Another question on the cover/remake/copy/whatever issue
Bob Roman
songs, reviewers discuss the "covers" on it. So do the artists --
Dwight Yoakam called his mid-90s collection of remakes "Under the
Covers."
Even when talking about '50s albums critics tend to use that
terminology. In his 1975 book "Mystery Train" Greil Marcus said Elvis
Presley's first album "Elvis Presley" was made up of "Sun leftovers...
and covers of recent rock 'n' roll hits."
In light of our recent discussion, this got me wondering. How did
Billboard discuss the album in their review at the time? They must
have reviewed it -- at the time Elvis was the hottest star in the
world.
Does anyone have access to a copy of the Billboard review? The album
came out in March 1956.
Bob Roman
Roger Ford
wrote:
I don't have that review Bob but I'm willing to accept that
"Billboard" probably called "I Got A Woman","Tutti Frutti" and "Money
Honey" covers.
What matters to us is that we think we know better and would now term
these "remakes"----as I'm sure you'd agree?
But in a roundabout way at least one song contained on the LP---"Blue
Suede Shoes" IS a cover---or at least it is as far as I'm concerned.
HMV here put this out as a single in DIRECT competition with London's
Carl Perkins original which definitely makes it a cover version in my
book
ROGER FORD
------------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Bob Roman
Ford) wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 05:21:27 GMT, Robert...@hotmail.com (Bob Roman)
>wrote:
>>[...] In his 1975 book "Mystery Train" Greil Marcus said Elvis
>>Presley's first album "Elvis Presley" was made up of "Sun leftovers...
>>and covers of recent rock 'n' roll hits."
>>In light of our recent discussion, this got me wondering. How did
>>Billboard discuss the album in their review at the time? They must
>>have reviewed it -- at the time Elvis was the hottest star in the
>>world.
>>Does anyone have access to a copy of the Billboard review? The album
>>came out in March 1956.
>>
>I don't have that review Bob but I'm willing to accept that
>"Billboard" probably called "I Got A Woman","Tutti Frutti" and "Money
>Honey" covers.
>
>What matters to us is that we think we know better and would now term
>these "remakes"----as I'm sure you'd agree?
Well, I'm not sure. The rest of the world uses the word "cover"
pretty broadly. The argument for the insisting the "cover"/"remake"
distinction here has always been based on two arguments: It's a useful
distinction, and it's a distinction that was made at the time.
If it's not a distinction that was made at the time, the argument for
insisting on its use here gets cut in half.
It's still a useful distinction -- most jargon is -- and I am
certainly comfortable with it myself. But maybe, just maybe, it's too
much a barrier to entry. When new people come here and don't make the
distinction, they get ripped. How can we justify insisting on the
distinction, though, if it's merely artificial jargon?
Just thinking out loud...
Bob Roman
Sir Denis
wrote:
>Nowadays when an artist releases an album with new versions of old
>songs, reviewers discuss the "covers" on it. So do the artists --
>Dwight Yoakam called his mid-90s collection of remakes "Under the
>Covers."
>
>Even when talking about '50s albums critics tend to use that
>terminology. In his 1975 book "Mystery Train" Greil Marcus said Elvis
>Presley's first album "Elvis Presley" was made up of "Sun leftovers...
>and covers of recent rock 'n' roll hits."
>
The concept of 'covers,' as evident from the discussions going on here
(many of which I missed by being on the road the last month) is quite
complex. However, the concept of 'covers' as a term of derision isn't.
In the old days of music publishing, the companies would employ
songpluggers to get their new material out to artists and record
companies. This music would be presented as sheet music, or perhaps
(my knowledge here is lacking) as simple piano/voice demos. In the
case of a new Broadway show or an upcoming movie, these songs would be
pitched to a lot of artists, because the more recordings out, the
better the hype for the underlying product. I would imagine the WINS
doctrine discussed here at length recently was partly about a
situation when several pop artists would release the same tune at
around the same time. The one that got to the station first might not
necessarily been the first one cut and the different versions were
probably all cut without the producers or arrangers hearing the
competing version, so they would fall into a different classification
than the 'covers' that WINS was concerned about.
As is obvious to all, WINS was dealing with the covers of black (and
sometimes C&W or rockabilly) artists by white performers, where the
record was made by copying as closely as possible the non-offensive
hooks and arrangement and adding a vocalist more in keeping with what
MOR stations around the country would play. Thus, Pat Boone, Gale
Storm, Georgia Gibbs and the Sisters McGuire and Fontaine, et al.
(A 'soundalike,' those 49 cents double sided records sold in major
department stores, by contrast, was not even driven by the copying
artists style. At least you can't accuse the McGuires of trying to
sound like the Moonglows)
With the LP being a new and untested medium, it seems only natural
that a record company would want some familiar titles to drive sales,
and in addition to Elvis, other artists, (the Everlys come to mind)
would also do their versions of recent hits to complement the one or
two hits of their own. These recordings would not be designed to
immediately compete with the originals and the artists were
distinctive sounding enough to make their versions unique (although as
in the case of "Blue Suede Shoes" there might be enough radio station
demand to have them released as singles.)
A song is a song, and if an arranger and artist can bring something
different to it, that's fine. Sometimes a copy can even improve
greatly upon the original, such as the Diamonds version of "Little
Darling." Even those that believe the Gladiolas had a superior record
would be hard pressed to make the case that if the Diamonds version
hadn't come out it would have been a hit.
To sum it all up, who cares? If a particular record brings back warm
childhood (or teenhood) feelings, does it matter if it was a cover,
remake, ripoff or soundalike?
?...@nospam.com
Agreed. 100%.
Bob Roman
Denis) wrote:
>With the LP being a new and untested medium, it seems only natural
>that a record company would want some familiar titles to drive sales,
>and in addition to Elvis, other artists, (the Everlys come to mind)
>would also do their versions of recent hits to complement the one or
>two hits of their own. These recordings would not be designed to
>immediately compete with the originals and the artists were
>distinctive sounding enough to make their versions unique
I agree. That's why I used that example. Elvis Presley's version of
"Tutti Frutti" may have been nearly as bad as Pat Boone's, but no one
would call it a cover.
Or would they? That was the point of my question.
In the '70s group FAQ Marc Weilage had a section on the cover/remake
distinction titled "Has the meaning of the term 'cover' changed over
the years?"
rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1970s FAQ:
>The short answer is "yes."
>
>In the 1950s, the term "cover" version was used to describe a new
>recording of an existing song, usually released within a few weeks of
>the original. Generally, the cover version was performed by a
>mass-market (i.e. white) artist, trying to achieve wide success of a
>song originally performed by a regional-market (i.e. black) artist.
>The cover version would literally "cover up" or obscure the original
>song, and achieve the greatest popularity.
There are mistakes in this answer. I am curious how many.
Bob Roman
Mark Dintenfass
<Robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
At least two and maybe a third:
1. Records from c&w, r&b, pop, and any other genre in sight were
"covered."
2. As has been amply demonstrated by Roger and others, within
particular genres artists often covered each other. Covering was not
always a cross-genre phenomenon.
3. Whether the term "cover" comes from "cover up" (obscuring the
original) is debatable at least. For all we know, it might just well
come from poker, as in "covering" a bet.
--
--md
Remove xx to respond
Roger Ford
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 06:22:26 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
>Ford) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 05:21:27 GMT, Robert...@hotmail.com (Bob Roman)
>>wrote:
>>>[...] In his 1975 book "Mystery Train" Greil Marcus said Elvis
>>>Presley's first album "Elvis Presley" was made up of "Sun leftovers...
>>>and covers of recent rock 'n' roll hits."
>>>In light of our recent discussion, this got me wondering. How did
>>>Billboard discuss the album in their review at the time? They must
>>>have reviewed it -- at the time Elvis was the hottest star in the
>>>world.
>>>Does anyone have access to a copy of the Billboard review? The album
>>>came out in March 1956.
>>>
>>I don't have that review Bob but I'm willing to accept that
>>"Billboard" probably called "I Got A Woman","Tutti Frutti" and "Money
>>Honey" covers.
>>
>>What matters to us is that we think we know better and would now term
>>these "remakes"----as I'm sure you'd agree?
>
>Well, I'm not sure. The rest of the world uses the word "cover"
>pretty broadly.
The rest of the world is wrong.
