Original Songs v. Cover Versions

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)

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: 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: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 Mar 00 - 12:33 AM

:-)

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 - 12:19 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 - 12:06 AM

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

david

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Steve Latimer
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 05:18 PM

I forgot Sid Vicious doing "My Way"

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 04:26 PM

Well Dick, I suppose that depends on your definition of folk music. Eric Bogle for example fits my "definition"... and no, I am not entering that debate!!

Jon

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Steve Latimer
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 11:34 AM

Joe Cocker an Leon Russell Doing Dylan's "Girl From The North Country"

Bob Dylan doing "The Froggy Went A 'Courtin"

Don't know if you can call it a cover when someone does a different version of their own song, but I loved Bruce Hornsby's acoustic version of "The Valley Road" on the Nitty Gritty Dirt Bands' "Will The Circle Be Unbroken II"

The Rolling Stones doing Robert Johnsons' "Love in Vain"

Johnny Winter doing Bob's Highway 61 Revisited.

Sophie B. Hawkins version of Bob's "I Want You" from the 30th Anniversary Concert.

The Cowboy Junkies version of The Velvet Undergrounds' 'Sweet Jane'

Eric Claptons' (and I still have a love/hate thaing about Eric) "Don't Think Twice, It's Allright.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 11:10 AM

Seems to me that folk music--as opposed to pop--is ALL covers. That's what the oral tradition is about, innit?

Or any tradition, for that matter.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Mbo
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 10:46 AM

Lamarca, I actually like Sir Georg Solti's arrangment of "Pictures"....but tell me about thos arrangements. No one does Cappricio Italien right except Leonard Berstein and the NT Philahormic. Everyone elses stinks, including Eugene Ormandy's and Arthur Fielder's.

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Homeless
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 10:29 AM

It sometimes depends on whether I'm listening or playing. A friend of mine wrote an air and taught me how to play it on tin whistle. When I play it though, I have a completely different interpretation, utilizing some slides and trills that he doesn't. The first time I played it from my heart for him, he was stunned at how different it was. Said may interpretation wasn't how he'd intended it, but he liked it nonetheless. Same song, but completely different at the same time.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GMT
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 10:26 AM

The Sensational Alex Harvey Band - Delila
Impossible Dream

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: lamarca
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 10:14 AM

It's interesting to apply this to classical music, where they're ALL "covers". Each conductor and orchestra will interpret a given work differently; people who love the composer will differ in whose interpretation they like best. I grew up listening to particular recordings of pieces that my parents owned, so that those performances seem like the "right" tempo, orchestration, etc. For example, the Fritz Reiner/Chicago Symphony recording of Maurice Ravel's orchestration of Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" is the performance I grew up with - therfore, for me, it's "the best". I was really disturbed when I first heard Leopold Stokowski's orchestration of the same work - not only was it a different conductor/orchestra, but an entirely different setting of the original piano piece.

While popular music usually isn't granted the same consideration as classical music, covers of songs are simply new arrangements of existing pieces. Those artists who try to duplicate a previous arrangement are usually doomed to failure, because you can't duplicate a particular performance that was captured in a moment of time on record. Those artists who try to do their own versions of songs are simply being "conductors" of their own musical symphonies, interpreting the music as it affects them.

But the version I heard first will always be the "right" one, and my favorite...(BG)

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Mbo
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 08:49 AM

Man, now I gotta go find the Pirate Song and post it for some big laughs!

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Midchuck
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 08:47 AM

Jon Freeman said:

"and I love Rum, Sodomy and the Lash like you say no accounting for taste...

Has it occurred to you that there may be people here that don't know that that's the title of a record? Or was that what you had in mind...?

P.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: JedMarum
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 08:22 AM

Beanster - I guess I started the thread creep rhetoric on the term 'cover' sorry to pervert your oringinal intent. Actually I understand and appreciate your topic, and agree with so many of the comments about artists who have recorded other people's songs, and made wonderful versions of them.

I guess I used your discussion as a spring board for a pet peeve of mine. Sorry for the thread creep. This has been an interesting thread!

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: ddw
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 12:45 AM

Yeah, Jon — it probably does come down to performers we like doing the "best" version of something. It's really funny, though — I think a lot is in the first VERSION we hear as much as the first person. Have you ever bought cheap, compilation CDs that advertise "Original Artists" and then find they are out-takes from the recording session. Sometimes it's just a couple of notes that are different, or just a different wrinkle in the timing, but it runs you nuts. It's one reason I'm VERY careful about what music I buy nowadays.

