When I was in elementary school and my dad would drive me and my siblings to school in the morning, sometimes he would turn on music by a band called Me First and the Gimme Gimmes. As far as I am aware, this band exclusively plays covers. But at the time, I didn’t know what the concept of a cover was at all. I grew up thinking songs like “Take on me,” “I Believe I Can Fly,” and “Isn’t She Lovely” were all originals by Me First and the Gimme Gimmes. The thing about them is that all of their covers were upbeat and faster than the originals, making the lyrics of songs like Cat Stevens’ “Wild World,” among others, a bit incongruent with their tempo.
Sometimes, of course, as the module establishes, incongruity is intentional and decided by the original artist. So is it fair to the artist or the song when someone else takes it and flips it on its head? Adorno claimed popular music lacked creativity, and whether or not you agree, I think he’s right to an extent. I know that he was not specifically referring to musical covers, but it proves his point. Occasionally, I like when one of my favorite artists does a cover of a popular song. Sometimes, I am disappointed when I learn that a certain track has been a cover all along and I had no idea. Every Frank Ocean song I know was introduced to me under the guise of it being by someone else. Anyway, I guess what I’m getting at is whether or not it is ethical to have an entire discography of covers.
Even if a song is reworked like Me First and the Gimme Gimmes’ covers, it arguably still contains less creativity and work than an original song in my opinion. I guess my question is this: Do you think a heavily altered cover hurts the message of the original song or does it add to what it is communicating? Also, have any of you heard of Me First and the Gimme Gimmes? It’s pretty much the most niche band I’ve ever heard of and I’ve never encountered them outside of my family, so I am very curious to know.
Me First and the Gimme Gimmes are the best! When I was in college and a friend had their CD in the car I could not get enough of their infectious energy and fun music covers.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your main question, I think that the intent of the cover makes the difference. With Me First, they seem to intentionally be incongruous in some songs, such as "My Favorite Things" have explicit language and ripping through the song in the punk rock genre. But on the other hand, I think most covers are done more to let the cover artists try to use the lyrics tell the story more than the original song did on it's own. I think that is why shows like Glee, Moulin Rouge, and Mamma Mia are so popular- they use the lyrics to tell stories rather than use the music to be catchy radio jams.
Moulin Rouge is interesting because the movie used lots of songs that I didn't know in 2001, and was thus introduced to a lot of new artists. Then a few years ago the movie was adapted into a stage version and used an almost entirely new set of song covers for the music, but this time I already knew every song since they were songs I grew up with. I thought it was fun to hear my teen years' music presented this way, and therefore the covers DID mean more, not by necessarily altering the message, but by putting the message and meaning of the lyrics to the forefront of the storytelling.
I think that for the most part, people cover songs because of the message more than the music, if that makes sense.
I have not heard of Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, but I should look them up! My dad has been in an 80's cover band for the last 10 years or so, and in the past 2 or 3 my sisters and I have taken on the roles of guest vocalists for female lead songs. It is so much fun to go gigging with the band and whip out some Heart or Pat Benatar. I do often think that I wish we could write our own music though. Playing someone else's music is a blast, but I think it lacks in the creativity department. Maybe I will try my hand at song writing one of these days and I will get rich and famous.
ReplyDelete