Roger waters

[Guest]

but puccini created the unique thing that is nessun dorma. There are loads of people like pavarotti that can sing it. Of course they are supremely talented, but it is not their work.

I am learning the piano. Say I learn to play the moonlight sonata to an incredible standard. Who deserves most praise, me for performing it beautifully, or beethoven for creating it?

[russycarps]

I'm not dismissing them, just saying they are less deserving of praise than the person who had the idea in the first place

Hence, my opinion that a cover can never be held in higher regard than the original

[Guest]

I understand giving major credit to the originator of the song, but when you listen to 2 different versions of a song, and you might not know which one was the original, would you need to know before you made a judgement on which one you like most?

Edited September 26, 2013 by tonyblair

[Ed209]

This thread (which is by far the most interesting on efestivals - kudos all round) spawned me to go on the hunt for covers I never knew happened. A few turned up, but his won, massively

[Guest]

There are so many. I mean, I know Lennon & McCartney wrote it, but Joe Cocker's version of With A Little Help From My Friends just knocks spots off The Beatles version. Respect by Aretha, My Favourite Things by John Coltrane. In fact loads of show songs have been bettered by great jazz singers/performers...so, sooo many.

Yes, the writers were amazing, so are the performers. One doesn't diminish the other.

I've heard song-writers sing the praises of a cover, saying they've found things in the song that the writer didn't know was there... it's not a competition.

[Mardy]

There you go - blanket dismissal of an entire genre, one that happens to be an absolute cornerstone of modern music. It's definitely true that the deeper, weirder and farther you explore into music, the less important the lyrics seem.

[Wooderson]

hehehe, Easy tiger, was just a throwaway comment for yucks. Nothing more.

But you know there are genres of music I don't respond to, there are things deemed 'worthy' (or not) that I just don't get . Music, for me, is not an academic exercise, I shudder to my very fucking core at the idea of 'music appreciation'. It's an intensely personal, visceral thing, with a response not based on anything other than the fact that some music moves me. That some music has the transformative power to take me elsewhere. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. That's what gets us all, right? The other stuff around it, the chronology, might be interesting, but music is not archeology, it's about feeling it in your gut.

I'm going to call it as I see it, not based on it's influence, history or social worth. I don't give a fuck what influenced what really, I'm only genuinely interested in the form and the version that makes me jump round the room, or cry, or remember an old girlfriend. Shallow, maybe, but that's the way I am.

I can't find a handle on which to connect with pretty much all jazz, or classical music or rock. Just the way it is. I'd be lying if I said different. I'm sure they've got worth, but they ain't for me.

[russycarps]

There are so many. I mean, I know Lennon & McCartney wrote it, but Joe Cocker's version of With A Little Help From My Friends just knocks spots off The Beatles version. Respect by Aretha, My Favourite Things by John Coltrane. In fact loads of show songs have been bettered by great jazz singers/performers...so, sooo many.

Yes, the writers were amazing, so are the performers. One doesn't diminish the other.

I've heard song-writers sing the praises of a cover, saying they've found things in the song that the writer didn't know was there... it's not a competition.

[Wooderson]

But it's much easier to take someone elses idea and perfect it, than to have the idea in the first place. Wouldnt you agree?

[russycarps]

If the songwriter has the skill to be able to sing or as you say "perfect" a song to the standard of the best interpreters, Aretha or Sinatra to name but two, fine. But few, if any do. The Beatles were the first major act to record their own stuff. Broadly speaking it simply didnt happen before then. Are we to devalue everything that came prior to '62? Needless to say that theres a huge flaw in this debate anyway in that we're focussing on the human voice... one of the most fallible and prone to deterioration "instruments" there is -> thus the link back to Waters! Every classical piece any of us have ever heard has been a "cover".

But back to the pop song....

Something inspired the songwriter to write the song, but equally something inspired the interpreter to perform it the way they decided. All songs are built on similar patters and themes brought about by emotion, life experience, routine, grind or simply a moment of anagnorisis... all life is whimsy and interpretation and collaboration. It took three main creators to make "What the World Needs Now" come to life. Words, melody and vocal performance all created individually and separately.

Key point here is that youre placing a lot of store in the germination Russy, the initial gathering together of notes and words on a page. Bringing these notes and words to life and to their highest potential is a completely different, and equally worthy skill. I personally think that the most "heavenly" and unique of gifts is the voice rather than the smart cookie that could rhyme and structure notation. This is surely far more "God Given", if ye get me?!

The whole thing stinks of "muso" anyway. To echo Mardy to an extent, who cares if you know who wrote the original... or if youve ever even heard it. Takes neither to connect with a piece and for it to resonate, irrespective of whether the person's voice coming through the speaker is the same person who put pen to paper on it.

Bullshit anti-music attitude.

Edited September 26, 2013 by russycarps

[Wooderson]

I think the classical stuff is interesting. I have much more respect for Mozart for composing the music, than that nigel kennedy whopper for playing it well....

I'm genuinely surprised not everyone thinks that way.

I would never dismiss a song just because it's a cover. I love loads of covers! but no matter how good they are, and no matter how much I can recognise what a talent it is to improve on an original, the orginal idea is still the most important part of the whole process for me.

