Song Database Cover Songs No Bama Breeze

[Quiet and Shy]

I've always considered someone else's song being recorded by a different artist as a cover no matter if it has been released by the original artist or not. By that meaning it's not original to the recording artist even if it is the first commercial release of that song. That's my take on it.

I think what folks are trying to say, Duck, is your "definition" isn't consistent with the recording industry norm.

If I understand you correctly, any artist recording songs they haven't written is recording "covers".

The reason I don't agree with your definition (aside from it's inconsistency with the standard) is it potentially over-recognizes a songwriter (who may be a wonderful writer but poor performer), and takes credit from the original recording artist (whose performing skills may be magic but who can't write any decent melody or lyrics).

An example that comes to mind is Frank Sinatra. I don't know how many if any of his hits he wrote, but he was a fabulous performer. Saying all he did was "covers" (which often implies a lower level of achievement or originality) is quite a slight to his career.

Further, if one uses your definition of "covers," then there is no term to differentiate a song written by someone other than the performer (e.g. "Bama Breeze") from a song first recorded and commercially released by another performer (e.g. "Southern Cross", "Brown Eyed Girl").

There's no question the internet blurs the "cover" definition. Now a songwriter (in an effort to gain attention of recording artists or producers) can upload what was once a behind-the-scenes "demo tape/recording" that is never intended or considered to be a commercial "release". No offense to Josh Kear, but this is what I consider his version of "Bama Breeze" to be. As "Bama Breeze" has never previously been commercially released (and consistent with the industry definition), I consider Jimmy's recording to be the original, and not a cover.

[chippewa]

Sinatra, great example. I was thinking of Linda Ronstadt. I could listen to her sing all day, but I think I could count on one hand the songs she written.

[Cubbie Bear]

Sinatra, great example. I was thinking of Linda Ronstadt. I could listen to her sing all day, but I think I could count on one hand the songs she written.

mmmmmmmm, Linda (in the 80's)

"Though an occasional songwriter herself, she is better known as an interpreter of other songwriters' works."

[JustDucky]

I have got to change my name.

I understand what you're getting at. If it wasn't recorded and commercially released by the original writer and someone else records it and commercially releases it it is considered to be the original version or recording. As far as what is a cover I was going by the simple A or B of written and performed by writer or another artist records it. All of Elvis' songs are attributed to him even though other people wrote them. But they are known as Elvis songs whether or not they were ever recorded by someone else prior to his version (That's All Right is a good example). Even the songs he got song writing credit for he had nothing to do with any of the writing, that was strictly so he could buy a new car etc...at least that's what is read like in Last Train To Memphis.

It is amazing that someone can write a song that Buffett would do that SEEMS like something he wrote, whether it was previously released or not. Back To The Island is a great example. So is Bama Breeze. As well as lots of other tunes over the years.

To a point I agree with the people that wish Jimmy would write more songs for his records. At the same time whatever he does record, his own or someone else's, doesn't matter to me - as long as it sounds like Jimmy Buffett and not Dave Matthews or anyone else. And he's accomplished that.

[Quiet and Shy]

To a point I agree with the people that wish Jimmy would write more songs for his records. At the same time whatever he does record, his own or someone else's, doesn't matter to me - as long as it sounds like Jimmy Buffett and not Dave Matthews or anyone else. And he's accomplished that.

On wishing Jimmy would write more songs...sure, I'd love to see that, too, but I saw a very interesting quote from Rod Stewart recently, that might make some sense on this.

Rod Stewart has been incredibly successful in recent years by reviving and performing old "standards". I think he's done 3 CDs and a couple tours on this now. Anyway, Rod's comment was (and I'm paraphrasing) "People have listened to us (older performers) for years, and we really don't have anything new to say anymore. So I found something else that people enjoy."

That makes a lot of sense. When you think about this comment and Jimmy, although he's stayed on the same track vs. changing genre's as Rod Stewart has done, Jimmy's life is certainly very "comfortable" these days. And, as hungry a person as JB is to live life to its fullest, there are only so many experiences one can have to inspire new songs that will keep a fan-base engaged (buying CDs, concert tickets, t-shirts, etc.). On the recent Today Show interview, Jimmy called it staying "relevant."

Face it, one person's well for songs about travel, sailing, airplanes, the beach, etc. is only so deep. And, Jimmy appears to enjoy spending his time doing other things, too vs. wracking his brain for another song or two...if they happen, great, but he doesn't want to force them out (to where creativity becomes drudgery). There's a lot of other stuff out there that he's enjoyed recording, and it gives him an opportunity to include other songwriters (e.g. Will Kimborough, Bruce Cockburn, Josh Kear, Michael Garrett) in his success.

Bottom line, as long as we're buying (and he is able), I think he'll be around (he's still just having too much fun. )

[TropicalTroubador]

I have got to change my name.

It is amazing that someone can write a song that Buffett would do that SEEMS like something he wrote, whether it was previously released or not. Back To The Island is a great example. So is Bama Breeze. As well as lots of other tunes over the years.

That's exactly what professional "outside" songwriters do. They write songs "in the style of" artist X, in the hopes that artist X will want to "cut" the song, i.e. record it on an album. It is a *huge* business, in Nashville especially.

Loren,
who wouldn't object in the slightest if Jimmy did one of my songs

[Cubbie Bear]

25 studio albums

282 Studio Cuts

199 Written or co-written By Jimmy, 77.2 %

very few recording artists with this kind of success and longevity can boast this many songs to their own credit. As far as I'm concerned if Jimmy never writes another song, he has gone above and beyond the call of duty and he owes us nothing. I however, feel like I owe him much.

[Cubbie Bear]

Col Tom Parker required Elvis be given writting credits in order to have the "King" perform a song. He actually wrote very few (if any)

[JustDucky]

It does seem that the tunes Jimmy has written or had a hand in writing going back to BHOTM have been very meaningful songs for the most part (and some goofy ones). I think that is obivous on TTWWY with EOTP, HGAH and BIBOMO. His take on Whoop De Doo is excellent as well as NBABreeze, CDMIM, WITW and Duke's. He's stretched out with taking on different styles and it works great.

I think the point of what Rod Stewart said has relevance - he's still doing what he does - singing - and people still want to hear him sing, no matter what it is. I think the fact that Jimmy and Rod Stewart and The Rolling Stones and U2 and even AC/DC and The Who are still doing, still writing, still recording songs - whatever songs, all songs - and still touring says a lot. The relevance is obvious - people having a good time and singing along. If you don't have that - I would think that's what some people would define as being relevant or not. I'm just guessing at that one. I don't see the Beach Boys as relevant at all anymore simply for the fact that they just don't do anything new, they just trundle around with their same old songs.

But people still go see The Beach Boys so to someone they are relevant. Obviously it doesn't matter what amount of people think you're relevant or not - there's always someone who'll go see whoever.

[Tiki Torches]

Rod Stewart's massacre of the classics doesn't really make him relevant. Artists like Bob Dylan and Tom Waits still writing and recording original material at this stage of their careers is. Then again, Rod's creative well has been dried up for quite some time, at least as far back in the 70s when he started releasing such drivel as Do Ya Think I'm Sexy.

In regards to cover material, just because someone penned a song with a specific artist in mind doesn't make it an original by that artist. It's still cover material whether or not the original artist has recorded it or not.

[JustDucky]

With exception to Gasoline Alley, I'm not a Rod Stewart fan. I was just going by...how his recent records have sold. Like I said, I'm not sure if that could be measured as relevance or not. Tom Waits' albums are obviously much better.

I agree with that take on what is considered to be an original or a cover.

[Quiet and Shy]

Rod Stewart's massacre of the classics doesn't really make him relevant. Artists like Bob Dylan and Tom Waits still writing and recording original material at this stage of their careers is. Then again, Rod's creative well has been dried up for quite some time, at least as far back in the 70s when he started releasing such drivel as Do Ya Think I'm Sexy.

In regards to cover material, just because someone penned a song with a specific artist in mind doesn't make it an original by that artist. It's still cover material whether or not the original artist has recorded it or not.

And your "cover" definition just plain confuses me. It appears you're saying all music is "cover". Somewhere in there I'd suggest you need to differentiate between songwriter and singer/performer....

I don't own any of Rod Stewart's classics music but a lot of other people do; so in the whole scheme of things what he's doing is relevant these days. And to me, Bob Dylan has never been much of a singer; he's a much better songwriter. I was looking at big picture, not at personal tastes....

[12vmanRick]

It's not a cover if it's never been recorded or played for an audience.

[LIPH]

Why does music have to "relevant"? When I listen to music I either like the way it sounds or I don't. "Relevance" is irrelevant.

As for the cover/not cover question - if a song is written specifically for a particular artist, I don't consider it a cover. To me, a cover is a song that's already been recorded and another artist hears it, thinks "Hey, I like that song and I think I'll put it on my next album" and then records it.

