Ronnie Van Zant wrote and sang that song. Suggesting someone else did it better is laughable! That's like saying someone else painted a better Mona Lisa than da Vinci, or wrote a better Gettysburg Address than Lincoln. That song was his and anything else is poor replica.
There are occasionally covers that upstage the original works. Johnny Cash completely owns the NIN song Hurt after he covered it.
As to Outshine's cover of Simple Man, whether or not it's better is personal preference. They certainly did justice to the song.
I think a lot of people miss the point. The original work, be it a song, a painting, whatever, sets the standard. It came from the artist's heart, mind and talent at the time they created it. Another artist can come along and attempt to put their mark on it, but as I said previously, it's a replica.
Deadlines and commitments, what to leave in, what to leave out...
While a musician covering another artist's work cannot claim the inspiration and creativity of the original work, they can still produce a very worthwhile version of the song that pays respect to the original artist and can allow the new artist to express their interpretation of the work.
To say only the original has value would mean that it would never be worth watching a singer perform live, as they are just performing a replica of their original song, or as is often the case, a slight variance of the original.
I wouldn't argue with that Mr Lott, but I have to admit it's always annoyed me at a concert, when a hit song, the one you came to hear, gets changed by the artist. Oh well...it's their song. They can sing it however they want. My point all along in this conversation was not meant to suggest that someone else couldn't do a good job of covering an original.
Last edited by Bobmar; 02/24/16.
Deadlines and commitments, what to leave in, what to leave out...
Shinedown botches the song. "All that want for you my son".... Shinedown mumbles and squawks out "all that i want from"
Fuggin idiots
It makes a difference if youre an unforgiving purist. The only reason they got to cover the joint was because the guitarist from shinedown was shacking up with Melody VZ.
I don't know if it was the venue, the night, or Shinedown is really a bunch of talentless hacks who can't get by without the studio's help. But I saw them live right after they released their version of Simple Man, and they were absolutely 100 percent atrocious. If they hadn't been the opening act I would have left after the second "song". And I was looking forward to seeing them after hearing them get lots of airplay on the radio at the time.
BTW Van Halen was Okay as the main event, not the best show ever but pretty good so I don't think the acoustics were that bad in there
That kid's got quite the unique voice and persona. I like his cover.......however as mentioned by Slumlord, from a purist standpoint, he didn't do so good on replicating the lyrics.
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
While a musician covering another artist's work cannot claim the inspiration and creativity of the original work, they can still produce a very worthwhile version of the song that pays respect to the original artist and can allow the new artist to express their interpretation of the work.
To say only the original has value would mean that it would never be worth watching a singer perform live, as they are just performing a replica of their original song, or as is often the case, a slight variance of the original.
"can allow the new artist to express their interpretation of the work."
As a Professional Musician who used to make a living re-performing hundreds of works by others "interpretations" just rub me the wrong way. A true Musician always respects the original work and Artist by practicing hundreds of hours on a piece in effort to reproduce it as "Exact" as possible to show respect for the original.
Self interpretation and a change of "Flavor" are considered disrespectful to the original Artists creativity and talent. You want the listener to be able to close their eyes and have shivers go down their spine because it is so hard to hear a difference between your rendition and the original.
In fact there are Copyright laws against doing this and rights must be purchased before Hacking one apart with your own "interpretation" whether it "Sounds decent" or not.
I guess it boils down to the difference between an Artist and a Listener when it comes to this issue.
When I no longer have the right to protect my own person or property...my person and property have become public property in common.
