Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!internet!Bob Soron From: Bob Soron Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: Yeah, but what about ... Message-ID: <5647@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Wed, 7-Nov-84 19:59:57 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.5647 Posted: Wed Nov 7 19:59:57 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 05:30:56 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 29 Well, one of the neat things about country music is that although I might not define those as members of the set, you can, and both of us can be right. The cross-fertilization of the genre has been a primary interest for me for years, though. Many seem to do it purely out of commercial interest -- there's no other reason I can imagine Willie Nelson doing a Procol Harum number -- and some seem to do it out of artistic drive, as many of the artists you mention did. Trying to separate the two means careful watching over a period of years, hoping to find some sort of consistency. One of my stronger interests in this sub-field is cover versions. For some time, now, I've been having a debate with a friend who says that cover versions just shouldn't exist; performers should generate their own art. I note that that's an ideal situation, but groups doing covers allow the listener a lower-level feel for the group along with a ready point of comparison, not of quality necessarily but of intent and viewpoint. Listening to Asleep at the Wheel, for instance, do Count Basie's "One O'Clock Jump" is a sublime experience, and I believe it enriches their repertoire and my understanding of the band and their influences; I get a feel for the route they took to get where they are. What does the rest of the list think of cover versions in general -- for all genres -- are they wastes of time and petroleum, or do they serve a genuine purpose? ...Bob -------