Do Cover Songs Ruin the Song itself?

[Eck]

So I just looked up Highway to Hell and a Glee cast version came up. I was curious and looked at it and it sucked but don't take my word for it here
[YOUTUBE]zVowW3cl_pM[/YOUTUBE]
I sit here shocked because I love AC/DC and I feel they ruined a classic. But that is my opinon. Some cover songs end up good though. But I'm asking you do you think a cover song can sometimes kill the quality of the original?

 

[Rasha]

I'd say no. No matter how bad a cover song is, it shouldn't impact how you feel about the original. If anything, bad covers tend to make you appreciate the original more.

I'd rather have people trying to cover my songs and failing then having somebody take my song and show me up, like what Jimi Hendrix did with "All Along the Watchtower." Half the world doesn't even know that was originally Bob Dylan's song now.

 

[hurleyworld4]

Agreeing with Rasha. If it sucks, as the Glee version does, you greatly appreciate the original. After hearing that travesty, I had to listen to some ACDC. It was like taking a long, hot shower after really bad sex, cleansing. If the cover is amazing, yes it upstages the original, but it also makes you aware of the differences between the two.

Take my musical awakening. Limp Bizkit covered George Michael's "Faith." A decent song in its own right, but Fred and the boys elevated the intensity and twisted some rock into it. However, while their version is far superior, it led me to realizing who first recorded the song and opened up George Michael's discography to me.

Now if Taylor Swift covered "Bohemian Rhapsody," I would cringe because it is far beyond her talent and capabilities. But when I heard Prince Poppycock on "America's Got Talent,'" I was blown away. The quality of the cover is the deciding factor. Either it elevates the song while still acknowledging the original artist, or it fails miserably and leads one to appreciate the first version.

 

[Attitude]

No. At least not always. I think this is just not the best version Glee did. But usually Glee does a great job covering songs. Wether you like them or not they are professionals. So when they do cover songs it's usually better. I am a little biased because I am a Glee fan.

However I don't always like cover bands. I listened to other cover bands of AC/DC that are worse than the cover you found. It just depends on who you get to cover the song.

On the other hand you get some bands that are good. I found a band that Covers All Summer Long by Kid Rock and they did a great job.

Glee tends to do a great job. Like I said I'm biased because I like the show.

Overall, you have to think that when cover bands or bands cover a song it's out of respect to the band. The band should be happy that they have songs that want to be covered.

 

[Avrusha92]

Not exactly, if you take Shout...Disturbed did a great cover, I enjoy Disturbed cover of Shout more than the original artists.

I might get heat for saying this..I enjoy Fred Durst's "Behind Blue Eyes" more than the original.

& To be honest...I like Gless version, Its not bad...and this "Glee Version" could be played on the radio.

But all I have to say is Music is a matter of opinion.
People like different things, and some people can agree or disagree with music.

I love Rock & Metal for example, I wouldnt go bashing people saying: "Why the hell you listening to that trash" I wont, because It's my opinion. That person likes that music, good for him.

I could give my opinions on music, sure. But I wont state facts.

My opinion to wether "Cover Bands kill the original", is NO, a lot of times The Cover's of the songs make the song even better, Guns N Roses in my opinion made me fall in love with Knocking on Heavens Door. But thats just my opinion.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

Not always but it can. Glee is the PERFECT example. It's covers divide people no matter what. A lot of people enjoy the covers, others hate it. I'm not too bothered but when Journey got played as every other song on the radio, I got pissed off. We get it, it's a popular song and the popular television programme covered it. STOP IT.

After that brief rant on Glee, onto other points. In the latter portion of his career Johnny Cash covered most of the songs he sang and they are generally considered excellent covers. Cash covered songs such as 'The Beast in Me', 'Bird on a Wire' & 'Personal Jesus'. Most notable however, Cash covered the Nine Inch Nails song, 'Hurt'. His version is considered by many to in fact be better than the Nine Inch Nails version. Rolling Stone Magazine even ranked Cash's Hurt as the 15th best song of the decade. The list did not feature the original version.

[YOUTUBE]o22eIJDtKho[/YOUTUBE]​

 

[The Raven's Epitaph]

I certainly think that it gives the original song abit less credability. Plus, if it's a popular song and there's alot of covers by different people out there, then most people just end up forgetting who the original artist is. Check these out:

[YOUTUBE]F_JF8oSxXtM[/YOUTUBE]
Motorhead's original version of 'The Game' that is most known as Triple H's very popular entrance theme. Deffenitly one of the songs that has been covered alot on Youtube.

Then take a look at this version.

[YOUTUBE]MjPCVdg0XtM[/YOUTUBE]
This is Rasputins Vision's version of The Game. Yeah, I understand that they aren't the greatest band out there, but just look at how the took such a great song and totally defecated on it. This cover has actually stuck in my head that much that everytime I actually listen to Motorhead's original version I can hear the horrible guitar and horrible singing from this version.

Back to my first point, I deffenitly think that it gives the original song less credability.

 

[Alex]

Obviously some people's do covers that are bad either because they're just terrible or because they don't capture the essence of the original e.g. most Glee songs or Fall Out Boy's Beat It.

Then there are some who cover the song completely without changing it e.g. Guns N Roses' Knockin On Heaven's Door and Sympathy For The Devil

Then there are some bands who cover songs while giving them their own twist like the Red Hot Chili Peppers covering Higher Gound and Fire.

All in all I wouldn't mind a band covering my song so long as it was good and wasn't done for marketing purposes (which some are)

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I have never heard a cover version of a song that has made me dislike the original...as far as I can remember....

Usually if I hear a shitty cover, it just annoys me and makes me hate the band that is doing the cover. I prefer some covers to the original as well, like I much prefer Avenged Sevenfold's version of "Flash Of The Blade" to the Iron Maiden original, even though the Maiden version is still really good. I also prefer GnR's "Knockin' On Heavens Door" to the original.

