Look, it's really very simple. There are three types of renditions/recordings:
1) Originals; the performer is also the author
2) Covers; the performer is not the author, the author is known
3) Traditionals; the performer is not the author; the author is unknown
National anthems thus fall in either the second or third category, depending on knowledge of the authorship.
Yara · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
Look, it's really very simple. There are three types of renditions/recordings:
1) Originals; the performer is also the author
2) Covers; the performer is not the author, the author is known
3) Traditionals; the performer is not the author; the author is unknown
National anthems thus fall in either the second or third category, depending on knowledge of the authorship.
[/QUOTE]
Hi, Thomas!
How are you?
These are very helpful criteria. They're good enough, I guess. Congrats for the short, but spot-on post.
I'd like you to help me suggest a 4th category - yes, I know we have to be as economical as possible and avoid the use of unnecessary definitions, but I think there's an important one which hasn't been...covered! :op
4) Authorship is known, or there are strong signs for its authenticity, [b][i]but we never managed to listen to the original and have little idea of how it would have sounded like for the author.
[/i][/b]
This may enlighten the questions surrounding some, though not all, national anthems.
Scores and sheets don't speak for themselves. Lying inert on a table or bookshelf, the scores mean nothing for us - the music they aim to represent [i]only exists for us, in the "present", insofar as a human being reads it, interprets it and gives it a rendition that other people may listen to. That's when the music emerges[/i].
Because of the lack of chance of comparing one's reading of the score with what the original could have been - sometimes it's music from centuries ago - I think it's weird to classify such a different situation as a "cover".
You take your guitar and plays one of Bach's partitas. You feel good. You know we're almost clueless about how it sounded like in Bach's time and how Bach wanted it to sound and how it may have sounded like under his direction or orientation to people he taught in general. There are huge gaps in the historical record to make things worse.
Then, before you play the song your way, you know there have been plenty of schools arguing for this or that interpretation of a certain Bach's partita. You're aware of that: it seems, you think, that years of people handling it weren't sufficient to solve the problem. Or else: it's a partita which has even been very seldom played and there are just a few "modern" recordings of it.
You say to yourself: "Geez. But I just want to play the song! Why do I have to know about X's school of...".
And you're right. You want to play the song, you have the score there, the score alone means very little but yet, it does mean something if you try to tackle it and elicit music therefrom.
But your version is so DAMN GOOD (:op) that you decide to release it: "Bach's musical landscapes - partitas X and Y interpreted by prominent (guitar, piano, flute...) player Thomas Quinn". To make it even more fancy - "transcribed for and played with acoustic guitar by Thomas Quinn!"
I forgot about the topic now. Isn't it fancy? I hope you enjoy the titles. ;-)
BACK TO TOPIC: (pulling my shirt and forcing myself into the topic)
[i]Does "Bach's musical landscapes - partitas X and Y played by Thomas Quinn"[/i] belong to the same category of [i]"The Who's" take on Summertime Blues[/i] (to mention just one of the many wonderful covers out there)?
Can we say: [i]"Gleen Gould did a wonderful cover of the Goldberg Variations" in the same way we say that The Who made a brilliant cover of Summertime Blues or Hendrix of All Along The Watchtower?
[/i]
We are entitled to - but it sounds absolutely weird. [b][i]Then, my point: there should be a distinction between the cover as a term most often used to mean renditions of songs we know (more or less) how the original sound like as we have a recording of it (as lame as it might be) and the reading and interpretation of a piece of paper.
People cover sound. People do readings of the written remains of the musical past.
[/i][/b]Callas covered Verdi? Not in the same way that Céline Dion covered The Show Must Go On or Synead O'Connor covered Elton's Sacrifice!
So, I come before you, Thomas Quinn, with anxiety in my heart!, asking you to make sense of this! Would this category be useful?
Could we put some - not all! - national anthems under this category?
La Marseillaise, for instance: we know the author - Claude Rouget - but we don't have a recording of revolutionaries singing it before storming into a Monastery. lol
:-))))
Always great to read your posts and "have you" around - you're a Queenzone asset already. ;-)))
Hug!!!
