[78-L] covers/cross-overs/doodoo-throwing (was: covers)

[Michael Biel]

Of course I don't think that the term "cover" was being used as early as
all of these examples in the 20s and 30s.  I think that someone found
its use in an article in the late 40s, but back in the days of roaming
performers recording the same songs for every label (think Dalhart,
Jones & Hare, Irving the K, etc) it is like dl says, doodoo-throwing (is
THAT a new phrase for us to use?!!!)  Looking at the charts in the late
40s in Whitburn's Century of Pop Music book which at this point IS based
on real charts, you often see three to five different recordings of a
song all up in the top three positions.  These are Doodoo-throwing
rather than covers because these were probably all recorded before any
of them were released.  But the Crew Cuts recording Shaboom and Pat
Boone recording Fats Domino and Little Richard songs are clear cut cases
of covers because they are direct reactions to the hit records already
released and up on the charts.  As Charles Bihun posted, these are also
"cross-overs" as would be Tony Bennett recording Hank Williams' Cold
Cold Heart (which Williams did NOT like!) and Whitney Houston recording
Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You".  (Oh my ears!  Too piercing! 
Too piercing!)

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com   


From: David Lennick <dlennick at sympatico.ca>
> There would have to have been a hit version of "Barnacle Bill" for any other 
 recording to be a cover. Even accepting the mythical gospel of Joel
Whitburn, 
 where Frank Luther's version on Brunswick 4371 is the "hit" (it rose to
the 
 non-existent position of 13 in the non-existent chart of October 12,
1929), the 
 Bud & Joe Billings would become the cover..except that it was recorded
almost a 
 year earlier. Oops!
 
 Song pluggers getting a song played and recorded by multiple artists on
several 
 labels isn't "covering", it's throwing the doodoo against the wall to
see which 
 handful sticks. In the 20s, 30s and 40s you bought the song by your
favorite 
 artist..as well, if performers weren't tied by contract to specific
labels, 
 they could and would record the same songs for several labels. Look at
all 
 Vernon Dalhart's versions of The Prisoner's Song. But is Reinald
Werrenrath's 
 recording of it a cover? (Think I'm kidding?)
 
 Also, Mike's example of Ted Weems and "Heartaches" doesn't work because
BOTH 
 versions were old ones..the DJ played either the 1933 Bluebird record
or the 
 1938 Decca one and both were reissued. The Victor is credited as the
"hit" but 
 the Decca turns up frequently enough and likely stayed in print longer,
on 78 
 and 45. If Weems recorded it AGAIN in 1947 for Mercury (did he?), that
would be 
 a cover.
 
