"...contains humor..." -Punk Planet

Cover bands are stupid, yes? But entertain me, reader of a zine that usually never deals with any music, let alone music as played by bands that are playing the music of other pop bands. Jab and thrust at me viciously as I write...

 

 

Cover That Thing

You can find them at weddings. You can even find them on TV. No matter where you are in the states you are probably no farther than a few minute drive from a bar featuring a band playing some mix of songs from the radio, some top 40 probably, or classic rock, or "modern" or "alternative" rock (whatever the Hell those two things are) or maybe oldies. Every other block of every town across the country has a group of people who are really good at playing their instruments, who can faithfully reproduce pop songs old and new, to the endless amazement of the neighborhood. Cover bands--bands that play the recorded, mostly pop music of other bands--are the butt of jokes in the musical community. Serious musicians and fans mock the shit out of cover bands, ridiculing their lack of vision and creativity for wanting to play the music of others instead of writing and performing their own.

The purpose of these bands is not to record, to exercise creativity through song composition, though they may write a few songs of their own and throw them into their live set. The purpose is to play venues--bars, weddings, fire halls--for money and fun. When first learning an instrument you normally learn to play existing popular songs and it's a natural step to form a group to play these songs in full. Sitting down to figure out a song, listening to it over and over unlocking what the musicians on the recording are doing is rewarding. Bringing a song to life with a full band represents the culmination of a lot of work.

The negative feelings around this arise from musical peers, those who are engaged in writing "original" music. The cover bands are seen as cheesy and cheap, as taking the easy route to local better-paying gigs playing for audiences who don't know anything about music, let alone give a damn about it. It is a selling-out of sorts. The top 40, already a joke, enters a new realm of "suck" when played by people considering themselves serious musicians, who then become identified with this music and its cheesiness. Also sneered at is the local "rock star" phenomenon--band members becoming locally well-known and enjoying on a small scale things associated with bigger bands: a following, access to groupies, dressing rooms, tours, fawning fans (you guys fuckin ROCK man!!). All of this, playing stupid music for the stupid, is looked down on by original musicians who, though they are often involved in the same activities appropriate to their own level of success, consider themselves in a class that cannot even be compared to the cover band culture. This ability to play popular songs and take part in what I just described is seen as a way of leeching off the musicians who wrote the songs in the first place, of leeching off their talent, their effort and their fame. Original bands see themselves as doing the real work of writing, playing and struggling to get people to listen, of breaking their asses with little compensation on the uncertain path to getting a recording deal-- something the cover bands will never see. It is artists versus craftsmen.

 

Someone, stop that band

Should the cover bands be allowed to exist, or should we gather them up, take away their instruments and confine them in a safe place where they will do no more harm? One rationale for the existence of cover bands is that there are many songs you will never be able to hear performed by their original writers and performers, and so witnessing cover renditions is the closest you will come to the experience of seeing the original artists, and the only way to hear the material live. You will never be able to go see the Doors, Jimi Hendrix or Janis Joplin perform. Though their music isn't that old, you can't go to see Nirvana play because the band broke up after the singer shot himself in the head.

Sure, some bands from as far back as the sixties are still limping around in some form. You could go see The Who or the Rolling Stones for example. First you wait for one of their over-hyped over-priced "farewell" tours to come around once every five years, then you stand about a half mile from the stage with 80,000 others and suffer with the bad acoustics, listening to the band--accompanied by extra musicians--plod through tunes they haven't played with any spirit for over twenty years. Rock and roll.

There is a purpose in this work of covering songs, which is breathing life into the music--live is the way much of it is supposed to be heard; bringing it into real time, making it analog once again, unfreezing it from it's fossilized state on the recording. It is a craft to make the music real.

The ability to play an instrument does not necessarily coincide with the ability to write songs or music, as evidenced in ninety percent of all "original" bands. Someone who plays quite well may enjoy playing others' music alone without ever writing his or her own music, or having the desire to. A cover band may also be a way for this person to play with others without having to be tied to an original act, playing parts that he/she finds unpleasant and uninspiring.

