There has always been a pretty big argument in music about the merits of singing , or performing someone else's song. This has gone on since the dawn of Rock n Roll. Elvis didn't ever write a song. Every song by Elvis is someone else actually speaking. On a less revered note, same thing for The Monkees. In fact throughout music history I would estimate that more than half of the music you hear is actually written by someone other than the person, people you hear performing it.
This is strange no? People have devout followings which is based on their work, but some of it isn't their work. This was not a big thing in the 50s and 60s. It was accepted. Well , up until the age of the hippies and flower power and sticking it to the man, then it became seriously uncool to cover other peoples music. This is perhaps a reflection of the desire to appear real, and authentic. No matter that you were doing this through massive corporations, but that is perhaps a matter for another time.
There is the case though when a cover song takes over from the original. It takes the words and the music and makes it something quite different. Does this mean that it then becomes the message of the person performing it?
I came across a music download which is called, The 500 Greatest cover tracks of all time, which was published by Rolling Stone magazine. Now, whether or not Rolling Stone are even qualified to publish this is perhaps a discussion for a different day. Seriously, who reads this magazine and thinks, hey , that band U2, they're great apparently . . .As I said, perhaps this rant is for another day.
There are some seriously great songs on the list. For example there is this. The most covered song of all time and as I have said on many occasions, such as here, the best version of it.
It did get me to thinking what is it that blurs the lines between an artist or band singing someone else's song and what makes it a song that the performer(s) then make their own version? To make my point I thought about this version of Nothing compares to you, written by Prince, made famous by Sinead O'Conner and sung here by the Stereophonics
To me that is the Stereophonics covering a Sinead O'Conner track because she made the song her own. The reality of course is that it is the Sterophonics covering a Prince tune that was also done by Sinead O'Conner. Is it because it was originally made famous, i.e. sold more copies, in the SOC (got tired of writing the whole thing) version? is it because that is the version that I heard first? or is it as simple as the fact that SOC version is the best version?
I must admit to having a sneaky love of cover tracks, which is perhaps why I have written about it before.
i like the idea of someone whose original music I like taking another track and doing it in their own style. For example here is the Cowboy Junkies version of Sweet Jane, by the Velvet Underground originally.
I like that version more than I like the original. Actually whilst we are sort of on the topic, The Velvet Underground. Where do we stand? I have the box set of the three albums. it is a good box set I have to say. Lots of cool photos and the like. The music though. There are some extremely good songs there. But they are horribly inconsistent. i guess though that the point of the band was to be different than the music of the time. Something they achieved with amazing success. Are they the beginning of punk? or No Wave? Discuss in 250 words or less please.
Back the post. Cover versions. it is clear that some of the covers supercede and replace the original in our psyche. Take for example, Hurt by Johnny Cash. Everyone remembers that version and remembers that it is the cover of the Nine Inch Nails track. But how many people then sit through the NIN track? Not a lot I think. It is a different audience.
That is the point. It is not about The Flaming Lips covering Radiohead, this is more a mutual appreciation society. It is about people like Heather Nova covering a Neil Young song, like this.
It brings a great song to a new audience and there can not be much better than that. I am often asked how I come by so much music. Where I go to find it. Well, apart from talking to the likes of you, it is through this. I look up the song I like and either see that it is an original, and then explore the band. Or I find that it is a cover and go back to try to find the original. Then explore some of the music that that person produced. As you will remember I think that it is all new music if you haven't heard it before.
Anyway, there isn't really an overriding point to this. Just that it is worth listening to cover tracks as much as others because sometimes you undercover a real gem.
Like this
When I picked up Salival back in '99 or '00, I was thrilled with that Zep cover. My gosh!
ReplyDeleteThe Beatles made the self contained writing/performing unit popular and desirable to the point where people like us who like "real" music find it odd to encounter 'artists' who don't write their own stuff, like Elvis.
But even the Beatles in the early days still covered a lot of songs. Maybe it was almost to make them feel legitimate in a climate where the norm was to still cover 'professional songwriter"'s songs for one's entire career.
In our day; People think that "Twist and Shout" is a Beatles original. Some think that "All Along The Watchtower" is a Hendrix original. Or that "I Write The Songs" is a Barry Manilow original. (how ironic). So convincingly did they perform them like the O'Connor/Prince tune.
Rolling Stone never dictated what was important to me, but U2 do rule. For the open minded, I really enjoy their cover of Cole Porter's "Night and Day".
Oasis' version of "I Am The Walrus" is suitably sneery enough!
Rolf Harris' "Stairway To Heaven" rocks.
So, in fact, does Zappa's version.
Uncle Bob do a great version of "She's Leaving Home", the Sgt. Pepper's track.
...and, everybody needs to hear The Fall covering "A Day In The Life".
A splendid time is guaranteed for all!
I didn't ever respond to this. Thank you for writing it. i agree that The Beatles had a profound effect on what was deemed acceptable, but would push it further west and say that it really came from The West Coast laurel Canyon scene. the need to be authentic. it was really only after this gathered some pace did the beatles, Styones Kinks et all start to write their best stuff.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't heard the Fall's verson of a day in the life before. Not sure if it is that fantastic i am sorry to say. Certainly not on a par with the Foo Fighters doing Holiday in Cambodia. Or Pearl jam doing Rockin in the free world. Still, I know how much you love the Beatles. . so will leave it.