If musician wannabees could only stop re-making (screwing up) songs from other artists from the past and do some original and innovative music nowadays. If Only...

: If musician wannabees could only stop re-making
: (screwing up) songs from other artists from
: the past and do some original and innovative
: music nowadays. If Only...

That's the reason why people think of the 90s as low-class. There were artists making good, original music - and I made this argument like two times before - but the public supported what we have now and these artists were more than generous in bringing out more of these remakes. You can also blame some of the original artists who lease the rights for their songs to be remade - Sting, Grandmaster Flash, Soft Cell, George Michael, Madonna, Prince, etc.

T B

: You can also
: blame some of the original artists who lease
: the rights for their songs to be remade -
: Sting, Grandmaster Flash, Soft Cell, George
: Michael, Madonna, Prince, etc.

Actually the original artists don't need to lease the rights for songs to be remade, unless parts of the actual recordings are used. Anyone can record someone else's song, as long as they don't compromise the original lyrics or play around with the arrangement too much, and the original songwriter is credited. I know this because a band I used to manage has recorded Kiss and Melvins covers in the past. And every time somebody does a cover of a song, the original songwriter gets a royalty, so it's only good business sense to let as many people remake your songs as you can. I do, however, agree that some songs are sacred, and should be left alone. As I mentioned in the "Informer" thread, the producer genius who thought that the Fugees needed a rap part in their version of "Killing me Softly" should be shot.

Oh and wasn't Soft Cell's "Tainted Love" itself a cover?

: Actually the original artists don't need to
: lease the rights for songs to be remade,
: unless parts of the actual recordings are
: used. Anyone can record someone else's song,
: as long as they don't compromise the
: original lyrics or play around with the
: arrangement too much, and the original
: songwriter is credited. I know this because
: a band I used to manage has recorded Kiss
: and Melvins covers in the past. And every
: time somebody does a cover of a song, the
: original songwriter gets a royalty, so it's
: only good business sense to let as many
: people remake your songs as you can. I do,
: however, agree that some songs are sacred,
: and should be left alone. As I mentioned in
: the "Informer" thread, the
: producer genius who thought that the Fugees
: needed a rap part in their version of
: "Killing me Softly" should be
: shot.

: Oh and wasn't Soft Cell's "Tainted
: Love" itself a cover?

You're right about "Tainted Love." So was "Der Komissar" (Falco) by After The Fire, "Hazy Shade Of Winter" (Paul Simon) by The Bangles, "Ziggy Stardust"(David Bowie) by Bauhaus, "Baby, I Love Your Way" (Peter Frampton and Lynyrd Skynyrd) by Will To Power, "China Girl" (Iggy Pop) by David Bowie, "Lay All Your Love On Me" (ABBA) by Information Society, "Route 66" (?) by Depeche Mode etc, etc, etc, etc... These are pretty good covers when compared to the 90s covers though - it sounds as if these artists (90s) are forced to sing the lyrics and pay no regard to the original; for example M. Manson's cover of "Sweet Dreams" was just godawful; there was also Limp Bizkit's cover of Prince's "1999" and G. Michael's "Faith" (thank God they didn't opt to cover "Careless Whisper"), etc, etc. I'm not a fan of covers, so my opinion is VERY biased. I think artists should perform/produce their own works of art and let them stand the test of time before deciding to cover someone else's work...

T B