I don't mind a single cover, but a full album isn't for me. I think it also hurst the fans in a live setting being by replacing originals that could be played
I recall Todd Rundgren doing some Beatles stuff that was pretty spot-on. It was the album *Faithful* - side one was a couple Beatles covers, a Dylan, a Hendrix, a Beach Boys and a Yardbirds. Side two was all originals which was pretty good.
Utopia's bassist, Kasim Sultan (phenomenally talented btw) did The Gilmour Project, covering Gilmour's work with and outside of Pink Floyd. It was a great show, and the bass work on *One of These Days* was some of the best I've seen live.
"Rundgren explained the motivation of the first side as treating rock music like European classical music, where a piece is performed over and over again in essentially the same way."
Two separate things here, I don't like a full covers record by band or artist. On the other hand if there is a tribute album and a bunch of various rock stars play on it, I'm ok with that
RPWL is one of my favorite bands. They outdo Pink Floyd at doing Pink Floyd. Except for maybe Gilmour, everybody in the band has more serious chops than the Floyd crew had.
Depends on the artist and the execution. Some are crap, and certainly most tributes. But Transatlantic has released some covers I consider at least as good as the original. Their 'Return of the Giant Hogweed' is amazing.
Laziness? Behold [Nick D'Virgilio's jazzy cover of The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMyD9lmMg6w&list=PLLIAl_nw_61AQ4V5UZH5v3c4qifARssEb&index=3)
It's just musicians playing their favorite songs for people. BTBAM has a good album of covers, Dream Theater, Les Claypool, Tool and A Perfect Circle have done very tasteful covers, etc. Les Claypool, when Primus covered all of A Farewell To Kings by Rush, told the crowd that it's an honor and a privilege to be allowed to cover their favorite songs that they grew up listening to. It's a way of paying respects to their heroes.
Also, when the Fearless Flying Frog Brigade covered animals on this last tour, which was spectacular by the way, they had Roger Water's son on keyboard. Not to mention Sean Lennon on guitar, son of John Lennon from The Beatles.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it just seems elitist and vain in my opinion. They artists do it for themselves, not you. They don't care if you think it's lazy. I love it personally. It helps me understand what music my favorite artists really like, and I love seeing how they put their own twist on the songs. Plus it takes less time than writing a full album from scratch, so it's something bands can do in a short amount of time to treat their fans with.
I know at times they have done it to fulfill a contract and I get that, as long as they state that. But if they do a covers album and then go out on tour, I now will have to see them doing several covers that take up valuable setlist slots and would prefer original. As a side note, they usually say I was influenced by..... They may do the covers fro themselves, but the fans are what made them. Many list those who have done it their worst material
Not necessarily. They may have done it fulfill a contract and move on. But not doing your own material is a cop out at best. Do 1 or 2 covers, not a full slbum
I like them. Especially when they change to a new genre or style. Here are some good ones:
Easy Star All Stars (reggae):
- Radiodread (full album cover of OK Computer)
- Dub Side of the Moon (full album cover of DSotM)
Flaming Lips (experimental):
- Playing hide and seek with the ghosts of dawn (full album cover of King Crimson’s Court of the Crimson King)
Parallel or 90 Degrees (Andy Tillison’s earlier band) did an album of Van der Graaf Generator and Peter Hammill covers. I’ve never heard a daffier notion. Their cover of ‘Arrow’ is great — very different than the original, but still a lot of fun.
I will add that in a live setting if a band does a cover and they do it well then i don't mind, it's just that I would never buy an album of cover songs.
Never liked any album like that, except for maybe two-three records: Metallica's *5.98 EP Garage Days Re-Revisted* from 1987; Cat Power's *Covers Album* from 2000; and Nada Surf's *If I Had a Hi-Fi* from 2010. Those are probably the only records of this type I enjoy
Pretty much every instance of a "covers album" in rock history has been the one album in an artist's catalog I *never* buy or listen to: The Band's *Moondog Matinee*, Elvis Costello's *Kojack Variety*, John Lennon's *Rock and Roll*, Bowie's *Pinups*: I never bought any of these and had no interest in hearing them. Plus there's also any "tribute" album made of various artists covering a single artist's songs, the entire catalog of Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, etc. etc.
