Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Queen Cover That Could Have Been

forum rss feed
Author

doxonrox user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 182 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 Jun 09, 19:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote


In the later years, when the band was not as prolific, I wonder why they didn't consider doing a few covers. I think that the last handful of albums would have really benefited from them picking some songs they enjoyed and cutting a cover version with the "Queen Treatment" instead of some of the weaker cuts on the records.

I was thinking what covers, based on known influences of the band, they might have cut. How about Freddie really digging into some Aretha like "Think" or "Chain of Fools" with the big, multilayered background vocals - god, that would have been awesome! Or maybe even Brian doing "Isn't it a Pity" or "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" by George Harrison. Imagine that! And they all loved Hendrix, so maybe a stab at a more obscure Hendrix tune like "Gypsy Eyes". Or even picking a good song from a buddy - how about them ripping through Elton John's "Love Lies Bleeding"? Think of how the boys would have banged that one out! Man, the possibilities...

Any other ideas to imagine???


Sheer Brass Neck user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 719 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 Jun 09, 22:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I liked Queen because of their originality, and never saw the need for covers.  On the other hand, I know Brian was looking to do an album of covers when he did his second solo album.  I think songs like To Love Somebody by the Bee Gees, Yesterday and a Red Special version of Eleanor Rigby would have been a treat to hear.

Amazon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 996 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 09, 10:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Sheer Brass Neck wrote:

I liked Queen because of their originality, and never saw the need for covers.  On the other hand, I know Brian was looking to do an album of covers when he did his second solo album.  I think songs like To Love Somebody by the Bee Gees, Yesterday and a Red Special version of Eleanor Rigby would have been a treat to hear. 

It is amazing how original they were. If you think about it, they made just four covers; Made In Heaven, Heaven For Everyone, I Was Born To Love You and Too Much Love Will Kill You. That's not alot; especially if you compare them to someone like Van Halen who has made a speciality of doing covers.







Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6328 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 09, 11:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

And especially if you consider those covers you mention were all written or co-written by members of the band. But there are still more, some of which were also co-written by the band, some of which weren't:

- Doing All Right
- See What A Fool I've Been
- God Save the Queen
- The Wedding March

Plus what they did on stage.



John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
Amazon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 996 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 09, 11:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote







Sebastian wrote:



And especially if you consider those covers you mention were all written or co-written by members of the band. But there are still more, some of which were also co-written by the band, some of which weren't:

- Doing All Right
- See What A Fool I've Been
- God Save the Queen
- The Wedding March

Plus what they did on stage.


I don't consider GSTQ to be a cover as it's a national anthem. Like Hendrix's 'The Star-Spangled Banner' it's not the kind of song which is originated by a specific artist. People sing national athems every day of the year, and they aren't covering them. IMO May simply delivered his own version; rather than covering it. 


However, even including GSTQ, it's still not alot of covers. Up to 15 albums, and what, six or seven covers plus SWAFIB. They were stunningly original.







Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 09, 12:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I can't see Freddie singing While My Guitar Gently Weeps.  I also didn't take a week off when Jeff Healey did it a few years back and he did a pretty good job.

I don't think Queen was a cover band.  Thank God.

doxonrox user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 182 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 09, 19:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Doing covers doesn't mean you're not original - ever heard of the Beatles? Led Zeppelin? Rolling Stones? Elvis Presley? They did a few covers in their day (although Zep changed the credits!). However, they put their original sound on a song, and that was exciting - and original!

And live, Queen did plenty of covers - Tutti Frutti, Big Spender, Jailhouse Rock, Hello Mary Lou, Immigrant Song, Imagine, and more I would guess.

My point was that Queen was a great BAND. Their sound would have benefited almost any song. And as their songwriting became more challenged at the end, an album like the Miracle could have benefited from a fresh take on a good song.

And Micro, I can't see Freddie singing While My Guitar Gently Weeps either. I said Brian, and I would love to hear him take that one on. I've always thought he had a nice, soft quality to his voice like George Harrison.


