Musicians need to put on their creative hats and write more original songs.
Rock 'n' roll doesn't have a rule book, but maybe it should.
Chapter One might address the issue of cover songs. Remaking another artist's material is always a questionable creative move, the musical equivalent of Gus Van Zant's shot-for-shot remake of "Psycho."
What's the point? Where's the artistry and originality?
Instant nostalgia and candy-coated marketing ploys have superseded artistry in today's music mainstream. Cliches abound as credible artists rehash classics in an effort to cash in on the latest trends.
Lenny Kravitz found platinum success with his version of "American Woman," Pearl Jam is back on the charts with "Last Kiss," and Metallica recently dedicated an entire double CD to covers.
No '80s song is safe anymore either. Sheryl Crow does "Sweet Child of Mine." There's also Orgy's "Blue Monday," Limp Bizkit's "Faith," and Marilyn Manson's "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)." Can a post-ironic, Mansonized version of "I Want a New Drug" really be far behind? I doubt it.
Don't get me wrong. Good cover songs have been done. Tori Amos' "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and Run DMC's "Walk This Way" prove that it's possible for artists to truly make a song their own. But that's generally not the case.
Take The Beatles, whose music has been particularly abused over the years. With the possible exception of William Shatner, has anyone ever done a Beatles cover that was better than the original?
The Bee Gees remade "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" in its entirety in the tacky film of the same name. Tiffany's tepid "I Saw Him Standing There" was mall-inspired blandness while Motley Crue's knee-slapping "Helter Skelter" was just embarrassing.
Michael Jackson and Aerosmith have both "Come Together" and lost. (Although, admittedly, there's some guilty pleasure in hearing Jackson sing the words "Toe jam football.") Even New Age label Windam Hill has jumped on the Beatles bandwagon, recently releasing an entire CD of covers so watered down you may risk high-voltage shock by playing it in an electronic device.
Enough is enough. I propose that no one should ever be allowed to redo another Beatles song again. Ever.
But why stop there? Since we're on the subject, there are some groups who should be banned from ever attempting another cover song as well. Topping the list is Guns N' Roses, who killed "Live and Let Die," "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" and "Sympathy for the Devil" before releasing an entire album of punk classics, including a song written by Charles Manson.
Then there's Michael Bolton, who turned Otis Redding's smooth-soul classic "Dock of the Bay" into an overwrought nightmare so gut wrenching you're reaching for an Alka Seltzer before he launches into the first chorus.
Also, no one should be allowed to do any more Bob Seger songs, especially Bob Seger.
While we're at it, urban music could use a few guidelines, too:
- George Clinton should never be sampled again.
- Puff Daddy should be required to write at least one song that doesn't use a sample.
- Rappers should no longer be allowed to urge audiences to "Throw your hands in the air and wave 'em like you just don't care."
Eliminating the cliches and covers wouldn't change the corporate face of popular music, but it wouldn't be a bad start. Then bands might be forced to come up with original stuff and spoon-fed audiences would have to accept the challenge with open ears.
-- Geoff Harkness is the music writer for The Mag.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.