Your bottom ten worst artistes of all time

Take the recent Gary Jules cover of "Mad World" for example - a most excellent cover version IMO and maybe even better than the original.

Agreed. I'd quite like to get hold of this. Is it on an album & if so, is the rest of the album any good?

 

James, here's the album:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00011MKYW/ref=sr_aps_music_1_1/026-2704356-7717203

Don't know about the other songs on it though.

Michael.

 

Ooh er, try telling that to Charlie Parker and John Coltrane.

 

Or this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...5485/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_11_2/026-8377233-0937268

Track 3, plus a few other toons for the modest asking price.

 

I stand by my comments. Is it too much to ask that an artist is at least original? I have already said Jazz standards don't count though!!!

 

A good cover version is just as original as any new song IMO.

Michael.

 

With regards to 'covers' Joolsburger, you've already exempted jazz for some reason...? Then what about classical music? - by and large for the last 1000 years this has been musicians/singers performing music which somebody else has written. Does that make classical worthless, or 'theft'? I should hope not...a 'cover' (an unfortunate term in my opinion) is merely an interpretation of music which somebody else has written. Unfortunately most modern covers are performed by mediocre pop acts, which gives covers in general (rather than just the crap groups in question) a bad name I understand where you're coming from, but your sweeping generalisation is particularly unfair to a lot of great and very talented musicians.

 

Right then I feel some elaboration is in order.

Cover versions.

A. Classical, Jazz standards excepted as obviously this is a bit different ,why. I don't know but it is..

B "Significant" reworkings of old tunes by talented artists to give a wholly new take on events..well maybe

C Virtual facsimiles of someone elses music NO....

Does this clear up any confusion.

I'm still not happy about it, if they are that talented shouldn't they write their own work? In fact no, I retract B in most cases.

If you designed a car that looked the same as someone elses work or wrote a book whos story was the same as another you'd be guilty of plagurism so why not with music, it's like modern "takes" on Shakespere not required, welcome or in any way improving on the originals.

These people ought to be ashamed!!



I refuse to be swayed on this. Covers are theft, standing on the shoulders of Giants it's called or in some cases nicking a good tune and marketing it more effectively.

 

Ey ey ey. In defence of the "Miserable" Mancs. They weren't miserable or depressing ... they were bloody hilarious and so far as I can tell were meant to be. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably hasn't really listened or has had a sense of humour/irony bypass. That said ...

Mariah Carey
Celine Dion
Whitney Houston

Spawn of the devil all. :JPS:

 

I guess I am too used to Dancing Queen. I guess they can't be that misserable, the charming and man and how soon now always pulls the crowds in the clubs. I do like the Smiths, and also love mancs, but then I am slightly biased

 

Shocking!

Some names been mentioned I'd happily agree with, but some of you clearly have no idea!

MO - The High Lord of Taste

 

They do write their own work. Just because someone does the odd cover doesn't mean they can't write good stuff themselves. It's not theft because it's (nearly) always done with the original writer's permission. You can't just conveniently exclude jazz and classical because it suits you. You'll need to come up with a good distinction for your argument to hold any water.

What about songwriters who don't sing? Are the people who sing them talentless? Is Sinead O'Connor a talentless thief because "Nothing compares 2 U" was written for her by Prince (who incidentally has written many songs for other people)?

Err...with respect, no they shouldn't. New Mini, New VW Beetle, to mention just two of the current re-interpretations in the car world. In neither case did the original designer have any involvement but they're still great cars (especially the mini).

As for the bard, Baz Lurman's Romeo & Juliet is one of the best and most refreshing takes on a Shakespear play around. Plays btw are all just "covers" since rarely did the actors write the play themselves. In that sense plays are much like classical music.

Some covers are like that, most are not. In both cases, the original artist usually benefits handsomly from them.

Michael.

 

At last - people who are Anti-Beatles are standing up to be counted!
I have 1 Beatles record for folks who come round and praise Their High Scousness-es - it's "I wanna hold your hand". Nuff said.
They always say "but what about the White Album and Sargeant Pepper?", obviously ignoring the fact that "Iwanna hold your hand" and it's ilk were a crime that cannot be forgiven... Anyway, even the later stuff was only average!

However, I do like free jazz... And modern heavy classical... And Motorhead.... And Parliament..

 

I think people here are confusing cover versions with karaoke - as an example Isaac Hayes version of Walk on by, the Sex Pistols version of No fun, Big Black's version of The model, The Byrds version of Mr Tambourine man or The Flying Lizards version of Money are all great cover versions. Anything by Will Young, Gareth Gates etc is karaoke (a posh word for shite). There is a huge difference.

Tony.

 

I think jazz can be excluded from the 'cover' debate because the nature of jazz is improvisation - a jazz standard provides only a platform for a soloist to invent from. This can obviously be extended to other music forms and musicians - Jimi Hendrix is a prime example of a truly great improviser, and a true original, his covers have essentially become his own music - Hey Joe, All Along The Watchtower, Killing Floor etc etc. I'll say again, covers should really be thought of as interpretations, or re-interpretations - like everything in life some are shite, even less are great, most are hanging around in the 'middle-of-the-road'.

 

A rambling thought:

ISTM some musicians can't be covered successfully - Captain Beefheart, Pere Ubu, The Fall, and a few others mentioned in this thread spring to mind, but there are plenty of others I can think of. Their music (and their lyrical stance) is unambiguously linked to the psyche (and, usually, insanity) of the original writers and doesn't really work outside that context.

Others (Dylan is a good example) are quite different, the songs seem to invite interpretation, seem to be less intricately tied to a single personality. Not sure why this is, but it's worth thinking about I reckon...

-- Ian

 

It's 'cos Dylan can't sing, but writes well, or used to.

 

I don't think you can really say that because a song performed is a cover then it has no artistic merit (well, you can but IMHO that's wrong

In many cases, it's been a cover version of a song that's become well known rather than the original, either because it was an out-take, written specifically for the person who performs it, or just not performed for a few years. Take Because The Night by Patti Smith... well, most people think that's her song, yet it was written by Springsteen, same with Prince and Pink Cadillac. Then there's the Dylan covers thing, Quinn The Eskimo, If You Gotta Go, Go Now by Manfredd Mann being prime examples, neither had been released by Dylan at the time of their being MM hits.

 

I stood immediately behind Quo in the queue at Tokyo airport a couple of years ago. They all look even older than they actually are and about to pop their clogs...

 

lots of votes for Genesis,but i thought they did some decent stuff with Peter Gabriel

me? I ike all music except Black lace and Timmy Mallet