Humans. We're quite uncreative. No really. We like to do the same things over and over. And we like when other people do the same thing over and over, and make it look a little different. Who knows why? Comfort in predictability, a love interest in our mother, maybe our father. Nevertheless, we always love a good cover. We like to hear our old songs done with a new interpretation, and we like to see other people's spin on a song. Unless that spin is utter shit. Fall Out Boy, expect my pipe bomb soon. I'm told it should be arriving to you in the mail anyday.
Nevertheless, I argue that there are times that a cover can be better than the original. Musicians are available to newer technologies, available to more creative outlets. There are times when the cover can actually do the original justice, but actually puts the other one to school. In the front row, where the teacher can watch when that sneaky original shoots spitballs. The bastard. Anyway, I offer two questions.
1. Is it really fair to say that a cover can be a better song than it's original, and deserves more praise than the original?
2. If that is the case, what cover is better than it's original?
For me, I'll make the argument for Allman Brother's "Statesboro Blues". Frankly, Allman Bros. always helped me identify what type of music I like. The Allman Bros were always just a band looking to have a good ass time, and that's exactly what they did. I never knew Statesboro Blues was a cover until I was eighteen. When I heard the first, I couldn't help but think "what the fuck is this shit?". I decided right then and there, originals don' always have to be better than their covers, and just because someone wrote the song, doesn't mean they perfected it. Allman Bros absolutely perfected this song. Their interpretation of blues, to me, was not only perfect, but fitting for the era it was in. They not only modernized the song, they made it tha much better. Hell, just listen to this version.
[YOUTUBE]JToo3iwTOso[/YOUTUBE]
Nevertheless, I argue that there are times that a cover can be better than the original. Musicians are available to newer technologies, available to more creative outlets. There are times when the cover can actually do the original justice, but actually puts the other one to school. In the front row, where the teacher can watch when that sneaky original shoots spitballs. The bastard. Anyway, I offer two questions.
1. Is it really fair to say that a cover can be a better song than it's original, and deserves more praise than the original?
2. If that is the case, what cover is better than it's original?
For me, I'll make the argument for Allman Brother's "Statesboro Blues". Frankly, Allman Bros. always helped me identify what type of music I like. The Allman Bros were always just a band looking to have a good ass time, and that's exactly what they did. I never knew Statesboro Blues was a cover until I was eighteen. When I heard the first, I couldn't help but think "what the fuck is this shit?". I decided right then and there, originals don' always have to be better than their covers, and just because someone wrote the song, doesn't mean they perfected it. Allman Bros absolutely perfected this song. Their interpretation of blues, to me, was not only perfect, but fitting for the era it was in. They not only modernized the song, they made it tha much better. Hell, just listen to this version.
[YOUTUBE]JToo3iwTOso[/YOUTUBE]
