The shame in singing covers

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 09:40 PM

Radio Guy-I wasn't saying you were pedantic, I was pointing out that my point was pedantic, and that point was that recording artists had been "covering" songs that others had made popular since the beginnings of the recording industry. I didn't even say it was a bad thing.

More whatever you want to call it-it's probably been discussed on Mudcat before, but the practice of "covering" popular songs came about because the early phonographs were not cross compatible and each manufacturer would have their artists record songs and sell them to the owners their machines.


It wasn't uncommon for recording artists contracted to one label to "cover" their hit for another label under an assumed name.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Nick
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 08:54 AM

Detroit Bob wrote; "Has anybody discovered the Child Ballads by Anais Mitchell and Jefferson Hamer? All covers of traditional English ballads, and it's been stuck in my CD player ever since I got it."

There's usually a little hole on the front which you can poke a straightened out paper clip or similar and it usually let's you get the CD out without using brute force.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 06:30 AM

If people didn't do covers at sessions here would be no cross-fertilisation, no exchange of ideas. But the difference is between the guy/guyess who comes along and does the same party piece they always do in the expectation of praise and acclaim, and someone who thinks - "see what they make of this; I wonder if anyone knows it?". There's also the common situation where yopu need to do a familiar song in order to keep everybody engaged. OP obviously a session noob.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 05:30 AM

"It's the singer, not the song."

Mick & Keef knew what they were writing there.....

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Howard Jones
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 05:25 AM

What used to be the norm was that there were songwriters who wrote songs and singers who performed them. Neither was expected to be good at the other's craft. How many songs did Frank Sinatra write?

A few were good at both, and made their names singing their own songs. There are obvious financial advantages from this, as well as having a unique and personal repertoire. Somewhere along the way the idea took hold that this was somehow better than singing someone else's songs, and the singer-songwriter became venerated. This in turn has led to the idea that a singer ought to write their own songs, and as a result we have some dreadful rubbish inflicted on us.

What is important is to have a good song well performed. It shouldn't matter if the person who wrote it is not the person who performs it.

The issue of people imitating other musicians' performances is entirely different. The answer is not to write one's own songs but to apply more thought to one's own interpretation. However the fact is that many audiences prefer a familiar version, or something close to it, than an individual interpretation.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 05:07 AM

Well said, Will Fly!

Oh dear, now we're getting all hung up on the definition of covers! Re Martyn Wyndham-Read, he did a superb album of songs by the late Graeme Miles, so in the broad sense he covered them. But yes, he has an unmistakable voice. And Graeme himself was not renowned for singing.

Diving for cover!

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 04:39 AM

talking of being ashamed of covers -Adam and Eve -what was that all about.

God doesn't like us using covers. He would prefer it if we went to folk clubs, naked and unashamed, singing nice songs like Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.

i'm not sure how he would feel about crotchless panties and peephole bras. as they don't cover much.

wearing a voluminous cover, like an Aran sweater, and singing songs glorifying depravity like the wild rover and whisky in the jar - the almighty will be after you.

and I, the lord thy god, am one angry dude. you have been warned.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 04:24 AM

I don't think I'm being pedantic, Stim. I just think it's bizarre to call any song that the singer didn't write a 'cover'. It only encourages singers to write more and more bad songs.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,Desi C
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 02:40 AM

Wel Detroit Bob, I imagine as you're against covers, the opposite must be true, you prefer own songs. I attend Folk clubs very regularly and often hear'own songs' 95% of which are dreadfully over long boring introspective dirges, that the writers SHOULD be ashamed to sing. But more often than not the singers, like yourself, are the most egotistical bores you can ever meet, usually getting on in years bitter and twisted that they've never been discovered (and never will be. I'm not remotely ashamed by my covers, I'm very proud of them all

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 08:57 PM

Pedantic Point: Radio Guy, it certainly is true that many rock and roll and blues tunes were "homogenized" to make them more palatable to a wider market (or at least to the executives at the record companies), but from the early days of the recording industry on, it was common practice for labels to have their artists "cover" what ever music had become popular, in the theatre, music halls, and from sheet music, and later, the movies.

This was still true in the 50's, when no less than five separate artists had hit recordings of "Mack the Knife", which had recently become popular in an Off-Broadway revival of "The Threepenny Opera", which, as we all know, had originated in Berlin, 30 years before.