Mbo — sorry, but you lost me with a couple of your things there. Clapton is OK, up to a point. I can't disagree with you about his solos if your baseline is rock, but I'm afraid as soon as a somebody starts with a solid-body guitar, I leave. I don't dispute the technical expertise of a lot of these performers, but I just can't stand electric guitars, which to me are to real guitars what organs are to pianos. I can't take organs either — except maybe played Dave "Baby" Cortez, and that's just nostalgia.

cheers,

david

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Mbo
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 12:28 AM

HAs it occured to anyone that traditional music is everyone doing covers of an anonymous author? It's great!

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 12:15 AM

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?

Jon

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Mbo
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 12:13 AM

No, there's me to. I find his playing loud and abrasive and earpiercing and boring. I'd much rather listen to Eric Clapton. Check him out on George Harrison's "Live In Tokyo" album...oh my oh my...just the most beautiful, tastefull, almost classically structured solos I've ever heard. Beats the pants offa "Star Spangled Banner." Though...I have to say I AM a little particular to Purple Haze...it's kinda like a theme song for out sports teams here at ECU (our colors are purple & gold). We got shirts saying "ECU Pirates--Purple Haze. Are YOU experienced?" Uh-huh! Rage on Brother Petey!

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: ddw
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 12:00 AM

Just by the by — am I the only guitarist in the world who can't stand to listen to Jimi Hendrix?

david

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GUEST,The Beanster
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 11:54 PM

Dear Homeless, Thanks for your response. You explained a lot for me. I suppose I was confused because, instead of addressing the actual question, this thread became (infrequently, I'll concede) a debate over semantics which is not what I intended. It will be interesting, next time I start a thread, to see how long it takes for the subject to waver off the track, which I see now, it will! But thanks for putting those kind of responses in a different light for me. :)

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Mbo
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 11:49 PM

Well, I cover EVERYBODY'S stuff, so something must be said for that! Don't like the way the original performer does a particular part--change it when you sing it! That's right! Try it today folks!

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: ddw
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 11:35 PM

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?

david

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Caitrin
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 10:39 PM

I like the Byrd's version of "Mr. Tambourine Man" better than Dylan's, and I like Crosby, STills, Nash, and Young's version of "Woodstock" better than Joni Mitchell's. I still haven't decided if I like Robert Johnson or Cream's version of "Crossroads" better. *ducks to avoid flying objects : )*

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: BlueJay
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 08:25 PM

Not really a "cover", (I'm not really sure what that means by now), but IMHO the Garcia/Grismam" FRIEND OF THE DEVIL on their first CD, is FAR better than the original by the Grateful Dead. If you haven't heard it you should. It's about half tempo, with some really sweet mando and acoustic guitar breaks. It changed my way of thinking about the song.

Also, David Bromberg's "Mr. Bojangles" is FAR more to my liking than the most popular version by The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. I listen to that one now, and I almost think "Bubble Gum Music". No offense intended, as I really loved their version 30 years ago. And Jerry Jeff probably did it best, anyway.

Almost anything that Brewer and Shipley adapted.

And has been discussed on another thread, Tom Rush's version of the Joni Mitchell song, "Urge for Going", as well as her "Circle Game". Thanks

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Homeless
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 07:57 PM

Beanster - I don't think it's that anyone is being touchy - I think it more that everyone just thinks a different way. I started a thread regarding Musicians vs people who play music and watched the same thing happen. I thought I'd laid out a distinction on the difference I was trying to define, but everyone seems to have a different interpretation of the term. Same thing has happened here with 'cover.' I think each person is expressing their own interpretation or viewpoint, and not really getting upset. Remember, whatever the rules you lay out to begin with, in his(her) own universe, each person is always in the right.
It's been interesting to see other people's permutations of my original thought - very insightful for me.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GUEST,The Beanster
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 07:32 PM

Geez, LOUISE! You guys sure are touchy! I didn't realize when I wrote my original (oops, excuse me)..I mean my first posting up there, that I should have written another 14 pages of disclaimers, modifiers, qualifiers, etc. It was just a simple question. I thought we'd all have fun with the answers.

Also, I refuse to defend my use of the word "cover." I do not consider it a derogatory term. Someone suggested "alternative personal interpretation" which I thought was hilarious. If it makes you feel better, use that instead but I will not revise my use of the word to be PC. Call it what you will. That was not the question. You can always start another thread debating the use of the word "cover."

I didn't mean for this to sound so snotty, but I guess I'm tired of defending something which I find so trivial.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GUEST,SteveO
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 07:21 PM

The best collection of cover versions has got to be Shawn Colvan's "Cover Girl" CD.

