Talk:Cover version

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Metal reinterpretation

This article implies that metal bands mostly cover each other and keep within the same genre. This stands in stark contrast to Punk, which the article claims tends to take songs from wildly different non-Punk genres and reinterpret them as Punk. However, metal acts do this too, and I feel this should be mentioned. Graveworm did a black metal version of REM's "Losing My Religion," power metal act Angra took on Kate Bush's "Wuthering Heights," and Blind Guardian is practically known for turning goofy older songs (such as "Mr. Sandman" and "Surfin' USA") into epic power metal.

[edit] Punk albums

User:Michel BUZE

[edit] "Butt Rock"

I deleted the section on "Butt Rock" for the following reasons:

  • The article is about cover versions, not Butt Rock, or any other style of music, for that matter. The details about "Butt Rock" (ie. where and by whom it is played) are off-topic.
You have not explained why it is off-topic.
  • The fact that many amatuer and semi-pro bands play cover versions is already covered in the article.
The article only clarifies one particular kind of music covered - pop.
  • Setting aside the off-topicness, the description of "Butt Rock" given is at odds with the generally-acknowledged meaning of the term.
And what is your meaning?......
  • The section was poorly executed and sloppy -- sort of the Wikipedia equivalent of "Butt Rock".

:Completely disagree...Rather then delete (if you think it is poorly executed and sloppy) why not edit and improve? Now you give the reasons you think it should stay. Jgm 02:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • 1. Every young band that covers hard rock or heavy metal songs are usually referred to what is explained in the section.
  • 2. The section explains the origin of the term and how it would apply to cover songs.
  • 3. Not to resort the argument to cop-out, but there is no good reason you mentioned as to why it should be deleted. There are many elements post-1970's that pertain to cover songs. Danteferno 07:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
If you want to document the term "Butt rock", or debate its meaning, do so in an article on that subject, not here. As I said earlier, the article already mentions that amateur bands play cover versions, which is all you are attempting to say, in convoluted and digressive fashion. Jgm 22:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
"Convoluted and digressive fashion"? Interesting how you have not a"nswered of the above points - just scathing (and ridiculous) criticisms that just prove you only want the article the way you see it. (Any long-standing Wikipedian would realize if a separate article on this was made it would eventually be merged with another article, likely this one.) I give up this debate - you obviously lack impartialness and selflessness. Danteferno 00:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Netscape crash

This is a user-hostile page, in that it causes Netscape to crash because of the way the tables are made, having < t d > without any following < / t d >, and the like. The creator of this page seems to have been unwilling to correct that problem for several weeks.

This is a user-hostile web page in that it causes netscape to crash. I suspect that is because it has things like < t d > without < / t d >, etc.

The end tags for TD, TH and TR are optional, so this should not cause problems for any compliant browser. But there were some other errors in the formatting of the table, so perhaps that was the problem. I've fixed it (the W3C validator says there are now no errors), so it should work in Netscape now. --Zundark 21:16 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it.  :) soulpatch
Is it fixed and may we strike-out the warning? Hyacinth 02:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Numerous covers

Hmmm.. what about songs that have been covered numerous times, like Unchained Melody, how's that going to fit into the table?

Well, if we include all 3000 or whatever covers of "Yesterday", we really will have a problem fitting it into the table.  :) But I doubt if all the covers of any song that has been covered numerous times are notable enough or commercially successful enough to be worthy of inclusion. We can include 2 or more covers in the third column by just inserting a br between them (as has been done in a couple of cases). soulpatch Neon Genesis Evangelion, Fly Me to the Moon.

[edit] Remove table

Nothing wrong with having an article, although I'm sure it will be ruined by humorless completists the way One-hit wonder was ruined, but it is a terrible idea to put a table in here. It is not only user-hostile, it is editor-hostile as well. There is very little excuse for tables and this one doesn't qualify. Ortolan88

If you feel that way, then change it. The reason I created a table was that I originally had no table and didn't like the way the information lined up (since I had basically three columns of data). Personally, I think it is more readable this way than it was without the table, but if you feel otherwise, go ahead and change it and see if you can come up with something that looks readable. soulpatch

I don't have a problem with a table, but this particular table is user-hostile since it makes netscape crash. That can be corrected without removing the table. -- Mike Hardy

[edit] "Woodstock"

I know that Joni Mitchell wrote "Woodstock", but does anyone know if she actually recorded it before or after CS&N? If she recorded it afterwards, then probably a note is appropriate mentioning that the "cover version" was recorded before the "original version". Or is it not really a cover if the songwriter records it after the artist who "covers" it did? soulpatch

I just added a list of cover albums to the bottom, and I wanted to add a Chumbawumba album that is called something along the lines of English Tax Protest Songs (1317-1514) (or similar, I just made the years up because I don't remember) and all the songs are actually tax protest songs from a long time ago. Do albums of entirely traditional, public domain songs count as cover albums? Tokerboy 03:41 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

Interesting question. My inclination would be to say that it counts. soulpatch
Another question that comes to mind is brought up by my Joni Mitchell example above. Carol King, on her Tapestry album, recorded one or more songs that she had written when she was a songwriter but not a singer, years earlier, and which were hits for other artists. So can an artist cover their own material? This sounds like perhaps an example of a special category of songs that is slightly different, but related. User:soulpatch

[edit] "Only You"

Isn't "Only You" originally by The Platters? I mean, is it the same song? KF 19:29 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

I just did a check on Google of the lyrics of the Yazoo song and the Platters song, and it appears they are different.

http://www.reallyrics.com/lyrics/Y001100010002.asp http://www.reallyrics.com/lyrics/P004300010001.asp soulpatch

[edit] List too long

I think the list is getting too long. I don't really have a concrete solution for it, but just to throw out some ideas. We could adopt one or both of the following (feel free to add a suggestion to this list): Tokerboy

  1. List covers that hit the Top Ten after 1970 or so, before which it was too common to be worth noting
  2. Require that entries include a sentence or two about why it is culturally, historically or musically significant (similar to music video)
I'd just leave the page as it is. As with practically all lists, contributions are likely to slow down considerably in the future. A case in point seems to be remake (see also the horrible debate with Isis at Talk:Remake), but also the List of pacifists. --KF 05:25 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Fiona Apple

I don't know much about Fiona Apple, but was she three years old when she released Across the Universe? Kingturtle 10:18 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Song?

Hi Everybody, I am working on the german article on Cover Version de:Coverversion. I am searching for a song from the 1950ies, which is a cover by white musicians but had actually no mentioning (at least in the first release) of the original black songwriters and artists (which is an example for plagiarism). I have in my mind, that there have been numerous cases, but i am no specialist in RocknRoll...--Diftong 13:15, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

What is the copyright status of cover versions? How is it that posting lyrics on the web is a copyvio, while singing them as your own is not? Meelar 20:21, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I included a brief explanation of compulsory licensing in the beginning of the article. The short of it is that American copyright law (I don't know about anywhere else) says that you can record your own version of a previously recorded song so long as you pay the copyright holder an amount specified by law. You don't have to get permission for covers, unlike with samples or compilations of previously recorded material. Does that sound clear? I'm sure someone can clean up my explanation in the article.

[edit] In between a cover and a sample

How do we deal with and where do we put borrowings or covering that doesn't include a whole song, like a sample, but unlike a sample is re-performed. Numerous examples exist of the bass line from Chic's "Good Times", from rap songs to Queen. Hyacinth 04:46, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] But why "cover"?

I guess this is an etymology, rather than a music question, but I've heard that the term "cover version" dates from around 1966. Is that usage because of the prevalence of fake versions which mimic the original cover? Or is it using cover in the sense of "enhancing good qualities"... or perhaps in the sense of copulating with a female horse... no, probably not.

In any case, it isn't obvious to me why it's a cover version. Does anyone have clues?--Timbomb

According to [1]:
  • "An interesting note about the origins of the phrase "Cover Song" from Mark Edwards at WICC Radio:
    • An example of a COVER record would be the release of "Sh-Boom" by the Crew Cuts in 1955 at almost the same time as the original by The Chords. The term COVER record is taken from the fact that the Crew-Cuts version, being performed by a white group and distributed by a major record label, and thus finding considerable additional radio airplay, would COVER any chance of success that the original release may have had."

Hyacinth 02:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's apparently a bit late for me to mention this, but according to a definition that I read several years ago in the OED (which I'll track down if anyone is interested), the term "cover version" is derived from the expression "to cover a bet" -- that is, to place a bet on something that someone else has already put a bet on, in order to cash in on their potential good luck. Originally, cover versions of a song were released almost concurrently with the hit version and would pick up sales to people who liked the original, thus covering the bet made by the first label to release the song. (Note that in the era in which the term originated, songs were generally written by someone other than the singer and were therefore available for purchase by anyone who was interested in recording them.) In fairness, I should add that this is essentially the same definition already given by Hyacinth. --Clampton 06:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Surely this now needs splitting into "cover version" and "list of cover versions"? violet/riga 16:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - I will make the change --HappyDog 01:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cover vs Remake?

In this article cover version is used to mean any recording of a song previously recorded by another artist. I have no argument with this, as the term has clearly entered common usage to mean this: see, for example, the emergence of such websites as The Covers Project and Coverversionen.de.

Some collectors/researchers, though, distinguish between a cover version and a remake.

They reserve cover version strictly for those cases where the cover appears more or less at the same time as the original, presumably to cash in on the popularity of the original. For a recording that is made some time after the original release, they prefer the term remake.

In this view, the 1956 versions of "Why Do Fools Fall In Love" by The Diamonds and by Gale Storm would be genuine cover versions of Frankie Lymon's original, but Diana Ross's 1981 version would be called a remake.

There are some, especially on Usenet, who have strong opinions on this: see, for example this discussion at rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s: link was removed due to spam filter.

(The distinction may be justified in the light of one poster's explanation for the term cover, that it was used in the sense of covering your bets, that is, making sure you benefited financially from a current hit. Hyacinth has also mentioned this above.)

I'm not suggesting that the whole article be redrafted to emphasise this distinction, because I believe cover, whatever its origin, is widely enough used in the broader sense to justify its use in this way.

But perhaps the distinction should be mentioned somewhere in the article (if only as a caution against loosely using the word cover in one of the more robust music Newsgroups).

Lyn50 22:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 3000 covers

Is there actually any verifiable source for that figure - the purported number of covers of the Beatles' "Yesterday"? I've heard it before, but 3000 is a lot. And I've not been given any evidence anywhere. If that's not from a valid source, it should be removed. --Switch 12:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

i completely agree with Switch, if theres a source it should be in the article [#1k3n!!]

[edit] AFD on Gabba, punk cover/tribute band to ABBA as The Ramones

Cited in Cover version as "An extreme example of punk cover versions", Gabba (band) has been marked for deletion. You may want to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band) -- 62.147.36.9 11:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD closed, the result was Keep -- 62.147.112.7 10:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent genre

I deleted this entire section:

Independent
In response to the increasing popularity of independent music (made possible by sites such as MySpace, purevolume and soundclick), some unsigned independent bands are now covering songs by other unsigned independent bands as a sort of tribute to them. For example, The Professional Superheroes (from Eureka, CA) cover songs by: Neutral Milk Hotel, The Unicorns, Be Brave Bold Robot, The Audio Wreck, The Ian Fays, Thee Eureka Garbage Co., Logan Whitehurst and the Junior Science Club, The Volumen, Tractor Operator, and many more. There was a story in The Humboldt Beacon about The Professional Superheroes.

because it is so non-notable and vanity and full of link spam to myspace (which WP:RS says to avoid). This sort of insestuous scene has been common in every generation of music for decades - why is this particular crop of acts notable? If you can find a reputable secondary source that writes up these covers by these acts as something particularly noteworthy then add it back. - Drstuey 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category: Cover Songs

Make a new category? Thoughts?

  • Since there were no objections, I just went ahead and did it.

[edit] "Erroneously" using "cover version"?

This has been edited to read: "Cover version" is now somewhat erroneously, yet increasingly commonly, used to mean any recording of a song previously recorded by another artist...

