DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: tjanuranus on August 13, 2011, 10:42:49 PM
-
Ok one of my big pet peeves is one people think a cover version is the original and then when you tell them it's not they are shocked. Then when they hear the original they say the cover is better. >:(
I'm a huge Prince fan and two songs he wrote that people always think are the cover artists versions are...
I feel for you off of his Self titled albums Prince from 1979. The original is great and i listen to that version the most but Chaka Kahns version is also great but in no way "Better."
Example... https://youtu.be/s99fyB3cyTc (https://youtu.be/s99fyB3cyTc)
Nothing compares to you. Sinead o Connor had a hit with it and apparently he didn't even give permission to use it. That's bullshit. He said himself he didn't want it covered.
Obviously this is about more than prince but those are some examples. Anyone feel this way or have any examples?
-
Jeff Buckley's version of "Hallelujah" is most definitely better than Leonard Cohen's version.
-
Metallica's version of Die Die My Darling. Now I hate Metallica, but they made the song not only listenable, but pretty damned good.
-
Jeff Buckley's version of "Hallelujah" is most definitely better than Leonard Cohen's version.
Maybe not to some people. And if he wrote it i don't think anything can be "Better" but hey that's just my opinion! I like Buckley's version better personally though.
-
It's an unfortunate truth that everyone knows Van Halen's versions of their popular cover songs better than the originals, and, yeah, I'd agree with you for the most part.
I'd also agree with letters' sentiment that Buckley's version of Hallelujah surpasses any other rendition of the song, original or not.
-
I don't understand why the cover can't be better. I just go by which is more appealing to my ears and leave it at that. That's just the way I treat it, though, and I'm certainly not saying it's the right way to treat it.
Buckley is a good example. Another one is that I've never cared for Nirvana at all, but I really like what Tori Amos did with a song of theirs in this performance. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvQI5-rkV_A{link})
-
I'll never understand why people think Cash's version of Hurt is better than the NIN original. It doesn't make me wanna die, though. What makes me wanna die is when 1, 000 people yell, shouting my name.
But why can't a cover ever be better than the original?
-
Yes, people who think the cover IS the original are a bit annoying, but it's easily fixable.
However covers CAN easily be better than the original. It's pretty pretentious and snobby to say it's impossible.
-
Quiet Riot's version of Cum On Feel The Noize is vastly superior to the original
-
What about DT's cover(s) of Tenement Funster / Flick Of The Wrist / Lily Of The Valley? Personally I find them much better than the originals.
-
What i mean is better is relative. To one person it's better to another it's not but the original song writers intent should always be held as the greatest form. EVEN if you like another version better. Because i liked some cover versions more than others.
-
It goes for movies as well when people don't know about the original. Or they think the remake of a Nightmare on elm street is superior to the original. I mean are you fucking kidding me!!!????!?
-
To one person it's better to another it's not but the original song writers intent should always be held as the greatest form. EVEN if you like another version better.
Why is this? I mean to say, is there a reason to think this way besides that it's "just the original."
-
To one person it's better to another it's not but the original song writers intent should always be held as the greatest form. EVEN if you like another version better.
Why is this?
Imagine someone painted another version of the Mona Lisa. It can never be truly better, even if you like the new version more because the original is the art in it's TRUEST form and nothing can be better than that.
-
the original song writers intent should always be held as the greatest form.
No.
-
the original song writers intent should always be held as the greatest form.
No.
I highly disagree with this. Obviously.
-
For instance i can say the original is the way it supposed to be and the true form but i prefer someone's interpretation more. That's fine to me.
-
It can never be truly better, even if you like the new version more because the original is the art in it's TRUEST form and nothing can be better than that.
How do you determine what is "art in its truest form?"
-
It can never be truly better, even if you like the new version more because the original is the art in it's TRUEST form and nothing can be better than that.
How do you determine what is "art in its truest form?"
Original intention.
-
I told this story in the chat thread a few weeks ago, but some guy called in to the local rock station to request Holy Diver. When the DJ asked him if he wanted Killswitch's cover or the Dio original, he said "What? You mean that's not a Killswitch song?" The DJ laughed in disbelief, then asked him if he'd like to hear the original. The caller declined, and they played Killswitch's cover instead.
-
I told this story in the chat thread a few weeks ago, but some guy called in to the local rock station to request Holy Diver. When the DJ asked him if he wanted Killswitch's cover or the Dio original, he said "What? You mean that's not a Killswitch song?" The DJ laughed in disbelief, then asked him if he'd like to hear the original. The caller declined, and they played Killswitch's cover instead.
:facepalm:
-
I told this story in the chat thread a few weeks ago, but some guy called in to the local rock station to request Holy Diver. When the DJ asked him if he wanted Killswitch's cover or the Dio original, he said "What? You mean that's not a Killswitch song?" The DJ laughed in disbelief, then asked him if he'd like to hear the original. The caller declined, and they played Killswitch's cover instead.
:facepalm:
-
I do think I understand where you're coming from. You're trying to say that as an artist, the original creator's intent of how the piece was to be perceived/performed/displayed is as good as something can get, as it personifies the original creator's image of what he aspired to create. That, in itself, can be true, I suppose, but others, also being artists, have their own interpretations and visions of ideas and concepts, and those different ideas are what makes some covers great.
You're saying that even though a re-imagining of the concept might improve upon a piece in all aspects, a piece's original form is still as good as it can get. I don't agree with that, as everything can be improved, and nothing is perfect, at least from my point of view. You can still appreciate and identify with the original artists' intent with creating the original piece, but to say that just because it is the original therefore it is better isn't completely fair.
-
I told this story in the chat thread a few weeks ago, but some guy called in to the local rock station to request Holy Diver. When the DJ asked him if he wanted Killswitch's cover or the Dio original, he said "What? You mean that's not a Killswitch song?" The DJ laughed in disbelief, then asked him if he'd like to hear the original. The caller declined, and they played Killswitch's cover instead.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I MADE THIS THREAD. EXACTLY.
-
Circular reasoning all up in here
-
I do think I understand where you're coming from. You're trying to say that as an artist, the original creator's intent of how the piece was to be perceived/performed/displayed is as good as something can get, as it personifies the original creator's image of what he aspired to create. That, in itself, can be true, I suppose, but others, also being artists, have their own interpretations and visions of ideas and concepts, and those different ideas are what makes some covers great.
You're saying that even though a re-imagining of the concept might improve upon a piece in all aspects, a piece's original form is still as good as it can get. I don't agree with that, as everything can be improved, and nothing is perfect, at least from my point of view. You can still appreciate and identify with the original artists' intent with creating the original piece, but to say that just because it is the original therefore it is better isn't completely fair.
Very close. I'm saying that someone had the original music/ lyrics in their brain and created something from NOTHING. That is the purest artistic version of the song. Anything else is a copy in one way or another and a copy can never be as good as pure art. Even if you or I like the copy better. Even if everyone on the planet liked it better!
-
Circular reasoning all up in here
I prefer coordinate reasoning.
It gets to the point.
-
Yeah well graphing is where I draw the line
-
I do think I understand where you're coming from. You're trying to say that as an artist, the original creator's intent of how the piece was to be perceived/performed/displayed is as good as something can get, as it personifies the original creator's image of what he aspired to create. That, in itself, can be true, I suppose, but others, also being artists, have their own interpretations and visions of ideas and concepts, and those different ideas are what makes some covers great.
You're saying that even though a re-imagining of the concept might improve upon a piece in all aspects, a piece's original form is still as good as it can get. I don't agree with that, as everything can be improved, and nothing is perfect, at least from my point of view. You can still appreciate and identify with the original artists' intent with creating the original piece, but to say that just because it is the original therefore it is better isn't completely fair.
Very close. I'm saying that someone had the original music/ lyrics in their brain and created something from NOTHING. That is the purest artistic version of the song. Anything else is a copy in one way or another and a copy can never be as good as pure art. Even if you or I like the copy better. Even if everyone on the planet liked it better!
This seems like a bumpy road to the argument on whether or not there can be objectivity in the quality of music. I don't buy it at all.
How does the fact that it's a cover suddenly cross out subjectivity in the quality of music?
-
Yeah well graphing is where I draw the line
You better square that opinion.
It seems a bit radical.
-
I do think I understand where you're coming from. You're trying to say that as an artist, the original creator's intent of how the piece was to be perceived/performed/displayed is as good as something can get, as it personifies the original creator's image of what he aspired to create. That, in itself, can be true, I suppose, but others, also being artists, have their own interpretations and visions of ideas and concepts, and those different ideas are what makes some covers great.
You're saying that even though a re-imagining of the concept might improve upon a piece in all aspects, a piece's original form is still as good as it can get. I don't agree with that, as everything can be improved, and nothing is perfect, at least from my point of view. You can still appreciate and identify with the original artists' intent with creating the original piece, but to say that just because it is the original therefore it is better isn't completely fair.
Very close. I'm saying that someone had the original music/ lyrics in their brain and created something from NOTHING. That is the purest artistic version of the song. Anything else is a copy in one way or another and a copy can never be as good as pure art. Even if you or I like the copy better. Even if everyone on the planet liked it better!
I don't mean to be nitpicky, but you don't just create something from nothing. Every song is a manifestation of influences, ranging from subtle (as in an original song) to obvious (as in a cover song) but my point is that this concept of "pure art" that you seem to be throwing around doesn't seem very distinguishable.
-
Tj, bro, what are you smoking?
-
I do think I understand where you're coming from. You're trying to say that as an artist, the original creator's intent of how the piece was to be perceived/performed/displayed is as good as something can get, as it personifies the original creator's image of what he aspired to create. That, in itself, can be true, I suppose, but others, also being artists, have their own interpretations and visions of ideas and concepts, and those different ideas are what makes some covers great.
You're saying that even though a re-imagining of the concept might improve upon a piece in all aspects, a piece's original form is still as good as it can get. I don't agree with that, as everything can be improved, and nothing is perfect, at least from my point of view. You can still appreciate and identify with the original artists' intent with creating the original piece, but to say that just because it is the original therefore it is better isn't completely fair.
Very close. I'm saying that someone had the original music/ lyrics in their brain and created something from NOTHING. That is the purest artistic version of the song. Anything else is a copy in one way or another and a copy can never be as good as pure art. Even if you or I like the copy better. Even if everyone on the planet liked it better!
