Original Songs v. Cover Versions

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Caitrin
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 07:15 PM

I just remembered a couple more...Led Zeppelin's "You Shook Me", and Emerson,Lake, and Palmer's "Fanfare for the Common Man".

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GUEST,The Beanster
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 07:34 PM

Dear Jed Marum,

You have nothing to apologize for...as a matter of fact, I was going to put in a little notation to you in my snotty note up above that my tirade was not directed at you and I'm sorry I didn't, now. You were sweet and sincere and I (as well as the rest of us, I'm sure) value your opinion. Besides, you didn't start the ruckus. If you'll scroll back, you'll see it mentioned earlier--but even if you had started it, that would've been fine. :) Your posting was from the heart and that's always okay. I suppose sometimes the holier-than-thou tone (absent in yours, by the way) that comes across in these threads is annoying to me. But then again, I should chill just a bit because many times, written words come off sounding MUCH differently than they would if they were spoken. Anyway, sorry for the confusement (my new word...!) and I'm sorry I unearthed a pet peeve of yours. (I used to have a pet peeve but he ran away). Come on, I'll buy you a drink! :)

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Bugsy
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 07:52 PM

I think he's talking about me.

Still - ne'er mind eh?

CHeers

Bugsy

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Callie
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 08:01 PM

I learnt about life the day I took my hard-earned $5 to my first rock festival. There were $5 cassettes, and I found one titled (in big letters) WINGS. And then in miniscule letters: Songs that WINGS made famous. I was so excited I didn't read the fine print. I went home, put on the tape, and found to my horror that it is a hare krishna singer called Mirinka doing covers of Wings songs. I was too old to cry, and too shocked to throw the tape at the wall. I've still got it, if anyone is interested ...

Speaking of covers, how about Morrissey doing "Moon River"!

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 10:17 PM

Well Midchuck, I have just spotted your post.

The context ran someting like:

Jon: [saying like I liked] The Pogues doing The Band Played Waltzing Matilda

ddw: Jeez, Jon, I musta missed something. Somebody gave me a CD of the Pogues doing The Band Played Waltzing Matilda. I played it once, then a second time because I couldn't believe it, and then took it outside and played catch with my springer spaniel.

No accounting for taste, eh?

Jon: hey ddw this is part of it all and I love Rum, Sodomy and the Lash like you say no accounting for taste.. maybe it brings in another question, how much oof th8is is down to a group/ perfoormer that you really like - could it be that their version is often the best?

If somebody has not got the inteligence to consider the possibiltiy that ddw and myself were in fact reffering to the Pogues and that it was a logical progression, I can only say that I feel sorry for them.

Jon

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Mbo
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 10:42 PM

You folks haven't heard anything till you hear Radiohead do "Rhinestone Cowboy." It simply beautiful...so much better than the Glen Campbell original, which is pretty darn good itself.

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: hrodelbert
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 11:45 PM

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I always took it that a cover version was an imitation as close to the original as possible and any thing else was a song you did your way. One singer songwriter that comes to mind is Eric Bogle who is one of the worlds finest songwriters but an indifferent performer in fact everybody does better versions of his songs than he, Sorry Eric!

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: ddw
Date: 08 Mar 00 - 12:06 AM

Jon, Jon — lighten up, man. Midchuck's pulling your leg.

david

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 Mar 00 - 12:19 AM

OK wil do... but in this case I guess it is one of those transatantic language things that I don't understand - I do blow occasionaly (and don't like myself for it) but will admit to being wrong and apologise when I see why.

Jon

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: ddw
Date: 08 Mar 00 - 12:30 AM

Jon — he was just taking the phrase "I love Rum, Sodomy and the Lash" out of context and giving you the gears — like it wasn't the name of a song — which I'm sure he knew full well it was.....

I guess we all should use the emoticons more often, eh?

david

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 Mar 00 - 12:33 AM

:-)

Jon

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Gary T
Date: 08 Mar 00 - 09:27 AM

I've never seen a dictionary definition of "cover". In the various contexts where I've heard it, it usually seems to mean any rendition of a song that has been previously recorded. (Some songwriters I know use it to mean any song they didn't write.) My concept is that covers were regarded with disdain for one of two reasons: either it was an attempt to closely imitate the well-known version with apparent intent to deceive, like the "Embassy Label" recordings previously mentioned; or it was an attempt to "sanitize" raw, earthy music for tender ears, like Pat Boone doing rhythm and blues numbers in the 50's, so that gutless radio stations could play the songs without corrupting our youth by having them listen to black artists (no close imitation here!). Outside of those contexts, I find it an innoccuous term that simply seems to acknowledge that the song has been done before.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GUEST,Rana
Date: 08 Mar 00 - 10:13 AM

Actually, this is very similar to a previous thread on songs that have become someone elses which I posed a few months back

Rana

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GUEST,The Beanster
Date: 08 Mar 00 - 09:30 PM

BUGSY, If you thought I was referring to you, back there, I wasn't!! I mean you did mention it first, but that's no problem--that's what these threads are for, right?? And I wanted to clarify that I definitely was not referring to you when I said "holier than thou tone." (You DON'T have one.) No, no, no...come with me and Jed...we're going for a drink! LOL (And Busgy, I'm not a "he"....) (hee hee hee)