Playing covers--faithful to the original or make it "your own."

[ChrisE]

I played a bunch of gigs this summer. I play covers at resorts, bars, etc. and I try to stay faithful to the original recording as much as a guy strumming a guitar and singing can. Now I know I'll never do a cover "note for note" because I'm not really that good of a player, but I at least try to carry the "feel" of the song so people can recognize it.

I saw another performer recently, and he could really play--loops, effects, solos, etc. and was a good singer as well.

His "thing" if you will, was taking mostly well-know songs and making them his own. He made them his own so much that it was difficult to even recognize the song he was playing. Don't get me wrong--he sounded great, but in making every song his own, he seemed to have inadvertently made every song sound exactly the same.

What is your approach to covers? I think a mixture would probably be best. In my case, I'd probably stick to trying to make it sound like the original with the occasional "my version" thrown in for variety. In the case of the other guy, maybe he should stick to the original arrangements on a few tunes now and then.

But that's just my opinion, of course. How do you all approach this as a performer and what would your preference be if you were in the audience?

[Long Jon]

It sometimes shocks me to re-visit the original of something I think I've been "doing" faithfully for ages.

Boy ! I'm usually way off and really dumbed down !

Non muso, audiences usually want to hear familiar stuff they can recognise and groove along with without being caught out by your "upgrades" to the song.

[Truckjohn]

It really depends on the song and your style as an artist. Some songs really lend themselves to working them into your own style... Some do not.

For example - a Youtube band channel "Postmodern Jukebox" does various 20's and 30's music style renditions of modern songs. Some are fantastic and some sound just like the original..

They covered Ariana Grande's "All about that bass" in some sort of 1930's swing and it was a fantastic version they made all their own... But when they did "Sweet child of mine" in a similar style - it just sounded like every other Guns N Roses cover..

Another I have seen cropping up is non-rap bands doing rap song covers - but making them their own... Often they are really really good.... Often better than the originals.

And I do have a guilty pleasure of watching bluegrass bands cover heavy metal songs...

[TheJackal]

If I want to hear the original version, I'll listen to the original recording. I like hearing the creativity of performers placing their own stamp on songs and delivering them in interesting ways. There are times when I prefer the original version as written and delivered by the writer. For example, I love Kristopherson's version of Me and Bobby McGee and cannot stand the more popular Janis Joplin cover version.

Here's my latest, favoritest comparison of versions. The original version by Leonard Cohen. The cover arrangement by Teddy Thompson. In my opinion, the TT cover revealed depths of the song that I would have never heard from the Leonard Cohen version. I'll post links to these from YouTube in a while but my Calculus students are awaiting their first semester test and I do not want to disappoint them.

For some folks, the original is the be all to end all version and it is heresy to even do an attempted cover that mimics the original. I have friends who even refuse to listen to any version of "Whipping Post" that is not the Allman Brothers. As for me, Jason Isbell's live version is honest to the song and delivers it to new audiences and new ears and breathes new life and energy into a great song. Search YouTube for the live version of Isbell and the 400 unit killing "Whipping Post." Worth your time.

[Long Jon]

@theJackal (above)

There's a world of difference between an established artist in their own right covering another's song and me murdering it.

[Twitch]

I'd say to do whatever it is that you feel you do best.

In general we try to stay faithful to the original song, but will occasionally add some of our own influence. That's sounds exactly how you describe yourself. We've never had any one come up to us and say "Hey I really like the way you twisted that chorus around!", or commented positively on specific changes we made. That's probably because frankly we're just not that good at it. On the other hand we do hear often that we covered a favorite song very well.

I saw a duo once who's thing was to play every song very fast. It was interesting at first, very high energy, but after a few songs it became exhausting.

[Von Beerhofen]

A long time ago I would be satisfied with getting as close as possible to the original but as my skills improved I now love to give it a twist of my own, if I can. It allows me to explore musical phrasing better and get more freedom to use it in compositions of my own. I've always seen covers as a tool to learn but it's always been my goal to compose my own music in a style of my own. Just playing the cover is always possible but going beyond that and adding something of your own is I think more beneficial to improving.

Ludwig

[Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by TheJackal

There are times when I prefer the original version as written and delivered by the writer.

I bet this happens less often with Bob Dylan songs

[amyFB]

Originally Posted by ChrisE

....

.....but in making every song his own, he seemed to have inadvertently made every song sound exactly the same.

....

I think it is a common effect that a musician will tend to a particular sound or style in their playing.

There are many performers I can think of who have such a sameness to their every song.

Makes me think "one trick pony".

[rokdog49]

Depends on the song. We use a mando or a harp on a lot of songs that never had them in the original. People have called it "our sound".
Some songs we "dumb down" because nobody cares if we play the intracacies and it's just too much work.
Once in a while, we will do "our interpretation" of certain songs because it's fun and suits us.
Songs like Chris Stapleton's "Whiskey and You" we perform as closely and faithfully as possible. We don't feel you can do it any better than he did.
Same with Neil Young covers, John Hiatt and folks that really are recognizable.

[RustyAxe]

Originally Posted by ChrisE

His "thing" if you will, was taking mostly well-know songs and making them his own. He made them his own so much that it was difficult to even recognize the song he was playing. Don't get me wrong--he sounded great, but in making every song his own, he seemed to have inadvertently made every song sound exactly the same.

That's the pitfall many face. We all have our "bag of tricks" ... techniques, tunings, riffs, etc. Things we fall into out of habit. When playing covers I want the song to be recognizable, and strive to keep signature licks close to the recording, but I'm not a slave to a note-by-note rendition. Even that guy on the recording probably only played it that way once ... that day in the studio.

[mr. beaumont]

I seem to like the extremes with covers a lot of the time...I can really appreciate the work that goes into doing it "just like the record" (I've worked with a Johnny Cash impersonator, and we did it EXACTLY like the record, and it was fun) and I can also appreciate a total overhaul of a tune...I once heard a guy at an open mike turn "Part of Your World" (from Disney's "Little Mermaid") into an Iron and Wine-esque dirge. And it was awesome.

I think I get bored somewhere in the middle...like when you hear a version that's sort of new, sort of like the original, and it's all really due to a lack of creativity (See that country band's version of "Life is a Highway") A cover for covers sake.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I think I get bored somewhere in the middle...like when you hear a version that's sort of new, sort of like the original, and it's all really due to a lack of creativity (See that country band's version of "Life is a Highway") A cover for covers sake.

May be true but the musicianship and the recording were far superior IMHO and they breathed some dynamics and life into it.
Van Halen's cover of "Oh Pretty Woman" is pretty cool.

[Earl49]

Sometimes members of my ukulele club criticize me for being too "straight" or faithful to a particular rendition of a song that we are covering. I do it straight to make it easy for the mostly beginner level people to follow along, and often tell them which version we are channeling. If you start jazzing up a song too much, following along at a jam becomes difficult unless the skill level is quite high. (Just try playing along with a Willie Nelson recording, for example). When I play solo or for myself, I feel much freer to take liberties.

One of the weirdest things I've ever heard was a fast punk rock version of the classic Gordon Lightfoot song "If You Could Read My Mind". They did a good job with their version, but it was just bizarre.....

And then there are the *stars* performing mini-concerts in the acoustic room of GC. Sometimes they are so bad that the song is not even recognizable until a snippet of lyric pops out recognizably. It's bad when you cannot recognize someone playing a song that you have played for many years.

[JimmerO]

My guitar teacher wants me to learn songs as close to original as possible. Once I've got them down he's fine with me playing them any way I like. This way I don't shortcut learning a chord or technique that I really should learn and be able to play.