Cover Songs

There are good covers (Imagination by the Rolling Stones, I Believe in Miracles by Pearl Jam) and there are bad covers (Simple Man by Shinedown, Billie Jean by Chris Cornell). I was listening to some music today when I got to thinking about what makes a good cover song, what makes a bad one, and if releasing cover songs is akin to selling out.

As you may have already surmised, I think it is possible to record and even release good cover songs. The Rolling Stones, the Beatles, the Animals, and virtually every other band from that era did. From House of the Rising Sun to Harlem Shuffle, great bands have released great cover songs, and there are some keys to releasing good ones.

The band should truly respect and enjoy the band and song being covered. When the Beatles and the Rolling Stones both recorded Chuck Berry covers in 1963 (Roll Over Beethoven and Come On, respectively), they fulfilled this requirement (the Stones broke one of my fundamental rules, but we'll get to that later). Both bands were highly influenced by Berry. John Lennon once opined, "If you tried to give rock and roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." Keith Richards, while inducting Berry into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame said, "It's hard for me to induct Chuck Berry, because I lifted every lick he ever played." On the other hand, when a band like Guns n Roses covers Since I Don't Have You by the Skyliners, it comes off as a bad joke.

A band should NEVER release a cover as their first single. There's nothing worse than a band (or record label) trying to sell a mediocre band by choosing to release a cover as their first single (had anyone ever heard of Shinedown before their version of Simple Man?). Here's where we come back to the Rolling Stones' cover of Come On. It was their first single. If there is any way I can justify this violation, it is that Chuck Berry and Come On were not well known in England, or even in much of North America at the time.

Which leads to another key: a really good cover song should take a little known track and make it something special. When Eddie Vedder turned Indio's Hard Sun into a smash hit, he followed this key.

A slightly different take on the previous key is to take a song and make it your own. The aforementioned Chris Cornell version of Billie Jean changed the song entirely. While I'm not a fan of the version, Cornell had the right idea. The Rolling Stones' version of Imagination (originially by the Temptations) took a smooth, doo wop song and made it a genuine Stones' rocker. When Run DMC covered Aerosmith's Walk this Way, they helped rap break into the mainstream, and even helped create a new genre of music defined by bands such as Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park.

In the early days of rock and roll, recording a cover song was considered very normal. Artists would record, and often even release, another artist's song, sometimes even concurrently. Now, releasing a cover song has a negative connotation, after all, the easiest way to record a hit song is to re-record an old hit. But when done properly, cover songs can be respectable, can be cool. Otherwise, they're just annoying.

On a similar note - I'm almost always 100% against sampling. Some of the worst offenders: Vanilla Ice stealing Under Pressure; P. Diddy stealing Let's Dance...

*For an example of the difference between a good cover and a bad cover check out David Bowie and Mick Jagger's version of Dancing in the Street and contrast that with Van Halen's version.

Election Prediction

The venerable Mr. McIver emailed me a few days ago asking if I was willing to make a friendly prediction about the results of the October 14th election. I obliged, and here was my prediction:

Tories (currently 127) between 115 and 120 seats.

Liberals (currently 95) between 110 and 115 seats.

The Bloc (currently 48) will lose seats, the NDP (currently 30) will stay about the same, and the Greens (currently 1) will have a coming-out party (official party status?).

And...

Another election within a year or two...

Old Politics, New Party

There is a little known tradition in Canada. Though few people could tell you about it, it happens as sure as the sun rises. What is it? The pre-election spending spree. Yup, in the weeks and months leading up to an election call, the governing party launches a spending spree. The Liberals did it, and now the Tories are doing it. PMSH has spent over $8.8 billion since June - $6 billion of that in a mere 7 days! I guess Stephen Harper just doesn't know how to win votes without spending money. I wonder if the Tories have enough money to buy another minority government?

Can we trust a party that relies on money to buy votes? I don't think so - especially not when that party has no regard for the law.

Harper Finally Pulls the Trigger

It is official. On October 14th Canadians will go to the polls (or at least slightly over half of all eligible voters will). Prime Minister Stephen Harper finally made the trip to Rideau Hall and asked Governor General Michealle Jean to dissolve the government.

Stephen Harper decided that Parliament was "disfunctional" - that work could not get done because party philosophies were too dichotomic. Nevermind that his party has never lost a confidence vote (having faced 40 or so in 2 years). How can a government with that kind of success rate be disfunctional? The answer lies squarely on the shoulders of Harper and his minions. PMSH's strategy in Commons committees has been to stonewall, filibuster, and otherwise stall - by any means necessary. When any Commons committee turned in a direction PMSH didn't like, the Tory committee chair would simply walk out. That creates disfunction. The Tories have also mired themselves in scandal - Bernier Affair, Cadman Affair, In-and-Out Scheme. A parliament simply cannot work when half of the governing party is facing some form of legal investigation. That creates disfunction.

So today, with the opening speeches from the party leaders, an election begins. And things nearly began squarely. The NDP and the Conservatives both launched campaign ads even before the election was made official (this contravenes Canadian law). Remember those Tory ads where "common Canadians" talked about how much they love Harper? Remember the young voter at the end? The young lady who tells us that she'll be voting for the first time and that she'll be voting for Stephen Harper? That's an election ad and it aired long before the election began.

But I won't begrudge these little cheats. They're not as critical as actual party policies. What are those party policies? Here's a quick rundown for those of you looking for somewhere to start:

Conservative Party - Stephane Dion is not a leader, and the Green Shift is not proven. Otherwise, we don't really have a policy.

Liberal Party - We believe in a fairer, richer, greener Canada and we're giving you an actual policy platform to prove we can deliver....and Harper sucks.

New Democratic Party - Some Canadians have financial issues and we're going to fix that by spending taxes on massive, comprehensive social programs...and Harper sucks.

Green Party - We're all going to die if we don't fix the environment, and we're going to eschew the usual political gamesmanship...and Harper sucks.

Bloc Quebecois - Canada sucks - we're going to make Quebec an independent nation...and Harper sucks.

I hope that was helpful.