Nicker on 20/4/2009 at 12:21
I'd say it's about even money whether a cover is going to be better than the original. It always depends on who grokked the song best, or who gave it the best twist.
In this case my money is on the original because Waits captures something sinister and naive about the lyric, which is lost in the more traditional cover version.
The cover sounds like just another (well executed) gospel blues song. Waits sounds like a guy fighting to get the devil down in the hole, and maybe not doing so well at it.
The Alchemist on 20/4/2009 at 13:27
WTF? Of course Tom Waits.
(Which is totally who Heath Ledger based the Joker on.)
Scots Taffer on 20/4/2009 at 13:34
pfffft
why do I even bother
you're all faggots anyway
Random_Taffer on 20/4/2009 at 13:36
Cover. It pleases my ears more.
henke on 20/4/2009 at 13:55
Scots, I need to know. When it comes to singers, what's more important to you? Technical skill or feeling? Yes I know both are important, but if you had to pick one.
To me the Waits version is better because, like Nicker says, Waits sings with more feeling. The Blind Boys are just too cool and detached. Oh don't get me wrong, that's one of the main things I like about them actually. Their version of "Run on for a long time" is one of the coolest songs I've ever heard and I'm glad they stick to what they do best. But when you put it up next to Waits it just sounds shallow.
Stitch on 20/4/2009 at 14:36
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
My comment was intended as a ridicule of dethtoll's rather risible opinion that the cover is generic because it lacks
whatever it is that people seem to be ascribing the Waits version (I honestly can't tell because seriously it sounds to me like an illiterate drunk's death rattle - or let me guess, is that what makes it good?).
Let's just agree you should never publicly discuss music and then call it a day. Cinema is your thing, dude. And why even create a discussion thread if you're seeking a very narrow response that precisely fits your opinion (and planning on kneejerk attacking anyone who might disagree)?
Anyway, I've never heard either version of the song before so I come bereft of baggage, and the original is superior in every way. The cover does have some decent playing and a good arrangement, but on the whole it sands the edges off the original and swaps in a bland but competent vocalist. The original sounds like a man struggling with personal demons while the cover sounds like buying bread in a grocery store.
As such, most people will prefer the latter.
Volitions Advocate on 20/4/2009 at 14:45
The cover sounds like a 12 bar Blues song where they forgot to play the last 4 bars.
Voted for the original.
Koki on 20/4/2009 at 14:56
Cover on the basis of it being actual music and singing and not four notes and what I'd call enthusiastic talking.
