Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by Cadillac_Mike, Jan 23, 2021.
Get off my lawn!
In my opinion, covers should
* Pay top royalties to the original artists and songwriters
* Offer a fresh, original, interesting twist on the original classic.
Examples, ranked in order of goodness:
KISS's Rock And Roll All Night (And Party Every Day)
Toad The Wet Sprocket
Simon and Garfunkle's The Sounds Of Silence
Brownsville Station's Smoking In The Boys Room
The Miley Cyrus atrocity described in the OP.
Okay, I'm gonna shut up now.
Miley has a great voice and I am more than happy to listen to any cover she wants to sing.
I'm sure Debbie Harry is more than happy to get additional royalty checks.
While I do agree with the assessment of the Heart of Glass cover, as a Miley Cyrus fan (the singer, not the burlesque act), I feel the need to offer a small token of redemption on her behalf.
I think the op would blow up if he saw Miley Cyrus's one act play,
"An Evening With Ray Manzarek"
My kids are 8 and 6, and this part of France is a radio wasteland.
So my kids are into the dance-pop stuff currently running on stations like NRJ and Contact-FM. While some of the French artists are clever and write interesting lyrics (Soprano, Jain), there is a habit of remixing that is driving me nuts.
Some famous producer takes a famous song, like "Hot Stuff" by Donna Summer or "Say, Say, Say" by Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson, and make it more "danceable." They allow only he first verse to roll before repeating the chorus at least 4 times. They add way too much bass, simplify the beat. It's like biting into a rare, juicy looking hamburger and getting only a mouthful of bun; there's no meat!
At least Miley Cyrus sang the whole song.
grumble grumble. Kids these days and their stupid vacuous music. grumble grumble
Actually, I'm not sure it's nostalgia. I was working in a big box store before the Coronocaust, and there were a lot of newer pop covers of old tunes, and most of the people who worked there didn't even know they were covers. "Big Yellow Taxi" was one. I can't think of others titles, but I think there was a Beatles tune in there.
It might be more that it's cheaper to buy rights to record than to pay a songwriter, or it might be that it's safer to produce a song that's already proven itself.
But you're right, it's an economic decision, which is what's always fueled pop music.
I wouldn't lose sleep over it. There will always be a music industry, and there will always be great music to discover if you keep your ear to the ground.
Nah, sorry man, Tide is High is here to stay.
Have I got to list every cover of Hallelujah ever made and describe why all of them are inferior to Cohen?
Because I can. Don't keep pushing me
I’m usually a gripey old fart who dislikes change in general.
I think what I’ve learned about myself over the years are:
1. I generally prefer the version that I experienced first, regardless if they were the original artist or media - SRV vs. Hendrix, Spaceballs vs. Star Wars (as a kid, when I finally saw Star Wars, I just thought, “So it’s just an unfunny Spaceballs?”) etc.. I know I’m a boor.
2. A lot of it depends on whether I already like the artist to begin with. Sturgill Simpson gets a pass for covering Nirvana, while Britney Spears can suffer eternal damnation for covering the Stones. Again, I realize that this doesn’t help my real-estate prospects in the afterlife.
Not only ‘pop’ music, just heard a recent release from some or other orchestra..........a Tchaikovsky cover for Pete sakes, first done around 1812. Novelty when it was new, canons and stuff, but this new realease has added nothing, really bugs me.
I can write tomes about how all attempted covers of “Love Will Tear Us Apart” rip holes in space-time and are the spiritual equivalent to kicking puppies. I want to scream it from my avatar, but who will listen?
The art of a good cover is to make it sound as Mum and Dad remember it, fresh and new. This won’t be how the original actually sounded. If they played the original they’d realise how dated it sounded.
Music is a business. There have always been and will always be new artists. Some will market their music to tweens and teens. Some will target young adults. Some will seek a more mature audience. And there will still be old farts playing the music they played 50 years ago for other old farts. I haven't seen my grandkids for a year and have no idea what they're listening to. I don't listen to radio, even satellite radio in the car. I source music from YouTube and find plenty to choose from, new and not so new. What I find follows the 80/20 rule. 80% of it is forgettable. 20% of it is listenable and in a year I'll be listening to only about 20% of that. Old music and new are the same in that regard with one difference. I'd forgotten about a lot of the old stuff until I heard it again which just made me want to forget about it once more.
Even old artists can F### up a perfectly good song. To quote Mr. Creosote "You'd better bring a bucket".
You’ve probably just written off at least half of the gigging bands on this forum. There (well, at the moment, were), a lot of semi-pro guys out there earning pocket money and having fun entertaining audiences with good covers of popular music.
I don't like to play covers, but I don't mind hearing covers being played - usually. Some are good, some are decidedly not good.
I'm thinking, though, that playing "covers" is how a culture defines itself musically. In most traditional music, there are certain songs that one learns on the path to becoming a musician, and they are familiar to everybody, musician or not.
Classical music is nothing but "covers" of some famous composers. In jazz, we call them standards, and we cover those songs. I've even see it stated in these pages that one can't be taken seriously as a jazz musician if one doesn't have a strong grasp of the standards.
It seems like the current discussion is placing "popular" music in some kind of different category. Why is that? Is it because we don't think it's as legitimate somehow?
This begs the question, what if the cover was the original and vice versa? Is the original always the best, just because it’s tge ordinal ? I think, for example, Springsteen’s live version of Love Of The Common People is the best ever, even though a cover. On the other hand, I’ve never heard a version of Bad Moon Rising that gets even close to CCR. Songs need to be judged on their merits, not on their originality. There’s some originalstuff out there that I like but I wouldn’t rule out a cover ever coming along that tops it. Only exception I can think of is Bridge Over Troubled Water. I just can’t ever imagine that being topped, matched, possibly, but not topped.
Anyways, in the end everyone has different likes and dislikes, it’s what makes music, indeed, life, interesting.