Are cover songs a dying trend?
ScottishWoody
Posts: 23,235 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Ok, so back in the 90s and early 00s, cover singles were very common with the likes of Steps, Liberty X, Atomic Kitten etc.
But these days, it seems cover singles only appear for charity singles and X Factor winners initial release.
So is it just not common anymore, or is it still going on and I just don't notice as much?
Don't get cover singles mixed with samples in dance songs though, that on the other hand is very popular at the moment!
But these days, it seems cover singles only appear for charity singles and X Factor winners initial release.
So is it just not common anymore, or is it still going on and I just don't notice as much?
Don't get cover singles mixed with samples in dance songs though, that on the other hand is very popular at the moment!
0
Comments
I don't know why this has happened tbh, but I don't mind, I usually find covers of songs pretty boring as 90% of the time it's only ballads that get covered.
But there's loads of sampling atm, especially in hip hop songs like Nicki Minaj's and Jeremih's latest releases.
On a serious note though, I am glad. IMO covers are often just the result of laziness on the artist/record labels part.
I also hate that Comic Relief and Children in Need singles are almost universally covers these days. Who Do You Think You Are and All About You were both brilliant RND singles - and both were original songs! Whatever happened to creativity?!?!
I'd much rather have a cover like Valerie by Mark Ronson feat. Amy Winehouse purely for the fact it couldn't be more different to The Zutons original yet it was, imo, one of the most joyous covers I'd ever heard.
Thankfully the days of Westlife, Robson Green & Jerome Flynn and 911 are well and truly over. Who needs copy cat covers when you've got the originals?
Little Mix doing "Word Up!" is probably the most recent example and it was an absolute abomination.
They will always exist.
I'm a HUUUUUGE Little Mix fan but agree Word Up! was TERRIBLE. they had a song on thier Salute album called Competition and another on the deluxe version called Stand Down that are both originals, both fan favourites, perfect for sports relief whilst still being quirky and a mix of genres.
Didn't like Valerie but I agree with what you're saying. There is absolutely no point in doing a by the numbers cover version. If you do a cover it either needs to be better than the original (which is very rare) or bring something different to the song. If it's neither of those, then don't bother imo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vPqf0BJkQM
Essentially true I guess, the other reason to do a cover would be to bring an obscure song to more public attention.
This is probably an example of where the cover doesn't really add much to the original. The vocal is a but flat on this Within Temptation version.
I'm glad they seem to have died off, although I did like a couple of the cheesy pop band covers from the early 00s.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=COwkCW38J54
Yes, agree with that as well.
Of course they'll always exist, but there are always trends in the music industry, everything fades in and out of the mainstream. There are definitely less covers than there were in the past in the mainstream. There are still a few, but not as many as before when they were really common.
robson and jerome were before 98
but i dont agree about it being most disposable between those dates nor that its improved after 05.
i presume we are talking about whats often referred to as 'pure pop', but id suggest between the dates you highlighted was also the time of arguably some of the greatest 'pop'. the spice girls for eg, s club 7, blue, girls aloud, also had some great original pop tracks released.
at least in that era you had some pop greats and acts with their own identity.
what have we had since 05?... faceless boybands who are more or less the same act. now there have been some good pop in amongst it, but theres no orginality, no identity.
as for the op's question.... there are covers, theyll come in waves, and has been pointed out, they arent so much direct covers now but sampled half covers or modified covers like 'oh cecelia'.
write your own song = keep more money - someone else may cover it and you get more money
Covers are alright, but as long as its the odd bonus track I am ok with it. Sometimes, in VERY rare occasions, a cover can surpass the original, although I could only list a few times that has happened, whilst I could fill the entire data servers for DS with "meh" to outright shite covers.
True, but wouldnt a well known song being covered stand more chance of being a hit then a new unknown song?
The original
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIkoSPqjaU4
Cover #1 - adding a bit of comedy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNc9phYujWY
http://www.discogs.com/Jim-Carrey-Somebody-To-Love/release/1881919
cover # 2 - changing the genre bringing it bang up to date
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6HSlZBNwUQ
it depends on the artist and the song. however you could sell less copies of a new song and make more money and serve a better purpose of promoting an artist by releasing a new song. there are loads of shite covers released that don't sell much, however likewise there are loads of new songs that don't sell much either. but writing your own songs is why certain people are raking in money years after they had a hit or stopped being popular or stopped touring, and why other acts that were big in the past are broke now as they didn't write their own material