Some performers combine performing songs that others have previously recorded with songs by songwriters who just write songs. Not every song not written by the singer is necessarily a cover. It may have been written by a songwriter hoping to make some money by getting a performer to sing it. But for me, it still doesn't matter. If a great performer makes an album of "covers" and really puts their personal stamp on it, it can be successful. I will listen to anything I enjoy, regardless of how it was created. I don't see the sense in limiting my musical enjoyment based on superficial things.

In response to devildavid's comment:

Some performers combine performing songs that others have previously recorded with songs by songwriters who just write songs. Not every song not written by the singer is necessarily a cover. It may have been written by a songwriter hoping to make some money by getting a performer to sing it. But for me, it still doesn't matter. If a great performer makes an album of "covers" and really puts their personal stamp on it, it can be successful. I will listen to anything I enjoy, regardless of how it was created. I don't see the sense in limiting my musical enjoyment based on superficial things.

But David, what's superficial to you is paramount to me.  Let's face it, if a singer/band has 12 great original songs they are really proud of and want to make an album they are NOT going to leave 6 out to put in 6 covers...singing other peoples' songs and making far less money as they won't get any pubishing on the 6 covers.  They would only have 6 covers if they were unable to come up with 12 strong originals.  

Do you think Rod Stewart chucked away a batch of great originals in favour of his standards album a few years ago?  Or did his well run dry decades ago?

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

In response to devildavid's comment:

Some performers combine performing songs that others have previously recorded with songs by songwriters who just write songs. Not every song not written by the singer is necessarily a cover. It may have been written by a songwriter hoping to make some money by getting a performer to sing it. But for me, it still doesn't matter. If a great performer makes an album of "covers" and really puts their personal stamp on it, it can be successful. I will listen to anything I enjoy, regardless of how it was created. I don't see the sense in limiting my musical enjoyment based on superficial things.

But David, what's superficial to you is paramount to me.  Let's face it, if a singer/band has 12 great original songs they are really proud of and want to make an album they are NOT going to leave 6 out to put in 6 covers...singing other peoples' songs and making far less money as they won't get any pubishing on the 6 covers.  They would only have 6 covers if they were unable to come up with 12 strong originals.  

Do you think Rod Stewart chucked away a batch of great originals in favour of his standards album a few years ago?  Or did his well run dry decades ago?

It is paramount to you because you choose to make it that. You are free to purposely limit the scope of music you will listen to. But it has little to do with the actual music. If you heard some music in a blind test without knowing how it was created, how would you know whether to enjoy it or not?

In response to devildavid's comment:

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

In response to devildavid's comment:

Some performers combine performing songs that others have previously recorded with songs by songwriters who just write songs. Not every song not written by the singer is necessarily a cover. It may have been written by a songwriter hoping to make some money by getting a performer to sing it. But for me, it still doesn't matter. If a great performer makes an album of "covers" and really puts their personal stamp on it, it can be successful. I will listen to anything I enjoy, regardless of how it was created. I don't see the sense in limiting my musical enjoyment based on superficial things.

But David, what's superficial to you is paramount to me.  Let's face it, if a singer/band has 12 great original songs they are really proud of and want to make an album they are NOT going to leave 6 out to put in 6 covers...singing other peoples' songs and making far less money as they won't get any pubishing on the 6 covers.  They would only have 6 covers if they were unable to come up with 12 strong originals.  

Do you think Rod Stewart chucked away a batch of great originals in favour of his standards album a few years ago?  Or did his well run dry decades ago?

It is paramount to you because you choose to make it that. You are free to purposely limit the scope of music you will listen to. But it has little to do with the actual music. If you heard some music in a blind test without knowing how it was created, how would you know whether to enjoy it or not?

An analogy would be if you saw a masterful fake of Van Gogh painting you had never seen before would you enjoy it (assuming you like Van Gogh)?  Sure.  Then if you later found out it was a fake would you still appreciate the brush strokes, the subject, the perspective, the light, etc?  Probably.  But you wouldn't like it as much once you found out it was someone else's inspiration, Van Gogh's.

Inspiration matters to me.  An artist/writer/composer sitting down in front of a blank piece of paper and creating something new, just out of their head, their imagination.  Not "ooh, that's a good song, I can sing that too".

Inspiration matters to me.  An artist/writer/composer sitting down in front of a blank piece of paper and creating something new, just out of their head, their imagination.  Not "ooh, that's a good song, I can sing that too".

(btw, I would bet that few people listen to as much new music every week as I do)

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

(btw, I would bet that few people listen to as much new music every week as I do)

You're lucky.

That's kind of my dream job.

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

Inspiration matters to me.  An artist/writer/composer sitting down in front of a blank piece of paper and creating something new, just out of their head, their imagination.  Not "ooh, that's a good song, I can sing that too".

 I can respect that.  Originality is a admirable goal for any artist as well as any art lover.  I can also respect your apparent disdain for formalism and the shallow attempts sway opinion rather than elicit a response.

But it might pain you to know just how many of the world's masterpieces - in all art forms - are quite literally (some intentionally) a crib of someone else's work.  I'm not saying creative genius doesn't exist.  It does, but it's so rare as to be unrecognizable...until later, perhaps.

Art seldom exists in a vacuum.  And when it does, there's usually a darn good reason.

Often, it's why artists usually start out by imitating someone else first.  Even Jackson Pollock tried painting landscapes in a post-impressionist style.

An analogy would be if you saw a masterful fake of Van Gogh painting you had never seen before would you enjoy it (assuming you like Van Gogh)?  Sure.  Then if you later found out it was a fake would you still appreciate the brush strokes, the subject, the perspective, the light, etc?  Probably.  But you wouldn't like it as much once you found out it was someone else's inspiration, Van Gogh's.

Inspiration matters to me.  An artist/writer/composer sitting down in front of a blank piece of paper and creating something new, just out of their head, their imagination.  Not "ooh, that's a good song, I can sing that too".

 That's not really a good analogy. But if it was a good copy of Van Gogh, it would not alter the pleasure I got in looking at it. In fact, I have mainly seen reproductions of paintings. I don't need to see the original to enjoy the overall effect of the painting.

You are creating a fantasy world about the writer and inspiration, and you are free to to that. Someone can come up with a song in that way that I don't enjoy. The inspiration does not make the song any more enjoyable than an "uninspired" song sung in an inspiring way. It has nothing to do with thinking I can sing that. Many soul singers performed songs written by others, and while I may be able to sing some of them, I don't for a moment kid myself that I can sing them as good.

In response to devildavid's comment:

An analogy would be if you saw a masterful fake of Van Gogh painting you had never seen before would you enjoy it (assuming you like Van Gogh)?  Sure.  Then if you later found out it was a fake would you still appreciate the brush strokes, the subject, the perspective, the light, etc?  Probably.  But you wouldn't like it as much once you found out it was someone else's inspiration, Van Gogh's.

Inspiration matters to me.  An artist/writer/composer sitting down in front of a blank piece of paper and creating something new, just out of their head, their imagination.  Not "ooh, that's a good song, I can sing that too".

 That's not really a good analogy. But if it was a good copy of Van Gogh, it would not alter the pleasure I got in looking at it. In fact, I have mainly seen reproductions of paintings. I don't need to see the original to enjoy the overall effect of the painting.

You are creating a fantasy world about the writer and inspiration, and you are free to to that. Someone can come up with a song in that way that I don't enjoy. The inspiration does not make the song any more enjoyable than an "uninspired" song sung in an inspiring way. It has nothing to do with thinking I can sing that. Many soul singers performed songs written by others, and while I may be able to sing some of them, I don't for a moment kid myself that I can sing them as good.

I don't appreciate being told that my respect for original composition is a "fantasy world".

