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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-07-02 08:38 am (UTC)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
Date: 2004-07-02 09:52 am (UTC)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
Date: 2004-07-05 03:10 am (UTC)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
Date: 2004-07-05 12:48 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2004-07-05 02:01 pm (UTC)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.