I mean seriously, these people have so little creativity that they have to take a SERIOUSLY kick *** song and ruin it by rapping over it and just using the chorus? Whats worse is when people recognize the song as the RAP song, not the classic rock song that the new (c)rap song is based on. Some examples of songs like this would be...
-P. Diddy... Diddy... Puff Daddy... Sean Colmes... whatever his name is these days's cover of Kashmir
-Eminem's cover of Dream On
-The cover of Crazy Train (not sure who covered it)
2006-07-20 11:38:17 · 12 answers · asked by Randomperson 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
I totally agree. And whats worse is the image these rappers portray. Can anyone name a rapper that hasn't been arrested for something? Seriously, why do we want these people being role models?
2006-07-20 11:46:05 · answer #1 · answered by OwlHooter 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First of all these songs are not technically covers since they are not staying true to the original song but rather borrowing a beat or line from the orginal song. A Tribe Called Quest did it back in the eighties when they used the baseline from Lou Reeds "Take A Walk on the Wild Side," which is very recognizable, and they did a damn fine job with it. All these rappers are doing is taking the music and art of what came before them to build on and creating something new. Aerosmith and "Dream On" are a good example of this, because though they never actually used anything directly from Led Zepplin, they sure borrowed thier sound for an album or two until they became famous. Jazz musicians also do this all the time, by borrowing a line, a chord progression, or a melody and using it in a solo. Like "My Favorite Things" from the Sound of Music, redone beautifully by John Coltrane, and redone again by Outkast for "The Love Below" album. Also if those artists didn't want thier songs in new rap songs they wouldn't be there. It is true record companies do illicit a large amount of control on artists, in most cases they still retain rights enough that if they don't want thier song used they can stop it from being used. I am reminded of a Beastie Boys song that was going to be used in Kevin Smiths "Dogma" but when they watched the movie they told him no. The fact is that artists have been using eachothers music for a long time, its the highest form of flattery, and just because you've finally noticed within your narrow spectrum of music doesnt mean you should chastise. It's simply something you can't understand.
2006-07-20 11:59:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whilst I agree some of these covers are certainly "horrible"(k, most of them are), there are some covers which are good. Very few can also be called superb. Although the long-established songs are first-rate the best way they're, i would not be towards making/taking part in/being attentive to covers of them, so long as the cover "has something to assert", will also be taken as a music of its own, with a that means, competent to create feelings and it's greater than a (bad) replica of the usual. In fewer words, I normally love it when folks do covers to classic rock songs, however best when the covers have an long-established notion in the back of them and aren't made just for the sake of masking a noted song to obtain success.
2016-08-09 01:52:28 · answer #3 · answered by borja 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm a pure-ist. I don't like much other than the originals. So I say travesty-yes, atrocity-no. Why? Because rock, pop, and country have been stealing blues and motown for years on end. Some say that immitation is the highest form of flattery, but I would rather see songwriters come up with original material no matter what the genre.
2006-07-20 11:46:58 · answer #4 · answered by Ricky J. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well...sampling can be cool sometimes when done right, but most of the time they just use a famous part of a song to get a new hit and it's even more sad that the writers of these songs allow them to use it. And you can't forget that even zeppelin ripped off countless numbers of old blues tunes, sometimes without even giving credit to the original.
How come you didn't mention Ice Ice Baby? hahah that's probably more recognized as the rap song than the queen/bowie collaboration.
2006-07-20 11:48:49 · answer #5 · answered by timn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I did like Kanye's cover of Chaka Chan's " Through the Fire" and when the Fugees covered the Bee Gee's "Stay'n Alive"....they were both hot. But for the most part I agree with you...what's an ever bigger atrocity is when its turned into Caribbean Raggae....It's absolutely awful.
2006-07-20 12:01:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What are the hoping to accomplish? Do they think by using classic rock lyrics that they are roping that audience in to liking rap music or that this will make rap fans like rock? I think not; is the musical equivalent of mixing beer and wine and then asking us to swallow and think it is something great. It is a marriage of music that no amount of counseling or fine tuning will fix, it is in serious need of divorce!
2006-07-20 11:56:58 · answer #7 · answered by bottleblondemama 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah! Like you said, the have little creativity and they ruin those classic rock songs that we like.
2006-07-20 11:43:01 · answer #8 · answered by Glittering angel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea I agree with you. Seriously if your not going to cover it like the original way it was written then don't do it at all.
2006-07-20 11:41:59 · answer #9 · answered by Angel 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I usually like both versions. But I know my stuff. But anyways, leave it up to the musician whose music it is. If they didn't like the idea, then they wouldn't have given persmission for them to use thier music.
2006-07-20 12:28:01 · answer #10 · answered by I ♥ men in uniform 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