The Cover Version: Hasn’t It Had Its Day? (Feature)
Monday, 17 January 2011
Written by Rob Sleigh
The cover version. Pay dirt for every pub band and fledgling teenage rock group around the country. Or alternatively, and more commonly these days, a quick way for a fame-hungry popstar wannabe to grab a few minutes in the limelight and for a mega-rich music exec and TV producer to get their hands on more of that much-needed wonga. After the recent Christmas Number One, a reworking of ‘Many of Horror’ by Scottish alt-rockers Biffy Clyro, which also happened to be the fourth X Factor Christmas Number One cover version in a row – excluding Rage Against the Machine’s brief stint at the top spot at the end of 2009 – is seems that it is now virtually impossible for an aspiring pop singer to come up with an original piece of music, even with an overpaid team of professional songwriters behind them. So what does this mean for the future of British pop music? Ignoring the dreadful thought that we may have to spend every Christmas from now until the end of eternity listening to one of Simon Cowell’s minions singing a god-awful, dreary love song while we eat our sprouts, it also means that there is a pretty good chance we will be forced to listen to a second-rate version of a track that was perfectly fine as it was. Come on, Britain – isn’t it about time we said no?
Of course, one of the things that seemed most offensive about Matt Cardle’s version of ‘Many of Horror’ - apart from the way that he and the X Factor producers took it upon themselves to rename the song to the much more palatable ‘When We Collide’ - is the fact that the original song had itself only been released a few months earlier. Why did they feel the need to redo a song that was still so far from becoming anywhere near dated? Let’s face it – everyone enjoys a decent cover of a classic song. We’ve all cheerfully nodded along or tapped our feet as that local pub band has played their version of ‘Under the Bridge’ or ‘Brown Eyed Girl’. But to cover a track that is only a few months old – and then release it – seems completely pointless, not to mention shameless. And why would anyone feel the need to purchase such a thing? The original is probably only a few rows away on the shelf and it would be difficult to argue that Matt Cardle has improved the song in any way. He really hasn’t changed it much at all, except to add that over-polished sheen and banal singing style, as is customary on the X Factor.
Anyway, I feel as though we’re putting all the blame on Simon Cowell and co. Indeed, pop covers are no new thing. Look at Irish boy-band veterans Westlife, for example. They’ve been relentlessly turning out near-identical versions of old, mediocre love songs by the bucketload since before the turn of the century. In fact, the practice of covering other people’s songs is almost as old as pop music itself. But why have some artists become almost entirely reliant on the safety of tried and tested material when they could be bravely coming up with their own musical innovations? More importantly, why have we, as a nation, become so keen to accept such barefaced profiteering? Especially when, in a lot of cases, we probably already own a copy of the original songs elsewhere in our record collections. On the other hand, if covering music is so inartistic, is it ever acceptable to do it?
The previously-mentioned pub band is a good starting point. Covering an old song for a bit of fun and making a few quid in the process is perfectly harmless and no one could realistically accuse these bands of any such profiteering. Covering old music is also a great way for new musicians to not only practise and enhance their skills, but to find a suitable style for their own sound as well. These cases are obvious examples of where the cover version is the ideal tool of the trade. But is it ever ok for professional musicians to do it? Most people would almost certainly be able to name a handful of covers that they really like – maybe even more so than the originals. To name a few notable examples – Hendrix’s version of Dylan’s ‘All Along the Watchtower’, Muse’s ‘Feeling Good’ (made famous by Nina Simone, although it was originally taken from a Broadway musical entitled ‘The Roar of the Greasepaint – The Smell of the Crowd’) and Jeff Buckley’s rendition of Leonard Cohen’s ‘Hallelujah’. This last example is an interesting one as it has become a much-loved version of a classic track. However, when it was covered by Alexandra Burke for the X Factor in 2008 – another Christmas Number One – despite its huge initial success, it has since become widely forgotten, while Buckley’s version is still well remembered 17 years after its release. This was also something that girl band Atomic Kitten experienced after the release of their 2002 hit ‘The Tide is High’, which was a cover of a song by Jamaican ska band the Paragons and proved to be much more fondly remembered for Blondie’s version in 1980.
So, there are some occasions when it is ok for a successful act to cover someone else’s music. The widely-accepted rule to doing a cover version is that you must do justice to the original song or, at the very least, put your own spin on it. Several highly-respected rock bands, including Metallica, Guns n’ Roses and Rage Against The Machine, have even released whole albums dedicated to covers of their favourite tracks. Other groups have translated classic albums into their own style of music. One well-known example of this is the dub/reggae band Easy Star All-Stars, who have re-recorded albums by Pink Floyd (2003’s ‘Dub Side of the Moon’), Radiohead (2006’s ‘Radiodread’ – their version of ‘OK Computer’) and The Beatles (2009’s ‘Easy Star’s Lonely Hearts Dub Band’). Another acceptable form of the cover version is when it is done for comedy value. Anyone who has heard the music of Hayseed Dixie, Richard Cheese or Me First and the Gimme Gimmes will understand.
The proof of the pudding is almost certainly in the eating or, in this case, the listening. If you want your fifteen minutes of fame or just a quick buck, there are plenty of decent or not so decent songs out there to remake until your heart’s content. However, unless you’re willing to do it the justice it deserves or to add your own personal and loving touch to it, it seems unlikely that your version will achieve anything more than a few weeks of success before it vanishes into thin air. It would also be advisable not to cover a song that’s known for already having a good cover version by someone else. Not only has it already been done, but your attempt is unlikely to be an improvement. However, if your aspirations involve neither fame nor riches then cover versions might be for you. And if in doubt, just make it funny.
NOTE FROM THE EDITOR
We don't run any advertising! Our editorial content is solely funded by lovely people like yourself using Stereoboard's listings when buying tickets for live events. To keep supporting us, next time you're looking for concert, festival, sport or theatre tickets, please search for "Stereoboard". It costs you nothing, you may find a better price than the usual outlets, and save yourself from waiting in an endless queue on Friday mornings as we list ALL available sellers!
Anyway, I feel as though we’re putting all the blame on Simon Cowell and co. Indeed, pop covers are no new thing. Look at Irish boy-band veterans Westlife, for example. They’ve been relentlessly turning out near-identical versions of old, mediocre love songs by the bucketload since before the turn of the century. In fact, the practice of covering other people’s songs is almost as old as pop music itself. But why have some artists become almost entirely reliant on the safety of tried and tested material when they could be bravely coming up with their own musical innovations? More importantly, why have we, as a nation, become so keen to accept such barefaced profiteering? Especially when, in a lot of cases, we probably already own a copy of the original songs elsewhere in our record collections. On the other hand, if covering music is so inartistic, is it ever acceptable to do it?
