One of the things I hate (and criticism aimed at Alex for doing a version of Mike Leander's Lady Godiva - wrongly described as a "cover" of Peter and Gordon - whose version was, of course, a "cover" of Mike's song) is people knocking versions.

There are many talents; writing is one, singing is another, performing is a third - not all of which need be in the same person. Sinatra and Presley were great singers who never wrote a song worth hearing. Springsteen is a great performer who also happens to be a great writer and singer. The Beatles were lousy performers but great writers and sometimes great singers of other peoples' songs (Twist and Shout)...

Amanda Platell in today's Mail raves about Adele "because she writes her own songs". Not true Amanda - she writes some; she co-writes others and she does superb versions of other peoples' songs (Make You Feel My Love).

Songwriting is an art. Indeed - composing melodies and writing lyrics are two different skills that do not have to be exclusive but can be.

I've tried to teach Alex how to write (and he's learnt brilliantly) but I urge him to polish his singing and performing skills too.

It's a romantic notion. But neither Elvis nor Edith Piaf wrote (or very little in Piaf's case). Neither James Dean nor Richard Harris wrote their own dialogues. Hendrix didn't write "Hey Joe". Need I go on?

If you can sing, you owe it to your gift and your audience to sing the best songs out there, no matter who wrote them.

Stones did covers, Cheap Trick did a whole cover album of Sgt Pepper, Beatles wrote for Gerry & The Pacemakers, A World Without Love was written by Paul McCartney for Peter and Gordon. I do hate these covers on advert Our House by CSNY is superb and covered awfully same as Here Comes The Sun.

I believe covers are acceptable if they are different interpretations of the original and/or if the artist does a large (80%+) of new material. "Stars on 45" type covers may sell and get high chart positions but are not the basis for a sustainable career.

It should be noted that an original recording can be a cover version of another artist's song (Beatles - Mary Hopkin, Badfinger etc, Stones - Marianne Faithful, Springsteen - Pointer Sisters) These shouldn't be considered cover versions as they were the first recording of the song. There are also artists that don't write their own songs but use songwriters to supply songs (Sinatra, Elvis, Motown plus numerous other solo artists) Most "pop artists" rely on songwriters to supply material but as there is a very limited supply of quality they also have to do lots of cover versions of previously released songs.

This is one area were the "new model" will struggle. Professional song writers want to have their songs recorded by artists that will have the biggest commercial success and it is the majors that will control the largest stable of artists that fall into that category. For new acts it is the relationship between the major and the songwriter that will convince the songwriter to allow the recording of their songs. Major record labels also have the necessary relationships with the publishing companies. It can be a very incestuous relationship that gets good songs from established songwriters but this is a business and like other businesses it is "who you know" that makes the difference. The "new model" may work for an artist who writes their own material but if they don't they will need the contacts and introductions that the majors provide.

JK2006 wrote:
Amanda Platell in today's Mail raves about Adele "because she writes her own songs". Not true Amanda - she writes some; she co-writes others and she does superb versions of other peoples' songs (Make You Feel My Love).
Yes indeed - the tabloid narrative for Adele is of the plucky Tottenham gel fighting a lonely battle for real music from her draughty garret, but "21" is a ruthlessly A&R-ed concoction, with large numbers of co-writers and producers, all put together to come up with a product as attractive as possible to The Market, a job done incredibly well...

None of which is intended as negative - I actually miss the days of A&R, people whose job it was to track down songs, new & old, that would suit their clients... songwriting is just so lucrative that post-Beatles, every artist wants their slice of that pie...

No MM, I really don't think it came through greed; I think it came through mistaken image provoked - guess who? - by the media who promoted the idea that a creative musical artiste needs to be all things. Wrong - and it means everyone gets less good at each area.

while you may get a hit you don't often get a career, something our host has never understood. Look no further than...Toploader.

I would have thought Presley and Sinatra had reasonable careers but you may know better than I (how many of her hits did Dusty Springfield write?)

Frank, Elvis and Dusty may have not written many songs but they did release many tracks that were never previously recorded and as such made them their own. To find these previously never recorded songs/hits you need contacts and be able to guarentee that there will be a sizeable marketing campaign.

JK is spot on here and Blue Boy I have no idea where you get your ideas from. A cover is a cover is a cover.
Also new model artists profit from doing covers because this is as very fast way of getting recognised naturally
through the mighty Youtube search engine.

Personally I think doing a cover alongside your own songs and songs written by others IS the way to do an album.
Michael Jackson used this (partially) on the best of his albums and started going downhill when he stopped working
with the likes of Rod Temperton.

"A cover is a cover is a cover" - Sorry J&D but all covers are not the same. There are songwriters that will write a song "to order" for a particular artist and when these songs are recorded they are being recorded for the first time. A couple of examples are Holland, Dozier and Holland, Chapman and Chinn, Diane Warren. These are many more modern examples of people who can write songs but are not performers. When these songs are recorded for the first time they should not be considered cover versions.

I think the word "cover" is confusing and wrong - I prefer "interpretation" and very much differentiate between "photocopies" (which is the problem with so many BGT/Voice/XF versions) and original interpretations - both Nina Simone and Marlene Dietrich did fabulous interpretations of my Moon song; as a songwriter I think the most satisfying and delicious flattery is a great, clever interpretation of one of my songs.

I'm still waiting for Adele's interpretation of Johnny Reggae.

Joking apart - I've been a songwriter, singer and performer and, to bring the discussion back to the original point, am trying to teach Alex how to do all three as well.

BB?????

Shall we quit playing semantic games. This is the dictionary meaning of a "cover".

cover song - a recording of a song that was first recorded or made popular by somebody else; "they made a cover of a Beatles' song"

A song recorded by an artist which HAS not been recorded before is NOT a cover.

Now we know what we are talking about let's address JK's comments

Jaded and Bored wrote:
BB?????

Shall we quit playing semantic games. This is the dictionary meaning of a "cover".

cover song - a recording of a song that was first recorded or made popular by somebody else; "they made a cover of a Beatles' song"

A song recorded by an artist which HAS not been recorded before is NOT a cover.

Now we know what we are talking about let's address JK's comments

well put J&B. Here are some examples:

MOTT THE HOOPLE - ALL THE YOUNG DUDES. Not a cover. Was written for them by David Bowie and MtH recorded and released it first.

BOYZONE - FATHER & SON. A cover. Cat Stevens wrote and recorded it first and not for Boyzone.