What's a Cover?

[Jim of Seattle]

After listening the Electric Sp00n's very cool cover of my ABCD Puppies, I got into a big disagreement with a friend about what constitutes a "cover". I maintained that ES's Puppies wasn't a cover at all, but a completely new song using the same lyrics. She said "Yeah, that's a cover". To which I disgreed. But i'm not so sure. So when has a song been covered? Is taking one element from a song and not others make it a cover? Does it have to use the same tune? Lyrics? Chords? Is it as simple as "if you could get sued then it's a cover"?

FWIW, I think a cover has to embody the gestalt of the original in some way, so that the cover is sort of "continuing the conversation" started by the original song.

I know this has come up before, I'm just wondering again.

Oh, and check out Electric Sp00n's cover of my ABCD Puppies.

http://eclecticspoons.netfast.org/abcdp ... eattle.mp3

[mkilly]

Oh, and check out Electric Sp00n's cover of my ABCD Puppies.

http://www.songfight.net/forums/privmsg ... lder=inbox

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Leaf]

Well... interesting.


I think a cover is simply when one plays a piece they did not write.


Case in point, it was really only in the last 80 years or so (an estimate by the way) that popular culture started putting the emphasis on hearing the writer perform their works, and holding that in higher regard.

Used to be, there were composers, and then performers. Some how, we have, as a culture, decided that there is more value in hearing the works straight from the source... I like that myself.

Even still, it can get vague, what with mashups, and re-working, or adding original ideas to the source material.

I guess what you should really consider Jim, is whether or not having a clear cut definition or categorization is really that important!




I digress, and on purpose...


It sounds like you were dismissing the material simply because you could identify source material in the work that was not "created" by the performer you were listening to. It reminds me of something that happened over the last week... I read an article where Kerry King said that on the new Slayer album he didnt' even bother to worry about what he was doing, he just played random riffs...or some such thing. So, when I listened to it, I immediately dismissed the solos on a level of technical or harmonic content, simply because I had read his comments. A few days later, a distinctive slayer song comes on in shuffle, and I'm getting of on how well the solo works, and how harmonically "out" it is, while still working.... it was from the new album! It occured to me (much to my dismay) that I had taken what he had said at face value, without taking the time to listen to the piece with my own objective perspective.


I think we'd all like to think that we are smart, objective people that can't be dupped by advertising, but I also think humans are kinda full of shit on that one.



What I'm saying Jim, is that is reads like you didn't give the song an objective listen, because you were hung up on defining it, rather than enjoying it. This is not a bad thing I suppose, other than the permanence in one's own mind that can occur when we start fixing things to labels.



uh...forgive me, I'm still home with the flu, I'm sweating, I'm feverish, and I had the strangest dreams last night...

[jimtyrrell]

To me, lyrics are much more likely to prove piece of work a 'cover' than chords. For instance, Hang On Sloopy is not a cover of Louie Louie (or vice versa; I couldn't tell you which came first).

But using the same lyrics satisfies the 'continuing the conversation' requirement. Even a version with completely different chords/melody/pacing seems to be a reinterpretation of the idea of the original song, which qualifies it in my book.

I suppose the same could be applied to my initial example -- Hang on Sloopy could be argued to be an extension of the same 'musical effect' created by Louie Louie, with new words that are thought to complement that effect in a unique way. But this seems like a weaker idea to me, maybe because of the comparatively small number of possible chord structures compared to the number of possible lyrics.

[Jim of Seattle]

Yeah, well I most certainly didn't dismiss the song at all. I liked it a lot. But I'm not sure whether I would have called it a "cover".

My friend and I ended up agreeing that there is a huge continuum of covers, from tribute bands trying to exactly imitate the original to someone re-imagining a song so that's it's not even recognizable as a cover, and everything in between.

Say I took a recording of Nirvana's "All Apologies" and at 1:08 I inserted my voice going "hoodley-doodley". Could I then claim I was covering All Apologies? I agree it would be awfully close to the original, because most of it would be the same recording, but my insertion of "hoodley-doodley" would change the experience of listening to it. For one, my presence as a contributor to your listening would be established, and you would start wondering if I were going to say anything else during the song, and maybe you'd wonder why I thought to say that, and whether I was mocking the original or just what my intent was, and maybe you'd be outraged that I tried to pass it off as a cover, or whatever. But in any case, but insertion of "hoodley-doodley" would make the experience of listening to it different than if you were listening to your own pristine copy of the song.

