What's the deal with making covers of older songs?

[masraum]

The missus and I had lunch today at PF Changs, and I heard 2 different Hall and Oats covers. I was wondering why they wouldn't have used the originals. Is it cheaper to have an unknown group pay a licensing fee and then pay them a lump sum than it would be to pay Hall and Oats royalties? I think I also heard "Under the Milky Way" by the Church, and I think it was the original.

I was wondering if it was a financial thing, or possibly just that they didn't want to sound too retro or old and so went with a fresh remake.

I guess an add-on to this question is how expensive is it to be able to legally cover someone elses' song? Is covering a Beatles or Stones song a lot more expensive than another smaller group? Do you just pay a one time fee or do you pay per play? I've always been curious about that stuff.

[Aragorn]

Musac has been in elevators for decades.

I know that some songs in movies are not by the original artists but sound awfully close. Think it is either a licensing problem or movie budget problem.

On another note some covers outshine the originals:

20 Famous Songs You Didn't Know Were Covers | VH1 Tuner

[scottmandue]

It is a imagination thing... as in lack of... I don't blame the artist but the media/producers/bean counters.

Besides music when was the last time you saw an original movie or TV show plot?

[widebody911]

The bigger question is why would someone do a cover of a Hall and Oates song in the first place?

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by widebody911

The bigger question is why would someone do a cover of a Hall and Oates song in the first place?

Not that there is anything wrong with that

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by widebody911

The bigger question is why would someone do a cover of a Hall and Oates song in the first place?

They put out a lot of good material and Live From Daryl's House is very popular. Check out Cee Lo Green.....

[Baz]

Is this a trick question?

Covers are done of Hall and Oates (plus many other fantastic artists from that era) because their music is iconic.



While on the Hall and Oates subject.....the best part about the Daryl's House series - is the music itself. Toss in some talented artists and interesting variations on the original versions and it just doesn't get any better....

[Baz]

Craig and I are on the same page....the train is leaving the station...either you are on or you are off.

[mikeesik]

That was great.

[Aragorn]

Originally Posted by Baz

Craig and I are on the same page....the train is leaving the station...either you are on or you are off.

Hall & Oats had some really good songs but the kicker for me was they had one of the best group of studio musicians to back them up. T-Bone, G. E. Smith and Mickey Curry were some of the best around. You knew it was a Hall & Oats song just by the hook. They had a certain "in the pocket" style that was all their own. A mix of blues, rock, soul and jazz could be found in the background canvas of all their hits.

Daryl's House is just an expansion on how good music is made better with great artists playing it well.

[Aragorn]

I think another reason why they use covers by other artists in movies at least is the original song doesn't fit the tone of the movie. In Meet Joe Black, the re-imagined version of Over the Rainbow fits better than using Judy Garland's version from The Wizard of Oz.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by masraum

The missus and I had lunch today at PF Changs, and I heard 2 different Hall and Oats covers. I was wondering why they wouldn't have used the originals. Is it cheaper to have an unknown group pay a licensing fee and then pay them a lump sum than it would be to pay Hall and Oats royalties? I think I also heard "Under the Milky Way" by the Church, and I think it was the original.

I was wondering if it was a financial thing, or possibly just that they didn't want to sound too retro or old and so went with a fresh remake.

I guess an add-on to this question is how expensive is it to be able to legally cover someone elses' song? Is covering a Beatles or Stones song a lot more expensive than another smaller group? Do you just pay a one time fee or do you pay per play? I've always been curious about that stuff.

Anyone can get a "mechanical license" to record a cover version of a song. It is fairly cheap (The Harry Fox Agency) so "soundalikes" will do that then sell their version to other places who don't want to get a performance license from the original artist (which could be big $$$).

Hall and Oates are awesome. Sara Smile is one of the great pop songs of all time.

[widebody911]

I prefer Garfunkel & Oates

[Arizona 911]

I don't know how to post videos but there is a band called Nicki Bluhm & the Gramblers that do a great cover of " I cant go for that". They play inside their van while on the road between gigs. They have a bunch of van sessions on you tube.

[LeeH]

Sometimes the remake is just better.

"Some Nights" by Fun is a song that's overplayed on the radio and makes me change the station.

Remake by up and coming band, Walk Off The Earth, that I could listen to over and over:

[dyusem]

Cover songs flood digital music services as artists of all stripes try to build fan base - The Washington Post

[red-beard]

If you look at Led Zeppelin I, it is almost all covers...or very modified versions of other artists songs and blues standards.

[Seahawk]

Thanks, Baz!

I had never heard of the singer, Rumer.

Are her albums worth buying...her voice is so well controlled and appropriately understated.

I saw this after your video in the post above ended. Excellent.

[Joe Bob]

Raj's new GF....

[flipper35]

I like the Bangles version of Hazy Shade of Winter better than Simon and Garfunkle's but most times the original is better. Then again, some of Wierd Al's are as entertaining as the original.