Hey there, Solid State. How’s things?
I just finished up an interview with Kevin Russell, from Austin, Texas progenitors of absurdist intellectual hillbillyism, The Gourds. Anyone who reads the paper regularly knows that the “rock interview” is not my particular forte. As such, I’ve decided to tackle the issue head-on and try as many different interview tacks as possible. Throw enough shit against the wall . . .
Last week, my interview with Broken Social Scene’s Kevin Drew went from amiable to near-suicidal as I pressed a wee bit too much on the stresses of BSS A.F. (After Feist). You should see some of the shit I chose not to print. Isn’t there some axiom about salt on open wounds? Whoops!
I’m currently gearing up for an interview with Tinariwen, an African group touring as part of the Cumbancha World Music Series. Should be interesting, but for one minor detail: no one in the band speaks English. So not only are my interviewing skillz a big-time work in progress, the Q&A will be conducted either through a translator — if we can find one — or via e-mail, which is pretty sterile. Sigh.
I was actually fairly pleased with The Gourds interview. Kevin seemed like a pretty laid back guy and lacked the pretentiousness of a number of the musicians I’ve spoken with thus far — nationally and locally. Plus, I’ve been a fan for years and have always wanted to ask him how he feels about their “biggest” song being attributed to everyone and their mother but The Gourds. (For the uninitiated, The Gourds recorded a hillbilly version of Snoop Dogg’s “Gin & Juice” that achieved fairly widespread popularity on the interwebs . . . as a Phish song. The Napster version of the tune was also attributed to Ween and a number of other acts that don’t even remotely sound like The Gourds. Damn hippies.)
I can’t spoil it, since the interview is running in this week’s edition. But he had an interesting perspective on the phenomenon and some good stories about the song.
Anyway, the conversation got me to thinking about great cover songs. Generally, I hate covers. In how many other mediums is that notion even an option? Would an author “cover” Hemingway or Faulkner? Would a painter “cover” Monet or Picasso? Granted, the phenomenon exists in film under the guise of “remake.” But frankly, I usually hate remakes too — though “3:10 to Yuma” was pretty bad-ass. The cover is an enigma, only truly relevant in the world of music.
It’s not that I dismiss the creative validity of reinterpreting another artist’s work. Rather, it’s that most bands do just that and choose to play straight of versions of their favorite tunes rather than invest any energy or thought into how they could put their own spin on an old song. It’s too bad, because in the right hands, a cover song can offer brilliant new insight or completely re-invent the way a song is perceived, sometimes transcending the original altogether.
Take, for example, the queen mother of all cover songs, Jeff Buckley’s “Hallelujah.” Not only is Buckley’s version about a bazillion times more emotionally engaging than Leonard Cohen’s original, it’s become the standard version of the song. Listen to the version Rufus Wainright recorded. He’s not covering Cohen. He’s covering Buckley, covering Cohen. And he’s not the only one. Scores of artists in hipster coffeehouses and rock clubs the world over cover Buckley’s cover. Not only is it a testament to Buckley’s otherworldly ability, but to Cohen’s remarkable poetic lyricism.
In a similar, if less iconic, way, M. Ward’s version of David Bowie’s “Let’s Dance” turns a high-energy romp into a mournful, slow-burning elegy. Maybe Bowie’s song wasn’t meant as a party tune after all.
The cover song can be a powerful weapon in an artist’s repertoire. But only if they take the time to flesh out the deeper subtleties of the original or turn the song completely on its head and arrive at remarkably different destination. The Gourds did and it — almost — made them famous. Damn hippies.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Oops, I meant “your”, Neil.
OH!!!!!!! You’re Marilyn Monroe poster! I get it….
Can we just focus on how profoundly badass Tinariwen are?
I know–that’s totally your job now! You’re a bonafide tastemaker. In some ways I envy you–in other ways, not so much. Time has been unkind to many a critic;-)
Dan, you’re absolutely right when you say that it’s hard to say what makes music good — or bad, for that matter. But isn’t that why we’re here? I’m pretty sure that’s a healthy chunk of my job description. I’ll double check that though;-)Sadly, I lack the predictive powers of a seer and my crystal ball is in the shop. As such, my only recourse to examine what makes for a good cover is to rely on historic examples, BECAUSE they’ve stood the test of time. But, I actually didn’t bring up Sinatra or The Beatles. I was originally talking about The Gourds, Jeff Buckley and M. Ward as examples of artists who, in very different ways, elevated the concept of playing a cover by re-imagining the material altogether.To that end, look at the old “Burlington Does Burlington” comps. They’re chock full of examples of bands who took (locally) well-known tunes that weren’t theirs and twisted them into something else altogether. Barbacoa’s version of Envy”s “Bloodboy” is still one of my all-time favorite covers. Bill Mullins is God.As you rightly pointed out, Dan — is this getting confusing for anyone else? — it really is all a matter of taste. You know that I have a soft spot for Sinatra and 1950’s kitsch — Wanna see my Marilyn Monroe poster? That said, I still stand by the argument that I’m completely right all the time. Always. Period.
Hey Tyler M,I was at the Kevin Drew show and to be perfectly honest, thought it was one of the worst live music experiences I’ve ever had in Burlington. It’s too bad, because I really like Spirit If.The sound was reprehensible. The band might have been playing their best show ever but I wouldn’t have known because I couldn’t hear anything through the sonic swamp of bass and drums. Ira Allen Chapel is a great place to hear acoustic or vocal music, even unamplified. But it’s just not designed for rock bands. I’m not sure even the most talented sound engineers would be able to properly tackle that room.Kudos to SA Concerts for bringing the band to Burlington though. It’s a nice change from the annual George Clinton show.
Well, it is not unheard of for a conductor to decide not to repeat certain sections or for a singer to perform a piece in the key that best suits his/her voice. Accompanists change keys all the time and instead of using a capo they have to do it WITH THEY MINDS!! It’s called transposing. Also, embellishment and improvisation have long been a part of classical music, a prime example being the most famous classical composer of all time, J.S. Bach. In spite of all this, I think it is true that classical musicians are generally more constrained than pop musicians in terms of how they can interpret a piece. But the counter-argument is that given these constraints (i.e. you have to play the notes on the page), classical musicians have to work even harder to exhibit their personal style and are therefore the more “original.”
I know little of classical music other than “performance today” (which I totally dig) I’m not knocking it any way. I’m just making an argument. For the most part, it seems like in classical music the “many ways to play one piece” can NOT (lest you raise the ire of purists) include a key change, dropping or adding sections, embellishment notes etc. is that right? All of these are simple choices every fake book dude makes from the start. It’s not really like the orchestra is going to unexpectedly bust out a time honored piece and translate into a pop country song.
Ben, I think if you put that argument to skilled classical musicians, or even classical music enthusiasts, you would draw a world of empassioned, heated, and valid arguments. I also think if you listen to some great interpreters of certain types of “classical” music, you might change your tune. There are many ways to play the same piece of music, and the individual musician brings his or her own set of skills, idiosyncrasies, and spirit and understanding to their performance. A friend was just showing me Andrew Manze’s recording of Biber violin sonatas. I think these Baroque pieces were written around the mid-1600’s, but Manze spirited interpretations make them unlike any Baroque music I’ve heard. I always thought of Baroque music as boring, plodding strings and harpsicord, fit for the soundtrack of a BBC series. My friend pointed out that Manze almost sounds like he’s fiddling. I don’t think that the worst acoustic fake book cover musician would come close to this level of originality in interpreting a “cover”. Just an example. Also, if you’ve ever seen the same orchestral piece performed by more that one orchestra, under different, masterful conductors, it becomes clear that there are original ways to interpret even standart orchestral works.Capo-ing a guitar to change the key of a song in order to fit a limited vocal range doesn’t seem like an apt comparison to anything an orchestral conductor does.
I guess my point is that one man’s “unique phrasing” is another man’s tacky. It’s easy to say that Sinatra or The Beatles were great because, in 20/20 hindsight we know that they were–i.e. they have stood the test of time. But because of this, it’s kinda bullshit to hold them up as examples of the proper way to do covers. And if you tell someone to bring more of their personal style to a cover song (the way Frank Sinatra did it back in the day) well, s/he’s probably gonna come back with some unlistenably tacky crap. Anyhow, just my thoughts–it’s hard to talk about music and what makes it good.