Wolfmother - Communication Breakdown

[louieinked]

not bad !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wolfmother - Communication Breakdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJak-R2iYI)

[less_is_more]

wolfmother rocks.

[Lucky13pck]

i love wolfmother, ive been hoping they can bring some of the old fashion rock n roll spirit back to the earth :]

[Lucky13pck]

id also like to add that both of your guys sigs have inspired me :P

[Sir Fire Hydran]

It sucks.

It lacks the passion that Zeppelin had. It sounded like too faithful a cover, while at the same time lacking the zest that Zeppelin had. It was way too disciplined. Sounded like robots playing it, rather than a lifely rock and roll band. I have nothing but hate and contempt for the cacophonic rock stylings of Wolfmother. They make me sick.

[Priesty]

Not bad, but Wolfmother are good imitators...heh heh, although it doesn't flow like Communication Breakdown should, seems a little stop start...
I think Wolfmother may fade away...the fact they've been playing the same 10 songs live for the last 4 years is a little worrying, I first saw them at a festival here ages ago...then saw them again last year, same show...they were the biggest band in Aus for about 6 months, now I think everyone's forgotten about them because the kids that were into them have done their research and realised that they're not original at all...:P

[reissue]

Actually that is terrible. At least when a band like White Stripes does Death Letter its convincing but that was just weak.

[Lucky13pck]

i didnt watch it, sorry to hear it sucked :/ i always liked wolfmother...but yea a lot of their original stuff was good..but i cant see them carrying it on..its a weird genre of rock.

[KcMsterpce]

I did NOT like it.
Sir Fire Hydran said my thoughts. It lacked the zest of Zep, was too much of an attempted note-for-note cover, but done badly.
I have never listened to Wolfmother, though, so I don't know if they are a good or bad band as a whole. Hate the lead singer's hair. It's terrible.

[Fruitloop]

I wasn't impressed, cloning is not a good thing in music.

[atmourad]

i personally liked it. it seems like they're playing at some sort of a led zeppelin tribute gig type thing. if that's the case i dont see anything wrong with playing it the way that zeppelin played it.

[Sir Fire Hydran]

i personally liked it. it seems like they're playing at some sort of a led zeppelin tribute gig type thing. if that's the case i dont see anything wrong with playing it the way that zeppelin played it.

Note-for-note, it's the way Zeppelin played it. But it lacks the feel of Zeppelin. It's too close to how Zeppelin played it. Zeppelin never played it the same way twice. Every live version of the song I've heard Zeppelin do has been different. Whereas this version, is just too sterile. It's too perfectionistly close to the studio recording. It lacks the Zeppelin vibe, and isn't a good tribute to the band.

[Fendershredder]

It sucks.

It lacks the passion that Zeppelin had. It sounded like too faithful a cover, while at the same time lacking the zest that Zeppelin had. It was way too disciplined. Sounded like robots playing it, rather than a lifely rock and roll band. I have nothing but hate and contempt for the cacophonic rock stylings of Wolfmother. They make me sick.

That makes a lot of sense.

Ironically, if they fudged it up you'd be pointing that out and concentrating on that aspect of it the same as you are no concerning how well they played it.

"Too disciplined", "like robots", very generic hate statements from people who can't dig something for a nonexistent reason. I don't know when it became unacceptable to learn something right, and play it well. Oh well.

[Sir Fire Hydran]

That makes a lot of sense.

Ironically, if they fudged it up you'd be pointing that out and concentrating on that aspect of it the same as you are no concerning how well they played it.

"Too disciplined", "like robots", very generic hate statements from people who can't dig something for a nonexistent reason. I don't know when it became unacceptable to learn something right, and play it well. Oh well.

Now, if there was a 'fudge up' while trying to do something unique with the song, I probably would ignore it.

Now, it's one thing for a small cover band or something to learn a song right and play it well, but for a 'real' band like Wolfmother, you would expect more than just an amateurish 'perfect' cover of the song. Amateurs learn a song note-for-note, professionals add their own touch to it. But Wolfmother don't have 'their own touch'. They're just a Zeppelin brown-nose band.

[ModestCargo]

It sucks.

It lacks the passion that Zeppelin had. It sounded like too faithful a cover, while at the same time lacking the zest that Zeppelin had. It was way too disciplined. Sounded like robots playing it, rather than a lifely rock and roll band. I have nothing but hate and contempt for the cacophonic rock stylings of Wolfmother. They make me sick.
Tell us how you really feel about it, though. :p

No really, I didn't like it a lot either. I liked a couple of their songs when they first came out but the rest kind of all sounded the same to me. And now I'm tired of the songs that I did like once.


They make me laugh, though. They're such blatent Sabbath wannabees. And before anyone says "but dood thats wht rock is all about dood its about borrowing ideas and snds and sharing them", I don't care. They still sound like Sabbath wannabees.

But hell, I think Geddy Lee sounds like some sort of awful Robert Plant wannabee. So what can ya do.

[spoonbadger]

i wasnt too impressed. the vocalist is too much of a plant wannabe. and that solo was very awkward sounding. the original communication solo isnt exactly rocket science, and it shouldnt take a prodigy to figure out the formula and rework it a wee bit. bleh. if only bonzo was still with us and zep was still touring :)

[Fendershredder]

Now, if there was a 'fudge up' while trying to do something unique with the song, I probably would ignore it.

Now, it's one thing for a small cover band or something to learn a song right and play it well, but for a 'real' band like Wolfmother, you would expect more than just an amateurish 'perfect' cover of the song. Amateurs learn a song note-for-note, professionals add their own touch to it. But Wolfmother don't have 'their own touch'. They're just a Zeppelin brown-nose band.

No, that's not true at all.

Someone who wants to play the song right learns it note for note. Infact, it's much more difficult to learn it note for note and perfect it rather than taking a rough outline of it and embellishing it with your own style- that's easy.

[KcMsterpce]

This is starting to remind me of this CD I have of Led Zeppelin covers. I don't remember who did what on it, except that one of my favorites was by a band I HATE:
Hootie & the Blowfish. They did "Hey, Hey, What Can I Do", and it was a good cover.

[Sixstring]

It felt choppy. I attributed that to the singer not having the freedom to prowl around and really groove on it because he had to hold down the guitar part. Not a big fan of his high range. I think it would have been better had he sang it in a range comfortable for him or just improv some lines instead of trying to emulate Plant's performance. But in all, I thought they did a decent job with a difficult song.

[Sir Fire Hydran]

No, that's not true at all.

Someone who wants to play the song right learns it note for note. Infact, it's much more difficult to learn it note for note and perfect it rather than taking a rough outline of it and embellishing it with your own style- that's easy.

It may be easier, but it's no question more musically challenging to do it right. Any n00b with enough practice can learn a song note-for-note, but it takes a real musician to be able to add something to the song and make it work and sound musical.

It is much more revealing of the quality of the musician to add something to a song they are covering, rather than mechanically repeating a song note-for-note.

[KcMsterpce]

Actually, I think it's good to know a song note-for-note for a few reasons.

First, if a time comes where you might get money for playing a song note-for-note, you can do it.
Also, you might learn new methods of playing, and get into a player's "style" more personally than just doing your own thing with it.

If you mastered the song based on the original recording, and THEN move on to doing whatever you want to with it... well, you've got the best of both worlds.

[ModestCargo]

If you mastered the song based on the original recording, and THEN move on to doing whatever you want to with it... well, you've got the best of both worlds.
I agree. That's how I learn songs.

It's not that I intend to play the guitar break note for note live. But I *will* learn it note for note first (or as close as I can figure it out, anyway), because I think there are always little tricks you can pick up.

[Fendershredder]

It may be easier, but it's no question more musically challenging to do it right. Any n00b with enough practice can learn a song note-for-note, but it takes a real musician to be able to add something to the song and make it work and sound musical.

It is much more revealing of the quality of the musician to add something to a song they are covering, rather than mechanically repeating a song note-for-note.

No, not any noob can practice a song and learn it note for note while paying attention to dynamics, timing, and every nuance that makes the song what it is. That's what separates a capable player from a n00b. It is incredibly simple for me to take a song like this, and play it how I want and still retain the structure, it would take much more time and effort to play it the way same way Page did it on the record, that's just the way it is.

Again, I guess it all depends. I don't mind covers that stay true to the original, and I don't mind covers that venture outwards from the song.

[Sir Fire Hydran]

No, not any noob can practice a song and learn it note for note while paying attention to dynamics, timing, and every nuance that makes the song what it is. That's what separates a capable player from a n00b. It is incredibly simple for me to take a song like this, and play it how I want and still retain the structure, it would take much more time and effort to play it the way same way Page did it on the record, that's just the way it is.

Again, I guess it all depends. I don't mind covers that stay true to the original, and I don't mind covers that venture outwards from the song.

But playing it note-for-note says nothing about your musicianship. It just shows that you can play something if you practise it enough. It demonstrates your technique, no question, but it says nothing about you as a musician.

[Fendershredder]

But playing it note-for-note says nothing about your musicianship. It just shows that you can play something if you practise it enough. It demonstrates your technique, no question, but it says nothing about you as a musician.

It says that you can play a song note for note. That is saying something about you as a musician, you have the capacity to play music.

I suppose Classical violinists aren't musicians then since they read all their music off paper and don't embellish it with their own ideas.

[Hoyle00]

I seen them cover communication breakdown in concert, they don't play it note for note and they didn't seem too mechanical. That youtube video was a tribute cover and NO ONE can emulate the essence of Zeppelin, so why are we even judging them on those standards. It's sounds kind of stupid if you ask me.

Personally I take "note for note" covers as a certain sign of respect if done properly and in the right context.

[KcMsterpce]

I disagree with the notion that those who can play a song note for note are NOT talented.
If they can play a cover perfectly, down to the nuance, phrasing, thematic tone and personality of the original performance... then that's impressive. It is not "just practice", but a cover done well enough to be more than "just playing the notes" - and actually seems to embody the original artist's intentions - there is more than technique. It's ability.
This is especially impressive if they can perform Vai perfectly, then do some Clapton, move on to Kenny Burrell, later sound like Hammett, or Malmsteen... yadda yadda, you get what I'm saying.
That means someone has done more than just "learned how to do a cover", they've also understood on a more primal level the complexities and subtleties that come with any musician. It is awesome when someone can do covers of several different guitarists proficiently.
I think, "wow, he doesn't just sound like SRV. He can sound like 20 other guys, too! Woah!"

[Sir Fire Hydran]

It says that you can play a song note for note. That is saying something about you as a musician, you have the capacity to play music.

I suppose Classical violinists aren't musicians then since they read all their music off paper and don't embellish it with their own ideas.

I rather like this analog...

Think of how many times the story of Romeo and Juliet has been told. The original story had a particular setting and context, and way of delivering the story. Yet the raw story has been taken many times by many different people and turned into the same story, but in a new way. If someone re-wrote the play, but re-wrote it word for word, changing nothing about it, then it would just be boring. Why not just read the original instead, rather than this word-for-word doppleganger? If you are a creative writer, you take the story, you change a few things about it. Maybe change the setting to a slums of Italy thing, or give it a sci-fi theme. No one would care if you wrote the story word-for-word. Your creativity as a writer would be shown in your ability to make the story seem fresh and new. A good artist has the ability to take something old, and present it in a fresh, new way, and that is how you do a proper tribute to the artist whose work you are re-doing.

[Fendershredder]

I rather like this analog...

Think of how many times the story of Romeo and Juliet has been told. The original story had a particular setting and context, and way of delivering the story. Yet the raw story has been taken many times by many different people and turned into the same story, but in a new way. If someone re-wrote the play, but re-wrote it word for word, changing nothing about it, then it would just be boring. Why not just read the original instead, rather than this word-for-word doppleganger? If you are a creative writer, you take the story, you change a few things about it. Maybe change the setting to a slums of Italy thing, or give it a sci-fi theme. No one would care if you wrote the story word-for-word. Your creativity as a writer would be shown in your ability to make the story seem fresh and new. A good artist has the ability to take something old, and present it in a fresh, new way, and that is how you do a proper tribute to the artist whose work you are re-doing.

But they aren't trying to make something new, they're paying homage to their idols by playing it.

There is no question that they have the ability to take that song and do something new with it, the fact is they didn't want to.

[Sir Fire Hydran]

But they aren't trying to make something new, they're paying homage to their idols by playing it.

There is no question that they have the ability to take that song and do something new with it, the fact is they didn't want to.

Just as someone writing their own interpretation of Romeo and Juliet isn't trying to create a new story, just present an old one in a fresh way.

[Hoyle00]

I disagree with the notion that those who can play a song note for note are NOT talented.
If they can play a cover perfectly, down to the nuance, phrasing, thematic tone and personality of the original performance... then that's impressive. It is not "just practice", but a cover done well enough to be more than "just playing the notes" - and actually seems to embody the original artist's intentions - there is more than technique. It's ability.
This is especially impressive if they can perform Vai perfectly, then do some Clapton, move on to Kenny Burrell, later sound like Hammett, or Malmsteen... yadda yadda, you get what I'm saying.
That means someone has done more than just "learned how to do a cover", they've also understood on a more primal level the complexities and subtleties that come with any musician. It is awesome when someone can do covers of several different guitarists proficiently.
I think, "wow, he doesn't just sound like SRV. He can sound like 20 other guys, too! Woah!"

Not to mention Clapton's lead and solo in Strange Brew is note for note copy and paste from Albert King's Oh Pretty Woman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6oDdgrbmeE [Albert King]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0DhVYuoMM4 [Eric Clapton]

the lead licks are almost identical, but most shockingly are the solos.

2:35 in the Albert king song
1:00 in the Eric Clapton song

So SFH......
Despite the title of the song, its lyrics and the tone the songs are pretty much note for note identical (ignoring Gary Moore, I couldn't find an original version of Albert's song on Youtube). If you don't like Wolfmother's cover of Communication Breakdown that's fine; but justifying your dislike because the song was played note for note is a weak justification if you ask me. Otherwise the same criticisms could be used to Clapton, which would only make me sad :(.

[Fendershredder]

Just as someone writing their own interpretation of Romeo and Juliet isn't trying to create a new story, just present an old one in a fresh way.

But that's not what they're trying to do...

They're trying to play the song how it sounds on the album to pay homage to their idols.

If they wanted to present in a new, fresh way they would have.

One does not lack the ability to embellish or be innovative simply because they choose the path of playing the piece as it was written for a desired effect.

[Sir Fire Hydran]

So SFH......
Despite the title of the song, its lyrics and the tone the songs are pretty much note for note identical (ignoring Gary Moore, I couldn't find an original version of Albert's song on Youtube). If you don't like Wolfmother's cover of Communication Breakdown that's fine; but justifying your dislike because the song was played note for note is a weak justification if you ask me. Otherwise the same criticisms could be used to Clapton, which would only make me sad :(.

My objection wasn't just that it was note-for-note, but that it lacked the liveliness of Zeppelin's original. It was a note-for-note mechanical technically flawless version of the studio recording. It didn't feel alive like Zeppelin's did. My criticism was that while they managed to get the song note-for-note, it did not sound in any way like Zeppelin. It failed to capture the essence of the original song, and the essence of Zeppelin. It was as much a tribute to Zeppelin as me playing a midi version of the song in Guitar Pro. All the notes are there perfectly played, but it just doesn't sound like Zeppelin.

[Hoyle00]

My objection wasn't just that it was note-for-note, but that it lacked the liveliness of Zeppelin's original. It was a note-for-note mechanical technically flawless version of the studio recording. It didn't feel alive like Zeppelin's did. My criticism was that while they managed to get the song note-for-note, it did not sound in any way like Zeppelin. It failed to capture the essence of the original song, and the essence of Zeppelin. It was as much a tribute to Zeppelin as me playing a midi version of the song in Guitar Pro. All the notes are there perfectly played, but it just doesn't sound like Zeppelin.
Your criticisms seem to flip flop in response to the changing rebuttals of this thread. Whether or not Wolfmother captured the essence of the original is completely subjective and immeasurable. We can argue about that until we're blue in the face and get no where. My only point was; whether or not the song was played note-for-note is irrelevant, and not worth pointing out as a contributory criticism.

It's just hard discussing things with you SFH, because you never concede to anyone else's points.

[noskills]

people, people, if robert plant says he likes it, im noit going to pass any further judgement

[Sir Fire Hydran]

people, people, if robert plant says he likes it, im noit going to pass any further judgement

Robert Plant also thought it would be a good idea to put out a solo album called Now and Zen, so... yeah...

[ProfessorRiffs]

Wolfmother + the song Communication Breakdown = Two things that I never want to hear on their own, let alone combined!

[Hoyle00]

Wolfmother + the song Communication Breakdown = Two things that I never want to hear on their own, let alone combined!

That's evil man :( I like Communication Breakdown

[Priesty]

But that's not what they're trying to do...

They're trying to play the song how it sounds on the album to pay homage to their idols.

If they wanted to present in a new, fresh way they would have.

One does not lack the ability to embellish or be innovative simply because they choose the path of playing the piece as it was written for a desired effect.

I don't think they chose too, I just don't think they're capable...honestly if a band can't produce any new songs in about 4 years (especially when the songs they started with were pretty much plagiarism anyway) I would've thought they could find some more bands to copy...:p