Sometimes you can hear a cover and have no idea that it is not the original work. This is especially easy in the case of a song originally performed by a relatively obscure band and then reproduced by a big name. It happens more often than you may think. Remember Natalie Imbruglia's "Torn"? It seemed difficult to turn on VH1, MTV, or the radio and not hear the song back in the end of 1997 through 1998. But unbeknown to most listeners, this song was actually a cover of "Torn" by Ednaswap. "Torn" was Natalie Imbruglia's most famous song, as she was, in the music world, what many may refer to as a one hit wonder.
However, what many would consider the most popular song of a number of artists are covers. Aretha Franklin's "Respect", Whitney Houston's "I will always love you", Soft Cell's "Tainted Love", Quiet Riot's "Come on Feel the Noise", Joan Jett's "I love rock and roll", Cyndi Lauper's "Girls just want to have fun", UB40's "Red, red wine", and many other songs that often remain an artist's most famous work are covers.
Many have heard Johnny Cash's last song he recorded in studio, titled "Hurt". In case you haven't, here is the video:
This song, while not the most famous Johnny Cash song, was seen as his last legacy. It was his last song and somewhat of a musical goodbye to the world. However, it too, was a cover. The original version was written by Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails. In an interview, Reznor described his reaction upon seeing the video:
"I was flattered...[but] it didn't sound right to me. You know, that was my song. And it didn't sound bad, it just sounded...alien...it really then wasn't my song anymore...[It is] an unbelievably powerful piece of work." Trent Reznor, Nine Inch Nails
When covers become famous or seem to stand for something significant, sometimes the fact that the song is not an original work of that artist can be forgotten. It is an interesting phenomenon, and one that will likely continue.
Here is the original version of Hurt by Nine Inch Nails:
Multimedia sites like YouTube, Myspace, PureVolume, and many others allow amateur musicians to post audio or video clips for the general public. The websites are free to access and free to post on, providing a potentially wonderful marketing source at no cost. Both original works as well as covers are uploaded. However, in terms of the probability of an artist or band being discovered, utilizing cover songs make sense. The following is a story of a band who used a combination of YouTube and catchy cover songs to become famous.
Boyce Avenue is comprised of three brothers from Florida. Although they had pursued musical interests previously, the three brothers officially came together as a band in 2004. In 2007, the brothers started posting videos on YouTube. The content was mostly cover songs, but they did post some original works as well, although songs from other artists initially had many more views. Alejandro, the lead singer, has an incredible voice, and the band often utilizes alternate guitar tunings and a cajón for percussion, creating a soothing and melodic sound. In addition, all are talented musicians and many of their videos are quite well-edited compared to the average YouTube cover song. Apparently, this was a recipe for success.
By the end of 2008, the band had over 100,000 subscribers to their YouTube channel. This YouTube channel currently has over 480,000 subscribers and 250,000,000 views. They are the most viewed band on all of YouTube, which is pretty amazing considering they started in September 2007 with just a few acoustic covers of songs they enjoyed. Here is Boyce Avenue's most viewed online song to date, with more than 10.9 million views:
However, Boyce Avenue's success does not end online. In January 2009 the band had a stand-alone show in New York city. The show sold out. The band subsequently sold out many shows, not only in the United States, but also abroad. Shows in Germany and the United Kingdom were sold out, and the band tours as far away as the Philippines. Universal Republic Records approached the band and signed Boyce Avenue in 2009. This is the same Universal Republic Records that signed Colbie Caillat, 3 Doors Down, Enrique Iglesias, Jack Johnson, and many other big names.
But was this just a fluke?
Obviously just posting videos on YouTube will not necessarily lead to fame and success. There are countless amateur musicians who post on YouTube and never get more than a few hundred views. Certainly the incredible talent of Boyce Avenue helped them attain so much popularity. But they are most definitely not the only group to get their break because of their YouTube videos. Among others, Justin Bieber also was discovered because of his YouTube account. And guess what his first few videos were. That's right, covers:
Multimedia sites allow amateur musicians the chance to access an audience never before attainable. And covers are often a great way to reach out to the audience. Now every time someone searches for "Shadow of the Day" or for "I'll Be", the versions by Boyce Avenue and Justin Bieber come up. With the help of multimedia sites, many musicians will help jump start their career and possibly attain fame and fortune through the digital exchange of cover songs.
You have all heard frivolous lawsuits. Everyone has the same incredulous look on their face when friends describe the man suing Michael Jordan for $832 million dollars because he looked too much like him or the prisoner who tried to sue himself. Musical copyright infringement, too, has had its share of absurdity.
