Talk:Cover version

What the devil means "A and R men"? This should definitely be clarified.

I'm *pretty* certain that, in fact, the K-Trio's version of Tom Dooley was a *cover* of it being sung just *slightly* earlier by the Tarriers, a fine, and now completely forgotten group, that preceded the Trio by about a year -- I actually owned their original record. They are the ones who had a big hit with Hill and Gully Rider or whatever that song was.... Hayford Peirce 19:14, 5 March 2008 (CST)

Place cursor over 'A&R men' (in fact it's better without the spaces), and all will be revealed!

Now I'm going to google the Tarriers... Ro Thorpe 13:43, 6 March 2008 (CST)

The WP article on the song makes all clear. Ro Thorpe 13:49, 6 March 2008 (CST)

answer songs

Do we want separate article about these? In a sense, they *are* cover songs -- just with different words....

• The Wild Side of Life -- It Wasn't God Who Made Honky-Tonk Angels
• He'll Have to Go -- He'll Have to Stay

Hayford Peirce 15:12, 6 March 2008 (CST)

WP's article is pretty short, and over half of it is about hip-hop, so I think those would go very well here for now. Ro Thorpe 15:17, 6 March 2008 (CST)

On the other hand, WP's article on Cover version is a gazillion words long! Geez! I think, upon mature consideration, that we'd probably better have two separate articles. Sooner or later, the different sections would get long enough split, and that might cause redirect etc. problems. Hayford Peirce 16:30, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Allez, allez (to quote Justine) - Ro Thorpe 17:25, 6 March 2008 (CST)

As in Les Malheurs du Vertu, where she might be encouraging the gardener, say, in his efforts? Hayford Peirce 12:56, 7 March 2008 (CST)

Royalties

"Because the songwriter, through the publisher, gets most of the royalties from each playing of a cover tune, cover songs are both a form of flattery and a source of income for songwriters" -- I hate to sound like a WPian, but could you give a *source* for this? I just can't believe that the *songwriter* gets *most* of the royalties from a cover. Ie, at a minimum, more than 50% of the revenues. More than the singer? More than Capitol Records or RCA or whoever? If that's really the case, then why would anyone *bother* to cover another song? It wouldn't be worth the effort unless you *knew* it would be a million-seller, in which case, I suppose a small percentage would be worthwhile. I'm not dogmatically saying that this statement is *not* correct -- I'd just like to see some sourcing for it. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 12:56, 7 March 2008 (CST)

I don't have a ready source for that statement. It is what I have been told by songwriters. Many covers are done as an homage to the original artist, or as an answer song, or are made to help bring attention to a new artist. Some artists, particularly in the 50s and 60s, essentially gave away most of their rights to royalties by signing very bad contracts. Also, artists still make money for their performances, ie concerts. One hit song fills concert venues. After all of that blathering, I will, of course, try to find an actual reference for you. David E. Volk 13:19, 7 March 2008 (CST)

Did covers fail?

Until at least recently, they were still fairly common in the old-fashioned type of country music. Since I don't listen to the stuff anymore, since, oh, 2000, I dunno what the situation is now, though....

I wasa referring to the 'instant' pop covers in 60s Britain, before revivals came to be called covers. I think it may well have been another one by Cilla; anyway, everyone bought the American version & the Brit one sank, & the practice stopped, for good (in both senses). When exactly 'cover' changed its meaning I don't know because I didn't listen to pop music much again until the 70s. Ro Thorpe 13:20, 7 March 2008 (CST)