Do you think sometimes a cover version of a song can be better than the original?

Question

Not counting dance remixes of 80's songs as these aren't strictly cover versions but do you think covers can be better than the original or is the original version best?

For example;

How Soon Is Now, originally by the Smiths but covered by Love Split Love and used as the theme song for Charmed. Would people who are not old enough to remember the Smiths know the song through Charmed and think it better?

And Mad World, originally by Tears for Fears but covered by Gary Jules and used as the theme for Donnie Darko. Same thing, if they are not old enough to have known the TfF version then would they consider the cover to be better?

You see what I mean???!???

Answer 1

actually a lot of times the cover is so much more popular people think its the original for instance. "Respect" by Aretha Franklin was actually Marvin Gayes song and "Hard to Handle" by the Black Crows was an Otis Redding song. "Blinded by the Light" by Manfred Mann was a Bruce Springsrtein song. Most of Bob Dylan songs are redone at a high level too. So my answer to your question is yes a lot of times the cover is better but there are some terrible cover's as well. It all depend on the artist and the song.

Answer 2

I think that the answer is probably yes but like everything else there are several factors that can contribute to why a cover may or may not be better than the original. While I am guilty of this myself, I think that people get a little too hung up on the "They stole that song" mentality when they here cover songs. Look at classical music as an example, I don't see a lot of recordings of Bach and Brahms (I mean by the actual composers). No, these were works of art as you will created by someone and have been recreated (with individual variation) over time by scores of others. It's wrong to think that the same can't be true of contemporary music.

It's not all just new folks covering "old" songs either. Some of my favorite cover tunes are "old" folks covering "newer" songs. Johnny Cash's cover of NIN - Hurt for example. Or contemporary artist covering contemporary artists like Iron and Wine's cover of the Postal Service "Such great Heights".

I think the one place that covers are NEVER better than the original is when you go to see one of these gawd awful tribute bands and for the life of me I can't see why anyone goes to those shows..

Answer 3

Yes. Guns N' Roses version of Knockin' on Heaven's Door (original by Bob Dylan) is better than the original

Aerosmith's Come Together is better than the Beatles original

The Saint's are Coming- The U2/Green Day version is better than the Skids original... Just the live version in the Superdome, the studio version sucks

The dance remixes of all the Queen songs suck though. Like the Queen vs. The Miami Project.... Disgusts me... You can't remix Queen songs...

And Green Day can not cover We are the Champions

Answer 4

Yes.... Lets see. Halleluia- I like the versions by Rufus Wainwright and Brandi Carlile better Redemption song- I like the Arrested Developement version Helena- it's a tie between the original and the version by Terra Naomi

Answer 5

Yes, I do think that covers can sometimes be better than the originals. However, you can't like the cover if you didn't like the original most of the time, so most of the time it means you liked the song but were just sick of hearing it, and the new rendition gave you a new ear to enjoy it.

Some covers I feel were better than the originals:

"That's Alright, Mama" by Elvis Presley
"Blue Monday" by Orgy
"Sweet Dreams" by Marilyn Manson
"Turn the Page" by Metallica

Answer 6

While their versions may sound more updated and different, they are not the ones who wrote it. I understand what you're trying to say, though. I like Disturbed's version of "Land of Confusion" better than Genesis'. There are alot of people covering other people's music and rarely does the covered version exceed the original version. But there are a few exceptions.

Answer 7

I kind of look at it like a painting. If someone painted one of picasso's painting again and said look its a picasso, but better! you probably would just laugh, the same thing goes for music, the original comes from the artist and its pure and original, after a form of it has been taken, it no longer is the real version, but another version of the song, so technically the songs are not even the same ones anymore.

Answer 8

I think remakes can be better than originals. For instance, take the movie, The Bodyguard. The song, I will always love you, was sang by a man (I don't know who). Didn't like that version. Vince Gill and Dolly sang it. That version is pretty good, as I like Vince's voice. Then Whitney sang it for the soundtrack. I like that version because of everything Whitney gave to the song. Excellent powerful voice.

Answer 9

whaaaaaaatt? are you actually even asking that question? originals are always better. for example...

another girl another planet, originally by the only ones covered by blink 182. ouch that one hurt because they actually trashed the song with their whole "im a little punk" kinda thing.

lovesong, originally by the cure copied by 3 doors down or 3 days grace or somebody. helloooo the cure are legends why would you even attempt to copy them?

heres the thing. it doesnt matter how old ppl are they just need to do their homework. im 15 and know that the originals are better even though i wasnt born when they were released. so it really doesnt matter about age.

Answer 10

i'm old enough to remember the originals for how soon is now and mad world, and for those songs in particular, i prefer the covers to the originals. but it's really rare for me to find a cover that's better than the original.