There must be some kind of way out of here

[venta]

Well, today NME has published a chart of the "best cover versions of all time".

It's here: http://www.nme.com/news/muse/53090

Virtually none of them meet my criteria for a good cover. In particular, I don't believe that most people will have had any idea that the songs were covers when they first heard them. If someone had to tell you the song you know is a cover, it doesn't count.


[Poll #1622076]

Other reasons why the NME is wrong: in their corresponding chart of the worst cover versions ever, Madonna's American Pie only makes #8.

Edit The Beatles' song should of course be Twist and Shout. Search and replace error :)

Comments

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

S&G's version relies heavily on the arrangement written by Martin Carthy, but a) he always said it was traditional, and fell out with them about it and b) they did deserve a copyright credit because of the Canticle part of their recording, which makes it hard to untangle SF from the rest of the track. It exists in recognisable form in the 19th century, though, so I'm not sure who is being credited with rewriting it in your half-anecdote. I'd like to know more!

[venta.livejournal.com]

Well, if Will happens by here he might tell us more!

He led me to understand that Martin Carthy's arrangement differend quite substantially from anything which existed formerly. He may have been wrong or I may have misunderstood, though!

Martin Carthy and Scarborough Fair

[(Anonymous)]

The fashion at the time was to introduce material as traditional. Martin's version of Scarborough Fair was, I have been told by those who knew him at the time, either re-written from bits of other versions or fragments, or the melody and arrangements are entirely Carthy's own, no tune having been documented with the extant lyrics. In either case, when Paul Simon learned the song from Martin Carthy (I believe at a club in the West Country, possibly in Somerset, rather than London), and subsequently recorded it Martin felt that for Simon and Garfunkel to copyright it as their own was more than a little cheeky. If the lyrics are traditional, and the arrangement Carthy's, then those facts should have been made clear on Simon and Garfunkel's copyright claim.

There is another point to this. After the song had been copyrighted, including the arrangement, there would have been a risk of Martin Carthy being liable to pay royalties to Paul Simon for every occasion on which he, Carthy, sang the song. In fairness this would have been more likely due to unscrupulous lawyers, rather than Paul Simon himself. There have been other instances where individuals have copyrighted in their own name collaborative work they have done with others. Where money is involved this prevents other participants in the work benefitting financially, in addition to them getting no credit for their creative input.

Martin Carthy and Scarborough Fair

[(Anonymous)]

The fashion at the time was to introduce material as traditional. Martin's version of Scarborough Fair was, I have been told by those who knew him at the time, either re-written from bits of other versions or fragments, or the melody and arrangements are entirely Carthy's own, no tune having been documented with the extant lyrics. In either case, when Paul Simon learned the song from Martin Carthy (I believe at a club in the West Country, possibly in Somerset, rather than London), and subsequently recorded it Martin felt that for Simon and Garfunkel to copyright it as their own was more than a little cheeky. If the lyrics are traditional, and the arrangement Carthy's, then those facts should have been made clear on Simon and Garfunkel's copyright claim.

There is another point to this. After the song had been copyrighted, including the arrangement, there would have been a risk of Martin Carthy being liable to pay royalties to Paul Simon for every occasion on which he, Carthy, sang the song. In fairness this would have been more likely due to unscrupulous lawyers, rather than Paul Simon himself. There have been other instances where individuals have copyrighted in their own name collaborative work they have done with others. Where money is involved this prevents other participants in the work benefitting financially, in addition to them getting no credit for their creative input.