Questions of Covers?

[M.Marmot]

Just a quick question - or two - or more - we'll see

I was replying to another thread in the general section and it got me thinking about cover groups. In my time i have chanced upon groups whose entire schtick is to play in the style of others, Australian Pink Floyd, Bootleg Beatles etc. and I got to wondering is there such a thing as a cover group in Bluegrass?

I'm not talking here of acts like 'Hayseed Dixie' who cover AC/DC in a bluegrass style but of bluegrass cover groups who, um, cover bluegrass artists?

(I suppose the latest (and cracking) effort by Mr. Pikelny might be close - but that one comes with nod and a wink, acknowledged in it's meta-title.)

I find it interesting because Bluegrass is in an peculiar position - despite it's claims on tradition, all it's history has coincided with pop culture and sound recording - in that way Mr. Monroe has more in common with Elvis, The Beatles, or Pink Floyd than it does with a music that existed before sound recordings.

(Speaking of Elvis - are there Monroe impersonators like there are Elvis-impersonators or would that be disrespectful?)

So, what i suppose i'm asking is this 'are those Bluegrass groups who do not do original material a types of cover band?'

If you think not, i'd like to hear your opinions on what seperates a bluegrass group from a cover group.

[tree]

The group I pick with doesn't do any original material - but we do our own arrangements of the songs we cover, so our material has our own creative stamp on it. Since none of us is particularly driven to write original songs, this is the best we can do.

[Amanda Gregg]

Many bluegrass bands play nothing but covers. Noam Pikelny's fantastic album is one example, but there are many more, many of them classics. One of the best concerts I ever attended consisted of Peter Rowan and the Travelin' McCourys (that's the Del McCoury Band without Del) playing two sets of Bill Monroe covers.

To make the obvious point, here's what's going on here: Bluegrass is sometimes called "hillbilly jazz," with good reason: a central characteristic is improvising, often over covers, which we (like in jazz) may refer to as "standards." A bluegrass standard is a starting point for interpretation. Many of Monroe's songs are considered standards.

I have heard very few examples of bands playing a standard with exactly the same arrangement and breaks as some classic version, except as an academic exercise or party trick.

[Willie Poole]

I have seen and heard many bands that try to sound just like The Stanley Brothers for some reason...Some years ago when I first put my band together two of the players wanted to try and sound like The country Gentlemen and I asked which of you can sing like Duffey?...That was the end of the discussion on that...Another band that I joined wanted to do every song as close as they could to the way it was recorded, we entered some contests and never got a smell until we changed and started playing our own style....I did run into one fellow named Jim McCall that sounded exactly like Lester Flatt and he tried to get the rest of the band to sound like the Foggy Mountain Boys but they didn`t want to copy anyone...I don`t think it would be disrespectful to imitate Monroe in his picking style (some have)...

Willie

[JeffD]

An aside...

The best bluegrass song, in my opinion, sounds like a cover. What I mean is that when a song sounds like I should have known it, like its an old Monroe tune I just never happened to hear before, then its a great tune.

When a song sounds like it was written yesterday, (whether it was or not), I don't tend to like it or not.

Unlike other kinds of music, I don't want to have to warm up to a bluegrass song. I should immediately feel comfortable, like an old familiar friend telling me a new story I know I will like.

Don't get me wrong, I like lots of kinds of music, and I like innovation, but when it comes to bluegrass I don't like it sounding too new. Too shiny.

[Londy]

...who's Monroe?

[Mike Bunting]

Who's londy?

[Andrew_L_Smith]

Please don't shoot me!

?..

but I think that the musical qualities of Bluegrass that make it identifiable as Bluegrass are already fairly tightly parameterized, and that means its going to have a larg-ish 'cover factor' built in. Maybe Bluegrass that you can't imagine Bill Monroe playing...isn't!

Cheers!

[swampstomper]

Very good point about the "jazz" nature of BG -- the jazz musicians do exactly what we do, they take a well-known song that the audience also knows, complete with arrangment, as the basis, and then modify it to fit their strengths and sense of aesthetics. So many of us do Stanley Brothers covers because we like it so much! but I think we all realize no one can pick *exactly* like Ralph (although Steve Sparkman comes close) and no one can sing tenor like him nor lead like Carter. So it's a cover but not an attempt to duplicate. A fine line.

