Oh my EYES!!!!!

Reference: The thing is that the music industry has changed enormously, and public attitudes have changed as a result.
It used to be that singers were just that - singers. As has been said elsewhere on this thread, the human voice was treated as an instrument, and appropriate singers would be matched up with appropriate songs.
The quality of the singer's voice was often as important - if not more important - than the song itself. I remember seeing a reproduction of an old NME front cover from the 50's (back in the days when they printed stories on the front page) which was given over to a "right of reply" from Frank Sinatra. Sinatra was touring Europe at the time, and there had been some press criticism of his diction and general vocal quality. Old Blue Eyes was not happy, and defended himself in no uncertain terms. Can you imagine a similar fuss nowadays over the vocal ability of, say, Lady Gaga? It's much more likely that any controversy would be over a major singer miming!

This is also all tied up with a changed understanding of what "cover versions" are for. Nowadays, cover versions are an easy way for artists (even those who do write their own material) to break through, because a known song gives them instant recognition with the public. However it used to be that when a song was written, several cover versions would be released at the same time. The idea was people would buy the version by the singer they preferred.

A good example is "Unchained Melody". Most people associate that song with the Righteous Brothers, but their recording came out in 1965 and was an example of the modern cover version. The song originally came out in 1955, and in that year alone there were four different versions of the song (both vocal and instrumental) in the UK top 20 - the most successful being by a certain Jimmy Young...

Arguably, the whole notion of bands writing their own material goes back to The Beatles, but even Lennon and McCartney often went down the "Tin Pan Alley" route and wrote songs for other singers such as Cilla Black...

No problem Sooz, thank you.

Can I just clarify that I can see the qualities of amazing performers who are completely unique no matter what they are singing (such as Elvis and Sinatra) my comments are aimed at the 99.9 per cent of cover versions which, as you can see from shows like the X Factor and from the dire cover versions that clog up the charts come from bands and singers that have no natural talent and are not unique in any way.

I don't see the point of it. It's a modern scourge and it's pretty much the enemy of creativity and you have to wonder what up and coming bands trying to promote their own material think when they see some talentless clown churning out covers that are lapped up by a public conditioned to find it all acceptable. Being able to sing exactly like someone else is not a talent in my book it's cheap mimicry which is one of the reasons I can't stand Rebecca. If you asked her to sing Anarchy In The UK she'd still be doing a Sade impersonation.

I know I'm in the minority with my views on all of this. So be it.

 

But some covers are extremely good, though. Feeling Good by Muse, To Make You Feel my Love by Adele, Handbags and Gladrags by Stereophonics, Song for You Donny Hathaway, Smile by Nat King Cole....(and many more)

If we're talking Locomotion by Kylie Minogue or Tears on my Pillow by Kylie Minogue or I'll Stand by You by Girls Aloud (and other pointless shite and production time)....then I'm in the revolution. Some songs should be left well and truly alone!

They are, and you've mentioned some of them but it takes someone who is already very creative to come up with a really unique cover (the Muse cover is a great example). You'll never get that kind of original approach from an artist who thinks their only job is to sing the words put in front of them. For example...

 
Yeah, that lot 

Fabulous stuff.

It's not a modern concept, though. Even The Beatles - the archetype of the singer/songwriter band - did a lot of cover versions in their early days ("Twist and Shout" being probably the best known). Now, you'd probably say (rightly) that they were talented: but who would have known that at the time when they were just starting out? Who's to say that someone who breaks through from, say, X-Factor performing covers won't go onto write their own,very good, material? Unlikely, perhaps, but perfectly possible.

As I said before, the "Tin Pan Alley" approach (of which Kylie performing SAW-produced covers is merely a modern example) used to be the standard way of making records. Singers were just singers; songwriters were just songwriters. It's not just about the "great" singers either: How many Brits had heard of Al Hibbler even in '55? I mentioned before that The Righteous Brothers' cover of "Unchained Melody" is the best known (and I've even heard some supposedly-knowledgeable people claim it's the original), but I would suggest it's debatable that it's better than Jimmy Young's version - their version just happened to get featured in a major film.
(IMO, the very best version is by The Platters, but that's another story...)

Indeed. One of my all time favourites. No matter how many times I hear it, the hairs stand up.

Eugene you're getting well carried away with yourself here  The Beatles wrote their own songs right from the start and their version of Twist And Shout is the one everyone knows because it was them. Talented people produce great cover versions. Banal 'sing what's in front of you' dullards produce 'another' version to add to the long list.

I have to admire your optimism that anyone from the X Factor would start producing original material of a high standard given that they ritually slaughter all manner of classics every single year. It is more of a modern concept imo because boy/girl bands/solo artists are manufactured these days just as surely as if they came off a factory conveyor belt and they have absolutely nothing to offer modern music in my opinion but I am a diehard believer in producing new material and making new classics as opposed to churning out new renditions of old one.

The way things are going in 40 years time all the classics will come from an age people can hardly even remember.

