Pawka <PAWKA@nosc-tecr.ARPA> (11/13/84)
I think a distinction should be made between re-makes and cover versions. Before R&B was widely recognized by the general public, white artists would "cover" R&B hits and achieve much more success than the original. An example would be Elvis's version of "Hound Dog", a huge smash, which was written and sung by Big Mama Thornton. This doesn't happen as much today, although Eric Clapton covering Bob Marley's "I Shot the Sheriff" comes to mind. Re-makes, on the other hand, are an artists interpretation of someone else's composition. Some of these are quite interesting, especially when the song is done by a different class of artist from the original, i.e. a country re-make of an R&B tune. The only problem I have with re-makes is with someone like Linda Ronstadt, where they do an inordinate amount of them and they all pale in comparison with the original. Mike ------
hunt@rruxo.UUCP (J Hunter) (11/16/84)
[YUMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.......................Yum.........................]
Speaking of cover tunes - Anyone know who the original artist is (was)
for Hewey Lewis and the News' "Walkin' on a Thin Line"? The album
jacket ("SPORTS") says this is a cover tune....???
Eric Clapton also recorded the cover tune "Cocaine" (orginally recorded
and mayhaps written(?) by J. J. Cale)....just a smidge of trivia.......
J. Hunter - Bellcore - Piscataway, New Jersery
rruxo!huntPawka <PAWKA@nosc-tecr.ARPA> (11/28/84)
There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what a "cover" version actually is. In order for a song to qualify as a "cover" version, it should get the artist more fame and fortune than the original, or at the least as much as the original. Someone gave an example of Clapton's "Cocaine" as a cover of J.J. Cale's version, this is a classic example of a "cover" version. Some lame punk band doing a version of whatever is no more a "cover" than a high school band doing it at the hop. Mike <So there...> ------
michaelf@ISM780.UUCP (11/29/84)
For an interesting montage, try the Surf Punks "Golden Shower of Hits"
It's a medley containing some of the worst songs of our time. If you
can only imagine how much worse "Afternoon Delight" or "D-I-V-O-R-C-E"
can get...
The Ramones do a great version of the Chamber Bros. "Time".
The Pistols did a truly horrid "Johnny B. Goode"
Check out the DKs doing Elvis' "Viva Las Vegas"e I am)@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA> (11/30/84)
Mike Pawka claims that "...in order for a song to qualify as a 'cover' version, it should get the artist more fame and fortune than the original, or at the least as much as the original." Wrongo, Mike -- you're confusing esthetics (or, at least, the judgement of the buying public [about which Frank Zappa once commented that "Bad Taste is Timeless"]) with the basic fact of what a cover version is, to wit, a re-make of any song originally recorded by another artist, no matter how good or bad the remake may be. Fame and fortune are totally irrelevant to whether or not a song's a cover version -- all that matters is whether or not it's the original. That's not to say that originality can't be used in creating a cover version, especially as regards vocal style, instrumentation, and arrangement, but those are matters of taste and don't make the song any more or less a cover version. --Dave
strock@fortune.UUCP (Gregory Strockbine) (11/30/84)
> For an interesting montage, try the Surf Punks "Golden Shower of Hits"
Try the Circle Jerks not the Surf Punks.Pawka <PAWKA@nosc-tecr.ARPA> (12/01/84)
>> Dave ?Axler? resonds "... a cover version is, to wit, a re-make >> of any song originally recorded by another artist, no matter how >> good or bad the remake may be..." >> and "...Fame and fortune are totally irrelevant to whether or not >> a song's a cover version -- all that matters is whether or not >> it's the original..." I believe the origin of the term "cover" version had to do with early R&B tunes which were performed by black artists and played mostly on "underground" stations in the late forties and early fifties. A good example would be "Hound Dog" by Elvis. Most people associate that song with Elvis and might be surprised to know "Big Mama" Thornton wrote and sung that tune, as she did with "Ball and Chain", later successfully covered by Janis Joplin. Maybe the term has something with one of the definitions of cover, "to put something over or upon for concealment". Anyone can do "their version" or a "re-make" of a tune, but I think that a "cover version" implies more. This is not to imply that the "cover" version is not done well, in a lot of cases it may be as good or better than the original. This may seem to be just semantics, but to me it's giving some artists too much credit. (Here's the Dead Meat Puppets with their "cover version" of Johnny B. Goode . . .) Anyway I would be interested in Dave's references, in the meantime I'm going to try to dig out the books where I read all this, Mike < Wrongo ???> ------
eli@uw-beaver (Eli Messinger) (12/01/84)
I think in the strict 50's sense, where "cover version" meant Pat Boone sucking the life out of a black rock'n'roll song, yes, we might leave the term to mean someone re-recording a song and garnering more wealth and/or noteriety than the originator... But I don't think this is true any longer. The term has had its meaning expanded to include, yes!, the local lunchtime high school band's rendition of "Hooked On A Feeling." We the lay people just go on forming our own language I guess. Sorry. America's Big Dealer... ...uw-beaver!eli
allynh@ucbvax.ARPA (Allyn Hardyck) (12/01/84)
In article <4@ISM780.UUCP> michaelf@ISM780.UUCP writes: > > For an interesting montage, try the Surf Punks "Golden Shower of Hits" > It's a medley containing some of the worst songs of our time. If you > can only imagine how much worse "Afternoon Delight" or "D-I-V-O-R-C-E" > can get... That's the Circle Jerks... You know, "dooba dee doo wop wop say what yeah" (- for those of you who haven't seen Repo Man, well, WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN FRONT OF THAT TERMINAL????) -- "...you and your family must take shelter immediately." Allyn Hardyck ..!ucbvax!allynh allynh@ucbvax.ARPA
cosell@BBN-LABS-B.ARPA (12/02/84)
Maybe terminology has changed over the years, but `cover version' used to mean
something quite different back in the old days: cover versions of songs were
those done by 'more suitable' artists of songs that had no chance in the mass
marketplace by the original artists. Gale Storm and Pat Boone made whole
careers out of such practices (e.g., Gale Storm's version of 'I hear you
Knockin'' made it to #2 -- Smiley Lewis's was nowhere to be seen; In 1955
"Ain't That a Shame" made it to the charts twice: Fats Domino only got to #10;
Pat Boone made it to #1).
