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