A couple of months ago someone said to me (in a cover band situation), "Either play it exactly like to original, better than the original, or don't play it at all". I disagreee with this on so many different levels, it's taken me till now to sort it out in my head.

First of all,  a basic point-to-point rebuttal:

You're never going to play anything exactly like the original. Not even the original artist is going to play it exactly like the recording (which actually isn't the original - the original is an idea in the composer's mind, but that's a tangent I won't go off on just yet). This is why I've always believed that if all you're hoping to accomplish is to reproduce a recording, you'd be better off bringing a CD than a musical instrument - that's the only way it;s going to happen.

Whether you're playing something better than the original is highly subjective. Some people fell in love with a certain version of a song, and will never accept anything other than that version as acceptable (again, bring the CD). Some people love hearing reinterpretations of songs and want to hear it as different as possible. I would guess that most are somewhere in between. So, who's to judge? Better to just leave that one alone.

Second, moving just a little deeper into the psyche behind the quote:

The person who said this to me spends a great deal of time informing everyone whom he's played with in the past. The list is long and illustrious, as he tells it (over and over again). He's also quite fond of telling everyone how to play their particular instruments (while ignoring his own shortcomings, of course) regardless of if he's able to demonstrate better technique himself. This person is also, shall we say, frequently the most "experienced" member of the group he's playing in (ok, not sure if that got through - he's freakin' old). This leads me to believe that his only standard of accomplishment has been to try and duplicate what has already been done, many times, by many other players. Through his supposedly long and illustrious career, he's still playing the sideman in a cover band, and putting himself in thr position of being hired (and yes, subsequently fired) by someone half his age. Maybe I'm cocky (alright, I'm beyond cocky, no maybe about it), but I don't bother telling people whom I've played with. I tend to make it clear that they are playing with me. End of story.

Third, to broaden the perspective musically:

My personal path as a musician would be, "If you aren't creating something new, don't bother". And yes, this applies even (maybe especially) to cover bands. As an example, as a percussionist in a symphony orchestra (the most extreme example of a cover band there is), I am required to play certain notes at a certain time. They are written down, published for the world to see, set in stone. However, the depth of interpretive variation from one player is staggering. Listen to two recordings of a Bethoven symphony and you start to wonder if they're looking at the same piece of music. Get into Rimsky-Korsakov and the differences are astounding. My goal as a symphonic percussionist is to filter the dots on the page through my own musical training, influences, and experience to come up with my own reality of how those notes should be played. To make that part Beethoven (or Rimsky-Korsakov, or Tchaikovsky et. al.) through me, and because of me. I've always said, "When I'm playing with a symphony, I feel like a drumset player. When I'm playing with a rock band, I feel like a djembe player. When I'm playing djembe, I feel like a jazz vibraphonist". It never ends. There's always something new to express, and the more rigid the part I play, the deeper I dig to make that expression come alive through the music.

In the end, music is a creative art, at every level. Playing a notated part is no more or less creative than playing free improv. It's just creativity expressed in a different way. If you're not here to create, press [PLAY].