On the other end, what if I recorded a completely different song, but at 1:08 of my song I inserted one second from All Apologies, then tried to pass it off as a cover?

[jimtyrrell]

Say I took a recording of Nirvana's "All Apologies" and at 1:08 I inserted my voice going "hoodley-doodley". Could I then claim I was covering All Apologies? I agree it would be awfully close to the original, because most of it would be the same recording, but my insertion of "hoodley-doodley" would change the experience of listening to it. For one, my presence as a contributor to your listening would be established, and you would start wondering if I were going to say anything else during the song, and maybe you'd wonder why I thought to say that, and whether I was mocking the original or just what my intent was, and maybe you'd be outraged that I tried to pass it off as a cover, or whatever. But in any case, but insertion of "hoodley-doodley" would make the experience of listening to it different than if you were listening to your own pristine copy of the song.

Well, it's possible to imagine an instance in which I'd say yes, this qualifies as a cover. In the rare case that establishing that kind of listener uncertainty specifically serves the song, then yeah, I'd say it's a valid enough reinterpretation to be deemed a cover. But I'll admit that this view tests the limits of the definition.

On the other end, what if I recorded a completely different song, but at 1:08 of my song I inserted one second from All Apologies, then tried to pass it off as a cover?

This makes me think about "Alone Again" by Biz Markie. He sampled from the Gilbert O'Sullivan song, and wrote original lyrics overtop. Not too unusual for a fellow in his genre, eh? Of course, the folks who own O'Sullivan's song thought it was plenty close enough to the original.

I guess you're as likely to define a song as you are to define a cover. There may be some common traits, but it'll come down to individual opinion and scope of vision in the end.

[Leaf]

On the other end, what if I recorded a completely different song, but at 1:08 of my song I inserted one second from All Apologies, then tried to pass it off as a cover?

that's a sample I think.


I think if you insert hoodley whatever into all apologies all you do is ruin a good song.


I think that's a mash up anyway.


maybe you could call those covers that have new chord structures but the same lyrics (or whatever) "reinvented covers"... or re-interpretations...


aahhh. I'm gonna just call it music.

[Leaf]

And..then...what do you call weird al's stuff... same music, different lyrics...


A parody I suppose, but what if you've never heard the source material... is it still a parody?



(he's on muchmusic spot light right now...)

[Caravan Ray]

After listening the Electric Sp00n's very cool cover of my ABCD Puppies, I got into a big disagreement with a friend about what constitutes a "cover". I maintained that ES's Puppies wasn't a cover at all, but a completely new song using the same lyrics. She said "Yeah, that's a cover". To which I disgreed. But i'm not so sure. So when has a song been covered? Is taking one element from a song and not others make it a cover? Does it have to use the same tune? Lyrics? Chords? Is it as simple as "if you could get sued then it's a cover"?

I did the same with my "cover" of HeuristicsInc's "Fight The Sea".

I agree - it probably isn't really a "cover version" - but a completely new song using the same lyrics.

It is like I am Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" and Bill is Queen's "Under Pressure". Sort of.

[fodroy]

What about an adaptation? For example Cat Power's "I Can't Get No (Satisfaction)" which is almost completely different.

[Tonamel]

To me, lyrics are much more likely to prove piece of work a 'cover' than chords.

This is definitely true. If chord structures meant anything, then the half of blues would all be considered the same song, and everything else would be Pachelbel's Canon.

[frankie big face]

Leaf, why do you put so goddamn many hard returns in your posts?











That's what I'd like to know.

[Jim of Seattle]

To me, lyrics are much more likely to prove piece of work a 'cover' than chords.

This is definitely true. If chord structures meant anything, then the half of blues would all be considered the same song, and everything else would be Pachelbel's Canon.

Depends on the song. Louie Louie and blues tunes are one thing, but Strawberry Fields is quite another story.

[Leaf]

Leaf, why do you put so goddamn many hard returns in your posts?











That's what I'd like to know.

