| |
|
...and not just a single song, either: they've reinterpreted the entire Tusk album. Full story hither.
What an odd thing.
Other bands have done similar things: I'm not a fan meself, but I understand that Phish has a tradition, at its annual New Year's eve shows, of covering an entire record in a variety of styles—the Beatles' White Album and the VU's Loaded among them.
I think we can all appreciate the beauty of a good cover tune—the idea of reinventing a song, of making it one's own, of finding and exposing hidden depths and meanings—but to cover and entire album, and a not-particularly-cohesive one at that?
If CVB were covering an album with a strong unifying concept or style, that'd be another thing... or would it? Does the simnple proximity of the songs on Tusk constitute a unifying factor? What makes an album cohesive?
In the days of vinyl, before random-shuffle CD jukeboxes, there was a fixed, immutable quality to albums, and part of what gave songs their context was the position in which they appeared: when I first started upgrading my albums to CD, I would occasionally come across one where the track order varied slightly between the vinyl and CD versions—and that minor recontextualization made a difference to how I heard those songs. Proximity = not cohesion, exactly, but one version of it.
Lot of questions raised here. What questions does it make you ask? Is it, at its core, a good idea? bad one? neutral one? been done before? how'd it work out?
Thoughts, please. |
|
|
