Covers

[lumpy]

I never could figure out why an artist paying homage to a piece of music they like by recording their interpretation is (for the most part) viewed negatively. Sure there are plenty of bad covers out there, but isn't covering a song and adding a bit of your own personality a time honored tradition among all musical styles? I can even think of a few instances in which the musician performing the cover makes the song his own; Jimi Hendrix was a master of this.

Yesterday I picked up a copy of Mojo magazine with an in depth discussion of the Beatles "Revolver" as the cover story. Mojo magazine always includes a free cd with a bunch of well respected (read, unknown) artists performing covers of that month's subject.

Of all the Beatles' albums, if I had to choose a favorite "Revolver" would be it. To me this is the preverbial 'if you had one record to take with you to a desert island'. I'm very passionate about the music, but I was looking forward to hearing some fresh interpretations of the classic material, after all I've been in plenty of bands that covered Beatles's songs.

All I can say is that it was a disappointing piece of crap. The only thing that remotely resembled average was a country reading of "Elenoir Rigby". The rest was tinkly, quiet, newage horseshit.

To me these artists weren't paying homage to the music, they were trying to outbeatle the Beatles. When you cross that line and TRY to turn somebody else's music into something "better", I think you just suck the life out of the song.

Just my opinion. What do you think about artists recording cover songs?
Lump

[brandondrury]

There has to be a balance there. The "vibe" of the song needs to still be there, but it needs to be interpreted in another way.

I hate when bands recording cover songs and attempt to make them sound perfectly like the orginal band. I NEVER saw the point in this. I like to see "new artist" share their obvious personality with the song and see what happens. The result is not always that great, but I think it's the only way to do it. "All Along The Watchtower" is a great example of this. It's just Jimi Hendrix being Jimi Hendrix with a Bob Dylan song. Most people prefer the Hendrix version. It came out magically.

However, when they take a song I grew up to and just suck the life out of it and make it unexciting and boring, I take it personally. Like the dance music chick version of Bryan Adam's "Heaven". It was a total disgrace. It didn't even "work" in my opinion. I personally have no problem with the dance music genre at all. But whatever they did with killed the internal organs of that song. For that, I want them to die.

Brandon

[guitar junkie]

my bro played me a recording of an Asian band playing Bad Bad Leroy Brown

yeah now i see why some bands should not cover a good song!

monotone singer "he is bad, bad le wo drown bad lest man in ho ham down...."



: : : : : :

at the same point i love SRV when he covers songs...

[TAlderson]

Since I am a folk musician, most of what I play is stuff I didn't write (like old traditional songs). In fact, even big folk artists like Joan Baez, the Clancy Brothers, and the Kingston Trio wrote very little or not at all. They played a mix of folk tunes and covers, mainly from guys like Guthrie, Dylan, and Leadbelly. Many songs like Blowin' in the Wind or Midnight Special are songs that EVERYONE has done if they're ANYONE in folk (unless they were dead when the songs came out).

For instance, I have in my collection right now 6 versions of Midnight Special. However, every single version sounds like a different song. This is what I like about folk. Every singer has a style, and it's evident in their work, so they don't even need to write, they can re-invent old songs. That's pretty much what folk is.

Nowadays, a lot of bands try to redo songs and make them good. They don't have a sense of style, they just try to make people like what they sing. That is the worst thing you could possibly do to a song. Try to put yourself and your style into the song, and even if it sounds nothing like the original, people will still like it (this is assuming that you have musical ability/are actually good).

Amazing Covers:
All Along the Watchtower- Jimi Hendrix
I Shall Be Released- The Band
Almost anything by Elvis (he didn't write)
Twist and Shout- The Beatles
Turn, Turn, Turn- The Byrds

and many more...

All these have in common is that the bands/artists did the covers in their style, and they turned out wonderfully.

Elvis became the King by just doing covers. Just think about that.

-Tyler

[brandondrury]

Elvis became the King by just doing covers. Just think about that.

Ironically, George Strait is the "king" of country music and he didn't write even one of his 50 #1 hits. I'm seeing a trend here.

In the end, I think it comes down to this. "Do I like what I'm hearing?". All the recorded covers mentioned below were extreme successes and people like what they heard. As TAlderson touched on, when a band is recording a cover, they can take two paths.

#1 They can say "we are going to make this accurate". Then they are just trying to follow the steps that someone else did. It's like walking up a flight of stairs but putting more thought into how you place each footstep as opposed to looking up at the next floor (which I guarantee the original person did).

#2 They can say "we are going to make this as good as we can". In that situation, we can go back to the stairs analogy. With this method, the new artist is looking up at the next floor and maybe beyond. The end goal is more what they have in mind.

I personally have zero understanding of method #1. I couldn't imagine any logical reason to accurately cover a song in the studio. I understand it live (people want to hear covers live).

Brandon

[volsball]

I don't mind when someone does a cover of a song. I do agree that it is refreshing to hear a new spin on it instead of exactly the same thing the original artist played, as long as the new version is not too far out there. I have noticed something lately that I still have not decided if I like or not, and that is that a lot of hip-hop artists are using small portions of classic rock songs in the background of a rap or hip-hop song and it sometimes sounds ok, but usually sounds terrible.

[Smidgelton]

Ah you brought up something very interesting there. The first time I heard Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs' song that went to the melody of Sting's "I'll be Watching You" I nearly puked. How half assed is it that a "musician" has to rip off a great song's melody in order to speak their own words? Didn't Michael Bolton get sued for this in the 90s?

[brandondrury]

Sting's "I'll be Watching You" I nearly puked.

First off, Smidgelton, it was The Police, not just Sting. Not a big deal. You just seam like the kind of guy that would want to get that right.

This is a tricky topic. If you are just a rapper and you want to make some cool music and really have no clue on how to make your own (or the interest to learn how to make your own music) it makes total sense to rap over Back In Black, Janie's Cryin', or Every Breath You Take.

If you are a musician, you probably wouldn't feel comfortable "stealing" someone else's riff. I know I wouldn't.

So I guess if you are the type of person that "creates", you will be offended by this "theft". But if you are the kind of person who wants to make music but doesn't have the initiative to actually learn how to make music, I guess you don't understand the level of work that goes into creating.

Brandon

[volsball]

Ah, well said Brandon. I couldn't agree more. Some of these songs do sound ok, don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking all of them, and I do like some "hip-hop" and some rap. I think what bugs me the most is that a lot of times they don't acknowledge where they got the beat from.

[richiebee]

Originally Posted by lumpy

The rest was tinkly, quiet, newage horseshit.

To me these artists weren't paying homage to the music, they were trying to outbeatle the Beatles.

These two sentences seem to contradict. If they were quiet tinkly newage horseshit, they were hardley trying to outbeatle the Beatles.