Christine Holm of the University of Wisconsin (go Badgers!) offers her perspective on cover songs. I don’t think she’ll be listening to Coverville any time soon.
Christine writes: “Following the news of Springsteen’s plans to release an album of Pete Seeger covers, the issue haunted me. Is he getting old? Tired? Uninspired? Can I continue to respect a musical legend who is essentially pulling a Mandy Moore Coverage? Can I respect a musician who compares on any level to Moore?”
Actually, I liked Coverage. I thought it was a terrific move for someone who had gotten pigeonholed into the same teen pop star status as Xtina and Britney to come out with an album covering people like Joan Armatrading and XTC. (That, and I thought she was pretty good on Entourage.)
Christine’s opinion is that artists release cover songs as a sign that they’ve run dry for songs to write themselves, and that they’re uninspired. I disagree. I’ve seen more examples where it’s as a tribute to the original performer. If I were a musician, I’d probably have an Elvis Costello, Crowded House and/or Squeeze tune in my repertoire for just that reason. Those are bands that had an effect on me, and the best way to honor them is to introduce people to songs of theirs that might not be on their “Greatest Hits” CDs.
Well, that’s my take. What’s yours?
Absolutely agree with you on this one. I may not always like the resultant version of a favourite song, but often times I have been introduced to new music in just the way you suggest.
I think here theory is completely wrong, in regards to Springsteen.
Elvis Costello, who I think we can all agree is a prolific and talented songwriter, has release TWO full albums of ONLY covers in his career. And a ton of B-Sides and tribute album tracks. Covers are not a sign of anything but someone liking a song. If Springsteen earned your respect with his songwriting, give him a little credit.
In regards to the ‘Pop star’ element of her complaint- pop stars are not less talented when they do covers than they are when they have producers write songs for them. It’s the fact that they CAN’T write that shows them as less talented than Springsteen or Costello. We already KNOW they can write. Guess what? They can perform other’s songs well, too.
Christine Holm clearly doesn’t know her rock history. The covers album didn’t start with Mandy Moore. It is a long-established tradition in rock. Bowie, McCartney, Costello (2), Shawn Colvin, Rod Stewart, Paul Weller, Annie Lennox, Duran Duran, the list goes on forever. Granted, they’ve rarely been high points in an artist’s career, but some usually have their moments.
And if Holm thinks Springsteen is tired and uninspired, she clearly hasn’t listened to Devils & Dust enough times. Although the music and melodies are sparse, his remains a compelling storyteller, and after sitting with the album for a while, the characters come to life.
I think if you read her entire piece you will find that she concludes that covers can be essential art, worthy of our attention. Many of the bands and artists Dave mentions likely developed playing the work of others as part of their live set and then went on to record whole albums of tunes they appreciated and found an inspiration to their own work. The part Brian quotes that sounds critical is really only a rhetorical device, and is used here to excess in a way that only a college student can seem to do. While she doesn’t say so, I think she will probably dig Springsteen’s album of Pete Seeger covers afterall.
Actually, I believe it’s a double edged sword. These days, it seems that if a pop artist is losing momentum, they will ‘jump the shark’ with a cover to try and get back in the groove. I do not agree with that use of a cover. HOWEVER, I do belive that Springsteen (for example) is doing the covers because they are songs he loves, and has always wanted to perform. And, after the time and effort he has put into his craft, he has earned that right to do so.
How about arguably the best band ever, The Beatles? Their first four or five albums were half covers, half originals. Doing other people’s songs sparked their creativity while they were developing their own songwriting style. I think Springsteen’s Seeger album has the potential to be his best in years, and I wouldn’t be surprised if his next original album will be a lot better as a result.
Also, more than half of Led Zeppelin’s tunes were old blues remakes as well. The Black Crowe’s first hit (Hard to Handle) was a cover….the list goes on forever.
Brian, this is a silly question to ask on Coverville. People who visit this site tend to like covers. Chances are they will disagree with the article to which you link.
Of course, that implies that only an idiot would reply to this post… so here I am. I agree with the previous idiots who have replied.
Prompted by this discussion, I am currently listening to Mandy Moore’s version of Sense Working Overtime, and enjoying it. This from someone who would put it in his top 50 (maybe top 20) songs of all time.
So maybe the article is of some use… it’ll encourage us to listen to more covers (and Moore covers… here she goes with The Whole of the Moon, another great song).
Sure – but just because someone likes cover songs doesn’t necessarily mean that they agree on the reasons a performer records them.
Obviously, I’ll agree (since I’m visiting Coverville, I’m inclined to be OK with covers), but I’ll try and lend a different perspective.
I’ve been a performing musician (performing original music, not cover bands (not that there’s anything wrong with that ;)), for most of my life.
Covers serve a couple purposes:
1. They’re fun. They’re a little wink between you and the crowd to let them know about an in joke that both of you are in on.
2. It’s hard, when performing originals, to get people’s attention. When you do a song they know, they noticeably perk up and pay more attention for the rest of the set.
3. Covers are kind of an audio bio. It tells those listening to it what kind of band you are, who your influences are, what your sense of humor is, etc.
Keep up the great work (and thanks for plug for some local friends of mine, Beatallica a few weeks back.)
Mike
Warren,
The Beatles’ early covers don’t count. At the time, most artists didn’t write their own material (Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry were pretty much the exceptions), so they had to rely on covers or their producers had to find songs from professional songwriters. Once The Beatles developed into great songwriters, most record labels didn’t want acts who didn’t have their own material.
If an artist is clearly recording a former hit song merely in a (sometimes vain) attempt to get back on the charts, usually the results are marginal at best and their motives are obvious. But, as several folks have already posted, I’d say most of the time the decision to record covers is because the artist was influenced and/or inspired by music and musicians that they love and want the opportunity to play the music and offer an homage or tribute to them. And often the result is a wonderful new interpretation of the song or unique performance. The live track of U2 and Bruce Springsteen doing “Stand By Me” immediately comes to mind.
And as for Bruce, as far as I’m concerned, at this point in his career, he can record nursery rhymes on a double album if that’s what he wants to do. He’s earned the right.
Ron
She’s way off the mark. Adapting material written by others has been a common thing for millennia; rock and pop acts doing covers is not an indication of creative wipeout (sometimes it does mean that the artist needs to lie fallow for a little while, but often not.) She’s also evading the issue of the numerous performers who work from material they had no hand in writing and never once do anything creative outside of performance/interpretation — which includes about 90% of Motown’s acts, for example. Hell, we’d lose 90% of our olk performers if it wasn’t for creative interpretation of existing material.
“Ring of Fire” was a cover by Johnny Cash; so was “Bobby McGee” for Janis; most of Joan Baez’s hits were covers of other artists’ songs; what are new productions of operas or broadway musicals down thru the decades but covers of the original; Peter, Paul and Mary made a career of covering others’ songs – these are just a few of thousands of examples – the choice to cover is just as artistic a choice as presenting the original song; it has to be made with some perspective of how to appropriately capture or present the material in a new way – bruce’s choice also has to do with presenting material to a generation who is probably not familiar with Seegers’ work – how would bob dylan have started out without Woody?
The last comment by Jay was right on. People will hear Seeger for the first time because of Springsteen. Seeger will probably gain a whole new following because of it. Springsteen is not putting out a “Born In The USA” type album, trying to score with top 40 hits. He’s recording songs from an artist he loves and respects. He’ll gain no new fans from this work, except maybe some Pete Seeger fans. He doesn’t really NEED them.
Ken
Good Good
Good Good
Good Good