OT: When does a long term Musical Act become essentially a "cover band"?

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

This is a discussion I have had a lot with friends. I used the term "musical act" so as not to get caught up with a specific genre, because it is relevant across the spectrum. When a musical act has been together for say 20, 25 years, my contention and it must suck for them, is that they become almost a cover band. Now by this I mean "cover band" for their own songs.

But I look at a group like U2 who I grew up with and love (loved?) and they have been around for 35 years now. 35 years, takes a 15 year old to a 50 year old. When a group like this comes out with a new album (material) do I care? When they go on tour, do I want to see them? Depends. I went to their Joshua Tree show last year at Heinz. 1987 is when Joshua Tree came out, they played the whole album. Also played songs like Sunday Bloody Sunday. If I am going to see U2, I want to see those songs, I want to see the songs from youth that I grew up with. These are the songs that remind you of your first kiss, first girlfriend, High School, College, parties, etc...a more carefree, fun time. I want to see them perform New Year's Day, I will Follow, 11 O'clock Tic Toc, I don't really care to hear their new stuff.

I am sure this is the same for any group who has been around now for 25 years. I am sure (know) people want to go to a Pearl Jam concert and hear "Alive" and "Jeremy" moreso than their new stuff. I am not even sure the Stones produce new music (do they?) but again, people go to hear "Satisfaction" and "Sympathy", the Buffett Parrotheads (when they can get in the show on time) sure want to hear the same songs they hear every year. If Prince was alive and still making music, again the big responses to his concert would be 1999 or Kiss, not new stuff. Any act with any long timeline.

That's what music is right? An auditory record of a time of our life, when the song came out, we get transported back to that time for an instant. But how much does that suck for the musicians? Your job, your reason for doing what you do is creating music. And after a certain point, your library is big enough, people don't really care for "more" because it pushes songs that made people love you into irrelevancy. So it is conundrum for those bands, you want to write new music and play it because that is what you do, your DNA, how you are wired, your fans could care less in most cases, because they want to hear the hits they grew up with. Am I right?

So this is why I say after a certain point, a group essentially becomes a cover band of themselves. Some are just that. Like a Journey or Def Leppard (I think they are touring and recently were here) I don't think they have new stuff (do they?) or anything that hits the radio. So all people are going to see, paying for tickets is for the songs they loved 30 and 40 years ago. Even the 20 somethings that might be there, they are there for their "hits".

I think it is just an unintentional consequence of being a musician of over 25+ years. I think that around 20 years is about the cutoff where your new stuff is really diminished and the public really could give a damn about.

I posted this on this board to get more of a varied reaction. In the locker room, it would devolve into political anarchy, so please mods can you keep this here for some discussion?

 

[Swervin27]

it would be very tough for an "established" successful band who's been around for 20+ years, who can sell out concerts simply playing their greatest hits, to push themselves to continue to come out with new music. Can you imagine U2 meeting in a studio and spending 6 months non stop to come up with a new album? It's just not worth it to them.

I think that's the problem, the drive to create new music isn't there for a band that already "made it big." BTW, I went to a steve miller concert (Im not comparing them to U2 or anything, just saying) in late 90s and they came out with "Wide River" which was new at the time and about 2 songs in, the whole crowd was annoyed and ready to hear The joker and "The stake" and quit with this new garbage..

 

[upj87]

This is a discussion I have had a lot with friends. I used the term "musical act" so as not to get caught up with a specific genre, because it is relevant across the spectrum. When a musical act has been together for say 20, 25 years, my contention and it must suck for them, is that they become almost a cover band. Now by this I mean "cover band" for their own songs.

But I look at a group like U2 who I grew up with and love (loved?) and they have been around for 35 years now. 35 years, takes a 15 year old to a 50 year old. When a group like this comes out with a new album (material) do I care? When they go on tour, do I want to see them? Depends. I went to their Joshua Tree show last year at Heinz. 1987 is when Joshua Tree came out, they played the whole album. Also played songs like Sunday Bloody Sunday. If I am going to see U2, I want to see those songs, I want to see the songs from youth that I grew up with. These are the songs that remind you of your first kiss, first girlfriend, High School, College, parties, etc...a more carefree, fun time. I want to see them perform New Year's Day, I will Follow, 11 O'clock Tic Toc, I don't really care to hear their new stuff.

I am sure this is the same for any group who has been around now for 25 years. I am sure (know) people want to go to a Pearl Jam concert and hear "Alive" and "Jeremy" moreso than their new stuff. I am not even sure the Stones produce new music (do they?) but again, people go to hear "Satisfaction" and "Sympathy", the Buffett Parrotheads (when they can get in the show on time) sure want to hear the same songs they hear every year. If Prince was alive and still making music, again the big responses to his concert would be 1999 or Kiss, not new stuff. Any act with any long timeline.

