Because one is art and the other is craft. You don't "create" covers.
Steve, I have some friends in your area, and some of them could be who you're talking about (I'm not concerned...lol). Alot of it seems to be based on how much the original artist gets paid for their time and effort vs how much time and effort it takes to learn a cover and play it. I've been in both cover and original bands, the cover band played 6-8 times a month, making as much as 150/person a night. The original band played maybe once a month, and got paid much less (embarrasingly less, no joke) for ten times the rehearsal time as the cover band. I never have understood the nihilistic attitude that original 'artists' have. 90% of the time the cover band was there just to have fun and play some tunes that we all enjoyed in our youth.... and I havent met a sobberish drummer yet that can play for 6 hours.... " I leave it all out there in the one set I have...", yeah... maybe so.... play Green Grass And High Tides and Freebird to open the 4th set one time then you can say something to me!
This one I just don't get. There's a snobbery amongst original musicians towards cover bands. At least in my area there is, and some things I read online.
I think that original bands that hate cover bands are "hate'n" for one of two reasons... either they themselves can't play these covers well enough to get gigs Or... they are just haters...
I think part of it is the significant difference in how one works to get a crowd reaction. A local "originals" act is going to have a tougher time because they have to :prove: each song... and that song is somebody's baby; it really hurts if the audience doesn't respond or responds negatively. To work up enough acceptable material to play a 60 min set (let alone 3) is a significant feat.Contrast with the cover act that is playing 3 sets of songs people already like. While the selection process is easier, pulling off a variety of covers that are reasonably faithful to the originals is a lot of work, from working out the arrangement to actually having enough hands/technology to perform the song. The originals act can choose to limit their production and arrangements to the instruments/people/technology available to them; the cover act needs for the songs to bear more than a passing resemblance to what the audience remembers and that requirement necessitates a different approach to the music as well as a different mindset.In another post someone said one is "art" and the other "craft". Not so much, methinks... how about "composer" and "entertainer"? Think back to tin pan alley for a moment... experienced song writers turning out material for entertainers to present to the public. Why? Because *most* songwriters aren't gifted entertainers. You'd be surprised how many hits are written by people that never set foot on a national stage, composing in their living rooms or studio.Finally, some acts do both fairly well. Van Halen made their initial mark with covers of Roy Orbison and other classic rock writers. There is no shame in performing any music well.
When you go to listen to a big orchestra there's a good chance they're playing covers that were written by some stuffy old Austrian guys 300 years ago..I guess that means it's not art
Page created in 0.18 seconds with 23 queries.