Covers that are better than/you like better than the originals. - by SubJeff
theBlackman on 22/8/2011 at 18:06
Just to throw shit in the game: "Covers" are only exactly duplicated arrangements such as those done by "tribute" bands. :ebil: :ebil:
If it is not a duplicate arrangement, orchestration etc. then it is merely a song performed by a group or individual who did not write it.
For example if somebody sings Greensleeves (a tune some 300 years old) they are not doing a COVER. They are merely singing an old traditional song.
If Hot Tuna does Hesitation Blues, they are not "covering" the song, which is from the 1890's or 1920's, and was revised by Rev. Gary Davis before them. And any who do it subsequently are also not 'covering' the song.
A "Cover" is the exact same arrangement and production as the original. And unless it's done by a tribute group of one kind or another is never, ever a 'cover'.
But then the language has also gone to shit along with the true meaning of most words. So Cover will continue to be used by the uniformed in an inexact connotation.
Matthew on 22/8/2011 at 18:17
Oh, boo hoo.
BEAR on 22/8/2011 at 18:52
I guess its technically a remix, but its close enough for me: (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RRbrWmaKyU) El-P's remix of Only (NIN). The remix is much darker and subdued than the original (although the poppy beat of the original I thought was a good juxtaposition to the lyrics).
june gloom on 22/8/2011 at 19:01
Quote Posted by theBlackman
Just to throw shit in the game: "Covers" are only exactly duplicated arrangements such as those done by "tribute" bands. :ebil: :ebil:
If it is not a duplicate arrangement, orchestration etc. then it is merely a song performed by a group or individual who did not write it.
For example if somebody sings Greensleeves (a tune some 300 years old) they are not doing a COVER. They are merely singing an old traditional song.
If Hot Tuna does Hesitation Blues, they are not "covering" the song, which is from the 1890's or 1920's, and was revised by Rev. Gary Davis before them. And any who do it subsequently are also not 'covering' the song.
A "Cover" is the exact same arrangement and production as the original. And unless it's done by a tribute group of one kind or another is never, ever a 'cover'.
But then the language has also gone to shit along with the true meaning of most words. So Cover will continue to be used by the uniformed in an inexact connotation.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR OLD MAN LINGO OLD MAN
*puts on sunglasses and grinds an ollie on a skateboard while Blink 182 plays* :cool::cool::cool:
*skates off to the mall*
Ulukai on 22/8/2011 at 19:03
Yes! I always find listening to the original version straight afterwards makes Bowie sounds rather flat in comparison.
theBlackman on 22/8/2011 at 19:17
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR OLD MAN LINGO OLD MAN
*puts on sunglasses and grinds an ollie on a skateboard while Blink 182 plays* :cool::cool::cool:
*skates off to the mall*
To put it in terms that even your simple mind can comprehend.
Cover was invented in the 60's to describe a release of a hit song by a band other than the original. The purpose was to rake off some of the sales that the original was generating. The "Cover" cut into the sales and allowed the 'new' production to ride on the coattails of the original release.
The word has subsequently been used, inaccurately, to describe any tune released by a group or singer other than the first to release it.
As it happens, in that context, most of your ranting is a cover of another member of the forums.
june gloom on 22/8/2011 at 19:19
lol "terms that even your simple mind can comprehend" are you for real
seriously give up, i was making fun of you for threadshitting, or is that too complex for you?
Matthew on 22/8/2011 at 19:19
I would of course submit that the use of the word in this context has expanded to include both uses and is therefore equally valid in a modern context. What say you, good sir?
