• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

When The Cover Is Better Than The Original

V

valkyrie777

While putting together a Summertime Cruisin' CD of some old instrumentals from RealRhapsody.com, I discovered some cover versions that were/are immensely superior to the originals, imho. In case you'd like to hear what I mean, here are a few for your consideration:

"Sleepwalk"...originally by Santo & Johnny; newer killer version by Hapa (a Hawaiian artist) from his "In The Name Of Love" CD. I swear this version makes the original seem pale.

"Theme From The Endless Summer" by Laika & The Cosmonauts. This simply blows away the 1969 original from that classic surf film.

"Apache" by Jimmy Thackery from his "Drive To Survive" CD. Good God, can this man play!

"Pipeline" by The Duo-Tones. The original artists with an acoustic, non-group-backed rendition of the classic tune. Damned nice...in the same way that Clapton's unplugged version of "Layla" smoked the original one.

RealRhapsody.com...enjoy!
 
I usually like originals, but Land Of 1000 Dances by Chris Kenner stinks. Canibal And The Headhunter do better.

I also like I Fought The Law by Bobby Fuller Four better than the original by Buddy Holly and The Crickets.

There there were songs that were not rock and roll and were covered and first played as rock. Many good examples of that.

> While putting together a Summertime Cruisin' CD of some old
> instrumentals from RealRhapsody.com, I discovered some cover
> versions that were/are immensely superior to the originals,
> imho. In case you'd like to hear what I mean, here are a few
> for your consideration:
>
> "Sleepwalk"...originally by Santo & Johnny; newer killer
> version by Hapa (a Hawaiian artist) from his "In The Name Of
> Love" CD. I swear this version makes the original seem pale.
>
>
> "Theme From The Endless Summer" by Laika & The Cosmonauts.
> This simply blows away the 1969 original from that classic
> surf film.
>
> "Apache" by Jimmy Thackery from his "Drive To Survive" CD.
> Good God, can this man play!
>
> "Pipeline" by The Duo-Tones. The original artists with an
> acoustic, non-group-backed rendition of the classic tune.
> Damned nice...in the same way that Clapton's unplugged
> version of "Layla" smoked the original one.
>
> RealRhapsody.com...enjoy!
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
> I usually like originals, but Land Of 1000 Dances by Chris
> Kenner stinks. Canibal And The Headhunter do better.

Not to mention Wilson Pickett's version.

I also thought the McCoys' cover of "Come On Let's Go" was better than Richie Valens'.
 
> > I usually like originals, but Land Of 1000 Dances by Chris
>
> > Kenner stinks. Canibal And The Headhunter do better.
>
> Not to mention Wilson Pickett's version.
>
> I also thought the McCoys' cover of "Come On Let's Go" was
> better than Richie Valens'.
>
I was listening to the Essential Bruce Springsteen over the weekend and the first three songs on the CD are "Blinded By the Light", "For You" and "Spirits in the Nights", all of which were covered by Manfred Mann's Earth Band, which I think are far superior than Springsteen's versions of the same songs.
 
Cover vs. Remake

You guys are confusing a "cover" with a "remake"

A cover record has always been a single (45, 78, etc.), issued at the "same time" as the original, made specifically to compete with the original for airplay and sales. There can be many covers, but only one original exists. Any recording of anyone else's song that is NOT intended to compete for sales with the original, is a remake.
 
My two cents:

Remake Battles:

"Dedicated To The One I Love"...Mamas/Papas beats Shirelles
"Loco-Motion"...Grand Funk beats Little Eva
"Do You Love Me"...Dave Clark % beats Contours



And in the "Cover Battle"

"Help Me Girl"...Eric Burdon beats The Outsiders (but not by much)
 
Cover vs. Remake

Totally 100% correct- good explanation.

> You guys are confusing a "cover" with a "remake"
>
> A cover record has always been a single (45, 78, etc.),
> issued at the "same time" as the original, made specifically
> to compete with the original for airplay and sales. There
> can be many covers, but only one original exists. Any
> recording of anyone else's song that is NOT intended to
> compete for sales with the original, is a remake.
>
 
> My two cents:
>
> Remake Battles:
>
> "Dedicated To The One I Love"...Mamas/Papas beats Shirelles
> "Loco-Motion"...Grand Funk beats Little Eva and Kylie Minogee
> "Do You Love Me"...Dave Clark % beats Contours
>
>
>
> And in the "Cover Battle"
>
> "Help Me Girl"...Eric Burdon beats The Outsiders (but not by
> much)
>

"It's My Life" from the 1980's has parts of it that are better than the cover - and the reverse is also true of the cover vs the original - though I never understood the squeaky duck toy in hte original ... the use of the clarinet(?) in the original has a sad and at the same time hopeful tone to it that is missing in the cover.
 
