The Cover Song: Repetition. Imitation. Innovation.

“The author is a modern character, no doubt produced by our society…discovering the prestige of the individual, or, as we say more nobly, of the “human person”. Hence, it is logical that in literary matters it should be positivism, crown and conclusion of capitalist ideology, which has granted the greatest importance to the author’s “person.”” – Roland Barthes (from The Death of the Author)
Nihil sub sole novum, Ecclesiastes

Years ago a roommate (the Historian) and I got in a furious argument about Lauryn Hill’s cover of Frankie Valli’s 1967 hit “Can’t Take My Eyes off of You” (a ‘hidden’ track on the U.S. release of The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill (1998)). The Historian lamented both the lack of originality and the lameness of the cover in comparison to the ‘original’. Now, apart from the fact that Valli didn’t even write the song (Bob Crewe and Bob Gaudio did, which complicates any claim of originality), Hill’s version, far from being a slavish imitation, is, I contended, a unique and worthwhile exercise that reflects her musical genre and time period and also enters into a long-standing tradition in art and literature. By updating the old, she created something new. And, as I added as an afterthought, originality is a false premise to begin with.

While my roommate retreated from his extreme “only the original and unique is good” position, he did not, lamentably, learn to love Hill’s version of the song. He has, however, come to see the importance of the cover song in popular music. Music is one area where we cherish repetition and imitation. Classical music and opera constantly revisit familiar territory; Jazz performance is built on a foundation of standards; Rap and Hip Hop made sampling at modern art form; and the history of Rock n’ Roll has the cover song as a staple of any new artist’s introduction.

Indeed, early canonical artists like Elvis and the Beatles were, at the beginning, cover artists (of course, some of this has to do with commercial viability; the rest of this has to do with re-packaging black music for white audiences). Anyone who has been in a band knows that you need cover songs to keep people listening to you and that learning and performing them is an essential part of musical and artistic development.

Somewhere along the way the cover song tarnished a bit. I suspect that part of this is a modern hang-up about “authorship” and “texts”; I suspect even further that once popular music was transported from its performance context where ‘authority’ resides in the current iteration (the performance) of the song rather than some dusty and fixed constant we started to be confused about its status.

Bear with me on this one. In classical music performances and live jazz shows, the money is for the performers—the commodity is in the moment. Since the dominant form of popular music has conventionally been the single played by the DJ and bought at the record store, the commodity is the fixed ‘text’ rather than the live performance or even the ‘transcript’ of the live performance. So, one explanation for the denigration of the cover song is that technological and cultural change facilitated a move away from a performance culture to prize the fixed recording instead.

Another explanation, and this one may be even more of a stretch, is that culturally we prize originality in artistic production because we overvalue ‘genius’. Some explanations for this phenomenon that I have encountered suggest that in a Christianized world we have followed the analogy author : text :: God : creation and that this implicit analogy has led us to devalue reinvention and repetition in favor of the divine original genius model. Another idea is that in a culture that so thoroughly praises the work of individual geniuses rather than the collective forces of human society, there is a certain psychological pressure on individuals to believe in this notion of ‘the genius’ with the secret and desperate hope that they might be one.

In truth, even the most innovative work is built on something that came before. In the ancient world, this idea permeates poetry. Telemachus claims in Homer’s Odyssey that men are always searching after the newest song—implying in some way that his song is new even as it builds on conventional and inherited language and motifs. In accepting a traditional form but claiming a different spirit, the Augustan poet Horace famously describes his poetry as “Roman wine in a Greek vase”. Imitation takes so many forms and is, like repetition, essentially paradoxical. By occurring in a different time, by having the ‘original’ behind it and in the mind of the observer/audience, a copy is never just a copy. The old is already something new. And nothing is ever truly new.

 

One important thing to say about cover songs: in the right condition, the ability of a song to be transformed and re-performed is a testament to its beauty. The Athenian philosopher Plato gave the world a problematic and interesting theory of “Ideas” or the “Forms” (explained in part in his Republic). In this theory, only the most enlightened may have access to the world of the ‘real’. What most of us see are shadows (in his famous caves) and copies of the ideal forms of things (which exist on another plane). Covers, to make an enormous stretch, are, to my mind, each individual copies or discrete iterations that represent the ideal potential of a great song. Any song that is successful by different artists in different genres from different times has been proved to be at the least appealing and, at the most, transcendent.

