Too Early to cover
 

I get pissed off when people say things like "its too early to cover this song" because I think people (i.e. kids) think it can only be done if you reach back into the vault 20 years.

horse****, in the 60's people used to cover songs immediatly to pay homage. Otis Redding covered satisafaction by the stones months after it came out (and was obviously still ahit.)

Im writing this because The White Stripes covered Walking with the Ghost by Tegan and Sarah as a B-side and the iTunes reviews say things to the effect of

"i don't know I mean this song came out too early, this song was recorded this year"

WTF kind of review is that, I didn't ask for your producer two cents, was it good.

What do you guys think?

Weeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllll........

It's a crock of ****.

But in saying that I wouldn't want any old band doing any old cover any old time. It comes down to whether a band is doing it out of respect or out of guilt. By guilt I mean they have no material so they just start doing covers.

If it's out of respect I say keep on covering.

You mean like Limp Bizkit doing that total sh1tehole remake of Behind Blue Eyes and their latest crap cover of Bittersweet Symphony/Home Sweet Home.

these a$$holes need ****ing up the arse with a 12 gauge:ar_15s:

Limp Bizkit's cover of behind blue eyes wasn't bad at all you just hate it because it was Limp Bizkit and i agree with you big3.

Dude, they ruined the original completely in my opinion, people just shouldnt cover who songs, EVER!...As Hilary duff and Bob Saget have already proved.

Gosh they did the song and it sounded a little worse then the first that was it people sit there and say "OMG THEY THRASHED IT" when all they did was cover it and not do it as good as the original.

Yeh.
Big3 I agree with you too.
Somethings are covered well, some things aren't but surely how long ago it was recorded doesn't make much of a difference, unless a really really bad band covered a song that everyone loves...
Also, I don't think that limp Bizkits version of behind blue eyes was bad either.

I think if the cover is realeased close to the original, then I'd hope to hear a very different version.
If the cover is from a track some 30 years old for instance, then I'd expect to see some respect shown to the original artist and hear a version as close to the original as possible.

I always tend to think the originals are the best, however there are exceptions.

Big3, if it's done well, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

back whenever Brown Eyed Girl was made.. it was covered by like 3 or 4 different bands.. and is still be covered from pop bands to punk bands nowa days.. and i think its good.. some of the covers almost sound like the same band which is strange but a good thing.

i think its cool when a band covers a song that JUST came out or came out years and years ago. it shows there willing to risk it, because coving a old song more so from a great band that made it go number 1 in the first place.. its a hard thing to beat let alone cover it. when you cover a newer song your taking the chance that your cover verison will be better and or just as.. or much worse then the first.

cover songs new or old is a big risk in its self when it comes to music and the bands that cover the songs..

thats all i have to say.

and The White Stripes verison was good.. i enjoyed it :)

good music is good music, it shouldn't matter when it was made.