Cover Songs: Ambiguity, Multivalence, Polysemy

University of Dayton

eCommons

!"$'*'(!/,$+/,$"+"'&* ()+%&+'!"$'*'(!/



Kurt Mosser

University of Dayton)%'**),/+'&,

'$$'.+!"*&"+"'&$.')#*+ !2('%%'&*,/+'&,(!$(,

)+'+! "*+')/'!"$'*'(!/'%%'&*&+! ,*"'$' /'%%'&*

1"*)+"$"*)', !++'/','))&'(&**/+!()+%&+'!"$'*'(!/+'%%'&*+!*&(+')"&$,*"'&"&!"$'*'(!/

,$+/,$"+"'&*/&,+!')"0%"&"*+)+')''%%'&*')%')"&')%+"'&($*'&++ )",/+'&,

%*!$& &,/+'&,

'%%'&*"++"'&

'**),)+'-)'& *%" ,"+/,$+"-$&'$/*%/ Philosophy Faculty Publications. ()

!2('%%'&*,/+'&,(!$(,

“CoverSongs”:Ambiguity,Multivalence,Polysemy

KurtMosser

Associateprofessor,DepartmentofPhilosophy,TheUniversityofDayton,DaytonOH

IIntroduction

Thenotionofa“coversong”iscentraltoanunderstandingofcontemporarypopular

music,andhascertainlyreceiveditsshareofattentioninwritingaboutcontemporary

music,fromthemainstreampresstoslightlymoretechnicalethnomusicologicalstudies

suchas”CrossCultural‘Countries’:Covers,Conjuncture,andtheWhiffofNashvillein

MúsicaSertaneja(BrazilianCommercialCountryMusic)”(Dent,2005).Inmanymajor

U.S.cities,musiciansmakealivingin“cover”bands,recreatingthemusicofwellknown

groupssuchastheBeatles,theRollingStones,PinkFloyd,U2,theWho,ABBA,The

DaveMatthewsBand,TheGratefulDead,andothers.Consumersofpopularmusicwill

easilyidentifyafavorite“cover,”afavoritetributealbumdevotedto“covers”ofaparticular

musicianorgroup,andoftenevenafavorite“cover”band.Inshort,theterm“cover”song

isusedwithouttherecognitionthattherearemanydifferentkindsof“covers,”andthus

thatthereferenceoftheveryterm“coversong”issystematicallyambiguous.For

instance,inhisthoughtfuldiscussionoftwoPetShopBoys“cover”songs,MarkButler

writes“LikehiphopreworkingsofclassicsoulriffsorBeethoven’suseofrecitativeinhis

instrumentalworks,coversprovideanintertextualcommentaryonanothermusicalwork

orstyle”(Dent,1)yetfailstorecognizethatthekindof“cover”involvedwillbe

fundamentallyrelevanttowhatsortof“intertextualcommentary”results.Similarly,inhis

defenseofcoversongs,DonCusicnotesthat“Fromanartist’sperspective,coversare

importantbecausethey(1)provideasongproventobeahittotherepertoire,(2)showan

importantinfluenceontheartist,and(3)givetheaudiencesomethingfamiliarwhen

introducinganewact”(Cusic,174).Yet,again,thespecifickindof“cover”songinvolved

hereimportantlyinformsallthreeofthecriterialistedandhowtheyareevaluated.And

whileusefullydistinguishingbetween“covers”and“hijackings”ofsongs,MichaelCoyle’s

analysisof“covers”stillfailstodojusticetothefactthattherearemanydistinctkindsof

“covers,”withawiderrange,thanhesuccessfullyindicates(Coyle,2002).

Atfirstglance,thetermcoversongseemsstraightforwardenough:artist1

performs/recordssongx;artist2inturnperforms/recordssongx,andisthussaidtocover

eithersongxorartist1’sversionofsongx.Onemightbetemptedtosupplementthis

formaldefinitionwiththenotionthatacoversongisnecessarilylater,chronologically,than

thesongbeingcovered;yet,aswewillsee,thismodestadditioncanleadtosuch

paradoxesasasongwritercoveringhisorherownsong.Toclarifysomeoftheseissues,

andtoavoidsuchparadoxes,Iwillusetheterm“base”song,ratherthan“original”song;

formypurposeshere,theterm“base”willbeusedtoidentifyasongthat,duetoits

status,popularity,orpossiblyotherreasons,istakentobeparadigmatic,andthusthe

versiontowhichallotherrecordingsorperformancesarecompared.Withthis

terminologyinhand,wecanbegintoidentifythevariousspeciesofthegenus“cover,”

althoughitwillbeclearfromwhatfollowsthatsuchalistisnotintendedtobeexhaustive,

andthattheboundariesbetweenonespeciesandanothercannotbesufficientlysharp

andrigidtopreventtheirbeingbreached;bothaspectsindicating,again,thesystematic

ambiguityofthetermitself.

Inwhatfollows,Iseektodifferentiatesomedifferentkindsof“covers”incontemporary

popularmusic,inorderthatthesedistinctionsbekeptinmindindiscussingthe

phenomenonof“cover”music.Iwillintroduceabriefsketchofasolution,fromthework

ofLudwigWittgenstein,thatallowstheterm“coversong”tobemaintainedasauseful

musicalnotion,whilestillacknowledgingthatthetermitselfisfraughtwithsemantic

pitfalls.(Hereafter,becauseitisusedthroughoutasatechnicalterm,“cover”willbeused

withoutquotationmarks.)Ishouldnotethattoavoidcomplicationsthatwouldoverwhelm

thisdiscussion,Ilimitmyselfto“popular”musicrecordedorperformedafterWorldWarII.

Ihavealsonottriedtogiveexhaustivelistsofcoversongs,buthavebeencontenttooffer

afewexamplesofeachofthedifferentkinds,andhavegenerallyremainedwithinthe

ambitofmusicproducedintheUnitedStates,withsomeexceptions(particularlyfor

BritishartistscoveringAmericansongs).

Iwillthenconcludewithanbriefaccountofhowthissolutionmightbeapplied,aswellas

indicatinganumberofquestionsthatremain.

IISpeciesofcovers

II.a.Reduplicationcovers

ThekindofcoversongIhaveinmindundertheterm“reduplication”mayberegardedas

oneofthelimitstothelegitimateuseofthenotionofcoversong;somemightwellobject

thatinthiscase,wearenolongerreallyusingthenotionofacoversonginanappropriate

manner.However,inthatwehaveanattempttoprovideanexactcopyofasong,a

record,oraperformance,itisn’tclearwhysuchanattemptdoesn’tfallunderthegeneral

rubricofacover,admittedlyatoneextremeofthatrubric.

Obviouslyenough,thesekindsofcoversareinvariablyliveperformances;theytendtobe

evaluatedonhowpreciseandaccuratethereduplication,orreenactment,ofthebase

performanceis.(Wereabandtoattempttoreduplicateastudiorecording,itwouldeither

failasanattempttobeanaccuratereduplicationorgeneratethepeculiarsituation—

perhapsofmoreinteresttothosedoingmetaphysics,orreadersofBorges,thanthose

analyzingpopularmusic—ofanindistinguishablereduplicationofarecording.[1])

PerhapsthebestknowngroupdevotedtothisideaistheGratefulDeadcoverbandDark

StarOrchestra(DSO).Accordingtoitsownwebsite,

WhatDarkStarOrchestradoesisrecreatetheGratefulDead.Notwithhippie

wigsandfakebeardsbutthroughthelivemusic.Theyplaythesetlistsongfor

songinthesamearrangementsusedbytheDeadmembersofthatperiod.

Whenyou'reataDSOshowyoumayreallybeintheProvidenceCivicCenter

backinMayof'81.Oryoucouldevenbeatthe1973DenverColiseumshow

listeningtoWeatherReportSuite.Whoknows?

