• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cover vs. Interpreation

Peregrinus

Graduate Poster
P
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
1,213
When, in reference to (mostly) pop culture musical performances, did "version," "arrangement" or "interpretation" become "cover." And why?
 
Peregrinus said:
When, in reference to (mostly) pop culture musical performances, did "version," "arrangement" or "interpretation" become "cover." And why?
Click to expand...

I think the distinction is that a band can arrange or interpret a new version of their own songs, which does not make the final product a cover.
 
This refers to "covers" of pieces originally done by others. I was aware of and listened to arrangements, interpretations and versions for more than 60 years; now everyone does covers. I feel the above answer does not explain anything.
 
As I recall, the change in usage began in the '60s. Prior to that it was very common for performing artists to perform others songs. For the first half of the century the performer and song writer were distinctly separate. This is, perhaps, an artifact of the era before commercial recording and radio. Music in that period was all performed live, so it was impossible for a singer to have a huge audience. Song writers, on the other hand, could have wide popularity through the sale of sheet music to be performed by professionals, and by ordinary people at home. There were a lot of singers, relatively few writers.

With record and radio media the popular singing star emerged. At first the separation of singer and song writer remained, with a shift in emphasis making the singer the star, and the writer often anonymous. Recording companies would often release the same song performed by various artists, continuing the earlier idea of versions or "as performed by".

In the '40s and '50s there was a trend to identify songs strongly with the first well known performer, so they 'owned' the song. I think this is when the idea that other versions were covers rather than versions began.

In the '60s the singer/song writer became much more prevalent, with most performers doing their own songs, or ones written for them. With versions becoming much less common, the term 'cover' or 'remake' replaced 'versions' and 'interpretations'.
 
"In the '60s the singer/song writer became much more prevalent, with most performers doing their own songs, or ones written for them. With versions becoming much less common, the term 'cover' or 'remake' replaced 'versions' and 'interpretations'. "

(All through the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's etc., performers and groups were doing their versions of others' works, some quite close to the original while others displayed noticeable ranges of variation. These were always versions, arrangements, etc.)

All well and good. But, from 1970-1979 I was a disc jockey for a local (network-affiliated) radio station and the term "cover" referring to an adaption, arrangement or interpretation was never once used. Now, anything deriving (even loosely) from the work of another is "cover."
 
Last edited:
Could be a regional usage difference. I recall the term used in the '70s here in Portland (one of the local radio stations had a feature called "Cover Stories"). Wikipedia has this to say on it's history: "The Chicago Tribune described the term in 1952: "trade jargon meaning to record a tune that looks like a potential hit on someone else's label."
 
Many artists get most of their music from freelancer composers, who could compose for anyone if the price is right. Maybe the marketing culture of deifying pop musicians for their ingenious songs somehow leads to considering also freelancer-composed songs as "originally recorded by this or that useless amateur singer", and anyone else performing the same would be doing a "cover".

Covers sell just OK, it is not a shame to do (some) covers, so the term is not a problem.
 
Pope130 said:
As I recall, the change in usage began in the '60s. Prior to that it was very common for performing artists to perform others songs. For the first half of the century the performer and song writer were distinctly separate. This is, perhaps, an artifact of the era before commercial recording and radio. Music in that period was all performed live, so it was impossible for a singer to have a huge audience. Song writers, on the other hand, could have wide popularity through the sale of sheet music to be performed by professionals, and by ordinary people at home. There were a lot of singers, relatively few writers.

With record and radio media the popular singing star emerged. At first the separation of singer and song writer remained, with a shift in emphasis making the singer the star, and the writer often anonymous. Recording companies would often release the same song performed by various artists, continuing the earlier idea of versions or "as performed by".
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me - a song performed by Hank Williams or Elvis wasn't just a song they performed, it was a part of who they were.
 
Still nothing clearly pointing to why version or interpretation should now be the ubiquitous cover.
 
In addition to what has been said already, 'cover' is easier to say and probably perceived as less pretentious than 'arrangement', 'version' or 'interpretation', especially if you're talking about "covers bands"



(I've just got to the point where the word 'cover' has lost all meaning from looking at it so closely.)
 
Pope130 said:
Could be a regional usage difference. I recall the term used in the '70s here in Portland (one of the local radio stations had a feature called "Cover Stories"). Wikipedia has this to say on it's history: "The Chicago Tribune described the term in 1952: "trade jargon meaning to record a tune that looks like a potential hit on someone else's label."
Click to expand...
I recall the term being used in the Boston area in the 70s as well.
 
zooterkin said:
In addition to what has been said already, 'cover' is easier to say and probably perceived as less pretentious than 'arrangement', 'version' or 'interpretation', especially if you're talking about "covers bands"



(I've just got to the point where the word 'cover' has lost all meaning from looking at it so closely.)
Click to expand...

I play in a band where 80% of what we play has been written by someone outside the band. The vast majority of these are tracks which are popular and recognisable (as long as we play them OK) to our audience.

All of these are covers but in out own minds we differentiate between those where we try as hard as possible to make what we do sound like a known version - a true cover if you will - and those where we have taken a song and put a Wyld Bird Seed spin on it - an interpreted cover.

Our version of Sweet Dreams is quite different from the Eurythmics version so whilst lyrics and melody (as long as we don't **** it up ;)) are close to the original, the arrangement is a Wyld Bird Seed one. OTOH we have taken great pains to make our version of Rikki Don't Lose that Number as close to Steely Dan's as our limited talent will allow.

That said the ubiquity of the fade out means that all covers bands have to work out how to finish songs for themselves :mad:
 
I seem to recall reading something that said that, orignally, 'covers' came out remarkably soon after the original song had been published, in order to try to steal sales from the original, hence, 'covering' it.

Not sure how accurate that might be though, it is a vague memory.
 
3point14 said:
I seem to recall reading something that said that, orignally, 'covers' came out remarkably soon after the original song had been published, in order to try to steal sales from the original, hence, 'covering' it.

Not sure how accurate that might be though, it is a vague memory.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends what you mean by 'originally'. :) Before the 60s, and singers and groups who recorded their own material, songs were written, and often more than one artist would record a version; I don't know if the term 'cover' was used then, and whether the first recording was regarded as the 'original', or just the first.

What you refer to did happen, though; it's partly how Robert Stigwood was successful. In the days before the internet and a global market, he'd look out for hot new songs in the States, and then record a version with local talent and release it before the US version was released in the UK (the innovation was spotting the hit before its release in the UK; previously the UK acts would be recording their version after the original hit the charts).
 
The term "cover" is actually quite old, going back to the earliest days of phonograph music production. It's precisely as 3point14 describes; historically having different artists record the same song was so normal it wasn't worth commenting on (the concept of an "original artist" didn't exist). However when a song became a big hit, rival record companies would quickly record versions of it with their own artists and release it as quickly as possible to try and cash in on its popularity. This was called a "cover". It was particularly successful in the early days because album distribution was incredibly localised, and customers tended to only ask for the song, not the artist. So a local record company could put out a version of a song long before the "original" version became available for sale, and thus make a lot of money.

This all changed through the 30s, 40s and 50s as younger audiences began to be more aware of individual artists, and would ask for not just a song, but a song by a particular artist. This was really locked in with the advent of Rock n' Roll. At the time, the most popular radio airplay was light orchestra, so light orchestra "covers" of Rock n' Roll songs were broadcast over radio, and as you can imagine parents preferred their children to listen to these versions. As you can also probably imagine, their children hated the sanitised versions. They wanted the "original". This was really when the preeminence of an original artist's recording emerged. At that point all other versions of a song were folded into a single term - "cover".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom