A little over a week ago, I had an interesting conversation with an acquaintance of mine regarding covers. We both agreed that some covers are just… well… not very good. However, my inebriated friend took a bit harsher stance than I and argued that some songs are part of an unpublished holy canon of Rock-n-Roll, any attempt to cover one of these sutras is akin to blasphemy and should be severely punished; yes he was very drunk. Not caring to argue with a drunk person, I simply raised my eyebrows, tipped my head a little to the right, and took a sip of my coffee.
Maybe it was his harsh stance, or the sound of karaoke in the background, or maybe I’m just mellowing out as I get older, but questions began to come to the surface of my mind. Are there some songs that should be put on a pedestal and never done again? Is it disrespectful to rewrite a classic in a completely different style? Should artists and bands that “blaspheme” the holy Rock Sutra’s be penalized? And the most important question of all, WHY? Why does it bother fans when some artist or band completely rewrites an established favorite?
I was perplexed. bound up even. I used to agree with this world view, although to a much less severe extent. But since I was middle of mixing one such cover, I felt an uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach; and no, that wasn't from drinking coffee at 1:00 in the morning. I felt like a hypocrite. I was in the process of mixing my own version of "The House of the Rising Sun"; arguably, one of those sacred canonical songs. Now, I didn't cover this with the conceited notion that I was improving upon the original, I simply attempted to capture the intensity that always swelled in my chest and played in my mind's ears whenever I heard the “original” growing up. My cover is my way of saying, thanks for putting your music out there, here’s how it moves me. In fact, in my opinion lately, covering a song is about the highest form of respect one musician can show to another.
Parenthetically, I’ve found out that the “original” performed by The Animals in 1964, is a cover of a cover of a cover… you get the idea. In fact, Alan Price, one of the Animals’, claimed that it was a four-five hundred year old English folk song about a brothel in Soho, and was adapted to its New Orleans setting after being brought across the pond by English emigrants to the American Colonies. The first known recording was done by Blues legend, Texas Alexander, in 1927. After Alexander’s initial recording, the song was performed by Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, and Bob Dylan (to name a few) prior to The Animals’ famous version in 1964, the one that most of us are familiar with. In other words, the song has changed and been rewritten many times over. Does this mean that Eric Burton and The Animals are blasphemous scoundrels who should be punished? Of course not. It simply means that the song moved them and they wanted to share that with the world, and I’m really glad they did.
MJL
Reply
M J Leptich / Blog
Sacred songs?
A little over a week ago, I had an interesting conversation with an acquaintance of mine regarding covers. We both agreed that some covers are just… well… not very good. However, my inebriated friend took a bit harsher stance than I and argued that some songs are part of an unpublished holy canon of Rock-n-Roll, any attempt to cover one of these sutras is akin to blasphemy and should be severely punished; yes he was very drunk. Not caring to argue with a drunk person, I simply raised my eyebrows, tipped my head a little to the right, and took a sip of my coffee.
Maybe it was his harsh stance, or the sound of karaoke in the background, or maybe I’m just mellowing out as I get older, but questions began to come to the surface of my mind. Are there some songs that should be put on a pedestal and never done again? Is it disrespectful to rewrite a classic in a completely different style? Should artists and bands that “blaspheme” the holy Rock Sutra’s be penalized? And the most important question of all, WHY? Why does it bother fans when some artist or band completely rewrites an established favorite?
I was perplexed. bound up even. I used to agree with this world view, although to a much less severe extent. But since I was middle of mixing one such cover, I felt an uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach; and no, that wasn't from drinking coffee at 1:00 in the morning. I felt like a hypocrite. I was in the process of mixing my own version of "The House of the Rising Sun"; arguably, one of those sacred canonical songs. Now, I didn't cover this with the conceited notion that I was improving upon the original, I simply attempted to capture the intensity that always swelled in my chest and played in my mind's ears whenever I heard the “original” growing up. My cover is my way of saying, thanks for putting your music out there, here’s how it moves me. In fact, in my opinion lately, covering a song is about the highest form of respect one musician can show to another.
Parenthetically, I’ve found out that the “original” performed by The Animals in 1964, is a cover of a cover of a cover… you get the idea. In fact, Alan Price, one of the Animals’, claimed that it was a four-five hundred year old English folk song about a brothel in Soho, and was adapted to its New Orleans setting after being brought across the pond by English emigrants to the American Colonies. The first known recording was done by Blues legend, Texas Alexander, in 1927. After Alexander’s initial recording, the song was performed by Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, and Bob Dylan (to name a few) prior to The Animals’ famous version in 1964, the one that most of us are familiar with. In other words, the song has changed and been rewritten many times over. Does this mean that Eric Burton and The Animals are blasphemous scoundrels who should be punished? Of course not. It simply means that the song moved them and they wanted to share that with the world, and I’m really glad they did.
MJL
Reply
One last thought, several years ago I saw a local band that was some kind of a love-child between Abba and Marylin Manson. The band attempted to cover Lynard Skynard's "Freebird". As soon as I recognized the tune I began to taste the regurgitation at the back of my throat. REALLY! It was a disco-fied scream-o rendition of one of the greatest classic rock songs of all time. It was terrifying. I did the only sane and logical thing I could do, I left; as did nearly the entire audience. As the audience went from high tide to low tide, I guessed that they would stop the song or begin spewing venom at us, but they didn't. In fact, as we all walked away, the band played heartier, and the two girls who fronted the band blew us kisses, smiled, waved good-bye, and continued singing with gusto. At the time I thought they were a little strange. Over the years though, and in spite of my disdain for their version of Freebird, I think that they were perhaps the free-est birds in the room and knew something that the rest of us didn't.
Currently
I'm in the process of recording several songs I've written over the years. Each tune is one that I enjoy playing and/or listening to, so I hope you do too.
Reply