• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Music
lets ban cover versions.............sign here
<<
<
2 of 2
>>
>
anna42hmr
12-12-2004
its not just teen pop bands that do covers ie. tom jones coverd princes I want your kiss, and both Cyndi Lauper and Phil collins have done versions of true colours (not sure which was the origional/cover) cher did walking in memphis which was a cover
Sven945
12-12-2004
Originally Posted by anna42hmr:
“i think cover versions have there place in music, i really like the stereophonics version of handbags and gladrags (origionally by rod stewart).”

Sorry to be a pedantic bastard here, but it was originally by Chris Farlowe. It got to number 33 in December 1967.

jack
anna42hmr
12-12-2004
Originally Posted by Sven945:
“Sorry to be a pedantic bastard here, but it was originally by Chris Farlowe. It got to number 33 in December 1967.

jack”


i did not realise that, i dont think i have heard that version
Sven945
12-12-2004
Neither have I. I always thought it was originally by Rod Stewart, and I was supprised when I heard that he covered it. I don't think that it was actually written by Chris Farlowe actually... When The Stereophonics played it at Sheffield last year they introduced it saying it was a song "originally written by a man called Mike Garble(sp?)".

jack
Moonie
13-12-2004
Originally Posted by Sven945:
“If a band plays a cover live and if they bring something of their own to it (ie not a note for note cover) then that can be good fun. If a band have a cover as a B side then that can be good (Easyworld used to have a studio recorded cover on each of their singles, somewhere in the collection). Covers on charity records are good, because it is something a bit different from a band.

Covers where the artist brings something of their own to it as singles are acceptable, possibly. I think Scissor Sisters version of Comfortably Numb was good, but personally I wouldn't have done it as a single. But releasing a cover of a single as a direct copy, where a band brings nothing of their own to it, I think is completely pointless. It just shows that they need other peoples songs to make them any good.

jack”

I'd generally agree with the above Jack

I'm not against covers in principle, but I agree with those who have said that they seem to be used to popularise some artists and cash-in too much these days. Ideally, I feel if an artist covers an old song, then it should be because the song conveys something the covering artist wishes to say themselves, or an artist has their own unique interpretation to bring to it musically.
I think Lemar's version of The Darkness - I believe in a thing call love, is worth a mention in defense of 'covers'
DryHumper
13-12-2004
I'd prefer to see restrictions on covers for an artist/band, max of 2 covers per album, or it doesnt get in the charts. Max of 1 cover per 5 singles released, or the singles dont get in the charts
kimindex
13-12-2004
Mike d'Abo, I think, wrote Handbags. Yes, I think it depends on the motive and the singer. Patti Smith's version of Because the Night is stunning and the All Saints version of 'Under the Bridge' was sacrilege. I quite liked the Spice Girls for not releasing (I think) an A-side (so to speak) cover version. it's when Westlife, Girls Aloud etc keep doing it that it begins to grate a little.
<<
<
2 of 2
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map