This seems like a bumpy road to the argument on whether or not there can be objectivity in the quality of music. I don't buy it at all.
How does the fact that it's a cover suddenly cross out subjectivity in the quality of music?
It's not that you cant think it's better personally. Or you enjoy it more.. to your ears and brain but it can never be truly better. As i prefer some DT covers over the original I would never say to someone who likes the original.. Hey you should here DT's version is soooo much better.
-
Tj, bro, what are you smoking?
i'm damn hungry is what i am.
-
Go eat something, you're thinking incorrectly :biggrin:
-
It's not you can think it's better personally. Or you enjoy it more.. to your ears and brain but it can never be truly better.
That's ridiculous.
-
It's not you can think it's better personally. Or you enjoy it more.. to your ears and brain but it can never be truly better.
That's ridiculous.
sorry for typos. Like i said i'm hungry as shit.
-
It's not you can think it's better personally. Or you enjoy it more.. to your ears and brain but it can never be truly better.
That's ridiculous.
no YOU! ;)
-
Heh.
-
It's not you can think it's better personally. Or you enjoy it more.. to your ears and brain but it can never be truly better.
That's ridiculous.
no YOU! ;)
(https://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab57/VanDerGraafGenerator/fabulousFantastic.png)
-
Swany, what about when the original artist likes the cover better than the original?
An example would be Devin Townsend. He hear Annekes version of Hyperdrive and was like "damn...this is what the original should have been".
In most cases, I'd agree with you. But I disagree with the absoluteness of it.
An artist could have an idea for a song, but not entirely realize it. Then someone else could hear the song, realize what the artist was trying to do and then do it properly that lives up to the original intention that the original artist might not have been able to realize at the time.
-
It's not you can think it's better personally. Or you enjoy it more.. to your ears and brain but it can never be truly better.
That's ridiculous.
no YOU! ;)
(https://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab57/VanDerGraafGenerator/fabulousFantastic.png)
:rollin
Lets see...my opinions on Covers..If I find it better than the original then I do, but if someone likes the original more its not like I tell them they need to listen to the cover because its totally better. Thats why its called an opinion.
-
Ok what are your opinions on this then?
https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459 (https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459)
I saw this interview and it spurred up my feelings on the fact that people don't even know when something is a cover anymore and they diss the original. I just hate that. Vid is only a minute long but i don't think he's lying and that is FUCKED up to me.
-
Ok what are your opinions on this then?
https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459 (https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459)
I saw this interview and it spurred up my feelings on the fact that people don't even know when something is a cover anymore and they diss the original. I just hate that. Vid is only a minute long but i don't think he's lying and that is FUCKED up to me.
I never really liked Prince personally, he really gets edgy over a lot of nothing. But I still partially see what he gets at, it sucks when people think you're the one covering, but eh, I don't know. I usually love covers. Sylosis covered Death and it wasn't as good, but damn it was radular.
-
Ok what are your opinions on this then?
https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459 (https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459)
I saw this interview and it spurred up my feelings on the fact that people don't even know when something is a cover anymore and they diss the original. I just hate that. Vid is only a minute long but i don't think he's lying and that is FUCKED up to me.
It seems you're more pissed about people not knowing something about music that you personally do. As time goes on, older songs become lesser known to younger generations, and if a newer band covers it, a lot of people are going to wrongfully assume it's their song. That's not something to get pissed about, it's just ignorance which is VERY easily fixed.
For instance, my mom thought forever that Scarborough Fair was a Simon and Garfunkel song. So what? I told her it wasn't and life went on. Not everyone who listens to Killswitch listens to Dio. People learn by being taught, if no one is ever taught that Holy Diver is a Dio song, then it's not their fault that they don't know it. Calm down and stop being so snobby about everything.
-
Ok what are your opinions on this then?
https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459 (https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459)
I saw this interview and it spurred up my feelings on the fact that people don't even know when something is a cover anymore and they diss the original. I just hate that. Vid is only a minute long but i don't think he's lying and that is FUCKED up to me.
I think it's actually pretty silly for an artist to not want his songs to be rearranged by others. Art is a very open thing to me, and if this Prince fellow writes a song and puts it out there I see no reason why it should be untouchable to others who want to make their own interpretation of it. If another version becomes better known, that's because it was made more appealing to the people and that's the way it works.
-
I thought Journey's cover of Don't Stop Believin' was horrible (https://www.mikeportnoy.com/forum/upfiles/smiley/s5.gif)
-
This is why I don't like talk about music being good/bad/better in an objective sense. It's gets all sticky (lol) in these situations. I enjoy DT's version of Take Your Fingers From My Hair more than Zebra's original. Is it better? I wouldn't say that, but I wouldn't it's worse either. It's just different, and I happen to like those differences more.
-
Ok what are your opinions on this then?
https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459 (https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459)
I saw this interview and it spurred up my feelings on the fact that people don't even know when something is a cover anymore and they diss the original. I just hate that. Vid is only a minute long but i don't think he's lying and that is FUCKED up to me.
I think it's actually pretty silly for an artist to not want his songs to be rearranged by others. Art is a very open thing to me, and if this Prince fellow writes a song and puts it out there I see no reason why it should be untouchable to others who want to make their own interpretation of it. If another version becomes better known, that's because it was made more appealing to the people and that's the way it works.
But as the creator it should his right now to have it covered if he doesn't want it to be. You cant remake a movie without permission.
-
I thought Journey's cover of Don't Stop Believin' was horrible (https://www.mikeportnoy.com/forum/upfiles/smiley/s5.gif)
I think you shouldn't be bashing Journey like that. Unless you really want to.
-
I'm more of pointing out how some people probably believe that Glee wrote DSB and Journey covered it. Believe me, I've heard it before.
-
Man, where is natural selection when humanity needs it?
-
For instance, my mom thought forever that Scarborough Fair was a Simon and Garfunkel song. So what? I told her it wasn't and life went on. Not everyone who listens to Killswitch listens to Dio. People learn by being taught, if no one is ever taught that Holy Diver is a Dio song, then it's not their fault that they don't know it. Calm down and stop being so snobby about everything.
Ok i agree with you that if someone has never heard the original they shouldn't be yelled at or whatever but some people either don't care to learn or when they find out there is an original they don't care or they say it's shit because it's "old." That kind of shit is what i'm talking about.
-
I'm more of pointing out how some people probably believe that Glee wrote DSB and Journey covered it. Believe me, I've heard it before.
i don't want to live on a planet where people actually think that the songs on Glee are original. Seriously i don't. It might be time to think about offing myself real soon.
-
But as the creator it should his right now to have it covered if he doesn't want it to be.
I disagree. I don't know what else to say because you didn't really back this up with anything.
-
I'm more of pointing out how some people probably believe that Glee wrote DSB and Journey covered it. Believe me, I've heard it before.
And it's even worse when you know that in that Glee episode or whatever, they were doing a tribute to Journey. So they're ignorant and they don't pay attention to show the they're obsessed with.
-
I'd like to know what all the commotion about this Glee show is.
It seems I'm the only person in the US and maybe one of 5 in the developed world who have never watched it.
-
I'm more of pointing out how some people probably believe that Glee wrote DSB and Journey covered it. Believe me, I've heard it before.
And it's even worse when you know that in that Glee episode or whatever, they were doing a tribute to Journey. So they're ignorant and they don't pay attention to show the they're obsessed with.
I agree completely.
I've never watched it either MSZ
-
Ok what are your opinions on this then?
https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459 (https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459)
I saw this interview and it spurred up my feelings on the fact that people don't even know when something is a cover anymore and they diss the original. I just hate that. Vid is only a minute long but i don't think he's lying and that is FUCKED up to me.
I think it's actually pretty silly for an artist to not want his songs to be rearranged by others. Art is a very open thing to me, and if this Prince fellow writes a song and puts it out there I see no reason why it should be untouchable to others who want to make their own interpretation of it. If another version becomes better known, that's because it was made more appealing to the people and that's the way it works.
But as the creator it should his right now to have it covered if he doesn't want it to be. You cant remake a movie without permission.
Once the record company owns the rights to your songs, you give up the right to complain about what happens to it. It sucks that people assume his songs are other peoples songs, but that's life sometimes. He's one of a very few group of people complaining about it.
Also, what about jazz, classical or blues? Almost everything played by modern jazz and classical artists are "covers". Should that stop?
-
But as the creator it should his right now to have it covered if he doesn't want it to be.
I disagree. I don't know what else to say because you didn't really back this up with anything.
You can't remake a movie without permission. Why should music be any different.
-
Death's cover of Painkiller is better than the Judas Priest original. It's the only example I can think of, but I firmly believe that.
-
But as the creator it should his right now to have it covered if he doesn't want it to be.
I disagree. I don't know what else to say because you didn't really back this up with anything.
You can't remake a movie without permission. Why should music be any different.
You get permission from the people who own the rights. If a record company owns the rights to prince's songs, then their permission is enough.
Should record companies own rights? No. But that's how it is.
-
Ok what are your opinions on this then?
https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459 (https://dimewars.com/Video/Did-They-Do-That-To-The-Artist-Formally-Known-As-Prince----Sinead-O-Connor--Chaka-Khan-Stealing-His-Songs.aspx?bcmediaid=6478024b-d202-4f83-ab97-a3e276906459)
I saw this interview and it spurred up my feelings on the fact that people don't even know when something is a cover anymore and they diss the original. I just hate that. Vid is only a minute long but i don't think he's lying and that is FUCKED up to me.
I think it's actually pretty silly for an artist to not want his songs to be rearranged by others. Art is a very open thing to me, and if this Prince fellow writes a song and puts it out there I see no reason why it should be untouchable to others who want to make their own interpretation of it. If another version becomes better known, that's because it was made more appealing to the people and that's the way it works.
But as the creator it should his right now to have it covered if he doesn't want it to be. You cant remake a movie without permission.
Once the record company owns the rights to your songs, you give up the right to complain about what happens to it. It sucks that people assume his songs are other peoples songs, but that's life sometimes. He's one of a very few group of people complaining about it.
Also, what about jazz, classical or blues? Almost everything played by modern jazz and classical artists are "covers". Should that stop?
Well if they don't get permission they yeah. Write something original for fucks sake or get permission.
-
I'd like to know what all the commotion about this Glee show is.
It seems I'm the only person in the US and maybe one of 5 in the developed world who have never watched it.
People sing songs and there is teenage drama and it is a bad show if you ask me. I have friends who are absolutely wild about it, but I don't get the appeal. However, I don't see anything wrong with people identifying with Glee versions of songs over the originals.
-
But as the creator it should his right now to have it covered if he doesn't want it to be.
I disagree. I don't know what else to say because you didn't really back this up with anything.
You can't remake a movie without permission. Why should music be any different.
Because live performances are okay. Otherwise say goodbye to karaoke. Correct if I'm wrong, but don't you have to get permission to put a cover on an album that you sell for money?
-
Death's cover of Painkiller is better than the Judas Priest original. It's the only example I can think of, but I firmly believe that.
And you're true.
-
But as the creator it should his right now to have it covered if he doesn't want it to be.
I disagree. I don't know what else to say because you didn't really back this up with anything.
You can't remake a movie without permission. Why should music be any different.
You get permission from the people who own the rights. If a record company owns the rights to prince's songs, then their permission is enough.
Should record companies own rights? No. But that's how it is.
Well i guess that's the real issue anyway that this all goes back to . That is BULLSHIT.
-
Prince is a huge hypocrite. He covered Radiohead's Creep live a few years ago, and then had the nerve to have his lawyers remove the video from online sources like youtube. Even Radiohead complained about that, as they were generally curious to hear Prince's take on their song. And yet he complains about others covering his songs, proving once again what a huge douche he is. I get that live is different from studio work, but that was not his song that he had removed.
-
Yes, it's a bad situation. But it's a bad situation that Prince allowed to happen.
At some point between writing the songs and releasing the songs, he OK'd letting the company control it. Blame him.
-
But as the creator it should his right now to have it covered if he doesn't want it to be.
I disagree. I don't know what else to say because you didn't really back this up with anything.
You can't remake a movie without permission. Why should music be any different.
Because live performances are okay. Otherwise say goodbye to karaoke. COrrect if I'm wrong, but don't have to get permission to put a cover on an album that you sell for money?
I'm not talking about live versions. I'm talking about albums and that's what HE's talking about in the video when he mentions Sinead O Conner. Didn't seem like he wanted that to happen even though he wrote it.
-
I do admit, I do admire that fact that Glee's covers have in some part re-vitalized a bands career in the eyes of a younger generation. I have a few friends that heard the Glee cover and checked out more Journey
-
Prince is a huge hypocrite. He covered Radiohead's Creep live a few years ago, and then had the nerve to have his lawyers remove the video from online sources like youtube. Even Radiohead complained about that, as they were generally curious to hear Prince's take on their song. And yet he complains about others covering his songs, proving once again what a huge douche he is. I get that live is different from studio work, but that was not his song that he had removed.
The difference is it was live and he wasn't talking about live versions. He never sold a version of him covering it on an album. He's covered other songs and got the rights to them first. Like what if god was one of us.
-
Prince is a huge hypocrite. He covered Radiohead's Creep live a few years ago, and then had the nerve to have his lawyers remove the video from online sources like youtube. Even Radiohead complained about that, as they were generally curious to hear Prince's take on their song. And yet he complains about others covering his songs, proving once again what a huge douche he is. I get that live is different from studio work, but that was not his song that he had removed.
The difference is it was live and he wasn't talking about live versions. He never sold a version of him covering it on an album. He's covered other songs and got the rights to them first. Like what if god was one of us.
And I can assure you that anytime someone covers a Prince song on a CD, he's credited as the writer.
-
there's a huge difference in covering a song at a live concert one time or a few times and not putting out an album with it on there and having someone take your song and have a huge hit out of it when you didn't want it done.
-
there's a huge difference in covering a song at a live concert one time or a few times and not putting out an album with it on there and having someone take your song and have a huge hit out of it when you didn't want it done.
Maybe you missed where I posted this................HE ALLOWED THE RIGHTS TO BE GIVEN TO OTHER PEOPLE. He is to blame.
-
Prince is a huge hypocrite. He covered Radiohead's Creep live a few years ago, and then had the nerve to have his lawyers remove the video from online sources like youtube. Even Radiohead complained about that, as they were generally curious to hear Prince's take on their song. And yet he complains about others covering his songs, proving once again what a huge douche he is. I get that live is different from studio work, but that was not his song that he had removed.
The difference is it was live and he wasn't talking about live versions. He never sold a version of him covering it on an album. He's covered other songs and got the rights to them first. Like what if god was one of us.
And I can assure you that anytime someone covers a Prince song on a CD, he's credited as the writer.
But that's not what he's talking about though. He's saying if I write a song i don't want one anyone else to cover it and put it on a cd and sell it for profit then that should be my right as the creator.
-
there's a huge difference in covering a song at a live concert one time or a few times and not putting out an album with it on there and having someone take your song and have a huge hit out of it when you didn't want it done.
Maybe you missed where I posted this................HE ALLOWED THE RIGHTS TO BE GIVEN TO OTHER PEOPLE. He is to blame.
Kinda but he signed his first deal when he was a 17 year old kid and had it for a long time. I mean really they baited him into it because he wanted a career and back then you really couldn't do it without a record label. Now he would have no excuse of course.
-
Then make sure you've negotiated a copyright deal that does not allow other artists to record it and sell the recordings.
-
Then make sure you've negotiated a copyright deal that does not allow other artists to record it and sell the recordings.
But in that video he talks about a law that says you can't do that.
-
there's a huge difference in covering a song at a live concert one time or a few times and not putting out an album with it on there and having someone take your song and have a huge hit out of it when you didn't want it done.
Maybe you missed where I posted this................HE ALLOWED THE RIGHTS TO BE GIVEN TO OTHER PEOPLE. He is to blame.
Kinda but he signed his first deal when he was a 17 year old kid and had it for a long time. I mean really they baited him into it because he wanted a career and back then you really couldn't do it without a record label. Now he would have no excuse of course.
So what? He signed a bad deal and is now suffering the consequences. Such is life dude. He's Prince, he can move labels as many times as he wants and make new contracts. He doesn't care, he just wants to complain.
People are to blame for their decisions, this was his. Don't take away his responsibility just because you feel his pain.
-
This thread makes no sense to me. If an artist can take an existing song and spin it in a way that makes it interesting or unique from the original, awesome. I love hearing more music, and I love hearing unique perspectives on existing songs. The level of variety that can be achieved with even small, subtle changes to a song is staggering to me, and I love hearing it.
If someone says that the cover is better, then to them it is. Having your name in the writing credit of a song doesn't give bonus points in terms of the quality of the song - By that logic the demo tape of a song is the 'best' version, because it was the original recording; the album version was corrupted by the producer and sound engineer and all those other assholes who put their own touches on it. If you want to argue that there's some objective 'best' version that's separate from your own opinion, go right ahead, but it's a completely ridiculous (and pointless) argument to make.
-
Then make sure you've negotiated a copyright deal that does not allow other artists to record it and sell the recordings.
But in that video he talks about a law that says you can't do that.
...without permission. Which they have.
-
This thread makes no sense to me. If an artist can take an existing song and spin it in a way that makes it interesting or unique from the original, awesome. I love hearing more music, and I love hearing unique perspectives on existing songs. The level of variety that can be achieved with even small, subtle changes to a song is staggering to me, and I love hearing it.
If someone says that the cover is better, then to them it is. Having your name in the writing credit of a song doesn't give bonus points in terms of the quality of the song - By that logic the demo tape of a song is the 'best' version, because it was the original recording; the album version was corrupted by the producer and sound engineer and all those other assholes who put their own touches on it. If you want to argue that there's some objective 'best' version that's separate from your own opinion, go right ahead, but it's a completely ridiculous (and pointless) argument to make.
Um, the FII demos?
I generally agree with your statement, but there are some exceptions.
-
Then make sure you've negotiated a copyright deal that does not allow other artists to record it and sell the recordings.
But in that video he talks about a law that says you can't do that.
He doesn't say that there is a law saying you can't negotiate this. He's just bitching because he signed on to this condition and he doesn't like it.
-
Then make sure you've negotiated a copyright deal that does not allow other artists to record it and sell the recordings.
But in that video he talks about a law that says you can't do that.
...without permission. Which they have.
Here is a quote from the video...
"See there's this thing called the Compulsory license law which allows artists through the record company to take your music at will without your permission and that doesn't exist in any other art form like books or movies."
-
This thread makes no sense to me. If an artist can take an existing song and spin it in a way that makes it interesting or unique from the original, awesome. I love hearing more music, and I love hearing unique perspectives on existing songs. The level of variety that can be achieved with even small, subtle changes to a song is staggering to me, and I love hearing it.
If someone says that the cover is better, then to them it is. Having your name in the writing credit of a song doesn't give bonus points in terms of the quality of the song - By that logic the demo tape of a song is the 'best' version, because it was the original recording; the album version was corrupted by the producer and sound engineer and all those other assholes who put their own touches on it. If you want to argue that there's some objective 'best' version that's separate from your own opinion, go right ahead, but it's a completely ridiculous (and pointless) argument to make.
Um, the FII demos?
I generally agree with your statement, but there are some exceptions.
What about them? It's perfectly possible for demos to be better than the album version, but if they are it's because they're better, not because they're the 'original' version.
-
This thread makes no sense to me. If an artist can take an existing song and spin it in a way that makes it interesting or unique from the original, awesome. I love hearing more music, and I love hearing unique perspectives on existing songs. The level of variety that can be achieved with even small, subtle changes to a song is staggering to me, and I love hearing it.
I basically agree with you. But that wasn't my point.
-
Then make sure you've negotiated a copyright deal that does not allow other artists to record it and sell the recordings.
But in that video he talks about a law that says you can't do that.
...without permission. Which they have.
Here is a quote from the video...
"See there's this thing called the Compulsory license law which allows artists through the record company to take your music at will without your permission and that doesn't exist in any other art form like books or movies."
Because the company owns them. He screwed up, he's suffering the consequences. Boohoo.
