(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

Both are good

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

Agreed, and I think Dire Straits were aiming at a unique feel that isn't just ballad or Springsteen urban sprawl or folk rendition, but a blend of these elements. I tend to respect it more than the Indigo Girls rendition which treats it much like their other songs.

I would argue that the IG version of "Wild Horses" is better than the original (and I love the Stones) since it suits their style, but this one doesn't touch the original.

(Urm, does the phrase "better or worse" include "Originals or Covers"?)

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.

Re: Both are good

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

Ballad isn't quite the right word, I agree, I just couldn't come up with a better term for the type of evocative moody pieces that they do so well. (I'll put up "Telegraph Road" against half of anything Bruce Springsteen does--sacrilege, I know.) I'll have to listen to both versions "Wild Horses" again and think about that.

And for the general discussion, the IG version is very good. There could be far worse covers. Oh, Jon Secada for example. Cher, for instance.

Re: Both are good

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

There could be far worse covers. Oh, Jon Secada for example. Cher, for instance.

Brrr... my mind instantly went to bad possibilities... a Nichael Feistein show rune version or Pearl Jam mumble-a-thon. But then I went to Marilon Manson and that might be all right. Same for Gath Brooks. This shows my bias; make it different enough and a cover is interestingly worthwhile

Re: Both are good

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

Yes, there probably are country artists that could do a very good cover of this song and in the right tone. Hesitate to pick one, I get weepy after certain country ballads.