If we adopted stances just because thats what "the rest of the world
does" we would all be rating The Spice Girls as a much better group
than The Shirelles too,would'nt we?
>The argument for the insisting the "cover"/"remake"
>distinction here has always been based on two arguments: It's a useful
>distinction, and it's a distinction that was made at the time.
Hmmmmm......I don't remember in any of my arguments on the subject
ever stating that the distinction was made "at the time" (meaning the
50's).
However the distinction was definitely being made by all record
collectors and many ordinary fans from the early 60's onwards
>
>If it's not a distinction that was made at the time, the argument for
>insisting on its use here gets cut in half.
>
No it does'nt because over the years since the distinction was made
"covers" have come to mean versions of the original record that were
out AT THE TIME in a competing record market and "remakes" have come
to mean all other much later versions of that original number.
>It's still a useful distinction -- most jargon is -- and I am
>certainly comfortable with it myself. But maybe, just maybe, it's too
>much a barrier to entry. When new people come here and don't make the
>distinction, they get ripped. How can we justify insisting on the
>distinction, though, if it's merely artificial jargon?
>
>Just thinking out loud...
>
In that case the word "doo-wop" is artificial jargon too---nobody used
that word in the 50's right?----it's a 60's word but has universal use
now.
Roger Ford
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:37:03 GMT, naylan...@netscape.net (Sir
>Denis) wrote:
>
>>With the LP being a new and untested medium, it seems only natural
>>that a record company would want some familiar titles to drive sales,
>>and in addition to Elvis, other artists, (the Everlys come to mind)
>>would also do their versions of recent hits to complement the one or
>>two hits of their own. These recordings would not be designed to
>>immediately compete with the originals and the artists were
>>distinctive sounding enough to make their versions unique
>
>I agree. That's why I used that example. Elvis Presley's version of
>"Tutti Frutti" may have been nearly as bad as Pat Boone's, but no one
>would call it a cover.
>
I will go as far as to call the other side of "Tutti Frutti" on the
Elvis 45 a "technical cover"---"Blue Suede Shoes".
I can't call "Tutti Frutti" a cover for the simple reason that it came
out in the USA way AFTER the original and came out here way BEFORE the
original.
Confused? You will be! :-)
Bob Roman
Ford) wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:50:29 GMT, Robert...@hotmail.com (Bob Roman)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 06:22:26 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
>>Ford) wrote:
>>The argument for the insisting the "cover"/"remake"
>>distinction here has always been based on two arguments: It's a useful
>>distinction, and it's a distinction that was made at the time.
>
>Hmmmmm......I don't remember in any of my arguments on the subject
>ever stating that the distinction was made "at the time" (meaning the
>50's).
Maybe it was before you came aboard, but the "at the time" argument
was definitely made. In fact, it was used so often that it became an
article of faith, and the basis for Marc Weilage's section in the
70s-group FAQ about the meaning of "cover" changing over time.
>However the distinction was definitely being made by all record
>collectors and many ordinary fans from the early 60's onwards
And, as I said, I think it's a useful distinction. I've adopted it
myself. I will continue to use it. But if it's just collectors'
jargon, it's not English. How can we insist that every newcomer here
uses the jargon?
>In that case the word "doo-wop" is artificial jargon too---nobody used
>that word in the 50's right?----it's a 60's word but has universal use
>now.
That's the difference. "Doo-wop" is now in universal use. It's part
of the English language.
Bob Roman
?.@nospam.com
>
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:40:52 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
> Ford) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:50:29 GMT, Robert...@hotmail.com (Bob Roman)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 06:22:26 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
> >>Ford) wrote:
> >>The argument for the insisting the "cover"/"remake"
> >>distinction here has always been based on two arguments: It's a useful
> >>distinction, and it's a distinction that was made at the time.
> >
> >Hmmmmm......I don't remember in any of my arguments on the subject
> >ever stating that the distinction was made "at the time" (meaning the
> >50's).
>
> Maybe it was before you came aboard, but the "at the time" argument
> was definitely made. In fact, it was used so often that it became an
> article of faith, and the basis for Marc Weilage's section in the
> 70s-group FAQ about the meaning of "cover" changing over time.
Perhaps, but all too often Weilage is a legend in his own mind.