That's what music is right? An auditory record of a time of our life, when the song came out, we get transported back to that time for an instant. But how much does that suck for the musicians? Your job, your reason for doing what you do is creating music. And after a certain point, your library is big enough, people don't really care for "more" because it pushes songs that made people love you into irrelevancy. So it is conundrum for those bands, you want to write new music and play it because that is what you do, your DNA, how you are wired, your fans could care less in most cases, because they want to hear the hits they grew up with. Am I right?

So this is why I say after a certain point, a group essentially becomes a cover band of themselves. Some are just that. Like a Journey or Def Leppard (I think they are touring and recently were here) I don't think they have new stuff (do they?) or anything that hits the radio. So all people are going to see, paying for tickets is for the songs they loved 30 and 40 years ago. Even the 20 somethings that might be there, they are there for their "hits".

I think it is just an unintentional consequence of being a musician of over 25+ years. I think that around 20 years is about the cutoff where your new stuff is really diminished and the public really could give a damn about.

I posted this on this board to get more of a varied reaction. In the locker room, it would devolve into political anarchy, so please mods can you keep this here for some discussion?

So this is why I say after a certain point, a group essentially becomes a cover band of themselves. Some are just that. Like a Journey or Def Leppard (I think they are touring and recently were here) I don't think they have new stuff (do they?) or anything that hits the radio.

On the radio where? No genre anymore as rock is pretty much dead. Folks that go to theses shows are in their late 40's to their 60's and do not want to hear new stuff. Shame but what they pass off for rock nowadays is depressing angst and a new Journey or Def Leppard song in the vein of Don't stop believing or Pour some sugar on me would not be deep or depressing enough... Popular music the way we once knew it is toast. Case in point...some group of guy called the Drake or some such thing had 7 of the top 10 billboard hits last week surpassing or tying the Beatles in this regard... I would guess that 80% of America could not name one of them...Beatles uh not so much in that lack of recognition.

 

[upj87]

it would be very tough for an "established" successful band who's been around for 20+ years, who can sell out concerts simply playing their greatest hits, to push themselves to continue to come out with new music. Can you imagine U2 meeting in a studio and spending 6 months non stop to come up with a new album? It's just not worth it to them.

I think that's the problem, the drive to create new music isn't there for a band that already "made it big." BTW, I went to a steve miller concert (Im not comparing them to U2 or anything, just saying) in late 90s and they came out with "Wide River" which was new at the time and about 2 songs in, the whole crowd was annoyed and ready to hear The joker and "The stake" and quit with this new garbage..

I went to a steve miller concert (Im not comparing them to U2 or anything, just saying)...I will, much better as it is much more fun for me....

 

[Swervin27]

I went to a steve miller concert (Im not comparing them to U2 or anything, just saying)...I will, much better as it is much more fun for me....

Im not even a huge U2 fan but I think its one of those shows you have to go to at least once. Im kind of mad at myself for not going to an AC/DC show in my younger days. Just to say I did..

 

[Swervin27]

Back to the OP, if it really sucks that bad, they don't have to go on tour. If it really sucks, they can make new music. honestly, I think the opposite, I think that playing the same songs year in and year out, still probably gives them a rush, live performances..

So many of these musicians are well off, I mean I saw that the dude from DMB who was just fired for sexual harassment, that dude is worth 70m. So they don't need the money, so maybe it doesn't suck as bad as you'd think.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

So this is why I say after a certain point, a group essentially becomes a cover band of themselves. Some are just that. Like a Journey or Def Leppard (I think they are touring and recently were here) I don't think they have new stuff (do they?) or anything that hits the radio.

On the radio where? No genre anymore as rock is pretty much dead. Folks that go to theses shows are in their late 40's to their 60's and do not want to hear new stuff. Shame but what they pass off for rock nowadays is depressing angst and a new Journey or Def Leppard song in the vein of Don't stop believing or Pour some sugar on me would not be deep or depressing enough... Popular music the way we once knew it is toast. Case in point...some group of guy called the Drake or some such thing had 7 of the top 10 billboard hits last week surpassing or tying the Beatles in this regard... I would guess that 80% of America could not name one of them...Beatles uh not so much in that lack of recognition.

Yeah, but that is not really the point, now is it? I am not a fan of Drake's style of music, so please don’t take this as a position on him in any way. I am told that he is the Nickelback of R&B. It’s music for people who don’t really like music.

However, it’s not because of the quality of his music that so few people know him, it’s because of the way the business is now structured and frankly has been structured for very long time.

