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'