What would I know but I'm watching n-dubz on C4 currently - shortly before I turn over to something that can't be worse.  They write their own stuff and they're still shite!

Let's face it there's not much 'writing' involved there 

Are you having a crisis?
Is there someone we should ring? 

No they didn't. Their very first recording was of "My Bonnie" ( a version of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean") and "The Saints" (a version of "When the Saints go Marching in") - a perfect example of what I'm getting at.
They originally got into music as a skiffle band doing covers. Paul McCartney got in mainly because he knew all the words to "20 Flight Rock".
Everyone's got to start somewhere...

Issyjinglebells
Are you having a crisis?
Is there someone we should ring? 

---

I think I would have had a crisis if I'd carried on watching those fools.  Aversion therapy I guess.  I watched "Tenacious D and the pluck from the devil" or some such tat last night and that was utterly dire - I usually avoid Jack Black films because I found him vaguely annoying.  Now I've watched a whole film I know he's annoying.

Lots of bands did that on the live circuit but they did their own songs too. Are you suggesting Please Please Me and Love Me Do were written at the last minute when they signed a record deal? It's irrelevant to the argument anyway. The people I am talking about know they couldn't write a song if their life depended on it but they can sing in tune and have a marketable image and these days that really is all that matters.

I like some of Tenacious D's stuff

The first time I ever saw them was on BBBM and I was honestly staggered at how bad they were. I really hate rap though so they would have to go some to impress me anyway. From what I can remember the girl can sing and the other two need to be put down.

To defend the talent contest winner here, have to say the American Idol winners and runners up (who are far more superior in talent to the UK lot) have produced some great stuff.

Fantastia and David Cook are 2 who are bloody fantastic Jennifer Hudson,although finishing 5th or summat like that, went on win an Oscar for her role in Dream Girls (ok I know it's not songwriting but still shows that if you have raw natural talent you can make it).

For those reasons, I think the talent show is still a brilliant platform. It's almost better not to win as you have more artistic freedom to do the music you want to do but you've still had the exposure and gained a following.

Again, you seem to think this is new. It's not: it's how the music industry has always worked. The success of bands like The Beatles has created the misconception that the music industry belongs to singer/songwriters, but it doesn't, and they've always been in the minority. The industry has always belonged to svengali-figures like Simon Cowell who take songs by talented songwriters and farm them out to good-looking, highly marketable singers with decent voices. As I said, even The Beatles went down that road...

Haven't read this thread, (I will!)...BUT, how do you differentiate? Some will do will do well with covers, some won't. Two of my favourite albums are Gregson and Collister's 'Love is a Strange Hotel' and Jennifer Warne's 'Famous Blue Raincoat'.....all covers. Don't think we have the same taste in music for the most part Prom, but, for example, Elkie Brookes had a 'hit' with Chris Rea's 'Fool if you think it's over' when he was a struggling musician....he writes his own stuff, sings q well and plays a great guitar, (imo.) And then there's Knopfler who was getting seriously slagged in another of the music threads on here, he also has the 'full package' imo. I applaud anyone who is multi-talented and can write their own stuff, play and sing, but I also applaud someone who has just one of those talents.
The Beatles? Well, they were a legend in their own lunchboxes....would I sit at home and listen? No. Would I dance to their toones at a party and love 'em Yes!

Come on mate. The Beatles were the best band of all time they had extraordinary songwriting talent. Who then were the big manufactured bands in 60s and 70s that proved The Beatles were the exception not the rule? The Who? The Rolling Stones? Pink Floyd? Abba? David Bowie? 


 Tell me who these amazing manufactured acts were in the era I mentioned that eclipsed the artists I mentioned. You could say the same about the 80's it was all about hugely talented bands and artists not some clown churning out good looking boys and girls singing dire cover versions or 'by the numbers' pap written by an equally talentless background stooge.

Issyjinglebells
I like some of Tenacious D's stuff

---

Words fail me!   I couldn't believe what I was watching or listening to! I think if that was on the other side I'd turn over to watch n-dubz!   When I see a particularly good or bad film I sometimes check out IMDB for reviews.  I was amazed that almost everyone liked it!  I fear for civilisation! 

LZ were the premier manufactured band of the 60's n' 70's and far superior to the Beatles IMO. A lot of their stuff was rooted in old blues music. A lot of their stuff was rooted in folk music. It's that bricolage word again.

The first time I ever saw them was on BBBM and I was honestly staggered at how bad they were. I really hate rap though so they would have to go some to impress me anyway. From what I can remember the girl can sing and the other two need to be put down.

---

They are indeed very bad prometheus.
Yep, that's about it, multi platinum selling artists too!
I used to kind of like rap back in the old school days of Public Enemy etc but it's a genre that's long outstayed its welcome.

