(no subject)

[learnedax]

Having just recently yet again argued this point, I went back and listened to the source material for re-analysis. So, if you think the Indigo Girls version of Romeo and Juliet is better than the Dire Straits one, I understand that it's a purely subjective choice, and I now see why you think that. But you're still wrong.

The benefit that IG imparts is a much higher level of vocal passion, and it is a fair criticism that Mark Knopfler is not the most expressive of singers. However, the advantages offered by DS are as follows: first, Mr. Knopfler actually manages to hit the notes cleanly, which gets him points over IG in my book. Second, the musical accompaniment in the DS version is unquestionably better; Mark's a guitar god and he is in fine form here. Third, and perhaps most important, the non-wailing laconic style that DG employes captures the worn-out melancholy of the song vastly better than the emotional breakdown that IG offers.

Yes, it does seem pedantic to beat this to death here, but given how many people seem to disagree with me I thought I'd centralize.

Comments

Re: Both are good

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

I will come clean and admit that I very rarely like covers, and almost never more than the original. I tend to feel that a work's author has a pretty good grasp of what they are trying to say, so for a cover to improve upon it they would have to do a pretty poor job of realizing their intent. The cases where I like both are generally those where the cover is a sufficiently different take on the piece to be truly interesting.

That said, I think the Stones are particularly hard to cover, because their raw-but-lazy style gives an edge to almost everything they do. This is my main problem with IG's Wild Horses, because it comes off a bit toothless to my ear. They should have covered Ruby Tuesday instead, because that actually would suit their style.