covers

[whitelotus]

usually, i dont like people covering other peoples music, unless its totally of its own sound, or its givin another light and flavor

but some that i think are absolutely awesome are those who give it another sound totally, or give it something special, that makes it, its own.

tori amos's cover of the cures ' love song", her cover of princes' purple rain ' and her cover of ' enjoy the silence' of depechemode

i also love A perfect circles cover of ' diary of a madman' and the cures 'love song'


billy idols cover of ' la woman ' from the doors

the eagles cover of ' dust in the wind' of kansas

princes cover of ' nothing compares ' of sineade o' connor

concrete blondes cover of ' its a mans world' from james brown

[loseyourname]

The Byrds' cover of "My Back Pages"

Janis Joplin's cover of "Summertime"

The Cowboy Junkies' cover of "Blue Moon" and "I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry"

Patti Smith's cover of "Gloria"

and Nick Cave's cover of "Death is Not the End" just for the guy that sounds like a snake on the last verse

[SexyAries]

They didnt cover it but she sang it at New years bash on MTV, When Gwen Stefani sang Its the end of the world as we know it and i feel fine originally by REM

[jahannam]

covers are pointless.
they're like "hey check me out , I just traced this "God and Adam" painting off of MichelAngelo's , but I used different colors instead."

get over it!
it's a work of art...
and by manipulating it YOUR way, you're just admitting you lack creativity.

[SexyAries]

However, you can also think of it as putting in your own passaz, your own motif, your own style, or you can think of it in your way J.

[jahannam]

yes...
you ARE putting your own style and motif.
and apparently that kind of a "motif" or "style" is NOT creative.

like rewriting a Hemingway book in "your own words"...:rolleyes:
very creative indeed lol

[SexyAries]

Ya of coarse writing a Hemingway in your own motif or painting your own style of a Vangoe is simply ridiculous! I was talking about music. Books and paintings and Simply Art should never be "remade"

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by jahannam yes...
you ARE putting your own style and motif.
and apparently that kind of a "motif" or "style" is NOT creative.

like rewriting a Hemingway book in "your own words"...:rolleyes:
very creative indeed lol

Performance art is a little different than painting, J. Don't tell me Julie Andrews was no good because she didn't write her own songs.

[jahannam]

i didn't say when they don't write their own words
(although that's pretty pathetic when it comes to famous singers who are famous cuz they're HOT and they have a "nice" voice... I could do that too)
but anyway
I was saying when people sing AND change the style of songs that have been sung before.
like No doubt's it's my life:rolleyes:
i feel like placing the entire band on an electrical chair when I hear that song.
drop dead terrible...

[SexyAries]

No doubt has come along way they basically introduced Skaw to everyone! and Gwen is a good singer and the band is good too they have one or two cover songs and a hundred of their OWN!

[Arvestaked]

A great deal of performed jazz is technically covers.

And No Doubt is horrible.

[spiral]

i didn't say when they don't write their own words
(although that's pretty pathetic when it comes to famous singers who are famous cuz they're HOT and they have a "nice" voice... I could do that too)
but anyway
I was saying when people sing AND change the style of songs that have been sung before.
like No doubt's it's my life
i feel like placing the entire band on an electrical chair when I hear that song.
drop dead terrible...

famous singers who are famous cuz they're hot and the have a "nice" voice, are not singers, they are entertainers.

Example: Britney Spears. Everyone (mostly girls) complain about how she has no talent what-so-ever.

She can entertain.

She can dance, and she has extremeeeee sex appeal.

no, she is not a singer, she does not have a singing voice, but she can entertain.


She's HOT, and she can work an audience.

I watch her music videos, and performances, and she nails all of em, everytime.

and no everyone can't do that.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by jahannam covers are pointless.
they're like "hey check me out , I just traced this "God and Adam" painting off of MichelAngelo's , but I used different colors instead."

get over it!
it's a work of art...
and by manipulating it YOUR way, you're just admitting you lack creativity.

You have to define what you mean by creativity though. The word is "vague" enough that one may put in several definitions, and my definition disagree with yours :)

concerning the post:
Massive Attack: Light my fire (The doors)

PS: sorry, sometime my posts are hardly understandable... I'm trying to improve my english

[felizitation]

Originally posted by jahannam covers are pointless.
they're like "hey check me out , I just traced this "God and Adam" painting off of MichelAngelo's , but I used different colors instead."

get over it!
it's a work of art...
and by manipulating it YOUR way, you're just admitting you lack creativity.

