I heard The Residents cover of "Satisfaction" before I heard the original, because I'm strange like that. Same with their cover of "It's A Man's, Man's, Man's World," (or whatever it's titled), and I prefer the cover versions of both songs.
One other song that I heard a cover version of first is "Mad World." I heard, of course, the Gary Jules and Michael Andrews version that's in Donnie Darko and really loved it, but the original is surprisingly bad. I'm impressed that they managed to turn it into such a moving song.
So there might be a pattern here: I also prefer Jeff Buckley's version of "Hallelujah" (despite appreciating John Cale's version more) and that is the version I first heard. Leonard Cohen's version just sounds wrong to me, probably because I'm less familiar with it. This pattern might be pretty universal: do other posters feel the same?
One song that does not follow the above pattern is, predictably, "Hurt." I first heard the Nine Inch Nails version and liked it but didn't think it was anything outstanding (in the context of all the other great songs on The Downward Spiral, I mean). Johnny Cash not only made me cry, but also provided an entirely new perspective to the song, so although the Cash version is my favourite, I've come to like the NIN version more.
Mark Kozelek might be one of the best cover artists ever; I never knew AC/DC songs (among others) were so beautiful and sad. It's really impressive how he rearranges those songs and reinterpret them, makes them totally his own (which, to me, is what makes a cover great, or at least interesting. Nothing is worse than covers that sound just like the original).
Trying to think of more good covers pretty much only makes me think of remixes, such as the ones by DFA. I think remixes, when well-done, do the same thing as a well-done cover - reinterprets the song and brings something new to it. Would remixes count as a sort of cover? |
