I'm not too proud to say that I'm ok

[venta]

OK.

I love Belle & Sebastian.
I love Crash.

Please will someone tell me where I stand on this:

I'm quite confused. I really liked it when I heard it yesterday, but today I'm not so sure...

Comments

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Well... I love Belle and Sebastian and Crash, but I don't like this at all.

Thing is, I like my fast tunes fast - I don't want them slowed down.

Conversely, I also don't want a 200bpm dance remix of Everybody Hurts.

[venta.livejournal.com]

In general, I approve of people messing with the tempo of covers. If I want the fast version, I'l just listen to the Primitives :) So I don't mind (for example) what The Dickies did to Nights in White Satin, or what the Beautiful South did to Don't Stop Moving.

Actually, I think the problem with this B&S cover may be as someone pointed out in the YouTube comments - it's all gone a bit Mike Flowers Pops.

[sammason.livejournal.com]

Oh I see, it's a cover! I don't know the original.

I do think that anybody recording a cover version needs to bring something new to it. The Scissor Sisters did that with Comfortably Numb and I like their version. Later, I heard, Pink Floyd took the stage at a festival and calmly showed the youngsters how that song was made to sound.

Have you heard The Enemy version of Father and Son? That's another cover in which I find that there's something new and good.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Totally agree with you that covers should bring something new to the party - if it sounds just like the original, why are they bothering?

I have a huge number of opinions on covers (I did a series of mp3 posts (http://venta.livejournal.com/tag/underneath%20the%20covers) about them a couple of years ago, but sadly limited webspace means the downloads aren't there any more). I also think that something can be a good cover version but still not be as good as the original - something which commenters on those posts frequently disagreed with!

I'm not sure I know Father and Son, and one of my rules is that you can't consider something as a cover unless you already knew the original at the time you heard the cover :) I'll go and have a listen, though.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

if it sounds just like the original, why are they bothering?

I suspect in a lot of cases because they played it live (where the rules for whether a cover is worthwhile are different), and their fans liked it enough that it became worth recording too. Maybe a live bonus track on an album would work better.

[hirez.livejournal.com]

Hm. No, I think.

(If this tangenteers into what people consider good covers, I shall stick my oar in early and claim this one: http://youtu.be/LUBcqs0Z9QA )

[venta.livejournal.com]

Sadly, I'm not qualified to comment as I'm not very good on my Wire. So that's a jolly nice noise, but I can't really judge its cover-validity.

[sammason.livejournal.com]

I've no idea where you stand because I'm not you! I quite like the song, though.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I love Belle and Sebastian as much as the next person, but I don't love this. I think to cover a really great song (as Crash indisputably is) you have to bring a bit more to it. I wouldn't go so far as to say Mike Flowers, but it does seem a kind of lazy and unnecessary reworking.

I tried to think of a good B&S cover that I have heard, but I don't think I've caught any of these: http://www.coversproject.com/artist/belle%20and%20sebastian/
have you?

[venta.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I think I might have a copy of their version of The Boy With The Thorn In His Side somewhere. I seem to remember that it was as un-noteworthy as Smiths covers almost always seem to be.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

I'm the next person, and I'm pretty sure Belle and Sebastian are a heap of twee bobbins. Admitting it by going Mike Flowers is kind of an improvement!