Incorrect use of the word "cover"

Jnobianchi

Jnobianchi

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
1,318
Reaction score
1
Location
New York City
It just occurred to me - and maybe I'm being a stickler here, but I am an editor as part of my job - that we aren't always using the word 'cover' correctly.

If you record or perform a song originally performed by another artist and associated with that artist, you're doing a cover. If you record or perform a song that wasn't associated with another artist, than you aren't doing a cover.

For example, if I play "Fields of Barley" by Sting or "F*** You" by Cee Lo Green - those are covers (they probably won't be very good ones, but you get the idea). If I sing "All of Me" or "As Time Goes By" - which are "standards" not originating with a particular performer - or something like "Happy Birthday", I shouldn't say I'm doing a cover of those songs.

And yet, we all do this. I actually saw someone post somewhere that they were doing a cover of "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star". That just ain't right. :)

I hope you'll all indulge me, as this has been bothering me for sometime. Anyway, back to actual work...
 
I agree with you, John. I don't think it bothers me too much though. But it's right up there with calling the top string "the bottom string", and calling chords "tabs".
 
Last edited:
Ken Middleton said:
I agree with you, John. I don't think it bothers me too much though. But it's right up there with calling the top string "the bottom string", and calling chords "tabs".
Click to expand...

That last one annoys the leaping bejabbers out of me! And...it's becoming more and more common on the old interwebs, too.
 
Well, what should we call 'em then Jno? :) Most of the songs on this site are covers and labeling them as such is sort of redundant. Just my 2 cents. Instead, maybe just mark a song as Original or just not at all...
 
Last edited:
I'm even more of a purist than Jnobianchi. I think that a cover occurs if (a) a particular artist/band has made a song famous, and (b) your version (roughly) replicates the famous version. If not, not a cover. I have a copy of Ella Fitzgerald's "Cole Porter Songbook", and I'm pretty sure all the songs were previously recorded by others. But it would insult Ella to call her versions covers.

I've just worked up "My Little Bimbo Down on the Bamboo Isle", based on Jnobianchi's YouTube version, But it's not a cover because it's nothing like the way he plays it (I don't have his strums or voice) and it's nothing like the original recordings (various artists) from around 1920, and nor is his, so his isn't a cover either.

But in the end, who cares? Not even me, probably, unless I'm wearing my pedant's hat. If you want to use "cover" to mean "I didn't write this", feel free. Even better, don't mention cover, just tell the world who wrote it and who first recorded it.

If you really want to annoy me, say it's a cover of X, where X isn't the person who first made the song famous but is just the performer of the version you happen to have come across. Unless you're trying to replicate X's performance, in which case I'm with you all the way.
 
benjoeuke said:
I've always wondered, which is which anyway?
Click to expand...

The 1st string (A) is the top string. It is the highest in pitch (not altitude). The bottom string on a re-entrant uke is the 3rd (C). This principle is the same on all stringed instruments. We should not make the ukulele the exception.

But the thing that really drives me crazy is calling a piece of instrumental music a "song". It is fine to call an instrumental of a sung piece a "song" e.g. Bohemian Rhapsody by Jake. But an instrumental that has never been sung should never be called a "song".

But what makes me want to commit axe murder (not really) is when someone labels their recording as a "cover of Jeff Buckley's Hallelujah". The sad thing is that virtually no-one does a cover of Leonard Cohen's version (with the high chorus).
 
Last edited:
Jnobianchi said:
It just occurred to me - and maybe I'm being a stickler here, but I am an editor as part of my job - that we aren't always using the word 'cover' correctly.

If you record or perform a song originally performed by another artist and associated with that artist, you're doing a cover. If you record or perform a song that wasn't associated with another artist, than you aren't doing a cover.

For example, if I play "Fields of Barley" by Sting or "F*** You" by Cee Lo Green - those are covers (they probably won't be very good ones, but you get the idea). If I sing "All of Me" or "As Time Goes By" - which are "standards" not originating with a particular performer - or something like "Happy Birthday", I shouldn't say I'm doing a cover of those songs.

And yet, we all do this. I actually saw someone post somewhere that they were doing a cover of "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star". That just ain't right. :)
Click to expand...

My understanding used to be that a cover attempted to recreate as far as possible the original arrangement, though the term generally seems to be used more widely now.

Some songs are quite clearly associated with a a particular artist but have been recorded by many others. Fields of Gold (not Barley) is a good example. It was written and originally recorded by Sting but several others have also recorded it. So if you do a ukulele version, who are you covering? The two versions I am most familiar with are Sting's original and Eva Cassidy's. They are both very different so I wouldn't say Eva Cassidy has covered Sting's song, but rather she has created her own version of it.
 
johnnyfoodstamp said:
Well, what should we call 'em then Jno? :) Most of the songs on this site are covers and labeling them as such is sort of redundant. Just my 2 cents. Instead, maybe just mark a song as Original or just not at all...
Click to expand...

I'd call it a "rendition" if it was a standard or other song not associated with a specific artist :)
 
Well, I guess I just have to continue being wrong and drive everyone crazy because to me 'cover' just means not 'original' :confused:
 
Ken Middleton said:
I agree with you, John. I don't think it bothers me too much though. But it's right up there with calling the top string "the bottom string", and calling chords "tabs".
Click to expand...

I'm with Ken completely. (Is this a "Cover"?)
 
I always thought that there were "Chord Charts", "Musical Notation", "Tablature", and "By Ear". of which only three can be committed to paper prior to playing.

Just from sitting around with Old-Time players, I've accepted "Song" as something with lyrics, and "Tune" as something without (A distinction I've also heard from Marion McPartlon on the radio program "Piano Jazz") - although there are plenty of people who write words to go along with the tunes - "Soldier's Joy" and "Bonaparte's Retreat" being just two examples.

When I think of "Covers", I think of The Bobs album "Cover the Songs of", where the a Capella group does some pretty faithful renditions of instruments while performing musical numbers.



-Kurt​
 
benjoeuke said:
Well, I guess I just have to continue being wrong and drive everyone crazy because to me 'cover' just means not 'original' :confused:
Click to expand...

No need to continue down the wrong path. There's still time to make things right. You'll feel better for it.

Most songwriters aren't performers. The people who perform their songs didn't write them. Are they all "cover artists"? Think jazz. There are a ton of standards that have been done over and over again. As the Professor stated, Ella Fitzgerald, or Louis Armstrong or scores of other jazz luminaries were hardly "cover artists".

I've always known a cover to be what kseigel alluded to: a more or less "faithful rendition" of someone else's version of a song.

If Sinatra sang a Cole Porter number, he and whatever arranger he was working with did not "cover" the song. But if Michael Buble, for example, used the same arrangement, tempo and phrasing as Sinatra, that's a "cover".
 
According to Webster's New World College Dictionary 4th Edition cover is: [Slang] a version of a song esp. one that has become popular in a particular recording, as performed or recorded in imitation of the original or with a fresh interpretation. To me that seems to leave the meaning of cover as quite broad and more complicated than my mind cares to unravel.
 
Ken Middleton said:
But the thing that really drives me crazy is calling a piece of instrumental music a "song". It is fine to call an instrumental of a sung piece a "song" e.g. Bohemian Rhapsody by Jake. But an instrumental that has never been sung should never be called a "song".
QUOTE]

Me too. Why so much? I don't know, but it does. Almost as bad as misuse of "me, myself and I"!
Click to expand...
 
I like this discussion. I think I recall that Leonard Cohen said at one point to stop doing covers of his song Hallelujah. No joke! hehe More, he said it had been done enough to death or something along those lines!

I was watching the last interview with the 1980s new wave band "The Cars" on YouTube the other day and Rick Ocasek said when they were playing their hit "singles", it felt like they were doing a cover! Great comment!

Petey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nickie
Gross and politically incorrect, but basically....
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
Ukecaster
Ukecaster
Dane
Older Ohana TK-35Gs with incorrect fret markers?
Replies
3
Views
456
Dane
Dane
Uke Whisperer
Incorrect Tuning Caused Problems
Replies
12
Views
1K
OldePhart
OldePhart
UkingViking
Help translating word in a song.
Replies
14
Views
462
Mike $
Mike $
Voran
Word game: Win stupid prizes
2
Replies
27
Views
638
kkimura
kkimura
Top Bottom