"You can tell a lot about a band by the covers they play. It pretty much reflects exactly what type of people they're playing for." Written by Mr. Damani Harrison in a recent review [June 5 Music review: "Rappers score; coversbomb"] (http://www.readthehook.com/93562/music-review-mixed-reviews-rappers-scor...) of a performance by Majahkamo at Starr Hill, and coupled with other comments in the review ("I haven't listened to Majahkamo's album, but I hear there are no covers on it"), sounds to me like a criticism of playing cover tunes, hence a criticism of the band.
To my mind (more on covers later), the ability of a band to play what their audience actually wants to hear sounds like a good idea. I would think that Mr. Harrison tries that in his own band, but, having never seen him perform, I can only guess. My apologies to him if that's not his goal.
My opinion of Majahkamo stems from seeing them play only a few times. I was, frankly, impressed by their talent and composure. This is a group of pretty young guys doing a damn good job of playing some music that they wrote and some other music that they simply like to play. How bad is that?
As to Mr. Harrison describing the performance as "Attack of the Cover Tunes," I'm confused. Is it bad to play covers?
I've played a few covers in my time, and it's a rare night when a band I go see doesn't play any at all. I usually like the band for trying, and I appreciate that they're onstage not because of the big bucks but because it feels good. And that, I daresay, is why the (apparently white) crowd bothered to drop in that night as well. Because it feels good, covers included.
So golly, kids, make sure that those records you release don't contain any covers!