No, Bob, I am not putting anybody down. The question is whether you can make a living in music. You can, and many do. My point is that there are different paths to follow. I played in nothing BUT copy bands. I never had the skills to go beyond regional. I, me, myself, personally..... I prefer to see, when spending my entertainment dollars, a local band playing original music over one that plays covers. You guys who are telling me about how the entertainment giants do other people's music are mixing apples and nectarines. Major, viable performers tour to sell albums. Taylor Swift is maybe the hottest act right now, and she will tour again soon to promote her next album (whenever that is). When she does that tour, she will perform her hits from her older albums so her fan base gets to sing along. But do you think she won't do 6-7 cuts from the album the tour supports? And to say that her doing her older material makes her a "cover" act... c'mon guys.

The point is, it's a different game at that level.

As to Scott's example, it comes down to this. Do you want to be Andy Williams singing Moon River or Henry Mancini writing it? I would rather write a song once and make money every time Andy sings is than Andy having to sing it 250 nights in 250 cities every year. It hasn't happened for me, and won't if it hasn't by now.

I am pretty much going to duck out of this debate. You guys are taking simple, general comments and using ridiculous examples to try and make your point. Whether Sinatra sang songs written by other people or not is not the issue. It's about "The Booze Hounds" playing Joe's Bar. That is reality. If The Booze Hounds are happy and make a living playing 3 hours of Beatles and Stones covers, god bless them. That kind of thing isn't for me. It would not make me happy, so I don't do it. That doesn't mean I am right and they are wrong. How is saying that playing covers for a living wouldn't be enjoyable for me putting YOU down if it is?