Poll: Music Covers, The Good, The Bad... Your thoughts?
- Thread starter Demagogue
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Funnily enough Hallelujah is actually one of the songs that I prefer the (I believe original) by Leonard Cohen, but that could be because I grew up listening to his version because my dad was a fan.BloatedGuppy said:
Also, what about situations like this when they just completely change the atmosphere of the song. I have to admit I have these guys album of Offspring, and Three Doors Down, but they have done a crazy amount of covers of so many bands. (Beetles, Metallica, RHCP, Taylor Swift, etc)
Man, Sabaton were born for that song. And if it doesn't make its way into the soundtrack for Thor: Ragnarok, it will be a shame.Eddie the head said:
What timing I run into this thread as I am listening to a cover album.
Sumerian Records had their bands come together to release a cover album of one of Florence and the Machine's albums titled Florence + The Sphinx and while its pretty hit or miss (depends on your metal tastes I guess), we got this cover of Dog days at least which I think is pretty decent;
Sumerian Records had their bands come together to release a cover album of one of Florence and the Machine's albums titled Florence + The Sphinx and while its pretty hit or miss (depends on your metal tastes I guess), we got this cover of Dog days at least which I think is pretty decent;
A good cover is like a good adaptation; an inverted mirror to the original. The impetus for adaptation is in gleaming a new perspective on subject matter rich enough to inspire one.
The Killswitch Engage cover of Holy Diver is one of my favorite songs. It takes advantage of the epic, fantastical lyrics of the original song, and copies the basic rhythm, but it totally overhauls the tone and pacing. You can still make out the skeleton of the original song if you've heard it, but a newcomer would never guess it was a cover, because of how well the new pieces fit together with the old ones.
Ultimately, the impetus behind a cover should never be to capitalize on the name song, but it should also never be to simply pay tribute to it. A good cover is the result of an artist genuinely coming to the conclusion that adapting someone else's work is the best is the best medium available for expressing what they want to express.
The Killswitch Engage cover of Holy Diver is one of my favorite songs. It takes advantage of the epic, fantastical lyrics of the original song, and copies the basic rhythm, but it totally overhauls the tone and pacing. You can still make out the skeleton of the original song if you've heard it, but a newcomer would never guess it was a cover, because of how well the new pieces fit together with the old ones.
Ultimately, the impetus behind a cover should never be to capitalize on the name song, but it should also never be to simply pay tribute to it. A good cover is the result of an artist genuinely coming to the conclusion that adapting someone else's work is the best is the best medium available for expressing what they want to express.
Wow... that was a REALLY good way of stating the purpose of covers! Bravo!sumanoskae said:
I voted "other" in the poll because I believe wholeheartedly in what sumanoskae said above (and stated more eloquently than I ever could). Some covers that faithfully recreate the originals can be really good, but that band/artist has to be really good in order to pull it off. Otherwise, that band needs to take the original in a new and exciting direction, or at least do something to make the song their very own.
For example, take this song: John Denver's cover of The Beatles' Mother Nature's Son. He manages to do the near-impossible by covering a Beatles' track and making it better than the original. By upping the tempo, his version sounds like a celebration of nature in a way that The Beatles' version doesn't, making the original sound like a dirge in comparison. John Denver's cover exposes how much the original's music doesn't quite match the written lyrics. He doesn't sound like he's covering a song, more like Paul McCartney wrote the song specifically FOR Denver to sing (as he wrote Come and Get It for Badfinger in 1968).
Sticking with The Beatles, Siouxsie and the Banshees pulled off an amazing feat turning Helter Skelter into a darker, pounding punk track. Again, they made this song their very own.
Just one other example of how a cover should be done, an example that totally came out of nowhere and improved upon a classic song by one of the most well-known artists in rock history: Oasis' version of "Heroes" by David Bowie. Musically, they didn't add an awful lot to the original, but Noel Gallagher puts in a vocal performance that sounds more fitting to the lyrics than what Bowie did.
See also:09philj said:
The aforementioned Cash cover of Hurt is mighty, I actually preferred the Disturbed cover of Land of Confusion - though that might be because, being English and born in the eighties, I loathe Phil Collins (it's like biology or something).
As for bad covers, usually pop artists - like All Saints cover of the Chilli Peppers "Under the Bridge" - one man's heartfelt tale of addiction turned into consumerist pop. Or 5ive's cover of the Beastie Boys "Fight for your Right" where they didn't even change the "Momma you're just jealous it's the Beast-ie-boys" line.
When you first meant covers though my mind went to parodies, love a good song parody. Weird Al is my hero.
I've been listening to a lot of Orchestral Covers of Modern Songs. Specifically by the Vitamin String Quartet.
Most of their Covers are really good, although some of them were a little rougher then others (Like their cover of "Iris" by the Goo Goo Dolls), and they do covers of songs I don't care about as well. I think it all sounds fantastic, though.
Most of their Covers are really good, although some of them were a little rougher then others (Like their cover of "Iris" by the Goo Goo Dolls), and they do covers of songs I don't care about as well. I think it all sounds fantastic, though.
It REALLY depends. There are 2 kinds of covers i generally like, either the genra-surfing ones, where, say, a ska band does a ska version of a 50s rock song or something, i dig that, or just a straight-up really good rendition of the song.
I'm not a huge fan of just doing it to do it though, like a lot of things. Most of the time they just seem like worse versions of the original. It's not insulting or anything, just not as good as the original, and have nothing else to offer, so like, what's the point? You know?
I'm not a huge fan of just doing it to do it though, like a lot of things. Most of the time they just seem like worse versions of the original. It's not insulting or anything, just not as good as the original, and have nothing else to offer, so like, what's the point? You know?