Also your example of Aretha Franklin is a good one. Most of us think of Respect as her’s.

I certainly agree that a middle ground is the most sensible way to approach the question. I am still unsure where I would put my piece of the middle ground.

What bugs me is when a band does a note for note rendition of some top 40 hit that I already cannot escape every time I’m somewhere with a radio. If you turn it into a medley, or change the time signature, tempo or rythm- that’s huge.

Sometimes it’s perspective. Otis Redding wrote “Respect”. Aretha owns it. It’s perhaps the best cover ever. But that’s the thing- when she did it, it was new.

I don’t have a problem with covers, really. They’re a great idea and they can be SO much fun to play. It can turn around a crowd that hasn’t really been feeling the music and give you a second chance.
But when bands started being tribute bands, started building their career on how great their covers were, that’s when the art of it died. And they became guys working at a job for the money. And it changed the culture of going out to see bands, too.

There are a lot of killer bands out there that are killing themselves trying to make ends meet- if they could get booked into those bars, and get the guarantees they used to, they might be able to release more of their own music. And a good band would still be a good band, and bad bands would suck.

If tribute bands weren’t so popular, the street festivals that are so ubiquitous during Chicago’s summers would be filled with killer local bands playing new music and finding new fans, and yes, sometimes throwing in a cover or two. Maybe even “Don’t Stop Believing” every once in a while. But not every time.

It also meant people stopped going out to see bands they didn’t know. They wanted to be entertained and have fun- the desire wasn’t necessarily to find something new.

There are a lot of people who initially were turned on by my band covering “Ruby Soho” or one of our other covers. But it’s not what we rely on, and it’s not the only thing we’re bringing to the table. We’re not a nostalgia act. When that’s all the world wants, their options quickly become that or the corporate rock that are put together by the companies with the money to fund such ventures. Nostalgia doesn’t HAVE to be mutually exclusive with new creative groundbreaking music, but the architecture of the industry is pushing it further and further in that direction.

And part of me blames the fans for being so easily placated. And yet for all my whining, there are still really excellent bands out there today playing their own music and finding new ways to get it out to people. The internet and the price of home recording has really changed the ability of artists to really utilize the d.i.y. approach to promoting their own music.

But I’d rather pay $10 to hear an original band than $5 to hear a cover band any day of the week. I’d rather pay the money than hear the cover band for free probably. ‘Cause even if they’re amazing, I might as well just go home and put on the cd.

No, for my money I think the elitism about what constitutes a real band only comes up with the rivalry between those who refuse to play covers and those who realize what you’ve suggested, people like hearing what they know. As a non-musician who enjoys live music, I like a mix. If you play a good mix of things I know, then interject your originals in there, I’d go “ooooh, what was xyz song” if it was dropped in the middle of other stuff I similarly liked. Especially in the age of I-Tunes singles downloads, I think there’s a middle ground you can find that isn’t exclusionary.