Seems there are more and more You Tube videos of bands playing cover versions of older music. They're playing it very well. The technical quality of both audio and video is impeccable. It sounds damned good. But they're playing it just like the record (like the original recording). Sometimes the arrangement, instrumentation and vocal is exactly like the record. If you close your eyes, you might think you're listening to the original. BUT IT'S NOT!
Essentially, it's 'Full-Body Karaoke.' Right? After I've heard several of these, I get a yen for the original. Let's face it, with digital remastering the original comes very close to the young, new cover version on a technical basis. Why go to all the trouble?
I only ask the question, and this is my rant for today. But as an original musician, who (maybe, just sometimes) feels under-appreciated and under-supported, I cringe at the number of highly-recommended cover music videos presented to me.
Make no mistake, I completely appreciate any and all musical efforts. I am a firm believer that MUSIC IS MAGIC. The talent, skill, time and financial investment in these videos is, I'm sure, substantial. Kudos. But on a purely personal level, I prefer an original composition, original approach to a genre or a blend of multiple genres, because there really is no limit to the twists and turns an original artist can employ to create something new and possibly different.
That's what I'm talkin' about.
What do you think? Tell me at