bands playing the casinos around Lake Tahoe and Reno. But it would be silly to try to sell recordings of us trying to sound like the original record.
But then you can find outstanding tribute bands like this one, and I’m glad that they’re making great recordings of their meticulous covers:
I differ with a lot of folks here on the definition of the word “cover.” Because I think of it in the sense of an attempt to duplicate a famous recording or performance. Our friend Michael Steele does good covers that I see as a labor of love for the material, a personal challenge, and a way to show off his abilities to his friends. I don’t think that Doug Robinson’s versions of Beatles’ songs are “covers” in that sense of the word. He’s doing his own arrangements/interpretations of those songs.
Now that I have retired from my day job, I anticipate that I’ll be doing a lot more recording, and that will most certainly include attempts to cover some of my favorite recordings in my strict sense of the word, as well as trying to put my own spin on them to more or less of an extent.
_________________________ "Bobby, I'm sorry you got a head like a potato. I really am."
Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 259
Loc: Too close to Nashville
Originally Posted By: Xenophile
I differ with a lot of folks here on the definition of the word “cover.”
I'd like to break it to you gently, Xeno. The definition of a "cover" is not up for debate. Any song that you do that has been recorded before is called a "cover," whether it's a clone or a completely whacked-out variation of the song.
Ask ANY music publisher or pro songwriter and they will tell you.
Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 259
Loc: Too close to Nashville
Originally Posted By: Jazzooo
Thanks, Deeper. I’d have to disagree with you about whether or not these honor the originals, and especially “yesterday.“ The entire opening sequence is based on the opening two notes of yesterday, when he sings the words “yesterday…“ I build other sections of the song around those two notes as well. I don’t think “honoring“ a song means imitating it.
I listened a second time to your jazzy variation of Yesterday, and I love it even more the second time, and will probably go back for further listening. Your variations on a theme are mighty tasty! And I truly wish that I could say your definition of "honoring the song" is simply way broader than mine. But since songwriting has been my main impetus in life -- my raison d'etre -- I feel I must step up and say "You're just plain wrong." And hope you have the humility to see it. (And if you can't see it, no harm, sir. It's okay to disagree.)
Your view of "honoring the song" comes from the perspective vantage point of a virtuoso musician and an arranger, Doug, not a songwriter. It's part of your nature to NOT play a simple C F G pattern when you could substitute CMaj7 Dm9 and G13 instead. I'm not going to rule out that you may be a genius at piano and arranging. And perhaps you are even a talented composer. But one thing your statement reveals is that you are NOT a SONG-writer.
Because songwriters are very possessive about their babies. They hate it when someone changes their chords or melody, because they often put vast amounts of time and effort into carving and whittling the song until they feel they've created the perfect expression of their emotional intent.
How would you like it if you had a baby that you put your heart and soul into nursing and raising, and loved that baby with all your heart, and then somebody comes along and says, "Oh I love your baby, but I'm going to change his hairstyle, dress him differently, teach him to speak Lithuanian, give him a tattoo, pierce his nose, and force him to worship my religion?"
Sticking to a songwriter's chords and melody -- and THE MOOD of the original -- is honoring the song. It does not have to be imitation. Following the Marvelettes' "Please Mr Postman," the Beatles covered it, cleaned it up a little, and heightened the emotional impact of the song while remaining true to the original. Later on, The Carpenters did it their way. Both the Beatles and the Carpenters tried to honor the song by improving upon it without changing the chords or melody. Neither the Beatles or the Carpenters did mere imitations.
After Gladys Knight did "Heard It Though The Grapevine," Marvin Gaye did a version with the same chords and melody and it was not an imitation, but a "heightening" of the original. And when Creedence Clearwater did it, again, John Fogerty honored the song by sticking to the original melody and chords. Do you think CCR's version sounds like an imitation? Of course not.
Hahaha that was great. They may be mocked but The Bee Gees had great pop writing skills.
You know what would be funny, assigning a cover song to each other to cover. Like AL has to cover Shake Your Booty.
I actually LOVE KC and the Sunshine Band. Would probably choose I'm Your Boogie Man. ha ha though Get Down Tonight brings back very happy times in the underage disco the Green Apple so I'm always good when that song comes on.
i hated the BeeGees disco era except for Night Fever but loved their non disco songs.
Rereading the OP I was reminded when some indie showed up to IMP with his cover of I Am The Walrus which has to be the worst cover of a song I've ever heard in my life.
This is the guy I made reference to...again...hate the SOUND of nearly everything he chooses--but, he DOES a really great job with reverse engineering all the knob jockeying:
FWIW--wanted to give the guy a boost--name to a mention...I would suggest that it's actually HARDER to do when natural sounds are sounds you love. But, still--it doesn't hurt to know how to do these knob twiddling "tricks" so that you can...you know use them at say 20% of what Mutt Lange would. Ha.
Thanks, Deeper. I’d have to disagree with you about whether or not these honor the originals, and especially “yesterday.“ The entire opening sequence is based on the opening two notes of yesterday, when he sings the words “yesterday…“ I build other sections of the song around those two notes as well. I don’t think “honoring“ a song means imitating it.
I listened a second time to your jazzy variation of Yesterday, and I love it even more the second time, and will probably go back for further listening. Your variations on a theme are mighty tasty! And I truly wish that I could say your definition of "honoring the song" is simply way broader than mine. But since songwriting has been my main impetus in life -- my raison d'etre -- I feel I must step up and say "You're just plain wrong." And hope you have the humility to see it. (And if you can't see it, no harm, sir. It's okay to disagree.)
Your view of "honoring the song" comes from the perspective vantage point of a virtuoso musician and an arranger, Doug, not a songwriter. It's part of your nature to NOT play a simple C F G pattern when you could substitute CMaj7 Dm9 and G13 instead. I'm not going to rule out that you may be a genius at piano and arranging. And perhaps you are even a talented composer. But one thing your statement reveals is that you are NOT a SONG-writer.
Because songwriters are very possessive about their babies. They hate it when someone changes their chords or melody, because they often put vast amounts of time and effort into carving and whittling the song until they feel they've created the perfect expression of their emotional intent.
How would you like it if you had a baby that you put your heart and soul into nursing and raising, and loved that baby with all your heart, and then somebody comes along and says, "Oh I love your baby, but I'm going to change his hairstyle, dress him differently, teach him to speak Lithuanian, give him a tattoo, pierce his nose, and force him to worship my religion?"
Sticking to a songwriter's chords and melody -- and THE MOOD of the original -- is honoring the song. It does not have to be imitation. Following the Marvelettes' "Please Mr Postman," the Beatles covered it, cleaned it up a little, and heightened the emotional impact of the song while remaining true to the original. Later on, The Carpenters did it their way. Both the Beatles and the Carpenters tried to honor the song by improving upon it without changing the chords or melody. Neither the Beatles or the Carpenters did mere imitations.
After Gladys Knight did "Heard It Though The Grapevine," Marvin Gaye did a version with the same chords and melody and it was not an imitation, but a "heightening" of the original. And when Creedence Clearwater did it, again, John Fogerty honored the song by sticking to the original melody and chords. Do you think CCR's version sounds like an imitation? Of course not.
I remember hating Jazzooo's version of Shenandoah because for me it kind of took away the country majesty of a song I really love. I also hated Tao's version of a Marvin Gaye song because it seemed blasphemous, like if I tried to cover Stevie's Superstition, the world sure as hell doesn't fucking need that.
I could never stomach CCR's version of Grapevine because Marvin's for me is not only definitive for the song but dayum it's probably THE iconic soul hit of all time! That was #1 7 weeks you know?
On the other hand I love the Fabs' Ticket To Ride but consider the Carpenters' version THE best cover ever made. Never liked the original Lucy In The Sky that much but remember the day I first heard Elton's version coming out of these freaky cool echoey car stereo speakers in this used 60s Oldsmobile I was driving at the time, I was driving past Earl Schieb's Auto Painting shop in Enola PA. Elton injected magic into Lucy for me.
Jimi's Watchtower is up there with Ticket To Ride for the greatest cover, for me, but I wouldn't really even know Watchtower otherwise.
Can you actually consider the 5th Dimension's songs or Glen Campbell's by Jimmy Webb covers when the songs were written for the artist? How is Up, Up and Away not a 5th Dimension tune or Wichita Lineman? One of my music partners did a cover song that basically existed for me because he knew how much I loved the song, which was an old commercial jingle from 1968. It feels like I helped write that cause it ususped my soul (in a good way).
The first version of Rock and Roll Music I heard was the Beatles and that's the only version I consider the legit one, timing plays a part in how you value a cover I think.
Most heard Calling Occupants the first time by the Carpenters along with It's Going To Take Some Time This Time but in both cases the original is way more significant. to me, anyway.
The Bangles' Hazy Shade Of Winter I find to be incredible but know people who really got irked when I claimed online that it blew the boots off Simon and Garfunkel's dirgy original.
I found Al Green's version of How Can You Mend A Broken Heart? at first to be offputting but over the years I grew to love it.
I love both Little Eva's and Grand Funk's Locomotion for different reasons.
and how about Neil Sedaka's slow version of his own Breaking Up Is Hard To Do? He had a hit with both, imagine that. Loved playing that on the piano.
Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 259
Loc: Too close to Nashville
Originally Posted By: AL
Can you actually consider the 5th Dimension's songs or Glen Campbell's by Jimmy Webb covers when the songs were written for the artist? How is Up, Up and Away not a 5th Dimension tune or Wichita Lineman?
You don't have to be the songwriter to make the original recording of a song, but everyone who records it thereafter is "covering" it, doing a "cover."
There's legal technicality here that states the first act to record a song MUST HAVE THE SONGWRITER'S PERMISSION. But once it has been recorded, the entire world is free to cover it without asking the songwriter's permission. But they must pay the statutory royalty rate as set by law.
Songwriters and publishers will see a royalty bump in the new year for physical sales (including vinyl, cassettes and CDs) and digital downloads. These are called mechanical royalties. The Copyright Royalty Board upped the U.S. statutory mechanical royalty rate from the current rate of 12 cents to 12.40 cents if the song has a run time of five minutes or less. (If over five minutes, the rate is 2.39 cents per minute.)
} 