-
This thread makes no sense to me. If an artist can take an existing song and spin it in a way that makes it interesting or unique from the original, awesome. I love hearing more music, and I love hearing unique perspectives on existing songs. The level of variety that can be achieved with even small, subtle changes to a song is staggering to me, and I love hearing it.
I basically agree with you. But that wasn't my point.
Honestly, I have no idea what your point is. The OP said how much you hated when people didn't know a cover was a cover, and then it was when they said the cover was better, and then there's all this shit about record companies and rights, and I really have no idea what the fuck is going on.
-
This thread makes no sense to me. If an artist can take an existing song and spin it in a way that makes it interesting or unique from the original, awesome. I love hearing more music, and I love hearing unique perspectives on existing songs. The level of variety that can be achieved with even small, subtle changes to a song is staggering to me, and I love hearing it.
I basically agree with you. But that wasn't my point.
Honestly, I have no idea what your point is. The OP said how much you hated when people didn't know a cover was a cover, and then it was when they said the cover was better, and then there's all this shit about record companies and rights, and I really have no idea what the fuck is going on.
Basically I hate when people think covers are original and then when they find out it's not they dismiss the original as bullshit because it's old. That's the gist of it.
-
*looks back at the last 3 pages*
um... all right then.
-
What about if I don't like the original? Do I have to like the original to like the cover?
-
What about if I don't like the original? Do I have to like the original to like the cover?
No. but people have such an arrogance about the originals being bullshit sometimes because they are old.
-
What about if I don't like the original? Do I have to like the original to like the cover?
No. but people have such an arrogance about the originals being bullshit sometimes because they are old.
About as bad as people who have such arrogance about the originals being perfect because they're the original.
-
What about if I don't like the original? Do I have to like the original to like the cover?
No. but people have such an arrogance about the originals being bullshit sometimes because they are old.
About as bad as people who have such arrogance about the originals being perfect because they're the original.
i never said anything was perfect. I just said that art in it's purest form when copied can never be bested only interpreted differently. That's not being arrogant.
*edit.. fuck i can't type right now!*
-
And I pointed out an argument to that which you either didn't see or ignored.
-
And I pointed out an argument to that which you either didn't see or ignored.
did you not see my response? Are you ignoring mine? lol
-
What about if I don't like the original? Do I have to like the original to like the cover?
No. but people have such an arrogance about the originals being bullshit sometimes because they are old.
About as bad as people who have such arrogance about the originals being perfect because they're the original.
i never said anything was perfect. I just said that art in it's purest form when copy can never be bested only interpreted differently. That's not being arrogant.
I still think that this concept of "art in its purest form" is a pretty ridiculous one to be throwing around.
-
And I pointed out an argument to that which you either didn't see or ignored.
did you not see my response? Are you ignoring mine? lol
I just looked, you never responded to it. Here, to avoid this dragging out, I'll just quote what I said.
Swany, what about when the original artist likes the cover better than the original?
An example would be Devin Townsend. He hear Annekes version of Hyperdrive and was like "damn...this is what the original should have been".
In most cases, I'd agree with you. But I disagree with the absoluteness of it.
An artist could have an idea for a song, but not entirely realize it. Then someone else could hear the song, realize what the artist was trying to do and then do it properly that lives up to the original intention that the original artist might not have been able to realize at the time.
-
And I pointed out an argument to that which you either didn't see or ignored.
did you not see my response? Are you ignoring mine? lol
I just looked, you never responded to it. Here, to avoid this dragging out, I'll just quote what I said.
Swany, what about when the original artist likes the cover better than the original?
An example would be Devin Townsend. He hear Annekes version of Hyperdrive and was like "damn...this is what the original should have been".
In most cases, I'd agree with you. But I disagree with the absoluteness of it.
An artist could have an idea for a song, but not entirely realize it. Then someone else could hear the song, realize what the artist was trying to do and then do it properly that lives up to the original intention that the original artist might not have been able to realize at the time.
Sorry i thought you were referring to the contract thing. I agree with you but I still feel that everything after the original is a copy and therefore could never be "Better." EVEN IF I LIKE IT BETTER!
-
So the artists intention don't matter in that case?
You said the original 100% of the time captures the artists intentions better than any cover ever could. So when the artist disagrees with that and thinks a cover captures the intentions better, then they have it wrong?
-
So the artists intention don't matter in that case?
You said the original 100% of the time captures the artists intentions better than any cover ever could. So when the artist disagrees with that and thinks a cover captures the intentions better, then they have it wrong?
I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong. But it's simply a different interpretation or an altered copy.
-
The first telephone ever created was the best one ever. Every other one created since is merely a pale imitation of the first telephone.
-
And I pointed out an argument to that which you either didn't see or ignored.
did you not see my response? Are you ignoring mine? lol
I just looked, you never responded to it. Here, to avoid this dragging out, I'll just quote what I said.
Swany, what about when the original artist likes the cover better than the original?
An example would be Devin Townsend. He hear Annekes version of Hyperdrive and was like "damn...this is what the original should have been".
In most cases, I'd agree with you. But I disagree with the absoluteness of it.
An artist could have an idea for a song, but not entirely realize it. Then someone else could hear the song, realize what the artist was trying to do and then do it properly that lives up to the original intention that the original artist might not have been able to realize at the time.
Sorry i thought you were referring to the contract thing. I agree with you but I still feel that everything after the original is a copy and therefore could never be "Better." EVEN IF I LIKE IT BETTER!
This seems like it's getting into the subjectively vs. objectively better argument, which leads me to believe this is bullshit.
-
The first telephone ever created was the best one ever. Every other one created since is merely a pale imitation of the first telephone.
One is art and one is technology, two totally different things. A telephone and music are not even comparable. Technology by it's nature is meant to be improved on.
-
So the artists intention don't matter in that case?
You said the original 100% of the time captures the artists intentions better than any cover ever could. So when the artist disagrees with that and thinks a cover captures the intentions better, then they have it wrong?
I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong. But it's simply a different interpretation or an altered copy.
I'm going to type this in caps since you haven't answered it several times now, I'm not yelling just trying to emphasize it.
WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE ORIGINAL ARTIST AGREES THAT THE COVER BETTER CONVEYS THE POINT OF THE SONG?
-
So the artists intention don't matter in that case?
You said the original 100% of the time captures the artists intentions better than any cover ever could. So when the artist disagrees with that and thinks a cover captures the intentions better, then they have it wrong?
I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong. But it's simply a different interpretation or an altered copy.
I'm going to type this in caps since you haven't answered it several times now, I'm not yelling just trying to emphasize it.
WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE ORIGINAL ARTIST AGREES THAT THE COVER BETTER CONVEYS THE POINT OF THE SONG?
That's there opinion and it's valid of course. Mine is more of an idealogical one. If that's the way they feel than fine but I would guess majority of the time it's not that way. I can't imagine journey feels the glee version is better for instance.
-
I wasn't arguing that it's always the case, in fact that's what I'm arguing against.
I agree, most covers don't capture the intention as well as the original. But it's possible to do so. You claimed it was impossible. As I stated at the beginning, I was just arguing the absoluteness of the statement.
-
I wasn't arguing that it's always the case, in fact that's what I'm arguing against.
I agree, most covers don't capture the intention as well as the original. But it's possible to do so. You claimed it was impossible. As I stated at the beginning, I was just arguing the absoluteness of the statement.
I guess my absoluteness is this. I don't believe that art in it's purest form can ever be bested.
YEs i do listen to covers and enjoy them sometimes more than original. But i still stand by my statement.
-
I wasn't arguing that it's always the case, in fact that's what I'm arguing against.
I agree, most covers don't capture the intention as well as the original. But it's possible to do so. You claimed it was impossible. As I stated at the beginning, I was just arguing the absoluteness of the statement.
I guess my absoluteness is this. I don't believe that art in it's purest form can ever be bested.
YEs i do listen to covers and enjoy them sometimes more than original. But i still stand by my statement.
I think your concept of art in its purest form is elitist nonsense.
-
I wasn't arguing that it's always the case, in fact that's what I'm arguing against.
I agree, most covers don't capture the intention as well as the original. But it's possible to do so. You claimed it was impossible. As I stated at the beginning, I was just arguing the absoluteness of the statement.
I guess my absoluteness is this. I don't believe that art in it's purest form can ever be bested.
YEs i do listen to covers and enjoy them sometimes more than original. But i still stand by my statement.
This seems like it's getting into the subjectively vs. objectively better argument, which leads me to believe this is bullshit.
Also I agree with Adami above.
-
I wasn't arguing that it's always the case, in fact that's what I'm arguing against.
I agree, most covers don't capture the intention as well as the original. But it's possible to do so. You claimed it was impossible. As I stated at the beginning, I was just arguing the absoluteness of the statement.
I guess my absoluteness is this. I don't believe that art in it's purest form can ever be bested.
YEs i do listen to covers and enjoy them sometimes more than original. But i still stand by my statement.
I think your concept of art in its purest form is elitist nonsense.
How is that elitist in any sense? If I said all music besides rock is bullshit and sucks then that would be elitist. I never said all covers suck and the original ones should only exist. THAt would be elitist.
-
I wasn't arguing that it's always the case, in fact that's what I'm arguing against.
I agree, most covers don't capture the intention as well as the original. But it's possible to do so. You claimed it was impossible. As I stated at the beginning, I was just arguing the absoluteness of the statement.
I guess my absoluteness is this. I don't believe that art in it's purest form can ever be bested.
YEs i do listen to covers and enjoy them sometimes more than original. But i still stand by my statement.
I think your concept of art in its purest form is elitist nonsense.
How is that elitist in any sense? If I said all music besides rock is bullshit and socks then that would be elitist. I never said all covers suck and the original ones should only exist. THAt would be elitist.
It is elitist nonsense because you are claiming certain art to be more "pure" than other art (hence the elitism) and describing a quality of art (purity) which does not exist. (hence the nonsense)
-
I wasn't arguing that it's always the case, in fact that's what I'm arguing against.
I agree, most covers don't capture the intention as well as the original. But it's possible to do so. You claimed it was impossible. As I stated at the beginning, I was just arguing the absoluteness of the statement.
I guess my absoluteness is this. I don't believe that art in it's purest form can ever be bested.
