Re: Greatest Songs of all Time
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus. Did you even read what I wrote.
[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of us have read what you wrote. Give it up, already. Your point is ridiculous AND moot. The ridiculous part is the idea that the person who wrote a song somehow has a magic hold over it. An awesome song is an awesome song, how is it mysteriously less deserving of praise because someone else sang it first? Here is an equally valid use of your logic: The 1969 Camaro SS does not deserve to be on a list of the greatest cars of all time because it's just a cover of the Ford Model-T. I've got news for you, baby: the idea is the same, it's the execution that matters.
The moot part is that you're obviously confusing "first to record" with "having written", anyway. Many of the greatest songs of all time were written by people you've never heard of and certainly people who themselves never made commercial recordings of the songs in question. If we had to limit a "best of" list like to this to only songs that were written by the artist(s) who recorded them, we wouldn't have 500 songs worth putting on the list.
This:
[ QUOTE ]
For the greatest song, that is. NOT performance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is absolutely ludicrous in more ways than I can be bothered to describe. Let's just cover the basic facts: Until it is played, a "song" is symbols on paper and nothing more. There is no "song" without a performance. Are you telling me that whatever song you consider to be the greatest song of all-time is still the greatest song of all-time when performed by a thick-fingered junior-high band? You're telling me that those musical squiggles have the same impact silently on paper as they do in your ears? I think not.
SpaceAce
[/ QUOTE ]
An awesome song is an awesome song, how is it mysteriously less deserving of praise because someone else sang it first?
Im not even sure this will be read, but what the hell.
How is it less deserving of praise because someone else WROTE it first. Not sang it, wrote it. I agree, a cover is a cover. But the difference between writing a song and covering it is vast. Its like the difference between writing a novel and some college professor writing an introduction for it. Or the difference between someone translating some text. I agree, both aspects take talent. Im not saying that one version of the song cant be better than the other. But it bugs the hell out of me when someone says " Oh GOd, I just love that song that Buckley or Wainwright or whoever else covered it wrote." And your statement that itd be impossible to find 500 songs that are great and are sung by the artist that originally wrote them is ludicrous. You could compile a 500 song list of only stones, beatles, dylan, floyd, and paul simon songs, and every song would be class. And, written by someone in the band.
[/ QUOTE ]
your own comment is arguing against your point. and i never said "i love this song that jeff buckley wrote called 'hallelujah.'" i said i like his version better than the original. just by typing in a list a song name and an artist is not saying the artist wrote the song. you keep assuming that i did not know it was a cover and i'm some teenie bopper that heard it for the first time the other day and haven't ever heard of leonard cohen. and that's just not true. if it were, i would understand your argument.
|