Revival Songs vs. Originals Composers and Singers

Reasons Why Modern-Day Artists Still Come Second Best in their Song Revivals


When new artists revive songs, most of the time, the outcome is just not quite as impressive as the original. Whether the new artist's version is good, still, the way the song was originally sang still fits best for the musical piece.


When we hear a revived song, the tendency of most listeners is to go back and try to remember the original tune. With this, after hearing how the new song was performed, we naturally critique and have our own inputs on the new artist's version, voice quality, style, and even appearance. In the end, the classic version and the artist always rakes in better reviews than your modernized song version.


1. They wrote the song: There are times when singers are also the composers of their songs performed; and since the material is one genuinely built from their own ideas and experiences, their performance successfully reveals the whole truth of the song's message. When sung by a new artist, his/her performance will not be executed as profoundly as the original artist. Tendencies to fully grasp the content and intensity of secondhand material are not likely fulfilled that the approach of the new artist still comes out second best too.


2. Packaging affects the songs: Music artists are packaged accordingly to their musical genre. After that follows the marketing side - appearance, in all aspects - the music packaging that makes the artist fit for a majority of people in their respected target market. Producers and record companies put packaging and labeling ahead of artistic integrity for these business people already know what their market wants. For their need to sell the music material accordingly, a big amount of money is spent on materials for a launch such as posters, billboards, CD labels, and even print brochures. Their music is just a fraction of the deal, the poster, billboard, and brochure printing products are the main reasons why an artist is set known to the public. Since this is the case, the artist, let's say a pop singer, suddenly revives a jazz song into her own style; the image portrayed comes out off beat when pop princess suddenly goes mellow in her melody. The effect of an artist to listeners is about 80% packaging for the print materials are what form a certain image the musician will be bringing to the public, that going out of his or her respective field will not come out as successful as that of the original singer/composer of the song.


3. Suits the times: We all know that a song that is still appreciated up to this day but was written decades ago is a classic; and usually, these timeless songs are meant to stay sung and performed in their own period. When a modern-day 2009 artist carries on his/her own song version from the early 50's, chances are, unless their forte is leaned towards the standards-style, the approach will not seem very appealing compared to when the piece was sung back then. These classic songs have remained ageless because the elements such as the artist and style, packaging, era, and melodic and lyrical composition fit perfectly together; and to alter by reviving will somehow break the wholeness of a successful song, unless sung of the exact same style and manner which is not really needed for.


To be fair, revivals still provide a certain musical quality to listeners; there are also instances when revived songs come out well-performed such as those with purposes like movie soundtracks. Also, new artists such as Michael Buble have an innate talent and enthusiasm for standards that most of his repertoire consists of standards and ballads. But, as agreed by many, classic songs sung and owned by their original artist is always better than their successors.