Korean Job Discussion Forums

[swetepete]

I used to think cover songs were cop-outs, and that people should write new songs all the time. But then as I came to realize that lots of great famous songs were actually covers, I reconsidered a bit. Then I started listening to jazz, a little, and saw that they have something called 'the standard,' which anybody can play without being accused of being a rip-off. Then I figured 'wait, all classical music is covered, too, right?' We have no Chopin recordings.
And also, so much 'fresh' new music is not so very fresh at all, and is all too often slavishly imitating something else anyway, or else sounds exactly like earlier stuff by the same act.
And then there's the issue of 'sampling...' Kanye West for example. The best parts of Kanye West songs are the samples; his voice annoys me. Jay-Z, too. The Game, too. But I got into some of the original sources they used, and now I have a better record collection than ever. I'd never have thought I'd actually enjoy listening to a song from the "Annie" musical. Sampling is Good! It's a hard knock life indeed.
So now I figure cover tunes are all right, as long as the coverer admits it openly and turns people on to the earlier version. Unlike, say, the Doors "Spanish Caravan," where that wicked awesome totally groovy guitar bit is lifted note for note from some 19th century spanish dude, Albeniz, who is then not credited on the album. Not that I care; Albeniz is dead anyway. It's a bit like me drawing Doraemon, though, and saying he's 'my' character...but what the hell, drawing Doraemon is cool. He's a robot cat from the future! He's got laser guns that pop out of his ass! What's not to like?
Unless I say I invented him.
My point is that because of this driving need to make 12 songs good enough for an album, we're often sold albums that have only two ok songs, while the rest is filler. Personally, I'd rather hear good covers than original dreck.
I guess it doesn't matter now because I steal all my music anyway, but in a few years, when They've figure out how to squish peer to peer networks, I may actually have to start shelling out for records again...sure I've slipped the rotted fetters of the recorded music industry, yay me, but for how long? It's Pirate Day now, but the wild west internet will get castrated eventually...
Really, when was the last time you heard an album that was All Good? I can't think of one in recent memory. The Fratellis had about 4 out of 12 on their debut last year, Felix da Housecat scored maybe 8 out of 12 back on Devin Dazzle and the Neon Fever, and I thought about half of the Libertines stuff was great...but mostly, albums are done. They just have too many crap songs on them.
Incidentally, Babyshambles does a decent 'Janie Jones.'

[RACETRAITOR]

The whole idea of "covering" is pretty new. After I started getting into jazz, the question "What covers do you listen to?" suddenly became weird and awkward, as I could name five different versions of Mack the Knife alone. If a modern-day jazz singer were to "cover" old musicians, for example as Keely Smith does, nobody would call her unoriginal.

As I mentioned in another thread, two-tone ska is almost all covers of bluebeat ska songs, and a lot of those are covers of earlier calypso or Jamaican R&B songs. The Specials and Madness are two of the world's greatest cover bands.

[kimchi story]

A great mind once said that our positions in society were dictated to us. It was confirmed by other great minds and then scandalized. Who was that first great mind? Oh yeah...Marx. And it was Monique Wittig who scandalized it. Between the two is Louis Althusser, who put forth a credible schema for the Marxist perspective. For the record, I'm huffin' back a hog as I write this. Does that mean I'm predestined to die a horrible death? Possibly.

This discussion of cover songs got me thinking. What is it about cover songs that pisses people off? It's the same thing that pisses people off about Bush. It's the uncomfortable transparency.

There was a time when the question of 'covering' didn't exist (as RT has already pointed out). Take a Chopin - you can't really take three chords from it and make something new. You just play Chopin. Music is not like that anymore. I refer to Bono's 'three chords and the truth'. Truth shmuth, but three chords, for sure. What we have here, is a question of citation.

What Marx said is that we have our position, and he wasn't all that far off. The question remains: why? Well, it's easy.

What do we have otherwise? Asociety, incomprehensibility. We re-perform what has existed previously because it can be understood. At the end of the day, we all seek connection and plenitude. This is a popular position for gender theorists, and I believe they have made more progress on the matter than anyone. We need our positions because they make sense. It's ugly, but it's black and white. Like Bush - his protestant ethic is only ugly because it is transparent. The 'good' are elect. The rest are reprobate - damned. It's an ethic that has driven the western world since the 17th century, but in his simplicity Bush 43 makes it obvious. Same with modern cover songs. In the mimicking of previous 'hits' they remind us of the inadequacy of the originals.

The glory of the cover song ended the day it began. As soon as the existence of a 'cover' was acknowledged an uglier truth was revealed. The day a recital became a cover, a certain element of the art died.

W-w-wait pete, don't get me wrong. Not only is it possible for covers to be better than originals, but I argue that it is fucking probable.

[butlerian]

For many people, a song needs to be sincere and you need to feel that the person singing has a relationship with the song in question. Generally, this can only be achieved by actually writing the song, though very occasionally another can find a true and meaningful connection - eg. Sinead O'Connor (Nothing Compares to U).

[swetepete]

dude, the swear filter! the swear filter? are you god, kimchee? how did you DO that?!

[kimchi story]

I dunno what you're talkin' about....ssshhhhhh

[RACETRAITOR]

[RACETRAITOR]

By the way, in case any mods get upset about Kimchi Story's little innovation, I direct your attention to this new user: http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=18045

Just saying, which one is more likely to cause a Davesgate scandal in the Korean media?

[superacidjax]

I'm a big fan of the "remix." Some of the best songs have been actually remixes of other great songs. Granted, there are some bad ones, but I rather like the reinterpretation of songs.. That's what's great about art.. it evolves and turns into something different all the time.

Many of the greatest paintings in history were actually revisions of other works..

[TheFonz]

I am still waiting to see a cover comedian.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I've never understood this sillyness about cover songs.

Before Thomas Edison, all songs were 'covered' every time they were performed. Why shouldn't folk singers still be singing Mary Hamilton and The Silkie? Just because they didn't write it? Should all songs die with their composer? Frank Sinatra was one of the great singers of the last century, and as far as I know, he didn't write a single song in his life.

I think the prejudice started with the singer-songwriter era, mid-60's. It suddenly became required to write and perform, not one or the other.

I've always enjoyed covers, as long as the artist brings something new to a great song. A fresh interpretation can be both fun and illuminating, bringing a new perspective to a song. What I don't like is someone just copying a song in an attempt to make money off someone else's creativity. That's just crass.