Disclaimer: I know it's a cover, and I know who made the original, but I don't think I've ever heard the original, and I quite like the Scissor Sisters' version (not quite as much as 'It's great', but rather more than 'It's OK, I suppose').
But I'd've said it's more likely to be a 'Liz* actually knows very little about music apart from what she's osmosed** from living with smiorgan for so long' moment.
*Me this time **If this isn't a word, it should be.
Comfortably Numb has been a long time favourite, so I find it hard to comprehend the thought of anyone not knowing it. Having said that, it does tend to sit on my 'music to comit suicide to' compilations, along with much of the remaining Pink Floyd back catalogue.
That LP did spawn a Christmas number 1 single in 1979. For an albums band, I think that's not a bad effort on the part of a pig-ignorant general public, no?
Uhm, that was 25 years ago, when most people likely to be listening to the Top 40 nowadays were still in nappies or a glint in their parents' eyes.
The point I was making is that people today don't know about the original Comfortably Numb, when they're quite familiar with lesser songs of a similar vintage.
The problem I have in answering your poll is that I want to answer "It's a cover ?" but can't because I encountered the debate on how wrong this was before I heard the song for the first time !
That was interesting. I haven't heard anything by them before.
In general I liked it. I found what sounded like 'stop/start' misplicing rather disorientating, I don't know if this was intentional (i.e. part of their style) or an mp3 artefact. Still, its brightened up Friday afternoon
[note: is it valid to refer to comfortably numb 'brightening up anything? What does this say about the nature of my new job?]
I think any cover version that tries to be different from the original is worthy. Otherwise, what's the point? The Scissor Sisters album it's on is a fantastic album; I'm really not sure if I like that one track or not, but I applaud them for doing it!
To offer some additional info:
. I have seen the Scissor Sisters version listed as a single somewhere, though I'm suitably distant from the charts these days to be unable to say whether it made any impact all. But fear not, Liz - it's not just an album track.
. The entire album is full of very different, all retro-sounding, tracks. No one track is representative, but that's probably the least representative of all! Laura and Take Your Mama are getting the most radio airplay as far as I can tell; they are both excellent, and I also recommend you listen to Return To Oz.
I think any cover version that tries to be different from the original is worthy. I agree, but that does lead to some awkward moments of technically preferring terrible but different-sounding covers (like Samantha Mumba doing 'Ashes to Ashes') to dull-but-faithful covers (like... well, I can't think of an example offhand).
Of course, I'm also the only person in the world who likes the Tori Amos version of 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' as much as the original, so I'm probably not qualified to comment ;-)
I think any cover version that tries to be different from the original is worthy.
Eh? I think you've both gone potty - rubbish is rubbish, regardless of how it got there.
I think covers are roughly equivalent to alternative versions by the same artist (live performances, remixes, demo tapes or whatnot) in that it's interesting to hear a song done differently, and the cover might even be better. Or it might be utter junk offensive to the ears, in which case the fact that it's a ruined version of a good song makes it even more offensive.
dull-but-faithful covers (like... well, I can't think of an example offhand)
Lenny Kravitz's American Woman was pretty similar to the original by The Guess Who, although it's not an imitation. I quite liked it.
Def Leppard's Action is "the same but better" than the original in that Def Leppard were better musicians. The Sweet would probably have made the original sound like the cover if they could. Of course I don't expect anyone here to agree that either Def Leppard or The Sweet are worth giving the time of day to, so this may not be a great example.
> Eh? I think you've both gone potty - rubbish is rubbish, regardless of how it got there.
Just because you (or I) regard something as rubbish doesn't make it unworthy. Ours is not the only opinion. My point is that a cover version which is radically different from the original is a new contribution of some sort: it's worthy in that it is offering you something new; whether you actually like it or not is not the issue.
Oh, I see. In that case I'd ask "worthy of what?". If a non-cover song is terrible and everyone hates it, then by this kind of thinking it's still worthy provided that it's in some small way original, whereas a new recording of some classical piece that's been recorded before is not worthy (assuming a fairly standard arrangement). At this point I'm starting to wonder whether anyone cares what music is worthy...
