When people think the cover version is the original. It makes me want to die.

[tjanuranus]

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

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?

[zxlkho]

Jeff Buckley's version of "Hallelujah" is most definitely better than Leonard Cohen's version.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

Metallica's version of Die Die My Darling. Now I hate Metallica, but they made the song not only listenable, but pretty damned good.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Heretic]

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.

[ClairvoyantCat]

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. 

[Ravenheart]

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?

[Adami]

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.

[Fuzzboy]

Quiet Riot's version of Cum On Feel The Noize is vastly superior to the original

[Dillster22]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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!!!?!?

[ClairvoyantCat]

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."

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Adami]

the original song writers intent should always be held as the greatest form.

No.

[tjanuranus]

the original song writers intent should always be held as the greatest form.

No.

I highly disagree with this. Obviously.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[ClairvoyantCat]

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?"

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Gadough]

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.

[Dark Castle]

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.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

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.

[Heretic]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Jamesman42]

Circular reasoning all up in here

[tjanuranus]

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!

[MasterShakezula]

Circular reasoning all up in here

I prefer coordinate reasoning. 

It gets to the point. 

[Jamesman42]

Yeah well graphing is where I draw the line

[Ravenheart]

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?

[MasterShakezula]

Yeah well graphing is where I draw the line

You better square that opinion.  

It seems a bit radical. 

[ClairvoyantCat]

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. 

[Jamesman42]

Tj, bro, what are you smoking?

[tjanuranus]

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.

[tjanuranus]

Tj, bro, what are you smoking?

i'm damn hungry is what i am.

[Jamesman42]

Go eat something, you're thinking incorrectly