Any, then, Jon says the following, on covers:
> Exactly, and what's spooky, at least to me, is that while sometimes the
> emotional resonance is responsible for the "note-for-note" rendition,
> sometimes it's the other way around - that is, by concentrating fiercely on
> doing just what the original did, you achieve the emotional identification;
> by playing it, you become, for a moment, the original performer. I read a
> comment very much along these lines not too long ago from some performer or
> other, and now I can't find it; when I do, I'm going to post it, just to
> show that even if I'm crazy in looking at it this way, I'm not the only nut.
You're not alone in this view at all, Jon. Don't have time for a detailed
discussion, but I've never notice any pattern or rule to distinguishing
"good" from "bad" covers. I don't consider a cover "secondary" to the
"original," in fact. One could cite numerous covers that outdo the
"originial" in various ways, or that work *even though* they're
note-for-note copies, or work as completely reinterpretations. As best I
can tell, there's just no rule.
It's like for any kind of performance: some work, some don't.... I've
never yet found a general rule to distinguish the succesful from the
unsuccessful ones. If I had, I'd do all good covers <g>.
-junior
