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

[Adami]

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?

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[zxlkho]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[ClairvoyantCat]

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)

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[zxlkho]

What does being "pure" have to do with a song being objectively better?

Also quit ignoring my post.

[ClairvoyantCat]

A cover is a copy. A copy is not pure. Not being elitist.

Why?

[tjanuranus]

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?

[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.

[tjanuranus]

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.)

[Implode]

Arguements

I just had to do it once.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[zxlkho]

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.

[ClairvoyantCat]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[zxlkho]

wait so wtf is your actual argument?

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Ħ]

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.

[tjanuranus]

wait so wtf is your actual argument?

This is my favorite post of this thread so far.   point coming in a sec...

[ClairvoyantCat]

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. 

[tjanuranus]

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.

[zxlkho]

Thank you Seth. Stop changing your argument every page tj.

[Adami]

Oh oh here's one. What if an artist updates their own song? Which is more pure?

[zxlkho]

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?

[tjanuranus]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[zxlkho]

Wow. You definitely had a point for a while. Then Adami tore it a new asshole and now you're backtracking. Nice one.

[tjanuranus]

Thank you Seth. Stop changing your argument every page tj.

never changed my argument. Just decided i was using the wrong word.

[Gadough]

[tjanuranus]

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.