By the way, I am scarred for life after hearing that Glee version of "Highway To Hell"...Glee is a crime against music! But it wont affect how much I enjoy the ACDC original of that song, not at all

 

[Ferbian]

It really depends on who performs it, and how well they manage to perform it. There have been covers that are generally just better than the original, and there's some that have generally been able to do pretty well in honoring the cover.

However, there's also the awful cover that everybody tends to hate. And generally those tends do bad things for the song. Although, I would never go as far as to say that it ruins the song itself.

Some covers can make the original, or the song as a whole a lot better. And some songs just can't fuck up a good song, if the original is still good and awesome, I have no doubt that the original will remain awesome with, or without a cover.

 

[Aeon Mathix]

There are a lot of cover songs i enjoy. But like ferbian said, it really depends on who the band is. I listen to quite a lot of techno and make a lot of songs with my gf (hence my username DJ mathix). And usually the techno songs some artists make really make the song a lot more well idk about better but it makes it more fun to listen to if that makes any sense. this one artist DJ sammy covered "Heaven" By bryan adams, and did a techno version of it and a candlelight remix (just the girl singing and a piano playing). Some artists are asked to cover a song because they may remind them of the original. One of my favorite bands smile empty soul covered "breed" by nirvana at a live show i went to of them a couple years back (now bear in mind i know nirvana could never be duplicated and SES dont sound like them), but i really think they nailed it. But in short to answer your question it really depends on how you view the cover song. Some people would probably just love the original artist so much they would hate the cover version no matter who did it. Nickelback could cover hotel california (ya i hope they dont too just an example), but due to how hated nickelback is and how loved the eagles are, nickelback could do a perfect version of it, but people would still hate it because they hate nickelback and love the eagles. if that makes any sense

 

[The Jabroni]

It depends on a few key factors:

1. Quality- If it's a well done cover, it shouldn't ruin the original. If it's a terrible cover, it'll make the original more appreciated. If it's a great cover, it could overshadow the original and become the new standard.

2. Originality- In a sense, this is a contradiction: how can a cover be original? In order to make an exceptional cover, you have to stray from the path cleared by the original. If you do a cover that sounds exactly like the original, but with a different voice, it won't be appreciated. If you do something new, add some new flavor to it, it'll be received better. However, if you do something new that's just out of place, it'll most likely be disliked. A good example of this is "Gigantic" by the Pixies. OK Go did a cover that added a darker edge to it, it was splendid. Reel Big Fish recorded a version that took the playfulness of the original and magnified it to a ridiculous proportion (the term "bubble gum" comes to mind) but did it in a way that didn't fit the song. The OK Go version was far better than the RBF.

3. The Band- If a cover's done by a band that doesn't fit the part, it won't work. Either the band is not able to play it because of a deficit of skill, or they can't capture the mood of the song.

4. The Original- If the original is a great song, it'll be hard to top without some mega-originality. For example, Beatles songs are often covered and often destroyed and desecrated by the coverers when compared to how fantastically the Beatles recorded most of their songs. This is because they often fall into the "Beatle trap:" they attempt to sound like the Beatles, which never works. The only way to cover a Beatles song is to make it sound completely unlike the Beatles.

 

[zomigosh]

Some songs you shouldn't cover. However, some songs are meant to be covered; ie Walk This Way, Come Together, Wild Horses ect. All of those three songs cam out better from the respected bands/artists that sung the songs.

 

[X]

Most notable however, Cash covered the Nine Inch Nails song, 'Hurt'. His version is considered by many to in fact be better than the Nine Inch Nails version. Rolling Stone Magazine even ranked Cash's Hurt as the 15th best song of the decade. The list did not feature the original version.

Probably because Trent Reznor recorded the original in 1993, the previous decade. Personally I've always felt the original was better.

As for whether a cover song ruins the original, no, you can't ruin a great song by covering it poorly, no matter how awful your cover is the original is still there in all of it's glory.

 

[LSN80]

I think that they can, sure, it all depends on the perpesctive of the person.

1. The example you used was a great one. Glee did a fucking pathetic job with "Highway to Hell", and depending on how much you enjoy the song, it can ruin it for you, sure.

2. Theres another school of thought though: it can make you appreciate the original song even more. Aren't you thankful for the fact that it was AC/DC wrote and came out with the song first rather then say, the Glee cast? Its the trite but tride and true saying, seeing a glass as half full, or half empty.

It also depends on the song. When Seether re-worked "Careless Whisper", they did so as a joke. They said iot wasn't generally their type of lyrics, and they wanted to see what would happen if they added a harder edge to it. The result? According to Rolling stone, the #5 cover song of all time. There are bands or musicians that can, third school of thought, can take the song and enhance it, making it better.

3. My best example of this would be Gary Jules' reworking of Tears For Fears "Mad World." Let me first say I love Tears For Fears. The lyrics to this song are freaking amazing. But the quasi-techno music they added to it DONT match the tone of the lyrics. Enter Gary Jules. The haunting tone of the music matches what is a very dark song. In this case, I feel, he took a song, covered it, and made it better. Ill let you listen to the two and tell me which is better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gFl2OXySs8

From the chorus on, its as if Kurt Smith is singing it in an upbeat way. None of these lyrics are upbeat. Wouldn't guess it by the music, or the way its sung. Now here's Jules version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4

To me, he took great lyrics, and the music along with the haunting way in which he sings it makes it far better then the original. All a matter of perspective, and the song itself, I suppose.

 

[RKGO2SLEEP]

nope, look at still fly - the devil wears prada

compare it to the original, still fly - big tymers

the cover is better than the original