YEs i do listen to covers and enjoy them sometimes more than original. But i still stand by my statement.
I think your concept of art in its purest form is elitist nonsense.
How is that elitist in any sense? If I said all music besides rock is bullshit and socks then that would be elitist. I never said all covers suck and the original ones should only exist. THAt would be elitist.
It is elitist nonsense because you are claiming certain art to be more "pure" than other art (hence the elitism) and describing a quality of art (purity) which does not exist. (hence the nonsense)
A cover is a copy. A copy is not pure. Not being elitist.
-
You're also implying that the original artist is infallible in their creation. As if everything they make is perfect by default.
As a musician who writes A LOT, I can tell you that it's easy to not make art in its purest form as the original artist.
-
What does being "pure" have to do with a song being objectively better?
Also quit ignoring my post.
-
A cover is a copy. A copy is not pure. Not being elitist.
Why?
-
What does being "pure" have to do with a song being objectively better?
Also quit ignoring my post.
what is it with people saying this.. i never see this in any other thread. what post the one about agreeing with Adami?
-
A cover is a copy. A copy is not pure. Not being elitist.
Also not true. A reinterpretation is not a copy. And if copies weren't pure, then the copy I listen to of Holsts The Planets is extreme impure and inferior to the original.
Is it? No.
-
A cover is a copy. A copy is not pure. Not being elitist.
Why?
Because something is pure before it's changed, copied, or even enhanced (made better to you.)
-
Arguements
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/forumavatars/avatar_3550.png)
I just had to do it once.
-
A cover is a copy. A copy is not pure. Not being elitist.
Also not true. A reinterpretation is not a copy. And if copies weren't pure, then the copy I listen to of Holsts The Planets is extreme impure and inferior to the original.
Is it? No.
A copy that has been altered, sometimes drastically.
What i love is i really started this thread to talk about people who think covers are the original and now it's turned into what the definition of pure and copy is. lol.
-
So WHY is a "pure" song objectively better?
Also here. I won't give you context because it should be obvious.
This seems like it's getting into the subjectively vs. objectively better argument, which leads me to believe this is bullshit.
-
A cover is a copy. A copy is not pure. Not being elitist.
Why?
Because something is pure before it's changed, copied, or even enhanced (made better to you.)
...Ok. So, then, wouldn't it be true that no music can be pure? As in, with the transformation from a mental idea to a recorded song you can never reproduce it exactly how it came to you in your head. So, when you look at it that way, an original song is just as much of a replica as a cover.
-
So WHY is a "pure" song objectively better?
Also here. I won't give you context because it should be obvious.
This seems like it's getting into the subjectively vs. objectively better argument, which leads me to believe this is bullshit.
I think the word "Better" is the issue here. Maybe what i meant to say was art in it's purest form which YOU or I may not think is better but is undeniably the sole reason the cover exists.
-
wait so wtf is your actual argument?
-
A cover is a copy. A copy is not pure. Not being elitist.
Why?
Because something is pure before it's changed, copied, or even enhanced (made better to you.)
...Ok. So, then, wouldn't it be true that no music can be pure? As in, with the transformation from a mental idea to a recorded song you can never reproduce it exactly how it came to you in your head. So, when you look at it that way, an original song is just as much of a replica as a cover.
To a point yes i agree with you but being influenced by a song and deciding to cover a song are different to me at least.
-
What about DT's cover(s) of Tenement Funster / Flick Of The Wrist / Lily Of The Valley? Personally I find them much better than the originals.
Great example.
-
wait so wtf is your actual argument?
This is my favorite post of this thread so far. :laugh: point coming in a sec...
-
I think the word "Better" is the issue here. Maybe what i meant to say was art in it's purest form which YOU or I may not think is better but is undeniably the sole reason the cover exists.
I think this is what did it
Or you enjoy it more.. to your ears and brain but it can never be truly better.
It may not be your point now, but it definitely was a few pages ago.
-
I think the word "Better" is the issue here. Maybe what i meant to say was art in it's purest form which YOU or I may not think is better but is undeniably the sole reason the cover exists.
I think this is what did it
Or you enjoy it more.. to your ears and brain but it can never be truly better.
It may not be your point now, but it definitely was a few pages ago.
Better was a poor choice of a word. It's not exactly what I meant. Similar but not exactly.
-
Thank you Seth. Stop changing your argument every page tj.
-
Oh oh here's one. What if an artist updates their own song? Which is more pure?
-
Oh oh here's one. What if an artist updates their own song? Which is more pure?
and again, what does "pure" have to do with anything at all?
-
wait so wtf is your actual argument?
I don't really have one. I was really just trying to say that i hate it when people think the cover is the original and don't give a shit about the original because it's old. Also i was trying to say the reason that it angers me is because the original is the art in it's purest form and deserves to be at least listened to and respected if you like the cover. Not dismissed because you don't listen to anything that's not new. Which i've encountered a lot people like that being a DJ it drives me nuts. The idea that people think Nothing compares to you is a Sinead o Conner song and not a prince song... kinda pisses me off. They don't even KNOW that it's his song.
-
Oh oh here's one. What if an artist updates their own song? Which is more pure?
The original is the purest form. The update could be an enhancement or a determinate in some cases. See the CGI star wars originals.
-
Wow. You definitely had a point for a while. Then Adami tore it a new asshole and now you're backtracking. Nice one.
-
Thank you Seth. Stop changing your argument every page tj.
never changed my argument. Just decided i was using the wrong word.
-
(https://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/22448000/ngbbs4d55eb75bc20c.jpg)
-
Wow. You definitely had a point for a while. Then Adami tore it a new asshole and now you're backtracking. Nice one.
It's the same point. You're just being an asshole for some reason and i'm not sure why.
-
You're just being an asshole for some reason and i'm not sure why.
mostly because
(https://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/22448000/ngbbs4d55eb75bc20c.jpg)
-
meh
-
Ok i'm going to do this to most threads not if this is the way it's going to be. BEcause really every thread is fucking pointless.
-
Oh oh here's one. What if an artist updates their own song? Which is more pure?
The original is the purest form. The update could be an enhancement or a determinate in some cases. See the CGI star wars originals.
You are currently claiming that the artist is infallible, and wrong at the same time.
Here's an example. I want to write a song that sums up an experience I had. I write a song, and it comes close but I notice it doesn't quite do what I want, but whatever I release it anyway. Then 5 years later, I manage to re-do the song to better sum up the experience I originally wanted it to sum up in the first place. So at this point, from the artists point of view, the original is incomplete and the re-do 5 years later better fits the goals I originally had.
The purity can only come from intention. If the original isn't what the artist fully believes in, then it's not the most pure. This whole "the first is more pure by default" would mean that the original idea of a song is more pure than the final product, if a metal song is based around an acoustic chord progression that the singer wrote a few hours earlier, that the acoustic version is more pure, and if that is based around a melody that the artist had in their head, that the imagined melody is more pure than the actual played melody.
See? It's a pointless nonsense argument. I'd just drop it.
-
Oh oh here's one. What if an artist updates their own song? Which is more pure?
The original is the purest form. The update could be an enhancement or a determinate in some cases. See the CGI star wars originals.
You are currently claiming that the artist is infallible, and wrong at the same time.
Here's an example. I want to write a song that sums up an experience I had. I write a song, and it comes close but I notice it doesn't quite do what I want, but whatever I release it anyway. Then 5 years later, I manage to re-do the song to better sum up the experience I originally wanted it to sum up in the first place. So at this point, from the artists point of view, the original is incomplete and the re-do 5 years later better fits the goals I originally had.
The purity can only come from intention. If the original isn't what the artist fully believes in, then it's not the most pure. This whole "the first is more pure by default" would mean that the original idea of a song is more pure than the final product, if a metal song is based around an acoustic chord progression that the singer wrote a few hours earlier, that the acoustic version is more pure, and if that is based around a melody that the artist had in their head, that the imagined melody is more pure than the actual played melody.
See? It's a pointless nonsense argument. I'd just drop it.
I don't agree but that's fine everyone has an opinion. But this argument isn't even the reason i created this thread. It was supposed to be about people not knowing originals.
-
To be fair dude, none of us brought up those arguments, you did. We just argued them.
-
To be fair dude, none of us brought up those arguments, you did. We just argued them.
:censored
Oh wee oh wee oh.
-
To be fair dude, none of us brought up those arguments, you did. We just argued them.
:censored
I'll admit, your original argument was the more pure one.
-
To be fair dude, none of us brought up those arguments, you did. We just argued them.
:censored
I'll admit, your original argument was the more pure one.
pure as piss.
-
My piss is as pure as a fresh mountain stream.
-
You bet your ass it is!
Anyhow, I think we can all agree on something, here:
Lenny Kravitz totally ruined American Woman!
-
You bet your ass it is!
Anyhow, I think we can all agree on something, here:
Lenny Kravitz totally ruined American Woman!
Did you completely miss the point of this thread? An artist can't ruin a song that they themselves wrote. Sheesh.
-
You bet your ass it is!
Anyhow, I think we can all agree on something, here:
Lenny Kravitz totally ruined American Woman!
What's Ironic here is there is a video Kravitz and Prince playing that cover on stage together. :o :o :o
-
boom. https://youtu.be/juN3AvDEXb8
-
I always enjoyed Lenny's version. I absolutely love some of LK's albums
-
Don't get me wrong, I dig him. Just not his interpretation of American Woman. But, give me something like Are You Gonna Go My Way, and I'm a happy individual.
-
But, give me something like Are You Gonna Go My Way.
Excellent song. And I guess I have a soft spot for his version of American Women because I had never hears the original at the time and I have always like the more modern feel that Lenny gave it. Of course, The Guess Who wrote it back in the 69, so they couldn't make it sound modern in Lenny's way :lol
-
Near the beginning of the thread I could tell what people's points where and actually agreed on some of them. Now I just have a massive headache.
-
I don't think I've ever thought of a cover-song to be the original, I tend to read up a bit on what I listen to, and if there's a cover-song, I'll read who has made it in the first place etc.
With that said, I very rarely care for the original-versions, like... if I hear a band I really love cover a song, then I'll probably listen to it loads and really enjoy it, but it isn't really enough for me to check up the original artist, because I don't have much interest in doing so.
