General Question on "Cover" songs...
Karl V
"Cover" songs since music is copyrighted?
And, what's the general opinion out there on the matter? Do people
hate it, love it, both? Do you think it's infringement or not?
I'm just trying to get some opins but I'd like some facts as well
if anyone has them.
David Samuel Barr
There are no legal issues regarding "cover" versions of songs as long as
mechanical licences are obtained from the publishers and applicable
mechanical royalties are paid.
Beyond that, it is simply a matter of taste. There certainly isn't any
infringement involved (unless the above requirements aren't met). The
idea that a song belongs solely to its initial performer is a very
recent one, originating in the 60s with the rise of folk & rock
performers who wrote and recorded their own songs; it's actually quite
contradictory to the whole history of music, where for centuries it's
been assumed that songs were written for and would be sung by as many
people as the composer and/or publisher could convey them to. Cover
versions were not only common but expected; in fact if you look at the
record charts for the first six decades of the 20th century, you'll
routinely find that hit songs had multiple versions competing on the
charts at the same time. Obviously, some covers are better than others,
and some might say that there's no point in doing a cover unless you can
do it better than (or at least differently from) existing ones; there
have been plenty of covers that have outshone the originals, both
artistically and commercially. However, the aversion to covers is also
based in part to the faulty idea that anyone can write a good song, and
that every performer is supposed to perform only songs they've written
themselves. Most rock & pop albums (and many jazz ones) routinely
follow the latter idea and end up disproving the former.