So, in a cover band situation, how do you deal with ...

EricTheWeary

Handsome_Chris said:

PSA:  Dust off your Word Up.  It's the new Sport Relief song so it'll be current again and the young 'uns will think you've learnt a new song.

Its worth running cover version choices past my 17 year old son or even the 13 year old. If they have heard of them almost any audience will (although their specialist knowledge of Green Day and Lamb of God and early reggae - that one forced upon them on car journeys-  might skew that somewhat).

Jalapeno

Funny that Long Train Running was mentioned.  That and Pick Up Pieces were the Mustang Sally of 70s cover bands !
)

I'd love to do them but get over my frankly ridiculously square bandmates,

Danny1969

I'm still doing Long Train : ) .............................and Mr Brightside, Chelsea Dagger, Sex on fire, Dekota etc

In all fairness Sex on fire is a genius, it's that melancholy E to Db and the melody over it. The drum machine loop in it makes it highly danceable as well

stickyfiddle

mudslide73 said:

We do Last Night by the Strokes, I bet you look good on the dancefloor, SoF and Chelsea Dagger in that order. I only really like the Strokes one but I do like the drunk girls dancing at us. Simple as that really.

We used to do all those, and every one a winner. 

With my last lot our closing setlist run was always something around the following and always a winner. I'd much rather play a song I don't like to a room who love it than one I love to people who aren't having fun. That's just shit.

Girls and Boys  (straight into...)

Disco 2000 

Rolling in the Deep 

Valerie 

Mr. Brightside 

Sex on Fire 

Encore:

500 Miles 

Chelsea Dagger 

Fire (Kasabian)

Pyroman

  Just do a Death Metal version of Sex on Fire.  Either you'll NEVER be asked to play it again, or it'll become your signature, and you'll get to mock that stupid song every night.  Win-win!

viz

I may have told this story before but I was in a duo where we'd solemnly sworn to each other not to play UB40 ever again, partly because we'd been doing it for a year previously and were sick of it. We were doing some van halen when a member of the crowd pulled out a gun and said "stop playing that heavy metal shit or I'll shoot you", so we played 4 UB40 songs on the trot.

Handsome_Chris

Pyroman said:

  Just do a Death Metal version of Sex on Fire.  Either you'll NEVER be asked to play again, or it'll become your signature, and you'll still have to play that stupid song every night.  Win-win?

FTFY.

Bidley

So many reasons why being in a covers band is not for me; dreadful songs, 'band leaders' (the kind of people I have enough of 9-5)...

koneguitarist

For a about 5-6 years back in late 80's early 90's I was in a regular cover band doing all sorts. From Johnny Cash to Eagles, REM to U2, Loyd cole and the commotions all sorts of stuff, I enjoyed it. .......... For a while, then it becomes soul destroying . Took me a long time but now I have a band, who just want to play good songs, if it's a crowd pleaser like Brown Sugar, great, if it's just a good song we like, great, point is every song we do , we like, so we play them better.

Emp_Fab

Skipping from the OP to the end of the thread, excuse me if it's moved on by now !.... but...  My last-but-one band used to be a dictatorship pretty much - we were told what was going in the set - more or less.  That didn't work out too well on the satisfaction front from an individual point of view, but - it was simple.  My last band, I was determined to get away from the dictator model so I implemented a voting system where each member would suggest a list of songs they wanted in the set.  I would then email the complete list to everyone, and each member voted yes, no or veto to each suggested song.  We only included songs in the set that got a unanimous yes vote, or at worst just one 'no'.  Anyone was free to veto a suggestion as I didn't want anyone to be forced into playing a number they truly hated.

As long as everyone is sensible about the use of the veto and doesn't be a selfish dick, it works out well.  Everyone enjoys the numbers we play and nobody is excluded.  It was a pain in the arse to administer though !

Handsome_Chris

Bidley said:

So many reasons why being in a covers band is not for me; dreadful songs, 'band leaders' (the kind of people I have enough of 9-5)...

@Bidley, do dreadful songs and band leaders only happen in covers bands? 

:P

monquixote

Handsome_Chris said:

Bidley said:

So many reasons why being in a covers band is not for me; dreadful songs, 'band leaders' (the kind of people I have enough of 9-5)...