SteveO

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 07:01 PM

Some thoughts:

1.Using the word "Cover" shows a bias toward recordings as opposed to live performance

2.Before this singer/songwriter recording craze, songwriters wrote mostly with the intent of having others perform their music--Rodgers and Hammerstein never had any hits of their own songs

3.Irma Thomas did the first record that I ever heard of "Yime is on My Side" and still the best--

4. Patsy Cline recorded "Crazy" years before Willie Nelson did--

5. A lot of songwriters aren't particularly good singers

6. A lot of the singer/songwriter type of material tends to be fairly personal, or ideosyncratic, so that it doesn't have much appeal to anyone other than the writer--

7. A lot of singer/songwriters don't do other material well--

Present company excepted--

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: rangeroger
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 06:56 PM

It makes total sense.
I've had several friends ask why I haven't written any songs,and I can only state that what I want to say in a song has usually be said better by someone else so I'll sing their song.
rr

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: JedMarum
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 06:34 PM

Now that I see my previous post on the forum I realize I may have sounded more angry about local songwriters then I mean to. In truth I have heard many many gifted writers, with varying performance abilities - so many with good things to offer. But I have seen a new snobbery slip in among that crowd that I find useless - who am I kidding, it makes my blood boil - that is that, "so-and-so is a good singer singer but she/he just can't write songs." That attitude usually comes from the least gifted of the writers, it seems to me, as well. Hence my disdain for the misuse of the term 'cover song.' Does that makes sense?

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: JedMarum
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 06:25 PM

Hmmm, I take exception with most of the songs defined in this thread as "covers." I have long resented the term "cover song" and heard it used in a derogatory fashion to describe any performance of a song that was not written by the performer.

In my estimation a cover song is one a performer (or band) plays that imitates the original performance. Top 40 pop bands usually do covers because their audience wants to hear performed live, their favorite pop songs, just as they sound on the radio. That, in my mind, is a cover. Jimi Hendrix, The Byrds, Joe Cocker and others above, certainly had their own twist on the songs the performed. And many of these alternate versions were wonderful; as good or better than the author's version. I wouldn't call many of those covers.

I have heard sooo many song writers with bad songs peddling their wares as if they were on par with Bob Dylan because "they don't ever do covers" I don't buy it. Singing songs is the joy and it can be the art ... writing songs is also an art. Sometimes we can do both, sometimes we can even be good at both ... but 'original' doesn't make it good. You can create very original verions of very old, long lived songs ... I don't want people to shy away from singing my songs just because they didn't write them. I would hope they would be as creative and original in their interpretation of my songs as I was in writing ... even more!

Do I sound like I have an axe to grind? {chuckle} Sorry, maybe I've just been to a few too many songwriter showcases!

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Mbo
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 05:51 PM

Just a matter of taste for me. BTW I thing Jeff Lynne's versions of "Stormy Weather" and "September Song" RULE!

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 05:31 PM

I'm never sure on this better version business as a lot of this is subjective. One thing that I have found often holds true is the version I heard first is often the "best" regardless of whether it was the original or not. Having said al that, a suggestion:

The Pogues doing The Band Played Waltzing Matilda

Jon

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Bert
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 11:47 AM

Lonnie Donnegan doing just about anything.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Hyperabid
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 08:17 AM

I think the Black Crowes did a pretty good job on "Hard to Handle" both versions are great but the BCs do a good job in a cantempotrary setting.

Hyp

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Midchuck
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 08:02 AM

Merle Haggard and George Jones' version of Willy's "Yesterday's Wine."

(I always thought the old Muppet Show should have gotten Willy to do one of the guest spots, and had him singing with a bunch of pigs with long white beards..."Yesterday's Swine"...but nobody listens when I have a really brilliant idea....)

Peter

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Brakn
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 03:23 AM

George Harrison's version of "He's So Fine". oops

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: rangeroger
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 11:51 PM

Emmylou Harris' version of Rodney Crowell's "Until I gain Control Again" sends shivers down my flesh every time I hear it.
rr

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GUEST,The Beanster
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 11:36 PM

Bugsy, Yes, "cover" sometimes has a bad connotation, but not always, I don't believe. But I know what you mean about that Embassy label. Have you ever heard of K-Tel? They specialize in sound-alike recordings--they're horrible! lol Anyway, love your ultra-politically correct "Alternative Personal Interpretations" idea! LOLOL

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Bugsy
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 10:28 PM

"Cover Versions" Seems to me to be a rather tainted term that somehow diminishes any recording or performance other than by the "Original Artist".

Whenever I think of "Cover Versions", I get vivid memories of the old "Embassy Label" that you used to buy in Woolworths in the UK during the 50's and 60's, where the artist tried to sound as much like the original as possible.

I regard the material you are talking about, as "Alternative Personal Interpretations" rather than "Cover Versions.

Cheers

Bugsy

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: sophocleese
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 10:21 PM

Thanks Homeless and Brak'n for lettin gme know the name of the song, its been bugging me for a while now.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Owlkat
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 09:33 PM

Hi hi,
I love the covers Jennifer Warnes did of Leonard Cohen's songs.
Also the double cd set of Neil Young songs did by other singers is very listenable.
On the other side of the coin, the most recent nominiee for most barf-o-rama is Madonna doing "American Pie" and for major nausea factor, try to watch the video with the sound off.
Cheers, Owl.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Brakn
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 09:26 PM

The Nazareth/Joni Mitchell one was "This Flight Tonight". They did do "Love Hurts" but that was an Everly Brothers cover I think.

