Isn't it weird that people always claim that a mainstream version of something a little less well known simply murders the original? How very odd that a later version with much more funding is always classed as a brutal slaughtering. Do they do it on purpose?
I am talking about music, films, and other such media that attempt to remake or cover the original. I appreciate that it's always important to hold the original with some regard, but why on earth do people have this overwhelming need to slip into the conversation that they saw/heard the original before the arrival of the revised edition?
"The Japanese one was better."
"It's not as good as the book is" (Don't get me started on this one)
"They MURDERED that song."
Notice how, when someone covers an already famous song, people are less inclined to express sentences of this nature? Furthermore, it seems to work the other way round; "Yes, X is a great song, but I've heard this acoustic version by a band you've never heard of and it's SO much better." What do you want, a frigging medal?
I found the American version of "The Ring" scarier, and I think Leona's version of "Run" is better than Snow Patrol's. What are you going to do about it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As you say, anyone who habitually argues from tradition isn't addressing quality at all. Their opinion can be safely disregarded.
However, where's the wrong in pointing people towards a version of something one finds superior?
Sometimes the preferred version will follow, sometimes antedate the version you mention.
The Ring as Gore Verbinski made it, is a good example.
The outrage, where it arises rightly, comes i think from the nature of the interpretation.
Some things are updated and adapted without reproach- well known songs, plays etc.
However i think the outrage comes if interpretation is flawed. You yourself complained about Americanised Harry Potter and His Dark Materials, surely because the adaption was flawed- it stripped some meaning from the product.
I rage at the fucking X shitty Factor for 'Murdering' Hallelujah because they fundamentally misinterpreted the song:
The original is a complex, moody ode to painful intimacy, employing biblical imagery to ironic effect. It's done hauntingly and creates catharsis.
Alexandra simply did what the x factor always does- a fucking gospel celebration. This not only misunderstood the tone of the song, but took the biblical imagery at face value.
I don't think anyone is saying you can't touch Hallelujah!!!!one!
There are several great covers (Jeff Buckley's, Rufus Wainwright's, K.D. Lang's), but they're accepted because they understood and respected the original.
How this relates to the Batman series is possibly an interesting place to take the discussion.
I don't think we actually disagree here, as it was merely the habitual opinions that I referring to. People were saying that The X Factor winner would murder the song before they even heard it, which is just plain snobbery. All songs are open to interpretation and just because it was mainstream didn't necessarily mean that they were going to do a bad job. As it is, your opinion is valid.
Post a Comment