[78-L] covers

[Rodger Holtin]

Would it be correct to say that an artist making a "cover" of a currently popular tune was an attempt to "cover" ones arse so that he can reap the residual benefits the tune's popularity by selling his own version?
I've also noticed how some of the tunes of the big band days are characterized when the same tune was recorded several times within days of one another and all pressed and reached the public at almost the exact same time.  Which one is the cover?  None, really, but modern Whitburn-influenced writers/critics/commentators would like us to belive that the lesser-known versions would be "covers."

Rodger



For Best Results use Victor Needles.



.

--- On Sat, 8/1/09, Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com> wrote:

From: Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com>
Subject: Re: [78-L] covers
To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 7:49 PM
......


 
 Michael Biel wrote:
 
 It's not really a "cover" in the proper sense of the word as it was
 originally defined and still used at the time of that recording. 
 Although the word has been bastardized in recent years, it really only
 refers to alternate versions released at the time of the original hit
 version(s). Something like this done 12 to 15 years after the song was
 a hit is really only another version, not a cover. By your definition,
 anytime another conductor and orchestra records Beethoven's Fifth
 Symphony it is a cover. 
 
 ~~~