A song of silence
In 1952, American experimental composer John Cage composed a controversial piece called 4'33". The piece, created with live performances in mind, was four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence. No instruments, no vocals, nothing. Cage wanted listeners simply to absorb the ambient noise.
Mike Batt released an album in February 2002 called Classical Graffiti. One of the tracks was completely silent. The album was credited to Batt, as well as to John Cage, who had no role in the production of the album. Batt simply respected Cage as an artist and found 4'33" to be an interesting piece. Perhaps to his surprise, Batt was contacted following the release of Classical Graffiti by Cage's publishers. Why? They wanted to sue.
So what happened?
The case never made it to court. Mike Batt, instead, agreed to pay an undisclosed six-figure sum. To reiterate, in case you missed that, Batt payed over $100,000 for having silence on his album. Although Cage's publishers did admit that the case was "optimistic", Batt claimed the payment to the John Cage Trust was made out of personal respect for John Cage. Upon settling, Cage's publishers felt "honour had been settled" because "the concept of a silent piece...is a valuable artistic concept in which there is a copyright."
Perhaps the publishers have a point. Silence comprising the entirety of a musical piece does seem to be an artistic concept. The irony, however, is that Cage was not the pioneer in such a musical work. There are at least four composers who utilized silence as an artistic endeavor within their music for longer durations of time. Cage's publishers might have been at a loss had one asked about such compositions, and the "honour" of John Cage subsequently utilizing the same artistic technique.
Copyright law can clearly get a little ridiculous. Had the case made it to court, Batt likely would not have had to pay, or at least would have greatly reduced the fee. Regardless, covering songs can get dicey, and though individuals often purport the value of artistic expression, for those interested it can still all come down to money.
Here is a live cover of John Cage's 4'33". As a spoiler alert, this may take easy listening to an uncomfortable level:
A mashup takes songs or sounds from other artists and combines them to form a single unified song. The most famous contemporary American mashup artist is Gregg Gillis, a retired biomedical engineer who performs under the name Girl Talk. Gillis makes musical collages out of short clips from other people’s songs but does not get the permission of the original composers. Here is a clip of Gillis demonstrating how he goes about creating mashups:
A great controversy over the work of Gillis and other mashup artists remains whether mashups fall under copyright law’s fair use principle, which allows online music reviews to use short clips of songs. According to the U.S. Code:
The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Gillis argues for the legality of his work and claims that there is currently an impetus for a more open exchange of culture and media. Others strongly support this claim such as Congress Representative Mike Doyle who argues that copyright law has grown so restrictive that it impedes creativity.
However, some argue that Gillis and other mashup artists are simply substituting someone else’s creativity for their own and that such actions should be, and in fact are, illegal. Interestingly enough the current record label of Girl Talk is called Illegal Art. Regardless, both sides agree that the current method of distribution of Girl Talk's songs plays a key role in keeping the controversy out of the courts. Girl Talk’s most recent album, All Day, is available for download free online, as are all his other works.
Gillis performing at Duke University in the spring of 2009.
Regardless of the legality of mashups, their impact on the musical community is difficult to examine. Covers of a single song can serve as a marketing tool, helping an artist's work become more popular, or can, if the work is sold commercially, help the original artist make some money. Mashups, though, do not necessarily do either. Gillis takes small clips from songs, often eliminating all but one intended instrument or sound, and combines many songs together to form a new entity which cannot be easily identified with a single artist. In addition, Gillis does not pay musicians to use their songs. They are not necessarily a useful marketing tool for the original artists, and do not allow the creator to gain additional profit. Mashups do, however, contribute to an environment in which digital media and collaboration are encouraged, which, as future blog posts will address, may help change the future of music.
Here is an example of one of Girl Talk's many mashups:
Glee. It has taken television by storm. It combines high school drama with catchy choreographed song and dance in an hour-long series on Fox. A few famous actors have roles in Glee, but the show mostly relies on less-famed individuals with incredible voices. The show was received well by many critics, and the episodes contain multiple covers of popular songs, both new and old.
GLEE is a biting musical comedy that has quickly become a pop-culture phenomenon. This season's No. 1 entertainment series among Teens and a Top 3 series among Adults 18-49 and 18-34 boasts critical acclaim, a loyal fan base of "GLEEks," two Platinum and two Gold albums, two Grammy Award nominations, more than 16 million song downloads, the record for the most titles on the Billboard Hot 100 by a non-solo act (beating out The Beatles), the No. 1 soundtrack of 2010 ("The Christmas Album"), an incredible 19 Emmy and 11 Golden Globe nominations - earning it the distinction of being the most-nominated series of the year - and four Emmy Awards.
So the show is kind of a big deal.
Why is Glee so popular?
When it comes down to it, Glee is a typical television show about high school. There is the jock, the cheerleader, the tough guy, the gay guy, the fat girl, the mean girl, and pretty much every other mix of high school drama-inducing characters one can imagine. There is nothing new there. However, the characters also sing and dance, but hasn't that already been done before?
However, unlike High School Musical, Glee strives to add in the song and dance in a realistic manner. High School Musical was extremely popular among the teen groups, but the statistics clearly show that Glee is popular among even adults. Perhaps it is because of the more realistic feel of the show. Kids in high school do not just break out into song and dance. Glee incorporates a glee club (hence, the title), and with many of the main characters as members of the club, the show can effortlessly incorporate many covers into each episode in a realistic scenario. The singers are incredible, the songs are generally well-known, and the dances are well-choreographed, making the show a feel-good sing-along type of experience without being quite so cheesy.
Is everyone such a big fan?
No, it seems not all are true "Gleeks". Bryan Adams and Guns N' Roses refused to let their music be used in the show. Slash, the Guns N' Roses guitarist who made an appearance with at the Superbowl halftime performance with the Black Eyed Peas, said he "draws the line at Glee". And it seems that he is not the only one.
This is an image from a Facebook group of the same title. However, the largest equivalent page for Glee supporters currently has over 11 million fans. And this does not even touch the actual number of individuals who in the non-cyberspace realm watch this show. Executive producer Ryan Murphy said the music community has generally been quite supportive, with some artists even offering their songs for free.
Whether or not you like the show, they certainly are doing something right. Here is an example of one of Glee's many covers:
Taio Cruz released Dynamite in 2010. It still is frequently featured on television and the radio, and has a series of catchy hooks that make the song hard to forget. While it has been covered many times, a YouTube user named Mike Tompkins posted a very unique acapella version worth checking out:
Tompkins' version was created using only vocals as an instrument. At the end of the video he goes through the different sounds, adding one on top of the other so listeners can hear how all the individual sounds come together to make a pretty impressive cover version. Acapella groups use a similar technique for cover songs but generally do not attempt to recreate each individual sound from the original version. This version of Dynamite offers some insight into how incredible the human voice is, but also shows some limitations, as it does not have quite the punch that Taio Cruz's original seems to possess.
When do you need the copyright holder's permission?
Generally, as long as you are not making money off of a cover and are giving the original artist credit, there can be no legal ramifications for covering a song. However, if the song is played at a concert, bar, or other venue where an admissions fee is paid, things can sometimes get dicey. It is always best to obtain permission from the original artist to play things safe, but you still might be surprised regarding how strict The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP), may seem.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but according to the ASCAP, you must get permission from the copyright holder to make copies of or re-record an existing song. Anyone interested in distributing physical copies or a cover song should therefore seek the original artist's permission. In addition, whenever another artist's music is used as part of training seminars, conventions, or other commercial or business presentations, permission is required, even if a cover is just played as a fun way to break up sessions.
Business owners need to be especially cognitive of copyright laws, even independent of covering songs. Most people are aware that movies must seek permission to use an artist's song. However, many may not know that the music you listen to when you call a company and are "on hold" is considered a public performance, and therefore requires permission from ASCAP or from the copyright owner. Copyright law is pretty strict, and it is much better to pay the initial fees than deal with subsequent lawsuits.
So how much does it cost to obtain permission to cover a song?
In short, it depends. However, the federal government controls how much individuals covering an original song must pay artists for physical recordings (such as CDs) and permanent digital downloads (such as distributing a song on iTunes). Currently, individuals must pay 9.1 cents per copy for songs that are less than or equal to 5 minutes. For every minute beyond this 5 minute mark, the additional charge is 1.75 cents. So, if you want to charge iTunes users $1 to download your cover song, you will make, at most, 90.9 cents for that song. For a song that is, say 10 minutes, you are looking at 82.15 cents. And of course this does not include the iTunes fees. For any ring tone enthusiasts, the statutory mechanical royalty rate for ringtones is 24 cents per copy.
While the prices may seem too high, too low, or simply arbitrary, it is important to keep in mind the purpose of these costs. The costs are not meant to be prohibitive; with high costs amateur artists would be unable to produce any covers at all. However, the original artist should be compensated for his or her work, especially in the case of a cover making significant profit off of this individual's labor. Some individuals make their living off of music, and the average professional musician may not be making as much money as you think.
