[mb-users] Track-track relationship

[Björn Krombholz]

On 6/1/05, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
> Björn Krombholz wrote:
> > IMHO it doesn't matter if a cover version is a serious one or just a parody.
> I disagree.  If it's someone else playing the same song, it's a cover.
> If it's someone else singing different words to the same tune (as is the
> case for most parodies), it is not a cover.  I don't think Weird Al's
> "Amish Paradise" is a cover by any stretch of the imagination.

Depends of the definition of "cover version". For me it's a
reinterpretation of any kind.

F.e. Apocalyptica's "Nothing Else Matters" (Metallica's song played by
4 celli). There are no lyrics on this reinterpretation, they even
changed the whole instrumental arrangement.  Is it a cover or
something else? One thing for sure: it's no parody. ;)

Another example: Someone "covers" a song, but also translates the
lyrics and title of the song to a different language. Is it a cover?

And another one: Someone takes your explanation above and "changes" a
song following those rules, but he doesn't create a parody. How would
you classify this piece of music?

If you say it'd be a cover why can't a parody - derived from the same
concept of "changing" - be one as well? If you say it'd be no cover
but "something else" then i might agree in adding this "something
else" relationship type. Parody itself is something too special for my
taste. You can probably find hundreds of such special classes.


Björn