Note For Note Cover Players

[bopplayer]

I roll my eyes at those who bash it but I'm totally for it. I think copping a cover tune right to the record improves all aspects of playing. Scott Henderson tells all students this.

[IGuitUpIGuitDown]

I roll my eyes at those who bash it but I'm totally for it. I think copping a cover tune right to the record improves all aspects of playing. Scott Henderson tells all students this.

This is what I do, too. And learning Close To The Edge, note-for-note, took awhile...

I've been bashed several times, on here. Still, I can play songs accurately. And that's enough.

[stevel]

I think there are pros and cons.

I think it also depends on the song and the level of the player. There's a certain sense of accomplishment in learning something like "Spirit of Radio" for me, that I don't get from learning something like, say, "When I Come Around" (Green Day) note for note.

But it can also depend on the genre - I heard this guy play every Wes Montgomery song note for note and I was all like "wow" and all, and this other guy tells me, "yeah, but he can't sit in and play a gig if we call "Satin Doll" (or some song Wes never recorded).

In jazz it seems, learning a song note for note (outside of an homage) is a learning skill, but *improvising* is a performance skill (which hopefully learning note for note can be applied to).

Blues of course is quite similar.

I've always approached most "art rock" in the way classical music is approached - play it like it is. But if a song has an improvisatory feel too it, playing it that way may be more important than playing it note for note.

In other words, people don't want to hear you improvise Rush - it's *meant to be* played note for note (exceptions for certain elements of course). But if it's a song like "Wonderful Tonight", I think a song like that is about the chord progression, lyrics, and melodies. Anything beyond that is fair game IMHO.

So, to me, note for note is a great learning tool, and when called for, an homage or sign of respect to the original artist. But in the wrong context, it can lose its value and become expressionless regurgitation.

Steve

[FatJeff]

I heard this guy play every Wes Montgomery song note for note and I was all like "wow" and all, and this other guy tells me, "yeah, but he can't sit in and play a gig if we call "Satin Doll" (or some song Wes never recorded).

Wow...this guy spent all that time learning Wes solos verbatim, and couldn't improvise at all afterwards? That's unusual. Transcription and leanring to play "master solos" in jazz is one of the well-worn paths to learning to improvise.

By the way, Wes did record Satin Doll. Here's one version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zss_Jotp8PE

In jazz it seems, learning a song note for note (outside of an homage) is a learning skill, but *improvising* is a performance skill (which hopefully learning note for note can be applied to).

Blues of course is quite similar.

I've always approached most "art rock" in the way classical music is approached - play it like it is. But if a song has an improvisatory feel too it, playing it that way may be more important than playing it note for note.

In other words, people don't want to hear you improvise Rush - it's *meant to be* played note for note (exceptions for certain elements of course). But if it's a song like "Wonderful Tonight", I think a song like that is about the chord progression, lyrics, and melodies. Anything beyond that is fair game IMHO.

So, to me, note for note is a great learning tool, and when called for, an homage or sign of respect to the original artist. But in the wrong context, it can lose its value and become expressionless regurgitation.

Steve

Excellent points.

[Clifford-D]

Learn the cover, then leave it at home when you go out to play.

As Miles said "learn it and forget it".

[Analog Assassin]

I was having this discussion under the "delusional musicians" thread, but Steve nailed it on all points. There ARE some songs that should be played note-for-note. I think Rush falls under this.
Others, like maybe Black Crowes or Allman Bros, should definitely be improvised.

One thing about learning a song note-for-note, I approach it as an "etude," a study in that guitarist's technique and note choice.

[AnthonyStauffer]

Learn the cover, then leave it at home when you go out to play.

As Miles said "learn it and forget it".

I pretty much agree with Clifford-D, but I also think some songs require a certain amount of familiarity in the solo to sound right. For example, Suzie Q by CCR. Tried playing a solo in that one last night, without learning the cover version first, it was not great.

[mildperv]

If you are in a typical bar band, most folks want to hear the original note for note. Sometimes that pays the bills.

[greggorypeccary]

If you are in a typical bar band, most folks want to hear the original note for note. Sometimes that pays the bills.

Nah, they just need to recognize the song.

But it depends. I'll agree that stuff like Yes needs to be note for note, because that's how it was written and how they have always played it. Other stuff, say the Allmans, use Jessica as an example, you gotta play the head note for note, but can improve on the leads.

