One of Adorno's arguments is that pop music is interchangeable. Do cover songs fall victim to this argument? According to Berklee, a cover "When they're successful, a good cover manages to comment on the original song—its brilliance, its mood, even its shortcomings—while also highlighting the new performer's own voice and creative interpretation. As a result, the best cover songs are great music and great music criticism all rolled into one."
Simon and Garfunkel released "The Sounds of Silence" in 1964. By the time I was a teen and exploring music more this was a staple in my "classics" collection. It still is. I enjoy the melancholy tone of the song, the message about the lack of communication continues to make me think. It comes across to me as a peaceful reflective song.
There have been 149 covers of "The Sounds of Silence." This is only the tally of those released to mainstream. I'm sure the number of bands that have covered this song is much higher.
In 2015, I came across the cover song "The Sound of Silence" by Disturbed. This song became my anthem for a solid year. If I had had this on an LP or cassette it would have worn out I listened to it so much. The words are the same but the tempo is very different. Simon and Garfunkel's version has been described as "clean" with a plucking pattern on a guitar. The duo vocals join shortly after at a normal singing level.
Disturbed's tempo is slower than the original version. It starts with two rounds of piano music playing. David Draiman is the only vocalist. The tempo of the song slowly builds, the addition of other instruments help transition from piece to piece to create a swell in dynamics that widen the piece. The get a sense of anger every time I listen to it.
I enjoy both versions for very different reasons. I see the argument Adorno makes about pop music and how it can be boring and unoriginal. In the world of cover music this can be seen time and time again. Some hit the mark (Disturbed) and some miss the mark (Trolls: The Sound of Silence).
In your opinion, do covers ruin the originality of a song or make it better?
I love Disturbed's cover version of this song. I heard it before I heard the original and this makes me a diehard for Disturbed's. I feel that covers can be separated into two categories: awful and awesome. Most covers are great and do the originals justice but not all do. I believe that covers typically make it better because they generally give a different take on the original.
ReplyDeleteI believe that cover songs are the exception to Adorno's arguments. Their entire existence is because they are remakes on purpose. Most pop music can potentially be interchangeable but their intentions are not to be interchangeable.
Hey Blaine!
ReplyDeleteJust knowing how adamant Adorno felt about "real music" makes me think that he wouldn't really like remakes because of their interchangeability. I wonder though, if he would like the aspect of inspiration an original piece would have on someone who decided to create a remake.
I, on the other hand, feel like remakes are fascinating because there is an obvious adoration for the original when an artist decides to remake a song. I feel like covers don't ruin the originality of a song, unless it sounds too much like the original. Your example of Disturbed's remake is a great example of how someone's lyrics can be used to evoke various emotions from audiences based on the style in which they are performed. Simon and Garfunkel's version almost seems incongruent after hearing the congruity of Disturbed's version.