Yara
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
Look, it's really very simple. There are three types of renditions/recordings:
1) Originals; the performer is also the author
2) Covers; the performer is not the author, the author is known
3) Traditionals; the performer is not the author; the author is unknown
National anthems thus fall in either the second or third category, depending on knowledge of the authorship.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's like that. Again, Britney Spears' [i]Baby One More Time [/i]is not a cover although she's not the author, Roger Taylor's live [i]Ride the Wild Wind [/i]is a cover although he's the author.
Now, a traditional is also a cover because, simply, the person who's doing it isn't the original performer. If there's no original performer, then it still applies: the person who's doing it isn't the original performer.
As for knowing what the original version sounds like, we've often got sheets and stuff. [i]God Save the Queen[/i] had been composed, adapted and recorded many times before May (& Taylor, by the way) [b]covered[/b] it, doing a new arrangement, etc, etc... but the fact is still: they didn't write it, they're not the original perfomers: they're covering it. Same for [i]Wedding March[/i] (which is also May + Taylor only).
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
Look, it's really very simple. There are three types of renditions/recordings:
1) Originals; the performer is also the author
2) Covers; the performer is not the author, the author is known
3) Traditionals; the performer is not the author; the author is unknown
National anthems thus fall in either the second or third category, depending on knowledge of the authorship.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's like that. Again, Britney Spears' [i]Baby One More Time [/i]is not a cover although she's not the author,[/QUOTE]
I agree, you are right there. I should rephrase point 1 to say "Originals; the performer is also the author, or is the first to commerically perform the song."
[QUOTE]Roger Taylor's live [i]Ride the Wild Wind [/i]is a cover although he's the author.[/QUOTE]
No, I cannot agree with you there. The logical conclusion of that train of thought would be that all Queen-songs performed during the Hot Space, Works and Magic tours were covers because Morgan Fisher, Fred Mandel and Spike Edney were successively added to the band, and the group was thus different from the original performers.
[QUOTE]Now, a traditional is also a cover because, simply, the person who's doing it isn't the original performer. If there's no original performer, then it still applies: the person who's doing it isn't the original performer.[/QUOTE]
I still choose to consider this as a separate category, because traditionals tend to be treated differently than other compositions (musicians tend to take more liberties with arrangements, melodies and harmonies for traditionals). I
agree that it is not a hard-and-fast demarcation, but from a pragmatic viewpoint I see merit in treating traditionals as a different category.
[QUOTE]As for knowing what the original version sounds like, we've often got sheets and stuff. [i]God Save the Queen[/i] had been composed, adapted and recorded many times before May (& Taylor, by the way) [b]covered[/b] it, doing a new arrangement, etc, etc... but the fact is still: they didn't write it, they're not the original perfomers: they're covering it. Same for [i]Wedding March[/i] (which is also May + Taylor only).[/QUOTE]
You know as well as I do that sheet music, especially in the case of older music (in this case: before the introduction of the well-tempered system), does not convey all aspects of a composition. Phrasing, accents, tempo, and the likes tend to be left to the conventions of the time and the discretion of the musician. We are, for instance, reasonably sure that the way we perform Bach differs significantly from how Bach's contemporaries would have performed the same scores. In the case of traditionals, there is also the factor of evolution over time. This "folk treatment" means that traditionals change and grow over time, and cannot thus be reduced to one "source" from which all other versions are variants. It is a decentralized thing, another argument I think supports the distinction of originals as a separate category.
[/QUOTE]
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b] Yara wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
Look, it's really very simple. There are three types of renditions/recordings:
1) Originals; the performer is also the author
2) Covers; the performer is not the author, the author is known
3) Traditionals; the performer is not the author; the author is unknown
National anthems thus fall in either the second or third category, depending on knowledge of the authorship.
[/QUOTE]
Hi, Thomas!
How are you? [/QUOTE]
Very well, thank you. What about yourself?
[QUOTE]These are very helpful criteria. They're good enough, I guess. Congrats for the short, but spot-on post.[/QUOTE]
Thank you. I made one adaption to the first category after I read the response from Sebastian, as I had completely forgotten about the concept of songsmiths.