The bad but different cover is offering me something new, and the good unoriginal cover is at best re-issuing the song to a new audience. I'd still say that the latter is potentially worthy (of my respect, admiration, attention, cash, or whatever) whereas the former isn't (by any measurement I'm capable of making).
Ours is not the only opinion
True, but I long ago gave up trying to discuss music in terms of absolute indisputable qualities or majority opinions. Speaking in terms of our own opinions won't lead to any great revelations about music, but it does at least exchange more than zero information.
In addition to 'I hate it', 'It should never have been allowed' and 'My ears, they're bleeding', I would just like to note that IT IS AN ABOMINATION IN THE EYES OF GOD!!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
I guess this is another "Liz in having no clue what's well known and what isn't" moment.
no subject
That's me, not you, by the way :)
no subject
I guessed ;-)
But I'd've said it's more likely to be a 'Liz* actually knows very little about music apart from what she's osmosed** from living with
*Me this time
**If this isn't a word, it should be.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The point I was making is that people today don't know about the original Comfortably Numb, when they're quite familiar with lesser songs of a similar vintage.
no subject
no subject
See more recent entry. It appears I am, again, Wrong.
no subject
no subject
In general I liked it. I found what sounded like 'stop/start' misplicing rather disorientating, I don't know if this was intentional (i.e. part of their style) or an mp3 artefact. Still, its brightened up Friday afternoon
[note: is it valid to refer to comfortably numb 'brightening up anything? What does this say about the nature of my new job?]
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Ow, my ears hurt just thinking about the memory of hearing it.
no subject
To offer some additional info:
. I have seen the Scissor Sisters version listed as a single somewhere, though I'm suitably distant from the charts these days to be unable to say whether it made any impact all. But fear not, Liz - it's not just an album track.
. The entire album is full of very different, all retro-sounding, tracks. No one track is representative, but that's probably the least representative of all! Laura and Take Your Mama are getting the most radio airplay as far as I can tell; they are both excellent, and I also recommend you listen to Return To Oz.
no subject
I agree, but that does lead to some awkward moments of technically preferring terrible but different-sounding covers (like Samantha Mumba doing 'Ashes to Ashes') to dull-but-faithful covers (like... well, I can't think of an example offhand).
Of course, I'm also the only person in the world who likes the Tori Amos version of 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' as much as the original, so I'm probably not qualified to comment ;-)
no subject
Eh? I think you've both gone potty - rubbish is rubbish, regardless of how it got there.
I think covers are roughly equivalent to alternative versions by the same artist (live performances, remixes, demo tapes or whatnot) in that it's interesting to hear a song done differently, and the cover might even be better. Or it might be utter junk offensive to the ears, in which case the fact that it's a ruined version of a good song makes it even more offensive.
dull-but-faithful covers (like... well, I can't think of an example offhand)
Lenny Kravitz's American Woman was pretty similar to the original by The Guess Who, although it's not an imitation. I quite liked it.
Def Leppard's Action is "the same but better" than the original in that Def Leppard were better musicians. The Sweet would probably have made the original sound like the cover if they could. Of course I don't expect anyone here to agree that either Def Leppard or The Sweet are worth giving the time of day to, so this may not be a great example.
no subject
Just because you (or I) regard something as rubbish doesn't make it unworthy. Ours is not the only opinion. My point is that a cover version which is radically different from the original is a new contribution of some sort: it's worthy in that it is offering you something new; whether you actually like it or not is not the issue.
no subject
The bad but different cover is offering me something new, and the good unoriginal cover is at best re-issuing the song to a new audience. I'd still say that the latter is potentially worthy (of my respect, admiration, attention, cash, or whatever) whereas the former isn't (by any measurement I'm capable of making).
Ours is not the only opinion
True, but I long ago gave up trying to discuss music in terms of absolute indisputable qualities or majority opinions. Speaking in terms of our own opinions won't lead to any great revelations about music, but it does at least exchange more than zero information.
no subject
no subject
I think I should stop making statements on LJ. I'm provably wrong way too often :)
no subject
It's a single.
no subject
Oh no it won't ;-)
(or were you deliberately catering for lazy sods like me who didn't get around to downloading it before the deadline?)
no subject
Not incompetence on my part, oh no.
no subject
Thankyou.