If you’ve spent any time at all running around in musician circles, you have come across and engaged in, at least once if not several times, the debate of original music v covers.
For those not in the know, this debate centers around the “fact” that the “masses” for the most part go to hear live music because they want to hear the songs they know, not to actually hear anything groundbreaking or new. People enjoy hearing top 40 radio hits or oldies or standards or what-have-yous because they can (1) sing along usually badly and (2) dance to it also badly and (3) feel entertained. Not that original music is not entertaining, but if you dont know a song, for many people, it’s not all that interesting.
For other musicians of course this is not the case. Just as an example, go to a Rush show and you will only find other musicians in the audience. And mathematicians who program sequences in garage band. haha.
The debate rages on when you start talking to bands who are actually out there “gigging” as the kids say, and trying to make a living at it. Even with all the Sonic bid, iTunes, cdbaby, myspace help you can get out there today, really “making it big” is a pipe dream that so few bands will ever see fulfilled, no matter how great they really may be. Sad but true.
But as a musician, who only does “covers” for all intents and purposes, I feel like this is not entirely horrible. I like that I can play and that I can entertain myself. And if people accidentally are entertained as well, great. I don’t really care for cover bands on the whole and I definitely commiserate with working musicians who cant get gigs because they dont have a name or because another band with a huge following soaks up every weekend night with their “Brick House”s and their matchbox 20-esque rendition of every song of the 80s. We’re not really sure when music went so wrong, but let’s face it. the masses are lame.
On the other other hand, there can never be too many versions of Brown Eyed Girl… right ???
ps. that’s a trick question.