"Carbon Copy" or "Your Version"

[Dodeska]

I agree with much of what has been said. I do try to come close when I do a cover with the intent of playing in the same style as that track.

For example, the verse groove in Foo Fighters' Arlandria that Taylor Hawkins lays down, I would say, is 'signature' to that song so when I play that I try to get bang on the money.

Another example would be the drum intro to Spin Doctors' Two Princes. If one were to attempt that song I would suggest the intro needs to be exact as it's pretty iconic to that song. I don't play that song but it feels a good example for my point.

The only change to this approach is where you are looking to do a version of a cover. I actually love doing this. For example, we do versions of Voodoo Chile and All Along the Watchtower but then Hendrix didn't really play these songs the same live almost ever!

We are currently working up a stadium rock version of Nothing Compares to You (made famous by Sinead O'Conner but written by Prince) which is pretty much a ballad. Think mahoosive drums and huge bass guitar kicking in half way through the first verse then a Slash style guitar solo later in an instrumental that doesn't exist in the original. Sounds so wrong but it kind of works! Well, I guess we'll find out when we gig it!

Anyway, I love working up versions of songs in a new style, different arrangement, different instrumentation. It gets me thinking creatively and as I can't write songs for toffee this is the closest I'll get to making something my own.

We're doing our own rendition of Lady In Red (the Chris de Burgh ballad). Starts off as a ballad but moves into a "punked-up" version after the first verse. It'd be hard to play it as the original sounded. It debuts in 2 weeks time - I'll let you know how it went down!!

[FlipDWfan4lyfe]

i stick to the original track as much as possible...ive seen it too much when people say they're covering a song but stray as far away from it as possible, at that point its just playing against the song and not a cover anymore...or when people attempt songs that are way too complicated like a Dream Theater song and play the simplest fills on it...my philosophy is play songs within your skill level or slightly higher to challenge yourself...but don't try Jason Bittner stuff within your first week of sitting behind a kit

[truckerdrummer]

i pretty much agree with most ppl here... the signature stuff stays pretty true to the original track but more or less just kinda go with the feel. some nights the whole band strays a little bit and it ends up being a great change of pace. And some songs we do completely our own way. it's kinda hard keeping a jay z song true to the original drum part in a country band haha

[wolvie56]

Nah! mimicking people doesn't honour them. For one thing you can never duplicate a song exactly. The original artists can't even do that!!! different instrumentations, effects, personel changes etc...

all the best...

Well actually, I said "close to note for note as possible". And it IS honoring the artist by trying to play it exactly as they did. So I guess you have never been to a Rush concert. Neil Peart is nearly spot on to the album every single time. Nothing I hate more than to pay for a concert and have the artist play something nearly unrecognizable just because it's live. If they can't duplicate something they created over and over, then they aren't that talented.

[drummer5359]

I played covers for years as close as I could. Currently one of the bands is an acoustic trio that does covers. (Guitarist/lead singer, Bassist/backup vocalist and myself playing hand percussion and also doing backup vocals.) Our versions are "unplugged" style and it really seems go over. The most important aspect to acoustic covers is getting the feel right.

[kay-gee]

Well actually, I said "close to note for note as possible". And it IS honoring the artist by trying to play it exactly as they did. So I guess you have never been to a Rush concert. Neil Peart is nearly spot on to the album every single time. Nothing I hate more than to pay for a concert and have the artist play something nearly unrecognizable just because it's live. If they can't duplicate something they created over and over, then they aren't that talented.

Sorry if I was mis-understood. I said in my post that Rush music etc...is a different thing all together than playing more "vocal" oriented music, which is What I play exclusively. For an example, when playing a Jimmy Buffet or an Eagles song, noone cares when you hit a cymbal or put a little fill in or whatever. I just play what I feel in the moment makes the song work in a live enviroment, taking my cues from the emphasis of the singing.

For the record...Rush used to play at our high school. I've seen then perform on more than one occasion, pre-Peart as well as with Peart. Great players, but the awful singing kept me from being a huge fan.

all the best...

[Mac]

Something that came to mind after reading back down through this thread was something I saw on TV a couple of nights ago. It was Carlos Santana, live at Montreux in 2011. He was doing a lot of his classic tunes, but one that immediately comes to mind and that he is very famous for is "Black Magic Woman." So, Carlos on vocals and guitar, a slew of other musicians on stage, and for drummers it was either Dennis Chambers or his wife, Cindy Blackman.

WOW!

While the songs were definitely covers of the originals, the arrangements were done more along the lines of a jam session, and it was just completely awesome. Every Santana solo was crafted on the spot (you could actually hear and see the evolution and thought process - nothing was pre-planned) and the drums were groovy with some nicely placed displays of chops from both Dennis and Cindy.

Now here is a case where the original parts were virtually completely ignored, and yet it was pure awesomesauce anyway. However, it's also Santana - people don't expect that out of him and he's known for his creative energy.

Just another thought to throw into the mix.

Well, Santana's "hit" with "Black Magic Woman", was a cover of Fleetwood Mac's song from 1968 or 69. That was when Fleetwood Mac was a decent group, not a lounge act.

