Talk:Cover version/Archive 1

Archive 1

Punk albums

• Amazing Transparent Man : Taking Back The Covers
• Clumsy Lovers : Under The Covers
• Ghoti Hook : Songs We Didn't Write
• Me First and the Gimme Gimmes : Tous leurs albums !
• MxPx : On the Cover
• New Found Glory : From the Screen to Your Stereo
• Schlong : Punk Side Story

User:Michel BUZE

Netscape crash

This is a user-hostile page, in that it causes Netscape to crash because of the way the tables are made, having < t d > without any following < / t d >, and the like. The creator of this page seems to have been unwilling to correct that problem for several weeks.

This is a user-hostile web page in that it causes netscape to crash. I suspect that is because it has things like < t d > without < / t d >, etc.

The end tags for TD, TH and TR are optional, so this should not cause problems for any compliant browser. But there were some other errors in the formatting of the table, so perhaps that was the problem. I've fixed it (the W3C validator says there are now no errors), so it should work in Netscape now. --Zundark 21:16 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it.  :) soulpatch

Is it fixed and may we strike-out the warning? Hyacinth 02:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Numerous covers

Hmmm.. what about songs that have been covered numerous times, like Unchained Melody, how's that going to fit into the table?

Well, if we include all 3000 or whatever covers of "Yesterday", we really will have a problem fitting it into the table.  :) But I doubt if all the covers of any song that has been covered numerous times are notable enough or commercially successful enough to be worthy of inclusion. We can include 2 or more covers in the third column by just inserting a br between them (as has been done in a couple of cases). soulpatch Neon Genesis Evangelion, Fly Me to the Moon.

---

Remove table

Nothing wrong with having an article, although I'm sure it will be ruined by humorless completists the way One-hit wonder was ruined, but it is a terrible idea to put a table in here. It is not only user-hostile, it is editor-hostile as well. There is very little excuse for tables and this one doesn't qualify. Ortolan88

If you feel that way, then change it. The reason I created a table was that I originally had no table and didn't like the way the information lined up (since I had basically three columns of data). Personally, I think it is more readable this way than it was without the table, but if you feel otherwise, go ahead and change it and see if you can come up with something that looks readable. soulpatch

I don't have a problem with a table, but this particular table is user-hostile since it makes netscape crash. That can be corrected without removing the table. -- Mike Hardy

---

"Woodstock"

I know that Joni Mitchell wrote "Woodstock", but does anyone know if she actually recorded it before or after CS&N? If she recorded it afterwards, then probably a note is appropriate mentioning that the "cover version" was recorded before the "original version". Or is it not really a cover if the songwriter records it after the artist who "covers" it did? soulpatch

I just added a list of cover albums to the bottom, and I wanted to add a Chumbawumba album that is called something along the lines of English Tax Protest Songs (1317-1514) (or similar, I just made the years up because I don't remember) and all the songs are actually tax protest songs from a long time ago. Do albums of entirely traditional, public domain songs count as cover albums? Tokerboy 03:41 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

Interesting question. My inclination would be to say that it counts. soulpatch

Another question that comes to mind is brought up by my Joni Mitchell example above. Carol King, on her Tapestry album, recorded one or more songs that she had written when she was a songwriter but not a singer, years earlier, and which were hits for other artists. So can an artist cover their own material? This sounds like perhaps an example of a special category of songs that is slightly different, but related. User:soulpatch

---

List too long

I think the list is getting too long. I don't really have a concrete solution for it, but just to throw out some ideas. We could adopt one or both of the following (feel free to add a suggestion to this list): Tokerboy

1. List covers that hit the Top Ten after 1970 or so, before which it was too common to be worth noting
2. Require that entries include a sentence or two about why it is culturally, historically or musically significant (similar to music video)

I'd just leave the page as it is. As with practically all lists, contributions are likely to slow down considerably in the future. A case in point seems to be remake (see also the horrible debate with Isis at Talk:Remake), but also the List of pacifists. --KF 05:25 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

Fiona Apple

I don't know much about Fiona Apple, but was she three years old when she released Across the Universe? Kingturtle 10:18 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

---

Song?

Hi Everybody, I am working on the german article on Cover Version de:Coverversion. I am searching for a song from the 1950ies, which is a cover by white musicians but had actually no mentioning (at least in the first release) of the original black songwriters and artists (which is an example for plagiarism). I have in my mind, that there have been numerous cases, but i am no specialist in RocknRoll...--Diftong 13:15, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Copyright

What is the copyright status of cover versions? How is it that posting lyrics on the web is a copyvio, while singing them as your own is not? Meelar 20:21, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I included a brief explanation of compulsory licensing in the beginning of the article. The short of it is that American copyright law (I don't know about anywhere else) says that you can record your own version of a previously recorded song so long as you pay the copyright holder an amount specified by law. You don't have to get permission for covers, unlike with samples or compilations of previously recorded material. Does that sound clear? I'm sure someone can clean up my explanation in the article.

In between a cover and a sample

How do we deal with and where do we put borrowings or covering that doesn't include a whole song, like a sample, but unlike a sample is re-performed. Numerous examples exist of the bass line from Chic's "Good Times", from rap songs to Queen. Hyacinth 04:46, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Split

Surely this now needs splitting into "cover version" and "list of cover versions"? violet/riga 16:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - I will make the change --HappyDog 01:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category: Cover Songs

Make a new category? Thoughts?

• Since there were no objections, I just went ahead and did it.

Someone please fix...

Someone please fix this nonsensical string of words: "Thus, their featured artists Feature article: the main article on the front page of a newspaper, or the cover story in a magazine [1].

Lead paragraph simplification - correct?

(pertaining to the Dec 4 2010 revision of the lead) I changed the lead sentence from However, Billboard and other magazines recording the popularity of the musical artists and hit tunes originally measured the sales success of the published tune, not just recordings of it or, later, the airplay that it achieved, in which case the greater the number of cover versions the more successful the song to

Originally, Billboard and other magazines which track the popularity of the musical artists and hit tunes originally measured the sales success of the published tune, not just recordings of it. Later, they tracked the airplay that songs achieved, for which some cover versions are more successful the song

Is this correct? The original is either a fragment, or simply too complicated for my brain - which generally is not considered food (6th-grade reading level for newspapers and all.. Think of all the brain-injured soldiers who didn't receive HBOT early enough - Case Report: Treatment of mild traumatic brain injury with hyperbaric oxygen." UHM 2009, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2009, Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society. PMID 20112530..) I don't know if the revision expresses the same facts as the original.

"Butt Rock"

I deleted the section on "Butt Rock" for the following reasons:

• The article is about cover versions, not Butt Rock, or any other style of music, for that matter. The details about "Butt Rock" (ie. where and by whom it is played) are off-topic.

You have not explained why it is off-topic.

• The fact that many amatuer and semi-pro bands play cover versions is already covered in the article.

The article only clarifies one particular kind of music covered - pop.

• Setting aside the off-topicness, the description of "Butt Rock" given is at odds with the generally-acknowledged meaning of the term.

And what is your meaning?......

• The section was poorly executed and sloppy -- sort of the Wikipedia equivalent of "Butt Rock".

:Completely disagree...Rather then delete (if you think it is poorly executed and sloppy) why not edit and improve? Now you give the reasons you think it should stay. Jgm 02:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Every young band that covers hard rock or heavy metal songs are usually referred to what is explained in the section.

• 2. The section explains the origin of the term and how it would apply to cover songs.
• 3. Not to resort the argument to cop-out, but there is no good reason you mentioned as to why it should be deleted. There are many elements post-1970's that pertain to cover songs. Danteferno 07:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want to document the term "Butt rock", or debate its meaning, do so in an article on that subject, not here. As I said earlier, the article already mentions that amateur bands play cover versions, which is all you are attempting to say, in convoluted and digressive fashion. Jgm 22:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"Convoluted and digressive fashion"? Interesting how you have not a"nswered of the above points - just scathing (and ridiculous) criticisms that just prove you only want the article the way you see it. (Any long-standing Wikipedian would realize if a separate article on this was made it would eventually be merged with another article, likely this one.) I give up this debate - you obviously lack impartialness and selflessness. Danteferno 00:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

