coming to you from a blog named edgar, we ask the big questions, the tough questions... that is... what indeed makes a good cover of a song. I have to warn you all that this is a post filled with assumptions and possibly weak definitions that will have us all going... hmmmm
I believe that a good cover requires at least one of these 2 essential criteria...
1 - It pulls a song from unkown obscurity into a place where people can enjoy it and recognise how good it is.
2 - It is unique, is performed, arranged and delivered in a creative way that although still lets us see the original, it helps us apreciate it in a different light.
A couple of points of clarification...
1 - There is a difference between a tribute and a cover. A tribute should only be seen at a live show or on an album specifically dedicated to an artist. A tribute doesnt need to have either of the above criterium, and indeed, it could well be spoilt if it does.
There are some songs that should NEVER be covered, and really should only be delivered under the guise of a tribute. In my opinion these are the songs that music itself has been built on, and in general number few and far between.
2 - A remix, for the sake of the argument is generally a cover, although in some circumstances, if it helps ppl to be able to dance to it again would probably fall under the category of tribute (or... do we need a 3rd category, a tertiam quid if you like?)
Problems with these working definitions?
The most obvious if this idea of pulling something out of obscurity. There were probably actually people out there who had never heard american pie before madonna did it, but for some reason, that just doesnt seem right. On the other hand, huge fans of Wayne Cochran and the C.C riders may well be ofended to think that Pearl Jam did anything but defile their beloved "Last Kiss" (which charted quite high (number 1?) 99/00?).
So... its obviously contextual. Yet... does that mean that it will be best to do a cover? or a tribute?
Last thought for now, and I have a feeling that certain individuals will take the bait and respond here... but heres my last thought...
Is it OK to make money off a tribute album, or is it exploitation and oportunism. Should tributes, stay in the realms of charity? I think they should, but, to be honest, I havent really thought this one through all that much...
So either...
human nature are doing weak as covers, that dont really fit that category... or using tribute, to boost their careers and not pay homage to the originals (a la standing in the shadows of motown). or... are they bring these songs out of obscurity? its all possible... but I'm not too sure...
In my opinion not since Westlife's Uptown Girl has there been such an obvious rip off with no creative value (when maybe their is more of contextual gap in communicating that song when these guys do it?).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
For the most part I agree with you...for the most part.
I refer you to the ultimate cover version, 'Watchtower'. It's great, it fits so well with the definition. It raises the profile of the song, it enhances the song...but my personal favourite, it INTERPRETS the song.
There are cover bands, playing at the local RSL, doing thier bit to keep the music of Fleetwood Mac alive. These covers do not interest me. Neither do the dance remix versions that simply try to cash in on a song's popularity.
The true cover lies in one thing. A respect for the original version. That's where it's at...
the baby...... whose version would you cite as 'ultimate'? Hendrix? U2? DMB?
And Ian, I'll address your main post later, but seriously, who made you the one to judge what is and isn't a good interpretation? Just cos you are Mr 'too cool for school I lonly like stuff no one else does and then when it gets popular I don't like it anymore' doesn't mean that it has any more or less merit than Phish covering an entire album for a New Years concert. THAT is lazy musucianship.
OK, Im back with a bit more time, and of course I'll Take the bait, because thats what you like to do...... bait people. But that's cool, Cos I enjoy it too :)
Absolutely it is fine to make money off covers. You do understand the concept of royalties, don't you? The original writers benefit moreso than the contemporary artists in many cases. Music is not charity. It never has been, never will be. Some are into it for the creativity, some to share their gift with others, some for the sheer joy of playing, OR creating, and some for the money. Who is anyone else t ojudge which of these categories is 'righter', for lack of a better term.
And I'm sorry, but what the fuck is paying homage? Obviously they are covering these songs because they respect them, and recognise them as great songs. What more do you need?
For the record, a large majority or Motown songs were not written by those who performed them. That would make them what? COVERS. Or tributes, depending on your trivial little definitions.
A lot of people in the world like hearing that which is familiar. Hence the need for cover bands, and the popularity of cover versions. Is there a problem with that? Absolutely not. Hell, I love it when my fave bands throw a cover on their albums just to hear their interpretations. Some are straight and great. Some are really wacky and, quite frankly, shite.
Oh, and one last thing....... You've managed to bypass the fact that Steve Cropper was white, and that threw the original basis of your argument out the window.
Have a nice day.
hey man (grande).
i love a good discussion, even an argument... but can we try to keep it a little more civil, its really not an issue to get quite that fired up about is it?
i apreciate your thoughts though, and would love for you to keep em coming. i was just a bit thrown by the aggression and intensity in your recent comment.
i
LOL. Again without any reply.
Post a Comment