I might also add that Blackfield's cover of "Thank You" blew me away, and even though I enjoyed Alanis Morisette's original version, I much prefer Blackfield's.
Same thing with Pendulum's version of "Voodoo People". The Prodigy's version is (IMO) nowhere near as good.
-
I don't think I've ever thought of a cover-song to be the original, I tend to read up a bit on what I listen to, and if there's a cover-song, I'll read who has made it in the first place etc.
With that said, I very rarely care for the original-versions, like... if I hear a band I really love cover a song, then I'll probably listen to it loads and really enjoy it, but it isn't really enough for me to check up the original artist, because I don't have much interest in doing so.
I might also add that Blackfield's cover of "Thank You" blew me away, and even though I enjoyed Alanis Morisette's original version, I much prefer Blackfield's.
Same thing with Pendulum's version of "Voodoo People". The Prodigy's version is (IMO) nowhere near as good.
Why would you not want to check out the originals? Btw prodigys song is great.
-
Well, there are times when I really like the cover-version of the song and I'm interested in seeing how the original sounds, and then I check out the original, just to see if it's similar.
If we take "Thank You" for example, Blackfield's version is very simplistic and scaled down, meanwhile the original is very different and has much more layers.
In this case I appreciate the original, but I really love what Blackfield did with the song for the cover. :)
As for not getting enough interest in checking an artist out just because of a cover, I don't know.
Sometimes I hear a cover-song that I really like, and I just feel like maybe exploring the original will let me down, and that I will loose some interest for it.
Sometimes I just don't care that much, I can hear a cover that I really like, but I feel that it's "enough", and that I don't really have a need for the original version.
It's hard to say.
-
What a dumb thread.
-
YOU'RE A DUMB THREAD
-
:sadpanda:
-
You know what else is a dumb threAd?
The one you just posted in.
-
Death's cover of Painkiller is better than the Judas Priest original. It's the only example I can think of, but I firmly believe that.
:tup
Post of the thread.
-
To one person it's better to another it's not but the original song writers intent should always be held as the greatest form. EVEN if you like another version better.
I see what you're getting at but it just doesn't make sense... I'll try to explain.
You say that somehow a cover version of a song is a lesser from of art than the original. OK. But then, why stop there? I mean, the original probably had a chorus. So together with all other songs that have a chorus it's a lesser form of art than the original (the first song that had a chorus). Or it might have a piano in it. So it's lesser than the first song that had a piano in it. It's music, so it's lesser than the first piece of music?
-
Tj, sorry, but it seems like you're trolling in here :lol
-
THis has been five pages of "No I don't," "Yes you do," "No I don't," "Yes you do," etc. :lol
-
True. :lol But tj's "argument" is so out there.
-
Agreed.
-
A lot of times a cover becomes the definitive version of a song-"Love Hurts" by Nazareth is a cover, and is generally the first version most people think of, despite being covered by Roy Orbison and several other acts. It's actually the only version of the song that was a successful chart single in most world markets (Orbison's version being a hit in Australia). I imagine that a lot of people aren't even aware its a cover. But inform people that its a cover, and it doesn't magically make the Everly Brothers original version, which wasn't even a B-side, the definitive version of the song. That's still Nazareth's version.
The original song is the FIRST version of a song, it's by no means either the definitive version or the best.
And yeah, I knew Prince did those songs first too :rollin
-
You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? :omg:
-
You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? :omg:
Thats one cover that I can safely say is nowhere near as good as Bob Dylan.
-
You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? :omg:
Thats one cover that I can safely say is nowhere near as good as Bob Dylan.
Dude, really? Bob Dylan has a long record of other artists doing better versions of his songs. And this is definitely one of them.
-
You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? :omg:
Thats one cover that I can safely say is nowhere near as good as Bob Dylan.
Dude, really? Bob Dylan has a long record of other artists doing better versions of his songs. And this is definitely one of them.
Axl's singing kills it for me.
-
You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? :omg:
Thats one cover that I can safely say is nowhere near as good as Bob Dylan.
Dude, really? Bob Dylan has a long record of other artists doing better versions of his songs. And this is definitely one of them.
Axl's singing kills it for me.
Ah, that's fair enough. Definitely a love/hate kind of voice. :tup
-
You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? :omg:
Thats one cover that I can safely say is nowhere near as good as Bob Dylan.
Dude, really? Bob Dylan has a long record of other artists doing better versions of his songs. And this is definitely one of them.
Axl's singing kills it for me.
Ah, that's fair enough. Definitely a love/hate kind of voice. :tup
Aside from Appetite for Destruction and Chinese Democracy I don't care for GnR :P
-
You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? :omg:
Thats one cover that I can safely say is nowhere near as good as Bob Dylan.
Dude, really? Bob Dylan has a long record of other artists doing better versions of his songs. And this is definitely one of them.
Axl's singing kills it for me.
Ah, that's fair enough. Definitely a love/hate kind of voice. :tup
Aside from Appetite for Destruction and Chinese Democracy I don't care for GnR :P
So his singing bothers you on Knockin' on Heaven's Door, but not on other albums? I'd consider him about equally nasally on all of them. :lol
-
You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? :omg:
Thats one cover that I can safely say is nowhere near as good as Bob Dylan.
Dude, really? Bob Dylan has a long record of other artists doing better versions of his songs. And this is definitely one of them.
Axl's singing kills it for me.
Ah, that's fair enough. Definitely a love/hate kind of voice. :tup
Aside from Appetite for Destruction and Chinese Democracy I don't care for GnR :P
So his singing bothers you on Knockin' on Heaven's Door, but not on other albums? I'd consider him about equally nasally on all of them. :lol
Mainly their mid albums he's just horribly obnoxious to me.
-
You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? :omg:
Thats one cover that I can safely say is nowhere near as good as Bob Dylan.
Dude, really? Bob Dylan has a long record of other artists doing better versions of his songs. And this is definitely one of them.
Dylan's kind of the antithesis to tj's point. His songs are so stripped down and simple they almost begs for people to embellish and "finish" them.
-
I came into this topic expecting a Hurt debate...
I was disappointed :(
-
Well there really isn't a debate. The NIN version conveys emotions the Cash version simply can't touch.
-
Any Bob Dylan cover is better than the original. Greatest example is "All along the watchtower" by Jimi Hendrix.
Stevie Ray Vaughan's version of "Little wing" is better than the original.
Deep Purple's version of "Hush" is better than the original, specially the '88 one.
Robert Plant's "Hey Joe" version is amazing.
Björk's version of "Gloomy sunday" is brilliant.
Yes' version of "America" is better than Paul Simon's.
Rainbow's version of "Still I'm sad" destroys the original by The Yardbirds.
-
I honestly can't believe people who think Cash's version is better.
-
Well there really isn't a debate. The NIN version conveys emotions the Cash version simply can't touch.
I honestly can't believe people who think Cash's version is better.
Finally someone who agrees with me.
-
There seemed to be a lot of switching during that "everything Johnny Cash has ever done is awesome and go to hell for saying otherwise" stage around the time he died from a ton of extremely casual listeners.
-
Wouldn't surprise me. It's a common trend for a lot of famous dead artists. And it's always been a pet peeve of mine when people think Cash wrote the original, but that's just the diehard NIN fan in me lashing out.
-
Any Bob Dylan cover is better than the original. Greatest example is "All along the watchtower" by Jimi Hendrix.
Very true. I am not even a big Hendrix fan, but I am sure most consider his version the best and most definitive version of the song.
-
Two songs I didn't realize were covers were Ulver's Solitude (Black Sabbath cover) and Death's Painkiller (Judas Priest cover), both of which I think are superior to the original.
-
Two songs I didn't realize were covers were Ulver's Solitude (Black Sabbath cover) and Death's Painkiller (Judas Priest cover), both of which I think are superior to the original.
I agree.
-
Two songs I didn't realize were covers were Ulver's Solitude (Black Sabbath cover) and Death's Painkiller (Judas Priest cover), both of which I think are superior to the original.
I agree.
I don't, at least with Painkiller.
-
A cover is a copy. A copy is not pure. Not being elitist.
Why?
Because something is pure before it's changed, copied, or even enhanced (made better to you.)
This is such a bizarre point of view to me. This implies that there's some definitive point in time when a work of art is officially "finished". Have you ever heard the quote "A work of art is never truly finished... it's just abandoned"? I think that's completley true. You're saying a work of art is "pure" before it's changed... but isn't a work of art constantly changing? Music is the perfect example. There are plenty of bands out there who write a song, put out a recorded version of it, but then are constantly changing it and reworking it when they play it live.
Realistically, there has to be SOME version of the song that gets recorded and released as the studio version. But just because that happens, why does that mean that is the point in time when the song is officially "finished"? Seems like a fairly arbitrary way to make the determination of when a song can no longer be changed.
Your arguments in general seem to presupposed a very static view of a work of art, but I think art in general, and especially an art form like music, is constantly evolving. So any particular work of art is never truly "finished". I don't see cover versions of songs as "changing" the pure original. I just see them as a collaborative continuation of a work of art started by somebody else, and the final cover version is just a look at that particular work at a different point in its development.
And being angry at somebody for not knowing that a song is a cover version is just silly. Granted, I would probably get a little annoyed at somebody who said "the original version sucks solely because its old". But, realistically, I don't think two many people ever actually believe that. Far more often, people don't like the original as much simply because they just don't like it. Not because "it's old".
-
A cover is a copy. A copy is not pure. Not being elitist.
Why?
Because something is pure before it's changed, copied, or even enhanced (made better to you.)
This is such a bizarre point of view to me. This implies that there's some definitive point in time when a work of art is officially "finished". Have you ever heard the quote "A work of art is never truly finished... it's just abandoned"? I think that's completley true. You're saying a work of art is "pure" before it's changed... but isn't a work of art constantly changing? Music is the perfect example. There are plenty of bands out there who write a song, put out a recorded version of it, but then are constantly changing it and reworking it when they play it live.
Realistically, there has to be SOME version of the song that gets recorded and released as the studio version. But just because that happens, why does that mean that is the point in time when the song is officially "finished"? Seems like a fairly arbitrary way to make the determination of when a song can no longer be changed.
