Cover: Wish You Were Here by Radiohead & Sparklehorse?

[Swish]

I'm just back from 8 days in sunny Florida. Well, at least 5 days could be classified as sunny, but it beats the 7 degrees we have right now! But I digress. So I'm listening to my new favorite Web radio station (the one run by a 14 year old girl that I posted about a couple weeks ago and can be found at http://www.fistfulayen.com/MT/), and this cover song comes on. It was a pretty nice rendition, and by two bands I would never expect to collaborate, but what the hey.

I guess my question to you is, how do you feel about covers in general? Do you think bands do them mostly as a tribute to the original artist or because they think they can do them better or add something to the song?

I don't normally like them, especially when I hear someone like Jimmy Buffet (sorry JC) doing a Bruce Cockburn song less than 1 year from the original release! Ok, it may have been a little more than a year for all I know, but Pacing the Cage is the song I'm referring to and J.B. did nothing to improve it nor nothing to change it, although he certainly didn't sound as good as Bruce. I heard it on a local radio station and couldn't believe my ears. It just sounded like someone capitalizing on another's work.

Your thoughts?
Swish

[Dusty Chalk]

I guess my question to you is, how do you feel about covers in general? Do you think bands do them mostly as a tribute to the original artist or because they think they can do them better or add something to the song?

I dig 'em -- especially when they're something like this one.

[ForeverAutumn]

I like covers when they are done as a tribute to and with respect for the original artist. Sarah McLaughlin's cover of XTC's Dear God is a good example of an artist adding her own mark on a song without really changing the original version too much.

But then you get covers that barely resemble the original and I think to myself, "why bother?". A couple of examples would be Grandaddy's cover of The Beatles, Revolution or, more recently, the Scissor Sister's cover of Floyd's Comfortably Numb. In both these cases, unless you know the words, you would never recognize the original song from the music or melody of the cover. The original melody has been completely abandoned. If you're going to do that to a song then why bother? Write your own damn lyrics and record an original. I think that bands do this just to creat buzz...get people to talk about them. "Hey, did you hear the Scissor Sisters cover of that Pink Floyd song?". I think it's cheap and denotes a lack of respect to the artist who created the original.

[audiobill]

It depends. Usually, I don't like covers of the original artist's work.

The metal cover/tribute cds to Black Sabbath are very fun. They're called "Nativity in Black" and feature some highly interesting interpretations of the originals, by Sabbath.

Another similar cover/tribute cd is the Parsons "Grievous Angel" cd that did a similar thing with Parsons' music.

Tough ones to call: CSN doing Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock" -- hard-pressed to tell you which one I like best. It varies with the mood I'm in. Jimi Hendrix doing Bob Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower" -- once again, it depends, upon my mood.

Unlike classical music, it seems many of us have a hard time with another artist interpreting another composer's/artist's music. Imagine what classical music would be like if we only wanted to have Chopin playing Chopin or Rachmaninov playing Rachmaninov. All the other classical artists, such as Alfred Brendel, would be considered exploiters of the masters' music.

Just some thoughts.
A very good thread, by the way Swish.

Bill

[-Jar-]

But then you get covers that barely resemble the original and I think to myself, "why bother?". A couple of examples would be Grandaddy's cover of The Beatles, Revolution or, more recently, the Scissor Sister's cover of Floyd's Comfortably Numb. In both these cases, unless you know the words, you would never recognize the original song from the music or melody of the cover. The original melody has been completely abandoned. If you're going to do that to a song then why bother? Write your own damn lyrics and record an original. I think that bands do this just to creat buzz...get people to talk about them. "Hey, did you hear the Scissor Sisters cover of that Pink Floyd song?". I think it's cheap and denotes a lack of respect to the artist who created the original.

I enjoy a good "straight" cover now and then, but I kind of have the opposite view. If you're not going to do something original with the song, then why bother trying to immitate the artist that recorded it in the first place. THAT seems like more of a waste of time to me. As I said, a decent straight cover is great sometimes.. Tom Petty does great "straight" covers.. "Changed the Locks" or "Feel a Whole Lot Better" are both enjoyable, because he adds his Tom Pettyness. But most "straight" covers do little other than emphasize how much better the original is.

I much prefer reworks than straight covers. Check out some of the covers that the Red House Painters have done. Their cover of The Cars' "All Mixed Up" is amazing, one of my favorite recordings of the 90's. He took the lyrics and created a whole new musical shell around them. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

Most covers are just for fun anyways, so I think, if you're going to do it, then make something new and exciting.

Just my 3 cents.

-jar

[Dusty Chalk]

But then you get covers that barely resemble the original and I think to myself, "why bother?". A couple of examples would be Grandaddy's cover of The Beatles, Revolution or, more recently, the Scissor Sister's cover of Floyd's Comfortably Numb. In both these cases, unless you know the words, you would never recognize the original song from the music or melody of the cover. The original melody has been completely abandoned. If you're going to do that to a song then why bother? Write your own damn lyrics and record an original. I think that bands do this just to creat buzz...get people to talk about them. "Hey, did you hear the Scissor Sisters cover of that Pink Floyd song?". I think it's cheap and denotes a lack of respect to the artist who created the original.

Although I agree that this is often the case, as Jar, I often prefer a 'different' version. Did you check out the link I posted? That's qualifies under the category that you describe, yet I quite like it. The phrase "respect to the artist who created the original" (in this case, N.W.A.) never crossed my mind, but I think she did (by, for example, not changing the lyrics). Also, some of my favourite covers are that way: Oingo Boingo's version of "You Really Got Me", Cure's version of "Purple Haze", etc.

It's just fun. I would do a lot of covers, and they wouldn't be recognizable.

[Mike]

I imagine most artists do it cos they like the original so much or hear something they think they can work with. I don't mind album tracks never released as singles but I'm not a big fan of single covers for the radio purely aimed at making money.

Here's a few that spring to mind I quite like:-

Johnny Cash - One (U2) and Hurt (Nine Inch Nails)
Patrica Barber - Light My Fire (Jose Feliciano)
John Martyn - Glory Box (Portishead)
SR Vaughan - Little Wing (Hendrix)
Gov't Mule - Cortez The Killer (Neil Young)
Jamie Cullum - High and Dry (Radiohead)

In the case of Johnny Cash his version of Hurt exceeded the original so much you would think it was written for him.

Cheers
Mike

[jasn]

I can't take a general poisiton on note-for-note covers, because some are just great and some p*ss me off for the obvious grab at the cash. Anyone who's been to a Gov't Mule concert can attestt to the fun and exilaration of hearing Warren's take on classic songs we all know by heart (An absolute stand out for me was Zepp's No Quarter). He puts his own spin on them, but for the most part I think he wants to stick close to the original out of respect.

A cover back a few years ago that forever turrned me off for the artist was 10,000 Maniacs doing Because the Night. I found it very uninspiring and only served to reinforce how great Pati Smith is in the first place.

On the other hand, I love Catherine Wheel's own remake of Wish You Were Here. Go figure...

[Troy]

Add me to the list of people that like the covers different and nearly unreconizable.

The idea is to make it your own while still showing respect for the original.

[Troy]

Grandaddy's cover of The Beatles, Revolution

I need to hear THIS!

[ForeverAutumn]

I need to hear THIS!

And so you will.

[Davey]

Love em! Good, bad or ugly. Don't care much for covers done by artists I don't generally care for, aka Britney's limp tribute to the Stones or Madonna's recent butchering of Lennon or Limp Bizkit making a mockery of the Who. Legions more. In fact, speaking of that Madonna try at Imagine on the Tsunami Aid show and your original topic, Roger Waters also tried his hand at singing his old Wish You Were Here and didn't fare too well either, even with the ladies singing backup. Kind of a snooze. Shoulda let Clapton sing it.

Anyway, did you ever hear the first Sparklehorse album? He closed it out with a song patterned somewhat after Wish You Were Here called Gasoline Horseys. Starts out with a similar lo-fi distorted transistor radio sound and then blossoms into a full hi-fi sound. Cool song.

On the topic though, I generally have more appreciation for either a fresh take on a classic or a very obscure cover that I don't recognize, but that makes me feel compelled to seek out info on the original. So many gems that have never really been heard by most of us that I think it makes more sense to dig em up and give em a fresh coat of paint. Could list a million of them since many indie artists do it to show how cool their record collections are (Yo La Tengo is a prime example), and I've got no problem with that at all

[Dusty Chalk]

...or Madonna's recent butchering of Lennon...

...or Don McLean!

[Davey]

...or Don McLean!

Well, that was a pretty silly song anyway so I don't care that much what she does to it

[Swish]

I enjoy a good "straight" cover now and then, but I kind of have the opposite view. If you're not going to do something original with the song, then why bother trying to immitate the artist that recorded it in the first place. THAT seems like more of a waste of time to me. As I said, a decent straight cover is great sometimes.. Tom Petty does great "straight" covers.. "Changed the Locks" or "Feel a Whole Lot Better" are both enjoyable, because he adds his Tom Pettyness. But most "straight" covers do little other than emphasize how much better the original is.

I much prefer reworks than straight covers. Check out some of the covers that the Red House Painters have done. Their cover of The Cars' "All Mixed Up" is amazing, one of my favorite recordings of the 90's. He took the lyrics and created a whole new musical shell around them. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

Most covers are just for fun anyways, so I think, if you're going to do it, then make something new and exciting.

Just my 3 cents.

-jar

which has to rank right up there with my all-time favorite covers. The best part about it is that it's such a departure from the Cars version that it's not immediately recognizable, which is a good thing in this case since I really don't care for the Cars version.

Swish

[Troy]

Madonna's cover of "American Pie" is a cultural embarassment. Can't wait to hear her cover of "McArthur Park" too . . .

[BarryL]

I dig 'em -- especially when they're something like this one.

What a riot it would be to have a whole CD of gansta rap hips turned into sweet folk songs by someone like Jewel! What a sensation that would make in the music world! It could revive someone's career (as long as it isn't Cher).