[M.Marmot]

Aye - it's specifically that 'fine line' i was interested in.

There is an interesting dynamic in Bluegrass between respecting the form and innovation - i agree with the comparison with jazz standards - to a point; however, for me this dynamic in Bluegrass is much more taut - the edge is keener.

I am heartened to see the responses here attesting to the need for improvising on the form rather than being overly-slavish in homage to the existing material.

I also have enjoyed the anecdotes - 'which of you can sing like Duffey?' that just cracked me up.

[Herbm55]

?.. I got to wondering is there such a thing as a cover group in Bluegrass? ........

The Earls of Leicester are a Flatt & Scruggs cover group. I've heard it was the idea of Jerry Douglas, who was a huge Uncle Josh fan growing up. At any rate, who knows how long they will keep things together, but I'm heading over to the Franklin Theater (Franklin, TN) to see their show Sat night. Should be FUN! :) Unable to embed video, but they are on YouTube: http://youtu.be/l_bMyuA9sSU

[M.Marmot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l_bMyuA9sSU


The Earls of Leicester are a Flatt & Scruggs cover group. I've heard it was the idea of Jerry Douglas, who was a huge Uncle Josh fan growing up. At any rate, who knows how long they will keep things together, but I'm heading over to the Franklin Theater (Franklin, TN) to see their show Sat night. Should be FUN! :) Unable to embed video, but they are on YouTube: http://youtu.be/l_bMyuA9sSU

Thar ya go...

[tree]

I was completely unaware of the concept of arrangement until I started playing bluegrass music with a group. We happen to have a guy who is really good at it, and over the years as we've become more familiar with the various techniques that he apparently actively imagines and hears in his head, we all have learned to listen more critically and try to collaborate together on arranging any new material that we take up.

It's a whole different area of music, apart from the technical aspects of playing and singing. It ranges from the obvious techniques like repeating a chorus and tagging the ending to having various instruments drop out (or all but one instrument drop out, or maybe do a whole section a capella). Should we play an entire phrase as the intro or just half of the last phrase of the chorus? Should the mandolin play fills behind a vocal or not? It really allows a group to utilize their strengths, camouflage their weaknesses, and exploit the stronger points of the material.

When it comes down to it, it's about variety, the spice of life. Which, when coupled with the improvisational nature of bluegrass, really makes this challenging music - even if you play mostly covers.

[farmerjones]

If they ever granted a patent to a three chord progression we'd all be in hot water. :)
It's a very interesting question for sure. I think the typical parameters that dictate infringement in other styles, simply get waved off as homage or respect in Bluegrass.
Why? Because it's a musician centric style, like Jazz. (Thanks Amanda)
I didn't give much thought to how close Bluegrass is to Jazz it was until it was mentioned here. Yep. First round pays homage/respect to the author. Subsequent rounds belong to the musicians.

The paradigm of the Bluegrass vocal song also is to give homage and respect but if I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times, "if you want Lester & Earl, go by the record." The simple song structure lends itself to individual expression vocal-wise too.

Not that there's not good natured parodies every now and then, but I don't think you can get that soulful connection if you're imitating. Folks seem to know this.

[Mike Bunting]

http://www.berklee.edu/news/213/president-brown-goes-bluegrass
See his comments on bebop and bluegrass.

[swampstomper]

Yeah, but even these guys put their touch on it. For example -- no dobro on many of the originals they cover (pre-Josh). Johnny Warren tries to come really close to the original (Benny Martin, his dad depending on the song) but the lead does not affect to sound exactly like Lester (who can?) nor does Tim O try to sing like Curley (who can)? Great fun and a tribute band, but not an attempt at re-creation.

[ralph johansson]

Very good point about the "jazz" nature of BG -- the jazz musicians do exactly what we do, they take a well-known song that the audience also knows, complete with arrangment, as the basis, and then modify it to fit their strengths and sense of aesthetics. So many of us do Stanley Brothers covers because we like it so much! but I think we all realize no one can pick *exactly* like Ralph (although Steve Sparkman comes close) and no one can sing tenor like him nor lead like Carter. So it's a cover but not an attempt to duplicate. A fine line.

Is that what "we" do?

Is that what jazzers do?