(http://www.darkstarorchestra.net/homeframe.htm)

TheideaofDSO,then,istotakeaconcertoftheGratefulDeadandreduplicateit,

includingcommentstotheaudience,breaksfortuning,andotherdetailstoincreasethe

verisimilitude.Clearlyenough,theenduringpopularityoftheGratefulDead’smusicand

thedemandtoseeitperformed,orrecreated,hasledtoasuccessfulcareerfortheDSO.

(Itshouldbenotedthatthissetsuparemarkablemetanarrativeinvolvedforthosewho

tapeDSOshows,inthattheyaretapingshowsthatseektoreduplicatetapesofGrateful

Deadshows.)Similarly,IoncesawthebandexLiontameropenfortheBritishgroupWire

—whosemostrecentrelease,ironicallyenough,was“TheIdealCopy”—byplayingan

exactandinsequenceliveversion—includingwhatontherecordingappeartobe

spontaneousspokenremarks—oftheearlierWirerecording“PinkFlag.”

Clearlysuchtributebands,whichrangefrombandsdoingafewcoversofagivenartistor

grouptoDSO’sattempttorecreatetheGratefulDeadconcert“experience”can,insome

sense,besaidtobedoingcovers;indeed,themostfaithfulcoverspossible.Suchan

approach,then,servestoprovideonelimittotheverynotionofacoversong,inthat,

presumably,ifsuchabandissuccessfulinwhatitseekstodo,onewouldbeunable,on

thebasisofthesoundalone,todistinguishthebasefromthecover.

II.b.Interpretivecovers

II.b.1Minorinterpretations—thehomage

Inthevastmajorityofdiscussionsofcoversongs,theconceptionofacoversonginvolved

isthatofoneartistinterpretinganother.Itshouldbenotedthatsuchsongstendtobe

sufficientlywellknownthatthecoverversionsarequicklyrecognized;insomecases,

suchcoverversionscanbecomepopularenoughtoreplacethebaserecordingand

becomeidentifiedwiththenewerorlaterversionthusbecoming,intheend,a“new”base

recordingtobe,again,coveredbyothers.Thisiswideenoughofacategoryastorequire

twosubspecies,whatIwillcall“minor”and“major”interpretations(whilerecognizingthat,

again,therearenotsharpboundarieshere;indeed,theboundarieshereareprobablyat

theirfuzziest).

Aminorinterpretivecovertendstomaintainthegeneralsenseofthebasesong,including

tempo,melody,generalinstrumentation,andlyrics;inthisway,astheearliercitationfrom

Cusicknoted,suchacoverservesasanhomagetothebasesong,allowingitsinfluence

toberecognized,whilemaintainingtheoriginalintegrityofthebasesong.Suchminor

interpretativecoversmightincludeTalkingHeads’coverofAlGreen’s“TakeMetothe

River,”TheByrds’coverofBobDylan’s“Mr.TambourineMan,”TheBeatles’coverofthe

IsleyBrothers’“TwistandShout,”JasonandtheScorchers’coverofDylan’s“Absolutely

SweetMarie,”LosLobos’scoverofMarvinGaye’s“What’sGoin’On?”andTheWho’s(or

BlueCheer’s)coverofEddieCochrane’s“SummertimeBlues.”Suchcoversprovidea

goodbitofinformationtoanaudienceofwhatabandhaslistenedtoandthoughtenough

oftorecordand/orperform;ittells,forinstance,theTalkingHeads’audiencethatthe

bandhaslistenednotjusttoAlGreen,butmorelikelythannottoagoodbitofRhythm

andBlues;whilenotpartofthattradition,itsreferencestoithelpestablishitsmusical

bonafidesandemphasizetheimportanceofthosesources.Thetendencytoestablish

one’smusicalpedigreehasbeenparticularlypronouncedinthecaseofcontemporary

countrymusic,whereartistscover“classic”countryhits(oftenErnestTubb,Merle

Haggard,GeorgeJones,TammyWynette,LeftyFrizell,PatsyCline,amongotherswhose

country“credentials”arebeyondquestioning),suchastheDixieChickscovering

Wynette’s“StandByYourMan.”Inasimilarfashion,anartistwhoseekstobeseenas

beingawareofthetraditionofcountrymusicandthusestablishhisorhercredentialswith

apotentiallysuspiciousaudiencemayprovideahomagelikecover,ofeitheranextremely

wellknownsong(e.g.EmmylouHarris’scoverofCline’s“Crazy”)orarelativelyobscure

songwhichsuggestsavastknowledgeofthetradition(e.g.GramParsonrevivingthe

musicoftheLouvinBrothersandthushelpingmakeitknowntoanentiregeneration.)

II.b.2Majorinterpretations

Itshouldbeclearenoughalreadythatthenotionofacoversongissystematically

ambiguous,rangingfromvirtualrecreationsofsongstothoseinterpretationsthatextend,

develop,andaugmentthebasesonginrelativelyminorways.Itshouldalsobeclearthat

theboundarybetweenwhatisbeingcalledherea“minor”interpretationanditscontrast—

a“major”interpretation—isitselfquitevague.Whilesuchinterpretations,ingeneral,are

oftenwhatismeantwhenthenotionofcoversong(withoutdistinction)isunder

discussion,theredoesseemtobeadifferencebetweentherelativelyminorchanges

outlinedaboveandthekindofinterpretationthatfundamentallyaltersthesong.Those

variationscanincludeoneormorechangestothetempo,melody,instrumentation,and

lyrics;thebasesongshouldstillberecognizableatthecover’sreference,buttheresulting

cover,inafundamentalsense,becomesanewsong,albeitwithouttheironyofadistinct

categorytobediscussed,the“sendup”cover.Themostsuccessfulofthesearenotonly

thekindsofsongsmostfrequentlymentionedinconversationsaboutcoversongs;some

evenreplacethebasesong;nodoubtmanywouldidentify“Respect”asanAretha

Franklinsong,inspiteoftheearlieroutstandingversionofOtisRedding(asnotedby

Reddinghimselfinoneofhisownliverecordingsofthesong).

Atthesametime,itshouldberecognizedthatcertainsongs,foravarietyofreasons—

fromacatchy“hook”toparticularlyinsightfulorintriguinglyrics—lendthemselvestosuch

majorinterpretations,oftenresultingincoversfrommanydifferentmusicaltraditionsand

perspectives.ThemusicofBobDylanisprobablythemostfecundsourceofcovers,from

entirealbumsdevotedtobluegrassandreggaecoversofDylansongs,towhatisoften

regardedasthemostsuccessfulcoverincontemporarypopularmusic,JimiHendrix’s

coverofDylan’s“AllAlongtheWatchtower”(thesonghasbeencoveredanenormous

numberoftimes,byU2,theDaveMatthewsBandand,amongmanyothers,PatBoone)

[2].Hendrix,ofcourse,takesanaustereandminimalistrecordingoflyricsthatare,even

forDylan,obscureandpolysemousandchangesitintoadrivingrock‘nrollsongfeaturing

extendeddisplaysofHendrix’svirtuosoguitarwork.Other“major”interpretationswould

include,inadditiontothosementioned,RikkiLeeJones’coverofDavidBowie’s“Rebel

Rebel,”(perhaps)JohnColtrane’scoverof“MyFavoriteThings”from“TheSoundof

Music,”RachidTaha’scover(“RockelCasbah”)ofTheClash’s“RocktheCasbah,”and

theCowboyJunkies’coveroftheVelvetUnderground’s“SweetJane.”Allsuchcovers

qualifyasmajorinterpretationsinthattheresultingcoverisquitedistinctfromtheoriginal

song,maintainssomeminimalcontactwiththebasesong,andyetoffersanutterlynew

readingofit.Again,suchversionschallengeaneasyorquickapplicationoftheterm

“coversong”itself:forexample,isColtrane’sinstrumentalversionofaBroadwaytunea

coveratall?Ifnot—andwhyitisn’trequiressomeargument—shouldadistinctcategory

beassignedtosucharelationship?Ifitisacover,whatkindofcoverisit,andwhatkind

ofassumptionsareinvolvedinsoassigningit?[3]

Particularlybecauseofthemostsuccessfulcoverversions,suchmajorinterpretations

oftenfunctionastheparadigmofthecoversongingeneral,inspiteofwhatwehave

seen,andwillseebelow,areoperationalusesofthenotionofthecoversongthat

diverge,oftenquitealot,fromthatparadigm.(Onemightwonderifasongsuchasthe

AllmanBrothers’“MountainJam”evenqualifiesasa“cover,”inthiscaseofDonovan’s

“FirstThereisaMountain.”Whilesuchaquestionimplicitlysupportstheideathat“cover”

isasystematicallyambiguousterm,inthiscasetheAllmanBrothersseemsimplytohave

adoptedthe“hook”fromthebasesong,andthustheirversiondoesnotqualifyasacover;

rather,therelationshipbetweenthetwosongsmightbebetterregardedasclosertothe

kindofrelationshipasthatwhichholdsbetweenahiphopsongandthebasesongit

“samples”[e.g.Nas’s“GetDown,”whichsamplesJamesBrown’s“TheBoss.”])

Hence,toreducecoversongstomajorinterpretationsofcoversongsistoneglect

importantotherkindsofcoversongs,andsuchareductionthusneglects,again,the

systematicambiguitythat“coversong,”usedindiscriminately,conceals.

II.cSendup(Ironic)Covers

Manycoversongsindicatedirectlyadegreeofrespectforthebasesongcovered,

offeringaversion,orinterpretation,thatreferstothebasesongasonedeservingrespect;

indeed,oftenthebasesongisrediscoveredbecauseofthecoverversion;nodoubt

manyonlylearnedofBillMonroe’s“BlueMoonofKentucky”afterhearingElvisPresley’s

cover,andonemightsuggestthesameforLambert,HendricksandRoss’s“Twisted”

(perhapsbetterknownthroughJoniMitchell’scover),LittleRichard’s“LongTallSally”

(knownviatheBeatles),orevenMerleHaggard’s“MamaTried”(whichmanymay

associatewiththeGratefulDead).Aswewillsee,theanalysisofsuchconceptsas

“respect”and“authenticity”areasubsetofamoregeneral,anddeeplyproblematic,

conceptionof“intention,”anddeterminingtheintentionunderlyingoneartist’srecordingof

anotherisfraughtwithsubstantialphilosophicaldifficulties.Indeed,onestandardand

longstandingsolutionissimplytoeschewtheartist’sintent,andtocritiquethevery

attempttoincludeitinone’sanalysisassuccumbingtothe“intentionalfallacy”(see

WimsattandBeardsley,1946.)Thiscertainlysimplifiesthings,butwithcoversongsas

muchasinanyothersuchanalysis,todosorisksthrowingthebabyoutwiththe

bathwateronthebasisofsomeaestheticrigidity,ratherthantryingtoincorporatesome

degreeoftheauthor’sintent,whiledoingsoinacarefulandqualifiedmanner.Having

saidthat,however,anotherkindofcoversongcanbeidentified,whichprovidesa

challengetothelistenertorethinkthebasesongintermsrevealedbythecover:the

“sendup”cover.

PerhapsthebestknownexampleofthissubcategoryofcoversongisSidVicious’s

versionofFrankSinatra’s“MyWay”(writtenbyPaulAnka,butcertainlyidentifiedwith

Sinatra).Thesendupcoverrefashionsthebasesongintoanentirelynewproduct;often,

asinthecaseofthisSinatracover,fundamentallythroughtheuseofirony.(Atthesame

time,suchanapproachmustbedistinguishedfromamere“parody.”whichdeservesits

owndiscussion.)“MyWay”isareflectiononlife,sungbyoneapproachingitsend.

Sinatra’sversionappearedin1969,whenhewas54(andsome30yearsbeforehis

death).SidVicious’sversionappearedin1979(theyearofhisdeathfromaheroin

overdose,althoughfroma1978recording).Theconcludingverseindicatespartofthe

contrast,withtheSinatraversionfollowedherebyVicious’s:

Forwhatisaman,whathashegot?

Ifnothimself,thenhehasnaught.

Tosaythethingshetrulyfeels;

Andnotthewordsofonewhokneels.

TherecordshowsItooktheblowsAnddiditmyway!

Forwhatisaprat,whathashegot

Whenhewearshatsthathecannot

Saythethingshetrulyfeels

Butonlythewords,notwhathefeels

Therecordshows,Ifuckedabloke

Anddiditmyway

Furthermore,inthesendupversionVicioussingsthefirstverseinaratherlugubrious

way,drawingoutsyllablesandalmostputtingoneinmindofthestereotypicaldrunken

guestsingingatawedding;atthatpoint,thesongpicksupthebeat,addspercussionand

bass,andbecomesafast,ifnotfrenetic,quasicomicversion.Sinatra’sversionisduly

reverentofbothlifeandthevalueswithwhichonelivesit;Vicious’sversionwholly

subvertsitintoasneeringconfrontationwithdeath(totheopeninglinesofthefirstverse

“Andnow,theendisnear/AndsoIfacethefinalcurtain,”Viciousadds“Hahaha!”);

addingtothesubversivecontextisthefactthatwithinayearViciouswould,infact,be

dead,notlongafterhisgirlfriendNancySpungen’sdeath(bothfromheroinoverdoses).

Similarly,Devo’scoveroftheRollingStones’“(ICan’tGetNo)Satisfaction”takesthe

basesong’ssomewhatinsipidlyricsaboutfailingtobesatisfiedbyconsumermarketing—

particularlyrelativetosex—and,givingitaratherexoticrhythm,refashionsitintoan

anthemofexistentialdespaircombinedwithanoddlyupbeatoptimism.OnMarkButler’s

reading,ThePetShopBoys’takeU2’s“WheretheStreetsHaveNoName”froma

“spiritualcontemplation”aboutthepossibilityof“transcendentfreedom”toanaffirmation,

evenacelebration,ofcommunity,specificallygaycommunity(Butler,2).TheSnoop

DoggyDogg(nowSnoopDogg)partysong“GinandJuice”isacelebrationofalcohol,

marijuanaandeasysex,combinedwithsomeratherdubioussexualpolitics.Inthehands

ofthe“alternativecountry”bandTheGourds,thecoverversionincludesbluegrass

instrumentationanddistinctivelysoutherndrawls,subvertingasongabouturbanand

AfricanAmericanculturetoasomewhatridiculoussoundingsetofobservationscoming

fromwhitecountrymusicians.Atthesametime,thecoverversion—inadditiontoits

immediatehumorousaspect—challengesthelistenertoconfrontcertainquestionsabout

racialidentity,andinthatwaysuggestingthatratherthanthetwoversionsbeingfrom

radicallydistinctcultures,somethings—includingalcohol,drugs,anddubioussexual

politics—areconsiderablymoreuniversalthantheymightappeartothosemarketingthis

music.Inshort,thesuccessfulsendupcoverprovidesasubversivecontextthatcan

reveallayersofsubstanceandevenunsuspectedmeaning.

