What, in your mind, is a "cover"?

[danasgoodstuff]

We already have a perfectly good word for doing new "versions" of a tune, regardless of motive or worthiness of result, "cover" should be reserved for the much narrower practise of purposefully diverting sales from a current hit with a (purposefully?) lame/watered down version...to do otherwise is lazzy/sloppy/lame. If so restricted, then few if any of Elvis P's versions of blues/R&B tunes were "covers" since the originals had long since run their course and Elvis usually transformed them into something new/different/and often better...Pat Boone on the other hand is a different matter.

[JSngry]

I remember a version of "Dreams Of The Everyday Housewife" by Wayne Newton starting to take off when BAM here came one by Glen Campbell that knocked Wayne out of the picture.

What was weird was that both versions were on Capitol.

Less successful was the attempt by Bobby Vee to get a hit off of Kenny O'Dell's "Beautiful People".

This was all late 60s stuff though, the last time I can think of that it went on in Top 40 circles.

I bet it might still go on in Country. There it's all about the song.

[Aggie87]

  danasgoodstuff said:

We already have a perfectly good word for doing new "versions" of a tune, regardless of motive or worthiness of result, "cover" should be reserved for the much narrower practise of purposefully diverting sales from a current hit with a (purposefully?) lame/watered down version...to do otherwise is lazzy/sloppy/lame. If so restricted, then few if any of Elvis P's versions of blues/R&B tunes were "covers" since the originals had long since run their course and Elvis usually transformed them into something new/different/and often better...Pat Boone on the other hand is a different matter.

If we already have a perfectly good word for recording a tune that somebody else has recorded, what is it?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Covering, as Chris, Harold and I define it, still goes on. I have to admit, it's hard for me to find contemporary examples because I'm not too interested in what's a hit record any more. But here's an except from Wikipedia's entry on Los Del Rio's "Macarena", which was such an obvious candidate that I didn't think it was even possible that it wouldn't have been covered.

  Quote

The song was also covered by Los del Mar, which was first released in 1995 and then again at the same time as the original in the United Kingdom in the hope of fooling people into buying their version by mistake. It missed the top 40 but the Los del Rio version peaked at number two.

MG

PS should have put in a link to the article. Here 'tis (no sammich).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macarena_(song)

Edited October 2, 2007 by The Magnificent Goldberg

[Aggie87]

  The Magnificent Goldberg said:

Covering, as Chris, Harold and I define it, still goes on. I have to admit, it's hard for me to find contemporary examples because I'm not too interested in what's a hit record any more. But here's an except from Wikipedia's entry on Los Del Rio's "Macarena", which was such an obvious candidate that I didn't think it was even possible that it wouldn't have been covered.

  Quote

The song was also covered by Los del Mar, which was first released in 1995 and then again at the same time as the original in the United Kingdom in the hope of fooling people into buying their version by mistake. It missed the top 40 but the Los del Rio version peaked at number two.

MG

PS should have put in a link to the article. Here 'tis (no sammich).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macarena_(song)

I see what you're describing, which to me is a cover (by today's definition) just as much as Jason Moran covering Bjork or Annie Lennox covering Neil Young.

The intent may be different (in Macarena's case to trick people into thinking you're the artist with the hit), obviously, but they're all covers of other artist's work.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

  Aggie87 said:

  The Magnificent Goldberg said:

Covering, as Chris, Harold and I define it, still goes on. I have to admit, it's hard for me to find contemporary examples because I'm not too interested in what's a hit record any more. But here's an except from Wikipedia's entry on Los Del Rio's "Macarena", which was such an obvious candidate that I didn't think it was even possible that it wouldn't have been covered.

  Quote

The song was also covered by Los del Mar, which was first released in 1995 and then again at the same time as the original in the United Kingdom in the hope of fooling people into buying their version by mistake. It missed the top 40 but the Los del Rio version peaked at number two.

MG

PS should have put in a link to the article. Here 'tis (no sammich).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macarena_(song)

I see what you're describing, which to me is a cover (by today's definition) just as much as Jason Moran covering Bjork or Annie Lennox covering Neil Young.

The intent may be different (in Macarena's case to trick people into thinking you're the artist with the hit), obviously, but they're all covers of other artist's work.

They are all covers, as you say. But now there is one word which is used for something extremely common and innocuous and also for something relatively uncommon and quite a long way from innocuous. I find it unsatisfactory. An analogous case would be to call all deaths murder on the grounds that all murders are deaths.

MG

[Joe G]

Except that murder is still common.

[Alexander]

For me, this discussion comes down to a dispute in the grammar and usage world that has been going on for some time. One camp is usually called the "prescriptivists," the other is the "descriptivists." Prescriptivists seek to define language as it *should* be used. Descriptivists seek to define language as it *is* used. Dictionaries (to which most of us defer as a neutral and authoritative arbiter of language) are, in fact, written with a very definite bias (prescriptivist or descriptivist). Chris and MG are showing themselves (in this case, anyway) to be prescriptivists. The word cover has a meaning and that meaning has been ignored, and even perverted, by the people who use it. Others have shown themselves to be descriptivists, arguing that the meaning of the word "cover" has changed because the way in which the word is used has changed. Prescriptivists essentally believe that people should walk where paths are laid, descriptivists believe that paths should be laid where people walk. Both are valid ways of looking at language, and both have their place. For myself, I think that if the way "cover" is used has changed, then the meaning has changed as well. The function of language is that we may understand each other. If we don't keep up with the changes, we may as well speak Anglo-Saxon.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

  Joe G said:

Except that murder is still common.

Not as common as death, though.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

  Alexander said:

For me, this discussion comes down to a dispute in the grammar and usage world that has been going on for some time. One camp is usually called the "prescriptivists," the other is the "descriptivists." Prescriptivists seek to define language as it *should* be used. Descriptivists seek to define language as it *is* used. Dictionaries (to which most of us defer as a neutral and authoritative arbiter of language) are, in fact, written with a very definite bias (prescriptivist or descriptivist). Chris and MG are showing themselves (in this case, anyway) to be prescriptivists. The word cover has a meaning and that meaning has been ignored, and even perverted, by the people who use it. Others have shown themselves to be descriptivists, arguing that the meaning of the word "cover" has changed because the way in which the word is used has changed. Prescriptivists essentally believe that people should walk where paths are laid, descriptivists believe that paths should be laid where people walk. Both are valid ways of looking at language, and both have their place. For myself, I think that if the way "cover" is used has changed, then the meaning has changed as well. The function of language is that we may understand each other. If we don't keep up with the changes, we may as well speak Anglo-Saxon.

You're not wrong about any of this. And I agree that it is necesary that we don't speak Anglo-Saxon.

There's a backward compatibility issue here. While it's clear that the activities for which the pejorative sense of covers was appropriate continue, I'm not clear on how widespread they may be nowadays, by comparison with the fifties and sixties. So I'd be happy to accept that, as the activities have become less prevalent, the meaning of the word may change. But what do the linguistic theorists say about the backward compatibility of terms when one is, for example, writing history? My guess is that they would say, "write explanatory footnotes". Would that be your view?

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

  Aggie87 said:

  danasgoodstuff said:

We already have a perfectly good word for doing new "versions" of a tune, regardless of motive or worthiness of result, "cover" should be reserved for the much narrower practise of purposefully diverting sales from a current hit with a (purposefully?) lame/watered down version...to do otherwise is lazzy/sloppy/lame. If so restricted, then few if any of Elvis P's versions of blues/R&B tunes were "covers" since the originals had long since run their course and Elvis usually transformed them into something new/different/and often better...Pat Boone on the other hand is a different matter.

If we already have a perfectly good word for recording a tune that somebody else has recorded, what is it?

Revival or reinterpretation.

MG

[Christiern]

So, all too many people will describe a somewhat accomplished artist who has passed his or her 50th birthday as a "legend." That, to me, is as ludicrous as it is to refer to any non-premiere recording of a tune as a "cover."

When a term is misused often enough, some (those who give it no real thought) will simply accept it--even if it does not reflect reason. Eventually, the term loses its meaning and becomes a "whatever" kind of phrase. Being under 42 is no excuse for using sloppy language, IMO.

[Aggie87]

  Christiern said:

When a term is misused often enough, some (those who give it no real thought) will simply accept it--even if it does not reflect reason. Eventually, the term loses its meaning and becomes a "whatever" kind of phrase. Being under 42 is no excuse for using sloppy language, IMO.

Again, for people my age and younger, I think that is the accepted definition of "cover". If that's what people believe and accept to be it's definition, does that make it sloppy? I don't think that's the case.

"High speed internet access" used to be defined as a 56K modem. Nowadays there's T1, broadband, wireless, you name it. Times change, and definitions change.

For me, I haven't come to grips with MP3s versus physical CDs. I need the physical thing - cd, lp, whatever. That's part of my paradigm, but it's not the case for a 20 year old who has his complete library on his Ipod, and is fine with that. That's where my definition of music hasn't kept up with the times.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Aggie87

[Christiern]

Aggie87, I now understand why you accept the term, "cover" as not being meaningless. Your analogies are rather fanciful, I think.

[Aggie87]

  Christiern said:

Aggie87, I now understand why you accept the term, "cover" as not being meaningless. Your analogies are rather fanciful, I think.

Um....thanks, I think.

Sorry, I've just been riled up lately, I guess.

[Joe G]

  The Magnificent Goldberg said:

  Joe G said:

Except that murder is still common.

Not as common as death, though.

MG

Death and music are equally common, but while murder hasn't decreased, stealing sales with a cover version has.

[Dan Gould]

  Christiern said:

So, all too many people will describe a somewhat accomplished artist who has passed his or her 50th birthday as a "legend." That, to me, is as ludicrous as it is to refer to any non-premiere recording of a tune as a "cover."

When a term is misused often enough, some (those who give it no real thought) will simply accept it--even if it does not reflect reason. Eventually, the term loses its meaning and becomes a "whatever" kind of phrase. Being under 42 is no excuse for using sloppy language, IMO.

The term is not being misused. It has evolved just as the practice that gave rise to its original meaning has virtually disappeared.

The original meaning is nearly as archaic as those who are now bitching about its modern meaning and those who use it for its modern definition.

[Dan Gould]

  The Magnificent Goldberg said:

  Aggie87 said:

  danasgoodstuff said:

We already have a perfectly good word for doing new "versions" of a tune, regardless of motive or worthiness of result, "cover" should be reserved for the much narrower practise of purposefully diverting sales from a current hit with a (purposefully?) lame/watered down version...to do otherwise is lazzy/sloppy/lame. If so restricted, then few if any of Elvis P's versions of blues/R&B tunes were "covers" since the originals had long since run their course and Elvis usually transformed them into something new/different/and often better...Pat Boone on the other hand is a different matter.

If we already have a perfectly good word for recording a tune that somebody else has recorded, what is it?

Revival or reinterpretation.

MG

So bar bands playing classic rock shouldn't be called "cover bands" but in fact should be "revival bands"?

I propose we rename them "Lame Musicians Who Play Other People's Music In Order to Get Girls Because They Can't Write Their Own" bands?

[Christiern]

Well, Dan, if the practice that gave rise to its original meaning has virtually disappeared, why continue using the term in this context? As has been pointed out, it's not as if the term fills a void. The truth is that "cover" was a descriptive term when originally applied, and that which it described has not gone the route of darned socks and v-mail. Yes, recordings by black pop artists are no longer limited to airplay on black radio (although I'm not so sure about that), but that was not the only scenario for generating a "cover." When a label goes into full gear to release its own version of a currently successful recording, it is creating a cover. When it simply issues a new performance of a tune that is available by other artists, it is doing just that--nothing more.

What is so difficult to understand?