[JeffD]

I am heartened to see the responses here attesting to the need for improvising on the form rather than being overly-slavish in homage to the existing material.
.

I think its important to keep in mind that the overly slavish homage is not due to a lack of imagination or an unwillingness to try new things. I really believe it occurs because of the impact of the original. Its impact in its time and even the impact on those who first heard it many many years later.

It can feel as if there is little to improve upon, and for a while anyway, perhaps its impossible to improve upon.

Even Brahms had trouble being innovative in the shadow of Beethoven's Ninth symphony.

[M.Marmot]

I think its important to keep in mind that the overly slavish homage is not due to a lack of imagination or an unwillingness to try new things. I really believe it occurs because of the impact of the original. Its impact in its time and even the impact on those who first heard it many many years later.

It can feel as if there is little to improve upon, and for a while anyway, perhaps its impossible to improve upon.

Even Brahms had trouble being innovative in the shadow of Beethoven's Ninth symphony.

Aye, but in the end he did'nt spend his life just conducting Beeethoven numbers...

but, i do grasp what you are saying about the power of a well crafted song, they can sometimes seem definitive.

[allenhopkins]

1. Bluegrass audiences are not noted for supporting wide stylistic divergence, whether the band's playing original material or "covers." Therefore there are market incentives for BG bands to stick fairly close to the styles and arrangements of their predecessors.

2. There's a distinction between playing others' material, and being a "cover band." The latter groups make an conscious effort to copy the sound, arrangements, even the appearance of the groups they cover. Most bluegrass bands I've heard, do at least some songs by Monroe, Flatt & Scruggs, Stanleys, etc., without trying to exactly replicate them.

3. I've noticed that instrumentally many bluegrass players, once the basic theme of a "cover" song is established, will try to add their own "takes" on the song when they take their breaks, rather than doing all the breaks just the way Bill/Earl/Ralph/whoever did them.

4. Almost impossible, within a distinct and somewhat limited genre like bluegrass, to avoid showing one's links to prior bands and musicians. Can you really play bluegrass mandolin, without some similarity to one of the great BG mandolinists? And if you consciously try to do avoid those similarities, how soon do you step outside the boundaries (are there boundaries?) and start playing another kind of music entirely?

[TonyP]

For my money JeffD hit the nail on the head when he said a good original song should sound like a classic. And a good bluegrass band does get across that sound without being a total mimic. To me it sounds like a band is trying too hard when they cross that border and try to mimic exactly the original. I love hearing snippets of the original here and there but don't feel like anybody is doing the music any favor trying to be exactly like the original. They can get close, but like Willie pointed out, there was only one Monroe, Duffey, Lester Flatt, Ralph Stanley and on and on. I like the tip of the hat, not a shtick.

When I think of the band that had that sound without being a mimic I think of King Wilkie. Those guys came outta nowhere, where originally a punk band(I believe) and totally embraced the bluegrass sound without doing any cover songs(that I remember). But they sounded like classics, there was no breakin period. I liked them from the git go.

It seemed to me Monroe got lost in his later years and forgot that when they used to do a song live it was not always the same and he played different breaks. A lot of people who do original material do that because there is no blueprint or definitive way it's been done so they play it how they feel it at the time. So it's weird to me to take something that didn't start out being cast in stone then all the sudden saying it now can only be done a certain way. I do believe there is a way to do it and I know it when I hear it. That's what so hard about categorizing music.

[tmsweeney]

"good original song should sound like a classic" - I'd say Gillian Welch is one of the best at this, though I would not call what she does "Bluegrass", on that note most people who like Bluegrass like Gillian Welch. I'm trying to think of someone else who writes original material that sounds classic, Norman Blake perhaps, who I also would not call strictly "Bluegrass" but a lot of people who like Bluegrass like Norman Blake. When you think of it, folks like Bill Monroe and the Stanley Brothers also did a lot of "cover" tunes. So I do believe the very nature of Bluegrass is about interpreting "classic" songs and presenting them with your own personal flavor. And that is why I love Bluegrass, I love the version Sam Bush did of "Billy in the Low ground" as much as I love the version Thile and Daves did of the same tune, as much as I love the version a bunch of us picked at a camp site at the same festival.
In music as with many many other things, style is independent of content.