Run for covers

Lots of debate over a literature exam at Cambridge in which final year students were asked to compare an Amy Winehouse lyric to a poem by Sir Walter Raleigh.
I can vividly recall the horror and/or amusement of commentators and critics in the late 60s when it became known that the words of Bob Dylan (right) songs were being subjected to academic analysis and postgrads were doing MAs and doctorates based on his work and cultural significance.
Now most people would acknowledge his enormous contribution and the quality of his lyrics - he's even a reference point in Post cricket reports ... see our Sport Blog section.
The whole point of the exam question was to assess the works offered up (a Billie Holiday song was also on offer) in the light of what the words 'lyric' and 'lyrical' have come to mean.
The Winehouse song, Love is a Losing Game, doesn't really stand up as words on a page. You can easily Google the lyrics if you are so inclined and if you don't already know them. But when she sings them, it's a different matter.
I think it's the same with Dylan, actually. Way back when Donovan was being touted as the UK version of Bobby Z, there was a CBS slogan everywhere, 'No one sings Dylan like Dylan.' Many of us felt there was an unintentional irony in this in that his vocal talents have never been a strong point, and have, most critics would agree, become even worse with the passing years.
But, there's no denying, his performances of his own material are extraordinary and always worthwhile. The Byrds made Tambourine Man a hit, but the Dylan version was more powerful. Of course, he never bothers much with remembering tunes and chord sequences. Supporters will say this is a deliberate ploy to make the work live afresh for himself and his listeners at every performance. I think otherwise.
So what's this all about? Well I was just thinking about performers and lyrics in the light of the Windeouse debate. Has anyone, for instance, ever done a Leonard Cohen song better than the writer? I think the Judy Collins rendition of Both Sides Now is superior to the Joni Mitchell original and back in the 60s a now-vanished folkie called Tom Rush did a great version as well.
What about the Hendrix version of All Along the Watchtower? Some prefer the Joe Cocker cover of A Little Help from My Friends. I think Ringo rules.
Anyone want to tell me a cover they prefer to the original? I nominate the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain (left) rendition of Life on Mars (it's on YouTube). Over to you.
Older/Newer
« If we can breast-feed, why can't we snog? | Sharon Stone-cold »
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Run for covers. TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.birminghampost.net/cgi-bin/mt421/mt-tb.cgi/6684


















Cover versions are always a difficult thing to manage. Unless you are going to bring something new to a song it's best to leave well alone.
However, I am partial to the odd cover and some of my favourites are Kathryn Williams' version of The Velvet Underground's Candy Says, Jeff Buckley's rendition of Hallelujah and William Shatner's version of Pulp's Common People.
Okay, so may be the last one is a controversial choice. It could have been worse. It could have been Shatner's version of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.
well I actually think The Byrds version of Tambourine Man is better than the original.
And Melanie's Frisco-style hippy rendition of the same song could even be my second favourite.
Otherwise - and I may be offering up more blasphemy here - I prefer Nick Cave's version of 'Helpless' to Neil Young's original. And I love Neil Young's version.
But, as for wiping the floor with the original, you can't beat the Michael Viner's Incredible Bongo Band version of 'Apache'.