Why do you think bands remake music by bands that are better than them? Do you think they should do this.?

Question

I think that when bands remake songs by band that are better than them, they just ruin the song. Like the band that redid Simple Man, or the band that redid Imagine by John Lennon. Remakes always suck!

Answer 1

Because they lack the talent to write their own stuff and wanna cash in on someones elses effort.

Answer 2

It's when the remake gets more airplay, especially at discos and such, that really gets me. I was 15 and living in the suburbs of Detroit, MI when Martha Wash was singing "It's Raining Men" and now all I get to hear is a Spice Girl's limpid version.

But sometimes a cover gets it right -- 10,000 Maniacs version of "Peace Train" is a stunner, but then it wasn't exactly Top of the Pops either. Or think about Gladys Knight's version of "Grapevine" vs. Marvin Gaye's -- Gladys' is a brilliant piece of early soul, Marvin's is brooding and dark and incredible, how do say one is better than the other, music is richer for having them both. I guess it's about whether the musician(s) understands what made the song special in the first place and what they bring to it themselves. Weak pop stars don't have much to bring.

The real question is why so many people buy it.

Answer 3

I actually LOVED A Perfect Circle's version of "Imagine". It might just be because I'm from a younger generation so I like the way some of the newer bands do older songs in an attempt to modernize it -- not so that everyone can like it better, but just so that younger people can find a way to look at an old song in a way that is more "familiar" to them.

Also, I always thought that someone covering one of your songs is one of the biggest compliment a songwriter can get. Like... what about popular artists covering songs by indie bands? I'm thinking of how the Sugababes covered "I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor" by the Arctic Monkeys.

Answer 4

There are successes within remakes. Look at Manfred Mann's Earth Band remake of Blinded By The Light by Bruce Springsteen as an example.

Answer 5

Very few covers or remakes are good - I agree with you, but there are a few exceptions out there. Lemoneheads Mrs Robinson is damn good, and they certainly were no Simon and Garfunkel. I believe less talented bands need a "trojan horse" into the scene, in an attempt to justify their existance. Also, while some covers aren't "better" - they can be extremely lucrative: see Puffy Combs "Every Breath You Take". No where near the original (iconic song) , but put him on the map to the mogel he now is.

Answer 6

It's always a problem when discussing things with the qualitative criticism of "better." What is your definition of better? Some remakes are "Way better" than the original. In my opinion, "Mr. Tambourine Man" by The Birds is a million times better that the original by Bob Dylan. The Birds version also was number one whereas the Bob Dylan version wasn't even a hit.

Answer 7

They don't ALWAYS suck, but for the most part I agree with you, they should leave them as is. I've always thought to myself when hearing a bad remake that I guess these bands can't come up with their own material that they have to totally just bite others.

Good point!

Answer 8

They rerecord the songs usually as a tribute or as a way to make quick money
It depends on the song and band as to whether they should do it or not

Answer 9

which is the better remix .....victory remix,damn remix,or all bout the benjamins remix mail [e-mail]

Answer 10

bottom line? the almighty dollar!