Covers have their place in the world, but an artists original work is much more important to me. For example, would anyone say that wild is the wind is bowie's best song?? Surely not! Surely you admire life on mars (or whatever) more considering he created it out of nothing.

[russycarps]

Bowie's "Wild is the Wind" is my favourite song of his, yes.

[Wooderson]

"Best" isn't a concept I'm able to rationalise btw. More muso bullshite there.

[Wooderson]

it's not "his"

[russycarps]

Who performed the version coming through my speaker then if not him?

Nonsense Russ. Take off the berét.

[russycarps]

I bet bowie would be a bit deflated if you strolled up to him and said "hey dave, my favourite song of yours is wild is the wind"

"oh, not one of the ones I poured my heart and soul into then? ok...."

[Wooderson]

I bet bowie would be a bit deflated if you strolled up to him and said "hey dave, my favourite song of yours is wild is the wind"

"oh, not one of the ones I poured my heart and soul into then? ok...."

[Wooderson]

And if for some bizarre reason you don't think he poured ever ounce of himself, every scintilla of melodrama into that performance you don't deserve ears. It is an evocation of a love that no affair could ever hope to live up to. It is spellbinding and monumental. Unique. Devine. Spiritual. Spectral.

All his.

[GlastoSimon]

I'm on Team Russy in this case, I will always respect a person who's written a brilliant song more than someone who's performed a brilliant song. However, I think covers go into two categories:

- An 'original' cover. That obviously makes no sense, but what I mean by that is somebody who has adapted a song, rather than replicated it. I'd say Wild is the Wind is a decent example of this, Bowie's version and the Johnny Mathis version are clearly different in sound. Cash's version of Hurt falls into this category too.

- And the opposite, a song which has been replicated, to the point where it's almost (or exactly) the same sound - but just under a different name. Can't think of many examples off the top of my head, although I'm sure there are quite a few about.

Obviously the 'original' cover should be given a decent amount of respect in my book, much more than the 'note perfect' cover anyway. However, that cover has stemmed from somebody else's original ideas, and so I have less respect for it than an original song. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy it though!

That's about all I'm going to contribute to this heated debate Have missed the last few pages so this may have been mentioned before, apologies if it has!

[russycarps]

And if for some bizarre reason you don't think he poured ever ounce of himself, every scintilla of melodrama into that performance you don't deserve ears. It is an evocation of a love that no affair could ever hope to live up to. It is spellbinding and monumental. Unique. Devine. Spiritual. Spectral.

All his.

Edited September 26, 2013 by russycarps

[russycarps]

I'm on Team Russy in this case, I will always respect a person who's written a brilliant song more than someone who's performed a brilliant song. However, I think covers go into two categories:

- An 'original' cover. That obviously makes no sense, but what I mean by that is somebody who has adapted a song, rather than replicated it. I'd say Wild is the Wind is a decent example of this, Bowie's version and the Johnny Mathis version are clearly different in sound. Cash's version of Hurt falls into this category too.

- And the opposite, a song which has been replicated, to the point where it's almost (or exactly) the same sound - but just under a different name. Can't think of many examples off the top of my head, although I'm sure there are quite a few about.

Obviously the 'original' cover should be given a decent amount of respect in my book, much more than the 'note perfect' cover anyway. However, that cover has stemmed from somebody else's original ideas, and so I have less respect for it than an original song. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy it though!

That's about all I'm going to contribute to this heated debate Have missed the last few pages so this may have been mentioned before, apologies if it has!

[Wooderson]

Core of (this tangent) of the debate was whether a cover can improve upon an original. This only needs one example for the theorem to be proven. So, bypassing the "professional songwriter" examples of HDH and Bach/David... heres 5 songs that IMO when "put in the ring together" they wipe the floor with the original. Like, no longer necessary. Existance futile.

"Its Oh So Quiet"

"Gloria"

"Hurt"

"Watchtower"

"Nothing Compares 2U"

Okay, back to work. Fascinating debate brought about by a mega rich pensioner too lazy and too sly to perform his own music to a crowd of punters who've paid over the odds to lap it up regardless.

[Ed209]

Throw in my tuppence worth,

There has to be a separation in the two phases of the creative process - the composition and the performance. Both deserve recognition for the artistry they involve. Neither can exist without the other. A composition only becomes a song through a performance. So I think its fair to say his version of Wild is the Wind is Bowie's song, but he has to share it with the composer.

The composition will always belong to the composer though, you can't take that from them. That is theirs. It came from their soul and their brain. Its purely a product of their existence and their experiences. Likewise, the performance will always belong to the performer. Difference is however the composition is fixed - It will and can never change. Its then always in the hands of the performer.

Like a play, a work of Shakespeare is nothing without someone performing it. The words are shakespeares, the performance is the actors, the play however belongs to everyone involved.

I'm babbling now, but in essence, my point is that the performance and the composition belong to two different people, but the song belongs to both.

[Wooderson]

I'm babbling now, but in essence, my point is that the performance and the composition belong to two different people, but the song belongs to both.

[frostypaw]

Just because one person wrote it doesn't mean the next can't completely sympathise and perform it as well.

Bit too black-and-white of Russycarps.... The principle is fine, but there are just too many exceptions to make it a rule