@Bidley, do dreadful songs and band leaders only happen in covers bands? 

:P

Indeed I tend to think band leaders are even more important in original material bands. 

Bidley

I suppose the 'band leader' thing is a bit different in all the bands I've been in. The 'leader' is the mouthpiece for the band, the one people contact for gig bookings and who looks after whatever piffling amount we get paid. As far as the musical stuff goes, it's a group effort. If one member wrote all the songs the rest may as well be in a covers band. With us all being adults, we can all accept compromise and usually it turns out for the best, as we all have a different way of looking at things. If there was one Billy Big Bollocks ordering me around I'm not sure I could cope, I get enough of that at work.

Of course, this is how it's always worked for me (and it has worked). If I cared less (if at all) about what I played and just wanted to play for the sake of it, I can see the leader thing being fine with me.

And the dreadful songs thing... you got me. Although I'd rather play a shit song I wrote than Sex on Fire :P

bobblehat

I am the the leader in my band and we have been together for the last ten years or so without so much as a raised voice,let alone an argument so works for us. There is only three of us and I sing and play guitar so tend to make most of the song choices.Not because I want to but because I know what my singing and playing limitations are. 

After taking a break at the end of last year we have now knocked the pub gigs on the head.There balance of enjoyment vs the amount of work involved just doesn't work for us any more.And we really can't be arsed!

We are now looking forward to just playing the music we like and doing the occasional jam/open mic night and charity gigs.We still get together a couple of times a month to jam/rehearse just for the pleasure of making music. 

Handsome_Chris

bobblehat said:

I am the the leader in my band and we have been together for the last ten years or so without so much as a raised voice,let alone an argument so works for us. 

This is where it's at. Some people assume that Band Leader is the same as Band Tyrant.  Obvious it isn't: Band Tyrant are my new Metal covers band.

Edit:  I just need to point out it is a new covers band dedicated to metal, not a covers band dedicated to nu metal.

monquixote

Bidley said:

I suppose the 'band leader' thing is a bit different in all the bands I've been in. The 'leader' is the mouthpiece for the band, the one people contact for gig bookings and who looks after whatever piffling amount we get paid. As far as the musical stuff goes, it's a group effort. If one member wrote all the songs the rest may as well be in a covers band. With us all being adults, we can all accept compromise and usually it turns out for the best, as we all have a different way of looking at things. If there was one Billy Big Bollocks ordering me around I'm not sure I could cope, I get enough of that at work.

Of course, this is how it's always worked for me (and it has worked). If I cared less (if at all) about what I played and just wanted to play for the sake of it, I can see the leader thing being fine with me.

And the dreadful songs thing... you got me. Although I'd rather play a shit song I wrote than Sex on Fire :P

"Leading" and "Ordering around" are two different things. 

Bands can also have multiple leaders as in the "gig administrator", "musical director", "sound techy", "web / promotions person" this can all be the same person. 

To give you an example of a band with a leader arrangement. A band I was in had a songwriter who was the lead singer. No one else wrote complete songs. He wrote songs on his own on acoustic guitar and brought them to the band. The band would then arrange them. Any member could write their own part (and usually did) or suggest a part/arrangement for anyone else, but if it reached a deadlock, or the songwriter didn't feel it captured his vision for the song then he made the call and we all went along with it. I think it's usually more important that a decision is made at all than what the decision is otherwise you end up taking ages to do anything.

Bidley

See, now that sounds reasonable. The way it was being described earlier ITT sounded like a nightmare.

Handsome_Chris

Not really. Everywhere you look there will be a form of leadership. The example @monquixote just gave us is a form of Situational Leadership. This basically is where the most capable person takes the lead as the situation dictates.

The same person doesn't have to be the leader all the time, but I'd suggest that any group needs leadership all the time.

bertie

you cannot have leadership without a leader.  As MQ points out, it may come from more than once source but its still a single entity making the ultimate decision of  that direction, its about decision making not giving orders.  Whether it be songs,  gig bookings,  buying "communal gear",  etc etc

If everything's left to "committee" nothing gets done

koneguitarist

bertie said:

If everything's left to "committee" nothing gets done

So so true !