yod wrote:You can say a cover band produced a version you preferred more, but they did not create anything so it simply can not be compared to something which didn't exist before. Not much different than comparing guitarists who came after Hendrix. Until he created the mold there was nothing like him, so you can only compare him to what was there before.
that's a few of your OPINIONS that i don't share.
if you think that the musicians who came up w entirely different and totally badass parts on Joe Cocker's version of "....Bathroom Window" "did not create anything" that's just crazy talk right there, son....or perhaps you're in that category of songwriters who myopically view lyrics as being 90%-95% of what the SONG is.....and, oh yeah....and then there's also some music too. (i've played w some of those guys. sheesh)
c'mon man, do you REALLY think Clarence White "did not create anything" when the later version of The Byrds.... covered the cover of the earlier Byrds... covering Dylan's songs?
because...me ( and i bet a few others)DO find a shit-ton of creativity in what he did.
are ya kidding??? playing badass B-Bender country faux steel licks on Dylan songs is definitely "creative" within my definition of the word!
If you were to say, The Beatles write better songs than the Rolling Stones (a subjective comparison) that would be apples to apples....but this is like saying that Fab Four Beatles Tribute Band is better than the Beatles because you prefer their singer['s version of John Lennon's voice, or they have a better lead guitarist, which would be easy to do.[/band]
The cover band didn't create anything. They just copied what someone else created, maybe added a twist. That is an objective fact.
no, i think you're confusing "cover band" w "copy band". i might be impressed w someone's singing ability in a Fab Four copy band....but i'd simply state that the guy was good singer.
and yeah...in THAT case, that band, NOTHING is being created....it's all being RE-created!
in that example...you're talking about a COPY band where you're simply aping what was on the original...in that case there IS nothing creative being offed up. agreed.
but how can you say that someone taking a song, and twisting it around to a completely different feel (possibly even w a different time signature), and then other participants CREATE entirely new parts......"parts".... you know, those cool little bits that make us fall in love w certain songs!
how can you equivocally state there's "no creativity" going on????
do you honestly believe that NOTHING creative went on there?
now, it could just be this all comes down to semantics and that's really NOT at all how you feel or what you believe...but you're usually quite clear and concise in all things communication. so understand why i'm getting that read on your view.
The cover band didn't create anything. They just copied what someone else created, maybe added a twist. That is an objective fact.
ted, you again seem to have blurred the distinction between covers and copies. and in so doing you miss the entire point of what i believe george had in mind with this thread.
as i understood it ....besides asking for an opinion re. which lingo to use...."cover" or "remake"....i also took it that he was initiating a conversation about interesting versions of covers that are NOT copies, but instead interesting COVERS where the producer/singer/musicians CREATED something interesting, lasting, and worthwhile.
next point:
i also disagree w that assertion about Hendrix. yeah, yeah, he was the first guy to play through really loud Marshalls. Gottit. But there was also sooooo much of HIS playing that was derivative that he lifted from others, so, I don't think that premise of your's works. then you'd have to dismiss Hendrix because he distilled so much from others.
Last edited by Planetguy on Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BREAD IS GREAT!
PRAISE CHALLAH!!!!
PRAISE CHALLAH!!!!