Hey ! I have a good novel for you concerning this:
Nicolas Gogol - "The mysterious portrait"

Here on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/2877142604/qid=1073362111/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-7318234-9312646?v=glance&s=books)

[jahannam]

Originally posted by felizitation You have to define what you mean by creativity though. The word is "vague" enough that one may put in several definitions, and my definition disagree with yours :)

concerning the post:
Massive Attack: Light my fire (The doors)

PS: sorry, sometime my posts are hardly understandable... I'm trying to improve my english

I didn't know creativity has numerous meanings.
:rolleyes:
having the willingness and bravery of creating something from scratch is what I meant.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by jahannam I didn't know creativity has numerous meanings.
:rolleyes:
having the willingness and bravery of creating something from scratch is what I meant.

Creativity is a notion, and thus may lead to several definitions.
I give you a counter example:
We often say that for painters, the creativity is double.
The one is the work of art itself as being the materialization/realization of the painter's idea through his emotions.
The second is the emotion it breeds/create for the spectator.

I share this point of view, also for music . When I hear a music, I hear it in a certain way. From all these mixed feelings, if a create something, I would consider it as original.

Creating from scratch is also creation, that's why I wanted you to define what you meant by creativity.

Then you may seize the work. Creating from scratch is harder than creating from something, and you would say that the amount of work of the former may lead to call it creation (and the latter not).
Establishing such metrics to quantify the notion of creativity is dangerous. You simply can't quantify creativity and originality.

By the way, you never start something from scratch, there is at least the experience.

Think you'll apreciate the Gogol's novel "the mysterious portrait".

[jahannam]

I don't consider "creating from something" creating.
that's like saying along with Mr. Bell's creativity (cuz he came up with the CONCEPT of the phone), Samsung and panasonic are also creative cuz they designed better looking phones...
ummm no

experience has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
you might argue the fact that experience is one of the things in the process of creating...
but that's off topic
as i said
creating from something is not creating.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by jahannam I don't consider "creating from something" creating.
that's like saying along with Mr. Bell's creativity (cuz he came up with the CONCEPT of the phone), Samsung and panasonic are also creative cuz they designed better looking phones...
ummm no

experience has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
you might argue the fact that experience is one of the things in the process of creating...
but that's off topic
as i said
creating from something is not creating.

How the hell do you create from nothing, J? You're not making any sense.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by jahannam i didn't say when they don't write their own words
(although that's pretty pathetic when it comes to famous singers who are famous cuz they're HOT and they have a "nice" voice... I could do that too)
but anyway
I was saying when people sing AND change the style of songs that have been sung before.
like No doubt's it's my life:rolleyes:
i feel like placing the entire band on an electrical chair when I hear that song.
drop dead terrible...


Your rhetoric make me think of a bulldozer in a flowered meadow

[jahannam]

Originally posted by loseyourname How the hell do you create from nothing, J? You're not making any sense.

what's creating then, "L" ???
lol
don't people say GOD CREATED LIFE? isn't that the ultimate usage of the word?
how am I not making sense?
enlighten me please...

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by jahannam what's creating then, "L" ???
lol
don't people say GOD CREATED LIFE? isn't that the ultimate usage of the word?
how am I not making sense?
enlighten me please...

Since we are speaking of human creation, let's leave God out of the equation for now.

A construction worker creates a bridge - from pre-existing stones and metals.

An artist creates a painting, most likely from naturally occuring plant pigmentation.

A singer creates an individualized interpretation of a song, whether or not it is his/her song. The sound waves emerging from the throat of the singer are unique to that singer, as are the feelings evoked in the listener. Same things goes with the entire band. Whether or not the song is their's, each instrument player, if they are good, will have something unique and wonderful to offer. That is why philharmonic's exist. The Los Angeles rendition of any given symphony will be subtly different from say, the Sydney version. It's all in the nuance, and when it comes to pop music, it isn't always all that subtle. Take one of my examples - The Cowboy Junkies cover of "Walking after Midnight." The words are the same as Patsy Cline's, but nothing else is. The recording bears almost no resemblance to the original. Listen to both and then tell me that the band was not being creative. Besides, creativity is not the issue here to begin with. The issue is whether or not a cover can be as good or better than the original. I contend that there is no question that it can be. The worst band can write a wonderful song, but have no idea what to do with it. A better band can then come along and turn that wonderful song into a wonderful record.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by jahannam what's creating then, "L" ???
lol
don't people say GOD CREATED LIFE? isn't that the ultimate usage of the word?
how am I not making sense?
enlighten me please...