[QUOTE]I'd like you to help me suggest a 4th category - yes, I know we have to be as economical as possible and avoid the use of unnecessary definitions, but I think there's an important one which hasn't been...covered! :op
4) Authorship is known, or there are strong signs for its authenticity, [b][i]but we never managed to listen to the original and have little idea of how it would have sounded like for the author. [/i][/b]This may enlighten the questions surrounding some, though not all, national anthems. [/QUOTE]
I would be inclined to include this under (3) unless, as is the case with some of the examples you give below, there is one original notated version from which all others are derived. The reason for this would be the "folk treatment" I described in my response to Sebastian above, from which those 'set in stone' (i.e. those that were notated and remained unchanged afterwards) are obviously excluded. I do indeed think that your fourth category makes sense.
[QUOTE]Scores and sheets don't speak for themselves. Lying inert on a table or bookshelf, the scores mean nothing for us - the music they aim to represent [i]only exists for us, in the "present", insofar as a human being reads it, interprets it and gives it a rendition that other people may listen to. That's when the music emerges[/i]. Because of the lack of chance of comparing one's reading of the score with what the original could have been - sometimes it's music fromcenturies ago - I think it's weird to classify such a different situation as a "cover". [/QUOTE]
I couldn't possibly say it any better.
[QUOTE]
You take your guitar and plays one of Bach's partitas. You feel good. You know we're almost clueless about how it sounded like in Bach's time and how Bach wanted it to sound and how it may have sounded like under his direction or orientation to people he taught in general. There are huge gaps in the historical record to make things worse.
Then, before you play the song your way, you know there have been plenty of schools arguing for this or that interpretation of a certain Bach's partita. You're aware of that: it seems, you think, that years of people handling it weren't sufficient to solve the problem. Or else: it's a partita which has even been very seldom played and there are just a few "modern" recordings of it.
You say to yourself: "Geez. But I just want to play the song! Why do I have to know about X's school of...".
And you're right. You want to play the song, you have the score there, the score alone means very little but yet, it does mean something if you try to tackle it and elicit music therefrom.
But your version is so DAMN GOOD (:op) that you decide to release it: "Bach's musical landscapes - partitas X and Y interpreted by prominent (guitar, piano, flute...) player Thomas Quinn". To make it even more fancy - "transcribed for and played with acoustic guitar by Thomas Quinn!"
I forgot about the topic now. Isn't it fancy? I hope you enjoy the titles. ;-)
BACK TO TOPIC: (pulling my shirt and forcing myself into the topic)
[i]Does "Bach's musical landscapes - partitas X and Y played by Thomas Quinn"[/i] belong to the same category of [i]"The Who's" take on Summertime Blues[/i] (to mention just one of the many wonderful covers out there)?
Can we say: [i]"Gleen Gould did a wonderful cover of the Goldberg Variations" in the same way we say that The Who made a brilliant cover of Summertime Blues or Hendrix of All Along The Watchtower?
[/i]
We are entitled to - but it sounds absolutely weird. [b][i]Then, my point: there should be a distinction between the cover as a term most often used to mean renditions of songs we know (more or less) how the original sound like as we have a recording of it (as lame as it might be) and the reading and interpretation of a piece of paper.
People cover sound. People do readings of the written remains of the musical past.
[/i][/b]Callas covered Verdi? Not in the same way that Céline Dion covered The Show Must Go On or Synead O'Connor covered Elton's Sacrifice!
So, I come before you, Thomas Quinn, with anxiety in my heart!, asking you to make sense of this! Would this category be useful?
Could we put some - not all! - national anthems under this category?
La Marseillaise, for instance: we know the author - Claude Rouget - but we don't have a recording of revolutionaries singing it before storming into a Monastery. lol
:-))))
Always great to read your posts and "have you" around - you're a Queenzone asset already. ;-)))
Hug!!!
Yara
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
As I wrote above, I think it would make sense to count most national anthems under the (3) category, as they tend to grow and develop over time. However, you do name quite a few examples (and I would have to count some national anthems like the Marseillaise and the Star Spangled Banner, both relatively young anthems, amongst them), especially classical music, which was the earliest western music to be notated, that merit a separate category. It appears that it is not quite as simple as I supposed in my original post.