While the practice is hardly enviable, it did serve a useful purpose: it helped
open the doors so that non-mainstream artists could eventually participate on
thier own. And in some sense the practice still goes on: you often get the
very-popular artist taking advantage of the obscurity (or unsuitability) of
another artist and providing a crack-in-the-door for new material (for example,
I think that PP&M had a great deal to do with Bob Dylan's eventual popularity
-- for the most part I rarely like the PP&M version better than Dylan's own
version (gravelly voice and uninspired guitar and all), but there's a lot of it
that I would have never heard of failing PP&M's exposing it.
I have a less charitable view of the typical 'remake'. It has always struck me
as usually being little more than outright plagiarism of the arrangement that
some other artist/arranger came up with and I always wonder whether we wouldn't
have been just as well served to have had the original re-released: Joan Jett's
version of Crimson and Clover is a note-for-note remake Tommy James's. It is
hard to say that the original is better, since the remake is an EXACT copy. In
days past, they often just re-released singles. I'd just as soon they went
back to that in preference to the original artist's being ripped-off by less
worthy come-lately.
/Berniee I am)@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA> (12/04/84)
Mike: You say that "a 'cover version' implies more", but don't really specify
what "more" should be . . . though your original message did suggest that fame
and fortune might be it. You're correct, as far as I know, about the notion
of cover versions coming out of the split between black music ("Race" records
is what they used to be called, as far back as the twenties...) and white music.
One of the reasons for some early cover versions was to make a good song
acceptable to the bigoted white audience by having it performed by a white
singer.
I don't think that the distinction I was making was a purely semantic one.
Rather, I was trying to separate out the esthetic judgement from what I think
should be a purely technical definition. There's no question that some cover
versions are absolute abominations, while others are far better than the orig-
inal songs, and I'm perfectly happy to discuss what songs might fall into
either of these categories, or in-between . . . even though I'm well aware that
my esthetic judgements may not agree with those of others on the list. I just
don't want that judgement affected by matters like "fame and fortune," which
shouldn't be a component of such decisions.
<That was supposed to be "wrong-o", a bit of Brit slang, but the hyphen got
munched by my flying fingers...>
--Davehxe@rayssd.UUCP (12/07/84)
Gosh, I hate to just jump into a fray without reading *all* responses
first, but here I go anyway:
Mike, who claims that a "cover" version of a song is defined by aesthetics
or fame or fortune or something, is simply *wrong*!
I'm a musician, have been for years, and I know a lot of other musicians.
However you may personally define the word, to musicians the word "cover"
means simply playing a song you didn't write and/or record first. Period.
Why else would all those horrid bands who play in bars and do songs "just
like the record" be called "cover bands"? They're not famous or
particularly fortunate, but they are cover bands nonetheless. And, no,
that's not just local jargon; that's the definition. I admit that it is
more fun and probably more meaningful personally to 'weight' the value of
different cover versions of songs, and then to accord them the respect of
calling them "cover" or not, but I think you'll find that your definitions
are not understood by the world at large. (By the way, did I mention that
I don't define "song" as lyrics set to music, but in fact as.... Oh. No
*wonder* we don't understand each other!)
--
--Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccice5} rayssd!hxe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this
article are obviously my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Such a foolish notion, that war is called devotion,
when the greatest warriors are the ones who stand for peace."Ron Natalie <ron@BRL-TGR.ARPA> (12/07/84)
OOGA SHOTGA, OOGA OOGA.