Cover Vs Remake: The REAL Answer

I'm sorry, you guys, but you're both mistaken. I thought I was right when I posted the original thread and went to my fave source wikipedia.org just to make sure.

I'll let you read the definition for yourselves:

"Cover version"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In pop music a "cover version" is a new rendition of a previously recorded song. Pop musicians may play covers as a tribute to the original performer or group, to win audiences who like to hear a familiar song, to increase their chance of success by using a proven hit or to gain credibility by its comparison with the original song. They may also do it simply because they enjoy playing it.

Although cover versions are often produced for artistic reasons, they are commonly released to fill bargain bins in the music section of supermarkets and even specialized music stores, where uninformed customers can easily confuse them with original recordings, especially since the packaging is usually intentionally confusing. It combines the name of the original artist, written in large letters, with a small-letters paraphrase like as originally sung by or as made popular by. Sometimes only the presence of the rather uncommon "cover" word indicates the true nature of the recordings. Certain publishing houses push the perversion up to using an expression like original cover versions. Cover versions are often sold in compilations, sorted by genre. When supermarkets conduct a major cover version sale, they sometimes put in place a DJ to play the items from the special collection exclusively. In America, this is done because compulsory licensing laws allow a musician to perform and publish a previously recorded song without getting the permission of the copyright holder. A band of unknown but talented musicians, then, can churn out imitations of popular songs that can then be sold at a high profit margin. Otherwise, the record company would have to either pay licensing fees to the copyright holders of the music or not even be able to release the music at all, if the copyright holders deny permission.


There you have it...
 
Re: Cover vs. Remake

I never knew that, but no one ever told me.



> You guys are confusing a "cover" with a "remake"
>
> A cover record has always been a single (45, 78, etc.),
> issued at the "same time" as the original, made specifically
> to compete with the original for airplay and sales. There
> can be many covers, but only one original exists. Any
> recording of anyone else's song that is NOT intended to
> compete for sales with the original, is a remake.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: Cover vs. Remake

I never knew that, but no one ever told me.



> You guys are confusing a "cover" with a "remake"
>
> A cover record has always been a single (45, 78, etc.),
> issued at the "same time" as the original, made specifically
> to compete with the original for airplay and sales. There
> can be many covers, but only one original exists. Any
> recording of anyone else's song that is NOT intended to
> compete for sales with the original, is a remake.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: Cover vs. Remake

> You guys are confusing a "cover" with a "remake"
>
> A cover record has always been a single (45, 78, etc.),
> issued at the "same time" as the original, made specifically
> to compete with the original for airplay and sales. There
> can be many covers, but only one original exists. Any
> recording of anyone else's song that is NOT intended to
> compete for sales with the original, is a remake.
>


That definition might have made sense in the 50s when you'd get white-bread artists like Pat Boone covering "Tutti Fruitti" or "Long Tall Sally", but I think it's a bit dated today. How often does that happen today? I'd consider a "remake" when an artist re-does their own song, much as Eric Clapton did with several tunes in the late 80s/early 90s.
 
Re: Cover Vs Remake: The REAL Answer

Jerry may have, shall we say, the "exact" definition of yesteryear, but like many definitions, they change over the years. The "cover" versions of which Jerry writes (and someone else commented on this thread) tend to go back to the 50's. The definitions have really become the same these days, whether you want to refer to it as a remake or a cover version. Nowadays it's really splitting hairs to say one or the other is incorrect.
 
Re: Cover Vs Remake: The REAL Answer

> Jerry may have, shall we say, the "exact" definition of
> yesteryear, but like many definitions, they change over the
> years. The "cover" versions of which Jerry writes (and
> someone else commented on this thread) tend to go back to
> the 50's. The definitions have really become the same these
> days, whether you want to refer to it as a remake or a cover
> version. Nowadays it's really splitting hairs to say one or
> the other is incorrect.
>
I don't really care what the modern definition is. This is, after all, an "oldies" board. It was an excellent distinction that made sense then and still makes sense now for *oldies*, which is what we're talking about, or at least for records released through the mid-60s. I'm sure true covers still exist, but obviously they are rare compared to R&R's first decade.

As for remakes, I prefer the Contours original to DC5 on "Do You Love Me." Shirelles' and Mama & Papas' "Dedicated" is apples and oranges, the versions are so different. However, the Shirelles version is not even the original; the original was by the 5 Royales, a male R&B group from NC (huge following in their day). It came out in early 1958. The Shirelles version from 1959 may or may not qualify as a "cover"! (LOL)

As for what I stubbornly think of as true covers (contemporaneous rip-offs of rising hits), I'll take the Diamonds' "Little Darlin'" over Maurice Williams & the Gladiolas, Otis Williams & the Charms' "Hearts of Stone" over the Jewels, and the Cadets "Stranded in the Jungle" (by a mile) over the original by the Jayhawks. Later on, I prefer Shadows of Knight's "Gloria" over Them, much as I like Van Morrison.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom