At 4:39 PM -0400 4/4/99, Amy Haugesag wrote:
>Well, referencing Peggy Lee's "Fever" isn't going to win any points with
>me, as I don't love either the song or her toneless version of it. If this
>loses me major kitsch-cred points, that's fine with me.
Well thanks, I guess, for pointing out to me that I'm just
respondingly ironically to the faked sensations of artistic rubbish.
How ever could I have thought I sincerely liked the song on
its own merits? <g>
>
>But I used the word "rehash" advisedly. I think it's possible and even
>fairly common to do a note-for-note rendition of someone else's song and
>*still* bring something of oneself--usually having to do with the
>distinctive voice that Ross mentions--to it. A rehash, on the other hand,
>is nothing more than a carbon copy of a song, one that doesn't add any
>distinctiveness of voice or anything else. A talented artist can sing a
>note-for-note rendition of a song they didn't write and still make it their
>own, by virtue of having a) a distinctive voice and b) emotional honesty,
>and specifically the ability to give the listener a sense that the song
>resonates emotionally for the singer as it did for the writer or original
>performer.
I certainly agree with all of that, but I don't think that's the same
thing as saying "all good covers" should be "reinterpretations
rather than rehashes". Unless you are saying that a note-for-note
remake is a reinterpretation when you like it and a rehash when
you don't like it. A note-for-note remake, I'd say, is almost
always giving the song the same interpretation as the original,
whether it works or not.
Ross Whitwam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Molecular Pharmacology & Therapeutics Program
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NYC
