You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Guitar chord forum - chordie → Chordie's Chat Corner → accuracy of playing songs
I have been playing wonderwall by oasis for a while , quite a straightforward song to play , i can get the strumming right ( that is sounds the same as the original ) but when i start too sing i can`t help changing the strumming pattern , it sounds o.k. but do you think it matters that its not quite the same as it should be .
do you perform for yourself or an audience? if your a cover band then it matters. if your playing as a performer (as i do) then you should put your own stamp on it. if your just playing to entertain yourself....play it as it will make you happy.
It matters not a whit unless someone is paying you to play that song like on the radio.
Otherwise, you should play all covers that way. Make them yours.
This is an argument which some of my colleague's feel quite strong about .Our last bass player really felt that we should mimic the original songs where as the rest of us felt we should put out own stamp on the track ,As probably 60% of the current set is covers My personal take is that it should sound like us and not the original artist .
However if you play as a tribute artist then yes try and be as close to the original as you can ,no one wants an Elvis impersonator who sound like Dolly Parton .
I agree with Grah1. Do your own thing. Just make sure you are also practicing new skills so you can progress.
The new skills thing is very important .I always bring something new to rehearsals ,not as a suggestion to include it in future sets but to improve and diversify from things we have been used to.
Some time ago I suggested we play Donna Summers hot stuff which every body except our girl singer seemed horrified by . How ever every body loved it once they played it ,the lead riff having such an effect on our Conga player( who is also a good guitarist ) as he asked if he could take the lead on guitar for this song .
It's your music, play it as you like it. I look at it this way, if Johnny Cash can put his own stamp on songs done by other artists, then so can you.
If you want to hear the song exactly as it is, buy the CD or listen to it in the radio.
I think it has a little to do with your experience level. I am not able to "put my own stamp on it" as has been said. I don't really have a stamp. I am not adept enough at playing guitar to make things my own. I learn songs that I like. I want to play them as I heard them so I play them like the original. But I do agree that you should play them in a way that pleases you. It is pretty cool tho when someone recognizes what you are playing.
almost all pro artist will admit too not playing a song the same way twice.
I watched a Mark Knopfler concert on YouTube a while back, and he said the same things about his very own music. He recognized that his audience expects to hear certain "landmark" notes in most songs, because that's part of the identity and enjoyment of the piece (like the opening riff of "Brothers in Arms" or "Money for Nothing"). So he's always attempting to be conscious of trying to stay true to them. However, he admitted that many of these signature riffs came up during studio recording and were never actually written to paper. Therefore, it's only natural that he will alter his own songs somewhat every time he plays them.
If you want to hear the song exactly as it is, buy the CD or listen to it in the radio.
There it is.
If you want to hear the song exactly as it is, buy the CD or listen to it in the radio.
Think that hits the nail right on the head , also some other comments about if your just playing for yourself it doesn`t really matter how accurate you play the song long as it sounds good to you , thanks everyone .
Interesting question. I would be torn between the play like the original vs play as you like except, if you listen to a couple of their renditions, I'll bet you will hear some variance. And I will NEVER sound exactly like them. So, play as I like it is. And it's fun...
I heard a guy on the radio just this AM playing a Joni Mitchell tune - nothing like the original -- who can sing like that??? I recognized it after a couple bars and it had a something-new-something familiar kinda feel.
Just play, it's good for your soul....
Cheers!
Jim
I've been playing about 35 years and the number of songs I play that sound like the original I could probably count on one hand. I find the longer I play a song I have a tendency to add my own style. It still sounds right but is not note for note. I have gotten some flak over this time to time but most of the time I get compliments for how I play. It's virtually impossible for me to play every nuance of a song done by a full band with multiple guitarists. I take pride in the fact that I play close enough to the original that it's recognizable but still sounds like me. My advice is if it sounds good play how you like. Lots of people are willing to critique but aren't willing to show they are any better. Enjoy playing for playing.
I used to want to sing as close to the original artist as possible. I thought it was important. As I moved on, I realized, like the others here, that I really don't care if I sound like the original. As a matter of fact, when I am learning a new song, I first listen to the original, then quickly move on to all the covers of that song I can find. I like to think the mixture of all these different covers with the original gives me my unique sound. It works for me. Make it your own. People will like it.
Imagine an artist that only paints exact copies of other artist's work. The skill involved is admirable but what's the point when you can just look at the original painting. If the artist paints the same subject matter but in their own style then the work becomes something new and interesting.
DE
some really interesting comments here , thinking more about it i suppose music is an art form and should be experimented with and not just copied
jgreen said it best, "Just play, it's good for your soul"
Also Topdown Rule #1 seems to apply: "If it sounds good, it is good."
I can recall being at a guitar shop and some young guy was noodling around with a Taylor. He was playing some acoustic Zep and nailing it. Absolutely perfect renditions. He looked up at old graybeard me, I supposed for some sort of positive comment or pat on the back, and so I gave it to him. "That was great. Now, play it the way YOU would play it instead of the way Zep played it." He did, and it was freaking incredible. People were poking their heads into the acoustic room, the not-easily-impressed sales rep applauded. It was a totally different reaction to, "Oh boy. Here we go again..." that he started out with.
Two things to cure the idea that songs should always be played like 'the original.'
1. Stevie Ray Vaughan playing "Mary Had a Little Lamb".
2. Jose Feliciano playing "Light My Fire."
Surf that was spot on. And that is my favourite version of Light My Fire.
Great discussion .... another reason why being on the Chordie forum is so worthwhile.
I find myself of two minds on the subject. On one hand, I can't think of another art form where this level of license would be appreciated or even allowed by the original creator of the art. And I find myself appreciating such tribute bands as Brit Floyd and the Australian Pink Floyd Show, because they are meticulous to produce their renditions with note-for-note and tone-for-tone precision. A part of me feels that the original artist is really the only one with the right to make such alterations. And in classical music, a performance is often assessed by the integrity of the performance to the original music, apart from perhaps the mood or speed at which is was played (the conductor's influence).
But then (as musicians) we are in a creative genre that is not static, like a painting, a photograph, a sculpture, a novel, etc. And for that reason the element of ongoing creativity almost makes duplication possible or even desirable. I suppose before doing a different rendition of a song publicly, one might ask themselves if the originator would be complimented or insulted, and make a respectful decision based on that.
Having formerly been involved in an NSAI songwriter's group I also wonder about the ethics of a cover band performing songs for money without providing compensation to the songwriters for use of their copyrighted works.
DE
If they are performing the cover songs for profit, they shoild be compensating the copyright owners. Some bars join an association that has negotiated an allocation approach in terms of compensation. In my case, if Gordon Lightfoot, Guy Clark, or James Taylor show up, I'll give them a fare share of my proceeds. That'll be a warm seat by the fire and a pretty view, but they'd be welcome to it.
I'll be doing one or two Dirty Ed songs at Chordiestock II. I'll pay you in Yeungling next rodeo.
You're right Zurf. Bars and venues that hire cover bands are supposed to be licensed through a performance rights organization (PRO) such as BMI or ASCAP, although many ignore or choose not to pay for the rights. Occasionally one of the PROs will audit some venues for compliance, but it would be difficult to check them all. I once played in a bar that only allowed singers/songwriters to play their original music so they could avoid paying the license fees.
I'm not represented by a PRO but I appreciate the Yuengling offer.;)
DE
Guitar chord forum - chordie → Chordie's Chat Corner → accuracy of playing songs
