Difference between revisions of "What Is A Cover"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (5 revision(s))
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Cover_Relationship_Type]]
=Cover Versions=
From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version Wikipedia]: "In pop music a cover version is a new rendition of a previously recorded song".
In [[MusicBrainz]] covers are recorded with an [[Advanced Relationships|AdvancedRelationship]] using the [[Cover Relationship Type|CoverRelationshipType]]. The question that this page deals with is how we should define a cover. There seem to be two possibilities:
* "The Rules" from the [[Covers Project|CoversProject]], which are objective and clear, but somehow technocratic: The simple rule is that the first person to release a song is considered the "original". (see below for more details)
* Less restrictive rules that would really try to model what recording was the version that served as a model for a cover. This is initially subjective and might be unclear. However, if we state how common/official the opinion is that song A is a cover of song B, then we have again a neutral point of view.
The system for linking cover versions proposed on [[Advanced Relationships|AdvancedRelationships]] seems to cover only a subset of use cases and calls for subjective decisions that complicate the moderation process. Some kind of wider, less specific and direction-less link between all versions of a song would seem more appropriate.
The two key problems are identifying the "original" track and the subtly different problem of deciding who covers who.
===Some odd cases:===
* A singer/songwriter releasing a version of their own tune made famous by someone else (either before or afterwards). Does Carole King singing '''The Locomotion''' really cover Little Eva? Does the reverse make any more sense? Does this disqualify it from being a cover?
* Someone covering a cover, either when the way the song is played obviously refers to a specific version that is not "the original" as in the case of someone covering All Along the Watchtower by Jimi Hendrix, or when someone covers a song ignorant of the fact that it, in turn was a cover. Are you covering both artists, or just one? If only one, then which?
* Folk or blues standards may have an original that predates recording technology or whose original authors have been forgotten. Which version is the original is this case?
* Artists releasing two versions of the same song. If they differ is one a cover of the other? What if they are nearly, but not quite, identical? What if the song has been covered in the meantime? What if the second version is done in the style popularized by the cover of the original?
* Motown often had different artists try material, sometimes adding their own stamp, sometimes not. How many versions of Heard It Through the Grapevine are referencing the Gladys Knight version that preceded Marvin Gaye's into the charts?
Using the rules from the [[Covers Project|CoversProject]] cases like these can be decided ''objectively'': Their simple rule is that the first person to release a song is considered the "original". Case in point: apparently Danzig wrote a song ("Thirteen") which Johnny Cash released in 1994. In 1999, Danzig also recorded the song, so technically (for the purpose of The [[Covers Project|CoversProject]]) they covered a Johnny Cash song that happened to have been written by themselves.
The problem with this (and a few of the other problem cases listed above) is, I think, that "to cover" a song means slightly more than do "a version of" or it does to me at least. I think it suggests some kind of link between the band and the named version, rather than song A is the first released version of song B. (Note that if the first version released is considered important, which I think that it is to a certain degree, then this can/should be calculated by the Database from release date info, rather than being redundantly stored as part of the relationship and creating possible data inconsistancies)
''This discussion stems from before [[Advanced Relationships|AdvancedRelationships]] were released''
Reading the above, I would suggest instead distinguishing "recordings" from "compositions". All cover recordings of a work would then be related to the same composition, as would "the original." --JoeG
Thinking of Jazz, that seems very logical to me. In Jazz musicans don't do covers, they make versions of songs but they give credit to the original composer. So I would argue that the [[Composer Relationship Type|ComposerRelationshipType]] is factual, and that the [[Cover Relationship Type|CoverRelationshipType]] includes the opinion of the moderator, which song was the original for that specific recording. --[[User:DonRedman|DonRedman]]
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">This somewhat applies to the folk and traditional music scene as well, for the record. -- [[User:FrederikSOlesen|FrederikSOlesen]] 09:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The question of parodies [http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-June/020966.html was raised] on the [[Users Mailing List|UsersMailingList]]. These possibly count as covers too, although there's no consensus yet. --[[User:MatthewExon|MatthewExon]]
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I think this too could be solved by the idea mentioned above, decoupling compositions from recordings. While there may be debate over whether a song parody constitutes a cover of the original recording, it definitely uses the music or lyrics from it. --[[User:LarryGilbert|LarryGilbert]]
I think we also need to distinguish, based on the initial definition, that a cover is not an artist recording their own song again. "A new rendition of a previously recorded song" could be mis-interpreted that way. -- [[User:BrianFreud|BrianFreud]]
There is also a difficulty determining what the "original" recording would be for interactions between classical and non-classical recordings. When a rock band covers a track from an opera, especially if that opera was composed prior to the age of music, there would be no target recording that could be pointed to under the current definition. -- [[User:BrianFreud|BrianFreud]]
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Philosophy]]

Latest revision as of 16:08, 17 March 2010