Sounds great in theory, but in practice, just what is "anything new"?
Obviously, Earth Wind & Fire's cover of the Beatles 'Got to get you into my
life' was very different from the original (you hardly even recognize it).
But Cindi Lauper or Mariah Carey, whose covers sound much like the
originals to me, might argue that they have "added" something by remaking a
tune, originally by a male, with a female voice, or by adding 90's style
"pop" inflections to the vocals. That isn't enough.
Okay, if you like a previously recorded song, sing it in your show. But to
release it as a single and make millions by remaking essentially the same
song, only possible because you're a superstar and the general population
is already familiar with the tune, just doesn't seem right to me. Sorry if
you're a fan of Cindi or Mariah.
I agree with the original post...skip the covers. There are 50 bad ones
for every good one. And the IRONY of it: the mainstream would classify the
radically changed pop remakes as the worst and the least changed as the
best!
Jazz covers are an entirely different subject than pop music covers. In
mainstream jazz, the 'tune' or melody is often secondary to, and no more
than a vehicle for, the solo work. Even then, the tempo and rhythm are
often radically changed. In jazz that change is appreciated, respected,
and enjoyed to a much greater extent than in pop music.
How and where AJ fits into the remaking of covers/standards is not clear to me.
Joe