What, in your mind, is a "cover"?

[Christiern]

In another thread, Dan Gould's starting post contained the following:

I was just listening to Jimmy Dawkins tearing up "Ode to Billie Joe" and it got me thinking - there were a lot of covers of this tune by jazz and blues artists...

Which prompted me to pose a question that has lingered in my little mind ever since I started reading jazz bulletin boards:

How do you define a "cover" as opposed to just another rendition of tune that someone else already recorded? Is Coleman Hawkins' "Body and Soul" a "cover"? Are there tons of "St. Louis Blues" covers?

When the term was first applied to recordings, I believe it described recordings by white artists who performed a tune already waxed by a black artist whose records would not have been played on most radio stations. Presley's "Hound Dog" was a cover of Big Mama Thornton's original recording, for example.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the term is now applied far too generally.

My question was ignored and I admit that it was off topic (sorry Dan), so here it is again, in it's very own thread.

Consider it re-posed.

[Aggie87]

From dictionary.com:

cover version – (noun) a recording of a song by a singer, instrumentalist, or group other than the original performer or composer.

Also called cover.

Maybe things are more vague in jazz than in other musical realms, I don't know.

[BruceH]

From dictionary.com:

cover version – (noun) a recording of a song by a singer, instrumentalist, or group other than the original performer or composer.

Also called cover.

That pretty much covers it.

[Big Al]

What's a cover? In my mind, it's someone doing another version of someone else's song; and by "someone else's song," I mean whoever made THE definitive version. F'rinstance, there are tons of Chuck Berry "covers," because nobody does Chuck Berry like Chuck Berry. His version of "Maybellene" is THE definitive version.

But you take a song like Dave Brubeck's "In Your Own Sweet Way," and opinions can diverge widely about who made the definitive version. Was it Dave himself? Or was it Miles? Or was it Bill Evans on How My Heart Sings? In each of those instances, it's a brand new statement. In the former example, it's an artist paying tribute to or trying to ride the coattails of the artist who set the standard.

Does that make sense? I think I may have painted myself into a coroner.

[catesta]

In another thread, Dan Gould's starting post contained the following:

I was just listening to Jimmy Dawkins tearing up "Ode to Billie Joe" and it got me thinking - there were a lot of covers of this tune by jazz and blues artists...

Which prompted me to pose a question that has lingered in my little mind ever since I started reading jazz bulletin boards:

How do you define a "cover" as opposed to just another rendition of tune that someone else already recorded? Is Coleman Hawkins' "Body and Soul" a "cover"? Are there tons of "St. Louis Blues" covers?

When the term was first applied to recordings, I believe it described recordings by white artists who performed a tune already waxed by a black artist whose records would not have been played on most radio stations. Presley's "Hound Dog" was a cover of Big Mama Thornton's original recording, for example.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the term is now applied far too generally.

My question was ignored and I admit that it was off topic (sorry Dan), so here it is again, in it's very own thread.

Consider it re-posed.

I have never heard it defined as you posted up on the black and white thing, but that is very interesting.

I guess if we go by the definition Aggie posted, then yeah, there is a whole lot of covers being done.

I've always thought a cover was when some one or a group performed a tune the exact way or as close as they can get it to the original. As an example, today when you hear one of these newer bands cover songs by Aerosmith or Led Zepplin they copy everything including those things unique to the original vocalist or musicians.

Edited October 1, 2007 by catesta

[Dan Gould]

If the original meaning was to be adhered to, it became, over a very short period, an archaic term. When was the last recording by a white musician of a black artists' song? I think its natural that the meaning evolved to anyone's recording of any song that is associated with someone else.

I frankly do not understand why Chris and MG have such a problem with this evolution in terminology.

[Aggie87]

But you take a song like Dave Brubeck's "In Your Own Sweet Way," and opinions can diverge widely about who made the definitive version. Was it Dave himself? Or was it Miles? Or was it Bill Evans on How My Heart Sings? In each of those instances, it's a brand new statement. In the former example, it's an artist paying tribute to or trying to ride the coattails of the artist who set the standard.

I still think the versions that come after are covers, whether they become "definitive" or not. And whether they try to make a recording that follow the original closely, or dramatically re-interprets it.

Does that make sense? I think I may have painted myself into a coroner.

[Brownian Motion]

But you take a song like Dave Brubeck's "In Your Own Sweet Way," and opinions can diverge widely about who made the definitive version. Was it Dave himself? Or was it Miles? Or was it Bill Evans on How My Heart Sings? In each of those instances, it's a brand new statement. In the former example, it's an artist paying tribute to or trying to ride the coattails of the artist who set the standard.

I still think the versions that come after are covers, whether they become "definitive" or not. And whether they try to make a recording that follow the original closely, or dramatically re-interprets it.

Does that make sense? I think I may have painted myself into a coroner.

So John Coltrane is covering Julie Andrews on "My favorite Things"?

[Aggie87]

So John Coltrane is covering Julie Andrews on "My favorite Things"?

If you're asking me, I'd say yes, he's covering the song she sang. Took it as a starting point for improvisation, and definitely made it his own (and much better obviously), but it's a cover none the less.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Aggie87

[Daniel A]

So John Coltrane is covering Julie Andrews on "My favorite Things"?

No, he was covering Mary Martin. The movie was made in 1965.

[Alexander]

To me, the term "cover" really only began to have meaning when performers became songwriters as well and their recordings of their own songs became "definitive." Any Beatles recording of a Lennon/McCartney composition is "definitive." The same holds true for Dylan, Stevie Wonder, or Bruce Springsteen. I don't think that the concept of "covering" a song (except in the strictest economic sense) had much meaning before Dylan and the Beatles changed the ball-game (I'd add Brian Wilson to that crew, as well). This is not to say that Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly weren't important (they wrote their own songs too), but pretty much from Elvis on back, a performer was NOT expected to write his or her own material. Sinatra certainly didn't "cover" "Night and Day," even though he wasn't the first to record it. And no, Coleman Hawkins did not "cover" "Body and Soul" either, but this has more to do with our expectations of performers than any inherent value of the songs or the recordings themselves.

Notice that this practice (associating singers with the songs they recorded) has been retroactively applied to Elvis and Sinatra. We now think of the standards that Sinatra recorded as "his" songs, as though nobody else ever recorded "I've Got You Under My Skin." We think of "Heartbreak Hotel" as Elvis's song, even though he didn't write it. If anyone else records it (as Cheap Trick recorded "Don't Be Cruel" in the 80s), it will be considered a "cover" of an Elvis Presley song, even though he has no more of a claim on that song as anyone (apart from recording the first version). Certainly most listeners consider "Hound Dog," "Blue Suede Shoes," and "That's All Right" to be Elvis Presley songs, even though they were written/first recorded by Big Mama Thorton, Carl Perkins, and Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup respectively.

Basically, I think it really doesn't make a difference what we call them. Should Aretha's version of "Respect" be considered a cover? It's practically a different song from what Otis Redding recorded.

[RDK]

What's a cover? In my mind, it's someone doing another version of someone else's song; and by "someone else's song," I mean whoever made THE definitive version. F'rinstance, there are tons of Chuck Berry "covers," because nobody does Chuck Berry like Chuck Berry. His version of "Maybellene" is THE definitive version.

But you take a song like Dave Brubeck's "In Your Own Sweet Way," and opinions can diverge widely about who made the definitive version. Was it Dave himself? Or was it Miles? Or was it Bill Evans on How My Heart Sings? In each of those instances, it's a brand new statement. In the former example, it's an artist paying tribute to or trying to ride the coattails of the artist who set the standard.

Does that make sense? I think I may have painted myself into a coroner.

May not be a technically correct definition - as Dan has noted, it's original meaning is no longer relevant - but I'll take it.

[catesta]

Basically, I think it really doesn't make a difference what we call them. Should Aretha's version of "Respect" be considered a cover? It's practically a different song from what Otis Redding recorded.

I would answer, no.

That is a rendition or "her" version of the same song.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

If the original meaning was to be adhered to, it became, over a very short period, an archaic term. When was the last recording by a white musician of a black artists' song? I think its natural that the meaning evolved to anyone's recording of any song that is associated with someone else.

I frankly do not understand why Chris and MG have such a problem with this evolution in terminology.

Well, the reason I have a problem with it is because it leaves a meaning without a word to express it. When I want to describe the operation of recording a new song, of obvious hit potential, by a different artist, specifically in order to steal sales from the original recording, I no longer have a word that means precisely that. Because the word that DID mean precisely that has been used for something related but so common and innocuous that it lacks impact in relation to the specific meaning, which is truly worthy of being singled out as a practice that should be greatly deprecated.

MG

[Aggie87]

If the original meaning was to be adhered to, it became, over a very short period, an archaic term. When was the last recording by a white musician of a black artists' song? I think its natural that the meaning evolved to anyone's recording of any song that is associated with someone else.

I frankly do not understand why Chris and MG have such a problem with this evolution in terminology.

Well, the reason I have a problem with it is because it leaves a meaning without a word to express it. When I want to describe the operation of recording a new song, of obvious hit potential, by a different artist, specifically in order to steal sales from the original recording, I no longer have a word that means precisely that. Because the word that DID mean precisely that has been used for something related but so common and innocuous that it lacks impact in relation to the specific meaning, which is truly worthy of being singled out as a practice that should be greatly deprecated.

MG

Whatever practice you're describing...I don't think really happens in this day and age anymore. Maybe it happened 50 years ago.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

When the term was first applied to recordings, I believe it described recordings by white artists who performed a tune already waxed by a black artist whose records would not have been played on most radio stations. Presley's "Hound Dog" was a cover of Big Mama Thornton's original recording, for example.

I don't believe it was limited to white artists recording songs by black artists. White artists covered material by other white artists.

And black artists also did covers. To give an illustration of this, in 1973 Bob Shad assembled a bunch of black jazz musicians (Afrique) to record a cover of Manu Dibango's "Soul makossa", which had been a hit across Europe. And both singles were simultaneous hits. It's highly probable that Dibango's version would have sold a lot more, had Afrique's version not been around.

An area in which covers were endemic was in Britain, perhaps generally in Europe though I can't be sure of that, where American hits (by black or white artists) were routinely covered by British acts and it was (usually) the British versions that were the hits. Only very occasionally did the cover version improve on or at least develop the original; Johnny Dankworth's hit version of "African waltz" is actually much groovier to dance to than Cannonball's (but it does lack Cannonball ).

MG

[GARussell]

I think Al came close to nailing it in post #4, but I want to disagree a little bit with the concept of definitive.

To me the issue has been, Who was the first to have a hit with the song? All versions after that are covers of the hit.

If a song was never a hit, then the subsequent versions are not covers.

That's my understanding of it!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

If the original meaning was to be adhered to, it became, over a very short period, an archaic term. When was the last recording by a white musician of a black artists' song? I think its natural that the meaning evolved to anyone's recording of any song that is associated with someone else.

I frankly do not understand why Chris and MG have such a problem with this evolution in terminology.

Well, the reason I have a problem with it is because it leaves a meaning without a word to express it. When I want to describe the operation of recording a new song, of obvious hit potential, by a different artist, specifically in order to steal sales from the original recording, I no longer have a word that means precisely that. Because the word that DID mean precisely that has been used for something related but so common and innocuous that it lacks impact in relation to the specific meaning, which is truly worthy of being singled out as a practice that should be greatly deprecated.

MG

Whatever practice you're describing...I don't think really happens in this day and age anymore. Maybe it happened 50 years ago.

I think that, with a bit of research, I can probably find some more recent examples than the 1973 one I mentioned. It's bedtime now, however.

G'nite.

MG

[Joe G]

Dan wrote what I was thinking, pretty much. For people of my generation, doing covers is simply playing "other people's music", perhaps with an emphasis on sticking pretty closely to your favorite recorded version (an imaginative reworking of the original might be something more than "just a cover"). The intent has nothing to do with stealing sales, but with 1) playing music that the musicians enjoy, and 2) playing stuff that will go over in a club. A cover band is one that goes into bars and does just that almost exclusively. This is mostly a pop/rock usage, I would say.

