"Something" by The Beatles...note for note or close enough?

#21
For a cover band? Not bad at all. Just be sure to get the runs correct and well timed. My band covers the song and I had a lot of fun working out the part. Paul has a masterful countermelody approach that is challenging to duplicate!
 
#22
I’m going to have to side with the note for note crowd here. Some songs are so iconic you either get as close as you can or just not put it in your set list. Doing this song mediocre will not reflect well on the band.

Here is an example of doing a bad cover of this song by a popular artist.

Doesn’t work does it?
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: SDC1-ClickClack and Kubicki Fan
#24
If the bassist can't cop the bassline and the rest of the band can't cover it recognizably, then it becomes just another boring standard. In that case pick a better song. Is there room for re-interpretation? Of course. No rules. For one thing you might not have the same instrumentation. That's part of the art of the cover.
 
#25
51PRI said:
I don’t think most bass lines need to be exact. The general outline can be followed and improvised in your own way. Many songs have slight variations of the rhythms thoughout the song. I think the original bassist did this to relieve boredom when patterns repeat throughout a song by varying the rhythms, adding octaves, etc. If you make some changes and put your spin on it most will not notice or care. Paul’s version of “Something” is special and I think there some key runs that should be played as he did. But you could lose emotion if you don’t play what you feel and are overly focused on exactly copying a bass line.
Click to expand...
 
#27
Here is an example of a Beatles cover that isn’t note for note but it hits all the important parts. So still paying respects to the original but making it interesting.
Regina Spektor singing on this one.
 
#28
SDC1-ClickClack said:
Wow, all you folks saying that this song MUST be played note-for-note.... Do you seriously think The Beatles themselves would have played it note-for-note if they had continued gigging? Do you think that Paul McCartney plays Beatles songs note-for-note with his touring band in concert? Are you humans or playback machines?
:meh::rolleyes::rollno:
Click to expand...

^^ this!!! ^^
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDC1-ClickClack, jerry, nixdad and 1 other person
#29
Something else to think about is the purpose of playing the cover. If someone has requested a tune at a gig, there's a point where they won't recognize your interpretation. That point might be surprisingly close to the seminal recording, if they're not musicians. For instance you might need to emphasize the "hooks."

If you're just playing background music and need a nice pop song to fill space, then anything goes.

Or you could tell the audience that you're going to play your own version of a classic tune, so they have a chance of recognizing it.
 
#32
GroovinOnFunk said:
Yes but if you can't play it correctly to begin with, then it's just the lazy way out. Now, if you learn it the right way and then start to put your interpretations on it, that's a different story. It's an easy bassline to learn and will make you a better bass player for learning it. I used to also use that same logic of "I'm not going to bother learning the actual bass part, I'm going to do my thing" and it's really just a cop out, frankly.

Also completely different depending on what the job is (and whether it even is a job). If I'm hired to do a job, as a bass player, to recreate classic bass lines, then I'm not going to just give them what I feel the bass lines should have been (at least not if I want to keep that gig). But also being a gun for hire doing it to make a living is quite different than playing music for fun on the weekends with your mates and there's nothing wrong with the expectations being different.

There are countless examples of professional bands taking a song and covering it completely differently and rearranging it. That is an entirely different scenario than what the OP is talking about here, I am willing to bet. Imagine if everyone in the band just turned it into a free-for-all with their parts...


(And lastly... Sir Paul gets to do whatever he wants to his own bass lines... Us mere mortals deciding we can do better, I think not so much.)
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
#33
IMO, the Beatles' music is gradually and inexorably becoming "classical music" as the decades go by. Opting not to be a "Xerox machine" on that bass part would be like a classical pianist thinking, "You know what? I think I'll just add a few notes to 'Fur Elise' tonight."
It would be different if you're obviously reimagining the song-- like an uptempo bluegrass version, maybe. Or Paul's own solo ukulele version.
But in a rock cover band, I think note-for-note is the way to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FRoss6788, sheesh and bmusic
#36
51PRI said:
What Paul plays on "Something" is almost like a separate song. How close to the record do I need to get it without feeling bad about myself?
Click to expand...
Just nail the changes, you don't have to play 100% his notes. If you cop his feel enough to serve the song all will be good. I like to play the first 4 bars or so just like him so that everybody recognizes it. And then you can be on your merry way.

Paul improvised that line, if he played it tonight on stage he no doubt would do it a little different. So should you!

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDC1-ClickClack, Rev_Slinky, Bassdirty and 1 other person
#37
SDC1-ClickClack said:
Wow, all you folks saying that this song MUST be played note-for-note.... Do you seriously think The Beatles themselves would have played it note-for-note if they had continued gigging? Do you think that Paul McCartney plays Beatles songs note-for-note with his touring band in concert? Are you humans or playback machines?
:meh::rolleyes::rollno:
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I mean, if note-for-note is the requirement, then you really shouldn't play Something without George Martin's string arrangement (which is absolutely stunning and integral to the song).

It's interesting to note that Harrison didn't particularly like this bass line, finding it too busy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDC1-ClickClack and wboyd68
#39
AK Bass Guy said:
I’m going to have to side with the note for note crowd here. Some songs are so iconic you either get as close as you can or just not put it in your set list. Doing this song mediocre will not reflect well on the band.

Here is an example of doing a bad cover of this song by a popular artist.

Doesn’t work does it?
Click to expand...

See, the thing is, it's not about the song (not being made justice), it's about the style. I mean. Billie Eilish has that thing going, you know, that melodramatic (faux-)sexy whispery style (or gimmick, if you're so inclined). She hasn't exactly got a lot of range, has she now? Anyway, I suspect she wasn't planning to make this more than a divertissement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDC1-ClickClack and AK Bass Guy
#40
dougjwray said:
IMO, the Beatles' music is gradually and inexorably becoming "classical music" as the decades go by. Opting not to be a "Xerox machine" on that bass part would be like a classical pianist thinking, "You know what? I think I'll just add a few notes to 'Fur Elise' tonight."
It would be different if you're obviously reimagining the song-- like an uptempo bluegrass version, maybe. Or Paul's own solo ukulele version.
But in a rock cover band, I think note-for-note is the way to go.
Click to expand...
Actually, rearranging the classical "hits" is commonplace. It's seen as a way of connecting with younger or more diverse audiences. The results are usually boring, because the strength of the original composition came from the arrangement / orchestration and not the underlying theme. But not always. Some arrangements are good, such as Ellington's take on Nutcracker, or Kenton's West Side Story. Kenton's covers won a Grammy, and the original movie soundtrack didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lomo
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back