Sons of Apollo (feat. Portnoy & Sherinian)

[Stadler]

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

There is no band?  The band does not exist! 

[KevShmev]

setlist.fm is weird with the covers thing.

Every time Devin Townsend Project did a show, any song that was by Devin Townsend or Devin Townsend Band, was listed as a cover.

[cramx3]

setlist.fm is weird with the covers thing.

Every time Devin Townsend Project did a show, any song that was by Devin Townsend or Devin Townsend Band, was listed as a cover.

I think thats a bit weird too, but SOA doing DT is definitely a cover and honestly their versions of those DT songs are kind of what helped win me over.  Seeing Bumblefoot just perform JP solos flawlessly while making it look fun was really impressive. 

[gzarruk]

setlist.fm is weird with the covers thing.

Every time Devin Townsend Project did a show, any song that was by Devin Townsend or Devin Townsend Band, was listed as a cover.

What's even weirder is the fact that setlist.fm lists DTP playing material from Devin's solo albums as "Devin Townsend song", but when they played something from Devin Townsend Band, it appears as "Devin Townsend Band cover"
See here: https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/devin-townsend-project/2017/trix-zaal-borgerhout-belgium-7bf8d264.html

And, IIRC, it's not the only time/band I've seen this happen with.

To me, it's about under whose name a song was released. A song being released by a certain band/artist will be considered a cover if another band plays it, no matter if some of the same writers/players are in that other band. SOA playing DT is a cover, same as DT playing LTE. Whoever wrote or owns the rights to the music/lyrics is a completely different thing, imo (even though some situations might not be as easy to judge as others).

[Orbert]

To me, it's about under whose name a song was released. A song being released by a certain band/artist will be considered a cover if another band plays it, no matter if some of the same writers/players are in that other band. SOA playing DT is a cover, same as DT playing LTE. Whoever wrote or owns the rights to the music/lyrics is a completely different thing, imo (even though some situations might not be as easy to judge as others).

This.  The Heaven and Hell situation is a great example of how fucked up it can get, with the same lineup playing the same songs they recorded under a different band name, therefore they're technically covers, but it's still the general rule.

The Yes situation is also pretty bad, but technically "Yes Featuring Anderson, Rabin & Wakeman" is not the same as "Yes".  There's still the official band Yes, and everyone else.  Anderson Bruford Wakeman & Howe did Yes covers.  ARW did Yes covers, and so did Yes Featuring ARW.  Fun stuff.

The artist or band who originally recorded the song can play the song and it's theirs, even if it's a band and there's no one in the lineup that actually played on the original.  Any other artist or band that plays it or records it is doing a cover.

[cramx3]

Yea, there's definitely some grey area like Orbert is saying with some of these bands, but I totally agree and I also don't feel like SOA is in this territory at all.  They don't advertise themselves as DT either.  MP's TSF was closer to DT than SOA is and even then TSF was clearly a cover band.

[Stadler]

Some of this isn't for the expert die-hard fan, though, either.  Some of it is intended as a reference base.

If I go to a show and see Sons of Apollo, and like that one song right before the encore ("Lines" something something), and I want to know who did it, it helps me to know it's a "Dream Theater" song more than it helps me to know that "Derek Sherinian" and "Mike Portnoy" wrote it.   Let's not forget that we are relative experts here, and not everyone is.  I went to Maiden with a pretty big fan, who has seen them five or six times, and asked "what was that God song?" ("For The Greater Good of God").  Hell, I KNOW the song and often call it "For The Greater Glory Of God".   

[Madman Shepherd]

setlist.fm is weird with the covers thing.

Every time Devin Townsend Project did a show, any song that was by Devin Townsend or Devin Townsend Band, was listed as a cover.

That's kind of Devin's fault for blurring the lines. I still can't figure out what the difference between all of them are.

Continuing these thoughts...
So when ARW played Yes tunes, they were considered Yes covers, which I get, when they changed their name to Yes featuring...,they were still considered Yes covers.

But when the current "official" Yes played Time and a Word, a song none of the current members played on, it's not listed as a cover.

And somehow, that all makes sense!

Gotta draw the line somewhere!

What about in 1988 when Ozzy was touring with Geezer and they played Black Sabbath songs? Definitely a cover. That same year, Iommi was the only original member in Sabbath and when they did Sabbath tunes it sounded a hell of a lot more like Sabbath then when Ozzy and Geezer did them.