It’s also why rock ‘n’ roll died. I don’t really see that as a bad thing, per se. I see that as a natural evolution towards whatever within the culture.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

As for the OP, if you look at it, with very few exceptions, almost all successful bands wrote/recorded most of their best material before any of them were 27 years-old. That means that nearly all of them are guilty of that to some degree. The only reason why band like U2 would be especially guilty of that is because they have been especially successful.

I have often wondered how sick bands must get out of their own songs? I think you get into that line of work because of a passion for music or exploring your art. It is therefore more than a little ironic that you aren’t really given the freedom to explore that need because of the public’s demand that you continually re-visit past glories.

Also, most of the songs are written about personal struggle or pain and it’s hard stay in touch with those emotions whenever you are a highly successful singer or band who has teams of people whose entire livelihoods revolve around taking care of your every whim.

I think they lose their edge for a lot of reasons but that’s one of them. Also, these bands get used to a certain lifestyle and pampering and there’s really no incentive to mess with that.

That’s why I respect bands like the Beatles, for example, who were easily the most popular band in the world by doing what we’re essentially rock doo-wop songs. However, they insisted on completely and radically changing their musical direction later in their careers.

From where I sit, that’s what’s what cemented their legacy as legends and made them iconic – they dared to conquer both worlds, largely of their own creation, and succeeded.

The whole thing still blows my mind.

They had the world completely by the tail and STILL decided to gamble all of it on a completely new direction that was based on psychedelia and eastern musical theory… and yet somehow it still paid off.

Unreal!

Very, very few bands have been able to achieve anything similar to that over the years.

For me personally, I think their later stuff is infinitely more interesting than their early material. I don’t really have a lot of appetite for “Eight Days a Week” but a song like, “A Day in the Life” is welcome anytime.

Something that I don’t think it’s talked about enough regarding the Beatles in particular is how innovative they were with how their records sounded. They were just obsessed with mixing and creating new sounds and new nuggets within their music and nobody else was doing that at the time. Well, almost nobody else.

So few bands have ever been able to make such a radical departure and make it work. I think of Joy Division/New Order as probably the best example of that.

Maybe you could consider Mother Love Bone/Pearl Jam as part of that deal too. However, their sound did not really radically change. It became much, much better, but it wasn’t totally different.

Maybe the best example of that in modern music is Radiohead, who wrote consecutive masterpieces in “The Bends” and then “OK Computer” - arguably the best album I’ve ever heard - and then basically turned to a much more electronic base sound all while continuing to write amazing songs.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

It’s funny because I’m going to the Foo Fighters show on Thursday and I always say that they are really the “last major rock ‘n’ roll band.”

However, in truth, there are other very good rock ‘n’ roll bands out there. However, there are not as many as there used to be and as I said earlier, I’m not sure that’s necessarily a bad thing? I just think it’s evolutionary.

I don’t think we’ll ever see a return to the music of the mid to late 80s and early 90s and frankly, personally, I don’t wish to see that era return and I lived it!

I sincerely believe that was the worst era in the history of music - certainly in our lifetime. The music of today - certainly the American music - is just significantly better, IMHO.

It was just all so synthetic feeling. It didn’t feel like it had any authenticity whatsoever. In fact, it seemed to flaunt the fact that it lacked authenticity.

I think that’s why grunge or alternative or whatever you want to call it, as well as rap were able to take hold. Those genres felt more real than their immediate predecessors, which made them much more compelling and tangible than what Motley Crue or Def Leppard or Poison or whomever you want to name would or could ever offer them.

I don’t think it had anything to do with fashion – or I don’t at least not much to do with fashion. I don’t think it was about flannel shirts or LA Raiders ball caps or anything like that. I think its appeal was largely about the fact that they were actually talking about something that felt real. Now, whether or not it actually was real is an altogether different conversation. However, at least felt real and was more interesting than over the top hooks about various ways to describe sex.

I just thought late 80s music was mostly cheesy and tacky and dated feeling - and I can tell you that I felt that way even as it was happening.

For years, I had a rule in my car that when I was driving there could be no song permitted that had a synthesizer in it. As soon as we heard a synthesizer, it was an automatic station change. My wife still teases me about that all these years later.

I just thought the music of that era it had the emotional nutritional value of a candy cane. Sure, you’d probably consume it if it was there, but you rarely felt good about yourself afterwards.

 

[HailtoPitt]

it would be very tough for an "established" successful band who's been around for 20+ years, who can sell out concerts simply playing their greatest hits, to push themselves to continue to come out with new music. Can you imagine U2 meeting in a studio and spending 6 months non stop to come up with a new album? It's just not worth it to them.

I think that's the problem, the drive to create new music isn't there for a band that already "made it big." BTW, I went to a steve miller concert (Im not comparing them to U2 or anything, just saying) in late 90s and they came out with "Wide River" which was new at the time and about 2 songs in, the whole crowd was annoyed and ready to hear The joker and "The stake" and quit with this new garbage..

Isn't the drive to create true for anything (not just music) once somebody establishes a certain level of achievement/wealth/fame?

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

For the record, while I am alienating people, my worst five bands of all time in no particular order would be: Aerosmith, Kiss, Poison, Motley Crue and I suppose Van Halen. There are probably a few others that belong in there as well, but they will do for now.

All of those bands were just so bad, IMO and yet so popular and I don’t miss any of them.

Do you want to know why rock ‘n’ roll is dead? Because those bands killed it. They didn’t grow the music Like, for example, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones or any number of other bands the preceded them like for example, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones or any number of other bands that preceded them. Instead, they just sat there and played in their own piss.

At least that’s my (firm) view.

Also, for the record I don’t even really blame those musicians. They were mostly young kids at the time doing what they were told. I blame the record companies for not forcing their young artists to grow. However, those music reps never cared about music as an art form. They just wanted to count their dollar dollar bills yo, and as a result, they killed the Golden Goose.

 

[pittdan77]

I think the Eagles are, without a doubt, the exception. Their new stuff wasn't fantastic but it was still good.

There's a good scene in the documentary about the Eagles where Glen Frey basically said it sucks to have to go out and do the same songs over and over again but that's what people are paying to see. And that's probably what made that group so good. They had a pretty good understanding of what crowds want.

You may also add to this discussion that in the 90's, the "classic rock" station became a thing. A lot of the music probably would have faded into "oldie" status had it not been for the emergence of those stations. I really believe that's why Bon Jovi and the Eagles and a lot of bands were able to stay marketable.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Isn't the drive to create true for anything (not just music) once somebody established a certain level of achievement/wealth/fame?

Yes! I think that is largely true. I could not agree more.

I think there also comes a time when a band or a singer or a writer or a director or a comedian reaches a point where he or she or they have basically said all they have to say and it’s time for them to step aside.

That’s hard to do economically, but should be done more artistically.

I’m a man of lot of rules and one rule I have is if a movie has too many A-list actors in it, I stay away from it because I know it will likely be garbage.

I know they will have spent all their money on the actors and not enough money on the writers and story developers. It’s true nearly 100% of the time.

I love it when you see a compelling looking movie or series and you don’t recognize any of the actors. Those are often the best ones!

It’s the same thing with music. I love hearing new bands and new sounds and new approaches to old problems.

I would much rather hear that than the 31st album from U2 or whomever. Entertainment is for the young and should be by the young. And I say that is an old man.

I used to lose my shit every year during the Super Bowl whenever they would trot out a bunch of 70 and 80-year-old men to sing songs they wrote about the freaking Vietnam War.

I would make up songs like, “We need a cure for Polio” or “Penicillin Might Not Be a Devils Cocktail After All” and stuff like that to make fun of how old those songs were.

One year, after the Who finished playing I read off all the things that have been invented since that song was originally written.

I like the Who! They are one of my favorite bands. However, they should’ve been playing the halftime show whenever the Steelers were in the midst of their dynasty, not now.

I’m not really a big fan of Justin Timberlake or Lady Gaga. However, that’s who belongs doing the Super Bowl halftime show. It should be people like that. Taylor Swift, Nicki Minaj, Arianna Grande, people like that. It should absolutely NOT be people who haven’t written a relevant album since the Nixon administration.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I think the Eagles are, without a doubt, the exception. Their new stuff wasn't fantastic but it was still good.

There's a good scene in the documentary about the Eagles where Glen Frey basically said it sucks to have to go out and do the same songs over and over again but that's what people are paying to see. And that's probably what made that group so good. They had a pretty good understanding of what crowds want.

You may also add to this discussion that in the 90's, the "classic rock" station became a thing. A lot of the music probably would have faded into "oldie" status had it not been for the emergence of those stations. I really believe that's why Bon Jovi and the Eagles and a lot of bands were able to stay marketable.

The Eagles are really an interesting band because I think they were always a tug of war between their two dominant leaders – Glenn Frey and Don Henley. Henley was the artist and Frey was the businessman.

I think that natural tension is probably ultimately drove the Eagles apart. That documentary on them is amazing because you could really see a lot of the underlying tension in the band boiling to the surface. However, that tension is probably also what drove them to succeed in the first place.

