Infuriating Cover Songs

[RandalPinkFloyd]

Many of the people who knew of Elvis' work or The Beatles' work are dead as well. But everyone in any given restaurant had heard of both of them. So they are "historically relevant" to me. 30 years from now, everyone will still he able to say they know of Taylor Swift.

You're comparing artists who grew up in an era where the transmission of information, let alone music, pales in comparison to today. Today there are endless streaming services, social media and it doesn't help that Record labels have figured out how to manipulate the teenagers who spend the $$$ on said artists with formulaic beats, lyrics, etc. Swift has the luxury of the internet to help spread her influence. Package that in good looks and regardless of talent you'll have today's pop star. If you have looks and some talent, a record company will just bombard all these services with their product. Easy to be recognized when you are on every screen, radio, streaming service, etc.

One only need turn on the local radio for one of the many sh*tty top 40 songs playing on the air. It's nothing but formulated homogenized, over produced ear worm music. Taylor Swift is very talented, but her music is a gimmick just like all the other pop crap on the radio, which is why she's so popular. She's more than capable of producing music that isn't this, but I'm guessing like Lady Gaga, and many others, a manager or someone in the business gave her a heart heart and said "You can either be a singer/player of substance who will fade into obscurity or we can turn you into a multi million dollar pop star".
Either by choice or pressure or other, she went the route of $$$$ vs substance. Can't say I blame her. Lady Gaga had the same choice, she took the $$$ . Vanessa Carlton is arguably a better singer and pianist than Lady Gaga, had the same choice, but she declined. She's an example of someone who shunned the pop star route, and thus became a 1 hit wonder. (You can actually find an article of Carlton talking about the pressure to become a pop star and refusing to do it after A Thousand Miles won a Grammy).

You simply can't compare success of today vs the 50's, 60's, or 70's. The game was still in development back then, and you had to have talent, looks were optional. Today, talent is optional, looks almost always required.

 

[two fingers]

You're comparing artists who grew up in an era where the transmission of information, let alone music, pales in comparison to today. Today there are endless streaming services, social media and it doesn't help that Record labels have figured out how to manipulate the teenagers who spend the $$$ on said artists with formulaic beats, lyrics, etc. Swift has the luxury of the internet to help spread her influence. Package that in good looks and regardless of talent you'll have today's pop star. If you have looks and some talent, a record company will just bombard all these services with their product. Easy to be recognized when you are on every screen, radio, streaming service, etc.

One only need turn on the local radio for one of the many sh*tty top 40 songs playing on the air. It's nothing but formulated homogenized, over produced ear worm music. Taylor Swift is very talented, but her music is a gimmick just like all the other pop crap on the radio, which is why she's so popular. She's more than capable of producing music that isn't this, but I'm guessing like Lady Gaga, and many others, a manager or someone in the business gave her a heart heart and said "You can either be a singer/player of substance who will fade into obscurity or we can turn you into a multi million dollar pop star".
Either by choice or pressure or other, she went the route of $$$$ vs substance. Can't say I blame her. Lady Gaga had the same choice, she took the $$$ . Vanessa Carlton is arguably a better singer and pianist than Lady Gaga, had the same choice, but she declined. She's an example of someone who shunned the pop star route, and thus became a 1 hit wonder. (You can actually find an article of Carlton talking about the pressure to become a pop star and refusing to do it after A Thousand Miles won a Grammy).

You simply can't compare success of today vs the 50's, 60's, or 70's. The game was still in development back then, and you had to have talent, looks were optional. Today, talent is optional, looks almost always required.

All of that has nothing to do with "historical significance". Which one is/was "better" isn't what you said. You said "historically significant". Those are two totally different conversations. There were amazing impressionist painters nobody ever heard of. As such, they are historically insignificant.

I wasn't comparing anything other than historical significance.

My mother and father are in their mid 70s. I asked them over lunch to name one Joni Mitchell song. My father said "I've heard the name but don't remember what she did." My mother said "Who?" My dad's album collections included everything from Franky Valley to Led Zep. My Mother listened to everything from Kenny Rogers to Neil Diamond. Both had CCR and Chris Christopherson and Beach Boys albums. Point is, they weren't fringe music fans. They didn't bury their heads in rock or country. They were pretty mainstream. And they can't name one Joni Mitchell song.

They both knew several Taylor Swift songs. They also both knew that she dated a Jonas brother and John Mayer.

That's all I'm saying. An artist isn't as historically significant if most people wouldn't recognize a picture of them or a song by them. It doesn't matter who is better.

 

[dune]

Personally, I think both Swift and Gaga are very talented singer/songwriters. They're both geniuses at marketing and self-promotion and have worked their butts off to get to where they are. I'd say "your mileage may vary", but that's already patently obvious.

 

[LBS-bass]

Taylor Swift came from a wealthy background. Her father was a stockbroker, she went to private schools, her family sponsored her participation in a variety of songwriting contests, and she had every advantage handed to her from her earliest days. She learned about handling money through her dad. She isn't a business genius, just was a smart kid with someone who could teach her how to make a profit, and that gave her a leg up that most of us would have liked to have.

