Song covers
Jul. 26th, 2008 03:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_vultureAs I was finishing my run, a cover of 'Classical Gas', performed by world famous violinist Vanessa Mae, came up as a selection on my MP3 player. It isn't very often that a cover of a song appeals to me more than the original, but Mae's cover of the instrumental by Mason Williams is one noteable exception. It got me thinking about why some covers work, whilst most fail. I thought upon a cover of 'Crimson and Clover', originally by Tommy James and the Shondells, that I heard recently on the radio. It sounded as if it was being performed by a hard rock, or even heavy metal group. It was NOT a notable exception.
Why was Mae's piece better than the original? Very simply, she added something to it. This goes beyond changing the song from one musical style to another. In Mae's case, she included some very eloquent elaboration on the melodies of the song. Utilizing higher reverb with her violin, as well as a skillful band of rock instrumentalists as back up to drive the rythm, she added a richness to her cover that the original did not possess. In otherwords, she improved upon it.
Why did the cover of 'Crimson and Clover' bomb? Giving it a hard rock edge certainly made it a change and, had the band been a bit more aware of what they were doing, they might have been able to pull it off. Unfortunately, they failed to take into account two major things. First is the context of the song. I doubt there are many who would listen to the original and not think about the 60's. There's a certain mellowness that's inextricably linked to the music. Messing with that kind of association in any way, such as adding a hard rock edginess, is VERY tricky. Doing so should only be done if the artist is consciously doing so as a commentary or criticism of the original song or the context it was set in. Unfortunately, I didn't hear anything in this cover to suggest any such conscious thinking.
The second major thing is the role of the guitar. In the original cover, the guitar, with it's distinctive 'wa-wa-ing', serves as another 'voice' singing the piece. The instrumentals were as critical as the vocals in defining this song. As such, it's easy to see how replacing the original instrumentation with dull grumbling from a heavy metal bass would seriously cripple this cover of the song.
I will, on the other hand, give the group credit; they at least made the song their own. All too often, most groups releasing a cover don't even try to do anything different with the music, relying on the mistaken belief that their talent, style, or whatever will lead to a substantial measure of success. In an industry that relies heavily on innovation, one can see where such thinking is counter productive.
There's one other thing that I'll give props to rock group for; they reminded me of a wonderful song that I'll have to dig through my music archives for and give a listen to.
Why was Mae's piece better than the original? Very simply, she added something to it. This goes beyond changing the song from one musical style to another. In Mae's case, she included some very eloquent elaboration on the melodies of the song. Utilizing higher reverb with her violin, as well as a skillful band of rock instrumentalists as back up to drive the rythm, she added a richness to her cover that the original did not possess. In otherwords, she improved upon it.
Why did the cover of 'Crimson and Clover' bomb? Giving it a hard rock edge certainly made it a change and, had the band been a bit more aware of what they were doing, they might have been able to pull it off. Unfortunately, they failed to take into account two major things. First is the context of the song. I doubt there are many who would listen to the original and not think about the 60's. There's a certain mellowness that's inextricably linked to the music. Messing with that kind of association in any way, such as adding a hard rock edginess, is VERY tricky. Doing so should only be done if the artist is consciously doing so as a commentary or criticism of the original song or the context it was set in. Unfortunately, I didn't hear anything in this cover to suggest any such conscious thinking.
The second major thing is the role of the guitar. In the original cover, the guitar, with it's distinctive 'wa-wa-ing', serves as another 'voice' singing the piece. The instrumentals were as critical as the vocals in defining this song. As such, it's easy to see how replacing the original instrumentation with dull grumbling from a heavy metal bass would seriously cripple this cover of the song.
I will, on the other hand, give the group credit; they at least made the song their own. All too often, most groups releasing a cover don't even try to do anything different with the music, relying on the mistaken belief that their talent, style, or whatever will lead to a substantial measure of success. In an industry that relies heavily on innovation, one can see where such thinking is counter productive.
There's one other thing that I'll give props to rock group for; they reminded me of a wonderful song that I'll have to dig through my music archives for and give a listen to.