II.d.Parodycovers

Inadditiontothestandard,ifnotparadigmatic,covers—minorinterpretation,major

interpretation,andsendupcovers—wehaveseenonelogicalextremeoftheveryidea

involved:thereduplicationcover.Asapreliminaryformalaccountofwhatacoveris,I

offeredthis:

artist1performs/recordssongx;artist2inturnperforms/recordssongx,and

isthussaidtocovereithersongxorartist1’sversionofsongx

Clearlyenough,areduplicationbyartist2ofsongxfitsthisdefinition;indeed,themore

successfulthereduplicationis,thecloserweapproachthelogicalextremeofanidentity

relationwherethetwoaresonicallyindistinguishable.Incontrast,theotherextremeofthe

relationshipbetweenbaseandcoversongwouldbetheparody,wheretherelationship

betweenthetwoversionsisatitsmosttenuous;justaswithreduplications,onemightwell

arguethatsuchparodiesdon’tfallundertherangeoftherubricofcoversongatall.Given

howfuzzytheboundariesarethroughoutanysuchtaxonomicaldiscussion,Iwillsimply

takereduplicationsandparodiesastheendpointsofthecontinuumtowhichtheterm

“coversong”refers.

Theparodycovergoeswellbeyondtheironicrelationshipbetweenabasesongandits

sendupcover;rather,theparodysimplyusesthebasesongasareference,inorderto

produceadistinctversionthatmayhavelittle,ifanything,todowiththelyricalorgeneral

musicalcontentofitsbase.Forinstance,thereisverylittleconcernthatHomerand

Jethro’sparodycover“Don’tLettheStarsGetinYourEyeballs”wouldeverbeconfused

withthePerryComohit“Don'tLettheStarsGetinYourEyes."“WeirdAl”Yankovicis

perhapsthebestknownsuchcurrent“musician,”producingsuchparodiesas“EatIt”(of

MichaelJackson’s“BeatIt”),“CanadianIdiot”(ofGreenDay’s“AmericanIdiot”),“Amish

Paradise”(ofCoolio’s“Gangsta’sParadise”),and“GirlsJustWanttoHaveLunch”(of

CyndiLauper’s“GirlsJustWanttoHaveFun”).Thereisalsothethreat,inthiscontext,of

acoversong(inthiscaseunintentionally)comingtobetreatedasaparody,orevengoing

beyondaparodytoaperformancesoinept,orinvolvingasongchoicesoinappropriate,

thatthecoveritselfbecomesanoveltysong;onemightincludehereDollyParton’scover

ofLedZeppelin’s“StairwaytoHeaven,”orWilliamShatner’scoveroftheBeatles’“Lucyin

theSkywithDiamonds.”

Insum,ifwetake“coversong”asagenus,wecanidentifyacontinuumofspeciesthat

rangesfromanattempttoreduplicateagivensongorperformancetoaparodythat

maintainsonlythemostminimalconnectionwiththesongbeingparodied.Inbetween

thesetwoextremes,wefindawiderangeofotherkindsofcovers:homages,orminor

interpretivecoversthatareverycloselyrelatedto,andshowagreatdealofrespectfor,

thebasesong;majorinterpretations,thatrefashionthebasesongintoasongsodistinct

thatitvirtuallyfunctionsasanindependentcreation,andcanevenbecomeidentifiedas

theparadigmaticversionofthebasesong;thesendupcover,thatsubvertsthebase

songintoadistinctsong,butwithanironicdistanceandareworkingofmeaningthat

distinguishitfromamajorinterpretationcover,andtheparody,whichsimplyexploitsthe

basesongforcomiceffect.Clearlyenough,then,theterm“coversong”mustberegarded

assystematicallyambiguous,andinanyconversationordiscussionofcoversongs—

particularlywhenitisaquestionofevaluatingacoversong—itiscrucialtomakeclear

whatspecifickindofcoversongisinvolved.

III.Reference:Aphilosophicalexcursus

Theabovediscussionseemstogenerateanotuncommondilemmathatcanaccompany

theattempttomaketechnicaltermsmoreprecise.“Coversong”seemstobeauseful

classificatoryterm,thatallowsarichandusefuldiscussionofhistoricalinfluenceinmusic,

andallowingustoidentifyspecificsongsandartistswhohavemaintainedtheir

importanceacrossdistinctmusicaleras.Atthesametime,asI’vetriedtoshow,theterm

functionsbetterasageneralterm(orgenus),ratherthanataxonomicalnotion(or

species)thatdoesmuchwork.Thusthedilemma:either“coversong”issufficiently

systematicallyambiguousthatitfailstoprovidethekindofinformativesemanticcontent

sought,oritisusedinsuchawayastoconcealtheambiguitythatallowsustomake

informedevaluativejudgementswhenthosejudgementsmaydependpreciselyonmaking

explicitwhatthemoreambiguoustermconceals.

Philosophers—particularlyintheTwentiethcentury—exertedagreatdealofenergyonthe

“problem”ofreference,fortheykeptconfrontingpuzzlesthatresistedsolutions.(Itshould

benotedthatthisisaveryoversimplifiedpictureofacentral,longstanding,and

notoriouslycontroversialsetofissuesinthephilosophyoflanguage.)Afamousexample

istheproblemofsubstitutioninstances:if“Venus”referstothemorningstar,and“Venus”

likewisereferstotheeveningstar,whydoestheassertion“Themorningstaristhe

eveningstar”seemmeaningful(inthesenseofrequiringastronomicalobservationsto

confirmordisconfirmit)inawaythat“VenusisVenus”doesnot?Anequallyfamous

exampleconcernsnonexistentobjects:whydoes“allunicornshaveonehorn”seem(in

some—quitecontroversial—way)truewhile“allunicornshavetwohorns”seemfalse?

Astandard,andoncetraditional,approach,whendisambiguatingthereferenceofaterm,

istoidentifyitsnecessaryandsufficientconditions;thus,“triangle”mightbedefinedasa

threesided,threeangledpolygon.Anyreferencetoanobjectasatrianglethatlacked

oneormoreoftheseconditionsfailed;anyreferencethatsatisfiedtheentiresetof

necessaryandsufficientconditionssucceeds.(Thisapproachtendstobemoreexplicit

andsuccessfulinrelativelynarrowdomains,suchasdefinitionswithinelementary

mathematics.)Theidea,ingeneral,wasthatagivenobjectcouldbecharacterizedwitha

setofproperties;atermthatappropriatelyconjoinedthesepropertieswouldthenprovide

asuccessfulreferencetotheobjectinquestion.Thisturnedouttobequitedifficultfor

naturallanguages,inthattheattempttoidentifyinanonarbitrarywaysuchconditions,

whetherforacommonnounorpropername,turnedouttoberatherhopeless.Whileone

maydosoforasimple,welldefinedmathematicalnotion,providingnecessaryand

sufficientconditionsforsuchtermsas“love”or“courage”oreven“Socrates”seemedto

beimpossibleand,ultimately,pointless.

Morerecently,anattempthasbeenmadetorevivesomethinganalogoustothegoalof

thistraditionalapproach,usingsophisticatedtechniques(whichneednotdetainushere)

inquantifiedmodallogicOnthis“newtheory”ofreference,agiventerm—whether

referringtoacommonnounorpropername—willbe“baptized”byprovidingasetof

essentialpropertiesthatrefer,andthetermisthensaidtofunctionasa“rigiddesignator.”

Whilethistheoryhasledtoanumberofusefulanalyses,andspawnedanenormous

amountofcriticalliterature,therelevantaspectforourpurposesis,again,thechallenge

ofidentifyingwithanyhopeofsuccessthe“essential”featuresofagivenobjectinorderto

makeasuccessfulreference.(Thoseinterestedinthedetailsofthismaywishtobegin

withDonnellan,1966andKripke,1980).