AFD on Gabba, punk cover/tribute band to ABBA as The Ramones

Cited in Cover version as "An extreme example of punk cover versions", Gabba (band) has been marked for deletion. You may want to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band) -- 62.147.36.9 11:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD closed, the result was Keep -- 62.147.112.7 10:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Independent genre

I deleted this entire section:

Independent
In response to the increasing popularity of independent music (made possible by sites such as MySpace, purevolume and soundclick), some unsigned independent bands are now covering songs by other unsigned independent bands as a sort of tribute to them. For example, The Professional Superheroes (from Eureka, CA) cover songs by: Neutral Milk Hotel, The Unicorns, Be Brave Bold Robot, The Audio Wreck, The Ian Fays, Thee Eureka Garbage Co., Logan Whitehurst and the Junior Science Club, The Volumen, Tractor Operator, and many more. There was a story in The Humboldt Beacon about The Professional Superheroes.

because it is so non-notable and vanity and full of link spam to myspace (which WP:RS says to avoid). This sort of insestuous scene has been common in every generation of music for decades - why is this particular crop of acts notable? If you can find a reputable secondary source that writes up these covers by these acts as something particularly noteworthy then add it back. - Drstuey 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Blue Moon (song)

I thought I'd read somewhere it was the most covered song or a claimant anyway.--T. Anthony 06:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Beatbox

Is it worth mentioning how covers are often used in beatboxing as a way of expanding the genre and entertaining crowds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.49.76 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Can the First Released version be a cover?

What is correct usage in an example such as this? The Monkees were the first to release, and have a hit with, "I'm A Believer." The single was released on the last day of 1966, and had been on the Monkees TV show several times prior to that. Neil Diamond, the song's author, recorded it before the Monkees did, with intent to release it. He did release it on a 1967 LP, and a new version as a single in 1971. Which is the cover? The Monkees, because Diamond recorded it first, or Diamond, because the Monkees released it first?

The way I read it, I think the Monkees' version is the cover. If Diamond had written it for the Monkees, and then recorded it after they did, then Diamond's version would be the cover. Cubs Fan (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

An answer: An artist may write a tune and or lyrics but not release it commercially. It is the first commercially released recording artist who is normally acredited as the original artist. This does not always follow: the Goffin and King song "Go Away Little Girl" was written for Bobby Vee and appeared on his LP The Night Has A Thousand Eyes, but Steve Lawrence popularised it first - and this was covered in Britain by Mark Wyner. The introducing artists here - having their version released first - who is the original (i.e. the popularising) artist (as with the Monkees' version of "I'm A Believer"). Note: Most tunes were recorded by demonstration artists and sold to record agents, who presented them to their artists for commercial recording (occassionally the demo artist was so good they got the chance to record commercially themselves, look out Ral Donner etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat ons (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Erroneously" using "cover version"?

This has been edited to read: "Cover version" is now somewhat erroneously, yet increasingly commonly, used to mean any recording of a song previously recorded by another artist...

I understand what you're saying, but the point of this section (which I added) was that "cover" as meaning:

(1) any other version of a song 

has become common usage; but that there are some who make the distinction of using:

(2) "remake" for versions released some time after the release of the original. 

I believe that was an impartial account, showing the two viewpoints but pointing out common usage.

Isn't it affecting the impartiality of the article to say that (1) is "erroneous"?

I really think that the weight of common usage is too strong for that, however much I can personally see the point of making a distinction between "cover" and "remake".

Response: Simply because most people currently use a word improperly doesn't mean its actual distinctions should be ignored (e.g. Cretin). A word may change its meaning over time; such a shift, once having taken hold, seems irreversable (e.g. Gay). Again, this does not mean those who seek to know what it first meant - and so the root of a particular usage - should not be informed, reminded or corrected regarding that origin (e.g. Kraut). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat ons (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cantopop

The majority of cantopop songs are based on tunes from English and Japanese songs. So are all those songs considered cover version too? Kowloonese (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A Lover's Concerto

According to the article, this song is based on Minuet in G, so is it considered a cover version? Kowloonese (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would apply, since only the melody, and not the words are taken from the Bach piece. --rogerd (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal situation

This really needs to be explained. The right to create derivitive works is normally protected under the copyright law. At first glance it appears that one would be violating copyright on both the lyrics and the music, but perhaps not on the recording. Does one have to negotiate all these rights? Does it matter if the cover is a live performance or a recording? Who owns the result? What about a cover of a cover, as when the 3rd party picks up modifications done by the second party? If a cover gets played, who (besides the RIAA) gets paid? 24.110.144.116 03:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I came to this article for the legal aspect as well, and am surprised there's virtually no mention of the legal aspect of cover songs/bands. --85.5.159.136 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ditto Livingston 20:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Likewise. This article is overly long, boring and useless. SaintedLegion (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have covered The Beatles

FYI. Ikip (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This entire article needs an enema.

