Music Cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better?

[pinball1970]

Which songs were performed, arranged or produced better in a cover than the original version?
Which songs should have been left well alone?

Also, I think restricting the covers just to released singles will restrict some interesting stonkers and stinkers so album tracks are allowed.

 

[Hornbein]

The Residents -- (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

 

[fresh_42]

Original (the song, not the singer; song is too old to figure out who sang it first; possibly a Roma song)



Cover:

 

[fresh_42]

Original (Comme d'habitude):



Cover (My way):

 

[fresh_42]

Cover and Original simultaneously (Et maintenant):

 

[fresh_42]

The composer said (I quote by memory) that he loves all three of them. He has been lucky to have created a song that was sung differently by 3 artists, but all were very good.

 

[symbolipoint]

Which songs were performed, arranged or produced better in a cover than the original version?
Which songs should have been left well alone?

Also, I think restricting the covers just to released singles will restrict some interesting stonkers and stinkers so album tracks are allowed.

"Better" depends on who is judging the two or more versions or arrangements. Also, "Better" depends on how YOU either agree or disagree with the person mentioned who is doing the judging.

 

[fresh_42]

"Better" depends on who is judging the two or more versions or arrangements. Also, "Better" depends on how YOU either agree or disagree with the person mentioned who is doing the judging.

I do not agree with that. I think there is a judgment independent of personal taste.

 

[pinball1970]

"Better" depends on who is judging the two or more versions or arrangements. Also, "Better" depends on how YOU either agree or disagree with the person mentioned who is doing the judging.

Give an argument, that is what is interesting.

 

[fresh_42]

Original:



Cover:

Equally good. Argument? Lemmy doesn't need a ... argument.

 

[gmax137]

Here's one of my favorite covers (as they say, watch to the end)

 

[gmax137]

... Orbison Video

I don't think I have ever seen this. I had a Moto Guzzi just like the one in the video; black tank with chrome knee panels. I wonder where it is now.

 

[pinball1970]

Original:



Cover:

Equally good. Argument? Lemmy doesn't need a ... argument.

You love Lemmy you are biased! ;

 

[gmax137]

Another cover?

 

[pinball1970]

Here's one of my favorite covers (as they say, watch to the end)

This is where it gets interesting.
Agree this is amazing BUT I hated it compared to S&G. That is what this thread is about.
As a stand alone, amazing Vocals and live so respect there BUT with that gentle minimal 1960s sound and harmony S&G had, that is absent here, this version destroys it.
My Neice would have heard this version and thought it is amazing. Listening to the original she would probably be disappointed with the lack of anger passion and insanity. I'll check with her, she is an expert in something i can never be. Being young.

 

[pinball1970]

Another cover?

View attachment 322655

That is good. Great even. No a moment of genius.

 

[Ibix]

This is where it gets interesting.
Agree this is amazing BUT I hated it compared to S&G.

I like 'em both, for different reasons. Simon & Garfunkel's version is quiet and contemplative, whereas the Disturbed version is angry about it.

"Hurt" - Nine Inch Nails original and Johnny Cash cover:




Always seems to be something in my eye when I hear Cash's version.

 

[fresh_42]

This is where it gets interesting.
Agree this is amazing BUT I hated it compared to S&G. That is what this thread is about.
As a stand alone, amazing Vocals and live so respect there BUT with that gentle minimal 1960s sound and harmony S&G had, that is absent here, this version destroys it.
My Neice would have heard this version and thought it is amazing. Listening to the original she would probably be disappointed with the lack of anger passion and insanity. I'll check with her, she is an expert in something i can never be. Being young.

I think it has at least a reason to exist. It is differently interpreted and doesn't destroy the memory of the original. They both are good songs. What makes me angry is, if people cover an already perfect song and ruin it, i.e. if they do not add something, a different interpretation, a different arrangement, or whatever.

This is a cover that makes sense:

Original:



Cover:



... and this is an example where there wasn't any need to record the cover. The original was better and the cover didn't add or change anything. Just the same song, only worse.

Original:



Cover:

 

[DennisN]

"Venus": (I favor the original, it's so cool )

Cover: Bananarama - Venus


Original: Shocking Blue - Venus

 

[DennisN]

"You Keep Me Hangin' On"

(I liked Kim Wilde back in the days, but I still favor the original, I think there is more feeling and desperation in the original)

Cover: Kim Wilde - You Keep Me Hangin' On


Original: The Supremes - You Keep Me Hangin' On

 

[DennisN]

"Twist and Shout"

(I haven't listened much to the original)

Cover: The Beatles - Twist and Shout


Original: Twist and Shout - Top Notes 1961 (Rare original version)

 

[DennisN]

"Tainted Love"

(a darn good song, I like both the cover and original, but if I have to choose I go for the original)

Cover: Soft Cell - Tainted Love


Original: Gloria Jones Tainted Love Original 1964

 

[symbolipoint]

I do not agree with that. I think there is a judgment independent of personal taste.

Give an argument, that is what is interesting.

NO! I am not an artist. An artist should be able to answer what you tell to do, better can I, and very reliably too.

 

[pinball1970]

NO! I am not an artist. An artist should be able to answer what you tell to do, better can I, and very reliably too.

You do not need to be an artist, art is not just for the artist. Art is also for the observer, listener and reader.

And the critic.

Anyway this is far easier, we are just looking at the creator and the copyist or rather the original verses the copy. Not as technical as the artist contribution, the value of the piece.

 

[symbolipoint]

You do not need to be an artist, art is not just for the artist. Art is also for the observer, listener and reader.

And the critic.

Anyway this is far easier, we are just looking at the creator and the copyist or rather the original verses the copy. Not a technical as the artist contribution, the value of the piece.

Whether I like or dislike any cover version will not be how another listener must react to that cover version. I would find very very little way to reason why I am correct and the other listener to be incorrect. I am trying to find a way to "judgement independent of personal taste".

 

[gmax137]

I am trying to find a way to "judgement independent of personal taste".

Good luck with that! I don't see how it is possible.

 

[fresh_42]

Whether I like or dislike any cover version will not be how another listener must react to that cover version. I would find very very little way to reason why I am correct and the other listener to be incorrect. I am trying to find a way to "judgement independent of personal taste".

Good luck with that! I don't see how it is possible.

Please stay on topic.

 

[BillTre]

Here is a pair I like.
The original is Donovan's "There is a Mountain". Has words.



The "cover" is the Allman Brother's "Mountain Jam" (which is great). Has no words.
Wikipedia says:

"Mountain Jam" is an improvised instrumental jam by The Allman Brothers Band, based on Donovan's 1967 hit song "There Is a Mountain".

 

[DennisN]

"Working Class Hero"

Covered by many artists. I favor the original, but here is one cover I really like:

Cover: Tina Dico - Working class hero (Danish singer/songwriter)


Original: John Lennon - Working Class Hero

 

[pinball1970]

The Residents -- (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

I found that very disturbing. You prefer this to the original?