The principle is, when a popular singer records a popular song, you'll be able to sell a lot of records. It still holds true today.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: PHJim
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 07:32 PM

Another "cover" that most folks think was written by members of the group Dr. Hook & The Medicine Show, is "The Cover Of The Rolling Stone".
This tune actually got Dr. Hook onto the cover of Rolling Stone, but Shel Silverstein, who wrote the song, has never appeared on the cover of the Rolling Stone.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 04:04 PM

I write most of my own stuff, or else arrange traditional songs in my own way. My hope for all my songs is that they will pass into the tradition and be sung and played by as many people as possible. Just adding a few drops into the well of the tradition.

It would be nice to hope (1) that the songs I worked so hard on are credited and acknowledged; (2) that people would try to make a really good job of singing them.

There would just be a big silence if no one was allowed to do covers and an awful lot of great music would be forgotten.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 03:17 PM

Here's a song I collected.

From a Fairport album.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 12:40 PM

Exactly so!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 12:21 PM

I like Hrothgar's idea. 17 Jun 14 - 09:07 AM

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 12:17 PM

man comes onstage sings - covers! covers! cov-ers! covers! not very original, I only sing covers.....

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 11:53 AM

It's interesting that the OP. Michael Pender, says 'many people share my thoughts . . .' when everyone on here has been telling him he's wrong. Michael, it would appear no-one shares your thoughts.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,Guest TF
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 10:52 AM

It's folk music. There are no covers and there is no shame.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,John Foxen
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 09:55 AM

Michael Pender writes:
I guess I have learned something from this thread. Many people share my thoughts but can express themselves very well without using inflammatory comments.

Well Michael, if you cannot express yourself coherently without upsetting people perhaps you should not even try writing your own songs but stick to singing other people's material.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 09:45 AM

Detroit Bob wrote; "Has anybody discovered the Child Ballads by Anais Mitchell and Jefferson Hamer? All covers of traditional English ballads, and it's been stuck in my CD player ever since I got it."

Ditto. I can honestly say I don't recall an album being played so many times in the first week as that one. I can't stop playing it. The only album to come close in terms of constantly playing it would be (a err.. long time ago) David Bowie's Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust.

Yes, I do my own cover of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars....

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Hrothgar
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 09:07 AM

I take an opposite view. This is something that has been bothering me for quite some time.

Now, let's work from the basic principle that we have to have songwriters. Otherwise, the body of song would atrophy.

Similarly, we have to have singers who sing other people's songs. This spreads the songs (and the thoughts they might contain) fay more widely. It also ensures the survival of traditional song (although the way everybody seems to want to be a singer/songwriter these days, that could be at risk anyway).

The problem is that many of the songwriters are not very good. I sometimes have the feeling that it should be made law that songwriters can only sing their own songs after somebody else has sung them. This would have the winnowing effect we need.

It seems to me that too many songwriters are so wrapped up in themselves that they forget there is a real world our there. We then get stuck with people with very moderate song writing ability, poor diction (can't survive without a sound system, and intelligible even with that), and an overdose of angst, disembowelling themselves with a teaspoon.

If they had these songs judged by other people as good enough to sing, we would have far fewer, but much better songs (and singers).

The only saving grace that that most of them have is that they are capable with their instrument of choice.

There are many singer/songwriters whom I am prepared to listen to singing their own songs, and without their being sung yet by others, but they are a small and eminent minority - think of Paxton, Tawney, MacColl, Bogle, Dengate as examples just for a start. On the other hand, Dylan (genius though he might be) really needed Joan Baez and PP&M to get him popularity.

I was thinking of starting a thread on this topic, but I saw this and had to wade in.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: PHJim
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 08:59 AM

" GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 04:18 AM
Which covers, in your opinion, are better than the originals?"

First of all, it depends on your definition of the word "cover". If it means a song the performer didn't write, then which version is "better" is often subjective, but some I like better are:
Billie Holiday's version of Body And Soul
Frank Sinatra's version of Fly Me To The Moon
kd lang's version of Hallelujah
Ramblin' Jack's version of Don't Think Twice

Many times the first version you hear, even if it's a "cover", becomes your favorite, because you feel that's how it goes. Many people feel this way about:
The Animals' version of House Of The Rising Sun
Roberta Flack's version of First Time Ever I Saw Your Face
We 5's version of You Were On My Mind
Neil Young's version of Four Strong Winds
Otis Redding's version of Try A Little Tenderness

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Will Fly
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 07:54 AM

D'you know, I don't give a toss.

I shall continue to play and perform anything I want to, in any style I choose to, whenever I can.

If people like it, then that's my good luck. If they pay me, then that's a bonus.

