#1
Hello everyone,
I'm thinking of doing a cover band and I wonder what you think about the solos:

when you cover a piece, should it be kept as original one, or improvised?
I didn't see many cover bands and I don't know how it is used to do...
is it usually played improvised or not?
And what do you prefer/think about?
#2
Depends on the song and style of music.

You can't improvise Master of Puppets. You can improvise lead sheets. Go with your brain.
modes are a social construct
#3
tribute bands keep it original, cover bands may or may not...

depends on the song i think
#4
If the solo is iconic I keep the original. For the rest I improvise. In the grand scheme of things I plqy roughly 1/2 original, 1/2 improv'd.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#5
What Alan said, I'd keep the memorable licks from the original in there...the rest you can just make up.
NOT EASILY LED, EASILY BANNED.
#6
Quote by Hail
Depends on the song and style of music.

You can't improvise Master of Puppets. You can improvise lead sheets. Go with your brain.

Wait... what?

I'd keep the important parts of the solo. The one's you hum when describing it to someone, and improvise the rest. That seems like a good middle ground.
#7
Quote by Armhan
Hello everyone,
I'm thinking of doing a cover band and I wonder what you think about the solos:

when you cover a piece, should it be kept as original one, or improvised?
I didn't see many cover bands and I don't know how it is used to do...
is it usually played improvised or not?
And what do you prefer/think about?


You can do whatever you want, but being able to sound like the original is usually considered impressive, and is definitely marketable if you're trying to get gigs.
shred is gaudy music
#8
Generally if the song is to be played within the style of the original I play the solo in its original form with slight improvisations. If the song is to be played in a different style than the original I adapt the solo to go with it.
#9
I think you need to respect the thematic and melodic content of most solos ... but you should express those ideas in your own voice rather than trying to do a note-perfect recreation.
#10
Quote by Armhan
Hello everyone,
I'm thinking of doing a cover band and I wonder what you think about the solos:

when you cover a piece, should it be kept as original one, or improvised?
I didn't see many cover bands and I don't know how it is used to do...
is it usually played improvised or not?
And what do you prefer/think about?


There are some contexts in which your target audience is expecting a replica, or in which your own purpose is to do a replica of the solo on an album.

However, my general approach has always been that solo = improv. I find it boring and uncreative to try to play a song live just like the record. And this is true not just for solos, but how the song is arranged. I'd prefer to see someone play the song with a new arrangement and make it their own than to see an attempt to mime a recording. If I want the recording I'll pop it on. When I see live music I want to see the individuality of the musicians.
#11
If it's a solo like Crazy Train or something really original and memorable like that, keep it as close to the original as possible. Some other songs with solos that aren't really all that iconic, feel free to improvise.
#12
Agree with people who are saying "a mix". If you are playing November Rain, you've pretty much gotta do the outro solo, for example. If you are playing <<insert less iconic song of your choice here>> then an improv solo is ok, and commendable.
Quote by AlanHB
It's the same as all other harmony. Surround yourself with skulls and candles if it helps.
#13
I suppose it may also partly depend on genre in a way.

In modern rock, the songs tend to be approached more as set-in-stone compositions that are viewed as the creation of a particular artist. But in jazz, the songs aren't really anyone's property (despite being originally composed by *someone*): they've made it to the level of being a kind of "folk" music in which the "tradition" is precisely to do something new with it each time, and the "songs" are transformed over time as each person plays them differently. The only thing that remains constant are the changes, and maybe a melody, and even that isn't necessarily wholly true (I've heard plenty of versions of jazz tunes in which extra chords were added, or the melody was embellished in some way).

Of course, I'm a fan of taking a jazz approach to rock. I like the idea of treating famous rock songs in the same way as I would treat a jazz standard: make your own arrangement (even improvize your own arrangement), and improv all solos. Jam it out! However, I will aknowledge that the more elaborately composed a rock song is, the less room there is for doing this. I couldn't imagine trying to heavily improvize with an epic song by a band like Yes. I'd only improv the solos.
Last edited by Brainpolice2 at Dec 15, 2011,
#14
Quote by DiminishedFifth
Wait... what?

I'd keep the important parts of the solo. The one's you hum when describing it to someone, and improvise the rest. That seems like a good middle ground.


the solo obviously

everybody knows the MoP solo, i was low on the idea tank at the time though so a better and more iconic one could probably get name drop'd
modes are a social construct