A Word In Your Ear user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1789 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 09, 19:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

A studio Queen Album full of covers,  would have been a bad idea, very Status Quo-ish.  Nothing wrong with Queen doing covers on Live Albums, Solo projects or just at Gigs. But on a fully fledged Queen album, I think it would have sort of spoilt it.  To be honest, I think Bri & Rog knew this also, That's why Runaway was left off the last Album.


Joyful the sound
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6328 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 09, 22:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

While My Guitar... would've been great with May singing and Freddie on piano & harmonies.

Now:

>>> I don't consider GSTQ to be a cover as it's a national anthem.

Straight from Dictionary.com:

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

Were May & Taylor the original performers of GSTQ? No
Were May & Taylor the original songwriters of GSTQ? No

Hence, it IS a cover version.

>>> Like Hendrix's 'The Star-Spangled Banner' it's not the kind of song which is originated by a specific artist.

Star-Spangled Banner was written by Key & Smith. They, for that reason, originated it. And they're as 'specific' as anybody else. Btw Hendrix also played God Save the Queen long before Brian. 

>>> People sing national athems every day of the year, and they aren't covering them.

Of course they are, and even if they weren't, one thing is to sing something in a school or event and something different is to release it on an album. People sing We Will Rock You every day but still Bruce Dickinson's version is a cover. Same here: people sing GSTQ every day but still May & Taylor's version is a cover.

>>> IMO May simply delivered his own version; rather than covering it.

Loads of covers 'simply deliver their own versions'. GnR's Knocking on Heaven's Door is very different to the original, it's their own version, and it's still a cover (i.e. they're delivering their own version AND covering the song - no 'rather' involved). The Blanks' Superman is very different to the original, it's their own version, and it's still a cover.

Same for GSTQ.

>>> However, even including GSTQ, it's still not alot of covers.

Never said otherwise.

>>> Up to 15 albums, and what, six or seven covers plus SWAFIB. They were stunningly original

Yes but that's not a cause-effect thing: even if they had three covers per album, they'd still be 'stunningly original'.


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
Sheer Brass Neck user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 719 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 09, 22:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sebastian I love the thought that you put into your posts!

doxonrox user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 182 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jun 09, 23:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Sebastian wrote:

[/i]>>> Up to 15 albums, and what, six or seven covers plus SWAFIB. They were stunningly original

Yes but that's not a cause-effect thing: even if they had three covers per album, they'd still be 'stunningly original'.

Exactly.

For all I know, Survivor, Foreigner, Journey, Coldplay, and others didn't do a cover. So does that put their originality on par with Queen, and above those losers like the Beatles, Elvis, Stones, CCR, and others that actually *[i]gasp
* DID COVERS????

God forbid song quality exceeds royalty payments...






i-Fred user not visiting Queenzone.com
i-Fred
Bohemian: 403 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jun 09, 21:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It would be interesting. Im sure there would be some songs out there that Queen would do a great job of.

Guns and Roses and Aerosmith have done them, how ever they dont realy do much for the band.

Aerosmith done it at a time when they didnt care about charts. They done it for the love of blues in which they were brought up on.




...
kosimodo user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 554 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jun 09, 09:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

new york, new york was a nice cover:)


Amazon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 996 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jun 09, 12:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sebastian wrote: " don't consider GSTQ to be a cover as it's a national anthem.

Straight from Dictionary.com:

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

Were May & Taylor the original performers of GSTQ? No
Were May & Taylor the original songwriters of GSTQ? No

Hence, it IS a cover version." Wikepedia has it as a a new rendition (performance or recording) of a previously recorded, commercially released song. The Free dictionary has it as a 'recording of a song that was previously recorded or made popular by another.' It is actually quite debatable as to whether or not recorded versions of nationl anthems are cover versions, since there isn't any one original version which made the song popular.

"Like Hendrix's 'The Star-Spangled Banner' it's not the kind of song which is originated by a specific artist.

Star-Spangled Banner was written by Key & Smith. They, for that reason, originated it. And they're as 'specific' as anybody else. Btw Hendrix also played God Save the Queen long before Brian." Except that SSB has become America's national anthem. It's like 'Happy Birthday to You'; yes, it was borne out of Patty and Mildred J. Hill's 'Good Morning To All', but if someone were to sing Happy Birthday to you and record it on youtube, would that be a cover version? IMO the answer is no.

"Of course they are, and even if they weren't, one thing is to sing something in a school or event and something different is to release it on an album. People sing We Will Rock You every day but still Bruce Dickinson's version is a cover. Same here: people sing GSTQ every day but still May & Taylor's version is a cover." Don't agree. If someone records a version of WWRY, as far as I'm concerned, it's still a cover version. I may sing WWRY in my shower; fine, that's not a cover, but if my school records it, that's a cover. May and Taylor's version of GSTQ isn't a cover as IMO I don't think one can cover such a song.

"IMO May simply delivered his own version; rather than covering it.

Loads of covers 'simply deliver their own versions'. GnR's Knocking on Heaven's Door is very different to the original, it's their own version, and it's still a cover (i.e. they're delivering their own version AND covering the
song - no 'rather' involved). The Blanks' Superman is very different to the original, it's their own version, and it's still a cover.

Same for GSTQ."Forgive me, I should have been more clear. When I said ''simply deliver their own versions', I meant that May was simply doing what other Brits do every day, he just happened to record his version, rather than covering it.

">>> Up to 15 albums, and what, six or seven covers plus SWAFIB. They were stunningly original

Yes but that's not a cause-effect thing: even if they had three covers per album, they'd still be 'stunningly original'."

Except it is a cause-effect thing. If Queen released three covers on each of their albums (even on albums with 9 or 10 songs) it would make them far less original than if they only released 6-8 covers on their up to 15 albums. When I used 'original' in this case, I did so in relation to the number of original songs that Queen has released. By that basis, I would argue that if Queen had three covers per album, they wouldn't be 'stunningly original'.





Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6328 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jun 09, 23:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

>>> Wikepedia has it as a a new rendition (performance or recording) of a previously recorded, commercially released song.

It'd still be a cover since there had been professional recordings of the National Anthem.

>>> It is actually quite debatable as to whether or not recorded versions of nationl anthems are cover versions, since there isn't any one original version which made the song popular.

So? The Beatles' Twist & Shout is a hell of a lot more popular than the original one and it's still a cover. A recording of Happy Birthday, Greensleeves, Amazing Grace or any religious hymn or national or regional anthem is obviously a cover, since it wasn't written by the artist in question.

>>> but if someone were to sing Happy Birthday to you and record it on youtube, would that be a cover version? IMO the answer is no.

Then what would you call it? There are loads of things in music which aren't black or white. This one, however, is: if you're doing the first official version, then it's not a cover (e.g. Britney's Baby One More Time is not a cover even though she didn't write it); otherwise, it is a cover (e.g. Roger Taylor's live Ride the Wild Wind is a cover even though it's his song, or Macca's Eleanor Rigby for 'Give My Regards...'), and there's actually no more getting round to it.

>>> May and Taylor's version of GSTQ isn't a cover as IMO I don't think one can cover such a song.

To cover a song = To make a version of a song which was first published by an artist other than yourself. If the song hasn't got an 'original released version', it's still a cover since it's not the first time it's issued. So, again, an artist playing Bach is covering him, an artist recording I Do Like to Be Beside the Seaside is covering it, and so on.

>>> I meant that May was simply doing what other Brits do every day, he just happened to record his version, rather than covering it.

First of all, I doubt many other Brits can pull off such arrangement. Second of all, loads of people sing We Will Rock You or I'm So Excited every day, but still, recorded versions are covers. Third of all, 'to record his own version' is precisely the definition of 'covering it'.

>>> Except it is a cause-effect thing. If Queen released three covers on each of their albums (even on albums with 9 or 10 songs) it would make them far less original than if they only released 6-8 covers on their up to 15 albums.

Originality's not a matter of number of songs per album. What if they record 3000+ original songs which are actually ripping off Led Zeppelin (or any other act for that matter)?

Queen's originality relies on the quality of their material, even the one they didn't write themselves. Their cover versions of GSTQ and TWM are original, just like their self-penned songs such as Leroy Brown and Somebody to Love are original (though both belong to genres whose origins Queen had nothing to do with), etc.

I think the correct phrasing would be: 'only a handful of covers in all their catalogue - Queen's amount of self-penned material is stunningly high', since that is indeed something that tells them apart from Beatles, Zeppelin or others.


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jun 09, 06:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Look, it's really very simple. There are three types of renditions/recordings:

1) Originals; the performer is also the author
2) Covers; the performer is not the author, the author is known
3) Traditionals; the performer is not the author; the author is unknown

National anthems thus fall in either the second or third category, depending on knowledge of the authorship.



Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Yara user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jun 09, 07:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



 



 



 



ThomasQuinn wrote:



 



Look, it's really very simple. There are three types of renditions/recordings:

1) Originals; the performer is also the author
2) Covers; the performer is not the author, the author is known
3) Traditionals; the performer is not the author; the author is unknown

National anthems thus fall in either the second or third category, depending on knowledge of the authorship.



 


Hi, Thomas!

How are you?

These are very helpful criteria. They're good enough, I guess. Congrats for the short, but spot-on post.

I'd like you to help me suggest a 4th category - yes, I know we have to be as economical as possible and avoid the use of unnecessary definitions, but I think there's an important one which hasn't been...covered! :op

4) Authorship is known, or there are strong signs for its authenticity, but we never managed to listen to the original and have little idea of how it would have sounded like for the author.

This may enlighten the questions surrounding some, though not all, national anthems.

Scores and sheets don't speak for themselves. Lying inert on a table or bookshelf, the scores mean nothing for us - the music they aim to represent only exists for us, in the "present", insofar as a human being reads it, interprets it and gives it a rendition that other people may listen to. That's when the music emerges

Because of the lack of chance of comparing one's reading of the score with what the original could have been - sometimes it's music from centuries ago  - I think it's weird to classify such a different situation as a "cover".

You take your guitar and plays one of Bach's partitas. You feel good. You know we're almost clueless about how it sounded like in Bach's time and how Bach wanted it to sound and how it may have sounded like under his direction or orientation to people he taught in general. There are huge gaps in the historical record to make things worse.

Then, before you play the song your way, you know there have been plenty of schools arguing for this or that interpretation of a certain Bach's partita. You're aware of that: it seems, you think, that years of people handling it weren't sufficient to solve the problem. Or else: it's a partita which has even been very seldom played and there are just a few "modern" recordings of it. 

You say to yourself: "Geez. But I just want to play the song! Why do I have to know about X's school of...". 

And you're right. You want to play the song, you have the score there, the score alone means very little but yet, it does mean something if you try to tackle it and elicit music therefrom. 

But your version is so DAMN GOOD (:op) that you decide to release it: "Bach's musical landscapes - partitas X and Y interpreted by prominent (guitar, piano, flute...) player Thomas Quinn". To make it even more fancy - "transcribed for and played with acoustic guitar by Thomas Quinn!"      

I forgot about the topic now. Isn't it fancy? I hope you enjoy the titles. ;-)

BACK TO TOPIC: (pulling my shirt and forcing myself into the topic)

Does "Bach's musical landscapes - partitas X and Y played by Thomas Quinn" belong to the same category of "The Who's" take on Summertime Blues (to mention just one of the many wonderful covers out there)?

Can we say: "Gleen Gould did a wonderful cover of the Goldberg Variations" in the same way we say that The Who made a brilliant cover of Summertime Blues or Hendrix of All Along The Watchtower? 

We are entitled to - but it sounds absolutely weird. Then, my point: there should be a distinction between the cover as a term most often used to mean renditions of songs we know (more or less) how the original sound like as we have a recording of it (as lame as it might be) and the reading and interpretation of a piece of paper. 

People cover sound. People do readings of the written remains of the musical past.
 
Callas covered Verdi? Not in the same way that Céline Dion covered The Show Must Go On or Synead O'Connor covered Elton's Sacrifice!

So, I come before you, Thomas Quinn, with anxiety in my heart!, asking you to make sense of this! Would this category be useful?

Could we put some - not all! - national anthems under this category? 

La Marseillaise, for instance: we know the author - Claude Rouget - but we don't have a recording of revolutionaries singing it before storming into a Monastery. lol 

:-))))

Always great to read your posts and "have you" around - you're a Queenzone asset already. ;-))) 

Hug!!!

