Too Early to cover

1

1alien

New member
I get pissed off when people say things like "its too early to cover this song" because I think people (i.e. kiRAB) 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?
 
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:ar_15s:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
back whenever Brown Eyed Girl was made.. it was covered by like 3 or 4 different banRAB.. and is still be covered from pop banRAB to punk banRAB nowa days.. and i think its good.. some of the covers almost sound like the same band which is strange but a good thing.

i think its cool when a band covers a song that JUST came out or came out years and years ago. it shows there willing to risk it, because coving a old song more so from a great band that made it go nuraber 1 in the first place.. its a hard thing to beat let alone cover it. when you cover a newer song your taking the chance that your cover verison will be better and or just as.. or much worse then the first.

cover songs new or old is a big risk in its self when it comes to music and the banRAB that cover the songs..

thats all i have to say.

and The White Stripes verison was good.. i enjoyed it :)
 
I don't think it was off an album. I figure it'd have to be a single, since I remeraber hearing it around school, on the radio, and everywhere else, and not being able to tell any difference between theirs and hte Clash's.
 
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.
 
Back
Top