Drew
Forum MVP
See, I'm kinda against classical or jazz tunes simply based on complexity. Well, complexity and stylistic dictations. First, any classical peice is going to be, right off the bat, fairly difficult to play, so it's something we all have to learn first, and our ability to make the cover our own will be constricted by our ability to perform it.
Second, those two especially are styles that aren't going to allow for much in the way of stylistic interpretation. A classical peice, youre going to have mostly neoclassical or classical covers. A jazz tune, you'll see a lot of jazz and fusion. It's a lot harder to render a classical song as a country song or a bluegrass song than it is to do a fingerstyle acoustic arrangement of a pop song, for instance.
I'd rather see something in the pop/rock vein - an arrangement that can be distilled down to a couple of chords with a strong melody line. The more you can take away from the song and still leave it recognizeable, the more of your own you can add back in.
A lot of you are saying, "Let's do such-and-such a song, it has such an awesome riff." The problem with that though, is that if the riff's the most recognizeable part of the song, that completely limits you in what you can do in terms of arranging - you can't really change the "hook" of the song and still have it come out as the same song, so all of out covers are going to be based around the same riff, and many will be at similar tempos and a lot of them will probably sound pretty similar.
I'd rather do a cover with a great melody and a fairly simple set of changes to it. If you want, you can take that melody, add a couple of counterpoint lines, and turn it into a classical arrangement. Or, you could come up with a riff that suggests those changes, and do it up as a death metal song over a blast beat. Maybe break out a fruity loops vintage drum synth and do it as hip=hop. Or, an acoustic, some faux pedal steel licks, and a bad nashville accent and do it as country.
If we chose a song that's just a strong melody and a couple chords, it gives us a LOT more flexibility.
Second, those two especially are styles that aren't going to allow for much in the way of stylistic interpretation. A classical peice, youre going to have mostly neoclassical or classical covers. A jazz tune, you'll see a lot of jazz and fusion. It's a lot harder to render a classical song as a country song or a bluegrass song than it is to do a fingerstyle acoustic arrangement of a pop song, for instance.
I'd rather see something in the pop/rock vein - an arrangement that can be distilled down to a couple of chords with a strong melody line. The more you can take away from the song and still leave it recognizeable, the more of your own you can add back in.
A lot of you are saying, "Let's do such-and-such a song, it has such an awesome riff." The problem with that though, is that if the riff's the most recognizeable part of the song, that completely limits you in what you can do in terms of arranging - you can't really change the "hook" of the song and still have it come out as the same song, so all of out covers are going to be based around the same riff, and many will be at similar tempos and a lot of them will probably sound pretty similar.
I'd rather do a cover with a great melody and a fairly simple set of changes to it. If you want, you can take that melody, add a couple of counterpoint lines, and turn it into a classical arrangement. Or, you could come up with a riff that suggests those changes, and do it up as a death metal song over a blast beat. Maybe break out a fruity loops vintage drum synth and do it as hip=hop. Or, an acoustic, some faux pedal steel licks, and a bad nashville accent and do it as country.
If we chose a song that's just a strong melody and a couple chords, it gives us a LOT more flexibility.
, I'll post that up in a bit... or if one of you get to it before me, feel free.
yeah! \m/, hardcore riffs