 dl
 
 Charles Bihun wrote:
 > Ironically I was going to start a thread on "Crossovers." I just
picked up Victor 40043, with "Barnacle Bill the Sailor" and "How to Make
Love." While the 78 rpm online discographical project credits Bud and
Joe Billings (Carson Robinson and Frank Luther) as the performers, only
Bud shows up on the label. Both Robinson and Luther are credited as
writers.
 > 
 > Obviously this is not the first instance of a song from one genre
being "covered" in another, with this being a specific type of "cover,"
i.e., a "crossover." I was going to ask for other examples predating
this--there are scads in the following years, i.e., Floyd Tillman's, "It
Makes no Difference Now," even being "covered," (or would it be a new
version) by the Supremes.
 > 
 > Since this recording is form 12/28/1928 and Whiteman's is from
9/15/1930 (?). The provenance is a little confusing for the Whiteman (?)
recording as a dsicography for the song on csufresno.edu credits
Whiteman and Biderbecke, but in 1936, while the online discographical
project credits Hoagey Charmichael's orchestra, with a recording date of
9/15/1930.
 > 
 > ChuckB
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > ________________________________
 > From: Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com>
 > To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
 > Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2009 8:49:20 PM
 > Subject: Re: [78-L] covers
 > 
 > From: DAVID BURNHAM <burnhamd at rogers.com>
 >> Was it you or someone else who was taking us to task a few months
 >> ago for using the term "cover" at all? Insisting that it was a
 >> racist term since it referred to white versions of black hits. 
 > 
 > I discussed the racial component of the word but also discussed that
the
 > general practice of the record industry in those years was that every
 > company issued recordings of hit songs by performers of many
different
 > styles to try to capture their part of the market. The important
aspect
 > of the correct usage of the term is that the recordings be of a song
 > that is a CURRENT hit to try to cover and capture sales that would
 > otherwise go to the hit record. Race is not always a factor, but the
 > most notorious aspect is when hits by black performers are recorded
by
 > white performers to secure sales and radio plays on stations which
would
 > either not play any black performers or would play black performers
only
 > if there were no white alternative versions available. It is not "a
 > racist term" to be banned, it is a word that sometimes describes a
 > racist act and thus SHOULD be used for those instances. There is a
BIG
 > difference. The word itself is not racist. It should not be banned,
 > only used correctly.
 > 
 > Here are examples of non-racial uses of the term. If Perry Como makes
a
 > recording of a current Frank Sinatra hit, that is a cover. If a white
 > pop performer like Tony Bennett makes a record of a current Hank
 > Williams country hit "Cold, Cold Heart", that also is a cover. If
Elvis
 > Presley makes a record of Carl Perkins' current hit "Blue Suede
Shoes"
 > that is a cover, but if Elvis Presley makes a record of "Blue Moon of
 > Kentucky" that had been recorded five years earlier by Bill Monroe,
or
 > "Hound Dog" which had been recorded three years earlier by Big Mama
 > Thornton, those are not covers. (Indeed, the Elvis records brought
the
 > older records back into prominence.) If a DJ starts playing Ted
Weems'
 > 15 year old record "Heartaches" and the original recording becomes a
hit
 > again and is re-recorded by Weems himself on his new record label to
 > compete with his old recording, that is also a cover. If Heartaches
had
 > not become a hit again but he had just re-recorded it, his
re-recording
 > would just be a re-recording. If his new recording had become a hit
and
 > the old record was re-issued after the new one became a hit, the OLD
 > re-issue would be a cover!!! It might also be argued that if the
 > record companies re-issued Bill Monroe's or Big Mama Thornton's old
 > recordings when the Elvis versions became a hit, those re-issues
might
 > really be covers of Elvis! If they had not been out of print but had
 > just stopped selling for those years, the old recordings starting to
 > sell again does not put them in the cover category. Re-issuing would.

 > 
 >> I've asked several collectors and musicians since that discussion
 >> about the term and none of them had ever heard of it in that
context.
 > 
 > Were these people active in the 1950s or have they spent some time
 > reading the trade press from the 1950s? If not, they are not
 > appropriate people to ask because they were not around when the term
was
 > coined and being used correctly. Cover was a term widely used in the
 > industry in the 50s but was not used much in the 60s and 70s but
started
 > to be used again in retrospective histories about the 50s in the 80s.

 > Then in the 90s I started seeing some rock music writers incorrectly
use
 > the term in Rolling Stone and other places like that because they
 > thought it was a "cool" word and would make them appear to be "in". 
 > They had seen it somewhere but had not gotten an explanation of what
it
 > had meant when it was coined in the 50s, so they were unknowingly
 > misusing it and creating an entirely different meaning for it. 
 > 
 > Unless they were actually IN the record or radio business in the 50s
or
 > have done some research about the 50s using original publications
 > actually written IN the 50s, they have probably learned the term from
 > those who have been using it incorrectly. Perhaps you and they can
take
 > advantage of the on-line Billboard magazines. There is nothing like
 > reading the trade press from the actual era. Not just the popular
press
 > written by those outside the industry for people outside the
industry,
 > but the trade press written by and for people inside the industry. 
 > Billboard, Record World, Cashbox, Variety, Broadcasting -- THESE are
the
 > things to read. (When I discuss the technology of the industry, there
 > are some other trade journals I would add for reference.) As for
books,
 > I have seen so many crappy books in recent years on these subjects
that
 > I have none I can recommend without some reservations. Before reading
a
 > book I always check their bibliography and footnotes. Most of the
books
 > are not any better than their sources although good sources are not a
 > guarantee of an authoritative book. (I can think of a recent book
that
 > used me and my writings as a source for certain parts that
 > misinterpreted me and completely screwed up!) 
 > 
 > 
 > Mike Biel mbiel at mbiel.com
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 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.