[DukeCity]

  Christiern said:

Well, Dan, if the practice that gave rise to its original meaning has virtually disappeared, why continue using the term in this context? As has been pointed out, it's not as if the term fills a void. The truth is that "cover" was a descriptive term when originally applied, and that which it described has not gone the route of darned socks and v-mail. Yes, recordings by black pop artists are no longer limited to airplay on black radio (although I'm not so sure about that), but that was not the only scenario for generating a "cover." When a label goes into full gear to release its own version of a currently successful recording, it is creating a cover. When it simply issues a new performance of a tune that is available by other artists, it is doing just that--nothing more.

What is so difficult to understand?

I don't want to speak for Dan, but it seems to me that the evolution of a language as a means of communication is defined by common usage. As others have said more than once in this thread, people, LOTS of people, use that term in a way that's different from how you would have it. As a result the usage HAS changed and IS changing. Tilt at the windmill if you must, but that doesn't mean the windmill is going to stop turning.

What is so difficult to understand?

[Christiern]

I am not convinced that we are speaking of "common usage" in this case. The music bulletin boards are visited upon by many novices who--understandably--are glossary handicapped. The same boards are also inhabited by posters who pick up the terms and run with them. Outside of these boards, I don't recall hearing the term, cover, misused.

What does "cover" mean? If you think about that you will see how the definition in question came about, and how descriptive it is. Now, having given that some thought, think again. Think about how meaningless it is to call something a cover just because it is not the original recording of a tune--why not just call it another recording of such-and-such tune? Given the illogic followed by some of the posters here, why is Coleman Hawkins' "Body and Soul" not a cover? Why is one recording of the hundreds that exist of "Round Midnight" not a cover? Why are the others covers? Are some of them covers and others not? If so, which are which and how do we delineate one from the other?

Basically, I am asking that this be given some thought.

[Joe G]

The term I would like to see make a comeback is flutterby. There's nothing buttery about a butterfly. It's a flutterby!

[Hot Ptah]

The title of this thread is "What, in your mind, is a 'cover'"?

In my mind, it is:

Edited October 2, 2007 by Hot Ptah

[Aggie87]

  Christiern said:

Outside of these boards, I don't recall hearing the term, cover, misused.

I still think your narrow definition is out of date, Chris, and not what's used by the majority of the population.

From allmusic's review of Annie Lennox' "Medusa":

  Quote

The critics savaged Annie Lennox's sophomore effort when it first came out, and it's easy to see why: it's not that an all-covers album was a bad idea, but she did pick some rather large shoes to fill and she did kind of run roughshod over the songs themselves, taking gritty material by the likes of Neil Young and the Clash and turning it into super-slick electro-pop ear candy.

Def Leppard's "Yeah":

  Quote

Def Leppard always had a streak of glam running beneath their heavy rock — listen to "Armageddon It" or "Photograph" for proof — so it's no surprise that when the quintet decided to record a covers album in 2006, they devoted it to the '70s glam and hard rock that inspired them to pick up their guitars and play.

Diana Ross' "I Love You":

  Quote

In what might be the least inspired album of her career, iconic diva Diana Ross sleepwalks through a mishmash of seemingly randomly chosen love songs, all covers save for one new composition, adding nothing to them and forcing one to wonder just why she bothered.

Johnny Cash's "The Man Comes Around":

  Quote

One of the reasons his previous covers were so successful is that in the past he had chosen some pretty obscure songs (Bonnie Prince Billy's "I See a Darkness" and Beck's "Rowboat," to name a couple) and reinterpreted them with his unique perspective and unmistakable voice.

And to toss in a jazz disc, Brad Mehldau's "Day is Done":

  Quote

These ten cuts are comprised mainly of covers, though aside from "Alfie," there isn't anything here approaching a standard. There are tunes here by the Beatles ("She's Leaving Home" and a glorious solo version of "Martha My Dear" with a Scarlatti-esque study in counterpoint to usher it in), Paul Simon (a jaunty read of "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover"), Nick Drake (the title cut), and even Radiohead (in the crackling energy of "Knives Out").

Edited October 2, 2007 by Aggie87

[Christiern]

Well, what does a legend know?