Why do people have a stroke when there's a remake of a song?

Question

Sure,some remakes butcher the original,but some,like the remake of"Heard it Through the Grapevine",were excellent,in my opinion.As long as the "remaker " is given permission...

Answer 1

Usually people have a stroke over it because the remake is so awful that some of its suckiness gets on the original, tainting it forever. . . e.g. "hey did you hear that version of I Walk the Line in that jeans commercial?" Ans. "Yeah, now I don't even want to hear Johnny Cash sing it...."

Answer 2

There are good and bad remakes, sure, but besides that, what really bothers me about them is that some artists hardly wait for the song to "settle" before remaking it. I think that ruins both versions because half the fun of hearing a remake is to hear the new one and think "hey - I remember this song!" To hear a cover of a song while the original is still on the airwaves just ruins it and doesn't give either artist full credit for it. It also creates confusion for listeners over "who had it first," as opposed to just "who did it better" and I see it as a slap in the face to the original artist, as if the re-maker is saying "Look at me. I think I can do it better" and it becomes more of a competition than an honoring of the song and artist.

Some recent remakes I find particularly bothersome are:
Julie Roberts' cover of Saving Jane's "Girl Next Door"
Rascal Flatt's cover of Tom Cochran's "Life Is A Highway"
Montgomery Gentry's cover of Kenny Chesney's "Some People Change"
Lonestar's cover of Emerson Drive's "You're Like Coming Home"
Stellar Kart's cover of Bon Jovi's "Living On A Prayer"
Lacuna Coil's cover of Depeche Mode's "Enjoy The Silence"

But a supremely awesome cover I've heard is Pete Yorn's version of Bruce Springsteen's "Dancing In The Dark." It'll put a new twist on the way you listen to the original, that's for sure!

Answer 3

Personally, I think it's not the fact that a song has been remade but the real problem is there's been a huge rash of remakes over the last few years. What, can't anyone write their own material anymore? Also, with some songs you get to the point where you simply feel like shooting the next person who remakes a particular song. That's why I'd like to see a law stating that Dobie Gray's "Drift Away" can NEVER be remade again...

Answer 4

A remake has to be done with the utmost respect for the original while at the same time making it into a new song. See Black Betty remake. Some remakes are very good, in fact better than the original. See GNR remake of Live or Let Die.

Answer 5

Actually, the only remake that was ever better than the original was Jimi Hendrix's cover of All Along the Watchtower....you could argue that the Byrds' cover of Mr. Tambourine Man was better, but I would say equal...same for Heard it Through the Grapevine.

Anyway, to answer your question...the vast majority of remakes suck and why try to improve on greatness?

Answer 6

you answered your own question really...it's about opinion.

A lot of remakes are not "true" to the original, some are horrible, some are good but some people don't like change and there has to be more original music out there, isn't there??

Answer 7

Because some songs just weren't meant to be touched. Like some films. Imagine freakin Ashlee Simpson remaking "Stairway to Heaven" for ex...

Answer 8

i don't mind so much, until the remake gets more credit than the original cuz i don't think that's fair...but then again i do cover songs too...
i like the chili's cover of "Higher Ground" tho, that song rocks!

Answer 9

if you redo a song with true expression, it is usually a success.
the problem is today people do covers song just to sell more records, not as a tribute to the artist or the song.

Answer 10

Originals are always better!