Covers vs Original

**Janszoon** · 09-10-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thursday Next

Oh don't mistake me, I prefer the NIN version too, I was just commenting on how many people seem to think Cash's version is the original.

Weird, I don't think ever met anyone who thought that.

Rickenbacker · 09-10-2009, 04:16 PM

Reel Big Fish is NOT a good band.

Neapolitan · 09-10-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rickenbacker

Reel Big Fish is NOT a good band.

Rickenbacker,

I think that is that umteenth time I saw you tell someone a band they like is not good. You should start your own thread where people can post their favorite bands in it and you can tell us whether or not you approve of them.

Thursday Next · 09-11-2009, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Weird, I don't think ever met anyone who thought that.

Maybe you only meet actual music fans and I just meet idiots...

I love this song, No-one Can Hold a Candle to You, but I only know the Morrissey cover version and not the original:

Liljagare · 09-11-2009, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I have to say I've never understood why so many people like the Cash version better. I like Johnny Cash a lot and he has a lot of great covers in his back catalogue but "Hurt" isn't one of them. He and Rick Rubin basically removed everything that was interesting and good about the original and turned it into an incredibly bland folk song. Give me the Reznor version any day of the week.

I think that Johnny Cash's version of Hurt is alot more personal then the NIN version. One has to think that he made it right before he died (his last single) and his wife had just died..so it seemed to me to have alot more feeling than the NIN original. The original is very good but Cash's remake seemed to just have a bit more to it than just the melancholy. Cash had lived a long life and it seems to me that that particualar song just encompasses all the regret, sadness, longing he might have felt at that time. But that is just me. Nothing wrong with liking the original more. And I too have never heard anyone saying that the Cash version was the original...

There have been so many remakes it is almost imposssible to count. I never really minded remakes as long as they were done well and perhaps had a new spin on the original (example: "Mad World" - Tears for Fears original, Gary Jules/Micheal Andrews cover). I don't really enjoy when they remake a tune, put it into a complete new genre, and then market it as a dance version of the original (example: Ultravox "Hymn" and Music Instructors version). Dance versions seem to usually destroy what probably was a perfectly good song to begin with. Also, I wished they would admit that it was a remake once in a while rather than just market it as a completly new song (although they do on the cds, but it isn't marketed that way). But that is just me.

Guybrush · 09-11-2009, 02:45 AM

I think it's probable that Cash thought the song spoke to him, so I too think it's personal (like Reznor's original version obviously is as well).

The Devil Went Down to Georgia by Charlie Daniels Band is a great song. It's about a boy named Johnny who has a fiddle-playing duel against the devil. He bets his soul against a fiddle made of gold (rhyme, see). The original is from 1979.

Primus made a rather awful cover which was memorable for it's claymation video and little else, at least in my opinion.

Wacky and zany punk-band Toy Dolls actually did a better job when they made a punked up version that replaced Georgia with Scunthorpe (title: The Devil Went Down to Scunthorpe) and changed the fiddle for a guitar. Here it is - although whoever upped it shamelessly stole the vid from the Primus version, effectively combining the best features of both covers

mr dave · 09-11-2009, 03:06 AM

another night, another pair.

and the cover...

the original stands as one of the most recognizable riffs in metal history. musically it captures the rage and destruction of the beast after a lifetime of being looked down upon and ostracized by society.

the cover is turns the original into a lounge pop lament, musically the ultra-riff is replaced with a hard panning keyboard loop. i find the cover does a better job of making the listener feel the sadness and depression of the beast prior to the eventual retaliation against the world.

ultimately the song draws significantly from the Frankenstein story and that doesn't change in the cover. then again i've never heard a cover that had significant lyrical changes. in fact the lyrics are BY FAR the most significant connection to the original, which just goes to show how far the group was willing to go in interpreting the original to their own style.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-11-2009, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liljagare

I think that Johnny Cash's version of Hurt is alot more personal then the NIN version. One has to think that he made it right before he died (his last single) and his wife had just died.

She looks remarkably healthy in the video for a dead person.

Liljagare · 09-11-2009, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

So it had more feeling because of something that happened after its recording?

Actually I always thought that was one of his daughters in the video. Horrible, my bad, sorry and thank you for the corrections Urban Hatemonger and Wayfarer. Guess I did what some do, read in the feeling after the death.

I guess I was just trying to say that I thought he sang it more emotionally then Trent Reznor did. Both versions are equally good in their own way. Johnny Cash had a hard life..I just thought his singing of that tune captured it well.

Another cover "Over the Hills and Far Away":
Original by Gary Moore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyJEytBlp1I

Nightwish Cover
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UztE...eature=related
I honestly can't say which one I like better.

**Janszoon** · 09-11-2009, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liljagare

Act
I guess I was just trying to say that I thought he sang it more emotionally then Trent Reznor did. Both versions are equally good in their own way. Johnny Cash had a hard life..I just thought his singing of that tune captured it well.

I totally disagree. And I think Cash's vocal delivery and the way that version is recorded only serve to highlight the fact that the lyrics are kind of weak. Reznor knows he's not much of a lyricist so he makes the sonic texture and the percussion the things you focus on in the original, which I think is a much better choice.

09-10-2009, 04:16 PM	#12 (permalink)
Rickenbacker / Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Conn Posts: 1,338	Reel Big Fish is NOT a good band. __________________ last.fm rym Talk About the Passion - R.E.M.'s Discography Reviewed

09-11-2009, 02:45 AM	#16 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	I think it's probable that Cash thought the song spoke to him, so I too think it's personal (like Reznor's original version obviously is as well). The Devil Went Down to Georgia by Charlie Daniels Band is a great song. It's about a boy named Johnny who has a fiddle-playing duel against the devil. He bets his soul against a fiddle made of gold (rhyme, see). The original is from 1979. Primus made a rather awful cover which was memorable for it's claymation video and little else, at least in my opinion. Wacky and zany punk-band Toy Dolls actually did a better job when they made a punked up version that replaced Georgia with Scunthorpe (title: The Devil Went Down to Scunthorpe) and changed the fiddle for a guitar. Here it is - although whoever upped it shamelessly stole the vid from the Primus version, effectively combining the best features of both covers __________________ Something Completely Different