When does a band become a cover band of itself?

[Timbale]

This is something I've been thinking about lately, probably because I've been seeing lots of stuff in my twitter feed about the current Genesis tour. As a very big fan of that band (and as someone who actually has never seen them live), I am not really interested in going to see this tour. I do not judge anyone who IS going or enjoys seeing them...it's just a subjective personal thing.

 

And for me...it's not just that Phil Collins seems well past his prime as a performer and all that. There is something about it where I think it feels like at this point they are sort of a cover band of their own band. Like, am I really seeing Genesis play Firth Of Fifth, or am I just seeing the members of Genesis play a Genesis song. Is that semantic difference actually a thing?!

 

And it got me thinking about other bands..and why sometimes it feels that way, and sometimes it doesn't.

 

I think it's kind of obvious when you have those bands where the only original members are the bassist and the tambourine player or whatever - that's sort of a different thing to me. But i was thinking about 2 examples. The Rolling Stones, to me, still seem like the Stones. I don't know why that is, but seeing them play Miss You or whatever 40 + years on still feels authentic to me. On the other side of the coin, I was thinking about the R40 tour...and obviously this is totally subjective...but when I think about the fact that I saw Rush play Jacob's Ladder...it doesn't really feel like I saw Rush play Jacob's Ladder. Even though I did. There's some sense, to me, perhaps, that they were in such a different place at that point in their career that it's almost like they were actually sort of "covering" that song. I don't know if that makes sense - I know in a literal way it does not.

 

Is it a thing where if a song is old enough, the band might not be "in" it any more in a way that feels genuine? With Genesis, they are out there touring having not been a creative force in 30 years. That must be a factor. There might also be an irony in the fact that bands who progress and change (like Rush) end up seeming at a farther distance from some of their work than a band like AC/DC, who can probably play Dirty Deeds and have it feel very much in the wheelhouse of what they still do.

 

Do people have thoughts about this?

[invisible airwave]

Oddly enough, that recent covers album by Rolling Stones is their best since Tattoo You. John Fugelsang made a good point about how they're just being a good band instead of trying to sound like the Stones. Not a bad swan song for Charlie.

[Maverick]

Yes became a cover band of itself when they replaced Jon Anderson with Benoit David. Although I do consider Fly From Here: Return Trip to be a Yes album because Trevor Horn replaced all of David's vocals with his own, thus recreating the Drama lineup, which was definitely Yes.

[grep]

Foreigner. In 1996 or so. It just happened.

[custom55]

Yes became a cover band of itself when they replaced Jon Anderson with Benoit David. Although I do consider Fly From Here: Return Trip to be a Yes album because Trevor Horn replaced all of David's vocals with his own, thus recreating the Drama lineup, which was definitely Yes.

 

I agree 100% about Jon. I saw a YES tour with Benoit and walked out of the show after 30 mins. Benoit was a last-minute stand-in for Jon who was ill.

 

I'll never forget those Ricky Riccardo sleeves on Benoit.

Edited November 26, 2021 by custom55

[zepphead]

Talking of covers albums .... the new Deep Purple album is just out.

An interesting selection of covers - I hope to be listening to it tomorrow after a few beers.

[Rick N. Backer]

A band that continues to sound like itself isn't a "cover band," IMO. Nor is a "nostalgia act" a cover band, like when The Police toured in 2007. I think a band becomes a cover band once too many of the core members move on, or if a particularly key member is replaced with someone who just tries to replicate that person's act. Black Sabbath, circa 1984 to 1991 and 1992 to 1996, was a cover band. Sabbath with RJD wasn't a cover band. Priest with Owens and Journey with Pineda are cover bands. Van Halen with Sammy wasn't a cover band, nor was Maiden with Dickinson or even Bayley.

[Relayer2112]

To me, a band that no longer regularly releases albums and is also missing members of the band who were integral to the success of that band is covering themselves. Basically, when the band is the band pretty much in name only, they're a cover band.

[GeddysMullet]

I adore the Who, like some of their new material and have loved every minute of the two gigs I've been to in the past 10 years but at this point the Who are very much a Who tribute act featuring Pete and Roger.

[Timbale]

I adore the Who, like some of their new material and have loved every minute of the two gigs I've been to in the past 10 years but at this point the Who are very much a Who tribute act featuring Pete and Roger.

 

 

I absolutely agree with this...and the saving grace is that Townshend and Daltrey seem to be aware of that. The band is usually referred to as the "touring band", I believe. I mean, even back in '89, Townshend was joking that it really isn't the same band at all...but because they can, they have the unmitigated gall to call it The Who.