The endless argument: Originals vs Covers

So here we go - a really hot topic in any live music circle is cover bands vs. original bands. For those not in the know a cover is when a band performs a song originally done by another artist - as in "we covered Zeppelin's 'When the Levee Breaks,'" which is ironic because Zeppelin was covering that, too - it is now, in essence, a double-cover.

But I digress. The debate usually centers around, on one side, the perspective that cover bands are not true musicians because they're not original and they steal all the shows from the true artists that deserve them; and the other side's perspective - that original bands don't play music that people like, and therefore can't expect to build a venue any business; no business for the venue means no venue, and no venue means no getting hired - often a smart venue just eliminates the middle-man and doesn't hire a band that won't put butts in the seats.

Anyway, here's my perspective:

I've seen it from both sides- I've been in both original and cover bands, and a special third category - cover bands that play obscure enough music that people can't tell you're a cover band and think you're orginal (though, if asked, a band like this would NEVER take credit if they're ethical). Since I've seen it from both sides and argued this countless times, I have come to the conclusion that neither is mutually exclusive, and neither are any less of musicians than the other. They might have certain characteristics that are tailored to a specific audience, though, and that is where I'm going to make my point.

Rule #1 in live performance - Give The People What They Want. If you don't you will have no audience. No audience = no live performance, instead you are just playing for yourself (and maybe the bartender).

This goes for both cover and original bands, though. You have look at who is the audience for each: a cover band chiefly provides for audiences who want familiarity, an original band provides for those who want something new. The problem comes down to this: it is my observation that the vast majority of audiences want familiarity in most situations where money is flowing. Money is the key, folks.

I'll repeat that: Money is the key. In a world (or at least a country) where property rights, liability, and ordinances are everyday words, money is the key.

The ultimate situation would be if an original band could plop their stuff anywhere and put on a show. Then they might catch a few people that are interested and build a following. Good times for all.

The problem is that plopping stuff most anywhere in America is a big no-no. And often unfeasible, I mean where is there a spot of private land that has 110VAC with two 40 amp breakers just sitting there for a band to use?

Aha, public parks! But those aren't really public, are they? No, the park board is often beholden to the city council, who are beholden to who? Yep, the voting, taxpaying public. And it doesn't take but a few complaints to get a noise ordinance enacted, nor does it take but one broken leg to get the city (and therefore the taxpayers) creamed in a lawsuit.

The point is that any place a band wants to play is subject to costs. The most direct costs associated with producing a show are: the venue space itself (which includes rental), electricity, P.A. (the big sound system, often with someone to run it), liability insurance, mechanical fees (the fees associated with music publishing unions), and sometimes security. Band costs often include their instruments, the gas to get to a gig, car insurance, car payments, and replacement costs of wear and tear on all these things, also time off work to both play and/or rehearse, and sometimes costs associated with protecting your intellectual property.

As I said, it'd be nice if a venue would just provide these things for a band. Well, sometimes they do - the trick is that the venue has to be one of two things:

1) Very magnanamous - which is a very rare opportunity - perhaps once a year. The event has to generate business for them down the road (or tax write-offs) otherwise they CAN NOT continue doing it, lest they run out of money. That is, of course, unless they are extremely wealthy businesses and can afford to do it "for the love." No business I know of around here can afford do that, especially often. That's a dreamer's world. Something can be said for a non-profit arts organization, though, but that requires a steady audience and their donations - not all bands are invited to that particular party as money comes from people with certain tastes and in a small market, the consensus is usually the safe route (read non-offensive), otherwise bye-bye donations, bye-bye non-profit group.

2) So the other is that a venue can provide these things if the event directly makes them money. So, how does a venue make that money?

Let's take an example: Coffee shops are a great place for an original band to play, usually they contain the audience that is willing to hear new things, to explore their musical tastes - a perfect venue, right? Unfortunately not really, because the coffee shop has to make money to keep employees paid, rent paid, lights on, etc - so they must sell something to cover these costs. What do you think that might be? Yup, coffee... and gelato, cappuccino, etc. Do you think that the coffee place, during your show, makes enough money (money beyond what the coffee itself costs and all those costs above) to stay profitable? My guess is not quite, at least not in GF. Or put a different way: does your band increase income beyond an average night without you? Will it sustain that increase of traffic if you play, say, weekly? Monthly? Maybe, if you're good and you give the people what they want.

