I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks of this.
I hope this doesn't come off as "picking apart" your post... you touch on a lot of stuff in ways that I believe many could relate (and agree with)... I, on the other hand, have always come from a much different place on this overall topic... anyway you asked, so hear are some of my thoughts...
While there is no doubt that I (like most of us) have gotten better over the years, I negate the joy in that to some degree by choosing to cover more and more difficult material. I may be demonstrably better than I was last year but I just feel a never-ending sense of challenge as I try to master progressively more difficult material. In this case, the measurement is external to me as determined by the original drummer. It's a binary thing; either I played the parts note for note or I did not.
In my case the goal is to play the original parts faithfully. I would be off the hook instantly if this wasn't the case but that's my deal, even if it isn't always possible.
And it is this definition as to the goal, the point of playing covers where we very much differ. "Playing the original parts faithfully" can be on my list of goals, when playing/learning a cover - but it is rarely at the top of that list.
Personally when I play a cover, I'm not there to serve at the alter of some recording.... I'm there in service of my band, in service of the music being played as it is actually being played... Sometimes that does entail playing something very close to the record - but oftentimes, not so much.
Of course, the original recording is always a prominent reference and thus very influential. But just re-creating those notes is only being part of a drummer... the rest of it involves actively asking the question "Is this working?", "Can I do anything even a bit differently that will make this band, right here, right now, sound better, feel better?" And if so, then what is more important "getting my gold start for playing all of the original notes correctly" or making my band sound better...
IMO it is a fantasy to think we, as musicians, are judged by how well we imitate the record. If that is the mission - then the DJ's will always beat us - and for a lot less money. And to think our live bands every really sound like the record is pretty absurd. Besides the missing polish of the mix - few bands come anywhere close to reproducing all of the guitar and keyboard parts - or heaven forbid - the huge amounts of BG vocals. And while we might be able to cop a good imitation of quite a few drummers.... our lead singers certainly can't. And that's the part, the audience knows best of all.
So of course if you ask them, if they want it "like the record" - because they simply don't understand what is really involved. Fact is - they want it to sound good. They want it to make people happy.... make people dance.... make people have a good time.
And so that means in the course of playing covers, we'll be saddled with having to play them too slow or too fast (because of limitations within our band), we'll oftentimes need to play them too soft.... and the fact is... oftentimes the original parts don't work, when played slower or particularly softer.
And here's where the journey of learning to play covers and playing originals become one and the same....
For me, when playing with a recording, learning a cover - I'm not just learning "the part". I'm learning the music (the form, the structure, the breaks, the hits) and then I'm using the original part to figure out why the drummer chose to play it. How does the part work with the music/ WHY does the part work with the music? What might the other choices have been? What do they sound like? Feel like?
Then when I play that song with a band, I task myself with the job of playing what I think will work best for that band, in that room, on that day. Oftentimes the result will be remarkably close to "playing it like the record". But I'm not doing it by rote, by simple imitation - I'm playing it by choice. I'm choosing to play each note, because I believe it best serves the music we are playing, not because it is "arbitrarily deemed correct".
And this - of course - is the exact same process I then use for originals. Obviously I won't have a previously recorded performance to start from - but I might have the composer's demo - or his or her's verbal or tapped out suggestion. Then just like with covers - I use my musical sense and vocabulary formed from playing dozens or hundreds of other songs to lead me to play a part appropriate to this new song.
By way of contrast, the above is never an issue when I compose original parts. I always play them right and I'm not better or worse than the original composer because it's me. The competition is strictly internal.
And speaking of composing.... creating drum parts is not composing.... I know many drummers, even those quite revered, insisted on mis-appropriating that bit of terminology. Drum parts are at most - an arranging element.... and orchestration device. Only very rarely are the drum parts we create a part of the song's composition - they are essential elements of the arrangement of that song we are working on - but not of the song itself.
For example, The Beatles' "Come Together" - Ringo created an iconic memorable drum part for that song - it is a major contributor to that recording of song's vibe and feel. An essential part of that musical arrangement. But not at all a part of the composition.
As any decent singer/guitar player can prove with just voice and guitar.... that's THE SONG. that's the Composition.
Making up that is composing. Making up a drum part to go with that is... making up a drum part to go with it.
And I only bring this up - because this belief in "drum part composing" seems to reinforce the notion that all of these cover song drum parts are sacred and precious. IMO they are not. They are great. And reflective of some of the greatest applications of the art and craft of playing drums - but most were not even remotely created to be "frozen in stone" "composition" etched in granite - they are simply great performances. Stunningly great performances.
In some sense, the greats escape the comparison. We'll never know if Tommy Aldridge would be humbled trying to cover Steve Gadd because that just doesn't happen on a regular basis. Can Keith Carlock do a convincing John Bonham? We may never know.
The fact is - none of those guys actually think of it that way. If Plant and Page were pondering whether to ask Keith Carlock to play - the question they would be asking themselves wouldn't be "Can he sound like Bonham?" but rather "How would he sound with Led Zeppelin?" In the working world, there really is no "covering Steve Gadd" - there is playing with Clapton... playing with Chick Corea.... playing with Steely Dan. A few different drummers have played "Aja" with Steely Dan - none of them were "covering Gadd" - they were playing "Aja". Certainly Gadd's original would inform their approach - but it wouldn't dictate it.
I'm mindful of what happened to Neil Peart when he attempted to play jazz on the Buddy Rich tributes. The knives came out in a hurry.
Sort of different topic - Peart wasn't frowned at for not playing more like Buddy, but for simply not playing the music that well. None of the other drummers on those tributes played like Buddy at all - but they did play the music well.
And I guess that is the main point - playing the music well.
I've played with dozens (at least) cover bands, casual bands, wedding bands over the years - never once making it a priority to play anything note for note in its entirety. Focusing always on making the band sound great, the music sound great. And whether I played something "different" or not, never ever came up - because I did the best I could to make the band feel good, sound good - and to feel they were in good hands, so to speak.
Full disclosure - of course, there have been gigs where things needed to be very consistent - very much the same show to show. But these were mainly Broadway type shows or some concert acts doing very specific things. But cover band work.... never an issue...
The greats stay in their lane and determine their own reputations. Sure, they get compared to one another but it's generally a subjective comparison and not really objective. More opinion than fact, in other words.
I wonder if I am missing out on some joy by not working on original music more. My only competition would be myself so there's some relief in that but more importantly, my own style would develop if I worked on originals. Right now that isn't really happening.
Kind of a rambling post I know but I'm sure you get my drift. Maybe those of you who left cover bands behind to work exclusively on originals can comment. Did your style flourish and did you feel happier because of it?