Is she a talented songwriter? I don't know. I guess she has gotten somewhere, which means that she knows how to create a product with broad appeal. A lot of us would like to be able to do that, too. I am happy for her that she's been able to create success smartly and function in an industry that tends to chew most people up and spit them out after dinner. I'm sure she was lawyered up from the very start. Kudos to her for making it work and making it her own.

 

[dune]

List of music considered the worst - Wikipedia
The Counting Crows cover in the OP made the list.

 

[pfschim]

All of that has nothing to do with "historical significance". Which one is/was "better" isn't what you said. You said "historically significant". Those are two totally different conversations. There were amazing impressionist painters nobody ever heard of. As such, they are historically insignificant.

I wasn't comparing anything other than historical significance.

My mother and father are in their mid 70s. I asked them over lunch to name one Joni Mitchell song. My father said "I've heard the name but don't remember what she did." My mother said "Who?" My dad's album collections included everything from Franky Valley to Led Zep. My Mother listened to everything from Kenny Rogers to Neil Diamond. Both had CCR and Chris Christopherson and Beach Boys albums. Point is, they weren't fringe music fans. They didn't bury their heads in rock or country. They were pretty mainstream. And they can't name one Joni Mitchell song.

They both knew several Taylor Swift songs. They also both knew that she dated a Jonas brother and John Mayer.

That's all I'm saying. An artist isn't as historically significant if most people wouldn't recognize a picture of them or a song by them. It doesn't matter who is better.

all these things you mention about Taylor Swift are just symptoms of pop superstardom, which as we know, tend to be very transitory. No one knows if Taylor will be remembered in any meaningful way 30 years from now ... like the Beatles or Stones are still known (50-60 years after their original ascendance to pop super stardom). There are so many bands and musicians (good and bad) who were at the top even just 10/20 years ago that no one in the general public remembers much any more ... so many that there's not enough space to even start naming them here. No matter what your opinion of T.Swift's music, it seems odd to suggest so adamantly that she will be broadly remembered 30 years from now when that is just not the general case with pop music stars.

FWIW, I only know one Taylor Swift song (the really annoying one ... Never Ever Ever Ever Ever Getting Back Together) and only that because the front desk staff at the healthclub I go to (mostly young women) seem to keep it in the Musak rotation ... her music seems like so much over processed throw-away pop to me personally .... not BAD mind you, just not destined for long term popularity/recognition.

Of course, that's just, like, my opinion man

 

[Michedelic]

You mean "historically important" other than smash hit after smash hit? I could walk into 25 restaurants in any town in America and ask all of the patrons inside "regardless of age" if they've ever watched the Joni Mitchell concert that featured Jaco on bass and all but a very few would say "Who is Joni Mitchell?". Every single one of them would say "Who is Jaco?".

The vast majority of them could name at least three Taylor Swift songs and at least one of her boyfriends.

Joni Mitchell is of historical significance TO YOU. Taylor Swift is historical period.

I honestly don't have a problem with either of them. And, sure, Joni was more educated. But, in terms of history, her entire career didn't amount to Taylor's career (in terms of sales and cultural impact) didn't amount to what Taylor's has so far. And Taylor is only 30 years old.

Will anyone be talking about Taylor Swift 50 years from now? Highly doubtful. Joni is far more exponentially influential than Taylor ever will be; for decades, for generations even, she's been the guiding light for scores of girls picking up a guitar and emoting. Branching out in a variety of directions musically, delving into complex open tunings, getting props from Charles Mingus and Herbie Hancock, all the while not being tabloid fodder; Tay Tay should clean up her act if she's going to go that distance.

 

[Michedelic]

I accept that this one might be largely personal, but Love Will Tear Us Apart meant so much to me when it came out. Not only (IMO) a classic, brilliant song of its era, but it also mirrored the breakdown of my own long term relationship that was happening at the time the song was in the chsrts. So I hated this when I first heard it, and still do:


Oh, and this. This should never have been allowed to happen:


[Edit] Oh wait. And this. I have no words for this:

Here, let me give you something to be even more angry about...

Even more insulting, the songwriting credits on the album list the tune as by "J. Division",
as if some chick named Joy wrote this break up song. Yeah, those other two are pretty heinous.

 

[Michedelic]

There is a sub genre of bad covers - actors who try to sing - which makes for some good laughs led by William Shatner (more reciting than singing) and David Hasslehoff.

Here's all you need to know...

This was one of my 'favorites' from all of that; now, Mel Torme was a talent, a great iconic singer, but this...just, no...

...way too groovy, baby.
But nothing can match this trainwreck...

If you don't know Mae West, she was a total badass in her day, shocking the prudes of the 30's; Madonna stole a lot from her.

 

[Michedelic]

Tony Bennett's William Shatner moment

Yeah, but you overlooked that, unlike the Shat, Tony could sing, he could even blow Frank off the stage when he wanted to. Many of those old school types at that time got pushed to do more contemporary material; sometimes it worked, sometimes not. But then, in the 90's, the world caught up with Mr. Benedetto, and he became very hip again.

 

[Michedelic]

This one sticks in my craw. Overplayed on the CBC station I listen to. I have to turn the radio off when I hear it come on. It's about as far from Bo Diddley as you can get. George Thoroughood did it justice.

Meh, Thorogood was a one trick pony hack in my book; for a kick-ass version, you'll need to stay in Canada...

Roy Buchanan on guitar, Hawkins' later band was The Band. And speaking of Robbie Robertson, here he is...

Hammond also at that time used some guitar player named Jimmy James who wasn't half bad, and went on to do a few things under a different name.
That Elise take, while it's a bit Amy Winehouse, at least she attempted to do something fresh with the song.https://youtu.be/pK5mxNKI9rM

 

[two fingers]

Will anyone be talking about Taylor Swift 50 years from now? Highly doubtful. Joni is far more exponentially influential than Taylor ever will be; for decades, for generations even, she's been the guiding light for scores of girls picking up a guitar and emoting. Branching out in a variety of directions musically, delving into complex open tunings, getting props from Charles Mingus and Herbie Hancock, all the while not being tabloid fodder; Tay Tay should clean up her act if she's going to go that distance.

Elvis never cleaned up his act. Michael Jackson, David Ruffin, Jimi Hendrix, and countless other pop, jazz, and rock stars never cleaned up their acts. They lived lives of total debauchery. (Jaco anyone?) Are you going to argue that they weren't influential? They all made their marks on music history. Tabloid fodder? They broke sales records and influenced generations. Tabloid fodder? That means literally zero. Princess Diana was tabloid fodder. She started charities all over the world and literally walked through minefields to help others. And she was the cover of every tabloid nearly all of her adult life. And, honestly, Taylor has had a few boyfriends. If that's an act that needs cleaning up, most of us would need to clean up our acts at one point or another. She doesn't do drugs or get hammered in bars and run naked down the street.

I have two daughters. They think she's great. She's one if the reasons they are learning guitar and piano (and writing songs all the time). They will likely never know who Joni Mitchell is. Nor will they need to.

Joni has stood the test of time in YOUR life. That doesn't mean she is a household name today. Heck, I'm a 50 year old musician who loves all kinds if music and I couldn't name you 3 of her songs. Just because a few hundred 75 year old women have acoustic guitars in the attic because of Joni, that doesn't mean anyone will he talking about her 20 years from today.

Look, I'm not emotionally invested in either of them. Clearly, a few of you here are emotionally invested in Joni. All I'm saying is that there are more people on Earth who can name a Poison song than there are people who could name a Joni Mitchell song. There are likely more people on Earth who could name all 5 members of Fleetwood Mac than there are people who could name Joni Mitchell from a photograph of her.

 

[charlie monroe]

I couldn't name you 3 of her songs

You can, you just don't know it.

Some other kinda famous covers:

Woodstock performed by CSNY
This Flight Tonight performed by Nazerath

I now return to the sidelines because I don't have an opinion on the Mitchell/Swift melee

 

[Skeezix]

The only Taylor Swift that I have ever heard was whatever
she is singing in some commercial.

 

[4stringfarley]

Theres a modern version of a famous folk duets song by a modern hard rock band where the vocalist is trying to sound like a goat the whole time.

Also, another hard rock band covered a song about the strife in Ireland but kinda changed the meaning behind it.

 

[lfmn16]

Joni has stood the test of time in YOUR life. That doesn't mean she is a household name today.

Too many people think because THEY know someone, everyone knows them.

I love Joni Mitchell, but she hasn't been mainstream since the 70's, and even then it was a handful of hits.

 

[lizardking837]

That's how I feel about literally everything Five Finger Death Punch covers... which is a lot.

For the masochists in the group, there's a YouTube video of them (theoretically a "metal" band) covering Kenny Wayne Shepherd's "Blue on Black." I'm not embedding it or even suggesting you go look it up, but if you're a glutton for punishment... I'm torn on which is worse, that or their cover of the Offspring song "Gone Away," never mind how they butcher classics.

I don't understand what people see in FFDP. And yes, their covers are completely useless.

 

[lizardking837]

Also, both of these covers make me want to drink excessively every time I hear them.....

 

[BarfanyShart]

You see, 2000's Nu Metal bands thought that covers were going to be the goldmine that they were for 90's pop punk bands, but the style of music just doesn't make as endearing a template for covers. That said, I find the Alien Ant Farm "Smooth Criminal" to be listenable, it maintains the groove of the original, and it might be the least objectionable of that whole ilk of covers.

 

[4stringfarley]

Also, both of these covers make me want to drink excessively every time I hear them.....



[/MEDIA]

This one makes me stop drinking and leave the bar.