Mick Bracken

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GUEST,Homeless (somewhere else)
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 09:22 PM

The Nazareth/Joni Mitchell is titled "Love Hurts"

Aerosmith doing "Cry Me a River"

Steve Miller doing "You Send Me"

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GUEST,The Beanster
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 09:14 PM

Bobby Bob/Ellan Vannin, thank you for the correction--Del Shannon! Also, what I think I meant by "original" is either a). the person who wrote it who then performs it; or b). the person who did not write it, but recorded the best-known version, by which subsequent recordings would be compared. Does that make sense?

And BlueSage, I agree with what you say: to be totally fair, they are just "different" and not necessarily better but haven't you ever heard a cover and you just like the new one a whole lot better than the old one, from that point on? No disrespect is intended toward the original artist, but taste is taste. That's all I'm saying, not to get too caught up in semantics, here.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: BlueSage
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 08:19 PM

I don't know if surpassing the original is what we should be looking at here. If an artist does something different with the song, I don't believe it's "better" as much as it is just "different". "All along the Watch Tower" as performed by Dylan, Henrix, or Michael Hedges is equally great in all of these recorded versions. It's the covers which only mimic the originals that I don't appreciate. Metallica's recent cover of Bob Segar's "Turn the Page" for example. Just my opinion....

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 07:26 PM

Anytime Christy Moore sings something you associate with another singer, he seems to do it better - but to do it in such a way that you don't feel he now owns it, but rather that you are entitled to sing it yourself, without any ghost voices in your head making you try to echo them.

I don't know anyone else who can do that to such an extent.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: MK
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 07:16 PM

George Benson's version of ''Masquerade'' as opposed to the original written and performed by Leon Russell.

Joe Cocker's version of ''She Came In Through The Bathroom Window.''

Oletta Adams version of ''Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Me.''

The Byrds' version of ''Mr. Tamborine Man'' (and practically anyone else who has ever recorded a cover of a Dylan tune.)   8-)

Little Texas' version of ''Beast of Burden.''

Ray Charles version of ''America The Beautiful''.

David Bowie's version of ''Let's Spend The Night Together.''

Patsy Kline's version of ''Crazy.''

Aretha's version of ''Bridge Over Troubled Water.''

Peter, Paul & Mary's version of ''Samson and Delilah.''

(I could go on and on...)

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GUEST,Bobby Bob, Ellan Vannin
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 07:04 PM

'Runaway' was Del Shannon.

In terms of folky stuff, probably the first version of a traditional song you hear and enjoy provides the template by which you judge subsequent versions.

However, if you really are talking about 'original' versions, it also has to mean original material of which the provenance is known. Is this the same thing?

I remember John Peel saying how he thought he really ought to prefer Neil Young's version of 'After the Goldrush', but he obviously had a strong feeling for the acapella version by Geordie group, Prelude, who had a very strong, and very popular version, of the song.

Ansherbee (Aght erbee) - Anchovy, anyway, whilst an 'original' has the benefit of originality, subsequent performances may have the benefit of insight which was unknown, even to the original performer.

It seems far, far too simplistic to suggest that somebody did it best just because they did it first.

Slaynt vie diu ooilley,

Bobby Bob.

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: sophocleese
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 06:49 PM

Aretha Franklin doing Respect.

I also like Nazareth's version of a Joni Mitchell song, whose title eludes me at the moment. Starlight?

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: Callie
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 06:21 PM

Sorry Beanster, but I heard B.R. singing Runaway just last week, and it made want to puke!

Kate Bush doing Elton John's "Rocketman" was a vast improvement on the original.

--callie

Subject: RE: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GUEST,Uncle Milty
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 05:39 PM

Sting's version of ''The Wind Cries Mary'' (Hendrix) with John McLaughin on guitar....is one that impressed me.

Earth Wind and Fire's version of ''Got To Get You Into My Life''...

Travis Tritt's version of ''Honkey Tonk Woman''...

George Jone's version of ''Time Is On My Side''...

Led Zepplin's version of ''Babe I'm Gonna Leave You'' or their version of ''You Shook Me''...

Subject: Original Songs v. Cover Versions
From: GUEST,The Beanster
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 05:25 PM

I would be curious to hear which cover versions you all think either equalled or surpassed the original recordings. Personally, the one that pops into my mind is B. Raitt's "Runaway" versus...uh oh...who was it, Dion? Maybe doesn't surpass it, but I'd say, is equal to it. Or maybe J. Hendrix' "All Along the Watchtower" versus You-Know-Who... Whatd'ya think?