But the point is to play as you like.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,Detroit Bob
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 07:51 AM

Seriously, you people have too much free time on your hands...which is why you've had time to learn so many cover songs!

If you took away cover songs, there goes half of the Led Zeppelin output. Do you really think their version of "Nobody's Fault But Mine" is a carbon copy of the original by Blind Willie Johnson?

And as for copying paintings, make me a copy of a Vermeer that looks exactly like the original. Sure, that's easy!

Has anybody discovered the Child Ballads by Anais Mitchell and Jefferson Hamer? All covers of traditional English ballads, and it's been stuck in my CD player ever since I got it.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 07:19 AM

" GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 04:18 AM

Which covers, in your opinion, are better than the originals?"

Anything by Bob Dylan

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Andrew Murphy
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 05:14 AM

I suppose Mike Irish traditional musicians are all just talentless pretenders?

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,Strummin Steve
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 05:12 AM

Have the best of both worlds & do a bit of both, in a live situation it's also a performance/mood that counts..

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,Desi C
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 03:34 AM

Actually I was referring to you Elmore. It just seemed one of those ridiculous sweeping statements, I suspected a bit of a wind up. I do own songs and covers. But most covers, if not all ,are old time Country and Irish trad. There are very few people doing the ones I do and in 99% of cases the original artists are long departed, many of the songs almost forgotten. But I would agree there are a lot of folk just doin bland covers/copies of 'popular' songe. I.E If I hear another bland Copy of the awful Hotel California or The Lakes Of Ponchertrain, I'll wrap my guitar round the offenders neck! They are not just over done but done to death. It's one thing to follow the fine Folk tradition of keeping the songs alive, enother thing entirely to make the audience heart sink and whisper "not that bloody song again" You know who you are!

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 08:19 PM

i don't actually have an opinion on this subject - but i didn't want to be left out completely

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 08:00 PM

"Cover" was originally a term coined to describe white pop singers who would be given songs recorded by black artists----which weren't generally played on the radio. They'd usually do 'homogenized' versions......which were more 'compatible' with middle class white audiences, and turn them into hits.    Pat Boone was one of the most notorious cover artists.

I personally don't like using the word 'cover' for anything that is less than an attempt to turn some other unplayed version of a song into a 'hit'.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 07:22 PM

I started singing folk songs in around 1952 or '53, and the first folk songs I learned, I got from a little drugstore paperback entitled "A Treasury of Folk Songs" compiled by John and Sylvia Kolb. I also got a copy of a folio of twenty songs sung by Richard Dyer-Bennet and a copy of Carl Sandburg's "The American Songbag." I learned a couple of songs from Claire, the girl I was going with at the time, whose interest in folk songs pretty much ignited mine.

I also learned a mess of songs from Walt Robertson (CLICKY), who I hit up for lessons. Along with songs he sang himself, he had me working out of The Burl Ives Song Book, the Lomaxes' Best Loved American Folk Songs. And a potful of songs from LP records by Burl Ives and Richard Dyer-Bennet in particular, later from Theodore Bikel, Joan Baez, Ed McCurdy, Guy Carawan, and bunches more.

Along with other singers I was around all the time, who also learned songs from me.

It never occurred to me that I was singing "covers" of other people's songs. Because, among other things, they were NOT other people's songs. They were public domain and it was rare when anyone knew who had written them originally. "Greensleeves?" No, not Henry VIII. "Barbara Allen?" Who knows who wrote it originally. And I could go on and on.

Also, songs I learned from Richard Dyer-Bennet or Burl Ives records. How could I be "covering" them when they are both tenors and I am a bass-baritone? I have to sing them in different keys and this means my guitar accompaniment can't be the same as theirs.

Covers? Who am I covering?

Dumb idea.

Also:   "If you can't write your own material don't pretend to be a musician."

Really!!???

Are interpretive artists NOT musicians?

I wonder how many operas Luciano Pavarotti, Jan Peerce, George London, or Rene Fleming, Cecilia Bartoli, or Maria Callas have written? Or how may symphonies Eugene Ormandy has written? Or how many piano sonatas Claudio Arrau has written? Or how many works for the violin Itzhak Perlman has written? Is it the case that Leonard Bernstein is a musician when he is playing or conducting his own compositions, but NOT when he is conducting a work by, say, Beethoven?

(Shall I go on?)

