Alright so me and my mates are in a band, we have a few originals in progress as well as a few covers. Were all currently in year 12 (17-18yrs old) and not long after year 12 we would like to start gigging and getting some recording done. Well anyway im looking for ug's opinion on the choice of covers.

Red Hot Chili Peppers- Suck My Kiss
The Strokes- Juicebox
The White Stripes- Fell in Love with a Girl
Eagles of Death Metal- Speaking in Tongues
Queens of the Stone Age- In My Head
Muse- Supermassive Black Hole
Smashing Pumpkins- 1979

would you say it is lacking anything? variety, old classics, a more popular choice of songs?

just looking for any advice since i lack any experience on the subject. thanks
If you plan to record, creating your own songs would be #1.
Other than that, those covers seem fine. They all blend.
Jackson King V KVX10
Line 6 Spider III 75 W.
Peavey 5150/6505 Combo to be owned at the end of 2010.
Are you doing just straight covers or reworking the songs in any way?
Quote by Altered_Carbon
That's some bony hipster sex, which may be the best kind.
Thanks guys
We dont plan on recording any of the covers, and we have about 3-4 originals at the moment. The plan is to have 2 originals to 1 cover in our setlist and take away the covers as we write more originals.
We arent reworking the covers to much just adapting the solo in some songs, adding a different intro or adding/taking an instrument in some songs.
I agree we should be concentrating on originals more but our free time is limited especially since our bassist wants to become a dr.
The drummer also thinks we should have 10 covers and need more classics which i dont completly agree with but the other 2 do agree that we need more classics.
Geez.... I'd personally say to make a decision to go covers or go originals and then stick with it. Sure, focus on one and maybe throw in the *odd* one from the 'other side' but those old days of starting as a cover band and gradually becoming an original band are pretty much long over - at least around here.

When people go out, they'll choose which venue they go to based on who is playing or based on what kinds of bands they bring in. They will go out expecting to hear EITHER covers, OR originals. They'll tolerate a little bit thrown in from the other side, but if they're going out hoping to get hammered up and shouting the chorus to Fell in Love With a Girl, they're really not going to give half a crap about some originals you want to do. They'll tolerate the odd one, and before you know it, they'll be happily shouting along to some Arctic Monkeys tune in your set list. But what if the originals are really good? Then they'll tolerate them. All they want is to hear songs they know. If your originals suck, then they'll stop tolerating them.

Alternately, they'll go out because such-and-such a club books a certain style and calibre of original bands. They'll tolerate a cover or two if it is well chosen, but they generally don't give a crap about them. They want to hear new music. Not a rehash of something they heard on the radio when they were driving in.

Generally, you have two entirely different audiences, and the clubs know that, so they will cater to one or the other.

As an all-original band (we didn't start off playing covers AT ALL), we have gotten opportunities to play venues and events that would have been entirely unavailable to us if we had been known as a cover band. Large outdoor festivals, a local concert theatre, radio play, print and TV media, etc. They'll be interested in you if you are committed to original material. If you're kind of in the middle, they won't do a story/feature or book a cover band who has been known to throw in some originals.

Get out there, and get yourself known as one or the other.

Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.