How Come & The Pogues musical direction

[NewJerseyRich]

Sure many, if not all bands have a cover in their sets but we were talking about specifically on the first album. I had a list of near 20 without first disc covers and again I think that would be far too many to post.
I think a b-side is different as well. People who usually bought singles were those that weren't yet hardcore fans. They bought a single because of something they heard on the radio, or a friend turned them on to. This was a perfect captive audience to set up a cover. Giving them 2 songs they would have interest in and hopefully had them interested enough to buy the album. Some bands, I'm sure you'll agree, put a pop styled or radio friendly tune out as a single. Then when you purchase the album and give it a listen you say who the hell are these guys.

[firehazard]

Sure many, if not all bands have a cover in their sets but we were talking about specifically on the first album. I had a list of near 20 without first disc covers ...

But there's a lot of difference from:

I can't think of any successful first albums that contains a recent cover...

to "I can think of nearly 20 that don't".

A fair few first albums, historically, do contain at least one cover. For the reasons observed above. I suspect it's not as true of today's hip up-to-the-minute modern combos, but then nobody cares much about them anyway. But it is the way it tended to be back in the day.

[NewJerseyRich]

But there's a lot of difference from:

I can't think of any successful first albums that contains a recent cover...

to "I can think of nearly 20 that don't".

A fair few first albums, historically, do contain at least one cover. For the reasons observed above. I suspect it's not as true of today's hip up-to-the-minute modern combos, but then nobody cares much about them anyway. But it is the way it tended to be back in the day.

I don't think I can concede the point on a handful of bands. My comment on the approximate 20 without wasn't an exhaustive search, it's just 20 I checked in a nearby CD holder. As I originally said there would be exceptions but the majority of successful bands I still feel don't start off covering a recent hit. I think I explained why The Clash doing "Police and Theives" doesn't really count.

[firehazard]

... I think I explained why The Clash doing "Police and Theives" doesn't really count.

Well, NJR, what you said was:

..."Police and Theives" was a recent release at the time and likely not well known...

Though you'd earlier said:

I can't think of any successful first albums that contains a recent cover. Recent here being within the prior 10-12 years...

So you seem to have simply contradicted yourself if being "recent", rather than being a qualification, now contributes to making it not count. And the fact that you don't think Police and Thieves was well known doesn't mean it's not a cover version. So it's hardly what could be called explanation, more a changing of the grounds of your argument.

You disqualified SF's masterly statistical analysis of 60s' bands because they are too damn old, which again is a "refining" of the grounds of your original thesis.

Anyway, to the list of debut album covers that Doktor Avalanche provided, then without thinking about it too hard I can add the Ramones ("Let's Dance"); New York Dolls (Bo Diddley's "Pills"); Patti Smith ("Gloria"); Dexy's Midnight Runners ("Seven Days Too Long"); the Pretenders ("Stop Your Sobbing"); the Human League ("You've Lost That Loving Feeling"); the Communards ("Don't Leave Me This Way"); and Madness.

Now you may well find reasons why they too don't count. But it seems that the evidence points to the fact that a fair few debut albums do contain cover versions. And, of course, quite a few others don't.

[NewJerseyRich]

So you seem to have simply contradicted yourself if being "recent", rather than being a qualification, now contributes to making it not count. And the fact that you don't think Police and Thieves was well known doesn't mean it's not a cover version. So it's hardly what could be called explanation, more a changing of the grounds of your argument.

No change or contradiction. Police and thieves was released less then a year before the Clash album was released. I know it was a Brit club hit but I would venture the multitude of people that bought the Clash album never heard it before. Plus the fact that Strummer changed words and the tune enough for Junior Murvin to say early on the Clash destroyed his work.

You disqualified SF's masterly statistical analysis of 60s' bands because they are too damn old, which again is a "refining" of the grounds of your original thesis.

I discounted older rock music because nearly everyone in the 50's stole old blues guys songs and put them on their records. That is not the true definition of a cover in my mind. I would define a cover as a recreation of a popular song. Now of course we could debate the definition of popular but I doubt the kids of the early 50's and 60's listen to or had access to old blues records.

Anyway, to the list of debut album covers that Doktor Avalanche provided, then without thinking about it too hard I can add the Ramones ("Let's Dance"); New York Dolls (Bo Diddley's "Pills"); Patti Smith ("Gloria"); Dexy's Midnight Runners ("Seven Days Too Long"); the Pretenders ("Stop Your Sobbing"); the Human League ("You've Lost That Loving Feeling"); the Communards ("Don't Leave Me This Way"); and Madness.

Now you may well find reasons why they too don't count. But it seems that the evidence points to the fact that a fair few debut albums do contain cover versions. And, of course, quite a few others don't.

Point taken. I find no reason not to count these. I may be wrong. I didn't even realise The Ramones or Madness made the cover list.

[Clash Cadillac]

I would define a cover as a recreation of a popular song.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version

[lavabe]

boring direction of the discussion...

[NJR]

boring direction of the discussion...

Agreed, please change the direction to your liking.

[firehazard]

boring direction of the discussion...

Agreed, please change the direction to your liking.

Yep, this bit has been done to death. Please post something interesting/controversial/funny.

[RICHB]

So the Pogues....... Punk Band with Folk Attitude?????????????

[Fr. McGreer]

The original idea of the Pogues was to take Irish folk and traditional music and combine it with a punk or rock beat.

The original idea of the Pogues was nothing of the sort, it was greatly more nuanced and eclectic than that. Your view is the common one that has been restrospectively applied to the band for reasons of convenience and shorthand. "Don't It Make My Brown Eyes Blue", "All Tomorrow's Parties" and "Me and Bobby McGee" are just three songs from the early days of the band which flatten your theory before the band even sets foot in a recording studio. Our experiments were not always successful, and Peace and Love demonstrated there were limits, after all, to how far we could go, but it also showed we refused to play safe and offer an inevitably more pallid Fall From Grace: 2 which many lesser bands would have done.

End of.

OK, lets start again. I enjoyed it anway.....

What's your definition of traditional?

[dsweeney]

Ok, I'm bored, so I'll bite, but I will NOT take the blame for it this time around.
Firstly, as those intelligent, literate people on here will tell you, the English language has many a twist and turn it it and the truth is, the word " traditional " is infinitely more nuanced and has more usages than Phil Chevron thinks it has. In the strict " copyright " sense, it means a song that has no known author and can therefore be " covered " by anybody who feels like it, without law- suits etc. But the word traditional can also mean simply " familiar", "uniform", " old style" etc. Country music at it's best is when it is in the " traditional " style, that's it's very strenth. Not when some cunt like Garth Brooks gets a hold of it and tries to, God forbid and protect us, " modernise it and bring it to a new audience ". Fuck!!
Secondly, somewhere back in time on here Phil posed what turned out to be a rhetorical question, but one I would like an answer to. What is the difference between " traditional " and " public domain", because I'm arsed if I can see it. In musical terms anyway, they both mean a song can be played by anyone because either the original authors are unknown or it being over 75 years old ( I think ) the copyright has expired. I'd be genuinely curious to know the difference, if indeed there is one.

[NewJerseyRich]

I'm guessing you might have answered your own question? Traditional songs fall into public domain but not all public domain are traditional.

[Fr. McGreer]

Ok, I'm bored, so I'll bite, but I will NOT take the blame for it this time around.

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH.......... NNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! I WAS JOKING, NOT AGAIN!!!!!

[dsweeney]

Well, if you play with fire.... I said I'm not taking the blame this time so if you dont' want to parlay then please feel free to fuck right off, just jog on, nothing to see here!
One thing I would say on something mentioned by somebody further up, about " cover " versions. To me, a " cover " is when somebody or some group does a song that was written by somebody else. WHEN the song was written has nothing whatsoever to do with it, it's still a cover version of somebody else's song. So for instance SLF's 1980 version of " Doesn't make it alright " by the Specials ( in 1979 ), is as much a cover version as Sid's version of " My way".