Cover-Up

Live per4mances used 2 b the only way that people got 2 hear and enjoy music. Back then, “covering” songs and instrumental music made sense. In fact, in classical music, the whole concept of interpretation is based on the idea that the music lives thru its interpretation by live musicians — and most classical music is only known through these interpretations by people other than the composers of the music.

The adoption of recording technologies over the past century changed everything. Initially, records were only used as a way 2 “capture” a live per4mance — and this gives them a value that is now mostly of a historical nature.

Over time, however, the artists themselves started 2 get involved in the recording process — and this involvement is what ended up giving the recordings themselves an artistic value. In other words, if the artists themselves r involved in decisions about how their music is recorded, edited, mixed, etc., then all these aspects become part of the music as a work of art as well. All these aspects develop an artistic value 4 themselves — and the very definition of music is changed.

During the 20th century, recording became more than just “creating a record” of something. Recording became an art, an essential artistic dimension of what the art known as music has evolved in2.

Yet this dimension is still far from being fully recognized. When commercial interests are at stake, the artistic dimension of a recording is often conveniently relegated 2 the sidelines, if not ignored al2gether. Unscrupulous people (including artists themselves sometimes) make decisions and behave as if all that mattered was the song itself, as if the way the song was recorded was only secondary.

Which brings us 2 the current issue of song “covers” in modern music. In light of the evolution of recording as a 4m of art, the very concept of covering music has become problematic, and artists who indulge in covering the songs of other artists on record find themselves walking on very shaky ground indeed.

REcover

People often argue that covers r a positive way 2 bring “old” songs back 2 life, a way 2 make a new, younger audience become aware of them and learn 2 appreciate them. This, however, begs the question: Why is it necessary 2 bring these songs back 2 life in the first place? R these songs “dead”? Of course they r not. They still xist, they r still alive in their original 4m, on record, in the very 4m that the artist chose 2 give 2 them.

If young people r not listening 2 these “old” records, if they r not paying attention, that might very well b bcuz these records r not as easily accessible as they should b. It might b that record companies, radio stations, TV channels, and concert promoters, in their endless quest for the new, in their headlong rush towards increased profits and higher “return on investment”, r deliberately creating an artistic vacuum that younger artists r not able 2 fill in a satisfying fashion with their own artistry.

In addition, it is rather hypocritical 2 argue that covers r a way 4 younger generations 2 find out about the “old school”, when the focus is always entirely on the individual or band doing the cover. More often than not, young people have no idea that the song that they like is actually a cover of an “old” song.

More importantly, however, it is 2 often argued that older songs need 2 b “refreshed” or “updated” — when the updating consists mostly in applying a coating of trendy beats and other hip sounds of the day. This attitude ultimately demonstrates an utter lack of respect 4 the original vision of the artist who recorded these songs.

A well-known advocate 4 the music business says that “a song has no life until it is per4med”. This is obviously untrue. One can read music and “hear” it and b moved, just as one can “see” a painting, and b moved or “read” a poem and b moved. In addition, thanks 2 the advent of the art of recording, one can now hear music on record as the artist intended it 2 b heard, and fully appreciate the artist’s vision. And the art of making music has evolved accordingly.

So y rn’t songwriters and recording artists respected and protected as painters and other artists r? When someone paints a “new” version of an “old” painting, this person is considered, at best, a copyist, and, at worst, a plagiarist. New painters can and do learn from their masters, but they always strive 2 absorb their learning and then come up with an artistic vision of their own, without resorting 2 “covers” of their masters’ works 2 assert their own artistic identity.

There might b times when artists feel the need 2 pay homage 2 other artists, but, even then, would they really want 2 do so by appropriating these artists’ works? There r many ways 2 pay homage, and covers r, ultimately, a rather sterile 4m of homage, bcuz they r of such limited creative value.

DIScover

It gets worse.

Paying homage is one thing, rewriting a composition is quite another. Altering the title, changing the lyrics, rearranging the music — any such activity, when the original composition already xists in its full, accomplished 4m, essentially amounts 2 a violation of the artist’s rights over his or her own creations.

2 take a simple xample, recording a cover with curse words when the original song was curse-free is basically an affront 2 the spirit of the song itself. Yet no one seems 2 find this problematic. If anyone ever painted a copy of Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa with a bigger smile and tried 2 pass it off (and sell it!) as a well-intended homage 2 the original, how do u think people would react?

Fundamentally, what gets lost in almost any cover is any kind of subtlety, any kind of carefully-crafted balance between opposing 4ces, any creative tension. Yet this tension is precisely where the essence of the song resides. Without that tension, all that’s left is an ersatz of a song, a “remake” that, in most cases, should never have xisted.

This becomes even more obvious when a song is dismantled and basically put thru a process of cutting and pasting in order to build something that is allegedly “new”. In spite of all the claims of avant-garde post-modernist innovativeness of such approaches by self-appointed xperts, we have yet 2 hear anything of the kind that has actually stood the test of time and reached that higher plateau of artistry where there is no time at all, where art is timeless.

Whether it is intentional or not, most music produced 2day is highly contingent and amounts 2 little more than a commodity. Un4tunately, most covers fall under the same category, and r just another illustration, yet again, of the dire need 4 change in the way music is approached, xperienced, and valued in r societies.

UNcover

Mayb it is time radio stations stop playing covers and start daring 2 play the originals instead.

Mayb it is time 2 cover all the bland musical products of the day with a modest sheet of oblivion and 2 try 2 promote the real music that is alive in r midst.

Mayb it is time 2 realize that the “old” is often newer than the “new”.

Mayb it is time 2 remember that the key word in “old school” is “school”.

Mayb it is time 2 start educating r youth about the artistic value of music, rather than the commercial value of so-called artists.

Mayb it is time people realize that great art is timeless, and that this includes recorded music from the 20th century as well.

Mayb it is time the dominant art 4m of the 20th century is treated with the same respect as the dominant art 4ms of previous centuries.

Mayb it is time people start fighting the real fight and thinking about what happens 2 the integrity of real art in r digital world, rather than about who gets the biggest slice of whatever pie they think they r entitled 2.

Mayb it is time 2 remember that the miracle thru which a creator brings his creation 2 physicality grants him sole authority over the life of the creation.

Mayb it is time 2 bring back the awareness that art is the most direct xpression of the human soul and that the way we treat art is a reflection of the way we treat r own kind.

Mayb it is time we think about what mankind has created thus far, what we r doing 2 it, and what we will create in the future.

Mayb it is time we finally get 2 hear the truth UNcovered.