Your arguments in general seem to presupposed a very static view of a work of art, but I think art in general, and especially an art form like music, is constantly evolving. So any particular work of art is never truly "finished". I don't see cover versions of songs as "changing" the pure original. I just see them as a collaborative continuation of a work of art started by somebody else, and the final cover version is just a look at that particular work at a different point in its development.
And being angry at somebody for not knowing that a song is a cover version is just silly. Granted, I would probably get a little annoyed at somebody who said "the original version sucks solely because its old". But, realistically, I don't think two many people ever actually believe that. Far more often, people don't like the original as much simply because they just don't like it. Not because "it's old".
Very true! :tup :tup
-
A cover is a copy. A copy is not pure. Not being elitist.
Why?
Because something is pure before it's changed, copied, or even enhanced (made better to you.)
This is such a bizarre point of view to me. This implies that there's some definitive point in time when a work of art is officially "finished". Have you ever heard the quote "A work of art is never truly finished... it's just abandoned"? I think that's completley true. You're saying a work of art is "pure" before it's changed... but isn't a work of art constantly changing? Music is the perfect example. There are plenty of bands out there who write a song, put out a recorded version of it, but then are constantly changing it and reworking it when they play it live.
Realistically, there has to be SOME version of the song that gets recorded and released as the studio version. But just because that happens, why does that mean that is the point in time when the song is officially "finished"? Seems like a fairly arbitrary way to make the determination of when a song can no longer be changed.
Your arguments in general seem to presupposed a very static view of a work of art, but I think art in general, and especially an art form like music, is constantly evolving. So any particular work of art is never truly "finished". I don't see cover versions of songs as "changing" the pure original. I just see them as a collaborative continuation of a work of art started by somebody else, and the final cover version is just a look at that particular work at a different point in its development.
And being angry at somebody for not knowing that a song is a cover version is just silly. Granted, I would probably get a little annoyed at somebody who said "the original version sucks solely because its old". But, realistically, I don't think two many people ever actually believe that. Far more often, people don't like the original as much simply because they just don't like it. Not because "it's old".
I said the exact same thing pretty much a few pages back. He didn't seem to care.
-
Haven't bothered reading everything, but here's my own spin to it:
In a way I fully understand TJ's point. I have a bias against covering songs in one way. I feel like you're not contributing to the music world with your own material and just using other people's work. That said, when I perform it's never my own tunes - which makes me a complete hypocrite. However, the problem, with TJ's argument, is the fact that music=art and art is subjective meaning that there can be no "objective" better version of a certain song. (probably been brought up tons of times in the thread, but repetition can't hurt)
I just have to semi-rant a little though. I have a love-hate relationship for artists using other people's work. One fine example is an excellent saxophonist like Cannonball Adderley. He played with Miles Davis and then became a leader and one of the finest alto saxophonists ever. Yet almost none of his albums contain original material. He's taken a standard and played it his way, like his version of Autumn Leaves which I consider to be the greatest recording of that tune ever. For some reason, even though I enjoy the music a lot, the fact that few of his recordings contain his original songs, it's a little bit harder to enjoy. It's like, the tune has so many versions that you don't know how the composer actually "intended" for it to sound like.
Also, that "pure" is always best is complete BS. Symphony X - Masquerade. The original album version sucks bollocks, but the remake bonustrack included on The Odyssey is nothing short of a 5-minute eargasm.
-
Why do we care so much about artists' intent?
-
Why do we care so much about artists' intent?
Because somehow it gives tj a reason to continue his argument
-
So what the OP is argueing is that if an unpolished, untalented musician like myself wrote a song, and Dream Theater or some other band decided to cover it, mine would still be better? I don't think so.
Covers can be better than the originals, and some can be equally good but in a different way - like Cash's covers.
-
So what the OP is argueing is that if an unpolished, untalented musician like myself wrote a song, and Dream Theater or some other band decided to cover it, mine would still be better? I don't think so.
Covers can be better than the originals, and some can be equally good but in a different way - like Cash's covers.
Not at all. Your version is the purest form of art though because it's your creation although the DT version may be better to you and everyone else.
-
What we need is a new musical genre. Something so strange and specialized that it'll only last for a fortnight and maybe 3 bands will actually play it, with only 1 getting an album deal. It'd be so unpopular, yet great, that no one would possibly make a cover of a song of this genre that is better received than the real deal.
-
BTW i took out 1 sentence in my first post because that has become the most misunderstood post ever by me. Partly because of my poor choice of words and partly because people aren't reading my explanations through 6 pages. So now the thread reflects the real reason i even created it.
-
Well when you're used to one version of a song, if you listen to another you're probably going to go the more comfortable route and side with whatever you heard first. For example I've heard Four Year Strong's version of "So Much For The Afterglow" dozens of times before I decided to check out the original and the original just sounded much looser and less energetic. I'm curious how I would've reacted had I heard the Everclear version first.
-
So what the OP is argueing is that if an unpolished, untalented musician like myself wrote a song, and Dream Theater or some other band decided to cover it, mine would still be better? I don't think so.
Covers can be better than the originals, and some can be equally good but in a different way - like Cash's covers.
Not at all. Your version is the purest form of art though because it's your creation although the DT version may be better to you and everyone else.
This seems to be your main argument - that the original is the most pure. But...
more pure =/= better
-
So what the OP is argueing is that if an unpolished, untalented musician like myself wrote a song, and Dream Theater or some other band decided to cover it, mine would still be better? I don't think so.
Covers can be better than the originals, and some can be equally good but in a different way - like Cash's covers.
Not at all. Your version is the purest form of art though because it's your creation although the DT version may be better to you and everyone else.
This seems to be your main argument - that the original is the most pure. But...
more pure =/= better
-
So what the OP is argueing is that if an unpolished, untalented musician like myself wrote a song, and Dream Theater or some other band decided to cover it, mine would still be better? I don't think so.
Covers can be better than the originals, and some can be equally good but in a different way - like Cash's covers.
Not at all. Your version is the purest form of art though because it's your creation although the DT version may be better to you and everyone else.
This seems to be your main argument - that the original is the most pure. But...
more pure =/= better
better is subjective though that's why i should not have said it. For instance you can have pure orange juice but if you add lemon to it it's not longer pure even though you or someone else might say it's better.
-
If you think "better" is subjective, then why are you trying to argue that the original is better than the cover?
-
So what the OP is argueing is that if an unpolished, untalented musician like myself wrote a song, and Dream Theater or some other band decided to cover it, mine would still be better? I don't think so.
Covers can be better than the originals, and some can be equally good but in a different way - like Cash's covers.
Not at all. Your version is the purest form of art though because it's your creation although the DT version may be better to you and everyone else.
This seems to be your main argument - that the original is the most pure. But...
more pure =/= better
better is subjective though that's why i should not have said it. For instance you can have pure orange juice but if you add lemon to it it's not longer pure even though you or someone else might say it's better.
What about a song being "pure" makes the others not as good? I just don't understand this.
-
If you think "better" is subjective, then why are you trying to argue that the original is better than the cover?
I'm really not. I used the word better but what i was truly trying to say is that It frustrates me when people don't want to check out the original because it's old or whatever other ridiculous reasons when they really should because it's the "truest" or "purest" form of the song. Not saying you can't like the cover better but i hate when people think the cover is the original and don't give a shit about the actual creator of the song.
-
I feel like you're arguing to different conflicting points.
-
This is a horrible thread reeking of elitist annoyance at people who don't know as much as you (ever seen "High Fidelity?" Watch the scene where Jack Black refuses to sell a Captain Beefheart record to one guy then immediately sells it to someone else) and some kind of attempt to explain why art can be viewed objectively, which always always fails.
-
It frustrates me when people don't want to check out the original because it's old or whatever other ridiculous reasons when they really should because it's the "truest" or "purest" form of the song.
Ok, but again, I still don't think this really addresses the point of why the "original" is the "truest" or "purest" form. See my post above... doesn't this sort of attitude assume that art is static and there's a single point in time where a work of art is "finished"?
Art is a continuing process. When a song gets recorded and released, that doesn't necessarily mean that original vision has been 100% realized and the process is finished. It's just more a function of practicality - you have to give up and move on to the next project at some point.
You're talking about music as if writers and musicians just have these final, completed songs floating around in their heads and then they just writes those songs exactly as they are in their mind, and then that's it... the song if finished and has been fully realized. But in my experience that's not how it works at all. Any piece of art is a process. It starts with a basic concept and realizes itself throughout the process of creation. It's constantly changing and evolving, and is never fully "true" or "pure" or final. Whatever point it's reached at any given time is when it's at its truest and/or purest form at that particular moment.
And you also talk about art as if every piece of art has to be created by a single individual out of a single vision. But its perfectly legitimate for art to be a collaborative effort. I see cover songs as just being collaborative art that multiple people put their ideas into. The original songwriter has started with their creation, and then the cover artist has taken the original creation and reworked into a new, different work of art that's just as "pure" and "true" and the 'original'...
-
This happened to me at a dinner one night.This 20 something was watching some vid on her phone and The First Cut is The Deepest was playing, but a new poppy version. "Ooo I love this song"(thinking it was the original)
Spider pipes up....."actually that's Bryan Adams song"
Mrs.Spidey retorts "um no, Rod Stewart might have something to say about that"
Finally the girls father who was with us reminded us all that Cat Stevens was alive and well.
Chuckles all round.
-
Metallica's version of Die Die My Darling. Now I hate Metallica, but they made the song not only listenable, but pretty damned good.
blasphemy. the misfits' is great too.
-
SPeaking of MetAllica, I enjoy their version of Loverman and the original about equally. Kickass song, regArdless of who's playing it!
-
This is a horrible thread reeking of elitist annoyance at people who don't know as much as you (ever seen "High Fidelity?" Watch the scene where Jack Black refuses to sell a Captain Beefheart record to one guy then immediately sells it to someone else) and some kind of attempt to explain why art can be viewed objectively, which always always fails.
I take it you didn't read my responses to the elitism argument that was thrown around a few pages back? If someone doesn't know it's a cover you can't really hold them accountable unless it's something so obvious like Don't stop believing or any of the Glee songs because they are all covers. But once that person finds out it's a cover it's the reactions that frustrate me because most of the time it's very dismissive by people.
Also what is the obsession with the word elitism. I've never seen it more over used than on this forum.
-
Just a thing I suppose. No matter what the argument is the terms "elitism", "pretentious", "snob", "opinion as fact" or similar will usually come up by someone who doesn't have a good argument yet still wants to express that they disagree with your opinion.
-
Just a thing I suppose. No matter what the argument is the terms "elitism", "pretentious", "snob", "opinion as fact" or similar will usually come up by someone who doesn't have a good argument yet still wants to express that they disagree with your opinion.
alright then. That does make sense.
-
Just a thing I suppose. No matter what the argument is the terms "elitism", "pretentious", "snob", "opinion as fact" or similar will usually come up by someone who doesn't have a good argument yet still wants to express that they disagree with your opinion.
I didn't keep track of everyone who used some of those terms, but I was one of them. And I for one, believe I made some extremely good arguments.
-
Your arguments were good, I just wouldnt've have used any of those terms.
-
Metallica's version of Die Die My Darling. Now I hate Metallica, but they made the song not only listenable, but pretty damned good.
blasphemy. the misfits' is great too.
Maybe it's just the production that annoys me, iunno.
-
I'm not really into the Foo Fighters but the fact that they covered Drive me Wild by Vanity 6 is pretty awesome. Respect gained!
-
Well there really isn't a debate. The NIN version conveys emotions the Cash version simply can't touch.
I pop the video in, and wow... Tears welling, silence, goose-bumps... Wow. [I felt like] I just lost my girlfriend, because that song isn't mine anymore... It really made me think about how powerful music is as a medium and art form. I wrote some words and music in my bedroom as a way of staying sane, about a bleak and desperate place I was in, totally isolated and alone. [Somehow] that winds up reinterpreted by a music legend from a radically different era/genre and still retains sincerity and meaning — different, but every bit as pure.
I saw the video and it took my breath away. Immediately my throat had a lump in it, and at that point, it really struck home. It was heartbreaking. I had goosebumps, which I have right now even thinking about it. It became really inspiring to me.… It works. And it probably works better than my version.… I haven’t listened to my version since then.
-
I do love Cash's version better than Trent, though Trent's is good as well. Pretty much what Trent himself said in that quote is what I always thought. Cash made it a song so different in meaning that it just makes you sad and yet hopeful, considering who he was.
-
I do love Cash's version better than Trent, though Trent's is good as well. Pretty much what Trent himself said in that quote is what I always thought. Cash made it a song so different in meaning that it just makes you sad and yet hopeful, considering who he was.
I've never heard the original version, but what impresses me is that Cash makes it so much his own that it doesn't sound like a cover song. It's a Johnny Cash song. So while I have no aversion to hearing the original, and in theory believe that it could certainly be better, I wonder if, to me at least, the original would end up sounding like a cover? I guess I'll check it out and see.
-
I do love Cash's version better than Trent, though Trent's is good as well. Pretty much what Trent himself said in that quote is what I always thought. Cash made it a song so different in meaning that it just makes you sad and yet hopeful, considering who he was.
I've never heard the original version.
My brain shut off right there. nothing more to read...
-
I do love Cash's version better than Trent, though Trent's is good as well. Pretty much what Trent himself said in that quote is what I always thought. Cash made it a song so different in meaning that it just makes you sad and yet hopeful, considering who he was.
I've never heard the original version.
My brain shut off right there. nothing more to read...
Why? That sounds pretty snobby.
-
I know this is gonna be kind of weird on this forum but since i've been talking so much about how i hate covers.. Which isn't true i found a prince cover that i think is pretty cool. For the record most of them i don't like because they don't bring their own style to it or do the song justice but this one does both.
Cyndi Lauper covering When you Were Mine. The way she belts out the chorus is great! Different from the original which makes it cool but the feel of the song didn't get lost.
https://youtu.be/cmFYp6rhmqk
The chord changes in the chorus and lyrics always make me feel something emotionally. Love this song!
-
I do love Cash's version better than Trent, though Trent's is good as well. Pretty much what Trent himself said in that quote is what I always thought. Cash made it a song so different in meaning that it just makes you sad and yet hopeful, considering who he was.
I've never heard the original version.
My brain shut off right there. nothing more to read...
Why? That sounds pretty snobby.
The fact that someone has never heard Hurt by NIN. Doesn't compute for me. Doesn't. Not saying anything else.
-
Perhaps you prefer the little-known Jimmy Debit Card's polka rendition, as well?
-
I do love Cash's version better than Trent, though Trent's is good as well. Pretty much what Trent himself said in that quote is what I always thought. Cash made it a song so different in meaning that it just makes you sad and yet hopeful, considering who he was.
I've never heard the original version.
My brain shut off right there. nothing more to read...
Why? That sounds pretty snobby.
The fact that someone has never heard Hurt by NIN. Doesn't compute for me. Doesn't. Not saying anything else.
How does it not compute?
He hasn't heard it.
He has heard the Cash version.
This isn't differential equations.
-
I do love Cash's version better than Trent, though Trent's is good as well. Pretty much what Trent himself said in that quote is what I always thought. Cash made it a song so different in meaning that it just makes you sad and yet hopeful, considering who he was.
I've never heard the original version.
My brain shut off right there. nothing more to read...
Why? That sounds pretty snobby.
The fact that someone has never heard Hurt by NIN. Doesn't compute for me. Doesn't. Not saying anything else.
How does it not compute?
He hasn't heard it.
He has heard the Cash version.
This isn't differential equations.
I can't imagine a world where a person who is under the age of 50 hasn't heard it. That's all. It's not a knock on him it's just my own quirk i guess.
-
You don't have to imagine it. It's reality.
-
Perhaps you prefer the little-known Jimmy Debit Card's polka rendition, as well?
of when you were mine? No.
-
You don't have to imagine it. It's reality.
This is not reality.....
-
I haven't heard either version.
-
I haven't heard either version.
I don't know if anyone have seen lost but at the end of every episode it makes this boom sound. That just happened in my brain.
-
I haven't heard either version.
You're gonna give tj a heart attack while simultaneously giving him CPR.
-
You don't have to imagine it. It's reality.
This is not reality.....
Dude I know plenty of people who know Cash's version but not NIN's. Why does it seem impossible to you to not hear it?
-
I haven't heard either version.
You're gonna give tj a heart attack while simultaneously giving him CPR.
What about if he found out I'd never heard anything by NIN at all?
-
Musical listening is serious business to him?
-
I haven't heard either version.
You're gonna give tj a heart attack while simultaneously giving him CPR.
What about if he found out I'd never heard anything by NIN at all?
Depends. has anyone covered their songs ever?
-
I haven't heard either version.
You're gonna give tj a heart attack while simultaneously giving him CPR.
What about if he found out I'd never heard anything by NIN at all?
It's suicide time for me then.
-
Um, it's just rock and roll?
-
Never heard any NIN stuff either. I think I heard the Cash version of that song though.
-
You don't have to imagine it. It's reality.
This is not reality.....
Dude I know plenty of people who know Cash's version but not NIN's. Why does it seem impossible to you to not hear it?
It's one of the best songs of a decade on one of the most popular albums. Find it odd people have never heard. For the record i'm joking around sometimes it doesn't come off that way on teh netz of course.
-
green text = sarcasm
i think it'll help
-
Please tell me you were joking around the whole thread.
-
Please tell me you were joking around the whole thread.
if only.
-
Ok see this is exactly why i started this thread. I was looking at other covers of when you were mine and came across these brilliant comments on youtube...
(It was a cover by a new girl group i guess. So this version was fairly new. )Then i saw this...
is this prince's song or is his a cover?
minecabus13 1 month ago
@minecabus13 its cyndi lauper's song.
1Jaader 3 days ago
What i love about this is the first person asks if this is a prince song or is prince's version a cover. This song came out in 1980 so that means prince would have had to have heard this new version, time traveled back IN TIME to 1980 and covered it. Then the brilliant person below claims matter of factly of course that's it's a cyndi lauper song.
-
To weigh in on the "Hurt" discussion, I greatly prefer the Johnny Cash version. Why? Because I don't like NIN's musical style at all, and I don't particularly care for any of their songs.
-
I love Cash's version of Hurt.
-
I think why I like Johnny Cash's version better is how he delivers the vocals. It sounds like he has regret. The acoustic guitar and the piano just speaks volumes and works better than the industrial sound that NIN had in their original.
So, to me, the arrangement can make a cover better than the original.
-
I just don't hear it at all. Considering the context of the rest of the album (a concept album) and how it relates to Trent at the time he wrote it, it just has so much more meaning to me. Trent sounds like he's fighting back tears and on his last breath, and he sounds completely crestfallen.
Cash's version is a solid tribute to the original. Same goes for his cover of Personal Jesus.
-
I just don't hear it at all. Considering the context of the rest of the album (a concept album) and how it relates to Trent at the time he wrote it, it just has so much more meaning to me. Trent sounds like he's fighting back tears and on his last breath, and he sounds completely crestfallen.
Cash's version is a solid tribute to the original. Same goes for his cover of Personal Jesus.
-
I like both. Of you want a case of me preferring one version of a song over the other, how bout Diamonds and Rust? Helps that I'm not a big fan of folksy stuff, but I feel Priest really did right for that tune. Though I don't especially like that they cut half of the lyrics. On that count, the original can get my vote. I do say folk most often has much better lyrics than the heavy shit.
-
I want to point one thing out, I think whether or not you check out the original is also dependent on how much you like the cover.
For instance, I quite like Metallica's Garage Inc. But did I check out the original of every one of those songs? Nah.
I really liked Turn the Page, Whiskey in the Jar, Tuesday's Gone, and Sabbra Caddabra, so I checked out the originals of all of those (well.......as close as I could get to an original for Whiskey in the Jar). But the rest? I just didn't care enough. I wasn't AMAZINGLY into any of the other covers, so I didn't feel the need to check out the original.
Like when Alien Ant Farm did that cover of Smooth Criminal. I didn't check out the original for a very long time. Why? Because I passively liked the cover, I didn't love it and definietely didn't care about the song enough to find its most "pure" form. Nothing to do with how old it was, just didn't care that much about the song, even if I liked it.
-
Hey, tj -- just gonna leave this here for you
(https://i.imgur.com/ib30r.jpg)
-
:lol