One of the most debated, discussed, argued and analyzed topics of non-original bands is Tribute vs. Cover. Similar yet different.
According to Wikipedia, a 'Cover' band is a band that plays songs written and recorded by other artists, usually well-known songs (as compared to "original" bands which play music they themselves have written). They can either be done meticulously close to original recordings or modified to suit the style or taste of the band's image. There are a wide range of cover bands - some are variety bands, some cover material from particular decades, for example a 1980's cover band and some stick with a particular style or genre, like Motown.
Interestingly enough, The Rolling Stones released their first three albums of primarily cover songs, ranging from Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters to Motown favorites. They started out as a Cover band!
Tribute bands, on the other hand, concentrate on a single band (or performer), mostly of iconic nature, and fully recreate a concert experience for the audience as though it is real and happening then and there but for a lot less.
Small details are of GREAT importance. In the case of Mick Adams and The Stones, the iconic character images, movements, and attitude are all paid strict attention to.
Vintage instruments and amps, drums, costuming, hair styles, note for note recreation of the music ... every detail is important.
The tribute / cover band lines get blurred at times, like a band who pays tribute to an era or a particular style of music, as noted above. I think that covering the material and not going all out to replicate one specific iconic group ... those are cover bands. This is where the debate centers. Everyone seems to have an opinion about this. Jump in and leave a comment. And as always, thanks for reading!
Thank you Vince, this was a very interesting read, and also enlightening as well.
ReplyDelete