Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rayssd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!rayssd!hxe From: hxe@rayssd.UUCP Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: Cover Versions Message-ID: <595@rayssd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 16:35:55 EST Article-I.D.: rayssd.595 Posted: Thu Dec 6 16:35:55 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Dec-84 02:29:16 EST References: <6251@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Raytheon Co., Portsmouth RI Lines: 28 Gosh, I hate to just jump into a fray without reading *all* responses first, but here I go anyway: Mike, who claims that a "cover" version of a song is defined by aesthetics or fame or fortune or something, is simply *wrong*! I'm a musician, have been for years, and I know a lot of other musicians. However you may personally define the word, to musicians the word "cover" means simply playing a song you didn't write and/or record first. Period. Why else would all those horrid bands who play in bars and do songs "just like the record" be called "cover bands"? They're not famous or particularly fortunate, but they are cover bands nonetheless. And, no, that's not just local jargon; that's the definition. I admit that it is more fun and probably more meaningful personally to 'weight' the value of different cover versions of songs, and then to accord them the respect of calling them "cover" or not, but I think you'll find that your definitions are not understood by the world at large. (By the way, did I mention that I don't define "song" as lyrics set to music, but in fact as.... Oh. No *wonder* we don't understand each other!) -- --Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccice5} rayssd!hxe -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this article are obviously my own. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Such a foolish notion, that war is called devotion, when the greatest warriors are the ones who stand for peace."