Incontrasttoboththetraditionaland“newtheory”attemptstooutlineasuccessfultheory

ofreferenceisthatofLudwigWittgenstein’s,sometimescalleda“clustertheory”of

reference.Inverybriefterms,Wittgensteinregardsatermasidentifyingafuzzilydefined

setofproperties;asuccessfuluseofthosetermswillinvolveasufficientnumberofthat

set—aclusterofproperties—toallowacommunicativereferencetothatobject.Inthis

sense,Wittgenstein’semphasisisonreference,ormeaning,beingtiedtohowthattermis

usedtocommunicate,andifthetermisusedinanappropriateway,thecommunicationis

successful.Thestandardexampletoilluminatethisideaisthatofa“game.”Onecan

identifyanumberofthingsasgames—wargames,boardgames,achild’sgameoftag,

mathematicalgames—whichmayresisteitherthespecificationofnecessaryand

sufficientconditions,ortheidentificationofessentialpropertiesthatanygamemust

possess.Yetallcanbecalled“games,”andifweareabletoconveyanideathatagiven

exampleisagame,wehavesuccessfullyusedthetermtoreferbyourreferencecarrying

withitasufficientclusterofproperties.Inthissense,gamesaresaidtoshareamong

thema“familyresemblance,”ananalogyWittgensteinseemstotakequiteliterally.We

maybeabletorecognizeoutofarandomlyassembledgroupofpeoplethosewhoare

related(whoareinthesame“family”)withouthavinganyhopeofexplainingintermsofa

conjunctionoffeatures—letaloneessentialproperties—thosefamilymemberspossess.

“Coversong”ispreciselythekindoftermbestdealtwithbyatheoryalongthelineof

Wittgenstein’s“familyresemblance.”Clearlyenough,thefactthatifasongqualifiesasa

cover—althoughthatdeterminationisnotitselfwithoutitsshareofperils—indicatesthat

thereisarelationshipbetweenthecoversonganditsbase.Atthesametime,however,

nottogofurther,andspecifywhatkindofcoverisinvolved,istoriskputtingforthan

evaluativejudgementthatfailstotakeintoconsiderationthespecificsofthatrelationship.

Inshort,beforeturningtoshowinghowthismightwork,acrossthecontinuumfrom

reduplicationcoverstoparodycovers,weseethatthereisarelevantrelationship

betweenabasesonganditscover;thatrelationshipissufficienttoestablishlyrical,

instrumental,rhythmic,melodic,andnodoubtotherpropertiesthatconstituteacluster,

sufficientenoughtoconveytheideathattherelationshipbetweenthetwosongs

establishesthatagivensongisa“cover.“Yet,asIhopetoshow,wecanthengoonto

discussmorespecificallytherelationshipinvolvedbyinvokingtherelevantkindofcover,

whichwillallowafullerandmoreaccurateevaluationtoemerge.

IV.EvaluatingCoverSongs

Thereisagreaterbenefittothisdiscussionthanmerelymakingtherelevantlanguage

usedindiscussingcoversongsmoreprecise,althoughthatbenefitshouldn’tbe

overlooked.Moreusefulstillisthatthisincreasedprecisionallowsamoreaccurateand

rigorousdiscussionofthecoversong,thebasesong,andtherelationshipbetweenthe

two.Forinstance,inadiscussionofabasecoverrelationship,whatkindofcoveris

involvedshouldplayarole;tosaythatagivesongisa“respectful,authentic”versionof

itsbasesongistocategorizeitasaminorinterpretation,whereasadiscussionofacover

songthatsubvertstheentirecontextofthebasesong,asasendupcover,tellsusagreat

dealaboutthenatureofthecoversongthatisinvolved,andallowsustomovequicklyto

aconsiderationoftherelevantdetails.Itmakesagreatdealofdifferenceindiscussing,to

takeasingleexample,RyCooder’scoverofBurtBacharach’s“MexicanDivorce”asa

“faithful,”minorinterpretation;wereittobeinterpretedalongthelinesofasendup(or

evenparody),wehavetherebyidentifiedanumberofevaluativenotionsthatappropriate

inonecontextwouldbeinappropriateinanother.Here,thereisverylittleroomforirony,

orcomedy,orlyricalsubversion;inclassifyingitasaminorinterpretation,wecanthen

focusonhowthedistinctvocalphrasing(probably,inCooder’scase,alsoinformedbythe

Drifters’version),howtheclarityandausterityoftheinstrumentationemphasizesthe

lyricalcontent,etc..

Indeed,Cooder,alone,presentsvirtuallytheentirepaletteofcoverversionpossibilities,

fromhisnearreduplicationofWillieJohnson’s“DarkWastheNight,ColdWasthe

Ground”(whichhethenreinterpretsforthesoundtracktoWimWenders’s“Paris,Texas”),

tohisminorinterpretationoftheRollingStones’“It’sAllOverNow”(itselfaversionofa

BobbyandShirleyWomacksong)thatgentlytransformsitwithaCaribbeanstylerhythm,

tohismajorinterpretation(withEarlHines)ofBlindBlake’s“DittyWahDitty,”tohissend

upcoveroftheDepressionera“OneMeatBall.”Perhapstheonlykindofcoverthatis

difficulttofindinCooder’srecordingsistheparody,althoughhisversionofSolomon

Burke’s“LookAtGrannyRun”comesclose;Burke’sversionitselfis,admittedly,already

ratherplayful.

Muchofthatwrittendiscussingthecoversongphenomenonhasbeendoneintermsof

“respect,”“honesty,”and,especially,“authenticity.”ThusGeorgePlasketeswrites

Theartshavealwaysborrowedfromtheirpast.Theimitationintrinsicintheact

ofcoveringinmusic,evenwiththehonorableintentofhomagefromadisciple,

isincongruentwithauthenticity(Plastekes,150).

Hereitisquiteclearthattosaythatoneartist“covers”asongissimplyinadequateasan

analysis.ArethaFranklin“borrows”fromOtisReddinginamuchdifferentwaythanSid

Vicious“borrows”fromFrankSinatra.Todiscuss“imitation”withoutqualificationisto

conflatethekindof“imitation”onefindsinthemostexecrable“tribute”bands,those

bandswhohavemadeaseriouscraftoutofreduplicatinganotherartist’sperformance,

andthosecoversthatreferbutdevelop—inamajororminorway—theirown

interpretations.AdiscussionofBlood,Sweat,&TearsversionofBillieHoliday’s“God

BlesstheChild”isinadequateifitissimplycalleda“cover”oran“imitation,”without

considerablymoredetailbeingoffered.Finally,weseeinthisquotetheimportant

philosophicalpointthatallsuchdiscussionofauthenticityleadto:thatoftheartist’sintent.

Whilerecognizingthecontroversiesanddifficultiesassociatedwithdeterminingsuch

intent,itisalsoclearthatinmanycasesofcoversongs,intentiseitherobvious(asina

reduplicationorparody)orirrelevant(asinthecaseofasuccessfulcoversong

transformingtheoriginalintoanindependentworkofcreativeart).Adetailedexamination

ofsuchissuescanbefoundinLivingston,2005.

Othershaverecognizedatleastpartofthecomplexityinvolvedincoversongs.AsDasein

observes,“Inthebesttributesthecoveringartiststealsasongfromtheoriginaland

makesittheirown,whiletheykeep,evenexaggerate,itsoriginalspirit.It’satoughtrick,

demandingauthenticityandempathy”(quotedfromPlastekes,150).Yetagain,wesee

thenotionoftheterm“cover”—here“coveringartist”—employedasifthereisn’t,beyonda

roughfamilyresemblancethatitmustsatisfytoqualifyasacoversimpliciter,arangeof

presuppositions.Clearly,someofthecoverversionsofsongsmentionedabovetreatthe

basesongwithsuchreverenceandrespectthattheycouldhardlybesaid“steal”the

base,ororiginal,song.Notonlydoestheterm“stealing”implyatleastsomedegreeof

failingtoacknowledgethesource,certainlythepointofmanyofthecoversconsidered

hereisneithertomakethesongthecoveringartist’sown,nortoprovideanexaggerated

version.Rather,byfirstestablishingthekindofcoverunderdiscussion,wemaywellsee

inaspecificcasethesourceacknowledged,itsinfluencerespected,whilethesong

remainsverymuchthatofthebasesong’sperformer.Yetagain,itisclearthatwithout

recognizingthesystematicambiguityoftheverynotionofcoversong,important

distinctions,relativetotheevaluationofthatcover,areconcealed.

