Nah, it doesn't have to be exact

[Long Jon]

I can try as hard as I like, there's very little danger of my version of anything sounding much like anyone's original !

I am sometimes surprised when I re-listen to the original of some song I have been "doing" for ages .
I often find I have drifted miles away from the speed, (I nearly always get faster than original) the key, the phrasing, the chords, the words (!!) without having realised.

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by TBman

Huh? Can't do a hammer on? When I can't do hammer ons I'm going to hang it up.

No, you're missing my meaning Paul. I'm talking about songs that are easily played and within the player's skill set. Its not all about subtracting, its adding as well. See my changes to the OP for clarity, my bad!

My mistake. In your case you are doing exactly what I said. You have the ability to play it note for note but choose not to.

I wish I could but I have no choice but to improvise since my skill set only occasionally allows me to do an exact copy of a piece.

[crikey]

Originally Posted by TBman

I used to fret (pun intended) over not playing (**) something exactly as the tab, now that I'm getting more comfortable with my own sound, I'm getting to be, "Yeah ok, its close, who cares." The artist who did the original that I'm trying to cover doesn't play it the same way every time any how. What about you?


** after it was learned as written by the original artist

"It's close, who cares," sounds (reads) like a statement, not a question. As if no one should care? Why? I have to admit - I do care, and I feel lucky to have challenging musician friends that care. I like a challenge, and I'm always the better for learning a tune how it was written/performed. It's like getting the inside baseball from the songwriter's perspective. A study in the craft. Tricks, creative transitions, phrasing, nuances, licks & riffs, etc. It validates some things I've learned, it teaches me more, and guides me back on track from where I may have strayed musically. There's always something good that comes from it. For me if a song is worth my time learning it's worth learning right. That's not to say I don't embellish and dress up afterwards if I have something interesting to bring to the table - which I often do - but sometimes not; it depends on the song. Some songs are just too brilliant as written/performed to mess with.

"The artist who did the original that I'm trying to cover doesn't play it the same way every time any how." If I were to say that, I would be making an excuse for being lazy.

PS - I come from a different school of learning songs. I primarily use my ears and I mostly despise learning through tab. And 95% of all the free tab splattered across the internet is sloppy and incorrect anyway. Did I mention I despise learning through tab?

[johna2u]

I have learned quite a few songs note for note. Mostly finger style stuff. John Fahey, Mississippi John Hurt, John Lennon Elton John. Mostly people named John something I guess. Anyway memorizing those tunes note for note added to my musical vocabulary. Now I'll use bits and pieces of that stuff to just noodle around and play other songs that have bits and pieces that sound the same. Other songs I've kinda sorta figured out close enough for me. I play a version of "Windy and warm". That should be called " Windy and warmish". Close enough for me, sounds cool and fun to play but really not exactly Windy and warm.

If I wanted to work on improving my skill level ID work on some new tunes note for note. But I'm too lazy so I just play.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

[Russ C]

In an arrangement I like to acknowledge what I see as the musical identity of someone else's composition. It's often a chord voicing or some detail(s) without which the composition has lost some important original personality - it may have lost some uniqueness that its audience probably knows and likes.
If I can include that I feel more ok about adding some things of my own - if I think they're an improvement.
And however noble I feel about that, I gotta say it can be irrelevant too because everyone should be allowed to play with pride at they're own level.

[HOOKshoTT]

When I started playing fingerstyle a year ago I was so worried about playing the tab exactly too, and its taken a whole year where I'm now finally starting to play my own thing for certain parts but I still rely pretty heavily on tab. I just started working on a song that will be my first without using any tabs at all, just listening and watching. I've heard that helps you develop a lot as a guitarist/musician so we'll see where it takes me!

[BluesyRob]

Originally Posted by paulzoom

Like I said, I wish I had the ability to copy first and then choose to make variations.

Here's what I do when either learning or teaching a new song:

Learn the chord structure/progression.

Learn the melody/solo as played in the original.

Learn/explain the theory behind the solo. In other words, the relation between the chords and melody, what scale(s) used during the solo.

Improvise over the chords.

Mix and match original solo/melody and improvisation.

Make it your own!

Of course, there are variations of this depending on what kind of song being learned. Some songs allow for more improvisation than others. Blues and jazz are obviously "looser" than say, learning a Kirk Hammet solo in a Metallica song. But I encourage my students to keep open mind. Most of them have a lot of fun with it!

[devellis]

I think it's perfectly fine to change up a tune to suit yourself. I'd get pretty bored playing everything exactly the same every time. That's what recorded music is for.

I even think it's fine to change a tune to avoid some tricky bit that would otherwise be a barrier to your playing the song. When I lived in Nashville, I took banjo lessons from a guy who played sessions from time to time and knew petty much all of the big-name players. He said that he'd asked Earl Scruggs why he did some things the way he did, when it seemed so odd to most players to do it that way. Earl said that he played things the way that was easy for him, that suited his hands and his playing style. Earl further recommended that every player should find a way to play a lick that is easy for him or her and that not everybody should play it the same way. They could and should shoot for the same sound but you could get that sound a whole bunch of different ways.

I don't know if this guy was making all this stuff up or if he'd really had that conversation with Earl Scruggs but it is plausible that he did. In any case, I agree with its main point. If you're getting the essence of the sound of a musical phrase, that essence is far more important than getting every note exactly right. This is especially true for passages played quickly, where a few main notes are surrounded by what are essentially filler notes. If you use slightly different filler notes, it really isn't going to matter and using different filler notes each time through may spice up the tune subtly but effectively.

Recently, I was looking to figure out "St. Louis Tickle" as played by Dave Van Ronk. I found three different performances on YouTube by really good players. After listening to each version, I was duly impressed. But when I tried to figure out some of the tougher parts of the tune, I realized that all three players, each of whom acknowledged Van Ronk's version as the basis for theirs, were playing those tough bits differently. And I suspect that none of them were playing it the way Van Ronk did. But none of these versions was lacking one iota in any musical sense. Note-for-note? No. Completely effective? You bet.

[Glennwillow]

Many listeners appreciate hearing a song played so that it sounds like the original. It never sounds exactly like the original, but some people are good enough musicians that they can do a pretty good job of emulating the signature aspects of someone else's song and performance so that it's immediately recognizable.

But listeners can appreciate a completely new take on a song. I was a fan of Del Shannon's song "Runaway" when I was young and used to sing it all the time.


Later I heard Bonni Raitt's version and in spite of my enjoyment of the original, I thought her version was wonderful.


When I learn someone else's song, I really try to learn to play it their way so that I can learn something from them. Later, as I memorize the song and play it for months, the song evolves. It still sounds like the original but it also sounds more like me. Every once in a while I actually try to impose a completely different playing style to someone else's song, as Bonni Raitt did to "Runaway."

Whatever works for people; music should be fun.

- Glenn

[Shy Boy William]

I have no problem with some changes in the melody line. The thumb needs to play the bass and keep steady, if it starts missing beats and faking it the whole thing falls apart.

[s0cks]

If it's because I find a part too difficult then no, I don't just change it, I persist and learn it.

If it's because I think it sounds better/more interesting (and isn't necessarily any easier, could in fact be more complicated), then I will do as I please.

If it's because, and this is rare, that I personally believe there is a better, easier way to do it and it still sounds just as good then I will probably take the easier option.

[zhunter]

Sometimes I foolishly believe I have a better idea.

hunter

[JonPR]

I agree with what seems to be general opinion here. There's a distinction between how you learn something, and how you perform it. I believe you have to get all the details precise to start with, as a useful learning process. It's about keeping your ears open, and not guessing parts you can't be bothered to listen to. If you guess, you're following your own prejudices about what "should" be there, according to your (always limited) knowledge.

But once you have it down, 100% if possible, then there's a different set of decisions apply to how you perform it (IF you ever do - sometimes I learn things I'm never likely to perform, just out of interest, or expanding horizons).
That depends on all kinds of things: the genre; the tune itself; how well known it is; who your audience are (fans of the original? or fans of yours?).

It also varies with different parts of the song:
Lyrics? - you should probably keep all those, unless the song is really long and omitting a verse might be acceptable (there's one or two Dylan ones like that...and certainly countless folk songs like that)
Melody? - again I'd argue for being faithful to that, but there's a lot of leeway. If the original artist always sticks religiously to the original melody, every time they perform it - then I'd say you should too. Probably... (That doesn't include little bits of embellishment, or mannerism. I hate it when I hear singers copying every little "woo-hoo" or "oh yeah" from an original recording.)
Chords? - jazz players are always reharmonising tunes, it goes with the territory. Then again, you'll find some jazz tunes where players get really uptight about what the "correct" chords are (because some book or other is "wrong"). For rock, pop, a chord progression can often be the most interesting part of the song (at least for the musicians), and "getting it right" is a bigger deal.
Form and arrangement? - do you play the same intro and outro as the original? Suppose the original has a fade-out? Do you use the same dynamic variations, or changes in instrumentation?
Solos? - If it's jazz, one would never copy an original solo, not for live performance. The whole point of jazz is improvisation. Throwing in a lick or two from an original is OK, but the point is to make up your own solo, on the spot every time. In rock, of course, many solos have become classic, essentially part of the composition. Audiences often expect you to play the "correct" solo. (Doesn't mean you have to, of course. Maybe you're feeling brave, and want to educate this **** audience...)

Naturally, you have some kind of respect for the original. You chose this song because you love it, presumably. So you have to show that love.
Like zhunter says, to think you might have a better idea than the original artist is foolish. (I know someone who likes changing an occasional chord in progressions I think are perfect as they are. It's incredibly annoying. His ideas are definitely not better, and it just exposes his poor ear.)
But all songs are open to interpretation. Your ideas might not be better; but there are times when they have to be yours. Most audiences don't want to hear a 98% accurate rendition of a song because you simply can't manage 100%. That's a fail. Brave try, but... They'd rather hear a 60% accurate rendition, with 40% of your own creativity.
But - as I say - that does depend a lot on what the song is, who the audience are, and who you are!

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by Long Jon

I can try as hard as I like, there's very little danger of my version of anything sounding much like anyone's original !

I am sometimes surprised when I re-listen to the original of some song I have been "doing" for ages .
I often find I have drifted miles away from the speed, (I nearly always get faster than original) the key, the phrasing, the chords, the words (!!) without having realised.

Eggs Actlie! When a songwriter writer a song (that's what they do) that is the "negative" (to use a photographic analogy). Every time he/she does their own song, they'll probably put a new twist on it. Any/everyone else who does that piece should be their own, variable, manipulated, customised "print".

Like Long Jon, I have NO compunction in changing key, tempo, melody lines or lyrics - songs are a story. Tell it like its yours.

[RodB]

My view is that if I play something and the original tune is recognisable then I am close enough. Sometimes very close to an original version, sometimes not. Any changes I have made are an integral part of my own style and interpretation, which is hardly ever repeated note for note (and as others have said this is often the case for the original artist).

If the original was played on a piano, for instance, it is necessary to make certain changes - i don't feel more constrained if the original was on a guitar.

Having said that I agree that substituting chords in an otherwise fairly faithful rendition can sometimes mess with the listeners expectation without adding anything to the piece.