Better Cover Versions

[Steve R]

As I have written before, I find it somewhat strange that artists in the field of popular music are criticised for performing music written by others, or 'covers'.

Classical musicians have been performing Bach and Mozart covers for centuries.

Furthermore, if a contemporary classical artist, Itzhak Perlman or Vadim Repin for example, were to give a performance of a violin concerto of his own composition, he would most assuredly find himself playing to a hall no more than one third full. Yet, were he offering the Sibelius concerto, he would be virtually guaranteed a full house.

I, for one, would be more than happy to listen to some talented contemporary guitarist performing a selection of music written by Hendrix, Trower, Winter and others.

You see, what I find rather strange is, if a new band were to perform or, especially, release a version of, for example, Good Lovin' Gone Bad, they would, it seems, be criticised for it and their version would be compared to that of Bad Company, for some reason.

Now, provided they perform it well, should they not be applauded for simply playing good music?

After all, if Vladimir Ashkenazy were to perform a piano sonata by Debussy, he would not be criticised for performing 'non-original' music, would he?

I would prefer a situation where a performer such as Ted Nugent, for example, could feel free to release a recording of British rock songs of the 1970s say, without fear of criticism over his use of the material (regardless of what one might feel about that particular performer, of course).

[leobloom]

Steve, you make a very good point, I absolutley concur. It seems to me that the ideals these days are the singer sonwriter in popular music, only they can perform their own material and any one who touches it will be derided.

[Pervert]

There have been good cover versions. What annoys me is when someone barely changes the original, thereby rendering a cover pointless. The various versions we had of Unchained Melody a few years back are case in point.

You're ignoring some of the other stuff in this and other threads with regard good cover versions. Twist And Shout---Isleys or Beatles? All Along The Watchtower---Dylan or Hendrix?

As for Love Will Tear Us Apart, to me the original is perfect. If someone wishes to cover it, then the least they can do is try to put their own stamp on it rather than just try to sound more melodic than Joy Division.

[Arginald Valleywater]

Siouxsie and the Banshees version of Dear Prudence. Suits a female voice better.

[Mike_CFC]

I have'nt got a REAL problem with artists or bands that release cover versions,that's their perogative.But that should'nt make them immune to criticism,especially if one really liked the original version and some tosser goes and destroys it.Something that a minor percentage of the country does every Friday/ Saturday night on a pub karaoke machine,but that's all in fun though.

Before you ask,NO!!!!,i do not do karaoke unless i am totally inibriated !laugh! .

[Pervert]

Good shout, Arginald, although The Beatles' version isn't too shabby either.

[leobloom]

I suppose i'm stating the obvious but has everyone noticed the current trend of artsist covering very recent hits? Lilly Allen doing Kaiser Chiefs, Amy Winehouse covering The Zutons.

[Mike_CFC]

That's all Mark Ronson's doing.He also done a Smith's Cover this time last year,think it was called 'stop me'.Lilly Allen's version of 'Oh My God' was pretty good.leobloom wrote:

> I suppose i'm stating the obvious but has everyone noticed the
> current trend of artsist covering very recent hits? Lilly Allen
> doing Kaiser Chiefs, Amy Winehouse covering The Zutons.
>
>

[bigAl]

The Air that I Breathe - The Hollies

(Although actually I prefer the original myself!)