Original vs cover

[Droombolus]

Hoy Axton wrote these:

Talking 'bout Hoyt Axton....



and the Steppenwolf version

[Dave W]

The original, IMHO much better than the better known cover.



The cover

[Dave W]

Another R&B/pop hit covered by Brits. Earl-Jean (above) was also one of The Cookies.

The original



The cover

[gweimer]

I had to post this one

Original - Art Reynolds Singers


Cover1 - The Byrds (my favorite)


Cover2 - Doobie Brothers

[Dave W]

Found an unusual B52s cover a couple of days ago, so let's revive this.

Original:



Cover:

[mc2NY]

IMO, the SONG ITSELF is the star. A great song, is a great song...and creating it is lightyears ahead of simply later hearing a version and recording it.

If the original version is also recorded by the actual writer, than that version should be awarded 100 extra points for the writer/band having the creative vision...if comparing it to someone who copied it.

So, a cover version by the non-writer of the song should start out 100 points back from the original...that way only a truly amazing cover version can eclipse an original work.

A good example....Jimi Hendrix Exp "All Along The Watchtower"

That would also eliminate pretty much every sampled riff ever lifted and rapped over...or MUZAK elevator music versions of songs.

[gweimer]

Original - Golden Earring


Cover - Rumble Club (I didn't much care for this band or album, but this cover makes it worth the effort)

[Pilgrim]

IMO, the SONG ITSELF is the star. A great song, is a great song...and creating it is lightyears ahead of simply later hearing a version and recording it.

Think back to the big band era - EVERY band did its version of the greats like "A String of Pearls" and no one called them covers - it was that band's version.

Personally, I dislike the term "covers" as it carries a slightly negative connotation for many people.  I prefer to think of it as great music that's performed in our way.

[Rob]

Think back to the big band era - EVERY band did its version of the greats like "A String of Pearls" and no one called them covers - it was that band's version.

Personally, I dislike the term "covers" as it carries a slightly negative connotation for many people.  I prefer to think of it as great music that's performed in our way.

I have to agree.

[nofi]

even though i encourage original music whenever possible, i still cringe when someone tells me 'we write our own stuff'. 

[gweimer]

even though i encourage original music whenever possible, i still cringe when someone tells me 'we write our own stuff'. 

For every mediocre musician, there are probably double that number of unclever song writers.

People are still covering Beethoven, too...

[Pilgrim]

People are still covering Beethoven, too...

That's very much to the point...and that performance is never called "covers". 

[Dave W]

The term doesn't mean anything negative to me. Just signifies that it's not the original recording, whether or not the first to record it was also the writer.

[gweimer]

Sorry....I couldn't resist doing this....

Cover #1....closer to the original....


Cover #2...more of a stretch....

[gweimer]

...or this....

Original - The Chordettes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLRutnikSBg&ob=av2n

Cover - Oranger