Pointless Covers

[GhostMachine]

What do you think about covers that are technically only partial covers and could even be considered re-mixes or something because of the original artist being involved? (ie, the Fear Factory and Gary Numan version of "Cars")

Some covers work, while some don't. Take "Tainted Love", for instance. Soft Cell's version is actually a cover but most people think of it as the definitive version. Marilyn Manson's version is fairly good because it adds a sort of sinister connotation to it. But the Pussycat Dolls version sucks, because they sound too horny on it.

Regarding Korn's version of "Another Brick In The Wall", its pretty good, but I like their version of "Word Up" slightly more. Judas Priest's version of "Johnny Be Goode" is just passable, though; made a few changes I didn't like.

You want a pointless cover? Mariah Carey's version of Def Leppard's classic "Bringin' On The Heartbreak"; never mind the fact it cranks up fairly far into the song, it still sucks. Dave Navarro lost ANY respect I had for him for playing on that piece of shit (And he'd already lost some for playing on a P. Diddy song)!

Awesome cover? Coal Chamber and Ozzy's version of Peter Gabriel's "Shock The Monkey"....which happens to be my favorite PG song.

Edited September 18, 2008 by GhostMachine

[Gabriel]

To use your example, there are plenty of horrorpunk bands out there and every single one of them owes a huge debt to The Misfits. If I buy a Calabrese album, I know full well I'm getting an album that will sound very much like The Misfits...but why would I buy a Calabrese version of Die Die My Darling or Saturday Night, knowing full well that it'll sound just like The Misfits version? Wanting to play your favourite songs is one thing, but wanting other people to hear you play them is something different.

Which is completely right. I'll use an example as well. Johnny B Morbid is known for covering Misfits songs, but, he doesn't advertise them being on the records and they are usually one or two, against 15-20 original tracks. He doesn't change anything to the Misfits songs, but at the same time, they're not the selling point.

I do not have any problems whatsoever with a band recording a straight cover of a song they love... so long as it's standalone and surrounded by original stuff. Now, bands that record entire records worth of covers that they don't change, that's another story entirely. It's lazy, and while I still may enjoy the tracks themselves, find it hard to want to support that band. But, that's really just me not thinking its' right to profit entirely off someone elses work.

So... throwing a cover or two onto a 15 song album of original material? Thumbs up. It's fun, and it doesn't hurt anyone.

Throwing a bunch of cover songs onto an album without changing them, and releasing it? That's not art.

[Toe]

Britney's version of "My Prerogative" is awesome.

FACT.

[TNAfan121]

Completely pointless pop cover of Ghost Riders...

[GhostMachine]

Completely pointless pop cover of Ghost Riders...

To counter that shit, here is an awesome mostly instrumental version by one of the greatest guitar players of all time:

I believe either the Sons of the Pioneers or Vaighn Monroe did the song first, but for my money, Johnny Cash's version is the best, though. (I have Cash's version on my Mp3 player)

Edited September 18, 2008 by GhostMachine

[METALMAN]

Well, in his defense, there was a 20 year gap between his cover of Stop Me and the original.

That doesn't work for Valerie, God Put A Smile on Your Face, Toxic and Oh My God. Though to be fair, I don't mind Mark Ronson too much. I'd never buy any of his songs but I wouldn't turn off the radio if one of his songs came on. I also think he did a very good job in reinventing Valerie.

[apsham]

And just for the record, even though I don't have any Fall Out Boy on my laptop anymore... Love Will Tear Us Apart is pretty ace.