top of page

Translate with Google


Bands, whose repertoire consists of songs by other artists or groups, were usually called a cover band. Nobody was ashamed of that, and for many of those musicians at parties and parties there was a nice sandwich. Nowadays, every self-respecting group of musicians who act out others is called a Tribute (band). And they even stand in theaters with sophisticated shows that the great examples might still be jealous of.

After the rise of the tributes, the essential difference with cover bands was that the first had all kinds of songs from various other bands or artists in the repertoire, while the so-called tributes focused on a single act. For example, it is teeming with Pink Floyd, Genesis, Eagles, Beatles and Abba clones, which have come to see the honors for lack of the original. It has proved to be a success formula, because a respectable number of them are touring worldwide and can survive well. Not only music and arrangements are elaborated and reenacted in detail, but also the decoration and decors are hardly distinguishable from 'real'. In some cases, even the original attributes are used.

The distinction between cover and tribute band has now become somewhat blurred: cover bands are emerging, which call themselves tribute, simply because they play a certain musical style. The phenomenon is understandable. Many old, original bands no longer exist. In fact, because the rock heroes of the sixties and seventies are not getting any younger and even start to disappear from us, it seems to become more and more interesting musically on the eternal hunting fields than here in the submarine. However, the interest among those left behind for their music is still there. See, the hole in the market. And because musicians also have to earn money, they celebrate the celebration of recognition enthusiastically and lead the way in the nostalgic polonaise.

But it goes further: even if the bands themselves still play, the audience seems to embrace the copies. I was able to experience it myself recently: our last two vocalists left Kayak, and now sing together, in a project called Symfo Classics ("More than 8 tributes in 1 show!") To my great surprise repertoire of… indeed, Kayak . And they undoubtedly do an excellent job, because the reactions are positive, but still…

On the one hand, it is nice that old, valuable songs are not forgotten. Nobody can object to that, I certainly cannot. On the other hand, it is indicative of the current situation in pop and rock music. This one is in my humble opinion in a state of regression, where it starts biting itself in the tail. And bands that still want to bring something new, are noticeably hindered by this. Why would you, as a room owner, book a band with unknown work of your own, when there are cover bands that play songs all night long that everyone can sing along to? People want to hear what they know. Whoever sings or plays it apparently does not really matter.

I personally suspect that the audience would almost rather hear a Stones tribute band playing old songs from the Stones than the real Stones performing their new album live. Nice to hear, but after three songs the fans become restless and they long for 'Satisfaction'. This development has an effect on the makers and their creativity: why bother with new songs, if your audience is mainly interested in your old work? That is a questionable, vicious cycle.

Maybe I should consider setting up a Kayak tribute band. Oh, wait.

bottom of page