[bosk1]

Well, I disagree with a lot of the reasoning above.  Obviously, we can come up with lots of weird scenarios where the lines are very blurry.  But, again, where you have members of the band that wrote the songs in question, I can't consider that a cover, and that descriptions just seems like a cheap way of trying to make the performance of those songs somehow less legit. 

To use an example, Roger Waters playing any Pink Floyd song up through The Final cut: not a "cover."  David Gilmoure's "Pink Floyd" playing the same songs: not a "cover."  David Gilmoure's solo band playing the same songs: not a "cover."  Jon Carin playing those songs with a band not featuring any original members: "cover." 

Taking that to this thread, SoA playing any pre-Mangini DT song, and especially those from FII:  Most decidedly not covers.  Playing VH or Queen songs:  Most decidedly covers.

Anyhow, by any definition, my take on this album is that all the songs sound pretty good.  But by the Aerosmith cover, JSS starts to sound really worn out.

[Madman Shepherd]

Well, I disagree with a lot of the reasoning above.  Obviously, we can come up with lots of weird scenarios where the lines are very blurry.  But, again, where you have members of the band that wrote the songs in question, I can't consider that a cover, and that descriptions just seems like a cheap way of trying to make the performance of those songs somehow less legit. 

To use an example, Roger Waters playing any Pink Floyd song up through The Final cut: not a "cover."  David Gilmoure's "Pink Floyd" playing the same songs: not a "cover."  David Gilmoure's solo band playing the same songs: not a "cover."  Jon Carin playing those songs with a band not featuring any original members: "cover." 

Taking that to this thread, SoA playing any pre-Mangini DT song, and especially those from FII:  Most decidedly not covers.  Playing VH or Queen songs:  Most decidedly covers.

Anyhow, by any definition, my take on this album is that all the songs sound pretty good.  But by the Aerosmith cover, JSS starts to sound really worn out.

What about if they played a Planet X song? I mean, Virgil Donati was a significant member and if he's not there is it fair to say it's not a cover?

Considering there is so much grey area, why not just draw the line where bands that are labeled as something else, no matter the number of original-ish members, are covers.

To continue with Black Sabbath, in 1994 there was a tribute album that came out called Nativity in Black. Ozzy was on a track with a band called Therapy? doing a cover of Iron Man. Geezer and Bill Ward were on a track with a band created just for the album with Rob Halford with his guitar player from Fight and Wino from The Obsessed. We could sit here and argue over the "feel" of the songs, which I don't think either had much of a Sabb feel, but why not just keep it simple and say, yeah...they were covers.

I suppose we could come up with an arbitrary formula, like if 37% of the original band members are present, who wrote at least 13% of the song in question, then it's not a cover, but I think we would undoubtedly be splitting hairs, which is what most of these arguments are doing anyway.

[bosk1]

I wouldn't view any of those as covers.

[cramx3]

Taking that to this thread, SoA playing any pre-Mangini DT song, and especially those from FII:  Most decidedly not covers.

Considering you are the only one supporting this view, I think they are most decidedly covers. 

[bosk1]

Don't mistake a 5-person majority in this thread as a majority.  In real life outside this forum, you guys are probably the ONLY 5 people that hold your view. 

[cramx3]

Not buying that at all 

[bosk1]

Okay, I'll give you 6 since I doubt that the guy who put that Wikipedia entry together was from this forum.  Better? 

[cramx3]

  

[Madman Shepherd]

Okay, I'll give you 6 since I doubt that the guy who put that Wikipedia entry together was from this forum.  Better? 

Not that setlist.fm is gospel, but I think you may be in the minority on this one.

I wouldn't view any of those as covers.

So you meet a guy from Therapy? and say...

"Hey man, loved your cover of Iron Man."

"Dude, not a cover. Ozzy was on the song. He spent several dozen minutes in a studio recording his vocals for that song. At this point, we're basically Black Sabbath."

"Um, I don't know if that..."

"Just ask Bosk!"

"Who the fuck is Bosk?"

"The majority!"

[The Walrus]

hol' up

Derek and Mike are only 2/5 of DT. A cover is a rerecording of a song by an artist other than the original. The original artist of DT's songs is, well, DT. Logically speaking that means it's a cover when Derek and Mike are playing DT songs even if it's a Derek creation because it was released and credited under the DT name, right? Plus they're only 2/5 the band, over half the band is different players. 

[bosk1]

Okay, I'll give you 6 since I doubt that the guy who put that Wikipedia entry together was from this forum.  Better? 

