This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#278930 by Planetguy
Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:15 pm
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. :D

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. 8)
Last edited by Planetguy on Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#278939 by Planetguy
Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:44 pm
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. :D

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. 8)
#278943 by Planetguy
Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:46 pm
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. :D

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. 8)
#278948 by Planetguy
Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:55 pm
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. :D

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. 8)
#278953 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:56 pm
Planetguy wrote: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.




Of course there is creativity shown in how someone interprets a created piece.


But it's not the same as creating something uniquely original to the player. At least some portion of what you like about any cover song is the connection to the original song. Without that, it's an original song that has to get your attention on it's own merits.

So my point, which I've stated in several ways, is that is easy...no matter how creative it may be.

Try writing a song that has public appeal the first time it is performed. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, could play it afterwards and it's already got a successful structure/arrangement that can be altered if you wish.

In the case where a song has been completely altered, it is still the connection of the lyrics that make is more quickly recognizable (and therefore "likable") to an audience.

So my opinion in those cases is that it's bad business not to write new lyrics and claim that originality...but then it may not catch on because it lacks familiarity.






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. 8)



you completely missed the point. It's not about the amps, or the style, or fashion, or even the playing.

It's that there was only one Hendrix. He was an original no matter what he derived it from. People have covered him but there's never going to be a better Hendrix than that one.


Frank Sinatra was a crooner. All he could do is sing. Not very creative at it, imo, but whatever floats yer boat.

He didn't write any songs but he did get credit for contributing to a couple.


george...you're just being an a-hole who wants to pick a fight. We can drop it anytime you want to stop making snide remarks about me in every sentence.


.




.
#278962 by Planetguy
Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:03 pm
yod wrote:
Planetguy wrote: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.




Of course there is creativity shown in how someone interprets a created piece.


But it's not the same as creating something uniquely original to the player. At least some portion of what you like about any cover song is the connection to the original song. Without that, it's an original song that has to get your attention on it's own merits.

So my point, which I've stated in several ways, is that is easy...no matter how creative it may be.


Well, I'm glad to hear you amended and qualified your earlier assertion that there is NO creativity from anyone if they're playing a cover.



Try writing a song that has public appeal the first time it is performed. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, could play it afterwards and it's already got a successful structure/arrangement that can be altered if you wish.


yeah, ANYNONE can alter an arrangement and play something different....not everyone can knock it outta the park when they do. and so i thinks it's important that those who DO....get credit for their talent and yeah..creativity. sure seemed (to me) like you were dismissive of that elite group.



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. 8)


you completely missed the point. It's not about the amps, or the style, or fashion, or even the playing.

It's that there was only one Hendrix. He was an original no matter what he derived it from. People have covered him but there's never going to be a better Hendrix than that one.


well i mentioned playing distrted gtr thru MARSHALL's because that IS the ONE thing that was original about Hendrix. his attire wasn't original...he bought his clothes in the same shops The Stones and other musicians did.

what..his showmanship???? he got plenty of those moves from Buddy Guy and Ernie Isely.....his playing? single note soloing borrowed from Albert King....rhythm gtr style lifted from Curtis Mayfield and Ernie Isley. So while i do think he was great and i love most of his work....i really don't buy into that Hendrix invented it all for those who followed.....not when HE borrowed so much from others.


Frank Sinatra was a crooner. All he could do is sing. Not very creative at it, imo, but whatever floats yer boat.


yeah, that was ALL he could do! i wish singing on that level w that style was the ONLY thing I could do!



.
#278966 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:43 pm
Planetguy wrote:Well, I'm glad to hear you amended and qualified your earlier assertion that there is NO creativity from anyone if they're playing a cover.


Do you not remember the remark about cheating? Sure, anyone can create on top of another person's work. But we're talking about adding new shingles and some molding only because the foundation, the frame, the walls/floors/ceiling/bathrooms and garage are already there.

But even if you built a completely new house on that same address, you are starting with the value of that original house, and a place to build.


Frank Sinatra was a crooner. All he could do is sing. Not very creative at it, imo, but whatever floats yer boat.


yeah, that was ALL he could do! i wish singing on that level w that style was the ONLY thing I could do!