All of this verbosity is a final step in the argument I had so many years before and a necessary (for me, maybe not for you) preface to what I plan to do later, which is, to write about more cover songs.

Here’s one that freaks my brother out. I don’t know how well I knew the song “Landslide” originally performed by Fleetwood Mac (1975) when I heard the Smashing Pumpkins’ 1994 B-side. A friend of mine put the song on a mix tape and I have a distinct memory of what and where I was driving (a Ford LTD station wagon 3 miles from my high school) and my reaction (I wept). The feel and cadence of that version is wholly different from the ‘original’ and from the later version by the Dixie Chicks. There is something about Billy Corgan’s breaking voice and the stripped down instrumental that is at once emotionally harrowing while also being true to the musical aesthetics of the time. Stevie Nicks (and the Dixie Chicks) drive me crazy.

In truth, as a guy, the maleness of Corgan’s voice probably facilitated my acceptance of the song—it made it easier for me to identify with/as the subject of the message.  But, most importantly, that the song can be loved in these three very different forms, that it has been adapted to the musical taste of three very different decades, is a testament to the brilliance and the beauty of the song. But what is the song? Is it the notes on the page? Is it Nicks’ original conception? Or does it exist, like one of Plato’s Forms, somewhere in the aether, among and between all of its potential versions  waiting to be instantiated  or substantiated by some new voice at some different time?

To continue the argument…what are your favorite cover songs? What songs do you enjoy playing the most? And, brother, will you ever forgive me for preferring Corgan to Nicks?

19 comments on “The Cover Song: Repetition. Imitation. Innovation.

  1. theyoungerj says:

    Forgiven, I love Billy Corgan. I saw a house he lived in once in Chicago, very creeping looking but very cool.

  2. professormortis says:

    It’s strange…I sort of remember that argument, but I have no idea what the hell I was on about. I still don’t agree with you that Hill’s version is best (nor do I particularly like it), but my argument was really, really weak. The only thing I can think of is that I perhaps was interpreting your argument to be, essentially, that Hill had taken something that wasn’t good and turned it into something good, which probably annoyed me great since I do love the original. Of course, I also love the Pet Shop Boys medley of Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You and Where the Streets Have No Name, and did even then-so my argument is especially bizarre to me. Considering how many people who did covers and, especially, how much 1920s-1940s Jazz I listened to (all about standards) at the time, how I could take the position that I was “against” covers? Though I must say there are many, many cases where I’ve ended up preferring older versions I’ve heard later to the covers I loved first (The Clash, for example, covered Police and Thieves, and I much prefer Junior Murvin’s version), I don’t think it’s necessarily about “authenticity” or “genius”, I just like to see where the song started, and I end up liking that original better. Sticking with the Clash, I must say I love their cover of I Fought the Law, particularly live versions, far more than the Bobby Fuller Four version, but then I’ve never heard the original by The Crickets (I didn’t know until 30 seconds ago that the Fuller version wasn’t the original). I also love Louis Armstrong’s version of St. Louis Blues off of Louis Armstrong Plays W.C. Handy and James Brown’s version of Prisoner of Love (again, didn’t know it wasn’t his until a year ago or so). I’m sure there are other covers I love but don’t realize they aren’t covers….I am clearly not paying enough attention.

    This post helped me nail down why I am so very tired of modern Hollywood’s penchant for remakes. In film “covers”, if we want to call them that, were generally made for a few reasons: a) advances in technology (there were huge batches of remakes when sound became dominant and when color became dominant); b) the source material remained popular and/or fans of the source material felt the first adaptation wasn’t good enough; or c) someone really, really liked the original and wanted to do their own thing with the idea. Generally C) is the most likely to produce something worth watching (though not always: see the terrible 1990s Psycho by Gus Van Sant for how it can go terribly wrong), followed by B). This current wave seems to be a bit of the technology reason with a lot of money making hopes from studios; remakes of truly good movies are usually unnecessary, but at least when someone is doing it because they themselves want to put their own spin on the material the remake can at least be something worth watching, rather than simply regurgitated and slightly updated so that teenager won’t have to be burdened with seeing people in out of date clothes and hairstyles.

    • theelderj says:

      Professor! The funny thing is that you function as more of a straw man in that post than anything else. I believe that your original dismissal was more generational than anything else. But I am pretty sure that you railed against such cover songs and that you were urged on by the Mad Littlewoman.

      I think you’re right that artistic production is always in some process of revision and repetition; in cinema, as you seem to say, the motivation behind remakes, however, doesn’t seem to be particularly artistic. It would seem to be strange to make this a particular failing of the cinematic art (and one not shared with music where covering songs for financial reasons is and was certainly common). Perhaps the difference in product and aesthetic quality comes down to (1) available technology (again, as you say) and scale of cost. Too many cooks in the remake kitchen!

      • professormortis says:

        Oh, if the Mad Littlewoman (I love that nickname, much better than any of mine) was involved I can only imagine the heights of retarded ranting I was driven to. Thank God that particular habit is one I’ve managed to control. Didn’t mean for that to sound like I took it personally, and I enjoyed thinking about my absolutist past self (not that I’ve completely lost that tendency) and how I think about these things these days.

        These days the motivations are ESPECIALLY unrelated to anything artistic. Film is such an odd medium for artistry; it requires even larger sums of money to be performed than theater, is always a recorded, and thus fixed, medium, it involves editing and post production in ways that most other arts don’t (not that they don’t get hem). There are far too many cooks in the kitchen these days, I think.

  3. Lauryn Hill’s music featured in the Rhymes and Reasons interview with Shannon Matesky. Check it out.

    http://thisisrhymesandreasons.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/shannon-matesky/

  4. […] an earlier post, I wrote about cover songs abstractly, taking the time to discuss only one of my favorite covers in […]

  5. […] parody is pretty stupid. It proves to me (somehow) that the original song is good. Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry […]

  6. […] I have written before about the art of the cover song (and my own theories). So this is not an entry about that. Instead, I am interested in the way that technology and the […]

  7. […] As I have tried to write about before, repetition is far more complicated than we like to admit. First of all, repetition, from a reception standpoint, is problematic (even if you hear the same words twice with the same melody, your experience of the first iteration alters your reception of the second.) […]

  8. […] one, is that the song is just damn good. Perhaps that’s why it has been covered so much. I have posted before about how the fact that a song can come through in different versions and possess a common core […]

  9. […] as the Historian and he made an indelible (and at times uncleanable) impression on my life when we were roommates as young cubs. And, besides, Who doesn’t love cross-over […]

  10. […] have posted before (too many times) about cover songs, the art form behind good ones, and the self-promotion and voyeurism of you tube covers . But, […]

  11. […] their theme songs, and their covers.  That’s right, covers (and you believed TheElderJ that I hate covers, didn’t […]

  12. […] To be more frank, jazz can be challenging to listen to. Sometimes you really do need to take a class to know where even to begin to start. Modern and Classic jazz can have diffuse and often dissonant form. The length of jazz songs can be overwhelming and too much bad jazz makes us think of slowly moving elevators and interminable waits in doctors’ offices. But what I love about jazz music is the balance between improvisation and form, the expansive style of individual musicians, and the surprising paths taken through familiar songs. In fact, the very nature of jazz standards calls into question much of my musing about covers and pop songs. […]

  13. […] A suggestion he had was for us both to write quick posts on covers, something he’s done in long form […]

  14. […] this thing a little bit. As I have made clear before, I am a little obsessed not just with the artistic and philosophical status of a cover but also with the typology of the phenomenon and the criteria that go into song […]

  15. […] the past, I have spent a good deal of time talking about cover songs. I have mused about what it means to call a song the same song in different performances; I have […]

  16. […] there, but all of this also goes back to what I find so powerful about music. I have written on several occasions about cover songs and the degree to which repetition is a key component of music; but what I […]

  17. […] as some might remember, I have sort of an embarrassing obsession with cover songs. I have theorized about them (twice), I have gone through an intense period of watching amateurs perform them on youtube, I have […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s