
Something I’ve been thinking about lately is whether covers are better than originals. Here are the points for both side:
Covers
- They represent a second life for a song that could build on its foundations
- That the cover could be done by a more talented musician – or a more sympathetic voice (Dylan covers)
- The cover could bring the song to a wider audience
- The song could be recorded with better equipment, resulting in a better quality sound
Originals
- It’s pure
- It is how the artist originally intended
- It is more creative – a cover is just a cover with an interpretation
- KA POW
This argument really needs to be at a song level, not an overarching level I think. Some covers may be great, whereas others may just be terrible. So perhaps we should have a few examples then to illustrate the point?
Okay first of all - Everybody needs somebody to love. Solomon Bourke’s version is soulful, you can hear really taste the texture of the song. Particularly towards the end, it just has grit. Then, the Blues Brothers. This is such a happy version, but when you listen to it in comparison to the original, it does sound a little tame. It does sound like a different song though. Fair to say, round one to the original.
Second example, What goes on. The Beatles version is very much a B-side, with Ringo singing his little heart out. Sufjan’s version is amazing, but then again, you would never pick it for the original. I think this is a clear example of using the original as a basis, but creating an entirely new song. So is it a cover? Well yes, but wow, what an interpretation. Round 2 – Cover.
Thirdly, Memphis Tennessee. Chuck Berry kicked it off, but then Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis and Johnny Rivers (as well as dozens more) have all done versions. Tough competition but as John Lennon said, “If you tried to give rock and roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry '." Yes, I think enough said. This example is interesting though – it demonstrates the rerecording of black singles by white artists for the white market. This is a late version, but in most circumstances the cover was no where near as good.
I could keep playing this game for hours, but I think I’ve made my point. I think originals are generally better, with covers only being better if they add something, or bring something to a song. I think that most of the argument is mainly due to the fact that most covers don’t bring anything to the original song.
Good fun.
Covers
- They represent a second life for a song that could build on its foundations
- That the cover could be done by a more talented musician – or a more sympathetic voice (Dylan covers)
- The cover could bring the song to a wider audience
- The song could be recorded with better equipment, resulting in a better quality sound
Originals
- It’s pure
- It is how the artist originally intended
- It is more creative – a cover is just a cover with an interpretation
- KA POW
This argument really needs to be at a song level, not an overarching level I think. Some covers may be great, whereas others may just be terrible. So perhaps we should have a few examples then to illustrate the point?
Okay first of all - Everybody needs somebody to love. Solomon Bourke’s version is soulful, you can hear really taste the texture of the song. Particularly towards the end, it just has grit. Then, the Blues Brothers. This is such a happy version, but when you listen to it in comparison to the original, it does sound a little tame. It does sound like a different song though. Fair to say, round one to the original.
Second example, What goes on. The Beatles version is very much a B-side, with Ringo singing his little heart out. Sufjan’s version is amazing, but then again, you would never pick it for the original. I think this is a clear example of using the original as a basis, but creating an entirely new song. So is it a cover? Well yes, but wow, what an interpretation. Round 2 – Cover.
Thirdly, Memphis Tennessee. Chuck Berry kicked it off, but then Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis and Johnny Rivers (as well as dozens more) have all done versions. Tough competition but as John Lennon said, “If you tried to give rock and roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry '." Yes, I think enough said. This example is interesting though – it demonstrates the rerecording of black singles by white artists for the white market. This is a late version, but in most circumstances the cover was no where near as good.
I could keep playing this game for hours, but I think I’ve made my point. I think originals are generally better, with covers only being better if they add something, or bring something to a song. I think that most of the argument is mainly due to the fact that most covers don’t bring anything to the original song.
Good fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment