9/4/2023 0 Comments Album cover master reboot![]() By the 1940s preferred artists such as Bing Crosby were often given the initial refusal of a particular song. So, to 'cover' a song meant to re-present a song to the masses, and that of course came to mean artists/musicians/vocalists would 'reinterpret' the original. Music producers, songwriters, film companies, etc., began in the 1930s to designate the covering of an original song (and it's corresponding performance) to ensure commercial viability over time, and not merely in the months following a release of a song as a record or when performed on radio. Creating, effectively licensing, another to commercially use the 'rights' of a song helped to ensure the maxim monetary return on a song. 'Covers' were initiated by those who owned musical copyrights to ensure property usage/commercial security AND popular/cultural identification of the song would achieve a broad 'airing'. The identification of a song with a particular orchestra, band, and later, singer meant a certain monetary security for songwriters and music producers/agents. Money was generated by popular songs when they were deemed suitable for commercial production/being produced as sheet music and when recorded for commercial transacting. The term 'cover' in terms of commercial popular music arose to describe the origination of a particular song. The details of the remake are what give it a more specific name, like cover or remix. In short, remake refers to redoing something, carving the song again. As in both a remix and a cover are remakes. It can be a synonym of reinterpretation (a general term that includes cover and remix), or refer to an updated version of a song (1985 vs 2013), or as a cover synonym, from the top of my head.Īs "remake" is used in general terms, it makes sense for it to refer to reinterpretations in general. In my experience, "remake" doesn't have a formal definition, even in this specific context. Sometimes a remixed song can be indistinguishable from the original. Changes in key, structure, and progression are very common. Some cover artists are very serious and careful about playing their covers as close as possible to the original, others inject something new, but in general both the original and the cover are very similar.Ī remix (including this for completeness) is also a reinterpretation of the original song, but with more liberties. The new performance or recording usually is very similar to the original (structure, progression, etc), the differences are normally in instrumentation. The Chicago Tribune described the term in 1952: "trade jargon meaning to record a tune that looks like a potential hit on someone else's label."Ĭover typically refers to a new performance or recording of a previously recorded, commercially released song by someone other than the original artist or composer. The term "cover" goes back decades when cover version originally described a rival version of a tune recorded to compete with the recently released (original) version. It also gives some interesting insight into its origin: Wikipedia says that a cover is simply one band/artist's songs being performed by another. I think though that most of the time they are not distinguished. The remakers might put their own twist on it or they might get very technical and try to be exacting, but ultimately it's the same style as the original. This might take the form of creating an acoustic version, a different arrangement, or even just taking the lyrics and coming up with an entirely new melody.Ī remake is an attempt at reproduction, playing the song the same way it was originally played. However, I would say that in general:Ī cover usually refers to a reinterpretation. It's a bit wishy-washy and the terms can be used interchangeably.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |