Why record cover songs?

Nervous Wreck

The iTunes thread put this in my mind but rather than derail that thread....


I don't understand why any bands/solo artists would want to record covers. I've been playing music for about 12 years and the thought of recording a cover has never entered my mind. I've never seen the point. I mean, why bother recording a song that someone else wrote and recorded already when you can write your own song, record it and have something brand new that you've actually created?!

I've never really rated pop groups as legitimate for the very fact that they don't write their own songs (n.b. This is a generalisation - I fully respect any that do) but it's never really perplexed me that they would release covers; it's their bread and butter. But bands... I just don't get it?! You play an instrument, you understand your instrument... why not put that towards writing something new and putting everything into that?

I'm not judging bands that do this. I just don't understand it. When I record a song, the best part of it is listening to how it went from an idea in my head, to a few lyrics on a page, to a skeleton song with the band, to a full-on song. With a cover, the only feeling I can imagine is pride in making the song sound like... it already sounded.... and maybe, if you're a kooky sort, making it sound like a different version of the same song... Whoopdie-doo....

Anyone else have any thoughts on this whole thing?

Rigsby

The way I see it, there is a difference between a "cover" band and a "tribute" band. The latter would be more inclined to (and generally expected to) play a song note for note as it was written. A "cover" band might put their own interpretation on a given song. Sometimes this interpretation is better or more popular than the original. An example that comes to mind is Joe Cocker's "cover" of the Beatles song "I get by with a little help from my Friends". Anyone I have spoken to prefers Cocker's version.

Why do people record covers ? Because there is a niche market there for this. How did Elvis make a fair portion of his vast fortune ?? By "covering" and recording other people's songs, often without giving them credit in the form of either money or putting their name on the record sleeve opposite their song.

So, to answer the title of your thread........because, like all things to do with the music industry.....money talks !!

kahler

i suppose all along the watchtower would be an example of when "covering" a song succeeds. even bob thought jimi's version was better. i presume that if you like a song but think that it could be better, why not? its nothing to do with money. i mean, it was a nice turn on the harmonica, but..

Nervous Wreck

Oh, I understand with big name bands. They can afford to go into a studio and do what they want, essentially, so why not bang out a cover once in a while. But when you're an independent band/musician, probably trying to make a name for yourself and make the most of what little time you can afford in a studio, I think it's a crazy waste of time/energy/money to do covers rather than putting all of that into making your own songs the best they can be.

irlirishkev

People like to hear songs they recognise.
If an artist takes a song and puts their own twist on it, all the better.
Most bands/artists would have started out by learning and playing someone else's songs, or by having covers in their set.

Rigsby wrote: »

How did Elvis make a fair portion of his vast fortune ?? By "covering" and recording other people's songs, often without giving them credit in the form of either money or putting their name on the record sleeve opposite their song.

Have to correct you there. Every song Elvis recorded had writing and publishing credits on the label/sleeve. Yes Elvis covered other people's music, but a lot of people got very rich from providing Elvis with music.

Rigsby

irlirishkev wrote: »

Have to correct you there. Every song Elvis recorded had writing and publishing credits on the label/sleeve. Yes Elvis covered other people's music, but a lot of people got very rich from providing Elvis with music.

Fair enough as far as sleeve note credits go, but a lot of others, like the black blues writers got little or nothing in the way of monetary payment.


Anyway, I dont wish to derail the thread with a discussion about Presley.

stephen22

Theres a flaw in your thinking if you can't understand that people want to pay homage to the people that inspire and influence them and doing your own spin on it. That is how the blues and everything that came after it works.

Rigsby

stephen22 wrote: »

That is how the blues and everything that came after it works.

I agree especially with regards to blues. In the British "Blues Explosion" of the mid to late 60's, up and coming blues artists recorded covers of songs by USA artists who had inspired them. These covers were included with original material on records by the up and coming artist. At this time, blues in the USA was in the decline and only listened to mainly by black audiences. So, in a way, the British kick started an interest in blues on both sides of the pond. Blues began to be appriciated by middle class white people in both countries. The big names in blues began to get a lot more work in the USA and Europe. It was a win win situation for everyone.

So, I suppose whether you record covers, originals or both, simply depends on your approach and attitude.

novarock

There is a far greater likelihood of making money with a covers band than with originals. Its an entirely different kind of gig too. 2-3 hour sets customised to each customers requirements. One way that a covers band has to advertise is through recordings.

I'm not in one myself, but someday it will probably have to happen to pay back the years of being in a recording orignals band. It isn't cheap!

Rigsby

novarock wrote: »

There is a far greater likelihood of making MONEY with a covers band than with originals.

Yep !!!.....here's that word cropping up again.

Going Forward

Isnt it genuinely weird how no one wants to contemplate any one else's version of say the Mona Lisa artistically speaking, yet in music we can really appreciate someone else's take on a song!

Having read some of the replies to the thread I would wonder why people don't record the odd cover!

If you can get the right song, it can launch a career- remember In Tua Nua in the 80's did a great cover of Jefferson Airplane's Somebody to Love.

They made it their own, and back then few seemed to know or care that it was a cover.

Kettleson

There are lots of reasons for performing covers. Some singer-songwriters find it hard to accept that they just don't write good enough songs, especially a full set of them.

Performing other peoples songs can be very fulfilling for the performer and the audience, OK, that's not recording and I take your point on that.

To record a cover song you have to bring something new to it, otherwise its just a poor version of a great song and a waste of money. However unknown performers can establish themselves by recording great songs written by others.

If I had a penny for every time I heard a singer-songwriter saying "I only do my songs" I'd have a good few quid in the bank.

I'm currently working with a singer on a relatively unknown Smokey Robinson song, cant post right now for a few reasons, but I'm really appreciating the song writing abilities of Smokey Robinson.

Too many singer songwriters would be done a tremendous favour if they were told that their songs just ain't good enough. But all too often they have their fingers stuck in their own ears.

loyatemu

covers have their place:

great artist, great album, all covers.

melekalikimaka

you have clearely never listened to the punk goes... series or me first and the gimme gimmes, richard cheese or hayseed dixie.

all great reasons to do covers

Kettleson

Plenty plenty reasons...including the reggae tradition to record "classic" songs in reggae style, particularly lovers rock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-kMbiAW9ic

Nervous Wreck

A lot of people seem to have missed this post. To reiterate, I'm talking about unsigned bands.

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Oh, I understand with big name bands. They can afford to go into a studio and do what they want, essentially, so why not bang out a cover once in a while. But when you're an independent band/musician, probably trying to make a name for yourself and make the most of what little time you can afford in a studio, I think it's a crazy waste of time/energy/money to do covers rather than putting all of that into making your own songs the best they can be.

Kettleson

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

A lot of people seem to have missed this post. To reiterate, I'm talking about unsigned bands.

Many new bands and young or novice musicians learn to play their instruments and play tight with others by covering songs. I don't have any statistics, but I'm pretty sure that most "unsigned" bands that went on to be "signed", started out with a few covers in their set.

If an "unsigned" band does a good or great cover of song, then that's one pretty good reason to record it.

The reluctance for many "original" performers learning their trade to determinedly not perform covers is in my opinion a mistake.

Besides that, record companies don't give a flying what-not who wrote the song played by "unsigned" bands, as long as they think they can sell it.

Nervous Wreck

I'm talking specifically about recording covers, not about performing them.

Kettleson

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I'm talking specifically about recording covers, not about performing them.

See line 2 in my previous post. Here's an example. Whitewaters' version of Bette Davis Eyes got them a load of airplay and without doubt significantly increased their profile as a result. Crackin version too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8Vn43Kzfj4