You typical rock bands don't play their own stuff exactly like the record so why should cover bands?

[bbarnard]

I always take it as a learning experience when I do something note for note. I ALWAYS learn something that I'll try and put somewhere else. Currently working on Matt Schofield's All You Need off of Siftin' Through the Ashes. I'm a little over 24 bars in and I've already picked up two licks that I plan to "steal" and use in other solos at some point.

[Jeremy_Green]

To me the line is "how would that band have played their own song?" Rush playes everything note for note so fans of this music expect that. The Stones ad lib a lot - so their fans expect that.

Either way I think there is a real value to learning things note for note. Even if you choose to eventually improvise it. Learning how "they" did it first can really help you get inside the progression. I usually lift everything then over time naturally as I forget the lines a bit it loosens up into my own version of it. Which most people are fine with.

[Buddy Boy]

I have always liked bands that really "get it" right Those bands are always popular and deserve to be appreciated for the hard work they put into the repertoire. Most of my life I have played in 3 or 4 piece bands that forced me to adjust my playing to try to cover other parts, resulting in an interpretation of the song. In my blues trio we just think structure/melody and make songs our own. "Arrangements while you wait...we're famous for our endings."

[buddastrat]

I always liked it both ways. But to stay true to the music. If it was something challenging, I wanted to get it right, as close as I could. If it's blues or something, that's more of an improvised style then I want to stay true to the spirit.

There are some parts of songs that HAVE to be there if you're doing a cover. Of course you can always say it's a rendition....

[Jasco]

I'm a believer in learning things note-for-note as an educational tool, then forgetting them when performing.

If a melody is an integral part of a tune, then it should probably be performed in a reconizable way.

And while it's true that conservative listeners will always want to hear things that are familiar, I don't think it's productive from an artistic standpoint to pander to audience whims at the expense of your own voice.

[boldaslove1977]

i think it really depends on the song...

we have some songs we do note-for-note.

we have others we've never played the same way twice.

to be honest, the average person in the bar is too drunk to notice the difference anyway...

[Dickie Fredericks]

For me it depends on the song.

[semi-hollowbody]

I think as a tool to improve technique or a practice regimine its a great idea..but when players start insisting EVERYONE in the band has to play a song 100% exactly like the original, night after night after night, its ridiculous imo

[vivaoaxaca]

And while it's true that conservative listeners will always want to hear things that are familiar, I don't think it's productive from an artistic standpoint to pander to audience whims at the expense of your own voice.

Preach, preacher!

I have an ongoing version of this conversation with a guitar player that I play with. I dislike playing covers of well-known songs for this very reason. Some schmoe in the audience will take exception to the fact that the arrangement/solo/lyric isn't note-for-note from the record that they remember. I couldn't care less if I play anything like anyone else ever played it, including myself. When I play a song I play it like I'm playing it right now. And the next time I play it I'll probably play it differently than I did the last time. This is as true of my songs as it is of anyone else's. Nothing is sacred, nor should it be. How boring would it be if every time you heard a song, no matter who played it, it sounded exactly like the first version ever played or recorded?

I can see the point that there are situations that call for note-for-note recreations of famous recordings, like playing in a tribute band, but that's mimicry, not artistry. The whole point is to pay tribute to the original artists and songs.

Whether learning a song note-for-note from the original recording improves one's playing, as was asserted by the OP, is debatable at best, but is best left to each player to decide for himself. I've decided that for me it's a pointless exercise that robs me of my time and my creativity and by and large reduces whatever magic may have existed in original piece.

[Analog Assassin]

I can see the point that there are situations that call for note-for-note recreations of famous recordings, like playing in a tribute band, but that's mimicry, not artistry. The whole point is to pay tribute to the original artists and songs.


I've never seen a tribute band (I find the concept is ludicrous and cheap) but if I saw, say, a Led Zep tribute band, I'd expect to hear the songs performed as Led Zeppelin performed them live ... LZ did a LOT of improvising live. They extended parts, Jimmy Page played some solos COMPLETELY different than on the album. If a tribute band played like the album, I'd feel cheated because they're not recreating the experience of seeing LZ live.

[Jeremy_Green]

Ludicrous and cheap indeed - but the gig often paid quite well by comparison to some others!

