Covers: Faithful or Interpretation
- Thread starter beatlebum
- Start date
acidrock
GO PACKERS!
acidrock
GO PACKERS!
acidrock
GO PACKERS!
Did ya catch the "who dat saying they gonna beat them Saints?" in there?
I'll have to listen again.
M1Fanatic
Digital whaaa?
I've never yet had that happen.
I have a lot of stuff on the backburner that I'm too lazy to work on..etc...but I've never run out of original material.
Usually while I'm working on one song, I often end up with ideas for 3 more songs…so my "unfinished" pile of originals just gets bigger.
I guess that's why I said earlier in the thread that I didn't get it why people would take the time/effort to record covers if they weren't actually planning to include them on an album project.
But I guess if you run out of originals at some point...covers are something to keep you going.
I have some vague plans to eventually include a cover or two on one of my album project…down the road… but I don't ever want to include a cover on an album just to have a cover or juts as filler in lieu of originals. If I’m going to add a cover I would want my interpretation to really do it justice.
I get more enjoyment out of the recording process than I do writing.
Writing is only a means to an end. Sometimes the well runs dry for a spell.
I would never include a cover on a compilation of my own work. Not that there's anything wrong with that. For me, a cover is just practise on the studio equipment.
Wow, yeah, that's pretty much exactly how I feel about it. I like my original songs for the most part, but I just really like playing and recording. I guess I like "creating", although I hate terms like "creative" and "artistry" and stupid shit like that. I like taking a simple guitar riff and building it into a complete song with pounding drums and stuff.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
But...when you do stuff like that you ARE being creative and artsy!
I know....you probably think that if you are creative and artsy...
...then you must be a "fag".
Terry Wetzel
New member
For myself I prefer a cover to be as close to thr original as possible. For these reasons.
1). If I really admire the original artist and version, I think it's a kind of tribute to their talent.
2).In comming as close as possible to the original version, You reinforce your own musical ability and knowledge.
3) With me it's a confessed ego trip to ba able to duplicate an artists work that I really admire,(and it impresses my friends)
Just being honest.
1). If I really admire the original artist and version, I think it's a kind of tribute to their talent.
2).In comming as close as possible to the original version, You reinforce your own musical ability and knowledge.
3) With me it's a confessed ego trip to ba able to duplicate an artists work that I really admire,(and it impresses my friends)
Just being honest.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
You know the truly ironic thing about your views here ? You are creative and you do display artistry !
Seriously ! Your version of "No woman, no cry" might get you lynched amongst a certain crowd and age set in South London, but it's a wonderfully creative take on a song that has so insinuated itself in the psyche in just one way. I dunno, maybe it's the done thing to debunk and I must admit, sometimes we can go overboard with words. But they're what we have to make ourselves understood, for the most part !Pretty much. It's not so much the meanings of the words I have a problem with, but more the overuse and pompous douchebaggery of the people that generally throw those terms around. It's like "groove". Terrible.But...when you do stuff like that you ARE being creative and artsy!
I know....you probably think that if you are creative and artsy...
...then you must be a "fag".
You know the truly ironic thing about your views here ? You are creative and you do display artistry !
I dunno. Creative? Me? Maybe, sometimes. An artist? No way. I don't consider music art, or musicians artists. I'm not an artist, and I'm not even a musician. I'm just a guy that plays rock and roll.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
Just as an excercise I looked up "Art" and the dic reckons it to be "The creation of works of beauty or other special significance" and "Human creativity as distinguished from nature" and "Artist(e)" as "a person who is skilled at something" and "Professional entertainer such as a singer or dancer". Music is an art form, You create works of beauty {
}, you're skilled at "something" {'Sloop John B' - cute...}so in the light of the evidence presented, the jury finds you guilty of being both a musician and an artist !
In all seriousness though, I do agree that sometimes there is a pompous air in some of our descriptions and that resulting elitism is as damaging as the elitism it replaced . But that shouldn't take away the truth of the matter. Rock'n'roll was 13 to 14 years old before the highbrow cultural shapers finally, reluctantly conceded that it could be regarded as art. For me, Lemmy's loud inventive bass playing is as artistic as the 300 year old classical usage of the moving bassline.
Sorry about the off topic sidechain insert {see, I'm learning !}
The dictionary also says that darts and bowling are sports. In my opinion, any activity in which the participants can be obese drunks and still perform well isn't a sport. So while I may technically fit the description of an "artist", I shun the label and strive to be and promote the opposite.
I'm also of the opinion that a "musician" knows what he is doing. A musician understands theory and can apply that knowledge to his craft. I'm not that guy. I'm just a guy that plays rock and roll. I don't know theory, don't want to know theory, and try to dissuade others from learning theory.
I'm also of the opinion that a "musician" knows what he is doing. A musician understands theory and can apply that knowledge to his craft. I'm not that guy. I'm just a guy that plays rock and roll. I don't know theory, don't want to know theory, and try to dissuade others from learning theory.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
OK, OK ! I tried to knobble the jury but they went and voted against me !The dictionary also says that darts and bowling are sports. In my opinion, any activity in which the participants can be obese drunks and still perform well isn't a sport. So while I may technically fit the description of an "artist", I shun the label and strive to be and promote the opposite.
I'm also of the opinion that a "musician" knows what he is doing. A musician understands theory and can apply that knowledge to his craft. I'm not that guy. I'm just a guy that plays rock and roll. I don't know theory, don't want to know theory, and try to dissuade others from learning theory.
Personally, I'd prefer if the "note for note" covers were left for the so-called "tribute bands" to play. You know, the guys that dress up like the band, name themselves after one of the band's songs or albums, charge too much at the door, etc. I typically prefer to see a band take a song and make it their own.
If a modern rock band that favors 4-chord songs wants to take a comparatively more complex tune from the 70's and distill it down to its basic power chords, use a totally different vocal style, etc. I have no problem with that at all. In fact, I find it infinitely more entertaining than watching "cover band guy". We've all seen him... it's the guy that goes up on stage and pushes his voice such that it mimics the nuances of his favorite singers' voices as closely as possible, almost as if he was on some Saturday Night Live skit or something. Then, you walk by a table of his friends, and one of them is like "Ah, you should hear him sing Layne Staley... he sounds just like him! Eddie Vedder too!" Yawn.
Now, that doesn't mean any old job will do... the "interpretive" cover may still suck. But for me, it's *always* about the song/presentation as a whole. If I hear a different take on a cover, I'll sit back and ask myself "Did this rock or didn't it?" The answer can be yes even if the song is way different from the original.
If a modern rock band that favors 4-chord songs wants to take a comparatively more complex tune from the 70's and distill it down to its basic power chords, use a totally different vocal style, etc. I have no problem with that at all. In fact, I find it infinitely more entertaining than watching "cover band guy". We've all seen him... it's the guy that goes up on stage and pushes his voice such that it mimics the nuances of his favorite singers' voices as closely as possible, almost as if he was on some Saturday Night Live skit or something. Then, you walk by a table of his friends, and one of them is like "Ah, you should hear him sing Layne Staley... he sounds just like him! Eddie Vedder too!" Yawn.
Now, that doesn't mean any old job will do... the "interpretive" cover may still suck. But for me, it's *always* about the song/presentation as a whole. If I hear a different take on a cover, I'll sit back and ask myself "Did this rock or didn't it?" The answer can be yes even if the song is way different from the original.
