Cover versions shouldn't be direct copies of the originals?

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

They keep playing Sam Smith's new version of Donna Summer's 'I Feel Love' on Radio 2. What on earth is the point of it? Why did anybody (I think I can guess who) see the need for Sam to go to the trouble of recording and releasing a song that sounds pretty much identical (albeit not as well sung) as the original? Even the instrumentation sounds very much like a direct copy.

Surely a cover version is meant to be a different interpretation of a song, isn't it? At least bring a little something extra or alternative to the table?

Like them or not, I'm thinking of meaningful and well thought-out covers such as:
Cyndi Lauper vs. Roy orbison with 'I Drove All Night'
Dolly Parton vs. Whitney Houston with 'I Will Always Love You'
Dougie MacLean vs. Amy Macdonald with 'Caledonia'.
Prince v.s Sinead O'Connor with 'Nothing Compares To You'

If it's a tribute act/show or local karaoke/soundalike competition, then all well and good; but if it's just a commercially-released song that is available to buy/listen to in exactly the same places as the identical original version??? Is it just me?!

Yes its just you. The majority of covers are the same as the original. A cover version is covering the song. No, a cover version does not meant to be a different interpretation necessarily. Whether you prefer it to be is a different matter!

Fair enough, then. That's told me

Really, the same and not just similar, but maybe with a different-sounding voice and arrangement?

Which other covers can you think of (not saying there aren't any) where you wouldn't actually instantly realise that it wasn't the original?

Does anybody else agree or disagree?!

I agree with you OP! A straight copy is just commercial crap - no artistic attempt to do anything other than take the money. Anyone with artistic integrity would surely try to put their own take on a song?

I agree with you OP.

DS and I were talking about this just yesterday. James Arthur's rewrite the stars was on the radio. It sounds near identical to the film. What is the point?

I don't mind them being very similar or very different, if either way is good.

If I never have to hear another John Lewis or Lloyds TSB advert cover in my life I will be happy. Oh aren't you clever taking a song that was once fast and then making it slow, such vision.

Oh and speaking of tv ads - if someone could point marketing execs in the direction of a Queen song that isn't Somebody to Love THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

YANBU OP. I used to have a hobby of collecting the best cover versions I could find. The best ones reinterpret or bring out something new in the music.
I hate the trend of slow melancholic indie /piano + girl covers of everything too.

Case in point (although in reverse): I always thought Dreams was a terrible song as I'd only heard the Corrs' dull cover of it. I was surprised to find that the Fleetwood Mac original is lovely! I couldn't even explain why... The Corrs sucked the soul out of it somehow.

Agreed. The Devo version of Satisfaction is my favourite cover song ever because it's so different to the original.

As to covers used in ads, using some breathless woman to cover what was originally a rocking or lively tune only makes me less likely to use your product

If I had time I'd list my favourite covers.. Maybe later. There used to be loads of cover-version music blogs though.

Oh and speaking of tv ads - if someone could point marketing execs in the direction of a Queen song that isn't Somebody to Love THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

Oh, yes!

It's irritating enough when somebody asks for 'anything by XXX' on the radio or a singer is a guest on a programme and they invariably end up doing a live version of the same, predictable song every single time.

It's understandable if they've only had one hit, or if they only really have one song that people know (I once heard that Dr & The Medics did a European gig with a 45-minute set consisting of 'Spirit In The Sky' over and over again!) - but when it's a band like Queen, it's lunacy.

YANBU OP, a good cover version should make you see the song in a new light.

Oh and making it a breathless dirge doesnt count as it displays a shocking lack of imagination, creativity and talent.

Definitely not just you!

I keep hearing a remake of that song 'it's my fault I'm sorry I know I did you wrong' and I just think why on earth?? The original is shit, nevermind a pointless cover

How are you defining a “straight copy”?

I find Weezer’s cover album very different. I picked the wrong version of
Robyn “Dream On” the other day and I realised immediately it was the wrong edit.

I really love it when people do totally different versions I'm with you! My partner jokes I love a remix! I like the different versions of time after time

Not just you at all OP, I agree.

I'm with you, OP. Totally unoriginal and banal.

Nope! YANBU!

Sam Smith's cover is a lazy, self indulgent rip off. The only way you can tell it s not the original is from his voice, not quite as good, not quite as confident in the longer notes. Everything else is note for note. What's the point? Oh, maybe to steal some other musician's kudos... cos nobody will remeber the original, will they? Noooooooo. Our Sam and his team have dug up an absolute sleeper there Pshaw

Was it Ken Bruce or Jeremy Vine who said, after first playing it this week, "Why cover that? The original is the perfect pop song? Maybe it is the perfect cover... or something"

As you may have guessed, it really irritates me too!

It’s for financial reasons. Basically a “cover” is a new performance of a previously recorded song by someone other than the original artist with the lyrics and basic melody left intact.
If you do cover a song, you pay a royalty to the song’s creator (licensing)
The royalty rate is always the same as it’s statutory, so fixed and not subject to individual negotiation, no matter who covers the song and how many copies they sell.
The book Pop Babylon (about 10 years old, but still relevant) which “follows” the creation of a boy band explains how it works when describing how the bands manager chooses to have his “band” cover the David Dundas track “Jeans on”.

YANBU. It’s lazy just doing a straight-up cover. Something like Van Morrison’s cover of Bob Dylan’s It’s All Over Now Baby Blue is wonderful, or the Barenaked Ladies gorgeous cover of Bruce Cockburn’s Lovers in a Dangerous Time, or anything at all that Amy Winehouse chose to cover.

This, IMO, is an example of a good cover — similar, yet not quite the same.

I agree with you OP. I think it’s a cynical way of making money from an audience who probably never heard the original.

My bugbear is Shola Ama’s version of Randy Crawford’s “Need Somebody”. It’s exactly the same arrangement. Just a weaker vocal

I dii ok think that a cover should add something whether it’s a different sound or a better rendition. But obviously a lot of it is really subject. E.g. ‘The Boxer’ as done by Bob Dylan and later Mumford and sons. I actually prefer the M&S version. But honestly I don’t think particularly different. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily better either. The sound is just better for me.

I prefer covers that do something different. I love both the original Simon and Garfunkle's and the Disturbed version of Sound of Silence. Both do the song justice in different. It's years since I heard them but Marilyn Manson's covers of The Eurthymic's Sweet Dreams and Sting/ The Police's Message in a Bottle were also great. Changing the genre at least stops it being a sacherine kareoke version aka Westlife Uptown Girl or The Corrs Dreams.

I've never felt the love or understood the enthusislasm for any of the incarnations of Allelulia! It feels like a dirge in any version. I suspect that's an outlying opinion though!

Atomic Kitten, Eternal Flame. Never, ever do a cover when you have to bottle THE note.

Always On My Mind by Pet Shop Boys is a great version.