Kevin's Watch

anything Britney Spears does is horrid.

there are very few covers I like, I always view it as stealing someone else's art. But some are truly more terrible than others..

but, like with everything, there are exceptions. In general tho, I don't like covers.

Madonna mutilating American Pie.... *shudders* nails down a blackboard...

Edge wrote:Mr. Tambourine Man - William Shatner

Not to mention his version of Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds.

(The less mention, the better.)

Ozzy Osbourne's cover of Sympathy For The Devil.

Last kiss...Pearl Jam

WTF?

Ozzy's Mississippi Queen.

Why tamper with a song that's already perfect?

Dromond,

Last kiss...Pearl Jam

WTF?

Shoot, man I love that version!

Watch your language boys!

Shouldn't the swearing filter have grabbed that?

Anyway, I think a lot of people are missing the point about why covers are done. The idea is to change the song. Using someone's lyrics and most of their music as well, what's the point? It's about one artist's interpretation and vision of another artist's song.

Done well a cover is no bad thing, it should probably be flattering. If it isn't, then at least their cut of the royalties should ease the pain.

That said, there are still plenty of bad covers out there. Anything that simply takes lyrics to a popular song and puts in whatever brand of pop is most successful at the time; Madonna's American Pie, Britney's I Love Rock n' Roll and A1's cover of Take On Me all falling squarely in this category.

The other common category for poor covers is those who haven't really move far away enough from the original song to actually justify the cover. The myriad covers of How Soon is Now are all in this category and although I do quite like Lenny Kravitz' sparse and swaggering interpretation of American Woman, it is a bit too close to the source material to be credible.

Of course, the category you place each cover is a matter of opinion. The way I see it though, if a cover isn't either of those two it's either good, or at least justifiable on artistic grounds.

I think Sheryl Crow's cover of Sweet Child O' Mine fits in here, because she's gone acoustic with it and makes it sound more tender and removes any trace of the deeper, darker elements insinuated by G'n'R. It's nowhere near as good as the original, granted, but it isn't actually bad. Crow's cover of The First Cut is the Deepest however, is a bad version of a song that's been badly covered a lot.

Going back to the original post and Comfortably Numb, well I don't like the Scissor Sisters very much. They're one of those hideously overrated, faddy bands that grips the British 'indie' scene periodically. That said, as a child of the 90s and a fan of most things electronica, I like where they've gone with Comfortably Numb. Musically. All the Europop-ish goodness in the world won't compensate for the man in the dungarees wailing the words through his nose.

Personally, I'd say Scissors Sisters' version falls comfortably (and numbly) into your own description of 'Anything that simply takes lyrics to a popular song and puts in whatever brand of pop is most successful at the time'.

The problem is, the line between "Anything that simply takes lyrics to a popular song and puts in whatever brand of pop is most successful at the time", and a song that "moves far away enough from the original song to actually justify the cover", is extremely blurred.

You could say UB40 covered songs using a (then) currently-succesful brand of pop, but I think most people would agree that their versions of, e.g., 'Red Red Wine' and 'I Can't Help Falling In Love With You', blew the originals by Neil Diamond and Elvis, respectively, out of the water.

Similar thing with Hendrix' searing version of Dylan's 'All Along The Watchtower' - he redid an accoustic / folkie number in the then-popular acid-rock style, and produced something at least as good as the original.

Hendrix, I'll give you.

UB40 wasn't fit to wipe either Elvis's or Neil's behind. Their covers paled in comparison to the originals.

- Which just proves how subjective the whole issue is.

If you don't enjoy the sizzling ska stylings of UB40 (whose lead-singers' voice alone could have me switch teams) you're not gonna enjoy anything they do, no matter who wrote it.

Similarly, anything at all by Britney (whose voice could also have me switch teams... for totally different reasons...) leaves me cold.

saw a clip of Lisa Marie Presley doing 'Dirty Laundry' this falls under the catagory of unecessary. a bit too easy for her. i'd like to hear a more challenging cover from here, say a Circle Jerks or Fear song?

Edge wrote:Personally, I'd say Scissors Sisters' version falls comfortably (and numbly) into your own description of 'Anything that simply takes lyrics to a popular song and puts in whatever brand of pop is most successful at the time'.

The problem is, the line between "Anything that simply takes lyrics to a popular song and puts in whatever brand of pop is most successful at the time", and a song that "moves far away enough from the original song to actually justify the cover", is extremely blurred.

That's true, but I think one way to help differentiate is to look at the covering artist's motive: Are they a manufactured artist or group? Are they getting a fat payment to record the song for a soundtrack? (some of the worst covers ever have been done for soundtracks IMO)

One thing to remember is that in most cases, it makes less financial sense to release a cover than one of your own songs, as the song writer will take a big chunk of the royalties. Sometimes a new artist (especially a manufactured one) will cover a song with the hope of boosting their (probably pitiful) sales to the point where they're making a decent profit, plus to gain exposure.

The Scissor Sisters are, whether they deserve to be or not, riding the crest of a wave right now. There profile couldn't get much higher and they categorically do not need to ride Pink Floyd's coat-tails in order to sell their records. Plus I'd also argue that the cover is early-nineties style pop, rather than current. Though that could just be the latest retro trend...

Other covers I have thought of since yesterday:

Sophie Ellis-Bextor: Take Me Home - Cher was most upset at this because she thought Sophie had made it sound 'slutty'

Wheatus: Respect - what is it about nose-singers and covers?

Not to go too far off topic, but UB40 wasn't even good ska, compared to Madness or the Toasters. I will grant you that the singer has a great voice.

i haven't heard it, but can only imagine how horrible
it must sound...

Avril Lavigne: American Idiot by Green Day.

seems she has been closing her shows with it.

Nav wrote:Are they getting a fat payment to record the song for a soundtrack? (some of the worst covers ever have been done for soundtracks IMO)

Isn't that the truth? (shudders while suddenly remembering the awful cover of the classic rock song Sweet Home Alabama included in the soundtrack of the movie of the same name. Who sang that so lamely anyway? Was that Jewel?)

Ugh yes. The Boys are Back in Town, butchered by Bon Jovi in the film Navy Seals.

Limp Bizkits cover of The Who's Behind Blue Eyes just pissed me off so bad-it put me in a weird funk of wondering if Pete Townshend went senile to sell the rights to the song.

while I like the speak & spell idea in the middle of Limp's cover of Behind...did they need to spell out Limp with it? what a waste of a good idea...

just thought i'd revive this thread with one word...

Journey


or not

don't stop believin
hold on to that feelayeeyayin!