Quote:
|
What exactly is a 'good' cover? is it possible for a cover to be more essential than the original song?
|
I don't think you can quantify a 'good' cover, just as I don't think you can quantify a 'good' song.
I suppose one way of
identifying one though is when the cover sort of becomes the standard by which other versions are judged. In that sense I'd say that all but the most blinkered Dylan fan would say that Hendrix's 'All Along the Watchtower' is the version against which all others (including the original) are compared. Ditto The Beatles' cover of 'Twist and Shout' and Soft Cell's 'Tainted Love' (I'm sure almost nobody who heard the Marilyn Manson version of that song was comparing it with the Gloria Jones original). I suppose in that sense it's when the band that make the cover manage to make it their own. Although, obviously, that can simply be a result of having greater exposure than the original had.
I suppose there can be times when a person simply prefers a cover over the original (I know someone who admits to preferring Guns N Roses version of 'Sympathy for the Devil' over The Stones' original) but that hardly makes it more 'essential'.
Another way I suppose is when the cover is so radically different to the original (Scissor Sistor's version of 'Comfortably Numb' or Tatu's 'How Soon is Now') that while it may not become the definitive version, it does have its own validity, almost as an original in its own right.
In that sense, just as interesting a question is what makes a 'bad' cover? Why are Megadeth's version of 'Anarchy in the UK' or Ronan Keiting's 'Fairytale of New York' or Britney's 'I Love Rock n Roll' so dreadful?