I don't or wouldn't do it anymore but I was in a Rush tribute band for a year or so 20 years ago. Don't know about where you are from but up here if you change one note in a Rush tribute band there would be scoffing all around. That is one band who's fans KNOW every single note and will air drum/guitar/bass their way through the whole set. Some of the guitar solos you can change a bit here and there but you will ultimately be judged on your accuracy of reproduction.

Which is in line with the Rush's attitude to perfectionism. That was my earlier point if the band you are covering are note-for-noters then their fans will expect you to be.

[vivaoaxaca]

To me this conversation is just a parallel of the millions of TGP threads that ask, "What gear can I buy to get the tone that Player X got in the second solo of Song Y on Album Z?"

I guess I can dig that some may believe that they can come closer to unlocking some mystical secret of the universe by being able to mimic that idyllic sound that their hero made, but I have no desire to do so. In the same way I suppose that some may find it true that being able to play Player X's material note-for-note brings one metaphysically closer to Player X and that this is a desirable outcome. Or even that through mimicking Player X as closely as possible they will understand the process used by Player X to create the music in the first place. I disagree.

It's one thing to cop somebody's licks. It's another thing entirely to strive to play something exactly like another player.

[germs]

i hold myself to about a 90% note tracking rating or better.

i look at it as if i were playing GuitarHero or RockBand. can i get 5 stars on this song? am i playing it well enough? no? time to run through it again.

as primarily a lead player - i expect a 4 star rating from rhythm players. i need to hear notes, tempo, changes, etc in the correct sequence.

i almost expect to hear a flubbed note during rehearsal (i do it too!) but tempo swings due to missed fills, progression trainwrecks...that is not something i want to be going over and over again during practice - you should know the material when you walk in the door.

[that_brianm_guy]

I've always approached most "art rock" in the way classical music is approached - play it like it is. But if a song has an improvisatory feel too it, playing it that way may be more important than playing it note for note.


Memorizing, and playing note for note, something that was initially improvised, has always struck me as kinda odd.

[LP51122]

I also think it depends on the song. If you're playing Kid Charlemagne, I'd like to hear the solo note for note. It's an amazing solo.

But if you're playing some lesser known song, I think it would be wise to put some of your own influence on it.

[dazco]

It's good at first. But once you become proficient at both that and improvising your own, it's time IMO to leave the copying for only those songs that really require it. I improvise anything that has a solo that sounds like the original player was improvising because there isn't anything that stands out as critical as a signature part of the tune. I copy it when it's too critical to the song to not do so. Examples would be things like VH's Jump, any cars somg in existance, etc.

[Yossi]

Most songs have the "trade mark" licks that are part of the song. If you would hear the original artist perform that tune on several occasions you would hear those same melodies each time. But, that same artist would likely deviate from the recorded version for a good part of the time.
Take the lead from Stairway to Heaven, for an example. Listen to it on IV and then on the BBC Sessions. Plenty of creative deviation there.
For learning, however, copping a lead down to the most minute detail, is a great tool.

[IGuitUpIGuitDown]

To me this conversation is just a parallel of the millions of TGP threads that ask, "What gear can I buy to get the tone that Player X got in the second solo of Song Y on Album Z?"

I guess I can dig that some may believe that they can come closer to unlocking some mystical secret of the universe by being able to mimic that idyllic sound that their hero made, but I have no desire to do so. In the same way I suppose that some may find it true that being able to play Player X's material note-for-note brings one metaphysically closer to Player X and that this is a desirable outcome. Or even that through mimicking Player X as closely as possible they will understand the process used by Player X to create the music in the first place. I disagree.

It's one thing to cop somebody's licks. It's another thing entirely to strive to play something exactly like another player.

Wrong.

It IS a way to understand a favorite player, better. But many people will not take the time and effort to "get outside of themselves." It is much safer always playing what you know. It is a learning experience to give in to another player's thoughts, note choices, and style.

Playing note-for-note takes humility. You have to listen to what the person really played - and NOT just invent your own little excuses to avoid certain difficult parts. Anyone can claim it is boring. And it takes a discipline that many will not learn. That's never changed, throughout the history of time.

Even Rush is famous for saying "show me - don't tell me." Because many guitarists talk, when they should actually, indeed, be playing.