I attempted to clean up the beginning of the "History" section, but when I saw the extent of the rewriting this article needs...I just don't have the time or the patience for it.

Quite frankly, this does not even REMOTELY read like an encyclopedia article. It reads like a junior high research paper--one that would barely get a C- at best.

It would be nice if someone with the time and patience, and who actually knows the proper format for writing a Wikipedia entry, would do a complete rewrite of this thing to make it look more professional and less like a 12-year-old's final grade in English class.

70.135.2.197 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)ELL (not logged in due to misplaced password list)

Agreed. 68.17.232.180 (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

3000 covers

Is there actually any verifiable source for that figure - the purported number of covers of the Beatles' "Yesterday"? I've heard it before, but 3000 is a lot. And I've not been given any evidence anywhere. If that's not from a valid source, it should be removed. --Switch 12:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

i completely agree with Switch, if theres a source it should be in the article [#1k3n!!]

The allmusic site gives only 847 hits in song search for "Yesterday," including duplicates and versions by other composers. I would guess the actual number of recorded covers is under 500.

Well, Guinness Book of World records says it is the most covered song of all time. What number of covers GBW sets for the song today I don't know (haven't read the book in over 10 years) but it can easily be checked. I am fully aware of that GBW are known to be wrong every now and then but I still think that if GBW says something it is good enough to be quoted in Wikipedia. I think it should be added to the article (I couldn't find that "Yesterday" is mentioned anywhere) that it is the most covered song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akedahllof (talk • contribs) 07:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright?

If someone wants to do a cover of a song that is copyrighted (ex. Jerry Lee Lewis covering Ray Charles' 1959 hit "What I'd Say?" in 1961), is permission from the owner of the song required or can you cover the song without permission?

Communismeffect (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The general attitude towards modern covers and copyright seems to be "as long as it is substantially different in sound quality from the original recording". If you look at compilation albums such as the Kidz Bop series, and music video games such as the first three iterations of Guitar Hero, you've got a mountain of cover songs, with little to no apparent rights acquisition. Activision and Redoctane/Neversoft have successful contracts with artists and recording labels now, so that the current generation of Guitar Hero games use almost exclusively master recordings, but previous games were largely done by a cover band. There also has to be some sort of distinction that it IS a cover--in Guitar Hero, the disclaimer "as made famous by" is applied to cover songs; on many compilation albums, you will see such disclaimers as "In The Style Of" or "An Interpretation Of". By all appearances, this is all you really need to do to get around copyright law to record and sell a cover--just so long as it's obvious your version is NOT the master recording dubbed to a new track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.2.197 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In the UK there is no need to ask for permission to make a cover version. The copyright means you have to pay royalties. But once the song is out there you have no control (apart from other uses such as advertising.) QuentinUK (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Factual error about Metallica

This quote from the article:

Metallica itself is known for doing covers; their original album, Kill 'Em All, included a couple of covers (Diamond Head's "Am I Evil?" and Blitzkrieg's "Blitzkrieg"),

...is incorrect. Metallica's initial album did not have either of these songs on it. They were, as far as I know, added later when CDs first came to market, to fill up extra space. The original album has 6 songs on side 1 and 4 songs on side 2, and there are no cover songs on it...you can see this on a scan of the original album cover: http://www.vinylrecords.ch/M/ME/Metallica/Kill-UK1/kill-em-all-51.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.18.174 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"Only You"

Isn't "Only You" originally by The Platters? I mean, is it the same song? KF 19:29 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

I just did a check on Google of the lyrics of the Yazoo song and the Platters song, and it appears they are different.

http://www.reallyrics.com/lyrics/Y001100010002.asp http://www.reallyrics.com/lyrics/P004300010001.asp soulpatch

Yes these songs are radically different, with only the title in common 86.182.222.246 (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Question

I know this page is only supposed to be about how to improve the article, but I don't know where else to put it: When performers record a cover, do they get permission from the original artist beforehand, or do they record it and then pay the original artist royalties afterwards? Cubs Fan 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

An Answer: No. The tune, once published, is in the public domain. Provided royalties are paid to the composer and lyricist, and permission granted by the publisher, no further action is needed. The only time a record company, and their artists, become involved is in the public playing, distribution or re-recording of a published record. It is the sales of this record that earns money for the company and the artist - hence the trouble taken to protect copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat ons (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• That answer wasn't very clearly stated (at least to me). Say that I formed a band and decided to do a cover of "Enter Sandman" by Metallica and I released it on my debut album. Now say that the composer and lyricist was one person named Todd, and the publisher was Spaghetti Records. So does that mean that once I pay Todd royalties and get permission from Spaghetti Records, I can do what I want with my version of the song? Furthermore, are the royalties an on going thing or is it a one time payment, and is there a set amount for said royalties? As for the publisher, is it common practice that a publisher will simply give permission to cover the song, or is it permission in exchange for some sort of cash agreement? This stuff really should be in the main article somewhere Livingston 20:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Once you record and release your version, whether or not you have made an agreement with Todd and Spaghetti you will at some point be asked to pay for the use of the song. Todd licences the song to Spaghetti and they collect royalties, the terms of the license will determine how much and how often such payment is made. You will almost certainly have to deal with Spaghetti rather than Todd and of course they will have a huge legal department. Todd will only deal with you under certain circumstances, eg if Spaghetti are not upholding the terms of the licence, ie not collecting royalties or further licensing fees for licences issued to you or your record company. Todd, and also Spaghetti via their licence, have the right to claim ownership of the original work and to be credited for that work. They also have certain rights to prevent you doing certain things to the song that might be defamatory to them, eg if you recorded almost the same words and tune but with an unpleasant addition, such as Enter Hitler or something similarly offensive. This aspect is somewhat subjective and will depend to some degree on what Todd feels about your version. Hope that helps. If you want more details and can read legal jargon, this is the British law which is similar to most others - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents 86.182.222.246 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Metal reinterpretation

This article implies that metal bands mostly cover each other and keep within the same genre. This stands in stark contrast to Punk, which the article claims tends to take songs from wildly different non-Punk genres and reinterpret them as Punk. However, metal acts do this too, and I feel this should be mentioned. Graveworm did a black metal version of REM's "Losing My Religion," power metal act Angra took on Kate Bush's "Wuthering Heights," and Blind Guardian is practically known for turning goofy older songs (such as "Mr. Sandman" and "Surfin' USA") into epic power metal.

• • Also, another problem is a song is it seems to imply that bands of subgenres only cover songs from their subgenre. What I see is they usually cover a song from out of their subgenre, even if it's usually a metal song, and turn it into a version in their subgenre. 139.228.112.125 (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

But why "cover"?

I guess this is an etymology, rather than a music question, but I've heard that the term "cover version" dates from around 1966. Is that usage because of the prevalence of fake versions which mimic the original cover? Or is it using cover in the sense of "enhancing good qualities"... or perhaps in the sense of copulating with a female horse... no, probably not.

In any case, it isn't obvious to me why it's a cover version. Does anyone have clues?--Timbomb

According to [2]:

• "An interesting note about the origins of the phrase "Cover Song" from Mark Edwards at WICC Radio:
  • An example of a COVER record would be the release of "Sh-Boom" by the Crew Cuts in 1955 at almost the same time as the original by The Chords. The term COVER record is taken from the fact that the Crew-Cuts version, being performed by a white group and distributed by a major record label, and thus finding considerable additional radio airplay, would COVER any chance of success that the original release may have had."

Hyacinth 02:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's apparently a bit late for me to mention this, but according to a definition that I read several years ago in the OED (which I'll track down if anyone is interested), the term "cover version" is derived from the expression "to cover a bet" -- that is, to place a bet on something that someone else has already put a bet on, in order to cash in on their potential good luck. Originally, cover versions of a song were released almost concurrently with the hit version and would pick up sales to people who liked the original, thus covering the bet made by the first label to release the song. (Note that in the era in which the term originated, songs were generally written by someone other than the singer and were therefore available for purchase by anyone who was interested in recording them.) In fairness, I should add that this is essentially the same definition already given by Hyacinth. --Clampton 06:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

When I was growing up in the 1970s, we always spoke of a "remake". I never heard the term "cover" until the mid-1990s, on a talk show, and it had the feel of an "insider" term. I asked several others at that time if they knew what a cover song was, and only one did. In my judgement, this term did not achieve ubiquity until at least 25-30 years after its origin. And I think these explanations for the term are really stretching it. If the term was actually coined in 1966, as the article indicates, the explanation about "covering a bet" makes no sense at all, since that form of distribution was already essentially extinct. This article reeks of speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.232.180 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that more amd more indiscriminate use of this term is not without controversy and have started a new talk below about it today. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Cover vs Remake?

In this article cover version is used to mean any recording of a song previously recorded by another artist. I have no argument with this, as the term has clearly entered common usage to mean this: see, for example, the emergence of such websites as The Covers Project and Coverversionen.de.

Some collectors/researchers, though, distinguish between a cover version and a remake.

They reserve cover version strictly for those cases where the cover appears more or less at the same time as the original, presumably to cash in on the popularity of the original. For a recording that is made some time after the original release, they prefer the term remake.

In this view, the 1956 versions of "Why Do Fools Fall In Love" by The Diamonds and by Gale Storm would be genuine cover versions of Frankie Lymon's original, but Diana Ross's 1981 version would be called a remake.

There are some, especially on Usenet, who have strong opinions on this: see, for example this discussion at rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s: link was removed due to spam filter.

(The distinction may be justified in the light of one poster's explanation for the term cover, that it was used in the sense of covering your bets, that is, making sure you benefited financially from a current hit. Hyacinth has also mentioned this above.)

I'm not suggesting that the whole article be redrafted to emphasise this distinction, because I believe cover, whatever its origin, is widely enough used in the broader sense to justify its use in this way.

But perhaps the distinction should be mentioned somewhere in the article (if only as a caution against loosely using the word cover in one of the more robust music Newsgroups).

Lyn50 22:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that more amd more indiscriminate use of this term is not without controversy and have started a new talk below about it today. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Cover" can be controversial

The more and more indiscriminate use of this term is not without controversy, especially in international use of the English word cover which now is common in most other languages.

I have long been irritated at this article and at other latter-day sources for cementing it and spreading it. Or, I should say, more sad than irritated.

As others have pointed out above:

• There is and should be a difference between a cover and a remake;
• The cover of a song has always been intended to increase economic gain to its rights owners and for those covering it.

The remake of a song - which I think actually should be called a song interpretation - is (supposed to be) done without (overt) financial considerations, and when older and/or less known songs (internationally) are remade that is often done primarily as a tribute to excellent musical and poetic material, and sometimes to an original performer.

There is supposed to be some actual art involved in that artistry too, not only when original songs are sung and recorded for the first time.

Before writing this, I've discussed the matter again with some of my older friends in international entertainment. There is a sense that it can be, and often is, perceived as derogatory to say that somone covers songs, not only because of the financial interest factor, but also because - to make a bit of a statement against the widespread performer arrogance of today - a singer cannot cover a great song, because to be a great song it would have to cover the singer interpreting it at h best.

Today, the use of covers is often frowned upon and ridiculed by media and industry people who have redefined singers to be people who either must write their own songs or accept some weird undefined position in entertainment as worth less, if not worthless. That's very unfortunate, mainly because young people starting out as singers often can demonstrate their ability much more clearly when interpreting famous and great songs than by trying to sell themselves and their own material at one and the same time.

If any of you have ever seen anything published which would support anything I've written here, it would be very nice to have it added to the article. If not, I'll just keep my sadness to myself. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Are musicians and bands really "acts"?

Sorry if I am posting this in the wrong place, but I just hate it when, on a certain infobox for a certain artist or band's article, the last item is "Related ACT(S)" rather than "Related SINGER(S)" or "Related BAND(S)". What do you think you're doing confusing music artists/songwriters/bands with theater/theatre/movie/television actors/actresses? Huh? Please explain that. --Marce 12:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fandelasketchup (talk • contribs)

It is a perfectly normal use of language to abbreviate "musical act" to "act". Not a problem. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Let's not denigrate acts, for w/o them there would be no art on any stage anywhere! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen "artist(s)" used more commonly as a catch all for "band(s)/singer(s)/etc" -- Chuq (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cover version. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090103065806/http://museum.woolworths.co.uk:80/1950s-embassyrecords.htm to http://museum.woolworths.co.uk/1950s-embassyrecords.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120722162610/http://www.don-mclean.com/forum2/view.asp?topic=5432&s=Definition+of+a+Cover+Version&l=True to http://www.don-mclean.com/forum2/view.asp?topic=5432&s=Definition+of+a+Cover+Version&l=True

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed the first citation, as it did not seem to verify the source, fixed the other wayback link. Eman235/talk 22:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cover version. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121185725/http://www.cashboxmagazine.com/archives/50s_files/19521011.html to http://www.cashboxmagazine.com/archives/50s_files/19521011.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122043551/http://www.cashboxmagazine.com/archives/50s_files/19560303.html to http://www.cashboxmagazine.com/archives/50s_files/19560303.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.don-mclean.com/forum2/view.asp?topic=5432&s=Definition
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122001651/http://www.cashboxmagazine.com/archives/50s_files/19550521.html to http://www.cashboxmagazine.com/archives/50s_files/19550521.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091111055259/http://www.cashboxmagazine.com:80/archives/60s_files/19650828.html to http://www.cashboxmagazine.com/archives/60s_files/19650828.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of Cover compared to Version

According to music writer Art Fein on Facebook, a cover is a blitz release version by another artist to hijack the success of the original song which was just released. A normal version is something you usually publish later when the original is no longer in the race to storm the charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.28.187 (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I read the whole thing, and the more I read the more mystified I was.

Rogers and Hart write a song for a musical. It catches on and lots of good singers sing it, or instrumentalist play it, with different interpretations (majorly, or minorly different) often with varying success i.e. sales, or critical reception. That much I understand without any explanation and avoiding the use of the word "cover" altogether. I don't understand the need for the term. Yes it says that someone else previously sang or, actually, was recorded previously doing the same song. Since that used to be utterly unsurprising, why bother? Use of this word indicates knowledge that is trivial and hence makes one appear naïve rather than sophisticated in keeping with America's endemic childishness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.37.70 (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. And what's worse, many singers of the conceited variety now think that they are covering a famous song, as in improving it in a way it hasn't been improved before; as in wiping our the original with their own personal fabulousness (fabulicity?). They are almost always wrong, but this sad and sorry and silly term perpetuates nothing but negativity, where version covers perfectly what it actually, trivially, is. Surely it must have been criticized? Anyone know of any reliable sources on that detail? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Should the anachronism of fictional characters covering a song before it was written be noteworthy just for the oddity?

The article only discusses cases of songs being covered after they have been released, or occasionally after they are written and just before they are released.

The 2001 musical film Moulin Rouge! covers many songs from the 1940s through the 1990s. Not all of them are notable enough to list in this article. What is unusual is that the movie is set in 1900 and the acts at the Moulin Rouge include songs that would be written later (for example, when Santine sings "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend"). The ability to the characters to sing songs decades before they were composed in reality is a bit of a plot flaw in the movie, but would their in-world performance constitute "covering" the song and should this be mentioned in the article? 47.139.42.19 (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The soundtrack album's liner notes might mention they're covers, but otherwise, just performing a song in a movie doesn't exactly count. Dooley Wilson didn't cover "As Time Goes By", he just faked playing the piano. Clint didn't cover any jazz standards in any of his films, either: he just doodled on them a bit. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Instrumental versions

The third paragraph of the "History" section states, "Today three broad types of entertainers depend on cover versions for their principal repertoire."

However, none of them seem to include the purely instrumental versions/covers.

As such, how about adding "Instrumental" as a fourth "broad type"?

There are enough of these artists/groups/etc. that Music Choice (and possibly others) has an entire channel/station that only play instrumentals.

Just a thought/suggestion. 2600:8800:785:9400:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)