[atomcorr2]

Well, Santana's "hit" with "Black Magic Woman", was a cover of Fleetwood Mac's song from 1968 or 69. That was when Fleetwood Mac was a decent group, not a lounge act.

that makes me crazy , lets see when Fleetwood mac was a "decent band" they could hardly give their records away . but when they were a "lounge act" they wrote and recorded one of the best selling records ever . hmmmm i think something is backwards.

[Buffalo Bills]

I just started playing in a cover band a few months ago. I've been learning most songs pretty much note-for-note, but some I do my own thing because I can't replicate the feel of the original drum part. An example of this is Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth." The drums are very minimalist and simple, however I can't replicate the feel, so I do my own thing working off of the original part. On other songs there's room for adding my own fills and groove tweaks within the framework of the original part. For example, I do this on "Santeria" by Sublime.

An example of a song that (in my opinion) I need to play note-for-note is "Everlong" by The Foo Fighters. We learned that one the other day and the drum part is pretty cool/fun to play, and really fits the song. Therefore I don't see a need to try to do my own thing with it.

On certain songs, the recorded drum part can sound kind of bland in a live setting, so I'll look up videos on YouTube to see if the original drummer does something different live, and go off of that. I did this for "Tighten Up" by The Black Keys.

[jumpwing]

When you're Clapton covering Robert Johnson's Crossroads, you can do as you please because the people who came to your show want to hear CLAPTON doing it HIS way.

When you're Joe Local, you need to make what I call a "good faith" effort to be true to the original performance. When you start tinkering with things, you move away from the realm of "cover" and into the arena of "remake".

A cover song is like taking your audience on a three or four-minute guided tour that they've already been on. You don't have to take the exact same streets at the exact same speeds as the original tour, but you need to hit all the memorable landmarks and keep it in the same neighborhood.

If your own cover version essentially throws out much of the fundamental elements that make the song what it is, then you'd better be doing some kind of amazingly original stuff that is arguably BETTER than the original.

[drummin' girl]

Fairly new member, rare poster, but love reading all the posts...

How about this question for drummers playing in bands...

When you're doing a cover do you "play it as close to the original as you possibly can", or "stick with the original sound but make it your own", or "just play what feels right to you"?

What I do is... eagerly await to hear what the rest of you do! :-)

Hi everyone, hi Geriatric Jeff,

I do both, i have to have my point of view in there somewhere! Basically depends on the song. Sometimes it is better to play a drum part as close to original as possible, but as I see it we are also artists, therefore we would not be doing justice to ourselves and the rest of the band if we don't put some personal input in. Now if it is a studio situation or the band leader wants it, then the original.

im with N.R. if there is a drum part in the song that really stands out and is a very important part of the song , i play it exact. but if its a little fill leading into a change in the song , i'll do my own thing .

Hi atomcorr2,

I agree with you there pretty much, that is my approach too!

I agree with what everyone has said before. I'll add that I also play some of the more challenging songs note for note, such as songs by Rush, Tool, etc. simply because they're too complex to allow much room for different interpretations.

Hi yohin,

I agree here too, to take those songs apart is a job in itself!

[NewTricks]

Some songs are too simple/boring for me. Others are too complicated. I just play what feels and sounds good.


If a band mate has a request, I will of course work on it but, I don't think that has ever happened.

[inthpktplayer]

I find covering songs note for note rather boring. If you think about it, live versions by the original artist aren't generally note for note performances......that's why it's called live. I agree that as a cover band, you need to stay pretty close to the original, but, some changes that don't drastically alter the song so as to make it unrecognizable will probably not hurt you. As all of you that play out know, you can't please everyone all the time.

[iNDiGLo]

I probably have a completely different take on this than anyone who's posted prior to me in this thread.

If you have the technical and feel ability to play someone else's song 'note for note' then i think its ok to play some of the signature licks and then add your own style to the song.

However (and this his huge for me), if you are playing 'close' to the original only because you CAN'T play it note for note because you don't have the chops to do it then you are doing a dis-service to the song.

I hate watching bands that play songs in the wrong key or can't hear when a chord is a minor or diminished or major. Sure most people in the audience who are non-musicians will never know or care.

When i am going to learn any cover i break the song down: intro-first verse-chorus-second verse-bridge-last verse etc...or whatever the song sections are and learn it note for note.

I will say that learning something note for note is also hugely dependent on who the artist is.

As previously mentioned, learning a Rush song really needs to be be note-for-note considering Peart plays it this way live night after night. Other artists who's drum parts are much more 'free' in their interpretation won't matter nearly as much and will still serve the song well.

[keysanddrums]

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you stick to the original or not as long as it's good music. It's silly to believe that one way or the other is better, because at the end of the day people respond to good music and only stubborn/close minded people are going to complain... and they're always going to complain. As long as you feel good about your performance and believe that it is good music, you don't owe anyone anything else.

[kay-gee]

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you stick to the original or not as long as it's good music. It's silly to believe that one way or the other is better, because at the end of the day people respond to good music and only stubborn/close minded people are going to complain... and they're always going to complain. As long as you feel good about your performance and believe that it is good music, you don't owe anyone anything else.

There you you have it guys. Pretty well the deal sealer!!

all the best...