When you consider how many famous solos were "engineered/spliced together" by the producer NOT played that way by the guitarist, then why is copping someone's licks A BAD THING? When the guitarist couldn't even invent it, himself? It was Frankenstein-ed together, not played in that sequence. Isn't the original guitarist just as guilty as the person who is now playing the lead, note-for-note? He's playing something that HE DIDN'T WRITE, EITHER! The engineer wrote it!

[gennation]

I have no problem with note for note stuff. If that's what the gig is, I come in prepared. I could never count how many note for note songs and solo's I've learned over the decades, it's just an on going natural thing.

If the gig calls for something else, I can oblige too with no issue.

[vivaoaxaca]

Wrong.

It IS a way to understand a favorite player, better. But many people will not take the time and effort to "get outside of themselves." It is much safer always playing what you know. It is a learning experience to give in to another player's thoughts, note choices, and style.

Playing note-for-note takes humility. You have to listen to what the person really played - and NOT just invent your own little excuses to avoid certain difficult parts. Anyone can claim it is boring. And it takes a discipline that many will not learn. That's never changed, throughout the history of time.

Even Rush is famous for saying "show me - don't tell me." Because many guitarists talk, when they should actually, indeed, be playing.

When you consider how many famous solos were "engineered/spliced together" by the producer NOT played that way by the guitarist, then why is copping someone's licks A BAD THING? When the guitarist couldn't even invent it, himself? It was Frankenstein-ed together, not played in that sequence. Isn't the original guitarist just as guilty as the person who is now playing the lead, note-for-note? He's playing something that HE DIDN'T WRITE, EITHER! The engineer wrote it!

First off, don't tell me I'm wrong when I offer an opinion, especially when I have gone out of my way to show that I understand some of the arguments in favor of your position. It is rude and doesn't foster an ongoing conversation. In addition to that it is untrue. We disagree and that is fine and good. I'd hate to agree with everyone.

I really don't care who wrote anything, or how it was put together to create the original recording. I was discussing the OPs assertion that the mere fact of learning a song note perfect improves 'all aspects of playing.' In my view it does not, but I can speak only for myself. Note that when I disagreed with the OP I stated simply that. He is not wrong, and my disagreement doesn't lessen his opinion, it merely adds another view to the conversation.

Believe it or not it is possible for two people to disagree and for neither of them to be 'wrong.' Nothing is absolute and nobody owns absolute truth.

If you feel that you need to 'understand a favorite player' then good luck to you. I hope you achieve the enlightenment that you seek. I'm not interested in that. I don't care. That seems like a very good academic pursuit, but I don't find it to be a musical pursuit because I have no desire to play music like some other musician. I do not intend to 'give in to another players thoughts, note choices and style.' I prefer to develop my own.

As far as humility goes, admitting that you do not possess all of the wisdom in the universe requires humility. Admitting that there are as many different point of view as there are stars in the sky requires humility.

I'll also point out that it is by far 'safer' to play what someone else played, never trying to speak with your own voice, never trying to create, never trying to add anything new to the world. I choose to place my heart at the front of the stage for all to see and I'm happy to succeed or fail as a musician by playing music the way I want to play it as opposed to merely how some other player did.

[IGuitUpIGuitDown]

First off, don't tell me I'm wrong when I offer an opinion, especially when I have gone out of my way to show that I understand some of the arguments in favor of your position. It is rude and doesn't foster an ongoing conversation. In addition to that it is untrue. We disagree and that is fine and good. I'd hate to agree with everyone.

I really don't care who wrote anything, or how it was put together to create the original recording. I was discussing the OPs assertion that the mere fact of learning a song note perfect improves 'all aspects of playing.' In my view it does not, but I can speak only for myself. Note that when I disagreed with the OP I stated simply that. He is not wrong, and my disagreement doesn't lessen his opinion, it merely adds another view to the conversation.

Believe it or not it is possible for two people to disagree and for neither of them to be 'wrong.' Nothing is absolute and nobody owns absolute truth.

If you feel that you need to 'understand a favorite player' then good luck to you. I hope you achieve the enlightenment that you seek. I'm not interested in that. I don't care. That seems like a very good academic pursuit, but I don't find it to be a musical pursuit because I have no desire to play music like some other musician. I do not intend to 'give in to another players thoughts, note choices and style.' I prefer to develop my own.

As far as humility goes, admitting that you do not possess all of the wisdom in the universe requires humility. Admitting that there are as many different point of view as there are stars in the sky requires humility.

I'll also point out that it is by far 'safer' to play what someone else played, never trying to speak with your own voice, never trying to create, never trying to add anything new to the world. I choose to place my heart at the front of the stage for all to see and I'm happy to succeed or fail as a musician by playing music the way I want to play it as opposed to merely how some other player did.

First off - 'wrong' is my opinion. And the OP's mention of Scott Henderson approving of learning a song correctly is obviously incorrect, too.

Do What Thou Wilt. But just don't expect everybody to pay for it...

I really don't care who wrote anything, either. I'd rather be able to play it.

:crazyguy

[IGuitUpIGuitDown]

I have no problem with note for note stuff. If that's what the gig is, I come in prepared. I could never count how many note for note songs and solo's I've learned over the decades, it's just an ongoing natural thing.

If the gig calls for something else, I can oblige too with no issue.

Same here. My pleasure in playing guitar comes from nailing things that the listener knows are in the song.

But that philosophy wouldn't be staying "true" to a guitarist, as a player. That's the essence of why playing a song correctly is a bad thing. You don't, and I'm not, buying it. If I want to deviate - I'll write an original song. Because why would someone take the effort to learn a song half-assed, otherwise? isn't that in actuality, CLOSER to an original, at that point?

This sounds just like employers of today who can't keep teenagers as steady employees. The teens and young adults have a million excuses why they were late for work - but the bottom line is they weren't there, to do their job.

[vivaoaxaca]

But that philosophy wouldn't be staying "true" to a guitarist, as a player. That's the essence of why playing a song correctly is a bad thing. You don't, and I'm not, buying it. If I want to deviate - I'll write an original song. Because why would someone take the effort to learn a song half-assed, otherwise? isn't that in actuality, CLOSER to an original, at that point?

I'd be happy to have this conversation with you, but I can't make heads or tails of this. Can you clarify, please?

[Yossi]

When you consider how many famous solos were "engineered/spliced together" by the producer NOT played that way by the guitarist, ...... The engineer wrote it!

I've assumed that was done but I don't know which famous solos fall in that category. Would you name some?

[seiko]

I was having this discussion under the "delusional musicians" thread, but Steve nailed it on all points. There ARE some songs that should be played note-for-note. I think Rush falls under this.
Others, like maybe Black Crowes or Allman Bros, should definitely be improvised.

I'm kind of fascinated how you decide which is which. All the best covers I've heard on record or stage, the players seem to try and do something with the tune to make it their own.

[seiko]

I've assumed that was done but I don't know which famous solos fall in that category. Would you name some?

Gilmour is famous for splicing solos in the studio. "All Along the Watchtower" clearly can't have been played in a single pass. Pretty easy to do with all the digital tracks at your disposal today.

[gennation]

I'd be happy to have this conversation with you, but I can't make heads or tails of this. Can you clarify, please?

I wasn't sure where he was coming from either.

I'm good with note for note, playing my own thing, or writing my own thing.

The whole picture is just, well, bigger being able to do it all with discipline and dedication personally and musically.

[Yossi]

Gilmour is famous for splicing solos in the studio. "All Along the Watchtower" clearly can't have been played in a single pass. Pretty easy to do with all the digital tracks at your disposal today.

Gilmour is the guitarist, so it would still be his creation not the recording engineer's. As for all along the watch tower, there was this movie on Hendrix that indicated that he also did the mixing work for that song.( I don't know if that was reality or just the movie).

I'm also not asking about overdubs.( Zeppelin recordings are filled with them, along with many others, I'm sure.) I'm asking about famous leads, as mentioned in the post I quoted by billguitar64, that were spliced and put together by someone other than the guitarist who is, nevertheless, given the credit of creating and playing them.

[Tomo]

I roll my eyes at those who bash it but I'm totally for it. I think copping a cover tune right to the record improves all aspects of playing. Scott Henderson tells all students this.

It's fun to do that. Before you create something your own... it's nice to imitate things very deeply. I like that too. Just coping right notes, right rhythm.. it's not that hard, but if you want to study about feel, touch, taste... it's more!

Tomo

[Elektrik_SIxx]

I've assumed that was done but I don't know which famous solos fall in that category. Would you name some?
Beat It - Kid Charlemagne - Don't Take Me Alive - Breakdown Dead Ahead - All Along The Watchtower...there's more...