Not that setlist.fm is gospel, but I think you may be in the minority on this one.

Look, it's ultimately an individual thing.  And in all seriousness, maybe I AM in the minority (although I don't think I am).  But either way, I wouldn't be relying on setlist.fm to make my argument.  I mean, it's beyond setlist.fm being "not quite gospel."  They quite frequently get set lists--the very thing they were created to track--wrong. 

I wouldn't view any of those as covers.

So you meet a guy from Therapy? and say...

"Hey man, loved your cover of Iron Man."

"Dude, not a cover. Ozzy was on the song. He spent several dozen minutes in a studio recording his vocals for that song. At this point, we're basically Black Sabbath."

"Um, I don't know if that..."

"Just ask Bosk!"

"Who the fuck is Bosk?"

"The majority!"

Wait, so Ozzy wasn't a member of Therapy?, but was only a guest?  Yeah, maybe that changes my answer.  I dunno.  I still can't for the life of me understand how someone performing their own stuff is a "cover."  You can't cover your own stuff. 

[JayOctavarium]

Here's another one.

Jordan's "Notes on a Dream" album. Specifically the tracks that he originally contributed to... are those considered covers?

[Madman Shepherd]

Here's another one.

Jordan's "Notes on a Dream" album. Specifically the tracks that he originally contributed to... are those considered covers?

There are covers and originals.

So many of those songs are from pre-Jordan DT and some are Jordan-era DT.

If you were to say, "Jordan released an album of covers and some originals" it would imply that some are, ya know, original. (So I just looked, apparently there are 3 originals which are classified as such because they've never been done before).

Then you find out some of the songs are interpretations of songs that were written and recorded with him in the band. So, The Answer Lies Within is on that album. When it was first released, it went through the DT ringer. People changed bits and pieces, James added his voice, Portnoy probably gave a direction like, "Let's make this like Radiohead meets Lady Gaga meets Los Lobos" and then it was released as the band Dream Theater.

Jordan then records it and it is declared a "Jordan Rudess song" because he didn't get any input from the rest of the band, some of them may never have even heard it, and calling it a cover differentiates that and the already established version.

Also, calling it a cover doesn't necessarily de-legitimize the song but it does help give it context.

With the Therapy? analogy, it clearly gets muddy with who is in the band at what time and whatever or if it's just a guest appearance. For the sake discussing the music industry, I think it is just more clear cut and easier to discuss.

[cramx3]

Also, calling it a cover doesn't necessarily de-legitimize the song but it does help give it context.

Good point.  Sometimes it seems people immediately think negatively when thinking about covers.  SOA doing DT worked extremely well and I'm sure they got that positive feedback too since they released a DT song as their first single from the live album. 

[Lethean]

Add one to the original 5 + the Wikipedia guy, now we're up to at least 10.

I think it's a cover.  And while I do not like SOA, that's not the reason I consider it a cover.  If James' band ever tours again and does a DT song, it'll be a cover too, and I'm a big fan of James.  A band called Subsignal is playing ProgPower this year.  The singer and guitar player came from a band called Sieges Even.  If they play a Sieges Even song, I'd call it a cover. And not in a derogatory way - I'd probably love it.

[Madman Shepherd]

I've heard bands even say "We're going to do an old X song" instead of, "we're going to do one of *my* songs from 20 years ago" or whatever. The implication is, "We're going to do a song that is something else, that we have a connection to."

BTW, MP has probably done more to disparage the idea of playing DT covers with SoA than anyone else. He essentially said, and I'll paraphrase, "After our second album we won't be doing anymore DT songs because we'll have enough material to exclusively do SoA." He makes it sound like it's a burden to do DT covers. I'm a very moderate SoA fan but I honestly think they should always have a FII song in the set, and it would probably encourage me to go to more shows. As it stands now, I probably won't see them again. Saw them once and unless I'm blown away by their followup (doubtful) then I'll just check out the occasional youtube clip. If they pulled out Trial of Tears, I'd bite the bullet and go. I think they could actually do a pretty kickass version of it and to hear Derek do his solo on that song would be hard to pass up.

[Setlist Scotty]

BTW, MP has probably done more to disparage the idea of playing DT covers with SoA than anyone else. He essentially said, and I'll paraphrase, "After our second album we won't be doing anymore DT songs because we'll have enough material to exclusively do SoA." He makes it sound like it's a burden to do DT covers. I'm a very moderate SoA fan but I honestly think they should always have a FII song in the set, and it would probably encourage me to go to more shows. As it stands now, I probably won't see them again.

