“This old world is rough, and it’s just getting rougher.”
That little sample of lyrical vim is from the Song “Cover Me” by Mr. Bruce Springsteen, and it introduces the notion I’m exploring today: The cover song. This is a topic very dear to me since some of my oldest friends have spent years in cover bands. Is this a worthwhile endeavor? Is it just for fun? Is it a colossal waste of time?
Well, probably somewhere in between.
There are thousands of cover songs out there. I don’t know if I could even pick my favorite cover of all time. Quite often it’s a cover of a song I didn’t like as well originally, like “Personal Jesus” by Johnny Cash (which I much prefer to Depeche Mode’s electronic opus) or a song where I heard the cover before ever knowing the original existed, like the Grass roots’ “Let’s Live For Today” (which is much more famous than the obscure original “Piagni Con Me” by the Rokes). But I did select one song to look at, or two if you believe the separate versions constitute two songs .
“Mad World” by Tears for Fears.
Tears For fears did this song in their debut album The Hurting” in 1982 before finding international success (click on the title above to listen). Essentially a two man act, it was written by Roland Orzabal and Curt Smith. It is a song very much in the mold of what was popular in England at the time. It has a hint of electronica, dreary incomprehensible lyrics, and beat that you can dance to. I first heard the song in 1992 on their compilation disc “Tears Roll Down” which was ironically a second version of the song by the band, adding more techno elements to make it sound more like the music of that day. It was probably 1999 before I heard their original take, which is much softer and more heartfelt in my mind. It’s the 1982 version listed above
"Mad World" by Gary Jules.
Like many fans of his version, I first heard it in the movie “Donnie Darko” and the song lingered in my memory far longer than the film. It’s haunting vocal and dreamy piano were so moving hearing the song was a transforming experience for me. That’s a very grandiose statement, but warranted in this case.
The two songs are very dissimilar, but not completely different.
The lyrics of the two versions completely identical. They use the same exact wording, and even sing them in the same pattern (Verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, verse, etc. ect.)
The melody is also identical. It is almost as if the cover artist was playing the sheet music to the original.
The rhythm is completely different. The Tears For Fears is a dance song with up-tempo rhythm that serves in contrast to its lyrical darkness. The Gary Jules version is down-tempo, possessing affinity with its bleak verbiage
The timbre is also completely different. The two versions differ in their aural tone greatly. The Tears for Fears version uses studio techniques such as heavy doses of reverb and echo, and what is undoubtedly a drum machine. It’s almost as if the artists were embarrassed by the lovely melody they created and had to drown it in a backlash of discordant layers. This causes a sort of musical dissidence that the song becomes bogged down by. The Gary Jules version, in contrast is straightforward in its engineering and production, using the sounds of a piano in place of synthesizers, and strings in place of guitars to create a harmony between the beautiful orchestration and the likewise beautiful melody.
The two versions contrast each other in their approach and production methods. The first relies too much on the electronic technology that was novel at the time of the recording. The second realizes it is a beautiful and haunting melody and uses its studio wizardry very subtly. It has a dreamy effect, where the Tears For Fears version is more a bad trip.
No comments:
Post a Comment