And here all this time, I thought these folks were real fine musicians. Silly me!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 05:24 PM

Elmore, I'm intrigued to know in what sense you think that Martyn Wyndham-Read performs "covers". His voice seems to me to be entirely his own.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Elmore
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 03:54 PM

Johnny J.: Actually I'm not sure if Desi was addressing me either. That aside, three of my favorite singers who perform "covers", and do them justice are Priscilla Herdman, Martyn Wyndham-Read, and Roy Bailey.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Johnny J
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 03:13 PM

I'm not sure if Desi was replying to Elmore or the OP.

There's no need to for him to get so upset though as Elmore was only joking while the OP has clarified his original statement and already mellowed his opinion somewhat.

Jeri's comment is good though.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,Tattie Bogle
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 02:59 PM

Not so Elmore: the Batties are constantly producing new material, not just doing covers of older songs and tunes.

As for covering songs: there's this saying about "making a song your own": that doesn't necessarily mean radically changing it. but it does mean not slavishly following every little nuance and riff done by the original artist - or in the case of a traditional song of no known composer - following the so-called definitive archive version.

Quoting from Jeri above: agree with that entirely!
"What gets in the way of me enjoying a song is the feeling that the performer is just trying too hard. It can be deliberately trying to sound like the original, or deliberately trying to sound different from it by changing things. It's the "deliberate" part that gets to me. I think if someone sings another's song, they can't help sounding like themselves."

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Elmore
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 02:40 PM

Just a little joke Desi. Didn't mean to offend anybody. In fact, I think the current configuration of Battlefield Band is quite good. Incidentally I swiped the offending joke from Tanglefoot, an excellent, but now defunct Canadian group, who were referring to themselves.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,Desi C
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 01:35 PM

Ignorant rude uninformed pathetic opinion, not woth even a full comment by me

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Elmore
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 01:10 PM

Battlefield Band has none of its original members which means they're their own tribute band.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 10:33 AM

Music is about art, expression, creativity, and a million other things but never about copying.

I wouldn't even say that, Mike. There are some copies that bring great joy to people. Ever been to the Matthew Street Festival (Now international music festival) in Liverpool? All tribute bands. How else would we get to see the Beatles or Buddy Holly live? The people that perform these tributes are artists in their own right and to decry them as being un-musical is, in my opinion, very unfair.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,John P
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 09:41 AM

Even worse than copy-cat covers are people who make blanket judgements and who like to tell other people what music they should play and how they should play it. I'll listen to a well-played cover any day if it means I never again have to listen to someone tell me - or anyone else - that we're playing the wrong music or playing it in the wrong way. Or have to listen to someone say, "If you can't do such-and-such you shouldn't call yourself a musician."

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,Michael Pender
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 06:10 AM

I guess I have learned something from this thread. Many people share my thoughts but can express themselves very well without using inflammatory comments. I get very tired (must not say pissed) of hearing straight copies. Music is about art, expression, creativity, and a million other things but never about copying.

Thanks everyone for you comments.

Mike

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 05:07 AM

Listen to Martin Carthy singing Slade's Cum on Feel the Noize (sic)

Stunning....

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,LynnH
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 04:17 AM

"Love will tear us apart", Joy Division vs June T & The Oyster Band. There is, on the Joy Division website, a long list of bands who have covered the song. June & The Oysters are almost certainly the only people on the list who don't try to imitate JD.

Or.... Richard Thompson, " Whoops I did it again". Not a note for note, riff for riff copy of wossernames original.

I seem to recall a comment from RT concerning a punk version of "Vincent Black Lightning" which was, if I recall, "If it works for them, great! I'd far rather people find their own interpretation than imitate me."

Or, going back in time, Bob Davenport singing "Memphis Tennessee"...acapella!

The problem is that most of us are probably solo musicians accompanying ourselves mostly on guitar, which automatically invites comparisons with other musicians. I can't play guitar like Richard Thompson, Martin Carthy, Nic Jones and the rest of them so I have to find an accompaniment that I can get my fingers around and which I'm happy with. I also try not to perform a song as soon as I've learnt it but rather leave a period of months for it to 'bed in' and so water down any quirks I might have unconsciously picked up from the musician I learnt it from. The same applies to my own songs.

