More on That There Do-Wop Band
I don't need Beatles covers.
Isn't it funny that some bands, certain artists just feel wrong singing someone else's material? I can appreciate the covers that show up on those early Beatles records - the raw rock spirit and the way the band sounds on its way to shaping its own voice. It's easy to see them ripping up a bar in Germany, shredding through the Chuck Berry tunes. I do appreciate those songs. However I don't really need them on the records.
On the flip side, I can appreciate Elvis singing anything by anyone. And since he wasn't a songwriter, that's all he really did, right? Sing other people's songs? I would love to have a copy of Elvis singing just about every song in the world.
So why the distinction do you think? And where's the line?
I read an on-line review of that new (well, new-ish) Sinead records (She Who Dwells, etc etc.) where the reviewer basically crapped on the whole CD because it was nothing but Sinead doing covers. This writer wanted original Sinead material and wasn't interested in hearing her tackle folk tunes or pop tunes by other artists. Yet it doesn't bother me at all - she's got a unique voice and I like to hear it applied to unusual material.
Then there's Prince m'boy, another artist who frankly never never ever needs to perform other people's tunes. I'm simply not interested. Everything he's ever done (written by someone else) is just boring and pedestrian to me. I can appreciate that he loves 70's soul and 90's Joan Osbourne tunes, but I don't need to hear him prove it. It takes the shine of Emancipation for me that there's so much covered material. Even A Case of You, possibly his best cover, is wasted on me. Wasted.
What'chyoo think about that?
Isn't it funny that some bands, certain artists just feel wrong singing someone else's material? I can appreciate the covers that show up on those early Beatles records - the raw rock spirit and the way the band sounds on its way to shaping its own voice. It's easy to see them ripping up a bar in Germany, shredding through the Chuck Berry tunes. I do appreciate those songs. However I don't really need them on the records.
On the flip side, I can appreciate Elvis singing anything by anyone. And since he wasn't a songwriter, that's all he really did, right? Sing other people's songs? I would love to have a copy of Elvis singing just about every song in the world.
So why the distinction do you think? And where's the line?
I read an on-line review of that new (well, new-ish) Sinead records (She Who Dwells, etc etc.) where the reviewer basically crapped on the whole CD because it was nothing but Sinead doing covers. This writer wanted original Sinead material and wasn't interested in hearing her tackle folk tunes or pop tunes by other artists. Yet it doesn't bother me at all - she's got a unique voice and I like to hear it applied to unusual material.
Then there's Prince m'boy, another artist who frankly never never ever needs to perform other people's tunes. I'm simply not interested. Everything he's ever done (written by someone else) is just boring and pedestrian to me. I can appreciate that he loves 70's soul and 90's Joan Osbourne tunes, but I don't need to hear him prove it. It takes the shine of Emancipation for me that there's so much covered material. Even A Case of You, possibly his best cover, is wasted on me. Wasted.
What'chyoo think about that?
posted by J. at 8:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home