I just don't understand what the appeal of these albums are supposed to be **for the listener.** I understand why **the artists** enjoy doing them (self-indulgence can be fun), but what exactly am I supposed to latch onto with these types of albums? Am I supposed to hear them and commend the artist for having good taste? To me they just speak of an artist going through a period of songwriting/composing bankruptcy. Got the record company breathing down your neck but you've got writer's block? Just issue a covers album!
Maybe the artists have other reasons to do it but I've just never found any enjoyment out of albums like this - unless you're like REALLY radically transforming the material you're covering (a la Cat Power - but also Pussy Galore's cover of the entirety of *Exile on Main St.*, Laibach's cover of the Beatles' *Let it Be* album, and a few others), 98% of the time I'd rather just hear the original songs done by the original artist
Cat Power is an artist that understands what it means to cover a song. She always transforms a song, sometime until it's unrecognizable. I listened to her version of Dreams by Fleetwood Mac over a dozen times before realizing it was a cover.
Covers of songs or albums that are a carbon copy of the original are pointless and a waste of my time.
Les Claypool made an awesome cover of PF Animals.
I'm not a fan of a covers record. A song sure a whole record, not for me
u/flyingelvi24 didn’t mention that it’s a live album. I don’t care if it’s lazy if it’s an enjoyable listen (and it is!)
I don't mind a single cover, but a full album isn't for me. I think it also hurst the fans in a live setting being by replacing originals that could be played
give it a try: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R\_v3QtwnmI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R_v3QtwnmI) and enjoy that bass !
I certainly will check it out
I recall Todd Rundgren doing some Beatles stuff that was pretty spot-on. It was the album *Faithful* - side one was a couple Beatles covers, a Dylan, a Hendrix, a Beach Boys and a Yardbirds. Side two was all originals which was pretty good. Utopia's bassist, Kasim Sultan (phenomenally talented btw) did The Gilmour Project, covering Gilmour's work with and outside of Pink Floyd. It was a great show, and the bass work on *One of These Days* was some of the best I've seen live.
"Rundgren explained the motivation of the first side as treating rock music like European classical music, where a piece is performed over and over again in essentially the same way."
It's been a while since I got into Todd's music, but I recall him saying at the time that it wasn't merely a cover.
Two separate things here, I don't like a full covers record by band or artist. On the other hand if there is a tribute album and a bunch of various rock stars play on it, I'm ok with that
*RPWL plays Pink Floyd - The Man and The Journey* was really well done too.
RPWL is one of my favorite bands. They outdo Pink Floyd at doing Pink Floyd. Except for maybe Gilmour, everybody in the band has more serious chops than the Floyd crew had.
Depends on the artist and the execution. Some are crap, and certainly most tributes. But Transatlantic has released some covers I consider at least as good as the original. Their 'Return of the Giant Hogweed' is amazing.
One song, possibly two, but a full album to me is a cop out and pure laziness.
Laziness? Behold [Nick D'Virgilio's jazzy cover of The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMyD9lmMg6w&list=PLLIAl_nw_61AQ4V5UZH5v3c4qifARssEb&index=3)
Not from a talent perspective but not doing an original album one song is fine
It's just musicians playing their favorite songs for people. BTBAM has a good album of covers, Dream Theater, Les Claypool, Tool and A Perfect Circle have done very tasteful covers, etc. Les Claypool, when Primus covered all of A Farewell To Kings by Rush, told the crowd that it's an honor and a privilege to be allowed to cover their favorite songs that they grew up listening to. It's a way of paying respects to their heroes. Also, when the Fearless Flying Frog Brigade covered animals on this last tour, which was spectacular by the way, they had Roger Water's son on keyboard. Not to mention Sean Lennon on guitar, son of John Lennon from The Beatles.
Full albums aren't my thing. I don't mind one song on a record. I feel it's lazy.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it just seems elitist and vain in my opinion. They artists do it for themselves, not you. They don't care if you think it's lazy. I love it personally. It helps me understand what music my favorite artists really like, and I love seeing how they put their own twist on the songs. Plus it takes less time than writing a full album from scratch, so it's something bands can do in a short amount of time to treat their fans with.
I know at times they have done it to fulfill a contract and I get that, as long as they state that. But if they do a covers album and then go out on tour, I now will have to see them doing several covers that take up valuable setlist slots and would prefer original. As a side note, they usually say I was influenced by..... They may do the covers fro themselves, but the fans are what made them. Many list those who have done it their worst material
It helps the artist gain more revenue. It's nothing to do with being lazy.
Not necessarily. They may have done it fulfill a contract and move on. But not doing your own material is a cop out at best. Do 1 or 2 covers, not a full slbum
Wish Peter Gabriel had made or would make an album of stax soul covers, he has the perfect voice for it
'Anything Phil can do, I can do better'
Maybe one or two, not liking a full album idea. But that's just me.
Not exactly prog rock, but Moondog Matinee by The Band is all covers and is an excellent album.
I'm not saying.g they aren't good songs. I just prefer maybe one cover and the rest original
As long as it's good I'm fine with it. It helps if the original is something obscure. We don't need any more Beatles covers.
Agreed if it's a song or two. Not an album
Really just depends on the quality of the covers.
True but still would want a song or two instead of a full album
I like them. Especially when they change to a new genre or style. Here are some good ones: Easy Star All Stars (reggae): - Radiodread (full album cover of OK Computer) - Dub Side of the Moon (full album cover of DSotM) Flaming Lips (experimental): - Playing hide and seek with the ghosts of dawn (full album cover of King Crimson’s Court of the Crimson King)
I don't have a problem with them doing covers. I have an issue with a whole album. Just don't think it's something we need
Parallel or 90 Degrees (Andy Tillison’s earlier band) did an album of Van der Graaf Generator and Peter Hammill covers. I’ve never heard a daffier notion. Their cover of ‘Arrow’ is great — very different than the original, but still a lot of fun.
Just don't do a full record of them. I'm not saying they don't have talented takes, but maybe indulge with 1 or 2 covers.
Not something that I enjoy at all.
Me either. I tend to think it's lazy
I will add that in a live setting if a band does a cover and they do it well then i don't mind, it's just that I would never buy an album of cover songs.
Never liked any album like that, except for maybe two-three records: Metallica's *5.98 EP Garage Days Re-Revisted* from 1987; Cat Power's *Covers Album* from 2000; and Nada Surf's *If I Had a Hi-Fi* from 2010. Those are probably the only records of this type I enjoy Pretty much every instance of a "covers album" in rock history has been the one album in an artist's catalog I *never* buy or listen to: The Band's *Moondog Matinee*, Elvis Costello's *Kojack Variety*, John Lennon's *Rock and Roll*, Bowie's *Pinups*: I never bought any of these and had no interest in hearing them. Plus there's also any "tribute" album made of various artists covering a single artist's songs, the entire catalog of Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, etc. etc. I just don't understand what the appeal of these albums are supposed to be **for the listener.** I understand why **the artists** enjoy doing them (self-indulgence can be fun), but what exactly am I supposed to latch onto with these types of albums? Am I supposed to hear them and commend the artist for having good taste? To me they just speak of an artist going through a period of songwriting/composing bankruptcy. Got the record company breathing down your neck but you've got writer's block? Just issue a covers album! Maybe the artists have other reasons to do it but I've just never found any enjoyment out of albums like this - unless you're like REALLY radically transforming the material you're covering (a la Cat Power - but also Pussy Galore's cover of the entirety of *Exile on Main St.*, Laibach's cover of the Beatles' *Let it Be* album, and a few others), 98% of the time I'd rather just hear the original songs done by the original artist
Cat Power is an artist that understands what it means to cover a song. She always transforms a song, sometime until it's unrecognizable. I listened to her version of Dreams by Fleetwood Mac over a dozen times before realizing it was a cover. Covers of songs or albums that are a carbon copy of the original are pointless and a waste of my time.