Too Early to cover (pop, punk, rock, itunes, white stripes)

TheBig3 · 11-20-2005, 12:53 AM

I get pissed off when people say things like "its too early to cover this song" because I think people (i.e. kids) think it can only be done if you reach back into the vault 20 years.

horse****, in the 60's people used to cover songs immediatly to pay homage. Otis Redding covered satisafaction by the stones months after it came out (and was obviously still ahit.)

Im writing this because The White Stripes covered Walking with the Ghost by Tegan and Sarah as a B-side and the iTunes reviews say things to the effect of

"i don't know I mean this song came out too early, this song was recorded this year"

WTF kind of review is that, I didn't ask for your producer two cents, was it good.

What do you guys think?

Merkaba · 11-20-2005, 01:22 AM

Weeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllll........

It's a crock of ****.

But in saying that I wouldn't want any old band doing any old cover any old time. It comes down to whether a band is doing it out of respect or out of guilt. By guilt I mean they have no material so they just start doing covers.

If it's out of respect I say keep on covering.

Cheese · 11-20-2005, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merkaba

Weeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllll........

It's a crock of ****.

But in saying that I wouldn't want any old band doing any old cover any old time. It comes down to whether a band is doing it out of respect or out of guilt. By guilt I mean they have no material so they just start doing covers.

If it's out of respect I say keep on covering.

You mean like Limp Bizkit doing that total sh1tehole remake of Behind Blue Eyes and their latest crap cover of Bittersweet Symphony/Home Sweet Home.

these a$$holes need ****ing up the arse with a 12 gauge

sleepy jack · 11-20-2005, 11:28 AM

Limp Bizkit's cover of behind blue eyes wasn't bad at all you just hate it because it was Limp Bizkit and i agree with you big3.

boo boo · 11-20-2005, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MIsfitspunk

Limp Bizkit's cover of behind blue eyes wasn't bad at all you just hate it because it was Limp Bizkit and i agree with you big3.

Dude, they ruined the original completely in my opinion, people just shouldnt cover who songs, EVER!...As Hilary duff and Bob Saget have already proved.

sleepy jack · 11-20-2005, 11:40 AM

Gosh they did the song and it sounded a little worse then the first that was it people sit there and say "OMG THEY THRASHED IT" when all they did was cover it and not do it as good as the original.

Imonlydancing · 11-20-2005, 01:06 PM

Yeh.
Big3 I agree with you too.
Somethings are covered well, some things aren't but surely how long ago it was recorded doesn't make much of a difference, unless a really really bad band covered a song that everyone loves...
Also, I don't think that limp Bizkits version of behind blue eyes was bad either.

right-track · 11-20-2005, 04:55 PM

I think if the cover is realeased close to the original, then I'd hope to hear a very different version.
If the cover is from a track some 30 years old for instance, then I'd expect to see some respect shown to the original artist and hear a version as close to the original as possible.

I always tend to think the originals are the best, however there are exceptions.

Big3, if it's done well, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

jazzfromhell · 02-20-2006, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

I think if the cover is realeased close to the original, then I'd hope to hear a very different version.
If the cover is from a track some 30 years old for instance, then I'd expect to see some respect shown to the original artist and hear a version as close to the original as possible.

I agree with your first point, but I'd also extend that to the second one. I think a cover should always differ from the original, at least somewhat, otherwise what's the point (at least for a single, if it was just being played live then that's different)? For example, Green Day's cover of I Fought the Law: note-for-note copy of the Clash's version (which differed greatly from the original, not sure who it's by). They released it as a single, it got tons of radio play. Respect or no respect, what was the point of that? People could've just listened to the Clash version, releasing Green Day's as a single was a shameless ploy to make money.

Covering a Who song is fine with me, but I thought Limp Bizkit's version blew (not for being different, just for being low in quality).

right-track · 02-20-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzfromhell

Respect or no respect, what was the point of that?

I was referring to classic originals.
Personally I think any cover version by a new or up-coming band, of an established classic, is nothing less than an insult.
Unless of course it blows the original away. Which, lets face it, is rare to say the least.

The music should be played as a tribute (a tip of the hat) and played as the original artist intended.
If I was a painter I wouldn't attempt to re-paint Van Gogh's sunflowers.

I do see the point your making, but my point is, show respect to the original.
Anything less is nothing short of arrogance.

11-20-2005, 12:53 AM	#1 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,246	Too Early to cover I get pissed off when people say things like "its too early to cover this song" because I think people (i.e. kids) think it can only be done if you reach back into the vault 20 years. horse****, in the 60's people used to cover songs immediatly to pay homage. Otis Redding covered satisafaction by the stones months after it came out (and was obviously still ahit.) Im writing this because The White Stripes covered Walking with the Ghost by Tegan and Sarah as a B-side and the iTunes reviews say things to the effect of "i don't know I mean this song came out too early, this song was recorded this year" WTF kind of review is that, I didn't ask for your producer two cents, was it good. What do you guys think? __________________ I've moved to a new address

11-20-2005, 01:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
Merkaba Whitewater! Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,882	Weeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllll........ It's a crock of ****. But in saying that I wouldn't want any old band doing any old cover any old time. It comes down to whether a band is doing it out of respect or out of guilt. By guilt I mean they have no material so they just start doing covers. If it's out of respect I say keep on covering. __________________ She thinks I'm a reclusive genius, she's going to be very disappointed when she finds out i'm a reclusive wanker

11-20-2005, 01:06 PM	#7 (permalink)
Imonlydancing raaaaaaa Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Bedford Posts: 950	Yeh. Big3 I agree with you too. Somethings are covered well, some things aren't but surely how long ago it was recorded doesn't make much of a difference, unless a really really bad band covered a song that everyone loves... Also, I don't think that limp Bizkits version of behind blue eyes was bad either.

11-20-2005, 04:55 PM	#8 (permalink)
right-track Atchin' Akai Join Date: May 2005 Location: Unamerica Posts: 8,769	I think if the cover is realeased close to the original, then I'd hope to hear a very different version. If the cover is from a track some 30 years old for instance, then I'd expect to see some respect shown to the original artist and hear a version as close to the original as possible. I always tend to think the originals are the best, however there are exceptions. Big3, if it's done well, then I don't see anything wrong with it.