Songs which should never, ever be covered....

Post Reply New Topic

Is it just me or does anyone have songs which are 'sacrosanct' - that any remix or crappy cover version would be a flogging offence? Certain songs are perfect, in terms of balance, emotional effect, etc. For example, when The Smiths' classic 'How Soon Is Now' was mutilated for a theme tune it made me feel physically ill.

There are three songs I can think of which fall into this category - more when I remember them.

The Smiths - How Soon Is Now: Six and a half minutes of perfection. Nuff said.

New Order - Blue Monday: I cannot express enough my displeasure at hearing this song on credit card adverts. The full seven and a half minute 1983 version strikes a brittle, emotive balance between the primal angst of Joy Division and the band's electro-pop leanings - and Hook's bass has never sounded so poignant. The 1988 remix wasn't a patch on this.

Joy Division - Transmission: This song transports me in ways I can't say. The day someone f*cks it up I will be looking for weapons.

Anyone else feel personally offended by crappy covers?

Dunc

guess what, dunc? i absolutely agree.

song of the siren - the version by This Mortal Coil is sublime, and that's the ONLY version which should be legal (i know it is actually a cover itself, but i'm making a special case here - listen to it first and then tell me i'm wrong. tim buckley's original is stunning). i once ran screaming (literally) from a record shop cos there was some bastardised, remix version of same.

bohemian rhapsody - well, how could it be covered? changed the face of popular music forever.

oh, ta, dunc - am now thinking of all my favourite songs. this could be a biggie...

There's a really horrible disco cover of a fleetwood mac song around and I don't even like fleetwood mac. Once you get to my age, there's so many covers you don't have time to fully ponder the awfulness of each one. It's just so NEW to an audience who never heard those songs the first time around.

I'm usually okay with covers. As long as the artist doing the covering obviously has great respect for the original song, I'm happy. That doesn't mean I'll think it's a good version to listen to, but it takes a lot to actively piss me off.

Which brings me to Something Corporate's Konstantine. Nine minutes and thirty five seconds of honest to goodness emotion without an ounce of triteness put to a magnificent piano line. The greatest love song ever penned and if you disagree I'll shank ya.

Later, a cover version from a lesser known band began to pop up on the internet. I gave it a listen, not hoping for anything equal to the original, only expecting a decent tribute. Let me tell you, there's nothing in the world more infuriating than listening to the singer audibly take a hit from a bong during an instrumental bridge of your very favorite song, not to mention adding screamo lyrics to the choruses and completely leaving out the last verse. That's why I went for the first option.

I think that the success of some covers depends on how they are done. For example, Madonna covered "American Pie" by Don McLean and it was terrible. However, there was another old song sung a number of years ago. Someone did it originally, and then it was covered by Tony Bennett. Can anyone think of what song I am referring to? Also, do any of you agree with me?

Yeah that usually goes for me also, except in rare cases - there have been some great covers. (Therapy?'s blistering version of 'Isolation', and the unplugged Nirvana cover of 'The Man Who Sold The World' spring to mind) However certain songs will never be adequately covered, and so should be left well alone.

Dunc

As a radio station program director, I'm pretty fed up with cover versions of songs and here's why the music industry is doing it: Radio stations do a lot of audience research to determine what songs your target audience like and how often they would like to hear various selections.
The music industry has tapped into this research and gets other acts to perform these high-testing songs in an effort to "play it safe" in an attempt to make more money on what they see as a sure bet towards revenue.

By and large, with the exception of folks like me who are music freaks,
PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY LIKE...THEY LIKE WHAT THEY KNOW.
...and that's what the music industry is banking on; they get their new and upcoming artists doing older familiar "comfortable" songs, because it's an easier way to make more money.

If the artist is doing it because they have great respect for the song, and feel they have a real connection to the song or really feel they have something to add to it, then I usually like it. Joe Cocker did a lot of excellent cover songs, he added to them in a very skillful way and took it very seriously; Clapton did the same. If they're just doing it to make money, then that's when it usually turns out pretty horribly. Back in the early nineties, when Faith Hill was still largely unknown, someone (and he/she better hope I don't find out who they are ) decided she should do a remake of Janis Joplin's "Piece of My Heart", which took a classic rock song that was so powerfully and soulfully done by Janis, and massacred it, watering it down into a weak, soulless pop-country tune. And here's the real kicker: she didn't even know who Janis Joplin was!! !! ! Melissa Etheridge did a cover of that song at a concert recently, and I know she knew who Janis was and had great respect for her, because she really nailed it and sang it with a lot of strength and power. That was a great cover

Excellent point, Midge! There are covers than can be done with heart, soul & respect and that's different than songs that just roll off the music industry assembly line.

Sometimes the covers are even better than the original.

Ik like "Hallowed By Thy Name" by Cradle Of Fire more than the original by "Iron Maiden".

I hate it when I hear a song and think "This is awesome" and later find out that it's a cover and it loses credibility with me...

There are indeed to many cover songs out there, but sometimes they can be good. It depends on if they're doing anything new for the song. If it's an credible original artist that makes an old song into something different and more interesting than it can work, but if it's just a pointless cash in on the original it pisses me off. It's not really hard to tell when it is the case, it's usually pop artists that do this...

Back in the mid 90's a bunch of cheezy fourth rate California Hardcore bands had the audacity to do a compilation remake of Husker Du's Zen Arcade album.
I never heard it, only saw a review of it.The reviewer shared my opinion exactly. --How can you even THINK of attempting to remake one of the greatest pieces of music recorded in the 80's???

Some bands make songs that make for great cover songs. Depeche Mode comes to mind, I've heard quite a few good covers of Tainted Love and Enjoy The Silence. But one I have didn't change anything, annoying.

Linkin Park is a band that shouldn't be covered. I haven't heard any covers of any of their songs, but there's not many Rock/Rap groups out there. A good cover would be really hard to pull off. I'm also annoyed by crappy, poppy remixes/covers of broadway/musical songs like "If I Were A Rich Girl(Man in original)" and...well, I was going to say Nightwish's version of "The Phantom of the Opera", but that's only because I don't like the male voacals. I don't hear cover songs very often.

Marilyn Manson did a good cover of Personal Jesus.

Les Clapool, the guy from Primus with his Frog Brigade actullay performs Pink Floyd's "Animals" album in its entirety, live, and does a fine job of it. It's not a "cover", per se, but more of a PERFORMANCE, much like a classical piece, in the way it is presented.

I liked Spiderbait's version of Black Betty.