They are definitely one of the more interesting cases in rock ‘n’ roll history.

 

[pittdan77]

The Eagles are really an interesting band because I think they were always a tug of war between their two dominant leaders – Glenn Frey and Don Henley. Henley was the artist and Frey was the businessman.

I think that natural tension is probably ultimately drove the Eagles apart. That documentary on them is amazing because you could really see a lot of the underlying tension in the band boiling to the surface. However, that tension is probably also what drove them to succeed in the first place.

They are definitely one of the more interesting cases in rock ‘n’ roll history.

Don Felder drove Frey to a breaking point so I don't think Henley had as much a hand in it. Frew cut everyone out by then. But if you look at the way the band was structured after the reunion, Frey and Henley were the alphas again and they canned and countersued Felder when he acted up.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I think the Eagles are, without a doubt, the exception. Their new stuff wasn't fantastic but it was still good.

There's a good scene in the documentary about the Eagles where Glen Frey basically said it sucks to have to go out and do the same songs over and over again but that's what people are paying to see. And that's probably what made that group so good. They had a pretty good understanding of what crowds want.

You may also add to this discussion that in the 90's, the "classic rock" station became a thing. A lot of the music probably would have faded into "oldie" status had it not been for the emergence of those stations. I really believe that's why Bon Jovi and the Eagles and a lot of bands were able to stay marketable.

That's really not the point. I am not saying even a band after 30 years sucks, but the music they make may not be the same. My point is, the core audience of that band likely don't want to hear "new stuff" when they go to concert, they want to hear the "greatest hits". And when a band has a volume like say U2, and say they play 6-7 songs from a new album, 6-7 songs from the preceding 4-5 albums likely the set list is around 20-23 songs, so that means there is not a lot of room/time for the hits.

I am not the biggest Bruce fan, but he still writes stuff, but stadiums or arenas aren't selling out to hear the newest stuff, they are wanting to hear Born to Run or Born in the USA.

The Eagles, I don't care how much you think their new stuff is "quality", 99% of the audience wants to hear Hotel California over anything new. This is not any band or musician's fault. it is our fault. It is why CBS or this week is it ABC will have the cameras glued, and I mean absolutely glued to Tiger Woods, even if he is not in contention, and he will have hordes following him, while Dustin Johnson or Justin Speith will have a fraction of the following. People like familiarity. It is one reason why chain restaurants are so successful, people know what they are getting, it is their greatest hits, they are happy and comfortable with that.

Back to is the music better or different? Sometimes yes, mostly no. In U2's case, you have a group of kids from the working class section of Dublin, the end of the baby boomer generation, so WWII's impact, the nuclear cold war, Europe's recovery is very relevant to them, they certainly were not great musicians, so their sound was raw, both in music and lyrics, it was energetic and exciting. Now they are almost 60 years old, multi millionaires, a different world, certainly more accomplished musicians, life and experiences are just different. But still, I don't think even if U2 comes out with another New Year's Day, it would resonate.

Again, I am just using them as an example because personal attraction and background, it applies to any successful musical act that has been around for 20-30 years or more. When you heard their music for the first years, many of us were teens and now we are middle aged folks. Trust me, the teenage years were much more fun and memorable despite all the angst that goes with it. We get to relive those briefly through those old songs.

 

[pittdan77]

That's really not the point. I am not saying even a band after 30 years sucks, but the music they make may not be the same. My point is, the core audience of that band likely don't want to hear "new stuff" when they go to concert, they want to hear the "greatest hits". And when a band has a volume like say U2, and say they play 6-7 songs from a new album, 6-7 songs from the preceding 4-5 albums likely the set list is around 20-23 songs, so that means there is not a lot of room/time for the hits.

I am not the biggest Bruce fan, but he still writes stuff, but stadiums or arenas aren't selling out to hear the newest stuff, they are wanting to hear Born to Run or Born in the USA.

The Eagles, I don't care how much you think their new stuff is "quality", 99% of the audience wants to hear Hotel California over anything new. This is not any band or musician's fault. it is our fault. It is why CBS or this week is it ABC will have the cameras glued, and I mean absolutely glued to Tiger Woods, even if he is not in contention, and he will have hordes following him, while Dustin Johnson or Justin Speith will have a fraction of the following. People like familiarity. It is one reason why chain restaurants are so successful, people know what they are getting, it is their greatest hits, they are happy and comfortable with that.

Back to is the music better or different? Sometimes yes, mostly no. In U2's case, you have a group of kids from the working class section of Dublin, the end of the baby boomer generation, so WWII's impact, the nuclear cold war, Europe's recovery is very relevant to them, they certainly were not great musicians, so their sound was raw, both in music and lyrics, it was energetic and exciting. Now they are almost 60 years old, multi millionaires, a different world, certainly more accomplished musicians, life and experiences are just different. But still, I don't think even if U2 comes out with another New Year's Day, it would resonate.

Again, I am just using them as an example because personal attraction and background, it applies to any successful musical act that has been around for 20-30 years or more. When you heard their music for the first years, many of us were teens and now we are middle aged folks. Trust me, the teenage years were much more fun and memorable despite all the angst that goes with it. We get to relive those briefly through those old songs.

No, I get your point. When I went to the "Hell Freezes Over" tour, all that I, or anyone else wanted to hear, was the classic stuff. And to their credit, 90% of it or more was the classic stuff you expect. I was bummed by what they didn't play.

I'm pretty sure that the Eagles sounded amazing, too. Easily one of the better sounding bands I've seen live. I remember Steve Miller was forgetting the words but I also remember the cloud of smoke hanging over Starlake that evening. Might have been a factor.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Don Felder drove Frey to a breaking point so I don't think Henley had as much a hand in it. Frew cut everyone out by then. But if you look at the way the band was structured after the reunion, Frey and Henley were the alphas again and they canned and countersued Felder when he acted up.

Yeah, I know that. I know that Felder and Frey hated each other‘s guts. I’m not sure who was to blame? I would imagine they were both to blame.

I just meant that the songs written by Henley and the songs written by Frey are very obviously different types of music.

Even if you look at their post Eagles careers, Henley’s are about political imbalances and conservation issues. That is much different sounding than “Smugglers Blues” and “You Belong in the City” and some of the other stuff that Frey was doing.

I have always thought of Glenn Frey as an actor who happened to become famous playing music. Henley, OTOH, was a poet at heart. I didn’t mean physical tension between them, I meant artistic tension.

 

[ThePanthers]

When I opened this I thought it was going to go in a totally different direction. For example, Lynard Skynard. There is like one original member, if that. To me, they are a cover band, using the band name, playing the originals songs. A lot of 80s bands that are doing their rounds, Ratt, Great White, etc, where there are even 2 or 3 versions of the band led by 1 original member each aren't the true band, and are a "cover band". GNR was that way when it was just Axl IMO.

As for the OP, agree, after a while, you don't want to hear new stuff from the old bands. GNR is like that for me, I want the classics. Dave Matthews entered that realm like 5 years ago for me. But I don't consider it a "cover band" though. I think the above in my first paragraph is what my opinion of what a cover band is still using the original band name.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

When I opened this I thought it was going to go in a totally different direction. For example, Lynard Skynard. There is like one original member, if that. To me, they are a cover band, using the band name, playing the originals songs. A lot of 80s bands that are doing their rounds, Ratt, Great White, etc, where there are even 2 or 3 versions of the band led by 1 original member each aren't the true band, and are a "cover band". GNR was that way when it was just Axl IMO.

As for the OP, agree, after a while, you don't want to hear new stuff from the old bands. GNR is like that for me, I want the classics. Dave Matthews entered that realm like 5 years ago for me. But I don't consider it a "cover band" though. I think the above in my first paragraph is what my opinion of what a cover band is still using the original band name.

Yeah, after a certain point, when an artist has been around for awhile, it is inevitable. I used "cover band" intentionally just to show how possibly disappointing or at least frustrating it must be for long term bands to realize that while it is great you have new music out, I want to hear what you played 25 years ago. Which in a sense, is a "cover" band because no one wants to hear new stuff.

These reconfigured bands with 1 or 2 remaining members, well yeah, that very much is a cover band in the truest of sense.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

There is an amazing series on IFC called “Documentary Now.” It is by Seth Meyers, Bill Hader and Fred Armisen – all formerly of Saturday Night Live. It may be my favorite show on television right now. It’s just incredible work!

They have done these amazing full length documentaries which parody some of the great documentaries of the past. I happen to LOVE documentaries, so these jokes are mostly absolutely hilarious to me. However, I usually get the reference.

Like, fall off the couch funny.

However, my wife doesn’t really watch many documentaries and therefore doesn’t get many of the references. So, when this show comes on, she usually just rolls her eyes and goes to find something else to do while I belly laugh in my man cave.

Anyway, they have a great one about a fictional band called The Blue Jean Committee. It is based on the story of a lot of bands from that era. However I think the Eagles are probably their primary target. Depending on your sense of humor, I think you might enjoy it.

https://www.ifc.com/shows/documenta...tle-soft-the-story-of-the-blue-jean-committee

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Don Felder drove Frey to a breaking point so I don't think Henley had as much a hand in it. Frew cut everyone out by then. But if you look at the way the band was structured after the reunion, Frey and Henley were the alphas again and they canned and countersued Felder when he acted up.