[Tiki Torches]

Rod Stewart's massacre of the classics doesn't really make him relevant. Artists like Bob Dylan and Tom Waits still writing and recording original material at this stage of their careers is. Then again, Rod's creative well has been dried up for quite some time, at least as far back in the 70s when he started releasing such drivel as Do Ya Think I'm Sexy.

In regards to cover material, just because someone penned a song with a specific artist in mind doesn't make it an original by that artist. It's still cover material whether or not the original artist has recorded it or not.

And your "cover" definition just plain confuses me. It appears you're saying all music is "cover". Somewhere in there I'd suggest you need to differentiate between songwriter and singer/performer....

Willie Nelson wrote Crazy for Patsy Cline years before he actually recorded it. If her name isn't on it, she didn't write it and it's a cover. If the artist performing the song had no part in writing it, it is a cover song.

I don't own any of Rod Stewart's classics music but a lot of other people do; so in the whole scheme of things what he's doing is relevant these days. And to me, Bob Dylan has never been much of a singer; he's a much better songwriter. I was looking at big picture, not at personal tastes....

I'm also not refering to personal tastes, I'm refering to an artist such as Dylan still being able to write good material at his age. He is but one example, there are lots of others. To show just how dried up Rod Stewart's creative well is he has moved on from the "Great American Songbook" to covering rock songs. There's not anything original or creative about that.

[SchoolGirlHeart]

I strongly disagree with this:

If the artist performing the song had no part in writing it, it is a cover song.

And strongly agree with this:

As for the cover/not cover question - if a song is written specifically for a particular artist, I don't consider it a cover.

But if you *really* want confusion, try this: Mac McAnally wrote Semi-True Stories and Jimmy recorded it on FSOTW (2002). Then Mac recorded it as the title cut on HIS album, Semi-True Stories, in 2004. Who's covering whom?? (Makes my head hurt just to think about it.....)

[Tiki Torches]

I strongly disagree with this:

If the artist performing the song had no part in writing it, it is a cover song.

I understand where someone may write a song tailor made for a certain artist but if that artists' name does not appear in the songwriting credits I don't consider it an original song by the artist by any means. Perhaps "cover" is not the right terminology in such a case but neither should it be confused as being an original compostion by the artist in question, because it's not.

[SchoolGirlHeart]

I strongly disagree with this:

If the artist performing the song had no part in writing it, it is a cover song.

I understand where someone may write a song tailor made for a certain artist but if that artists' name does not appear in the songwriting credits I don't consider it an original song by the artist by any means. Perhaps "cover" is not the right terminology in such a case but neither should it be confused as being an original compostion by the artist in question, because it's not.

I agree that if it's not a co-write, it's definitely not an original composition by the artist. But I don't believe it's a "cover", either. A song definitely has two elements: 1) the songwriter(s) (composer(s)), and 2) the performer(s). Sometimes they are one in the same, as with the great majority of Jimmy's songs. Sometimes they're not. If the performer is not the songwriter, I then put the song in one of two categories:

1) the song was either written for the performer (e.g. Bama Breeze) or written and pitched to the performer (e.g. *many* of George Strait's recordings). While the performer does not get writing credit, he/she is the first performer to record the song, and I don't consider the song a cover.

2) the song was previously recorded by another artist (not just the demo to pitch the song, but a released recording). Mexico, Nothing But A Breeze, Everbody's Talking, Scarlet Begonias, and many others fit in this catogory. They are covers of previously recorded songs.

[Tiki Torches]

1) the song was either written for the performer (e.g. Bama Breeze) or written and pitched to the performer (e.g. *many* of George Strait's recordings). While the performer does not get writing credit, he/she is the first performer to record the song, and I don't consider the song a cover.

True but it's also not an original compostion by the performer and shouldn't be construed as such.

[JustDucky]

Okay, now that we have the written by written for cover/no cover settled etc...the old debate comes up like the Beasty.

I was simply making a reference or commenting about relevance based on things I've read over the years in Rolling Stone and other music magazines from journalists and critics and then attempting to come up with what that could actually mean by stating that the Stones, Who etc...are still going and I thought maybe that's what people mean by someone still being relevant. To which I've always thought truly meant Buy their new record/see their tour because it's/they're good still. Blah blah blah.

Obviously if you think someone sucks or stinks then I guess one would think they are not relevant (for instance, people that don't like JB's music or songs at all probably think he has no relevance). But then someone else might or does. Obviously it's all opinions. And now after all of this I'm losing the whole meaning of what relevance means anyway with music and bands/artists, etc...

If someone could post what it might actually mean in regards to someone being relevant and or not maybe I'll have a better understanding. 'Cause it's getting to be "irrelevant" to talk about all this relevance.