May 7, 2012: Post 128, Day 128

Please leave a comment if you visit my blog. Thank you!

Today's Weight:        201.2 lbs 
Yesterday's Weight:    202.4 lbs
Net Loss/Gain:         - 1.2 lbs

Year 2012 daily weight from December 31, 2011.

Diet Comment:

Thanks to breaking fast an hour early with carbs and fat (baby carrots and home-made mayonnaise), not as much of a recovery from cheat day as usual.

Daily Comment:

I've been thinking a lot lately about cover bands, and playing other people's popular songs. What follows is a rather long-winded rumination on that:

I have many good friends, who I regard as awesome musicians, who play in cover bands. Almost all working musicians play or have played in cover bands, for a few reasons: 

• Cover bands are popular. They're the most popular live music entertainment in bars and clubs. At least I hope karaoke hasn't upended that. In my opinion, this is because the drinking public aren't comprised of musicians doing critical analysis of the live music they're hearing. The audience wants to hear songs they already like, tunes that remind them of other good times, songs they know the words to and can sing along with. Songs they don't have to decide about.
• And there is more material out there to cover than there is good original new material to play. It is very difficult to find good original material (that is, material that hasn't already been found and marketed to the public; at some point, all material is original, right?). As a corollary, it is becoming increasingly difficult for artists without an established track record to get original material heard; it is difficult to find an audience for original material. Established (and, for better or worse, more centralized) ways of introducing new material are gone.

I like cover bands, especially when the covers are identifiable but the musicians playing them have put their own stamp on the material and don't sound exactly like the recordings. That is my personal approach to playing all material, anyway. I am interested in the feel of the material, but have no allegiance to the original bass line. Some lines, of course, are classic, are essential for the song to be recognizable. To be honest, I try and steer clear of those. Sometimes I can't (if you don't play something very, very similar to Hutch's  bass line on Bonnie Raitt's version of "The Thing Called Love" people won't recognize the song). 

I am also a little biased against doing covers of covers, which is covering someone's version of someone's original song. In other words, I feel you do your own take on an original; go to the source of the cover you like, and find your own interpretation. But that's just me; it isn't a popular way to go.

On the other hand, I have little interest in bands that try to play a 'transcription' of a song. I understand the validity of this approach, and can see its value as an expression (or lesson) in technical and stylistic proficiency. Tribute bands are based on this, and they seek to recreate the feeling of seeing the band in performance, although, usually, their source is not performances, but recordings.

To me, bands that seek to sound exactly like the recording are missing the point when it comes to performance. 

First of all, the recording is a slice in time. It is a single or sometimes a composite original arrangement on original material. The arrangement has been worked on and 'worked out'; 'bits' are added to the arrangement to make repeated play interesting and things are done in the studio to optimize the song for playback. This is because, once the song is out for distribution to the listening public, that version will be 'it'  - it will never change, no matter how many times it is played. It won't get worse, and it can't get better (well, maybe with improved playback equipment you can hear it better, but the recording itself hasn't changed).

Usually, a recording will be listened to in a very personal environment (the ultimate version of this is listening on headphones, the most personally involved way of hearing a recording). There is no interaction between the musicians and the listener. No matter what happens to the recorded musicians, the statement has been made, and, in the recording, it will stand, frozen, forever.

I have heard most of the greatest bands of the 20th Century in live performance (sorry to report I haven't kept up with the post-millenia kids), and I know that performance practice means evoking a different response - an audience response - than what you are trying to do in a recording. When is the last time you heard a live recording that sounded like the previously-released material? Why would anyone bother?

It is in some ways easier, in some ways more difficult, to move a group of people than to move one single person. The best performing groups get a visibly greater, more emotional, more physical, and more empathetic response performing their material live. 

The best performers carefully calibrate their live performances for that, and they don't necessarily play their songs the way they're recorded. For one thing, depending on the amount of studio gimmickry used on the recording, it may not be possible. For another, their ideas may have evolved since the recording, and for a third, they may want to evoke different responses in different places when playing the material in front of an audience: They may want to shorten or lengthen instrumental passages, even add or change a lyric ("Good evening, Syracuse"); accommodate new instruments; do a more stripped-down version; do it faster or slower; make the song more or less dramatic, intense, serious, dance-able.

These are certainly the composer's prerogatives, but they can, and in my opinion, should, also be done by musicians covering the material. Because the choice to do it exactly 'like the record' is still a choice, but it isn't the only possible, or popular, choice. Not that I'm always right, or even an authority, but it is never the choice I would make.

I prefer a more subjective choice, a more personal interpretation of material. One that puts the original in the context of the performer's response to it, the performer's interpretation of it.

Let me give you an example: Before I heard it performed live by James Taylor, I heard Jonathan Edwards ("Sunshine") perform JT's iconic 'Fire and Rain' in concert. It was the only cover Edwards, a more-than-decent songwriter himself, performed that evening. Towards the end of the set, Edwards introduced it by desribing the first time he heard it, and how, like almost everybody, he was stopped dead in his tracks by its beauty and its message, and he immediately wanted to give his interpretation as a way of showing his admiration for Taylor's artistry. The performance he gave (solo, singing with his acoustic guitar) was fabulous - it was not a radical departure from the recording we all knew, and, Edwards was a lesser guitarist than JT, but the differences in phrasing, pace and presentation brought out an intimacy and a sense of connection to the poignant story to a greater degree than the recording. It was an outstanding rendition, one I still remember 40 years later. 

Six or seven months after that, I caught Taylor in concert, and was amazed to find that his live version of his song was closer to Edwards' than to his own recorded version - it had that same intimate, heightened poignancy and drama that I'd heard in the cover version. You won't be surprised that I found it better than Edwards' version, but I was surprised how much closer the two were to each other than to the 'Sweet Baby James' version.

The takeaway is that when I hear a performer doing a cover, I want the performer's musical sensibility - the intellect, emotions, personality - to show through, and maybe even reveal something in the original I hadn't heard. That works for me, whether it is the Sex Pistols take on Sinatra/Anka's "My Way" or Rod Stewart's performance of McCartney's "Maybe I'm Amazed."

So this is all about my personal take on covers and cover bands. Take the material and show me what you've got. Please. If I want the recording, I'll listen to the recording. To quote the Beatles, "All I really want is you."

Food Log

Breakfast

Kale smoothie: kale, almond milk, an egg, vanilla whey protein powder (36g protein), vanilla, cinnamon, stevia-inulin blend. 

Lunch

Roasted turkey breast, Spring Mix greens, red cabbage, and balsamic vinaigrette.

Snack
Pepperoni, hard-cooked eggs and baby carrots and home-made spicy mayonnaise.


Dinner

Chicken sausage (with basil, tomatoe and mozzarella) with broccoli and Dal Tadka (lentil curry).

Liquid Intake
    Coffee:   32 oz,   Water:104+ oz