Don Felder sued for wrongful termination from The Eagles Limited partnership, of which he was a full partner with Frey and Henley. He was fired after he tried to look into the partnership’s finances. I don’t remember if they counter sued or not, but the case was settled out of court in Felder’s favor, so much so that Felder still gets paid when the Eagles go out on tour. Frey and Henley did sue Felder (unsuccessfully) to stop the release of his book which became a NYT best seller.
Don Felder is doing ju$t fine.

 

[Jakey_John]

Metallica breaks this rule too. They’re original fans scoff at their new stuff and the whole Napster fiasco and there are guys like DVY that simply don’t care for them. However there are still guys that grew up with them as well as the new generation that has latched on over the last decade. Similarly they still sound the same and sell out arenas everywhere but the US.

I don’t think R & R is necessarily dead it’s just that our youth has gravitated elsewhere.

 

[jtownknowitall]

U2 has been around for 38 years actually although most of us 50 year olds didn't realize they existed until their third album, War, was released. I was a huge U2 fan. The last U2 album I bought was The Joshua Tree. I didn't really listen to U2 again until Apple downloaded that free album to all of our devices a few years ago. U2 put out some good music long after I gave up on them.

The Rolling Stones released Blue and Lonesome in 2016. I'm betting few people noticed.

When do bands become cover bands? I would say when they released their first greatest hits collection or after they release their last masterpiece. For many bands their only masterpiece was their first record. So which band released its last masterpiece fairly late in its lifetime? Pink Floyd released The Wall 12 years after the band released its first album (if we were in the Locker Room we might discuss how despite singing along to The Wall for nearly 40 years we no longer like it because Roger Waters is a liberal who ruined Pink Floyd and that The Division Bell was a far superior record). I'm not sure I could come up with a better example.

 

[Swervin27]

how can a band who plays their own music be referred to as a cover band? It goes against the very definition of what a cover band is.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

how can a band who plays their own music be referred to as a cover band? It goes against the very definition of what a cover band is.

Don't get caught up in the literal meaning, okay? I think it was fairly obvious the point. I think the guy posting before you nailed it. When that band has a library big enough with enough known songs to put out a "greatest hits album", then that is pretty much when it is over for them as far as the majority of people caring really about their new stuff. Especially live. Hence, "cover", because people want to see them cover their own, old material, not the new stuff.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I just got back from the Foo Fighters/Struts concert at PPG Paints Arena and I can confidently report that rock ‘n’ roll is definitely not dead. Both of them were just exceptionally strong tonight. Dave Grohl is just a legendary front man.

 

[jtownknowitall]

And at 49 he’s still a youngster

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I just got back from the Foo Fighters/Struts concert at PPG Paints Arena and I can confidently report that rock ‘n’ roll is definitely not dead. Both of them were just exceptionally strong tonight. Dave Grohl is just a legendary front man.

Thing about the Foos, they have been around since what, 1996? I love them, love Grohl and just think it is amazing that he was the drummer for the legendary Nirvana and now one of the most recognizable front man for one of the most popular rock acts in the world.

But they are here now, right? I mean their new stuff has been good, at least back in the Congregation days, but it is at the point now that their library is so vast, people are going to want to hear Everlast or Heroes or This is A Call over anything knew.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Yeah, but to me that’s to be expected. I think that’s penalizing someone for their past successes. Tom Brady doesn’t win the Super Bowl ever year. That doesn’t mean what he’s doing now is irrelevant.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

What I liked about that show last night is it felt like a celebration and rock ‘n’ roll overall.

One of the best parts was them playing the song “Jump” by Van Halen to the tune of “Imagine” by John Lennon. It was very, very funny.

The Foo Fighters are just a legitimately excellent band. As far as live acts go, you’d have a hard time topping them. Their energy and playfulness and talent are very obvious and their ability to have fun with that and themselves in the process is just very, very impressive.

If I am being completely honest, they are not one of my favorite bands, but that was definitely among the best live shows I have ever attended.

Also, the Struts are very similar. They are very, very good live act. I could not recommend them more highly. Their singer does appear to be doing a Freddie Mercury impression at times, but if you can get past that fact, you soon realize that he is very, very talented in his own right.

 

[PHATWOOD]

I'm not a huge Foo Fighters fan, meaning I never really listen to their music unless something comes across the radio or Spotify or whatever. But I absolutely enjoy seeing them live.

Last night's show was okay. The cover of Under Pressure was pretty cool for sure. The mashup mentioned above is linked.

