Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Remakes - how many ways can you destroy a song?

NeoConMan

By NeoConMan
in The Gibson Lounge

Recommended Posts

NeoConMan

NeoConMan

Posted
Posted

I was at a party last weekend with a bunch of young dudes from work.

One thing that kept edging me toward the door - the music.

God it sucked.

 

Anyhow, I was about to leave when I struck up a conversation about motorcycles with a friend that showed up.

He made a comment about the music, I just sort of made a dirty-diaper face and remained silent.

 

One of the young guys there says to me "You play guitar, right?"

I replied that I've made many attempts over the years with mixed success, and that what I played was

nothing like the "mix" they had going with new stuff, dance stuff, teeny stuff, and an occasional rocker.

 

So he's telling us how his dad is an old classic rocker like us old guys, and he knows all that stuff because

he grew up with it. He starts naming off old bands to impress us, and actually came up with several I like.

One of them was Bad Company, said it's one of his dad's favorites.

 

I replied that I too am a huge Bad Co. fan, very influential on my playing over all these years.

So he asks me if I've heard the new Bad Co. song....

 

 

Puzzled, I told him I knew of no recent albums from them, and I would have it if there was one.

No, it seems I misunderstood - another band remade the song "Bad Company" and it KICKS ***!!!!

 

Hmmmm....

Well, I had heard of the band Five Finger Death Punch before and didn't really know what to expect.

 

Here it is - and it sucks ***.

 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNHlVo0cPa8[/YOUTUBE]

 

 

 

WTF?

Just leave those old songs alone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
retrosurfer1959

retrosurfer1959

Posted
Posted

Totally agree usually don't mind if someone does a good remake in there own style Like Chris Cornell redoing MJ - Billie Jean or something like that shows the flexibility of well written songs but slaughtering the classics like that is wrong, I see it kinda like rewriting the bible as a anime comic book or something.

 

10 from 6 is a classic rock album leave it alone.

 

if your doing it to honor someone I give greater flexibility and you gotta respect someone doing a song out of respect or honor but some of the new stuff and like sampling the classics for rap backgrounds sorry but deserves a *** whupping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ksdaddy

ksdaddy

Posted
Posted

Bananarama 'Venus'. They set the bar for suck remakes. Just viewed it on VH1 'Totally 80s'. Heard it the first time around, must have blocked it out of my memory.

 

Excuse me, I need to rifle through my 45s and hear some Shocking Blue from 1970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milod

milod

Posted
Posted

I think Shred has a point - plus...

 

We all have been doing covers for much our our musical lives.

 

I'm reminded of such as the 1939 Larry Clinton version of "Deep Purple" with Bea Wain that Artie Shaw arguably did better with Helen Forest a few years later. Or how about the Beatles with such as "Twist and Shout?"

 

Whose version of "Stormy Monday" is best? Well, there are to me many excellent versions - "covers," if you will.

 

I didn't listen to this track because frankly I wouldn't recognize the original, so why bother. <grin>

 

Actually, to me a "cover" is done with essentially the same basic arrangement, but with different folks. A "verson" is something someone plays with the same basic melody and lyric if there is one.

 

Jazz has thousands of very good versions of "Misty," for example.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites
myspace.com/jessenoah

myspace.com/jessenoah

Posted
Posted

I think the point is that if your cover isnt doing that original justice, then you shouldnt be playing

 

but it is sad, because to pimple faced 14 year olds, and muscle bound 22 year olds, who listen to mainstream rock radio, that track is the "new" greatest thing to ever happen to music, scopped mids, overbearing bottom, and throat grinding vocals are "in"

 

 

for what its worth, the best version of stormy monday is albert king's, his voice is PERFECT for that song

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky4

Rocky4

Posted
Posted

Here's another bomb...

 

 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcapXPMCL9k[/YOUTUBE]

 

Sounds like third place at the high school talent show

 

 

....and the audio abuse continues.......

 

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

 

is it just me, or does this one seems like it's 10 minutes long?

 

If it was nailed in the first place, or you have nothing to add, don't do it!

 

Outide Woman Blues by Blind Joe Reynolds is another story.. Cream added to it, ARS's version is one of my favorites, Doyall Bramhall did a good version playing slide like the original. I've hear Back Door Slam's take but it did nothing for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ksdaddy

ksdaddy

Posted
Posted

Point well taken milod. I guess my take on it is that if a song is truly 'good', it will withstand time and hold up to many different versions or interpetations. Think about it, there's not many.

 

I think Stairway to Heaven is good in the sense that the LZ performance (or recording) of it is wonderful but the song itself isn't strong enough for someone else to do it and have it have the same effect.

 

I've maintained one thought about music, and I know I won't be able to express it all pretty like, but here goes. 150 years ago songs were passed along through gatherings, parlors, campfires, etc. Songs changed as they got passed around and they weren't questioned; they just evolved. Verses got added or dropped, keys and tempos changed. It was all good. 100 years ago people were buying sheet music. Now the definition of how a song should sound becomes more rigid; the notes and words are right there. Add to that piano rolls and it got even narrower.

 

When records became more prevalent, the song was still more important than the artist. Different record companies might release their own artist's recording of a given song. I know that still happens but it was much more common then. Now the song, as recorded, has set a standard that the parlor piano plunker or guitar player has less chance of 'living up to'.

 

As time went on, the artist became a bigger part of the equation. Bill Haley records 'Rock around the Clock' and anyone else who covers it is seen more of a cheap imitation regardless of the quality of the rendition.

 

And then the artist is trapped by the recording. If he performs it live and it sounds like dirt, he loses something in the fans' eyes. I saw the Beach Boys in 1990 and I was so blown away by the fact they sounded just like the 1963 records I spent most of the evening slack-jawed and silent. It could have just as easily gone the other way....

 

Enter the video and now we have pre-packaged imagery to dictate our interpretation of the song. Early 80s videos often were just lip synched performances and we were okay with that. Then they turned into little avant garde films or huge production numbers. I don't watch current videos so I have no clue what they're doing now.

 

Sometimes videos override the songs themselves. I will freely admit to being very much attracted to Kylie Minogue. If you are in a sour mood, watch a couple Kylie videos and I guarantee you'll be refreshed and have a better outlook on life (interpret that as you may). But if a Kylie song comes on the radio, I'm like.... where's the video? And then have to remind myself it's the freakin' radio!

 

On rare occasions a cover is better. Lisa Loeb did Leo Sayer's 'When I need You' on Craig Kilborn some years ago and it was much better than the original.

 

I think I'll go play Enter Sandman on the banjo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChanMan

ChanMan

Posted
Posted

Calle me a pimply faced teenaged muscle bound 22 year old (pretty damn good for a 48 year old, huh??)

 

It has promise. I'd rework the vocal lines a bit. I, too, think it's the mark of a good song that it can be done across many genres and still rock.

 

My two coppers worth.

 

 

(and MiloD... I have the best version of Stormy Monday... completely original, even the words.... :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milod

milod

Posted
Posted

I've heard a number of Stormy Monday versions I like.

 

The reason I like them, I think, is that they're something like the "versions" done by different bands in the swing era where each, as tends to be the case with longtime blues band, has a "sound."

 

That's kinda where I come from.

 

Another point, though, even in the "classical" field, especially perhaps Baroque, one also can find very different versions of a given piece of music.

 

Anyway... <grin> I think good is good... and I define that rather selfishly as "stuff I like for some obscure reason" is "good" and vice versa.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ShredAstaire

ShredAstaire

Posted
Posted

I guess to me, when you do a cover, you should do it in your own style. You shouldn't be trying to recreate what the original band had done. You play the same song, but you inject your sound into it. Not everyone is going to like your twist on the song, but in some cases, these covers make bands famous (Think Limp Bizkit with "Faith")....You and I might hate their version, but it was a gigantic hit....once again showing that everyone likes different stuff. Somebody likes that version of the song in the OP....probably several, but I don't know the original song so I cant speak to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saturn

saturn

Posted
Posted

A cover doesn't have to be done in the same style as the original. But, if it's done in a totally different style, it should serve a purpose other than just trying to be wierd. At least IMO :-

 

Ex. I think Disturbed did a very good, hard rock re-make of Genesis' "Land of Confusion". Nothing like the original, but it works very well.

 

Another example of what I consider a bad cover is Marilyn Manson "Sweet Dreams Are made of These". It sounds to me like they just tried to make it as shockingly different as possible just for the sake of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChanMan

ChanMan

Posted
Posted
I guess to me' date=' when you do a cover, you should do it in your own style. You shouldn't be trying to recreate what the original band had done. You play the same song, but you inject your sound into it. Not everyone is going to like your twist on the song, but in some cases, these covers make bands famous (Think Limp Bizkit with "Faith")....You and I might hate their version, but it was a gigantic hit....once again showing that everyone likes different stuff. Somebody likes that version of the song in the OP....probably several, but I don't know the original song so I cant speak to that.

 

[/quote']

 

 

They have a word for doing a cover exactly like the original or as close to it as you can get.... Karaoke.

 

You nailed it Shred :-&

 

Wanna start a band?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...