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

[Dark Castle]

You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? 

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.

[BlobVanDam]

You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? 

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.

[Dark Castle]

You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? 

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.

Aside from Appetite for Destruction and Chinese Democracy I don't care for GnR

[BlobVanDam]

You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? 

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.

Aside from Appetite for Destruction and Chinese Democracy I don't care for GnR

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.

[Dark Castle]

You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? 

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.

Aside from Appetite for Destruction and Chinese Democracy I don't care for GnR

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.

Mainly their mid albums he's just horribly obnoxious to me.

[orcus116]

You mean to say that GnR didn't write Knockin' on Heaven's door?!?!?!?!? 

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.

[perfectchaos180]

I came into this topic expecting a Hurt debate...

I was disappointed

[orcus116]

Well there really isn't a debate. The NIN version conveys emotions the Cash version simply can't touch.

[JediKnight1969]

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.

[zxlkho]

I honestly can't believe people who think Cash's version is better.

[Ravenheart]

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.

[orcus116]

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.

[Ravenheart]

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.

[KevShmev]

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.

[HarlequinForest]

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.

[Gorille85]

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.

[Zook]

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.

[ZeppelinDT]

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".

[Gorille85]

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!

[Adami]

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.

[jsem]

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.

[antigoon]

Why do we care so much about artists' intent?

[Jamesman42]

Why do we care so much about artists' intent?

Because somehow it gives tj a reason to continue his argument

[Dr. DTVT]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[MasterShakezula]

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. 

[tjanuranus]

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.

[orcus116]

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.

[Ħ]

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

[Dark Castle]

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

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Ħ]

If you think "better" is subjective, then why are you trying to argue that the original is better than the cover?

[Dark Castle]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[orcus116]

I feel like you're arguing to different conflicting points.