I


have


no


idea.


Good Question; I suppose it stems back to an incident that occured when I was living with Nick Carter. See we had it rough living in our 4 million dollar mansion. It's not easy trying to live with three hot sisters... and promoting the ambiguity of our incestious moping lead to a violent breakdown...most notably when we lost one of our ten basketballs down the hill.

There's nothing good on tv when one is home sick on a weekday.

[Tonamel]

So, we've decided that words are important to a cover, but chords not so much. What about melody? What if you add melody to a song that didn't have one to begin with, like Jonathan Coultons's "Baby Got Back", or Nina Gordon's "Straight Outta Compton"?

[fodroy]

So I guess if words are important then translations such as Seu Jorge doing Bowie in Portuguese doesn't count as covers.

Similarly, when I read a Calvino novel that's been translated into English, I don't say "I'm reading a novel by [translator's name]."

Weird post.

[Tonamel]

Well, changing the language doesn't change the meaning.

When Cat Empire sings "Hotel California" in French, it's still a cover, but when Weird Al sings "Amish Paradise," I don't really consider that a cover, since the lyrical intent is different, even though it's musically closer to its source material than Cat Empire is.

[jb]

come now, musicians, there are other words.

you don't "cover" a standard, right? you "interpret" it.
different music is an "arrangement."
combine the two if you like, or call it a "version."
if the words are different, but the intent the same...
if the words are different and the intent different, but the music the same, then the music is being used to create something new, like Sting's "Russians." Unless the words relate, like "Amish Paradise" in which case the music and very *intent* of the original informs the new "parody." Often Weird Al doesn't do a parody of a song, although it's technically true. But a true parody would be something like his "Teen Spirit" song, where he picks on the artist and the song. But "Amish Paradise" is hardly poking fun at "Gansta's Paradise" so much as just... life, I guess. Even if Coolio, strangely, had no sense of humor about it. Perhaps he only likes jokes he comes up with. *shrug*

[GlennCase]

But "Amish Paradise" is hardly poking fun at "Gansta's Paradise" so much as just... life, I guess. Even if Coolio, strangely, had no sense of humor about it. Perhaps he only likes jokes he comes up with. *shrug*

Especially since "Gangsta's Paradise" strongly relies on samples from Stevie Wonder's "Pastime Paradise" from his "Songs in the Key of Life" album.

I guess you could call that a third generation melody by the time that Weird Al sings it. The melody is the same for each chorus, and the words were different each time.

ROCK!

Glenn Case

[fodroy]

Where do hip hop samples fall into the area of cover. It's totally using someone else's material in your own composition. Vanilla Ice was just covering the bass line from "Under Pressure maybe?

[Tonamel]

come now, musicians, there are other words.

you don't "cover" a standard, right? you "interpret" it.
different music is an "arrangement."

True, but 'cover', 'interpretation', and 'arrangement' connote three distinctly different things.

Covers stem from the artist driven culture that we have today, in which songs are written to be performed by one particular band or person (as Leaf mentioned). So when somebody performs a song that was designed for someone else, that's a cover.

For whatever reason, standards are songs that have lost, or never had, an affiliation with one performer. 'Cover' implies the song has a specific artist, which these don't, so they're considered interpretations instead.

Arrangements are also versions of 'performerless' songs, but the connotation here is weighted very heavily toward instrumentals. So much so, in fact, that my mind considers the album Acoustica: Alarm Will Sound Performs Aphex Twin to be a set of arrangements, even though it's a specific group performing their versions of songs from a specific artist.

...sorry, semantic linguistics is kind of an interest of mine.

Also, to fodroy, the difference is between creating your own recording of someone else's song, and using someone else's recording in your song.

Bad metaphor time: production-wise, writing a song from scratch is like sculpting a statue out of clay that you mold into shape, while building a song from samples/loops is like building a statue out of Legos. Even if it ends up looking like this, it's still made out of preshaped blocks.

(edit: I blame 4:30am)

[jb]

Oh I disagree COMPLETELY. It's all in what the song says and how it makes the listener feel. Loops and samples do not make a song "weak" in any way. Lack of inspiration does that.

And I do know that "cover," "arrangement," and "interpretation" connote different things. That's the point!

JB