Song Database Cover Songs No Bama Breeze

[Tiki Torches]

So if a song written by a songwriter but not yet recorded by the songwriter isn't a song, what is it?

Of course it's still a song but that term doesn't differentiate from a song written by a songwriter yet not recorded by them and an artist recording a song that was already recorded by a well known artist. "Cover" or "cover version" as the above definitions illustrate are the correct terms to apply in this situation. The terms "song" or "new song" don't offer those meanings, they're too generic and don't apply at all to the questions that have been asked.

[Quiet and Shy]

Tiki Torches, here's some stuff I posted re. covers back on p.2:

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.

Tiki Torches, I'm posting this for you (again) with the hopes you might give it some thought....

[Tiki Torches]

Tiki Torches, here's some stuff I posted re. covers back on p.2:

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.

Tiki Torches, I'm posting this for you (again) with the hopes you might give it some thought....

Can't say I agree with that, especially this part:

I consider Jimmy's recording to be the original, and not a cover

The only way Bama Breeze could be a Buffett "original" is if he had written it, which he didn't. I believe the first definition of cover I posted earlier is more accurate. It's certainly more specific than the terms "song" or "new song" that are far too generic to even apply here.

[JustDucky]

Those definitions being highlighted are being whittled down to convienence just like how 'the right to bear arms' leaves out what it actually means.

"a recording of a song by a singer, instrumentalist, or group other than the original performer or composer".

Notice how it starts with "a recording" and concludes with "other than the original performer or composer". The original performer is the dude(s) who, while writing (composing) the tune, performed (played) it in the midst of writing it. At some point in the writing the song is played all the way through, which has now been performed.

This whole thing started out a while back when people started to notice that there were few if any Jimmy Buffett originals and a bunch of covers - songs he didn't write. I had thought that Bama Breeze had been previously released and therefor it's a cover, which is why I named what this thread is since the lyrics are not under the Covers in the song database.

It's obvious that most people consider what Jimmy has done over the past few albums are cover songs with some JB originals and co-written originals. The uproar is hilarious though.

[Cubbie Bear]

Notice how it starts with "a recording" and concludes with "other than the original performer or composer". The original performer is the dude(s) who, while writing (composing) the tune, performed (played) it in the midst of writing it. At some point in the writing the song is played all the way through, which has now been performed

This could be the single most inane comment I have ever read on BN

[JustDucky]

I was simply pointing out what it actually said since some people...

[Tiki Torches]

Folks as well known as Bob Dylan and John Prine have written songs they haven't actually recorded themselves. If someone else records them they're still covers.

[Quiet and Shy]

Folks as well known as Bob Dylan and John Prine have written songs they haven't actually recorded themselves. If someone else records them they're still covers.

Perhaps in your book, but the generally accepted definition of a cover states otherwise. Just because you continue to insist differently doesn't make it so. The Earth is still round.

[Tiki Torches]

Folks as well known as Bob Dylan and John Prine have written songs they haven't actually recorded themselves. If someone else records them they're still covers.

Perhaps in your book, but the generally accepted definition of a cover states otherwise. Just because you continue to insist differently doesn't make it so. The Earth is still round.

I'm going by the definition I posted earlier that comes straight from a dictionary. So, what you're saying is if someone like John Prine writes a song but doesn't record it and Buffett does, it's suddenly a Buffett original even though he had no hand in writing it? If so, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

[chippewa]

SGH said, a few pages back, :

It's an original song written by (songwriter) and recorded by (performer).

She's correct.

[SharkOnLand]

Notice how it starts with "a recording" and concludes with "other than the original performer or composer". The original performer is the dude(s) who, while writing (composing) the tune, performed (played) it in the midst of writing it. At some point in the writing the song is played all the way through, which has now been performed.

Played and performed are not the same thing. You don't 'perform' a song for yourself, you 'perform' for an audience. You 'play' a song for yourself.

[Cubbie Bear]

Notice how it starts with "a recording" and concludes with "other than the original performer or composer". The original performer is the dude(s) who, while writing (composing) the tune, performed (played) it in the midst of writing it. At some point in the writing the song is played all the way through, which has now been performed.

Played and performed are not the same thing. You don't 'perform' a song for yourself, you 'perform' for an audience. You 'play' a song for yourself.

dats jah right answer, mon

[Cubbie Bear]

define "is" while you are at it, TT

[Tiki Torches]

define "is" while you are at it, TT

As best I can tell, defining "is" has nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation.

Folks keep saying I'm disputing the answers provided by others but in truth they seem to be disputing the definition given by the dictionary. Huge difference there.

[chippewa]

Folks as well known as Bob Dylan and John Prine have written songs they haven't actually recorded themselves. If someone else records them they're still covers.

Perhaps in your book, but the generally accepted definition of a cover states otherwise. Just because you continue to insist differently doesn't make it so. The Earth is still round.

I'm going by the definition I posted earlier that comes straight from a dictionary. So, what you're saying is if someone like John Prine writes a song but doesn't record it and Buffett does, it's suddenly a Buffett original even though he had no hand in writing it? If so, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

But your definition from a dictionary says a cover is "a recording of a song by a singer, instrumentalist, or group other than the original performer or composer." So if Jimmy records a John Prine song first, he becomes the original performer. By your definition, that's not a cover. It's not a Buffett original, and it's not a cover. It's "It's an original song written by (songwriter) and recorded by (performer)."

[Tiki Torches]

Thanks for setting the record straight, I guess I misunderstood the dictionary definition.

I can't say I agree with that. I believe a song belongs to the original writer, no matter who may end up recording it. At both Prine's and Dylan's web sites the songs they wrote but have never recorded are credited to them and not the artists that cut them so at least I'm not in the minority in my line of thinking.