 

[PHATWOOD]

The other cover from last night, Under Pressure with Luke Spiller. I'll be honest one of the best parts of any live show is watching a band you like do covers of another great band you like and for me this was a highlight.

 

[JoseLind13]

For the record, well I am alienating people, my worst five bands of all time in no particular order would be: Aerosmith, Kiss, Poison, Motley Crue and I suppose Van Halen. There are probably a few others that belong in there as well, but they will do for now.

All of those bands were just so bad, IMO and yet so popular and I don’t miss any of them.

It's kind of funny that you stand behind Dave Grohl's greatness (I agree; he is great), while bashing these bands. Grohl has stated on multiple occasions that he fulfilled one of his greatest rock dreams by opening a festival for Motley Crue (performed at a time well past their prime and near his prime) and the Foos have invited Van Halen's David Lee Roth to perform their cover of Panama at live shows. I think people just assume that a guy formerly in Nirvana, which killed Hair Metal, must hate Hair Metal, but it seems he drew a bit of influence from them, as well as numerous historical genres of music.

I don't get the hatred some people voice toward certain genres or eras of music. If people enjoy it and it influences future musicians in some way (and MILLIONS enjoyed the Hair Metal era, and they still sell sell out shows), then isn't it really great music? I'm in no way a music expert, but enjoy and respect a huge diversity of music. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Yeah, that’s the beauty of art. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

I just think those bands were banal and boring. One trick ponies (at most) who were far more interested in the costuming and accoutrements than anything else. I just thought they lacked substance and I found it incredibly, incredibly boring.

However, and I can’t emphasize this enough, if people like that music I certainly don’t begrudge them for it. You can like hard rock, hair music, show tunes, TV jingles, hip-hop, rap, house music, polka, whatever and I am very cool with it.

Again, it’s art and it is all in the eye (ear?) of the beholder.

Incidentally, that’s also why I think a Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame is the dumbest idea in the world. It’s art and it should be a museum featuring great works of art and great artists. Trying to quantify the whole thing and create an artificial class system therein misses the entire essence of music.

At least that has always been my view. Others may disagree and that’s perfectly fine too.

 

[MyNameisJoe]

You bring up an interesting point. I think Bruce Springsteen said something of the same...growing up he'd go to shows and want the artist to play their hits. He is obviously someone that fits your description here as well. I think what he does is a cool way to do it. He'll play his hits, but mixes them up a little. I went to a show once where he played 2 versions of born in the usa. The original version is a folky, only bruce and an accoustic guitar and it was awesome...then about halfway through, the band joined in and they rocked it out the way the song everyone knows it. When he tours, it's usually because he has a new album out and is promoting it. The cool thing with Bruce is, he doesn't have an opening act and typically has marathon shows. He can play the new songs and still get to "cover" all the hits you came for.

Good OT post though. I think if you're a band that's been around forever, the way most go is the route of Bruce. No opening act. Play for 3 hours and still get to play your new stuff while getting to the classics to make your audience happy

 

[JoseLind13]

Yeah, that’s the beauty of art. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. I just think those bands were banal and boring. One trick pony’s.

He has enjoyed a much better career than all of those bands combined.

Well, Grohl has had a better career than almost every artist in the history of the industry.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Yes, he’s a legend. That’s what I find so incredible about him. There’s nothing really special about him artistically other than his energy and sheer musicianship, but he brings so much energy that it still works amazingly well.

You can only get away with doing what he does if you are incredibly talented and he is definitely incredibly talented.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

So, I saw Radiohead tonight and it was just remarkable. What’s most amazing about it was we have seen them a handful of times or so over the years and I don’t even think this was nearly their best show.

However, somehow, it was STILL spectacular - despite really playing some of their lesser known songs or complete re-imaginations of some of their most popular songs.

I’m not trying to convert anyone and I’m certainly not interested in arguing with anyone over their relative quality. However, from where I sit, I’ve never heard anything remotely like them. They are absolutely remarkable!

 

[BFo8]

So, I saw Radiohead tonight and it was just remarkable. What’s most amazing about it was we have seen them a handful of times or so over the years and I don’t even think this was nearly their best show.

However, somehow, it was STILL spectacular - despite really playing some of their lesser known songs or complete re-imaginations of some of their most popular songs.

I’m not trying to convert anyone and I’m certainly not interested in arguing with anyone over their relative quality. However, from where I sit, I’ve never heard anything remotely like them. They are absolutely remarkable!

Radiohead seems to be one of the most polarizing bands of their generation, there is literally almost no middle ground.

I seem to be a rare exception, I enjoy them but don’t think they’re a HOF type group. Most others that I’ve ever heard absolutely either love or hate them.