(no subject)

[listersgirl]

Discussion at work today: what exactly counts as a cover?

I mean, Danny Michel sings a David Bowie song, that's clearly a cover. One pop artist performing the work of another. But what if he sings a Gershwin song? A Sondheim song? Is it the fact that he's a pop artist, and pop artists generally have a kind of artistic ownership over their music - does that automatically make everything he does that's not his own a cover? Or is it the song itself - does the song have to be specifically associated with a particular singer or group before you can cover it?

And the other way around - I would never consider a jazz artist doing a song by another jazz artist "covering". That's what jazz musicians do. But what about when Herbie Hancock releases his album of Joni Mitchell songs? Is that different somehow than if he released an album of John Coltrane songs?

And what about artists who always sing work by other people, like Broadway singers. I don't consider Audra McDonald doing "Bill" from Showboat a cover, but what about when she sings Rufus Wainwright's "Painted Ladies". Is that a cover? And to flip it over, what if a pop group did a version of a song from a musical? What about the disc of pop groups and artists performing songs from Hedwig and the Angry Inch? Are those covers? Or not, because songs from musicals are traditionally performed by all sorts of different people?

Is there a line that gets crossed? Does someone cover The Christmas Song, because it's so associated with Mel Torme, but just sing "Jingle Bells"? Do you cover traditional tunes? Is covering reserved just for pop artists?

Poll!
[Poll #1069398]

Comments

[morag-gunn.livejournal.com]

First, when it comes to jazz musicians performing songs I think it depends entirely on the style in which it is performed. This possibly extends to musical theatre performances.

More importantly though, what about hymns? Opera? I mean, isn't 90% or more of the TSO's repertoire technically covers?

Clearly all sarcasma does on the weekend is sing COVERS for Jesus. I wonder how Jesus feels about this.

[listersgirl]

Yeah, I left classical music out because I don't ever think of that as covers, just arrangements. But it's true, you could extend it even further!

[sarcasma.livejournal.com]

I just saw this comment and BWA. Yes.

I didn't even answer the poll, because it broke my brain. Ow.

[maybe-sparrow6.livejournal.com]

I don't think that songs from musicals can ever be covered. They are written with the intent of being sung by as many people as possible. That's how you know the musical was a success.

[listersgirl]

Smart answer!

[maybe-sparrow6.livejournal.com]

Which I'm going to negate with YouTube examples.
Cover-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CymTfUKv8Tw
Not a cover-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_d1UmOpuRE

[vestra.livejournal.com]

Interesting question! When it came right down to it, the *only* thing I could consider "definitely a cover" is the classic "pop singer performs (someone else's) pop song". Other stuff--ehhhh, maybe? I guess I don't think of other things as "covers". Arrangements? Re-interpretations? Just...other versions? Huh.

Interesting to ponder why I think that. Where do you stand on the issue?

[listersgirl]

I'm totally not sure - pop singer/pop song, sure, but I was thinking about someone like Patricia O'Callaghan doing Leonard Cohen, and that's where the line gets fuzzy for me. Because she's a cabaret singer, and normally sings other people's material, but somehow it still feels like a cover? Maybe? I'm very undecided.

[starfishchick]

This whole question/post/poll makes my head ACHE.

And what is the difference between "cover" and "version"?

Sigh.

[jits.livejournal.com]

I dictionary.com'd this (cheating I know!):

a recording of a song by a singer, instrumentalist, or group other than the original performer or composer.

So according to the dictionary, none of these are covers, as they're not a recording. All three definitions there specifically mention recording.

Which I don't agree with at all, because common usage talks about 'cover bands' doing live performances etc, and bands saying 'this is a cover of...' etc.

I think they're all technically covers. When we sing 'Happy Birthday', we're covering the melody of Patty Hill and Mildred J. Hill. Writers of the lyrics unknown.

I had to look that up, and found the interesting fact that, in relation to happy birthday "Warner claims that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to them". Wow, that's really fascist.

[listersgirl]

See, I don't really agree with the "or composer" part of that -- lots of people sing songs that they didn't write themselves. If no-one recorded the song previously, how can that be a cover? But maybe the usage has shifted from the definition.

[jits.livejournal.com]

I presume when they say original performer or composer, they actually mean the person who holds the copyright for the song, which is the person who wrote it. Often that's the original performer of the song, but not always.

[listersgirl]

But that's what I mean - when Lieber and Stoller wrote a song for Elvis, they're the original copyright holders. But he's not doing a cover, at least not by any current idea of "cover".

It's possible I'm just being extremely nitpicky about that definition, though. :)

[jits.livejournal.com]

OK good point.

So for it to be a 'cover', you have to cover the original performance. Even if the original performer didn't write it, they're not doing a cover, all subsequent versions of it are covers.

?

[listersgirl]

Yes. It's just when we get into older songs or crossover performers that my head starts to spin. :)

[jits.livejournal.com]

I still stand by 'every time we sing happy birthday it's a cover'. Warner apparently agrees with me!

[fishbellygirl.livejournal.com]

The way I understand it is, if a singer/songwriter performs a song they wrote, that is the original. Anyone else who performs it is "covering" it. With jazz there is a lot of collaboration, but if you know Miles wrote and performed it first, Hancock is doing a cover of his song all the same. If it's a traditional or "standard" song that is no longer closely associated with its original writer's performance, then it's not a cover because it's considered part of the public domain.

[listersgirl]

That makes a lot of sense to me, although I get hung up on composers who never perform their own work, like people who write for musicals, or the old Tin Pan Alley composers.

(Interestingly enough, today's discussion was about traditional versus public domain, and how they are not always the same.)