Itwasnotedearlierthatmuchofthecriticaldiscussionofcoversongsisgiveninacontext

ofexploring“authenticity.”Beforeturningtosomefinal,unansweredquestionsabout

issuesthatarisewithcovermusic,Iwanttosuggestthatsuchanapproachgenerally

commitsoneoftwomistakes:beggingthequestion,orattemptingtoexplicateone

problematictermbysimplyreplacingwithanotherequally,ormore,problematicterm

(traditionallyastrategycriticizedasanobscurumperobscurius).Whilethedifficulties

remain,disambiguatingtheveryterm“coversong”canatleastclarifywhatisatissue.

Tobesure,someoftheseissuesrevolvingaroundauthenticityandauthorshiphavenot

beenentirelyignoredintheliteratureonmusic,althoughingeneraltherelevant

philosophicalissueshavebeengivenrathershortshrift,particularlyinwritingonpopular

music.Exceptforextensivediscussionintheethnomusicologicalliterature,whichlies

beyondthescopeofthispaper,themostinterestingdiscussionsoftheseissuestendsto

befoundintheliteratureontheotherarts,suchaspainting,sculpture,and(especially,for

whatareprobablyobviousreasons)photography.Oneofthemostdetailedexaminations

oftheproblemshereisadiscussionofwhatisinvolvedintherestorationofaworkofart

(Dyksta,1996.)DykstrarecommendsastrategyIlargelyfollowhere—neitheracasual

assumptionthattheartist’sintentionsareeasilyknown,norarejectionofthevery

possibilitythatthoseintentionscanbeinformativetoanunderstandingofaworkofart,

butratherrigorwithinaninterdisciplinaryapproach:

Purposefuldiscussionoftheroleoftheartistintheartworkrequirescareful

languageanddeliberateunderstandingoftheessentialnatureofart.Precise

language,commonlyunderstood,isthefirststepinthisdirection.The

importanceofunambiguouslanguageisparamount.Clearlanguageamong

thedisciplineswillbenecessarytodescribehowtheartist'sindividualityand

theindividualityofhisorherworkcanbefulfilledandmaintainedin

conjunctionwiththreeotherfactors—thehistoricalcontextsinwhichthe

artworkisdocumentedandperceived;thetraditionsofconnoisseurshipthat

giveitreference;andthephysicalandtemporalcharacteristicsofthemedia

employed(Dykstra,218).

Anumberofwritershavesuggestedthatcoversongsdisplayacertaindegreeof

“authenticity,”asifthatqualityissomethingthatcaneasilybeestablished,ifnotassumed.

Inhisownchallengetotraditionalnotionsofauthenticity,Cusicwrites

Bydemandingthatsingerswritetheirownsongs,thepublicis‘‘cheated’’of

hearinggreatsingersandmusiciansinterpretagreatsong.Andbydenying

thatarecordingisonly‘‘authentic’’(afavoritetermthesedays)ifthesinger

wroteit,thecreativegeniusofthenonsingingsongwriterisdenied(Cusic,

176).

Inaquitedifferentcontext,EdwardArmstrongseekstoshowthat

Eminemtakesstandsonthetwomodesofauthenticityconstruction.He

legitimizeshimselfintermsofboththewhiteblackandviolentmisogynistaxes

whilerejectingakeyelementofgangstarap'soppositionalnaturei.e.,the

underclass,evocativeuseofthe"Nword."Thelynchpinofmyanalysisiswhat

goes"unspoken"inEminem'slyricshisrefusaltosay"nigga"inanyofhis

songs(Armstrong,336).

Cusichereplaces“authentic”inscarequotes,butnotbecauseofanyparticularproblem

withthetermitself,whichhisownaccountemploysasifitsmeaningistransparent.

Rather,hewishestodisputetheideathatonlythosewhooriginateagivenpieceofmusic

—specificallythesingersongwriter—canbesaidtobe“authentic.”Thisfails,ofcourse,to

provideanysemanticcontenttotheproblematictermitself.Similarly,Armstrongspends

agoodbitoftimeaddressingthequestionofhowEminem“constructs”hisown

authenticitythroughadialecticalstrategyofoppositionandembraceofthecultureofthe

“other”—allwithouteversayingwhatitistobeauthentic.Inbothcases,theanalysesof

theseauthorsassume“authenticity”withoutprovidinganycriteriaforwhatsatisfiesits

use;thatis,theybegthequestionbyassumingwhattheyneedtodemonstrate.

Whenonedoesseetheideathataparticularversionofacoversongismoreauthentic

thananother,orsimplyachievessomeadmirablelevelof“authenticity,”thesenotions

are,inturn,glossedintermsof“respect,”“honesty,”“tradition,”and“authorship”:

Inordertounderstandhowthisworks,scholarsmustalsomovebeyondfixed

notionsofrockas“authentic”andpopas“inauthentic”andfocusmorebroadly

onthestrategiesinvolvedinconstructingauthenticityindiversemusical

traditions(Butler,14).

Ingeneral,thetermsusedtoclarifyauthenticityrelyheavily—ifimplicitly—ontheartist’s

intent.Evenwhereauthorsareparticularlycareful,asMarkButlerishere,thequestionof

authenticity—whetherconstructed“strategically,”or“intertextually,”or“dialectically”—

remainsunanswered,andthecriteriathatmustbesatisfiedforasong(orcover)toqualify

as“authentic”remainsatthelevelofadogmaticpresupposition.Theexplanationof

authenticityintheseothertermsreducestoanexplanationofintent,andtodeterminethe

latterisatleastasdifficultastheformer.Thus,theburdenofthequestionofauthenticity

issimplymoved,tothequestionofintention;whilenotalwaysmadeexplicit,thisdoesn’t

respondto,butmerelyavoids,thefundamentalissuesinvolved.

Thisisnottosaythattheartist’sintentissuperfluous;rather,itistorecognizethedifficulty

indetermining,unambiguously,whatthatintentis.Inafascinatingdiscussionofthe

sculptureofDuaneHanson,KimberlyDavenportmakespreciseatleastpartofwhatisat

stakeinbeingsuspiciousofananalysisthatignorestheartist’sintent,aswellasthose

analysesthatrelyonamuchtooeasyassumptionthatsuchanintentistransparently

accessible:

Centraltotheissueofintentiswheretoturnforauthority.Oncethisis

acknowledged,theunderlyingconstructsbecomeapparent,notallofwhich

wouldregardtheartist'sintentasfundamental.Keytothisissueofauthorityis

thequestionofhowonedefinesartorunderstandsittobeconstituted.The

modernistview,forinstance,considerstheobjectinisolation,sotheauthority

restswiththeviewer.Thearthistoricalviewseekstokeeptheobjectalways

locatedintheparticularmomentofitsconception,comparingitwithother

worksbythesameartist,thusacknowledgingthatauthorityrestsintheoverall

bodyofwork.However,thewiderboundaryof"art"withinwhichthework

existsnecessitatesreflectiveconcernfortheauthorityoftheartist'sintent

(Davenport,40).

Thus,specificallyinthecaseunderconsiderationhere,theartist’sintentshouldbea

factor,butcertainlycannotbethedeterminingelementinmakinganaestheticjudgement

aboutthe“success”ofagivencover.Ratherthanworrying,then,toomuchabout

authenticityorintent,perhapswecandobetterinidentifyingacoverasacertainkindof

cover—anidentificationthatmustalwaysbeseenasprovisional—andthenproceedto

delineateitsfeaturesandqualities(andproblems)onthebasisofthatidentification.This,

ofcourse,leavesplentyofroomforarguingaboutwhetherornotagivensongasbeen

appropriatelyclassified;forinstance,shouldToriAmos’scoverofNeilYoung’s“Heartof

Gold”beregardedasamajorinterpretation,asendup,orevenasendupapproachinga

parody,challengingtheassumptionsofthebaseversion?Theadvantagehereisthatthe

presuppositionsofaspecificcover,e.g.asendupcover,asopposedtoaminorre

interpretivecover,areexplicit,thusmakingclearwhatissuesareappropriatelyatstakein

theargument.Clarifyingtheseissueswon’tsettlethematter,butwillallowustofocusthe

discussioninsuchawayastomakeitmuchmoreproductive,ifonlybyfocusingonthe

appropriatequestionsthatarepresupposedby,andstructure,theanalysis.

V.SomeRemainingQuestions

Theveryterm“coversong”issystematicallyambiguous;touseitwithoutindicatingthat

ambiguityconcealsissuesthatarefundamentaltoanyanalysisorevaluationofagiven

coversong,andofthatcoveranditsrelationshiptothesongitissaidtocover.Rather

thantreatingthetermasifitrefersunivocally,thesuggestionhereisthatarangeof

differentspeciesofcoversongsexistsalongcontinuum;membershipinthatcontinuumis

bestregardedintermsofWittgenstein’sconceptionof“familyresemblance,”andany

songthatqualifiesasacovermustsatisfyaminimal—albeitnotarbitrary—setof

conditionsindicatingthatresemblance.Whatspecifickindofcoveragivenversionshould

betakentobe,andwhetherinfactasongqualifiesatallasacover,andwhatrole

authenticityandartisticintentplayinevaluatingapieceofmusic,remainastopicsabout

whichusefulandfruitfuldiscussionscangoforth.Tobesure,akindofcircularityarises

here,asitoftendoesindiscussionsofartisticintent.Thuswecharacterizeacoversong

asrepresentativeofaspecifickindofcoverbasedontheintentitisseentodisplay,while

thatintentisdeterminedbecauseofthekindofcoversonginvolved.WhileI’mnotsure

howtoavoidthiscircularity,itmaywellnotbeacripplingorviciouscircle;inanycase,it

servestoindicatethatthereareanumberofquestions,swirlingaroundthistopic,that

remaintobeaddressed.Themoreimportantresult,however,istorecogniethatifany

suchdiscussioncarriedoutontheassumptionthatthereisnoparticulardisputeaboutthe

term“coversong”itselfisatbestnaïveandatworstmisleadingandintellectually

irresponsible.

Anumberofquestions,ofcourse,persistinprovidingwhatonemightcallthe

“phenomenology”ofthecoversong.Iwantsimplytoraisetwoorthreeofthemhere,in

ordertoindicatesomeoftherelevantissuesthatremain,whiledoingsointhehopethat

makingtherelevantlanguageinvolvedabitmoreprecisemayhelpinclearingthese

issuesup,ifonlyinpart.

V.a.Identifyingan“original”song

WhenHendrixrecordsasongwrittenandperformedbyBobDylan,thereisverylittle

difficultyinidentifyingtheDylanversionastheoriginalsong,orusingthelanguageIhave

employedhere,thebasesong.Fewwouldrejecttheclaim,thatis,thatHendrixcovers

Dylan’s“AllAlongtheWatchtower.”Difficultiesarise,however,whencertainrecordingsof

songsareidentifiedas“standard”or“paradigmatic.”Thedifficultiesbecomeacuteinthe

caseofasingersongwriterwhoperformshisorherownsongwellafterastandard

versionhasbeenestablished.Twowellknownexamplessufficetoclarifytheproblem,

andtoraisethefundamentalissueoftherolechronologicalsequenceplaysin

establishingtheoriginalcover(orbasecover)relationship.

CaroleKing,throughoutthe1960s,wasanenormoussuccess,cowritingwithGerry

Goffinastringofhitsforvariousartists,suchas“WillYouStillLoveMeTomorrow”(a

1960numberonehitfortheShirelles),“TheLocoMotion”(a1962numberonehitfor

LittleEva),and“(YouMakeMeFeelLike)ANaturalWoman"(a1967hitforAretha

Franklin).Thelatter,ofcourse,hasbecomeaclassicandcoveredbyanumberofother

artists,althoughalmostcertainlymoststronglyidentifiedwithFranklin.Kingthenrecorded

thesongitselfonher1971release“Tapestry.”What,then,isthecoverversionhere?It

seemscounterintuitivetosuggestthatKing’sownperformanceisthecover,inthatitis,

obviouslyenough,originallyherownsong.Yetitalsoseemscounterintuitivetosuggest

thatFranklin’searlierandparadigmaticversionshouldbe,inanyrelevantway,acover.

WillieNelsonpresentsasimilarsituation.Fewsingersongpairingsaremoreclosely

identifiedthanPatsyCline’s1961recordingofNelson’s“Crazy”—indeed,manycountry

musicfanswouldregard(and,quitepossibly,correctly)thesongasaPatsyClinesong.

WhileNelsonrecordedademoofthesong,onlyreleasedmuchlater,hehasalso

recordedlaterversionsofthesong;aswithKing,thesameissuearises—itseemswrong

toregardNelson’sversionasacover,butjustaswrongtoregardCline’sasacover,

particularlygiventhelatter’sstatuswithincountrymusic.Withoutbeingabletopursueit

here,itisclearthatyetanotherissueisinvolved,relativetotheaudience(orintended

audience),thatmaywellincludeissuesofclass,gender,race,era,andothervariables.

Oneaudiencemightidentifyagivensongwithaspecificartistwhileadistinctaudience

mightregardthatsamesongasonethatshouldbeappropriatelyidentifiedwitha

(possiblymuch)differentartist.

KingandNelsonpresentanoddsituation,then,whereonafairlystandardconceptionof

coversong,theywouldbesaidtobecoveringsongstheythemselvescreated,ora

situationinwhichtheoriginalsong,inextricablyidentifiedwithonesinger,onlylater

becomesacover.Theseissuesareraisedheretoprovidejustmoreevidencethatthe

veryterm“coversong”isfraughtwithambiguity;whilesomemaywishtosolvethis

problembysimplyidentifyingtheoriginalsongwithitsscore,sheetmusic,oreventhe

originalartist’sconception,thatsolutionappearseitherarbitraryorcounterintuitive.Ihave

suggestedabovethatratherthanspeakingintermsofan“originalcover”relationship,that

a“basecover”conceptionmaybeultimatelymorefruitful,thishardlysolvesalltheissues

involvedhere,includinghowthe“base”songitselfistobespecified.

V.bArtist’srerecordings

ThemusicofBobDylanhasbeensuchasourceformusiciansfromsuchawidevarietyof

traditionsthathisnameisinevitablyinvolvedinanydiscussionofcoversongs.

Unsurprisingly,hismusicalsoraisesaquestionthatdeservesadiscussionthathasbeen

neglectedincoversongs—canartistsbesaidtocovertheirownsongs?

EvenforthoseextremelyfamiliarwithDylan’soeuvre,Dylancanperformsongsinconcert

thatmaybealmostwhollyunrecognizable;manyofushavehadtheexperienceofbeing

entirelyunabletoidentifyafamiliarDylansonguntilweareabletodiscernitslyrics—and

iftheversionpresentedissufficientlydistinct,eventhenthesongmayremain

unrecognized.Clearlyenough,ifDylanoriginallywroteandrecordedagivensong,and

theneitherrecordsorperformsadifferentversionofthatsong,onemightsimplysayheis

providinganotherversionoraninterpretationofit;thisisastandardoccurrencefor

performingartists,andtheissueofcoveringmusicneednotarise.Butifthenewversion

issodistinctastobeeitherdifficultorimpossibletorecognize,whatistherelationship

betweentheearlierandlaterversions?Again,weseemtoconfrontaproblemthatcanbe

solvedarbitrarily,ifdogmatically,simplybyassertingthattheyaretwodistinctsongs,two

songswithonlythemosttenuousrelationship,or,infact,thesamesongwithtwodifferent

interpretations.Yet,ifanotherperformerorgrouphadproducedaversionsonically

identicaltothelaterversionthatDylanprovides,onewouldn’thesitatetoinvokethe

notionoftheDylansongbeingcovered.Inanycase,themetaphysicsofthisissueseems

partandparceltodeterminingwhat,precisely,isinvolved—andrevealed—inouruseof

theambiguousterm“coversong.”

V.c.Instrumentals

Virtuallyallliteratureaddressingthetopicofcoversongsfocusesexclusivelyonsongs

withlyricalcontent,andIhavefollowedthattraditionintheexamplesgivenabove.Atthe

sametime,onemightaskwhatisfundamentallydistinctaboutalyricalsongbeing

coveredbyanartist,andaninstrumentalsongbeingrecordedbyanartist.Isthelatter

sufficientlydifferentfromourunderstandingofwhatisinvolvedincoverstoexcludeitfrom

thatcategory?Ifso,itisnotclearwhy.Thus,BillMonroe’sclassicbluegrassmandolin

instrumental“Rawhide”hasnotonlybeenrecordedandperformedbyhundredsofother

musicians,itisoftentakentobeoneofthesongsthatestablishesthebonafidesofthe

bluegrassmandolinist.WhenRobMcCouryorRickySkaggsrecordsaparticularly

incendiaryversionof“Rawhide,”orJ.D.CrowerecordsaversionofDylan’s“Nashville

SkylineRag”thatemphasizeshisbanjowork,theseinterpretationsseemnottofallunder

therubricof“coversong,”butitisn’tentirelyclearwhatprecisedifferenceisinvolved,

againwithoutinvokingsomedogmatic,arbitrarynotionsuchas“coversongsareby

definitionversionsoflyricallybasedsongs.”

ItmaywellbeobjectedthatsomeofthequestionsIhaveraisedhere—isCaroleKing’s

“WillYouLoveMeTomorrow”acoverofaShirelles’song?Cananartistcoverhimselfor

herself?Caninstrumentalrecordingsbecalledcovers?—aresimplyissuesofsemantics.

Thisisalmostcertainlytrue,fortheentirerangeofissuesIhavetriedtoexplore,andwith

anyluckclarify,hereareultimatelyquestionsofsemantics.However,inthiscase,tocalla

questiononeof“semantics”isnottakentobetermofopprobrium;rather,ithelps

emphasizethat“coversong”involvesthesemanticsofasystematicallyambiguousterm,

onethatneedsagoodbitmoreclarificationbeforeamoreadequateanalysisand

evaluationofcoversongscanbeprovided.[4]

Notes

[1]Inthiscontext,SteveBaileyconsidersthecoversToddRundgrenrecordedwithhisbandUtopiaonhis

1976“Faithful”:“Ratherthanalteringthesongsinasacrilegiousmanner,Rundgrenofferednearlyexact

replicationsoftheoriginalworks,coversso‘faithful’astobepointless”(Bailey152.)Bailey’sfocusison

“ironic”covers(thoseIrefertoas“sendup”covers);asIarguehere,thisisonlyoneofmanydifferentkinds

ofcovers.Areviewerofanearlierversionofthispaperalsonotedthatforeconomicreasons,such

reduplicativeversionswereanonymouslyrecorded,presumablywiththeintentofavoidingroyaltieswhile

passingoffthemusicastheoriginal.Thismaybeyetanotherlogicalextremeofthecoversong;oritmight

simplyberegardedasplagiarism,andthustheft.Thesamereviewermentionedthephenomenonofkaraoke,

whichagainraisesdemandingpuzzlesabouttherelationshipbetween“base”and“cover,”andwhat

assumptionsandimplicationsareinvolved.

[2]WhenthistopiccameupinacourseonthePhilosophyofMusicIrecentlytaught,toagroupofstudents

thatincludedseveralmusicmajors,thestudentswereunanimousinidentifying“AllAlongtheWatchtower”as

aHendrixsong.ForbluegrasscoversofDylan,seeTimO’Brien’s“RedOnBlonde”(1996);forreggaecovers,

“IsitRollingBob?:AReggaeTributetoBobDylan”(2004).AWebsitedevotedtothetopic

(http://www.dylancover/com)listsover20,000recordedcoversofDylansongs;asofthiswriting,some500

wereaddedinjustthelastsixweeks.

[3]Thisissuewasraisedbyareviewerofanearlierdraftofthispaper.Asheorshenotes,thehistoryof

Broadwayshowsitselfmustbecontextualizedhistorically,asindicatedbythedevelopmentoftheterm

“OriginalBroadwayCastRecording.”Atthesametime,thissimplyprovidesmoresupportfortheideathatthe

veryterm“coversong”issystematicallyambiguous.

[4]IwouldliketothankMarkBrill,AlbinoCarillo,PhilFarris,JohnMcCombe,andDamonSinkforhelpful

conversationsrelativetothistopic.Theanonymousreviewersforthisjournalprovidedsomeincisiveand

provocativeremarksaboutanearlierdraft,onlysomeofwhichIcouldfullyaddresshere.

Bibliography

Armstrong,Edward,2004.Emimem’sConstructionofAuthenticityPopularMusicandSociety27:335355.

Bailey,Steve,2003.FaithfulorFoolish:TheEmergenceofthe“IronicCoverAlbum”andRockCulture.

PopularMusicandSociety26:141159

Butler,Mark,2003.Takingitseriously:intertextualityandauthenticityintwocoversbythePetShopBoys.

PopularMusic22:119

Coyle,Michael,2002.“HijackedHitsandAnticAuthenticity:CoverSongs,Race,andPostwarMarketing”in

Beebe,R.Fulbrook,D.andSaunders,B.(eds.)RockOvertheEdge:TransformationsinPopularMusic

CultureDurham:DukeUniversityPress:133157.

Cusic,Don,2005.InDefenseofCoverSongsPopularMusicandSociety28:171175

Davenport,Kimberly,1995.ImpossibleLiberties:ContemporaryArtistsontheLifeofTheirWorkOverTime

ArtJournal:4052.

AlexanderSebastian,2005.CrossCultural‘Countries’:Covers,Conjuncture,andtheWhiffofNashvillein

MúsicaSertaneja(BrazilianCommercialCountryMusic).PopularMusicandSociety28:207–227

Donnellan,Keith,1966.ReferenceandDefiniteDescriptionsThePhilosophicalReview75:281304.

Dyksta,StevenW,1996.TheArtist’sIntentionsandtheIntentionalFallacyinFineArtsConservationJournal

fortheAmericanInstituteforConservation35:197218.

Krikpke,Saul.1980.NamingandNecessity.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress

Livingston,Paisley,2005.ArtandIntentionOxford:OxfordUniversityPress

Plastekes,George,2005.ReflectionsontheCoverAge:ACollageofContinuousCoverageinPopular

MusicPopularMusicandSociety28:137161.

Wimsatt,W.K.,andM.Beardsley,1946.TheIntentionalFallacySewaneeReview54:468–88.

ISSN13570951

Themoral,intellectual,andotheruniversallyrecognisedcopyrights

oftheauthorareherebyregisteredandassertedunderthetermsof

UK,EuropeanUnion,andotherinternationallyvalidcopyrightlaws.

Allrightsreserved.