Tuesday, 15 October 2013

"Seems that cover labels with different genres are better than original ones"

"Seems that cover labels with different genres 
are better than original ones"

(Or All after listening to the songs Miley Cyrus had sung)

It was Sunday night when this writer had listened some cover labels of well-known songs being played in Youtube. And most of the songs being played are somehow radically different from the original ones this writer tend to despise with, especially the person being posted a day ago.

Yes, it's abit strange to listen to those labels at first, that one had afford to make a metal, jazz, doo-wop version over a song usually laced with autotune and much criticized videoes; but knowing that this writer had loved the music of his generation than those of today, the labels seemed to be much better than the original ones being played thoroughly, or let's say "this should been played as the original" and the ones being sung by today's autotuned artists are the "cover labels and revived ones."

Let's take this version of "We Can't Stop" by Miley Cyrus.

Sorry for the fans who thinks about the version they commonly listen as "catchy," woozy", and "quintessentially California"; but seems that the cover version made by Scott Bradlee and Robyn Anderson, although it had turned it into a retro one such as a doo-wop, would say that it gives least "coolness", and much "catchy" and "smart" especially if the listener had loved much the music that commonly plays in the turntable.

So is the rock version of "Wrecking ball" sung by Mira Fana.

Admittingly speaking, the version of Mira Fana would say that Miley's song should been sung by Bonnie Tyler and had it acoustic instead; and having a twist of Joan Jett had made it better as to express what Miley had tried to invoke, and thus Ms. Fana made it happen to use Miley's song, played like Joan's, and sung like Bonnie's.
Again, quite nice though isn't it?

but on the other hand, this writer, speaking that he preferred listening to the music of his generation, or even the earlier ones, would say that nothing beats the original when it comes to the quality being presented rather than the singer who had sung and made a crass copy of it, that A-Ha's "Take on Me" is worth listening than A1, or IAXE than those of Daniel Padilla in "Ako'y sa iyo at ika'y akin".

That somehow made others whose nostalgia, or let's say yearning for real feel good music had afford to take time making versions of today's hits based on their preferences, while others who ought to listen, again think that their versions "should been the original" instead of the actual ones.
Knowing that the emotions, the style, the tone being played fits for the music instead of the usual one that is, played much in the radio.

Just like one of the Youtube commentators said: 

  "I never would've listened to any of the songs you've covered if it weren't for you guys turning crappy music into gold. I swear, you guys do better than the originals. Please make more covers, I just love them."

Anyways, in short, this writer is abit choosy when it comes to cover versions of some popular songs, if it fits then why not have it listen? After all, not all today's music, both the singer and the song being sung are easily deemed "good" in the ears of a listener.

Worse, whose managers and producers think about the face value than the quality of music being presented.