Question: Would
the original composer of a musical piece be flattered to see other musicians
performing their work, or slightly annoyed? For example, I wonder how musicians
feel about their tribute bands, if they have any.
From what we have discussed in class, I have realized that different musicians will no doubt have different opinions about other musicians performing their work. I would like to believe, however, that most musicians would be flattered, rather than annoyed, by seeing people perform their work. I also wondered in my question how these musicians feel about their tribute bands, if they have any. I think the musicians should be, and probably are in most cases, flattered by this. They are called "tribute" bands, after all. They are performing as a tribute to the original band, which they must truly idolize to put their time into forming a tribute band.
As we also discussed in class, some musicians might even believe that some covers of their songs are actually better than their original versions. In class we discussed an interview with Paul McCartney. When asked how he felt about other musicians performing his music, he said that he enjoys it, when it's performed well. If it isn't performed well, however, he doesn't enjoy it. Overall, if someone as successful as Paul McCartney is flattered by musicians performing his work, then I assume most other musicians don't mind that much either.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Song Covers
Question: When musicians “cover” songs by other musicians, are they usually trying to make the
piece authentic or are they more concerned with interpreting the song in their
own way and putting their own spin on it?
Based on our discussions in class, I have concluded that although some musicians do think it's important to make songs that they are covering somewhat authentic to the original, they usually are more concerned with interpreting the song in their own way. The cover of the song might not be as successful if the artist covering the song tries to mimic everything about the original piece perfectly. It would not be viewed as creative. Different artists also have different interpretations of pieces of music, which is why they want to cover the song in the first place- to show what it means to them, personally.
I do believe that some artists that cover songs by other artists will try to make the piece as authentic as possible, and I see nothing wrong with that. However, I think these artists are most likely more interested in creating successful performances than authentic ones. After all, most artists that are covering other artists' songs are trying to become known as musicians themselves. Therefore, it might be a technique of theirs to cover other musicians' music in order to be recognized. Audiences might be more apt to give these new artists a chance if they recognize the songs they are singing, and appreciate the creative spin they put on it. If the audience is already familiar with the song, they can sing along and enjoy it. If they aren't familiar, they might not pay as much attention to the new artist.
Personally, I enjoy a lot of covers of original songs. I almost always enjoy the original song as well, but I appreciate the differences in the two versions. For example, if the original song is slow, and the cover of the song is faster, they are both enjoyable for different reasons. Another factor for me is that sometimes I hear cover songs before I even hear the original. Usually when this happens, I tend to favor whichever version I heard first. This is probably because I'm just more used to that version. However, I usually end up enjoying both versions, just not equally.
For example, I first heard the song "Mad World" at the end of the movie Donnie Darko. "Mad World", the cover by Gary Jules, played at the end of the movie as the credits began. I fell in love with the song and its creepy style. I didn't find out until later when I looked up the song online that the version I loved was a cover of the original song by Tears for Fears. I listened to the original and enjoyed that version as well, just not as much as the cover by Gary Jules. I like both versions, but I still favor the cover by Gary Jules, both because it's more haunting to listen to, and because I heard it first.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFsHSHE-iJQ
^ "Mad World" by Tears for Fears
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4&feature=related
^ "Cover of Mad World" by Gary Jules
Based on our discussions in class, I have concluded that although some musicians do think it's important to make songs that they are covering somewhat authentic to the original, they usually are more concerned with interpreting the song in their own way. The cover of the song might not be as successful if the artist covering the song tries to mimic everything about the original piece perfectly. It would not be viewed as creative. Different artists also have different interpretations of pieces of music, which is why they want to cover the song in the first place- to show what it means to them, personally.
I do believe that some artists that cover songs by other artists will try to make the piece as authentic as possible, and I see nothing wrong with that. However, I think these artists are most likely more interested in creating successful performances than authentic ones. After all, most artists that are covering other artists' songs are trying to become known as musicians themselves. Therefore, it might be a technique of theirs to cover other musicians' music in order to be recognized. Audiences might be more apt to give these new artists a chance if they recognize the songs they are singing, and appreciate the creative spin they put on it. If the audience is already familiar with the song, they can sing along and enjoy it. If they aren't familiar, they might not pay as much attention to the new artist.
Personally, I enjoy a lot of covers of original songs. I almost always enjoy the original song as well, but I appreciate the differences in the two versions. For example, if the original song is slow, and the cover of the song is faster, they are both enjoyable for different reasons. Another factor for me is that sometimes I hear cover songs before I even hear the original. Usually when this happens, I tend to favor whichever version I heard first. This is probably because I'm just more used to that version. However, I usually end up enjoying both versions, just not equally.
For example, I first heard the song "Mad World" at the end of the movie Donnie Darko. "Mad World", the cover by Gary Jules, played at the end of the movie as the credits began. I fell in love with the song and its creepy style. I didn't find out until later when I looked up the song online that the version I loved was a cover of the original song by Tears for Fears. I listened to the original and enjoyed that version as well, just not as much as the cover by Gary Jules. I like both versions, but I still favor the cover by Gary Jules, both because it's more haunting to listen to, and because I heard it first.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFsHSHE-iJQ
^ "Mad World" by Tears for Fears
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4&feature=related
^ "Cover of Mad World" by Gary Jules
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)