That curious shot of a woman looking like she's
just seen the Martians land aside, that cover tells you almost everything you
need to know about this album; it's a bunch of songs made famous by Tom Jones
and Engelbert Humperdinck as played and sung by session musicians. That's it,
that's literally all there is to it, so curious then that such a simple premise
still raises a number of issues for me to wrestle with; I'm starting to
realise there's no such thing as an easy ride with these charity shop
records.
For one thing, I can't help thinking Humperdinck and Jones would have made for curious bedfellows in their pomp - one is a bluesy R&B shouter whose sex appeal was all part of his shtick while the other was a middle of the road pop balladeer (and I'm also led to believe there was a kind of rivalry between the pair), Time may have blurred the distinction for modern audiences, but it would have been more evident in 1971 when this came out, which I'm guessing is why their songs have been neatly split over both sides with no cross pollination.
It's not uncommon for established artists to release albums of cover versions of their favourite songs. Its been going on for years. Some are very good (for example, David Bowie's 'Pin Ups', John Lennon's 'Rock & Roll' and Nick Cave's 'Kicking Against The Pricks') whilst others are less so (see Duran Duran's 'Thank You'). The point is though is that there's always going to be a fulcrum around which such albums revolve; namely, the act recording it. The people who bought 'Pin Ups' in enough numbers to send it to number one in 1973 were Bowie fans buying his latest album - they weren't Pink Floyd, Mojos and Easybeats (etc.) fans who wanted to hear how Bowie had covered their songs.
That point of reference is missing on this - there's no single Tom and Engelbert figure - famous or otherwise - singing all of these songs; a different vocalist tackles each one - these recordings are not strict facsimiles or copycats of the Jones/Humperdinck hits, they're merely cover versions of them, the same thing you'd hear in any number of clubs across the country any night of the week. Some of the vocalists try hard to actually sound like the stars, others don't try that hard at all, and there are varying shades of grey in-between, but the unifying link between songs as distinct as 'I'll Never Fall In Love Again' and 'Delilah' (both of which have been covered by other artists too) is Tom Jones, a man not present on the record and who only exists at a point removed from it.
But even if they all were perfect mimics, would that make this any more palatable I wonder? I can say I've seen 'The Bootleg Beatles' play live and that I've enjoyed them for providing a 'next best' experience to one I can never have myself (i.e. seeing The Beatles live in person), but if they went on to actually release their own album of Beatles cover versions then I know I wouldn't go near it. Why would I when the originals are freely available? The function they serve on the live circuit is not carried over on to my turntable where their existence is redundant.
Indeed, it's difficult to level any criticism at something that's so clear and upfront about what it actually is - there's no misleading title with buried small print to warn that these aren't the original recordings. The label isn't trying to sell anyone a pup - this is a dead parrot advertised and sold as a dead parrot so no buyer can hardly complain it's only upright because its been nailed to its perch. It literally is what it is, and if an album of competent cover versions of songs made famous by the two stars is what you're after, then it's hard to imagine anything else doing a better job - nobody here can be criticised for shoddy workmanship. For my money though, because this is simply album of competent cover versions of songs made famous by the two stars it renders it a shocking waste of vinyl and a record that doesn't really need to exist - buy the originals you cheapskates.
For one thing, I can't help thinking Humperdinck and Jones would have made for curious bedfellows in their pomp - one is a bluesy R&B shouter whose sex appeal was all part of his shtick while the other was a middle of the road pop balladeer (and I'm also led to believe there was a kind of rivalry between the pair), Time may have blurred the distinction for modern audiences, but it would have been more evident in 1971 when this came out, which I'm guessing is why their songs have been neatly split over both sides with no cross pollination.
It's not uncommon for established artists to release albums of cover versions of their favourite songs. Its been going on for years. Some are very good (for example, David Bowie's 'Pin Ups', John Lennon's 'Rock & Roll' and Nick Cave's 'Kicking Against The Pricks') whilst others are less so (see Duran Duran's 'Thank You'). The point is though is that there's always going to be a fulcrum around which such albums revolve; namely, the act recording it. The people who bought 'Pin Ups' in enough numbers to send it to number one in 1973 were Bowie fans buying his latest album - they weren't Pink Floyd, Mojos and Easybeats (etc.) fans who wanted to hear how Bowie had covered their songs.
That point of reference is missing on this - there's no single Tom and Engelbert figure - famous or otherwise - singing all of these songs; a different vocalist tackles each one - these recordings are not strict facsimiles or copycats of the Jones/Humperdinck hits, they're merely cover versions of them, the same thing you'd hear in any number of clubs across the country any night of the week. Some of the vocalists try hard to actually sound like the stars, others don't try that hard at all, and there are varying shades of grey in-between, but the unifying link between songs as distinct as 'I'll Never Fall In Love Again' and 'Delilah' (both of which have been covered by other artists too) is Tom Jones, a man not present on the record and who only exists at a point removed from it.
But even if they all were perfect mimics, would that make this any more palatable I wonder? I can say I've seen 'The Bootleg Beatles' play live and that I've enjoyed them for providing a 'next best' experience to one I can never have myself (i.e. seeing The Beatles live in person), but if they went on to actually release their own album of Beatles cover versions then I know I wouldn't go near it. Why would I when the originals are freely available? The function they serve on the live circuit is not carried over on to my turntable where their existence is redundant.
Indeed, it's difficult to level any criticism at something that's so clear and upfront about what it actually is - there's no misleading title with buried small print to warn that these aren't the original recordings. The label isn't trying to sell anyone a pup - this is a dead parrot advertised and sold as a dead parrot so no buyer can hardly complain it's only upright because its been nailed to its perch. It literally is what it is, and if an album of competent cover versions of songs made famous by the two stars is what you're after, then it's hard to imagine anything else doing a better job - nobody here can be criticised for shoddy workmanship. For my money though, because this is simply album of competent cover versions of songs made famous by the two stars it renders it a shocking waste of vinyl and a record that doesn't really need to exist - buy the originals you cheapskates.
No comments:
Post a Comment