If you are truly happy to knowingly look at a reproduction and get the same enjoyment as from the original, I'm happy for you.  But that could never be enough for me.

Another imperfect analogy is that when I was at Uni I had a repro of Guernica on my wall, still my favourite painting.  When I first saw the original I burst into tears, no repro could have prepared me for it.

Sorry if you took it as an insult, none intended. I just meant to say what Matty said, we don't know for sure what took place in the moment of creating a song. I will probably never get to see any original paintings, but I still know what paintings I like to look at. But I guess an analogy for me is seeing B.B. King live vs listening to his recordings. The emotional experience is more direct in the live experience. But I also have seen live shows from Bob Dylan and Van Morrison that were total disappointments.

My approach to all art forms is to separate the art from the artist as much as possible. Once an artist presents his/her work to the public, it has to stand on its own. It can add to your enjoyment to study further about the art form and the artist. Or you can choose to just enjoy the art. These approaches are merely different, but can be equally rewarding.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

Inspiration matters to me.  An artist/writer/composer sitting down in front of a blank piece of paper and creating something new, just out of their head, their imagination.  Not "ooh, that's a good song, I can sing that too".

 I can respect that.  Originality is a admirable goal for any artist as well as any art lover.  I can also respect your apparent disdain for formalism and the shallow attempts sway opinion rather than elicit a response.

But it might pain you to know just how many of the world's masterpieces - in all art forms - are quite literally (some intentionally) a crib of someone else's work.  I'm not saying creative genius doesn't exist.  It does, but it's so rare as to be unrecognizable...until later, perhaps.

Art seldom exists in a vacuum.  And when it does, there's usually a darn good reason.

Often, it's why artists usually start out by imitating someone else first.  Even Jackson Pollock tried painting landscapes in a post-impressionist style.

You make some great points.  Billy Childish once said "Originality is overrated", and he's right.  First of all, nobody is inventing new musical notes so it's a matter of juggling them around, and secondly as you wrote we don't live in a vacuum.

An analogy would be if you saw a masterful fake of Van Gogh painting you had never seen before would you enjoy it (assuming you like Van Gogh)?  Sure.  Then if you later found out it was a fake would you still appreciate the brush strokes, the subject, the perspective, the light, etc?  Probably.  But you wouldn't like it as much once you found out it was someone else's inspiration, Van Gogh's.

Inspiration matters to me.  An artist/writer/composer sitting down in front of a blank piece of paper and creating something new, just out of their head, their imagination.  Not "ooh, that's a good song, I can sing that too".

 That's not really a good analogy. But if it was a good copy of Van Gogh, it would not alter the pleasure I got in looking at it. In fact, I have mainly seen reproductions of paintings. I don't need to see the original to enjoy the overall effect of the painting.

You are creating a fantasy world about the writer and inspiration, and you are free to to that. Someone can come up with a song in that way that I don't enjoy. The inspiration does not make the song any more enjoyable than an "uninspired" song sung in an inspiring way. It has nothing to do with thinking I can sing that. Many soul singers performed songs written by others, and while I may be able to sing some of them, I don't for a moment kid myself that I can sing them as good.

I don't appreciate being told that my respect for original composition is a "fantasy world".

If you are truly happy to knowingly look at a reproduction and get the same enjoyment as from the original, I'm happy for you.  But that could never be enough for me.

Another imperfect analogy is that when I was at Uni I had a repro of Guernica on my wall, still my favourite painting.  When I first saw the original I burst into tears, no repro could have prepared me for it.

Somewhat analogous, reading this conjured up the time that I finally got to see the Grand Canyon.   I was breathless and speechless; it was of such astonishing beauty and so majestic, no pictures I had ever seen came close to the real thing, and nothing could have prepared me for it.  

Then I heard someone (a jerk?!) in the crowd say,  "hey, it's just a big hole in the ground.  I've seen enough.  I'm ready to leave."  

Nothing (and no one) could have prepared me for that, either.  :P