I do that often. I like to get a close look at perfection

Well, firstly: apart from the dominant Beatles and a lone entry by The Seekers, the 10 best-selling UK singles of the 60s were by singers doing other people's songs: Engelbert Humperdick, Tom Jones, Elvis and Ken Dodd (yes, really). The Rolling Stones never featured.
In the 70's, you had Wings, Queen, Blondie and Slade in the top 10, but from the "manufactured" side you also had David Soul, John Travolta/Olivia Newton-John, the Vilage People and Boney M (who had two of the most successful singles ever, despite being the most manufactured band imaginable). Floyd, ABBA and Bowie never featured.
You have a much stronger case for the 80's, as the effects of Punk meant that there were a lot more bands trying it for themselves, but it would take a brave man not to count Frankie Goes to Hollywood (2 of the decade's best sellers) as "manufactured". And Kylie had the 5th most successful album of the 80s (in the UK, anyway)...

Besides, those 3 decades only represent a small part of the history of the music industry which goes back to the days before recordings, when you bought sheet music...
I saw an interview with Mick Jagger recently, and he was asked about the death of the music industry. His response was that there had only ever been a short period when it was possible for artists to make a lot of money from their music. He had just been lucky enough to live through it. Before that period, music was under the control of the likes of Simon Cowell, and that's the way it's going again...

I see where you're coming from Eugene's Lair but who cares about Boney M now and who cared about them in 1982 either!  The lyricists behind the Village People must make some royalties from the continued sales of "YMCA" and "In the Navy" as they're both party/club tunes but other than that, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a copy of a Village People or David Soul album yet you can find practically all of Bowie's back catalogue in any HMV. I'm sure David Soul has long given up touring his music.

Eugene with all due respect it's hardly fair to pull 'best-selling singles' i.e. one-offs out of the when we're comparing bands who dominated a decade completely. A lot of the names you mentioned had a few hits but nothing even vaguely approaching the success of the people I mentioned whose records are still selling today 40 or 50 years later.

We're not going to agree on this. Elvis was massively unique in his own way, so was his Sinatra but they are the true exception to the rule here in my opinion and in 2010 I can see a huge blur of talent-free pretty faces churning out not original songs but crap cover versions it is a modern disease. The origin doesn't matter what matters is the end result right here and right now as far as I'm concerned.

I'd love to be on X Factor I'd hate all the wannabe 'me too' clowns  and would probably actually kill Louis Walsh and get knighted  as a reward for great service to mankind.

Agree.....but they didn't write all of their own songs, did they??? They wers singers with a few dance moves??? (Like them both btw)

They were a bit more than that to me Soops. Hugely charismatic and undeniably original. They don't make them like they used to eh? 

BUT, BUT, Prom, surely, the main reasons the Beatles, originally, were so successful was cos of the screaming 60s girlies who were fainting in the crowd at their 'heart-throbs" and buying their records?

I think there's a danger here of getting sidetracked by the concept ot longevity. Sure, there will always be the major acts who dominate the popular culture, but they will always be in the minority in terms of all the bands/artists making and selling records - i.e. the music industry as a whole.

"90% of everything is crap.": for every Elvis, The Beatles or ABBA you're going to get 9 or 10 acts trying to be like Elvis, The Beatles or ABBA (and failing miserably). We always remember the few great artists, but forget the huge number of "fluff" acts that cluttered-up the charts throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's. Sure, nobody cares about Boney M now, but they sold by the truckload in the 70's. It's the same now: we few may not like Cowell's minions, and I doubt they'll be remembered in 10 months, never mind 10 years, but it won't stop them selling in the short term...

Fainting? They wouldn't have even got out of bed for them if the songs hadn't been brilliant. They were just incredible at the time and got better over the years culminating in two seminal albums that so many bands are still trying to live up to and failing.

Okay, I love The Beatles, hands up here I won't deny I'm more than a little biased

If you don't mind me saying so, you're destroying your own argument 

How so?
My point is that the music industry has always been dominated by acts controlled by svengali figures, singing songs written for them by teams of songwriters. These acts do well in the short term, burn out and are replaced by the svengali with other faceless acts. That's how the industry works. That's how it's always worked. In what way am I destroying that argument?

Truly talented bands and singers last forever. The drive-by wannabes as you correctly point out disappear. If Darwin was here today to talk about musical evolution he wouldn't be talking about The Seekers. He might however truly despair at what passes as 'talent' in 2010.

Sinatra was fantastic, but just a 'singer' Elvis, much the same...and Shirley Bassey etc. etc. I do know where you're coming from Prom.....Oh, hey ho music turns around like fashion... for the most part 'twill never be as good as the first time, but it must have been pretty darn good to copy it/ put your own 'twist' on it and some people do it better time arond imho....I sometimes wonder if the young uns realise how much of the stuff they dance to are 'remakes' for e.g. Black Eyed Peas last night.....Feels suitably fossilised so bed time ....ninight

You're absolutely right the young ones have no idea of the legacy of the songs they are singing. Night 

Motown.

Nuff said.

Mine do, when I start singing along to the words.