I understand what you're saying, but the point of this section (which I added) was that "cover" as meaning:

(1) any other version of a song

has become common usage; but that there are some who make the distinction of using:

(2) "remake" for versions released some time after the release of the original.

I believe that was an impartial account, showing the two viewpoints but pointing out common usage.

Isn't it affecting the impartiality of the article to say that (1) is "erroneous"?

I really think that the weight of common usage is too strong for that, however much I can personally see the point of making a distinction between "cover" and "remake".

Response: Simply because most people currently use a word improperly doesn't mean its actual distinctions should be ignored (e.g. Cretin). A word may change its meaning over time; such a shift, once having taken hold, seems irreversable (e.g. Gay). Again, this does not mean those who seek to know what it first meant - and so the root of a particular usage - should not be informed, reminded or corrected regarding that origin (e.g. Kraut). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat ons (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can the First Released version be a cover?

What is correct usage in an example such as this? The Monkees were the first to release, and have a hit with, "I'm A Believer." The single was released on the last day of 1966, and had been on the Monkees TV show several times prior to that. Neil Diamond, the song's author, recorded it before the Monkees did, with intent to release it. He did release it on a 1967 LP, and a new version as a single in 1971. Which is the cover? The Monkees, because Diamond recorded it first, or Diamond, because the Monkees released it first?

The way I read it, I think the Monkees' version is the cover. If Diamond had written it for the Monkees, and then recorded it after they did, then Diamond's version would be the cover. Cubs Fan (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

An answer: An artist may write a tune and or lyrics but not release it commercially. It is the first commercially released recording artist who is normally acredited as the original artist. This does not always follow: the Goffin and King song "Go Away Little Girl" was written for Bobby Vee and appeared on his LP The Night Has A Thousand Eyes, but Steve Lawrence popularised it first - and this was covered in Britain by Mark Wyner. The introducing artists here - having their version released first - who is the original (i.e. the popularising) artist (as with the Monkees' version of "I'm A Believer"). Note: Most tunes were recorded by demonstration artists and sold to record agents, who presented them to their artists for commercial recording (occassionally the demo artist was so good they got the chance to record commercially themselves, look out Ral Donner etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat ons (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Moon (song)

I thought I'd read somewhere it was the most covered song or a claimant anyway.--T. Anthony 06:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal situation

This really needs to be explained. The right to create derivitive works is normally protected under the copyright law. At first glance it appears that one would be violating copyright on both the lyrics and the music, but perhaps not on the recording. Does one have to negotiate all these rights? Does it matter if the cover is a live performance or a recording? Who owns the result? What about a cover of a cover, as when the 3rd party picks up modifications done by the second party? If a cover gets played, who (besides the RIAA) gets paid? 24.110.144.116 03:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I came to this article for the legal aspect as well, and am surprised there's virtually no mention of the legal aspect of cover songs/bands. --85.5.159.136 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I know this page is only supposed to be about how to improve the article, but I don't know where else to put it: When performers record a cover, do they get permission from the original artist beforehand, or do they record it and then pay the original artist royalties afterwards? Cubs Fan 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


An Answer: No. The tune, once published, is in the public domain. Provided royalties are paid to the composer and lyricist, and permission granted by the publisher, no further action is needed. The only time a record company, and their artists, become involved is in the public playing, distribution or re-recording of a published record. It is the sales of this record that earns money for the company and the artist - hence the trouble taken to protect copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat ons (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beatbox

Is it worth mentioning how covers are often used in beatboxing as a way of expanding the genre and entertaining crowds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.49.76 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone please fix...

Someone please fix this nonsensical string of words: "Thus, their featured artists Feature article: the main article on the front page of a newspaper, or the cover story in a magazine [2].

[edit] A Lover's Concerto

According to the article, this song is based on Minuet in G, so is it considered a cover version? Kowloonese (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would apply, since only the melody, and not the words are taken from the Bach piece. --rogerd (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cantopop

The majority of cantopop songs are based on tunes from English and Japanese songs. So are all those songs considered cover version too? Kowloonese (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)