Jazz standards are viewed a little differently: it's The Great American Songbook, so we're simply playing tunes "out of the book". And if we're going to play a composition by Wayne Shorter, for example, then that's how we term it: "Let's do this Wayne Shorter tune." So in organissimo's repertoire, we have our covers, our standards, and our originals.

Really, I have not put any thought into the term "cover" and no musician I've ever worked with even so much as batted an eye when it was used. It's just understood what is meant by that, and the concept of stealing sales isn't even on the radar at this level. You could accuse me/us of being historically ignorant, which I don't have a problem copping to personally, given the company here, but this is the language I inherited.

[Big Al]

I think Al came close to nailing it in post #4, but I want to disagree a little bit with the concept of definitive.

To me the issue has been, Who was the first to have a hit with the song? All versions after that are covers of the hit.

If a song was never a hit, then the subsequent versions are not covers.

That's my understanding of it!

I like your description of the concept better than mine!

[Christiern]

If, as Dan suggests, any version of a tune made subsequent to the original version is a "cover," then the term has no meaning whatsoever and our catalogs become coverlogs.

I think a "cover"--to earn that designation--should be a recording of a popular selection that is made while that selection is current.

BTW It was probably Dankworth's recording of Galt MacDermott's "African Waltz" that reached Bill Grauer's ears (via Canada, as I recall) in February of 1961 and set in motion a scramble to rush out a new version (cover, if you will) by Cannonball. I was at Riverside then and remember the rush to get this done and into the promotional machine. Ernie Wilkins was called in to write a quick arrangement and a hastily assembled big band was ushered into the Plaza Sound Studio. It was a midnight oil kind of thing and it paid off.

[Harold_Z]

My own definition is pretty much the same as Chris and MG's. Anything else and it's just another version, rendition, etc.

Unfortunately It HAS become corrupted into meaning just that for many people.

Riff is another word that suffered the same fate. A band used to play riffs behind a soloist. A repeated phrase was a riff. Now it seems to have the same meaning as lick or can even mean improvisation.

Even comedians riff nowadays.

[Aggie87]

Unfortunately It HAS become corrupted into meaning just that for many people.

Whether it was corrupted to get where it is today or not, I still think the dictionary definition that I referenced above is the generally held definition of what a cover is today, in 2007, for most people who are of my generation (I'm 42) and younger.

Is Coltrane's version a cover or just another rendition of the tune? It's significantly different from the pop/Broadway versions of this song, but it's still a cover.

I don't see why it's that big a deal though. If you don't want to call that a cover, that's fine with me too.

[Harold_Z]

Well...no one said the guy writing the dictionary was HIP !

For me a cover was when Little Richard came out with Tutti Frutti and Pat Boone covered it within weeks. LaVern Baker did Tweedlee Dee and Gail Storm had a record out almost immediately.

Someone coming out with Tutti Frutti now would not be covering it. It would simply be a new version.

Trane was one of many people recording a tune from a popular show.

[Dan Gould]

If the original meaning was to be adhered to, it became, over a very short period, an archaic term. When was the last recording by a white musician of a black artists' song? I think its natural that the meaning evolved to anyone's recording of any song that is associated with someone else.

I frankly do not understand why Chris and MG have such a problem with this evolution in terminology.

Well, the reason I have a problem with it is because it leaves a meaning without a word to express it. When I want to describe the operation of recording a new song, of obvious hit potential, by a different artist, specifically in order to steal sales from the original recording, I no longer have a word that means precisely that. Because the word that DID mean precisely that has been used for something related but so common and innocuous that it lacks impact in relation to the specific meaning, which is truly worthy of being singled out as a practice that should be greatly deprecated.

MG

Whatever practice you're describing...I don't think really happens in this day and age anymore. Maybe it happened 50 years ago.

My thought exactly. Even if it was done as recently as 1973 with "Soul makossa" it is surely now an archaic business practice. Or did I miss the hit cover of "Like a Virgin" by Monday Michiru? No one "covers" current hits in hopes of having their own hit anymore, so the obvious implication is that the term "cover" should be permanently retired, frozen in time to only mean what Chris and MG believe it should mean.

That's not how language works.

However, if it must be done, then I think its up to the proponents of that change to cover, as it were, the resulting gap in the language.