Do you consider 'new recordings' covers of the originals?

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 6/4/08 at 6:09pm

I was talking with a friend today, and we got into a debate about what is considered a 'cover'. Rock and Theatre are different genres, but essentially every recording other than the original version (often the composer's for theatre) is a 'cover'. He supports that every version other than the original is a 'cover', however I view it as each new recording (i.e The Original Broadway Cast Recording vs. The New Broadway Cast Recording) are two seperate versions of the songs, and the new recording is not a cover. I'm interested in hearing the opinions of others.

Updated On: 6/4/08 at 06:09 PM

[into_the_woods2]

Posted: 6/4/08 at 7:51pm

i don't consider them covers, i place them in their own category "revivals". if a singer was to sing a song from a musical on his/her own cd recording, i would consider THAT a cover. but not full on revival cast recordings

[thatgirl712]

Posted: 6/4/08 at 11:40pm

I don't consider them covers.

[heathurrr]

Posted: 6/4/08 at 11:45pm

New recording are reworkings or reinterpretations of the originals. I don't see them as covers. Revival songs exist as their own entities.

[Weez]

Posted: 6/5/08 at 7:44am

Not at all! Do you consider revival cast members to be merely doing karaoke when they perform in their show? Of course you don't! They're performing their own takes on the roles, and the recording is a record of that. If it's a studio cast and they're obviously trying to sound like the original cast, then perhaps that could possibly be considered a cover. But most of them are still their own beasts, and it's massively disrespectful to these performers to even vaguely consider that their work could be dismissed as a "cover". XP

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 6/5/08 at 8:02am

I consider "new cast recordings" of musicals "new cast recordings."

Someone like John Mayer singing CATS IN THE CRADLE is a cover