TurboTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1279 times:
In my opinion, I think that the new versions played by popular bands and artists don't match up to the original song
For instance, I think that the new "Ordinary World" by Aurora is much worse than the original by Duran Duran.
I also think that Guess Who's "American Woman" creamed Lenny Kravetz's version of the song which was played in Austin Powers 2.
The one remake that I like better than the original is Madonna's "American Pie". I like it better than Don Mcleans original one for some reason. I'll probably have some disagreements on this post, but it's all in our opinions. So what do you think of remakes?
If anybody finds corrections, feel free to correct but I don't think I made any.
KROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1268 times:
I tend to agree. Most of the time, remakes usually can't compare to the original versions, but you have to see it as a band paying tribute so to speak on an artist they like or revere. Sometimes its good, sometimes its bad.
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 45
Reply 3, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
I agree with you 200% with the exception of "American Pie". That is and always will be a Don McLean classic. Madonna didn't have the respect to do the full 8 1/2 minutes of the original song!
I honestly don't know what is worse....seeing these bad rip offs, or the fact that todays kids love them.
the mere fact that all this musical theft goes on just proves something I've been saying for years....
that todays "musicians" (I use the term very generously) are so lacking in creativity, originality, and talent, that the only way they can be heard is to steal old classics. They correctly conclude that most of their audience will have never heard of the original, so they can plagarize it, and for the most part get away with it. I don't beleive that todays music is really appreciated for its musical value per se. I think the reason it attains its popularity is the same driving force that posesses kids to wear gaudy clothing, pierce body parts, and so on...
it's the way they define "their" generation.
They don't want to listen to the same music their older siblings or even their parents do. Of course THAT could be the subject of a topic all on its own. This is why that even though ever week we have a "hot new act", they always vanish as quickly as they came. But their lack of talent is still transparent. This is why you have "original" groups such as the Moody Blues, The Beatles, Tom Petty, Fleetwood Mac, etc. that have maintained their popularity for over a generation whereas todays acts seldom last over a year. Then they vanish right back into obscurity. Can anyone tell me what Alanis, Hootie, Sheryl Crow, and the Lice Girls are up to nowadays? At one point, all of them were "destined to be the last word in music".
Why is nothing from the last 10 years or so been able to reach that level of popularity? Even the "one hit wonders" from the 80's maintain their popularity among those from that generation. 80's flashbacks are common on at least three popular radio stations here in LA. Go into any night club that plays 80's and even 70's music, and you will see the dancefloor be packed, and everyone will be having a good time. But as soon as the ghetto and grunge laced music of the 90's comes on, the dance floor will be a ghost town, and everyone will be outside smoking a cigarette...except for the one or two people that just turned 21....or 18 if it's an 18 and older club. Wonder why that is.
Now that the 90's are over, I'm still waiting to see if the music from that decade will have the same impact and longevity.
Being as objective as humanly possible, I've come to the simple conclusion of "no fucking way".
TurboTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1246 times:
I don't know what they are up to either. They did use to be extremely popular artists. I know that Sheryl Crow sang @ an opening ceremony in a new club in STL. I think she does a lot around her home state which is Missouri, but I haven't heard her on the radio in a real long time!
Cicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1240 times:
If an "artist" has a very strong style that they can bring to song then it is valid to remake something and put it out for sale. It may or may not be better in some ways, but at least you have something a little bit different. What is really odd, is someone taking a very personal type of song like Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" and have Cyndi Lauper do it. That is strange. Also annoying is when someone redoes a song and adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to it...like Phil Collins doing the Supreme's "You can't Hurry Love". There is no point to this except for Phil to make money. If he had just done it in concert, that would be fine, but to put it out as a recorded version and then even as a single was pretty obnoxious. The strangest remake ever was watching a video of Whitney Houston singing the "Greatest Love ..". The lyrics of this famous song are pretty deep, and Whitney has the lungs to belt this stuff out, but the video director/producer/handler or whatever turned the whole thing into a fashion show with Whitney changing outfits throughout turning the piece into a shallow narcisitic pantload. Wow. Talk about missing the point!!!
Stratifier From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1221 times:
It seems that nowadays remakes happen simply because you can't gather enough good tunes to make an album.
The situation is much worse in Chinese pop music, where there are so many releases and only so many Diane Warren/David Foster-type people who do 300 lyrics a year and so forth. But I guess it's no good to compare...
LHmark From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 45
Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1216 times:
My band covers songs when we play shows, but we don't release our covers (our version of '99 Luftballons' did wind up all over Napster, though). I like it when a band can cover a song and find something new in it.
I agree with Tristar on the basic point, though. Those rehashes tend to be a quick and easy way to guarantee that the bucks roll in, but they're usually artistically empty.
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller