I haven't heard this album, so maybe it is worth the 2 rating all on its own, but I have to - again - take issue with this idea that all covers or tributes or whatever should sound a certain way. Why not take the original song as a jumping-off point and make it into your own thing? Isn't that more interesting than just trying to ape the original?
I love Mark Kozelek's covers, precisely because he makes them into new songs, with nods to and shades of the originals. Anyone can get the tab to "Back in Black" and record a semi-competent cover of it; it takes an artist to tear down and rebuild songs in the way he does.
Never mind the fact that, as noted, this wasn't meant to be a covers record. It was an experiment in memory and reimagining, and it sounds like a pretty cool one to me.
Reviews
Levi said on October 15, 2007:
Boo!
I haven't heard this album, so maybe it is worth the 2 rating all on its own, but I have to - again - take issue with this idea that all covers or tributes or whatever should sound a certain way. Why not take the original song as a jumping-off point and make it into your own thing? Isn't that more interesting than just trying to ape the original?
I love Mark Kozelek's covers, precisely because he makes them into new songs, with nods to and shades of the originals. Anyone can get the tab to "Back in Black" and record a semi-competent cover of it; it takes an artist to tear down and rebuild songs in the way he does.
Never mind the fact that, as noted, this wasn't meant to be a covers record. It was an experiment in memory and reimagining, and it sounds like a pretty cool one to me.