But after all those costs are (barely) covered by the coffee shop, will you get paid? Probably not much.

And that brings up my next point - is getting paid to play music "selling out?" Some people (mainly those in the original music business) have said that a band is a sell out for getting paid - that music is an art and they should do it only for the love.

Sorry, I don't buy it, at least not on a majority-of-the-time basis. The reason is this: My "art" costs me a hell of a lot of time and money. It is beyond a hobby for me - it is a side profession. It is a passion, yes, and money or no money - that will never diminish, but I expect to be paid for my services. I feel that, aside from benefit shows/charity/and the once-in-a-while golden opportunity, you should always be paid for playing. Why? Because if you don't pay to play, the financial cycle breaks down - and, like it or not, we are all dependent on that cycle.

For instance, you buy some gear for $500 off of eBay, you practice with your band for 30 hours in a month, driving 5 miles each way to your buddy's house (which costs .44 cents per mile in gas/insurance/licensing/wear and tear - so $4.40 each time) maybe 10 times - so $44 , you spend $200 promoting your band with fliers, you drive to the gig 20 miles away ($18 for a round trip), then you play the gig and don't get paid (heck, some people pay the venue!) for it? You're out $762 by my count! Some of those are rare costs (like equipment), but still, you're spending a lot of money to do your art. That may be okay for some artists that make a lot of money in another job, or that have low fixed costs (I'm talking to the kids, here). But to others trying to maintain all their stuff it can be a tragedy and many have to stop playing, stop their passion, because it simply costs them too much. And we haven't even really considered the time aspect, but that's really abstract, so I won't get into it here.

But do consider this: let's say you're still doing it for the love of the art, you're playing for free, and maybe you're good and you bring in business/money for the venue. Is it fair the business owner should profit from your services and you not? Sounds like I should open a venue if that's the case. Maybe I'll not pay my bartenders because they should bartend for the love, and perhaps I should get an artist to comission a sculpture and not pay, because it's for the love. Sheesh, reality check needed.

And finally, consider the biggest aspect of all: There are original musicians out there that are doing their craft as a full-time vocation. If you play for free, which is, again, attractive to business owners, you have now undercut the dude or dudette that relies on getting paid to make it through life. If nothing else, you drive rates down, which hurts us all.

BIG POINT: If a musician gets paid well enough, the economic cycle continues - they grow their craft, buy more gear, eat food, pay rent, buy gas, etc. The economy continues, and for a good cause, right? Yeah! The music!

So are you "selling out" by getting paid for your efforts? Not a chance.

Now, a quick blurb on cover bands, as this is getting to be a novel: Cover bands generally do not take gigs away from original bands, as original bands so often claim. If an original band has a big enough following, then they can play just about anywhere (and people end up covering them! HA!). But there is a big restriction: an original band can't chase away the "regular" clientele. This is why you'll probably never see a metal band at Sanders. But if my cover band plays there are we "stealing" a metal band's gig? Not one iota. This is an example of a clash of audience interest and the metal band never had, nor will have, that gig. So, let it go. My jazz group, which plays quite a few originals, will probably never play on a indierock ticket. Do I begrudge them for that? Not at all, it's not my audience.

I enjoy my other, cover, band very much - I love re-creating that music, love performing, love getting the audience into it. But I have to play at places my audience will be - mainly places that are drinking establishments. At drinking establishments you have people that are getting out to socialize, to look good, to get some action (as it were), and covers lend well to the comfort level. You can sing along, it reminds you of a certain time in your life (especially as we get older, have jobs and kids, and can't take the time to follow new trends). And drinking establishments tend to make quite a bit of money - especially if you're good and can maintain an audience.

So, let's review: Original bands = good - but keep building an audience for the venue, grow your craft, and expect to be paid for your time.

Cover bands = good - but keep it real, be creative, make it your own; people want to hear stuff they know, for a lot of reasons, and this can't be considered a bad thing altogether.

Contrary to what so many people say, this is not a black-and-white issue. In fact, the two can live side by side and are often beneficial to each other; it's just that music, while an art, is also a business - it's all economics, no matter how much you don't want it to be.

Okay, I've said my peace - what's yours?