 

John Tesh: plays originals

Many original bands are so bad; they are contributing nothing to "original" music. They sound so much like others--both successful acts, and their peers playing across town, and in towns across the country--that they should just dispense with the "original" pretense and play cover songs to save us the boredom. How many bands have not put more than a few covers in their own original set, or even on their records? Bands get all high and mighty about their original status, and yet often do more than a few covers themselves, sometimes recording them because they know people will give that a listen before they would an original. Recording cover songs has been an unstoppable fad among acts both professional and not so professional, so much that it's hard to name an act that hasn't recorded a cover. Pat Boone's album of heavy metal cover tunes was funny, and maybe an unintended statement on cover/tribute-mania: let's everyone cover everything.

Less popular acts have filled up the "tribute" records [1]--whole cds devoted to the music of a band as covered by newer bands, usually, but not necessarily, of the same genre. Even as I write this, I open an alternative weekly paper and there is one big review of about seven different tribute cds out on a smaller label. The tribute cd fad must be a symptom of rock's ill health; there's a tribute cd out for every band that has been around for more than two years. The "tribute" facade, with the bands paying tribute as "fans" themselves is very flimsy. The real purpose--trying to gain popularity and exposure by identifying with a more famous act, hopefully having their legitimacy rub off on your name--is blatantly apparent, making each original band involved as much commercial whores as their top 40 brethren back home.

How many times have I stumbled into a show, taking a chance on something I knew nothing about, and been stuck seeing several boring, mediocre, derivative bands plod through their own "original" songs while waiting, holding out hope that the next band up will be better? Sometimes you're pleasantly surprised; usually you aren't. At least, I think, if the bands were playing covers one could hum along while drinking his beer and thinking about more fun things he could have done with his cover charge money.

Why the aversion to playing other people's music? Is it an admission that all of popular music is so vapid and disposable that the thought of spending energy to recreate it live is ludicrous? And if that is the case, why take the creation of the original music so seriously in the first place? Is it because with the unnatural increasing importance pop music seems to have taken on in individuals' lives, potent identification with and loyalty to this music has grown too, making someone's playing it in public akin to them doing an unflattering stand up routine consisting of impressions of your parents and friends? Does it hit close to home. Do some bands see the cover band and think, there--but for a few lucky breaks, fortuitous circumstances, and/or their one good songwriter--would they be also?

And why is playing someone's music degraded, while sampling pieces of it, stealing it, and putting it out mass produced in a slightly different package with your name on it seen as impressive by many, including serious "critics"? In classical music, being able to accurately play what someone else has written and at the same time bring something of yourself to it is seen as the highest achievement. [But getting into classical or jazz is beyond the scope of this essay. Ha--I used "beyond the scope of this essay"--fuck yeah, baby!] Suffice to say in the classical and jazz worlds keeping the older music alive by playing it is not looked down on.

 

Figr'n it out

If we need to, if we happen to be stuck in a situation like that described above for example--stuck watching a cover band, and we happen not to be too distracted by morose thoughts of our doomed environment being further clogged with tons of worthless tribute cds, products belched out endlessly whose even temporary existence can't be justified--how can we judge the cover bands? One principle is based on the age of the music being played. The older the music is, the more acceptable it is to have someone recreating it, letting it flow out through instruments to keep it alive. There's less of a point in covering brand new music, stuff you will hear frequently on the radio, stuff by groups who are actively touring and playing--even if it is good.

Another rule is obscurity of a tune. The more obscure a tune, the more acceptable it is to play it. A band digging out some overlooked, under-appreciated song is doing the audience a better service than if they do "Satisfaction," followed by "Takin Care of Business." This is one reason the band playing strictly top 40--the musical chum thrown down on us from above--is so frowned upon. Isn't having to hear this shit over and over on the radio, usually in situations where we are captive, enough?

Difficulty of music being played is not a bad guideline. A band playing an entire set of simple tunes is lazy [See "Satisfaction" and "Takin care of Business" in the above paragraph--as examples of double foul].

 

TWO PAGES: Next Page

 

[1]. By the way, a "record," is a recording. It's an abbreviation--get it? You see, if we take "recording" and cut off the "ing," we are left with "record," do you see that? So the next time you ask for a "record" and some GenX moron clerk stares at you with that look like you just said Do you have Dark Side of the Moon on wax cylinder? please grab him by the bone in his nose, and provide remedial English lesson.

 

Home | Contact

All contents copyright © 2001 Rat Blood Soup