Gigs can be so depressing

Dave_Vader

Danny1969;628175" said:

I've said it before it's very difficult to play 100% originals at first and sell enough tickets to fill a venue. So most bands including the original bands I was in did a mix of covers and originals until the original songs were well know enough to enable original material only gigs. This is the way the Beatles built up their fan base, and Van Halen and just about every band over the years. To think you can demand peoples attention from the off with 100 % original material is frankly conceited or at best naive  

I think you also get out of music what you put into it, yeah you can get away with being a shit covers band but it's no surprise the really good one's are very well paid and rightly so

This was the case still back when i started playing in bands late 80s, early 90s, we all did covers and some of our own stuff. The massive polarisation of covers bands and originals is bizarre and not helpful.

But I am with the OP, I have sat in my local and watched a band of dentists play out of time, out of tune, uninspired dross covers, and then listened incredulously as the quite sizeable crowd cheer and ask for more. No explaining it really...

Reverend

monquixote;625629" said:

ChrisMusic said:

Same as it ever was...

I have often felt that success is inversely proportionate to talent.One small part of my original disillusionment with the music industry.Little changes, unfortunately.

Same as it ever was...





Totally disagree. 

Of all the bands I played with on the Camden circuit nearly all of them that were exceptional got signed (Magic Numbers, Hard-Fi, Darkness)

What band was that?
Steve from Hard Fi was in my old band for a while and half the first album was about my old flat mate.

monquixote

To clarify I wasn't in a band with any of them I played on the same bill as them in my old indie band Grow.

I think it might have been at 93 Feet East. 

I seem to remember they were wearing shell suits (I may remember this wrongly) and they were dong "Cash Machine", but I don't remember them doing any of the other singles. Was probably 03 or 04. 

Teetonetal

p90fool said:

ICBM said:I'd far rather see a pretty rough covers band play the songs in some random style that doesn't try to compete with the original, than any number of note-perfect impersonators with all the right sounds. (Apart from the singer of course, why is it necessary to get everything else exact when the vocals never can be?)

This is why I never use effects live, no matter what the song. I see covers band guitarists all the time who have bought such-and-such a pedal for practically every song in the set, but the singer is female singing mainly male songs.

I gig pretty much the same set in a 5-piece band and a duo with one guitar and a singer. I figure if I can play a song on an acoustic guitar and everyone dances to it then I don't need the specific flanger which was on the record in the full band either.

When I did covers, we had an acoustic set and an electric set, lots of songs the same but very different sounds and vibes from each other.

Now I love FX so I did try to recreate specific sounds for some songs, delay in U2 for example, tremolo for some REM, fuzz and tape delay for pink floyd.. but I did it with the resources I had, so recreations were certainly not faithful - just trying to give an impression.

I think if I was in a tribute act then I really would try to recreate the songs as exactly as possible.

Drew_TNBD

There is a reason my band doesn't play many gigs. We have ridiculously high standards for our audience.