Leaving the 'tribute bands' aside, what really annoys me are, on the one side, those pedants who perform a song exactly as somebody has recorded it, even down to text blackouts(!) etc. and put down all other interpretations, and, on the other side, those who make changes merely for the sake of it, adding nothing whatsoever to the song. There are some changes which perhaps work as a one-off gag - I've done "The Wild Rover" as a one-off hip-hop number- but they remain unrepeatable one-off gags. I'm not condemning changes per se, they just have to be convincing, adding to, and perhaps opening up another take on the song in question.(see Richard Thompson above)

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: PHJim
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 12:15 AM

Thanks for that Joe. I have loaned out my copy and so couldn't quote it.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Joe_F
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 10:59 PM

"...I recently heard a friend say of someone who, like myself, is best known for interpreting material writeen by others, 'Oh, she only does "covers"!' I had a sudden vision of a CD titled _Pavarotti Covers Puccini_. Suffice it to say, Louis Armstrong did not do 'covers' nor did Billie Holiday, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Edith Piaf, or Aretha Franklin. While none of these people were primarily songwriters, their interpretations were a hell of a lot more original than a lot of the 'original' songs being written on the current scene. Any music worth its salt depends as much on great interpreters as on great composers. What is more, in the absence of interpreters, songs will never be sung by anyone other than their composers, and I cannot imagine why anyone would wish that kind of planned obsolescence on their work." -- Dave Van Ronk with Elijah Wald, _The Mayor of MacDougal Street: A Memoir" (2005).

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: GUEST,Peter mudcat "Stallion"
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 07:02 PM

There are thousands of "singer songwriters" and few good ones, there are a lot of good songwriters with a voice not good enough to do them justice, it takes all sorts, having been around for a while I heard a guy sing "The Boxer" and with your eyes shut would swear it was Paul Simon, another guy we called Ralph Mc Mel, on balance I would rather listen to those two than a singer songwriter performing self penned drivel.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Johnny J
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 07:01 PM

"Down in the easy chair"    or its correct title "You ain't goin' nowhere and "(Rock me mama like a) Wagon wheel" were actually Bob Dylan compositions.

However, the best known versions were by The Byrds and Old crow Medicine Show respectively. In fact, the OCMS actually completed the song and added new verses.

So, the cover versions are p4oba ly more definitive than the originals in the case of these songs.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 05:45 PM

One argument in defense of the Xerox school of covers is that it makes it easier to play with other musicians on an ad hoc basis if you are working from the same template as they are when you trot out "Down in the Easy Chair" or "Love Me Baby Like a Wagon Wheel".

Both of those feature regularly in a session I go to. I've heard them many times and can easily play along with them in several different ways on different instruments - usually either C melody tenor sax or washboard played in a style like a drumkit. But I don't think I've ever heard the recording of either that made them hits, or even name the artists who did those recordings. As far as I'm concerned they're something from anonymous aural tradition - and if I want to put in a sax break, it's of no concern to me that there wasn't one on the vinyl.

The "Xerox school of covers" reaches its apotheosis in Highland bagpipe music. If you do a different D throw in bar 2 you better be able to explain that Donald Macleod did it that way.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 03:30 PM

One argument in defense of the Xerox school of covers is that it makes it easier to play with other musicians on an ad hoc basis if you are working from the same template as they are when you trot out "Down in the Easy Chair" or "Love Me Baby Like a Wagon Wheel". But like Michael I grow weary of those who adhere strictly and only to popular renditions which must be duplicated correctly.

I am a ferocious adapter of songs, and I make my own arrangements and tweak them until they suit me well. But I think it has to be said that 99% of folk music and its child forms are covers of songs done by another and written by another. There's no shame at all in singing such a song. It's just not something to get mesmerized by.

The poetry of a song is the thing that must be carried forward.

Subject: RE: The shame in singing covers
From: PHJim
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 02:54 PM

Like Jason Xion Wang, I also thought of people like Pete Seeger, Odetta and Dave Van Ronk when I read the original post. Dave has a footnote in his autobiography about folks who belittle singers who don't write all of their own material.
I also think of folks like Billie Holiday, Frank Sinatra and Joe Williams, who did wonderful things with songs written by others, in fact sometimes the performer shows as much , if not more, creativity as/than the composer. People don't seem to complain about Frank's "cover" of Paul Anka's My Way. Leonard Cohen has said that k.d.lang's version of Hallelujah is his favorite and he now considers it "her song". Pete Seeger has said that Peter, Paul & Mary improved If I Had A Hammer in their arrangement and he sang their changes to the song.
I am not a prolific writer and could never do a whole set of material that I have written myself, but have had a couple of recordings made by others of my songs and have adopted some of the changes made by others to my songs. I am always flattered when something I have written is played by someone else.
Others have already made the obvious point that if no one sings songs that they didn't write themselves, the songs die with the composer.