.[/quote]


please....he was so lame. Without the mafia you'd never heard of him. Thank God for Louis Armstrong.


.
#278968 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:52 pm
george1146561 wrote:
yod wrote:george...you're just being an a-hole who wants to pick a fight. We can drop it anytime you want to stop making snide remarks about me in every sentence.



You started the snark. I leave it to you to stop the snark.






You came in here with your whole "Original songs are stupid" attitude and all I've done is disagree with that silly notion, since that is what makes the music world go 'round.

And all I have ever done is respond to you, if you'd like to check the record. You don't like my opinions, I gather? You should still consider them since I have a different perspective, but whatever, dude. You do you.

I haven't been responding to your every quip in a couple of weeks. Just the really low hanging ones. I see no reason to argue with you at all, except that you seem to want it. You know that I'll still have strong opinions, right? It doesn't have to threaten you so much.


.
#278969 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:05 pm
Planetguy wrote:well i mentioned playing distrted gtr thru MARSHALL's because that IS the ONE thing that was original about Hendrix. his attire wasn't original...he bought his clothes in the same shops The Stones and other musicians did.

what..his showmanship???? he got plenty of those moves from Buddy Guy and Ernie Isely.....his playing? single note soloing borrowed from Albert King....rhythm gtr style lifted from Curtis Mayfield and Ernie Isley. So while i do think he was great and i love most of his work....i really don't buy into that Hendrix invented it all for those who followed.....not when HE borrowed so much from others.


SACRALEGE!!!!



c'mon give him more credit than that.

he was consummate guitarist and consummate showman at the same time. His songwriting was usually superb and set in a frame of experimentation unlike his contemporaries. He advanced the electric guitar by a decade because he was the poster boy for acid-rock, yet he was also guitarist for the Isley Brothers and Little Richard whom I credit for establishing rock and roll, actually.

He got sounds from an amp like no one had done before.


.
Last edited by t-Roy and The Smoking Section on Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#278973 by Planetguy
Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:16 pm
noooooooo! DON'T TIE ME TO A STAKE!!!!! (BUY me a steak!)

trust me, i absolutely love Hendrix for all the reasons you mentioned and more. 8)
#279088 by t-Roy and The Smoking Section
Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:20 pm
george1146561 wrote:I defy anyone to claim that this version of Hurt isn't the best, most definitive version ever recorded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt1Pwfnh5pc




OK, I'll defy.


First, thanks for turning me on to this song. Never heard it before...great lyric. Johnny's is a good version, a much-less-produced copy of the original, but it lacks the same sense of confusion and depths of insanity which the original writer/recording captured. Trent's version seems more personally relatable to me, while Johnny's feels like I'm listening to an auto-biography.

Can we agree there is no "better" only a matter of personal preference at a particular spot on a linear timeline? It feels like having to chose which of your kids you love most to say one song is better than another. I appreciate the warts in experimenting to come up with a song unique (in some way) in history. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate when someone builds a new layer on top of someone's brand new foundation. Yeah, they can even show a lot of creativity in doing it but it's not the same thing.

I can see why you like Johnny's version, and it might even be my preference for when I listen to folk (often), but not if I'm feeling industrial & confused as the disorder of the day. They're both great versions of someone's original idea for a song. In this case the writer was also the first performer, and for him and writers everywhere I'm going to be a stickler that what they've done supersedes how anyone afterward interprets it.

Because it is less produced, Johnny's version would also be much easier to copy for performing live with a single guitar. Nothing really different about the arrangement/performance from the original except it is a stripped-down acoustic version that fits Johnny Cash's life story, while we don't really know Trent Reznor's life story as well.

And I don't need to point out the genius of the original version for it to be so easily made into a good copy/cover, no matter who does it. This is perhaps the worst performance from Johnny Cash I've ever heard. It doesn't hurt the song at all because age and introspection are the topic, so he can do this with passion and authenticity better than he could have in his prime.





.
Last edited by t-Roy and The Smoking Section on Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests