Briareos H on 20/4/2009 at 15:01
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
The cover sounds like a 12 bar Blues song where they forgot to play the last 4 bars.
on the other hand, the original just sounds like shit
don't get me wrong i love tom waits' voice
Volitions Advocate on 20/4/2009 at 15:30
I haven't heard either artist so i'm just making a split second emotional decision. *nod*
Fingernail on 20/4/2009 at 17:09
I think the cover's a pretty good cover though, and he does have a great voice.
june gloom on 20/4/2009 at 17:17
I'm just gonna put this out here and say that Scotsy is playing a total DaveW here. "oh my god someone disagrees with me I WILL START A WHOLE NEW THREAD ABOUT WHICH SONG IS BETTER then get mad when everyone disagrees with me"
stay classy scots
Muzman on 20/4/2009 at 17:53
Although Tom Waits is the Ur-"Off-beat, word-of-mouth, cooler-than-thou, hipster discovery you drive your friends crazy talking about at every opportunity". Even more than The Wire itself.
He probably wouldn't rate a 6.5 on Pitchfork these days.
Toxicfluff on 20/4/2009 at 18:07
Quote Posted by Muzman
Although Tom Waits is the Ur-"Off-beat, word-of-mouth, cooler-than-thou,
hipster discovery you drive your friends crazy talking about at every opportunity". Even more than
The Wire itself.
He probably wouldn't rate a 6.5 on Pitchfork these days.
I'd say Waits is known well beyond the hipsters these days.
From what I recall, his last album scored quite high. Y'know Pitchfork, they're self-conscious snobs, but there's some acts so universally acclaimed that even they wouldn't have the balls to take as anything other than sacred cows. Like St. Radiohead. Or Waits.
theBlackman on 20/4/2009 at 21:03
Not to rain on your parade, but...
A song done by one artist or band that is then done by a soloist or different band is not a cover. It is a new rendition of a song/piece previously performed by another.
A cover is an attempt to produce the exact same sound and arrangement of a tune done by someone else in the hope of riding on the interest generated by the original, and selling against the original.
Although Tribute bands, are promoting the music of the original band they emulate, at this point in time, Tribute bands are the ones who are truly doing covers. They are "covering" the original composition and arrangement in identical sound and presentation.
As for which is better. I've heard many mis-named "covers" of a song that were better by far than the original.
Kolya on 20/4/2009 at 21:09
Not to rain on your parade but...
if everyone and their dog use a word with a specific meaning then that word means just that, and not what you may have read in The History of Rock Music.
Scots Taffer on 20/4/2009 at 23:06
Quote Posted by Stitch
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)?
Okay, people need to chill out. If you think I'm actually
angry (or pulling a DaveW as dethtoll puts it, which I don't even
understand) then you guys have sort of lost your way.
If you reckon my "pfffft..." response has any intent other than to jokingly completely absolve myself of responsibility for my failing argument in this thread then again, you've lost your way.
This was my equivalent of a tongue-in-cheek internet throwdown between Jason Moyer and I. My starting a thread isn't exactly an uncommon occurrence here on TTLG and I'd expect people would give me a little more credit than being a frothy at the mouth idiot just because someone disagreed with me.
That said, you're completely correct that music is not my forte. Before seeing this post this morning I intended on going into the other thread (fave TV one) and re-editing my post to say,
okay maybe I don't know what the fuck about music but I KNOW OTHER SHIT.
I'll address henke's question here in a way that probably illustrates that I'm not a
music appreciator but instead an
appreciator of good sounding music.
I can't take Waits seriously there because as I said, he sounds like a drunk dying in an alley, if that's what makes the song for you? Great. I think it sounds like absolute crap whereas the cover is a toe-tapping bluesy awesome song.
Do I
feel anything over both of them? I'm not sure if I think about this on the same level as you guys. I hear a song and it either flows for me or it doesn't. I'm not analysing the content as I listen or seeing which way my emotions are pulled, I'm hearing what's coming out of the speakers in a very simplistic fashion (Stitch knows this, we've discussed music on a number of occasions). Hence I'm not much of an album guy, but more of a greatest hits type person.
Hopefully this addresses what was intended as a jokey thread, and I've been enjoying the tags etc, if people don't reckon I was joking well... uh, I guess I fail at the internet too. Thought people coulda read between the lines of my posts by now.
Also, edit:
Quote Posted by Stitch
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.
Why is this? (Stripping away the overt snobbery of your tone in the last line, why do you think it'll be more appreciated than the original?)
june gloom on 20/4/2009 at 23:22
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
or pulling a DaveW as dethtoll puts it, which I don't even
understanddude i spelled it out for you
and davew didn't read posts either
