Cover Songs: Better than the Original?

Evidently, music producers strongly encourage full-length recordings to include at least one cover, as covers apparently have a strong "sell" factor. Few covers, however, manage to achieve "better than the original" status. I propose five categories, in descending order of quality (followed by my own examples):

1. Better
2. Interesting, but not Great
3. Could/Should Have Been Good
4. Sounds the Same/Pointless
5. Butchery/Hall of Shame

Examples:

1. Coal -- of Motorhead's "Ace of Spades": the jazzy Canadian rockabilly band’s cover of the early thrash “classic,” complete with brush drums and a sweet-voiced female singer; more enjoyable for the wide cross-genre leap
-- Cowboy Junkies -- of Velvet Underground's "Sweet Jane": another sweet-voiced female single from another subdued Canadian band brings something new to a familiar track

2. Red Hot Chili Peppers -- of Stevie Wonder's "Higher Ground": funky synth track becomes a funky hard rock track
-- O*** -- of New Order's "Blue Monday": the original is so good, apparently a bad cover is hard to pull off
-- Johnny Cash -- of Nine Inch Nails's "Hurt": people love this cover, somewhat understandably -- but mostly in an honorific sense (i.e., out of respect for the Man in Black)
-- Faith No More -- of the Commodores’s "Easy": amusing cross-genre track, perhaps best appreciated as a tongue-in-cheek exercise

3. Guns n’ Roses -- of Bob Dylan’s "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" -- sounds like a good idea, but the execution left something to be desired; pales to the original; George Harrison mocked it for getting one of the three chords in the song wrong

4. Guns n' Roses -- of Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die": nothing new here
-- Guns n' Roses -- pretty much all of "The Spaghetti Incident?"

5. Rod Stewart -- of Tom Waits's "Downtown Train" -- musically lame, changes the lyrics from a self-effacing love song into a narcissistic love song; an all-around travesty
-- Ministry -- of Bob Dylan's "Lay Lady Lay": a poor choice even for an album cut, except perhaps for comedic value
-- Guns n' Roses -- of the Rolling Stones's "Sympathy for the Devil" -- if you've heard it, you know

Are Rock Bands Always Better While on Drugs?

Pop culture maven (and alleged writer) Chuck Klosterman argues that when Aerosmith left drugs behind circa the mid 1980s, it stopped being "one kind of band" and started being "another kind of band." I propose an amendment to this thesis: while on drugs, they were pretty good; and when not, they were distinctly not good. This pattern seems to hold often enough to be a significant trend.

Aerosmith can be compared with the Rolling Stones, who were, according to the commentary, frequently or always high from 1968-1972 when they produced their best recordings. Over the next few years, when the band, discerning critics seem to agree, degenerated into self-parody, they were apparently also high all the time. As such, drugs are not the only relevant factor. And, plenty of older rock bands become tribute acts to themselves, while sparing the public of sub-par new material.

The long-tongued bass player of KISS frequently interjects comments in interviews about how drug-using musicians are, shall I say, detrimental to the songwriting process. But the high water marks of the work of so many songwriters seems to correspond to their peak drug intake. What musical performers were better after their heavy drug-use phase?

How about Oasis's "Columbia" (but only for the tune and the vaguely uplifting lyrics, not the drug reference)?

It is odd -- but entertainingly so -- that Lucifer is a British dandy (e.g., knows all about gourmet cooking, interior design).

Tom Waits: then (1970s-1980s) vs. now (1990s-present); also, Bob Dylan now

Are Tom Waits's recordings from the 1970s, 1980s, or thereafter the more memorable efforts?

Waits's recent recordings have received rave reviews. In the 1970s, however, reviewers were decidedly lukewarm about Waits's offerings of sweet melodies, retro instrumentation, improvisational bohemianism, and occasional innovative strangeness (e.g., "Potter's Field"). One uncharacteristically harsh recent reviewer argued that Waits has been "rewriting 'Rain Dogs' [1983] for the past 20 years." I don't think that is literally true, but the general thrust of the argument -- that Waits's last several recordings have been less inventive that his 80s efforts -- seems accurate.

The turning point in Waits's musical career seems to have been his marriage to Kathleen Brennan circa 1980, when his milieu changed from romantic idealism to experimental eccentricity. His next few releases -- "Swordfishtrombones," "Rain Dogs," and "Frank's Wild Years" -- are, arguably, his best recordings. His more recent recordings have a "do-it-yourself" quality.

A similar trend (somewhat surprising rave reviews) is evident in reviews of Bob Dylan's last several recordings -- according to the compendium website "Metacritic," anyway. Both Waits and Dylan are now living legends. (Of course, Dylan has been butchering his own legendary tracks in embarrassingly bad live shows since the 70s; most obviously, he tried to do the Jimi Hendrix version of "All Along the Watchtower," when the original was a brilliant piece of evocative minimalism.) These rave reviews have an honorific quality: most reviewers seem hesitant to be overly harsh with living legends.

Anything by Loverboy is entertainingly bad.

Two Thoughts On Justin Trudeau’s Appearance at the Last Tragically Hip Show

1). Judging by the audience shots, Trudeau was apparently the youngest-looking person there. [snark mark]

2). Gord Downie’s between-song orations included at least two fairly lengthy comments about Canadian Aboriginals. One was about the once-canceled investigation into the deaths of numerous Aboriginal women, the other about the difficulties facing Aboriginals in Northern communities. Both of these comments included encouraging sentiments about the Trudeau administration’s policies. A few interpretations of these Downie comments are possible:

A). Downie was attempting to raise awareness of these issues on this national broadcast.

B). Downie sought to express genuine praise for the Trudeau administration.

C). The subtext of Downie’s comments might be thought to imply something along the lines of "the treatment of Canada’s Aboriginal population is a national disgrace and in need of very serious attention." In other words, Downie might be thought to have been resorting to the venerable Catholic practice of shaming another party (the Trudeau administration) into good behavior (following through with some of its election promises).

This last view is expressed, though more diplomatically, in Tania Kohut’s article about Trudeau’s appearance at the concert: “While Downie’s words were of praise, they also posed a challenge of sorts to the prime minister on a very public stage.”

Source:
Tania Kohut, “The Tragically Hip invited Justin Trudeau to Kingston concert,” Global News. August 23, 2016.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2896289/the-tragically-hip-invited-justin-trudeau-to-kingston-concert-pmo/

Frank's previous four books were very good. "What's the Matter With Kansas" and "The Wrecking Crew" were particularly memorable for the satirical edge, for which Frank is known. His last several online articles have been trivial, hectoring, lacking in any satirical edge, and rhetorical in the worst sense. The portions of "Listen, Liberal" made available as sample passages seem very similar. The issue is not that Frank has turned his gaze to the Democrats, but rather that his gaze is now sloppy and trivial. In other words, content is not what seems to be wrong with Frank's recent writing, but rather that he seems to have abandoned the satirical edge that is his trademark.