I think they're not a dying trend, just a changing one.
In the 90s/early 2000s the acts covering songs were targeted at young children who wouldn't have heard Tragedy / I Have A Dream / No Matter What so it was acceptable for Westlife etc. to be covering them because it was new to the audience. Now that audience has grown up and their music horizons have been broadened. At the same time, music today seems more credible. Even the acts targeted at kids have to be seen to be original, have an element of input to their own music so putting out covers as frequently as Westlife did wouldn't wash in this climate. The only time a cover does well is either as a sample, or if it's been switched up and interpreted in a new and interesting way IE Mark Ronson's "Versions" album or "Run" by Leona Lewis. And even then, the origins began in the Live Lounge, which is further evidence on my previous point.
Are we talking about commercially released, chart friendly cover versions, or any cover version? If the former, then it's probably impossible to quantify, but I doubt there's significantly less now than there was 10 or 20 years ago. For every Westlife, Liberty x or Atomic Kitten, there's Little Mix, X Factor and One Direction, plus the obligatory Christmas ads versions.
If the latter, then I'd say cover versions have exploded in popularity. YouTube and the like have given artists much more freedom to experiment with different styles and interpretations, without the risks associated with making it an 'official' release that might harm their image or sales if they were in the mainstream channels, so we have heavy rock bands covering ballads, pop bands covering metal, dance artists covering classical and so on.
I'm not sure about the making money argument, cover versions do certainly help the original writer financially. But I'm glad that John Cale and then Jeff Buckley did their cover versions of 'Hallelujah'. I suspect they recorded the song because they thought they could a better or different version than the original.
jeff buckleys initially following was down to him playing covers so including one on his only studio album would make sense. the full live at sin-e album is full of covers and a good example of the type of shows he would normally do
sometimes sticking a cover version on your album can generate more sales, and you get royalties split on albums so people buying your album for that one cover song are making you royalties for the other songs even if they don't like them
at the end of the day, it's between artist and management to work out what's best for them. a cover may make them more money in some cases, a new song may be better in others
Comments
In the 90s/early 2000s the acts covering songs were targeted at young children who wouldn't have heard Tragedy / I Have A Dream / No Matter What so it was acceptable for Westlife etc. to be covering them because it was new to the audience. Now that audience has grown up and their music horizons have been broadened. At the same time, music today seems more credible. Even the acts targeted at kids have to be seen to be original, have an element of input to their own music so putting out covers as frequently as Westlife did wouldn't wash in this climate. The only time a cover does well is either as a sample, or if it's been switched up and interpreted in a new and interesting way IE Mark Ronson's "Versions" album or "Run" by Leona Lewis. And even then, the origins began in the Live Lounge, which is further evidence on my previous point.
If the latter, then I'd say cover versions have exploded in popularity. YouTube and the like have given artists much more freedom to experiment with different styles and interpretations, without the risks associated with making it an 'official' release that might harm their image or sales if they were in the mainstream channels, so we have heavy rock bands covering ballads, pop bands covering metal, dance artists covering classical and so on.
https://soundcloud.com/radio-riddler-productions/radio-riddler-the-beautiful-ones-ft-frank-benbini
jeff buckleys initially following was down to him playing covers so including one on his only studio album would make sense. the full live at sin-e album is full of covers and a good example of the type of shows he would normally do
sometimes sticking a cover version on your album can generate more sales, and you get royalties split on albums so people buying your album for that one cover song are making you royalties for the other songs even if they don't like them
at the end of the day, it's between artist and management to work out what's best for them. a cover may make them more money in some cases, a new song may be better in others
Erasure