Yara 





Yara
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6328 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jun 09, 10:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote







ThomasQuinn wrote:



Look, it's really very simple. There are three types of renditions/recordings:

1) Originals; the performer is also the author
2) Covers; the performer is not the author, the author is known
3) Traditionals; the performer is not the author; the author is unknown

National anthems thus fall in either the second or third category, depending on knowledge of the authorship.


I don't think it's like that. Again, Britney Spears' Baby One More Time is not a cover although she's not the author, Roger Taylor's live Ride the Wild Wind is a cover although he's the author.

Now, a traditional is also a cover because, simply, the person who's doing it isn't the original performer. If there's no original performer, then it still applies: the person who's doing it isn't the original performer.

As for knowing what the original version sounds like, we've often got sheets and stuff. God Save the Queen had been composed, adapted and recorded many times before May (& Taylor, by the way) covered it, doing a new arrangement, etc, etc... but the fact is still: they didn't write it, they're not the original perfomers: they're covering it. Same for Wedding March (which is also May + Taylor only).



John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Jun 09, 08:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Sebastian wrote:















ThomasQuinn wrote:







Look, it's really very simple. There are three types of renditions/recordings:

1) Originals; the performer is also the author
2) Covers; the performer is not the author, the author is known
3) Traditionals; the performer is not the author; the author is unknown

National anthems thus fall in either the second or third category, depending on knowledge of the authorship.






I don't think it's like that. Again, Britney Spears' Baby One More Time is not a cover although she's not the author,


I agree, you are right there. I should rephrase point 1 to say "Originals; the performer is also the author, or is the first to commerically perform the song."

Roger Taylor's live Ride the Wild Wind is a cover although he's the author.


No, I cannot agree with you there. The logical conclusion of that train of thought would be that all Queen-songs performed during the Hot Space, Works and Magic tours were covers because Morgan Fisher, Fred Mandel and Spike Edney were successively added to the band, and the group was thus different from the original performers.

Now, a traditional is also a cover because, simply, the person who's doing it isn't the original performer. If there's no original performer, then it still applies: the person who's doing it isn't the original performer.


I still choose to consider this as a separate category, because traditionals tend to be treated differently than other compositions (musicians tend to take more liberties with arrangements, melodies and harmonies for traditionals). I
agree that it is not a hard-and-fast demarcation, but from a pragmatic viewpoint I see merit in treating traditionals as a different category.

As for knowing what the original version sounds like, we've often got sheets and stuff. God Save the Queen had been composed, adapted and recorded many times before May (& Taylor, by the way) covered it, doing a new arrangement, etc, etc... but the fact is still: they didn't write it, they're not the original perfomers: they're covering it. Same for Wedding March (which is also May + Taylor only).


You know as well as I do that sheet music, especially in the case of older music (in this case: before the introduction of the well-tempered system), does not convey all aspects of a composition. Phrasing, accents, tempo, and the likes tend to be left to the conventions of the time and the discretion of the musician. We are, for instance, reasonably sure that the way we perform Bach differs significantly from how Bach's contemporaries would have performed the same scores. In the case of traditionals, there is also the factor of evolution over time. This "folk treatment" means that traditionals change and grow over time, and cannot thus be reduced to one "source" from which all other versions are variants. It is a decentralized thing, another argument I think supports the distinction of  originals as a separate category.












Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Jun 09, 08:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



 Yara wrote:



















ThomasQuinn wrote:











Look, it's really very simple. There are three types of renditions/recordings:

1) Originals; the performer is also the author
2) Covers; the performer is not the author, the author is known
3) Traditionals; the performer is not the author; the author is unknown

National anthems thus fall in either the second or third category, depending on knowledge of the authorship.










Hi, Thomas!

How are you?


Very well, thank you. What about yourself?

These are very helpful criteria. They're good enough, I guess. Congrats for the short, but spot-on post.


Thank you. I made one adaption to the first category after I read the response from Sebastian, as I had completely forgotten about the concept of songsmiths.

I'd like you to help me suggest a 4th category - yes, I know we have to be as economical as possible and avoid the use of unnecessary definitions, but I think there's an important one which hasn't been...covered! :op

4) Authorship is known, or there are strong signs for its authenticity, but we never managed to listen to the original and have little idea of how it would have sounded like for the author. This may enlighten the questions surrounding some, though not all, national anthems.


