Possible Heresy

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

I've had the song on CD for a while now but never seen it on youtube till now ...



I like it a lot, but I might be slightly biased as I quite fancy Miss Lee , normally I hate cover's of groups I like but not this one

Here's the original, and best as a comparison

[Benner]

Nirvana's is far better IMO.  But that's because I think Nirvana is awesome!

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

Nirvana's is far better IMO.  But that's because I think Nirvana is awesome!

But as a cover, is it ok

[Benner]

Nirvana's is far better IMO.  But that's because I think Nirvana is awesome!

But as a cover, is it ok

Not bad, but just not the same. 

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

Nirvana's is far better IMO.  But that's because I think Nirvana is awesome!

But as a cover, is it ok

Not bad, but just not the same. 

No Like I said Nivarna is still the best, I just like the cover too , Plus it's very, very brave to do a cover of Nirvana

[Roadie]

It definitely loses a lot in translation, the original is far superior. I don't think it's suited to an acoustic performance really, or at least it needs more than just a guitar in there.

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

It definitely loses a lot in translation, the original is far superior. I don't think it's suited to an acoustic performance really, or at least it needs more than just a guitar in there.

I dunno, I liked the simplicity of it

[NutSAK]

I'm not a big fan of covers.  In this case especially--a cover of someone as innovative as Kurt Cobain better be good.

This one doesn't impress...

[Grant Lamontagne]

Not a huge fan of Cobain, but I did like this song- I also like the cover though, and I think Evanescence is one of the few groups that could do it justice.  To me, when covering a song from a revolutionary icon (which even I will admit about Cobain, despite not being a fan) the covering band needs to do it as an homage.  One way to honor the original is to try to play it exactly like the original, but I've never been a big fan of that mentality.  The other is to put your own slant on something, head off in a different direction, and honor the adventurous spirit of the original artist.  After all, many of those revolutionary artists made a name for themselves putting their own slant on previous musicians' work.

How many songs was Hendrix known for, despite not having written them himself, or having borrowed them from other artists?  Clapton?

Def

[NutSAK]

I don't have as big an issue with many of Hendrix and Clapton's songs as I do this one.

The reason is that many of the "covers" they did were not even known to the majority of the public, or were not popular songs when they covered them.  In a sense, they became "their" songs in the minds of the consumer, and not the original artist's songs.  Also, many times, the "covers" were better, musically, than the originals.  A good example of that would be "Cocaine" and "After Midnight" both written by J.J. Cale.  Of course there were other examples that weren't as good, and were already popular, such as "I Shot the Sheriff".

Also, many of the songs Hendrix and Clapton have done are old blues songs that many, many artists have covered.  I think those types of songs should be considered "traditional" songs, and not really a cover.

My feelings against "covers" have a definite time element to them.  In other words, the less time that has passed since the original release of the song, the stronger my feelings are against them.

[Grant Lamontagne]

You are right, for the most part, but I can send you a cover of a "recent" song (within the last ten years) by a popular boy band, that I guarantee you will like far better than the original.  In fact, I have many such songs!

Les Claypool from Primus covering Snoop Dogg's Gin and Juice also comes to mind... 

Def

[Grant Lamontagne]

Video has nothing to do with it, but the cover is awesome!

Def

[NutSAK]

True, the quality of the cover has a whole lot to do with it.