Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!"Wherever I go, there I am"From: e I am)@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA> Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Cover Versions Message-ID: <6314@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 00:00:27 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6314 Posted: Tue Dec 4 00:00:27 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 06:37:10 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 23 Mike: You say that "a 'cover version' implies more", but don't really specify what "more" should be . . . though your original message did suggest that fame and fortune might be it. You're correct, as far as I know, about the notion of cover versions coming out of the split between black music ("Race" records is what they used to be called, as far back as the twenties...) and white music. One of the reasons for some early cover versions was to make a good song acceptable to the bigoted white audience by having it performed by a white singer. I don't think that the distinction I was making was a purely semantic one. Rather, I was trying to separate out the esthetic judgement from what I think should be a purely technical definition. There's no question that some cover versions are absolute abominations, while others are far better than the orig- inal songs, and I'm perfectly happy to discuss what songs might fall into either of these categories, or in-between . . . even though I'm well aware that my esthetic judgements may not agree with those of others on the list. I just don't want that judgement affected by matters like "fame and fortune," which shouldn't be a component of such decisions. --Dave