Hmmmmmmm...When It Comes To Covers, Opinions are obviously split.........
-
Artist:
-
Album:Sweet Child o Mine
-
Track:Sweet Child O' Mine
<
.......With some contending that a cover, no matter how good, is always and only a cover. While others insist a good cover can often be better than the original. Both arguments have merit. A cover is, after all, someone else's work, whether its aped well or badly.....and yet it is true that a good cover can reveal something of a song that perhaps the original missed.
I guess I would have to admit, as I have so many times before, that I'm drawn to cover tunes like a moth to a flame. I usualy find them as useless as Keith Richards is to a vampire but I keep coming back for more.
Sometimes its predjudice, I know. I'd rather hear Jack Klugman singing than GNR. And seriously, I like this better as a piano tune.
Comments (16)
If a vampire had a substance abuse problem, I would imagine Keef would be pretty, pretty tasty.
Covers can turn shit into shinola and vice versa. This is a nice example of the former. Thank you.
Hey Deadman, I like covers. Songs are made to be sung. Many people can sing a song only one person wrote it. The songwriter only hears one way to sing the song they wrote. The singer can sing the song another way. It makes music interesting. Once a songwriter writes a song, it no longer their property. Other than the original license, a songwriter can't control who sings their songs. Just look at some of the tunes I wrote.
Great version of the tune. Ya know, music is covered every single day, with musicians getting it wrong. I'm speaking of the pianists and orchestras who perform their own versions of classical "masterpieces," most of which do not hold to the composers original intent.
They too have their followers and discontents.
But there you go. Classical.
True...
What is the reason for a cover if you don't improve it or reach out to a different audience? That way the song contunues to live on forever and the party never ends.
Hey Fake Robert Johnson....you got a lot of nerve to claim authorship for some of those songs you "wrote". You just happened to be at the exact right place in time . Your amalgams of timeless blues phrases & images are only yours because you recorded them first. You stood on the shoulders of giants, as all the great ones have. You took what you found and personalized it, as all the great ones have.
@capn & Adam....yes & yes. A "covered" song has a longer life. The more interpretations the better it's chance at immortality.
Ha. Fake Robert Johnson and his cousin fake Blind Lemon Jefferson. How cool is that, anyway?
I'm not convinced they're fakes.
I like this cover. But I do not dislike the GnR tune.
Hey DM. You hijacked my post! :-)
From the grave?
No. to clarify, it's more the conversation I was hoping to get from a post I put up yesterday. DM has a much better way of expressing things, especially after midnight, so the responses are here.
I guess it's only in the R&R auteur era that we would even question the viability of a cover. I know I used to shy away from records with an abundance of cover material, but now I look more closely. If you bring something to the table with someone else's material I'm I'll for it.
Al Green's version of Hank Williams' I'm So Lonesome I could cry adds a new spin to Hank's version without diminishing/copying the original. Beyonce doing Etta james..well I'm not sure that makes the cut.
Sometimes it's hard not to refer back to the original when listening to the cover, but when the cover pulls you into its own orbit then its a winner.
I love those fake Blues cats..
Umm, word. Beyonce doing Etta? Not for me.
All's I know is GNR's suckage is massive, and, um, well, "I like this better as a piano tune."
I agree with Mike!
Can Axl's voice, but nothing can top Slash's riff.