I would be inclined to include this under (3) unless, as is the case with some of the examples you give below, there is one original notated version from which all others are derived. The reason for this would be the "folk treatment" I described in my response to Sebastian above, from which those 'set in stone' (i.e. those that were notated and remained unchanged afterwards) are obviously excluded. I do indeed think that your fourth category makes sense.


Scores and sheets don't speak for themselves. Lying inert on a table or bookshelf, the scores mean nothing for us - the music they aim to represent only exists for us, in the "present", insofar as a human being reads it, interprets it and gives it a rendition that other people may listen to. That's when the music emerges. Because of the lack of chance of comparing one's reading of the score with what the original could have been - sometimes it's music fromcenturies ago - I think it's weird to classify such a different situation as a "cover".


I couldn't possibly say it any better.



You take your guitar and plays one of Bach's partitas. You feel good. You know we're almost clueless about how it sounded like in Bach's time and how Bach wanted it to sound and how it may have sounded like under his direction or orientation to people he taught in general. There are huge gaps in the historical record to make things worse.

Then, before you play the song your way, you know there have been plenty of schools arguing for this or that interpretation of a certain Bach's partita. You're aware of that: it seems, you think, that years of people handling it weren't sufficient to solve the problem. Or else: it's a partita which has even been very seldom played and there are just a few "modern" recordings of it. 

You say to yourself: "Geez. But I just want to play the song! Why do I have to know about X's school of...". 

And you're right. You want to play the song, you have the score there, the score alone means very little but yet, it does mean something if you try to tackle it and elicit music therefrom. 

But your version is so DAMN GOOD (:op) that you decide to release it: "Bach's musical landscapes - partitas X and Y interpreted by prominent (guitar, piano, flute...) player Thomas Quinn". To make it even more fancy - "transcribed for and played with acoustic guitar by Thomas Quinn!"      

I forgot about the topic now. Isn't it fancy? I hope you enjoy the titles. ;-)

BACK TO TOPIC: (pulling my shirt and forcing myself into the topic)

Does "Bach's musical landscapes - partitas X and Y played by Thomas Quinn" belong to the same category of "The Who's" take on Summertime Blues (to mention just one of the many wonderful covers out there)?

Can we say: "Gleen Gould did a wonderful cover of the Goldberg Variations" in the same way we say that The Who made a brilliant cover of Summertime Blues or Hendrix of All Along The Watchtower? 

We are entitled to - but it sounds absolutely weird. Then, my point: there should be a distinction between the cover as a term most often used to mean renditions of songs we know (more or less) how the original sound like as we have a recording of it (as lame as it might be) and the reading and interpretation of a piece of paper. 

People cover sound. People do readings of the written remains of the musical past.
 
Callas covered Verdi? Not in the same way that Céline Dion covered The Show Must Go On or Synead O'Connor covered Elton's Sacrifice!

So, I come before you, Thomas Quinn, with anxiety in my heart!, asking you to make sense of this! Would this category be useful?

Could we put some - not all! - national anthems under this category? 

La Marseillaise, for instance: we know the author - Claude Rouget - but we don't have a recording of revolutionaries singing it before storming into a Monastery. lol 

:-))))

Always great to read your posts and "have you" around - you're a Queenzone asset already. ;-))) 

Hug!!!

Yara 




As I wrote above, I think it would make sense to count most national anthems under the (3) category, as they tend to grow and develop over time. However, you do name quite a few examples (and I would have to count some national anthems like the Marseillaise and the Star Spangled Banner, both relatively young anthems, amongst them), especially classical music, which was the earliest western music to be notated, that merit a separate category. It appears that it is not quite as simple as I supposed in my original post.

Oh, and I'm glad to hear that you appreciate my posts ^^ I would say that you are more qualified to the title of "QueenZone asset" than I am; whilst I tend to just throw a few thoughts around, you build up and analyse a repository of information, thus clearing the way for an insightful and constructive discussion. And yes, that is rare on an internet forum. :P

Love,

TQ



Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus