How do you possibly say that a cover band is better than the band that created and wrote the material? It's absurd.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
My idea of covers is that you should never cover a song and do it exactly like the artist because everyone's always going to compare it to the way the original artists did it, and they're just going to go, 'Oh I like the original better.'
Being a cover artist is not like being a real artist. That's just copying what someone else did.
There aren't a lot of cover bands that do Boston material or do it well, and the reason for that is that they are hard to play. So we put a lot of work into it. The musicians that I've managed to surround myself with after all of these years are individuals who really excel at what they do.
My opinion of covers is that unless you're going to change and take a cover in a new direction, it's gonna get put up against the old one, and you're gonna lose. It's like, which would you rather listen to? The Righteous Brothers' 'Loving Feeling' or Hall and Oates' 'Loving Feeling?'
I don't think I'd ever make an album of just covers because I love writing my own music.
A band can define their own success.
We have no general conceptual thrust for the band, other than trying to make music that keeps our interest. When things are novel, they are probably things we have discovered by accident or investigation rather than by design.
I wanted to write songs that were as good as the covers.
This band has never had an argument. It's just amazing.
Not only was it enough to be a cover band, it was perhaps the highest calling. After all, if you could play music recorded by others, stay true to the original, and still add fire and flare, why not?