Oh, and I'm glad to hear that you appreciate my posts ^^ I would say that you are more qualified to the title of "QueenZone asset" than I am; whilst I tend to just throw a few thoughts around, you build up and analyse a repository of information, thus clearing the way for an insightful and constructive discussion. And yes, that is rare on an internet forum. :P
Love,
TQ
Sebastian · Member since
>>> No, I cannot agree with you there. The logical conclusion of that train of thought would be that all Queen-songs performed during the HotSpace, Works and Magic tours were covers because Morgan Fisher, Fred Mandel and Spike Edney were successively added to the band, and thegroup was thus different from the original performers.
That would be stretching it a lot... same would happen with [i]Who Wants to Live Forever[/i], or [i]Sheer Heart Attack[/i], etc... but IMO the Roger case is different: 'Magic Tour' is officially and legally a Queen tour, regardless of their extras or lack thereof. In such terms, Roger (or The Cross) doing Roger's songs are covering them, since 'Queen' is a different act to 'Roger Taylor' or 'The Cross'. Same for Wings doing Beatles' tracks, Hunter & Ronson doing [i]Dudes[/i], etc.
>>> I still choose to consider this as a separate category, because traditionals tend to be treated differently than
other compositions (musicians tend to take more liberties with arrangements, melodies and harmonies for traditionals). I agree that it is not a hard-and-fast demarcation, but from a pragmatic viewpoint I see merit in treating traditionals as a different category.
Maybe from a financial perspective they do differ, as with 'self-covers'. For instance, what if Max Martin decided to record an album with songs he wrote or co-wrote for BSB, NSYNC, Britney, 3T et al? Would they be covers? IMO, yes, but of course it's not a B/W thing (I was wrong in my previous post claiming so).
As for sheet music: I agree to disagree then.
August R. · Member since
Interesting posts.. May I ask your opinions, how all these Queen+ projects fit in with your caterorizations?
Few examples: Was Queen+ Robbie Williams doing WATC was a cover, 'cos it included the current Queen line up? Was Q+PR playing WATC a cover? (again, there's a current line-up of the band that originally recorded the track). Whenever the current line-up of Deep Purple plays Smoke On The Water, are they covering the "old Dep Purple" or is it their song (just because there is no + in the band's name)? If Q+PR had played More Of That Jazz in their live shows (with Roger singing, no PR involved), would that have been a cover? So many questions.. so confusing :)
Sebastian · Member since
As much as I disagree with Brian & Roger using the Queen name, I don't count those as covers, same for post-Waters 'Dark Side of the Moon', Yes' different lineups, Kansas, etc. But, when Brian did [i]Headlong, Lap of the Gods... Revisited, I Want It All[/i], etc, those were covers. Same when Eagles did [i]New York Minute[/i], or when Emma did [i]2 Become 1[/i] on her own.
*goodco* · Member since
Other than 'Warboys' and 'Call Me', I'd like to see Brian and Roger 'cover' 'The Cosmos Rocks'.
Danne · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
[i]Does "Bach's musical landscapes - partitas X and Y played by Thomas Quinn"[/i] belong to the same category of [i]"The Who's" take on Summertime Blues[/i] (to mention just one of the many wonderful covers out there)?
Can we say: [i]"Gleen Gould did a wonderful cover of the Goldberg Variations" in the same way we say that The Who made a brilliant cover of Summertime Blues or Hendrix of All Along The Watchtower?
[/i]
We are entitled to - but it sounds absolutely weird. [b][i]Then, my point: there should be a distinction between the cover as a term most often used to mean renditions of songs we know (more or less) how the original sound like as we have a recording of it (as lame as it might be) and the reading and interpretation of a piece of paper.
People cover sound. People do readings of the written remains of the musical past.
[/i][/b]Callas covered Verdi? Not in the same way that Céline Dion covered The Show Must Go On or Synead O'Connor covered Elton's Sacrifice!
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely agree with you. When the London Symphony Orchestra or Berliner Philharmoniker play Beethoven's 8th symphony, they don't cover it, they perform it. I really don't think the term "cover" normally is applicable to "classical" music (or western art music, or whatever you want to call it).
So, are Queen's (=Brian's) renditions of "God Save the Queen" or Wagner's "Wedding March" covers or performances. I believe it's better, in this case, to talk about Brian's arrangement or something like that, since both tracks probably fall under the "classical music" category, but they're not simply performances, since they're not played as written.
