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

[SystematicThought]

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

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[MasterShakezula]

Then make sure you've negotiated a copyright deal that does not allow other artists to record it and sell the recordings.  

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[Sigz]

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.

[zxlkho]

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.

[MasterShakezula]

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. 

[ClairvoyantCat]

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.  

[tjanuranus]

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."

[Sigz]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[Sigz]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Sigz]

*looks back at the last 3 pages*

um... all right then.

[Adami]

What about if I don't like the original? Do I have to like the original to like the cover?

[tjanuranus]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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!*

[Adami]

And I pointed out an argument to that which you either didn't see or ignored.

[tjanuranus]

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

[ClairvoyantCat]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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!

[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?

[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.

[KevShmev]

The first telephone ever created was the best one ever.  Every other one created since is merely a pale imitation of the first telephone. 

[zxlkho]

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.

[tjanuranus]

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.