Creating is no more no less materializing. This something can be ideas (table square shapped), feelings (taste, mood, pain)

[jahannam]

Originally posted by loseyourname Since we are speaking of human creation, let's leave God out of the equation for now.

A construction worker creates a bridge - from pre-existing stones and metals.

An artist creates a painting, most likely from naturally occuring plant pigmentation.

A singer creates an individualized interpretation of a song, whether or not it is his/her song. The sound waves emerging from the throat of the singer are unique to that singer, as are the feelings evoked in the listener. Same things goes with the entire band. Whether or not the song is their's, each instrument player, if they are good, will have something unique and wonderful to offer. That is why philharmonic's exist. The Los Angeles rendition of any given symphony will be subtly different from say, the Sydney version. It's all in the nuance, and when it comes to pop music, it isn't always all that subtle. Take one of my examples - The Cowboy Junkies cover of "Walking after Midnight." The words are the same as Patsy Cline's, but nothing else is. The recording bears almost no resemblance to the original. Listen to both and then tell me that the band was not being creative. Besides, creativity is not the issue here to begin with. The issue is whether or not a cover can be as good or better than the original. I contend that there is no question that it can be. The worst band can write a wonderful song, but have no idea what to do with it. A better band can then come along and turn that wonderful song into a wonderful record.

what??
first of all we were talking about creativity.
we weren't talking about "creating"
cuz we BUILD or DESIGN bridges, we don't create them.
and we COMPOSE music, we don't create it.
so your examples were pretty out of place.
second of all, when a song is written for the first time a certain way, that is the way its composer thinks it sounds best, as a matter of fact that certain WAY is the composition of the song/artwork=that WAY IS the song!!
therefore, by changing that composition, you're simply COPYING someone else's idea and adding your own "twist" to it, and to me, that is not "creative".
it's work, but it's not characterized by originality.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by jahannam what??
first of all we were talking about creativity.
we weren't talking about "creating"
cuz we BUILD or DESIGN bridges, we don't create them.
and we COMPOSE music, we don't create it.
so your examples were pretty out of place.
second of all, when a song is written for the first time a certain way, that is the way its composer thinks it sounds best, as a matter of fact that certain WAY is the composition of the song/artwork=that WAY IS the song!!
therefore, by changing that composition, you're simply COPYING someone else's idea and adding your own "twist" to it, and to me, that is not "creative".
it's work, but it's not characterized by originality.

I'm into bad mood
There is no more creativity, there is only bridges everywhere.
And whatever you say tonight I would strongly disagree with you
:)

I'll restart the post tomorrow, for now I really really need to sleep :)

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by jahannam what??
first of all we were talking about creativity.
we weren't talking about "creating"
cuz we BUILD or DESIGN bridges, we don't create them.
and we COMPOSE music, we don't create it.
so your examples were pretty out of place.
second of all, when a song is written for the first time a certain way, that is the way its composer thinks it sounds best, as a matter of fact that certain WAY is the composition of the song/artwork=that WAY IS the song!!
therefore, by changing that composition, you're simply COPYING someone else's idea and adding your own "twist" to it, and to me, that is not "creative".
it's work, but it's not characterized by originality.

The bridge was not there before. Construction workers, who did not design the thing, by the way, put up some things that are not themselves bridges, together they come, and wow, there's a bridge. The bridge was created.

As I said before, there is no act of lyrical creativity involved in covering a song. But a record is more than a set of lyrics. It isn't about adding a twist, not with truly good covers. It's about building a recording, step by step, from the ground up, with nothing but words to work from. It's the same way it works for any band that does not write its own songs, or for that matter, any band where the songwriter does not arrange the music.

And no, this thread was not about creativity. It was about good covers. A record can be enjoyable, can be good, without being particularly inventive.