English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i know that girls aloud and sugababes are doing " walk this way " for a good cause, but why can't they make there own songs instead of wasting a classic...
Its not the first time they have done this, done it with "i think were alone now" "jump"why can't they bring there own songs out?
They have enough money and song writers to do it.
What do u guys think?

2007-02-12 23:08:51 · 18 answers · asked by louise h 2 in Entertainment & Music Music

18 answers

because they are too lazy to come up with their own material. i'm not a huge fan of cover versions myself- and people say its all for charity, well i'd say charities deserve better than this! it's an awful way to raise money for good causes. no wonder many people are disillusioned with today's pop scene- it's all bland, unoriginal and plus these types of acts steal other people's songs and make a complete hash out of them. the best thing for people to do is not to buy into the hype and yes sales for the artist will suffer, as well as for the charities themselves- though frankly what else would you expect, as all record companies care about is quantity and to rake as much money as they can, rather than quality, which music is and what should be all about. most of these so called- kiddy pop, manufactured bands are total crap, anyway

2007-02-13 00:03:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Sugababes usually do original songs, so i think they can be forgiven in this case as it's for Comic Relief and they always put out a cover of an old hit for each appeal.

However, I agree with the general issue - Girls Aloud are forever doing covers. Could it be because none of them have any real talent and respected songwriters don't want to be associated with such a manufactured group?

2007-02-13 01:48:31 · answer #2 · answered by toscamo 5 · 1 0

Girls Aloud are always doing crap cover versions and people keep buying, why?! Some of their own stuff is actually Ok, ditto for the Sugababes. Covers are a lazy way of getting a hit as people go 'i remember that tune'. The only advantage is that they get less rich off the sales of cover versions as they didn't write them.

2007-02-13 13:35:40 · answer #3 · answered by black cherry 5 · 1 0

I think the only way you can do a cover of a song is to make it your own, like A Perfect Circle's Imagine, Jonny Cash's Hurt or Fiona Apple's Across the Universe. It kinda ruins the song when they try to be the same as the original - what's the point of covering it?

2007-02-12 23:15:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Couldn't agree more, in fact I'd go as far to say that most current female singers and all-girl groups are talentless bimbos, picked for stardom so sad old perverted men can ogle them, and young girls can dream of emulating them.
If I were Secretary of State for pop music I would pass a law stating that every record had to be original - not a cover- and it had to be written by the singer(s). And that all singers had to wear non-revealing clothes so we could concentrate on listening to them instead of being transfixed by their cleavage.
That'd sort out the talented from the talentless.
(I'm not being controversial am I?!)

2007-02-13 08:30:32 · answer #5 · answered by chip2001 7 · 1 0

i agree with you but unfotunately the record companies are only interested in making as much money as possible in as short a space of time as possible, so instead of getting new songs written they use tried and trusted songs. the downside is that as not a lot of thought goes into the production they can sound a bit bland, which is sad because they are missing a golden opportunity to stamp their own mark on the song and even make it their own. jimi hendrix did this with "all along the watchtower", so now even bob dylan plays it using hendrix's arrangement.

2007-02-12 23:16:05 · answer #6 · answered by sirdunny 4 · 1 0

What's more disturbing to me is the idea of the original artists *allowing* them to use their songs.

It's not like they need the $$.

EDIT:

sirdunny-

Makes sense what you wrote. & the Dylan/Hendrix example is excellent. But that's the huge difference between then & today. Most every cover of a classic rock tune *is* bland & it's a sad reflection of where pop is today....

2007-02-12 23:14:29 · answer #7 · answered by Fonzie T 7 · 1 0

I agree with you. They are pinching other peoples ideas! They should use their own brains lol Think its mostly pop singers that are guilty of doing it. They just like to copy great singers and try and palm off the songs as their own. Cop outs!

2007-02-12 23:13:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

shameless husseys!!!, actually, as long as the copyright owners are satisfied there is not much anyone can do. The only real good way to stop anyone from re issuing classics as you call them is to not buy the records/tapes/cds whatever, if sales are not good, producers will not be long throwing them out.

2007-02-12 23:14:04 · answer #9 · answered by P.A.M. 5 · 1 0

because they are manufactured rubbish, they may aswell come off of a production line in a factory, producers get them doing all the classics because theyve sold before their well known songs and everyone already knows the tracks so they sell.

2007-02-12 23:23:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers