Super diamond
2 Likes
Is there a dictionary anywhere that defines ātributeā as meaning āutterly devoid of creativity but can copy with varying degrees of successā? Which is why I find the whole tribute band thing a bit annoying.
At their best such bands are nearing as good as the original. I am reminded of David Gilmourās response to being asked why he was going to see the Australian Pink Floyd show and he said it was because he had never seen Pink Floyd before. And, I suppose, where the original is no more, it is the only way to hear the music live but why tribute? Such a ridiculous, inaccurate, dishonest, aangering description.
I canāt see what point youāre trying to make, Devo. To me a tribute band is the same as a cover band. Iāve seen a couple of Floyd tribute bands - Think Floyd (3 times - brilliant each time but, nowhere near as good a light show) and The Dark Side of the Wall (English band not to be confused with an American band of the same name) that were appalling. Iāve also seen a couple of Queen tributes both as good as each other but their frontmen had nowhere near the stage presence of Freddy. Then there was Genesis Revisited - another good tribute.
Rock Sugar is my favorite cover band because they mix it up. And the lead singer has a phenomenal voice.
Lead singer Jess Harnell is better known for his voice work in film and television than his musical career. Harnell voiced Wakko Warner in the Animaniacs cartoon series, voiced Secret Squirrel in the 2 Stupid Dogs shorts and is the current official voice actor for Disneyās Brer Rabbit.
Cover bands can all so be fun 
Itās just the wholly inaccurate use of the word ātributeā that gets me down.
The difference between a Cover Band and a Tribute Band is the former is just having a bit of fun whilst the latter is taking it too seriously.
Iām not a fan of either, much preferring a band that covers a song their way.
Iām a huge fan of Peter Green, early Fleetwood Mac, hereās a good cover, an example of a young band doing it their way.
hereās a cover