I understand what you're saying, but I also understand what he's saying. I don't think he wants to give the impression that they'll always need at least one DT song in the set as if it were a crutch. He wants the band to be able to stand on it's own, just as has been the case with all his other bands. Remember, TA included part of Finally Free in a medley for their first tour. And FC did a good part of Repentance on their first tour. But since then, neither band has included any DT songs in their setlists. So I would imagine that SoA is in the same boat. That said, I can imagine some time down the road, maybe them throwing something from FII, or even ACoS in the setlist. But it would probably be for some sort of anniversary or some other significance rather than to fill out the set as they did on their first tour.

[bosk1]

I hadn't even though about ACOS, but now that you mention it, I'm kinda surprised they didn't think about working it up for the Plovdiv show rather than adding in some additional covers.  Mike had really wanted to play that one when DT was doing it during the I&WaB tour, and it would be a beast with an orchestra in a setting like that.  Take out Kashmir, gAtes of Babylon, Dream On, and The Show Must Go On (all of which JSS really struggled on anyway), and there is more than enough room in the set.  That would have been really cool.  Missed opportunity.

[cramx3]

True, ACOS with the orchestra would have been sick

[JayOctavarium]

I'd be bummed if LITS leaves their set. I really think it should stay as a perma fixture.

[Grappler]

I'm glad to read Bosk's review...I'll definitely be getting it and am looking forward to finally seeing the band play live in some form.   

[ReaperKK]

Here's another one.

Jordan's "Notes on a Dream" album. Specifically the tracks that he originally contributed to... are those considered covers?

That's a good point. What would the Gavin Harrison's album "Cheating The Polygraph" be? Those are essentially reimagings of PT songs but they are so different that SW didn't recognize a song when Gavin played it for him

[Cool Chris]

SoA playing any pre-Mangini DT song, and especially those from FII:  Most decidedly not covers. 

Just chiming in here just to disagree (and alleviate my own boredom). SoA is performing songs originally recorded by DT. Isn't that the definition of a cover song?

[Adami]

Eh, it's blurry, but I have to call these covers.

If MP was touring as himself, I wouldn't call them covers. But he's touring as Sons of Apollo. That makes them doing other bands' songs covers. Even if two of them contributed to those songs to some degree.

If they covered Guns n Roses songs, it'd be covers, even though Bumblebee was in GnR and helped write one of the albums (I think).

[Anguyen92]

Eh, it's blurry, but I have to call these covers.

If MP was touring as himself, I wouldn't call them covers. But he's touring as Sons of Apollo. That makes them doing other bands' songs covers. Even if two of them contributed to those songs to some degree.

If they covered Guns n Roses songs, it'd be covers, even though Bumblebee was in GnR and helped write one of the albums (I think).

I do remember being a bit peeved when I saw Three Days Grace earlier this year with their most recent singer and when they were about to play a song that Adam Gontier sang, their new singer was like "we created this song 10-15 years ago when blah blah blah."  No, the other three guys took part in creating those hit songs.  You didn't.

What about during that period when Slash and Duff was not in GNR and it was only Axl and then a bunch of guys that didn't play on songs like Welcome to the Jungle, Paradise City, etc. playing those songs live.  Technically, it still counted as GNR in name only since the brand was under GNR.

When Slash plays GNR covers with his solo band, I deemed those covers even if Slash played lead guitar on those songs.  Things do get a bit blurry when a guy like Myles Kennedy, in his solo shows, plays the stuff that he sang and provided lyrics to for Slash's solo stuff and Alter Bridge.  What about guys like Eddie Vedder when he plays Pearl Jam stuff in his solo shows?  Do they count as covers?  Chris Cornell played a good amount of Soundgarden/Audioslave stuff in his solo shows.  Do they count as covers even if he wrote, played guitar in some songs, and sang the songs?



Therefore, even though MP and DS played on the DT stuff for the SOA shows, I say they are covers.

[Ben_Jamin]

Are we going to dwell into the realm of Great White and Jack Russels Great White?

I'll likely look up some vids on youtube when its released. Likely Labyrinth and the 2nd set of covers.

[The Walrus]

The rest of GnR was covering in the sense that they were covering parts played by former GnR members but Axl and Dizzy were there for the whole shebang, so I honestly don't know how I'd categorize that. I think we've entered ship of Theseus territory