I think the claim that Buckley's version of Hallelujah is better than Cohen's (even the initial 1984 version) is controversial, at minimum :-)
The observations about obscurity are good ones, however -- A Confederacy of Dunces is a fantastic book, and it's hard to say how many other fantastic works of music, literature, &c. are lost in closets and old laptop hard drives. But I think it's not as much about genius as the author seems to think: given that we don't actually know the denominator under "known great works to unknown great ones," it seems equally plausible to me that "genius" is not the rare or distinguishing thing we always treat it as.
At one point in my music library, I not-quite-dated a woman who's fond of the song ... and I picked up a few versions of it in my music library. There was also a version playing on KFOG at the time.
One of the things that interesting to me about them is that John Cale did a cover of the Cohen song ... and then everyone else covers Cale's version.
I think that Rufus Wainright's version is the closest to Cale's and The Rubes have a version that is more piano.
In a quick scan through iTunes, I haven't found any (yet) that use Cohen's lyrical arrangement rather than Cale's selection.
(edit) Matthew Schuler appears to be a proper Cohen cover (complete with the female backup voices on the Hallelujah choruses over organ). It has the "Lord of Song" verse, but it didn't have the "holy or the broken Hallelujah" verse.
The Canadian Tenors also have a composition that appears to draw from the Cohen rather than the Cale arrangement.
Tori Kelly's cover has all the verses that I recognize from Cohen's version.
This is a major point made by the article. Cohen needed Cale to be his "editor", someone that could beat it into shape. Without Cale's "editing", we probably would not have all the covers today. The article then contrasts this process to what happens an author is unlucky and is faced with an editor who stands in the way of the author's vision rather than becoming a catalyst for it.
> Shortly after Shrek's success, Cale ran into Cohen at a Starbucks in Hollywood, where the two had consequently relocated. "I said, 'Well, I guess we did a good thing there,'" Cale recalls of the meeting. "I asked him, 'How many versions of 'Hallelujah' are there? How many can there be?' He said, 'Well, it's all your fault, you know.' And I said, 'Oh no, everybody's found something great in it because every verse has a different aspect of somebody's character.' I then told him I couldn't sing some of them because they were too religious for me, and he said, 'Yeah, you take what you find useful.'"
I will suggest listening to the Matthew Schuler cover - https://youtu.be/r6KrhD8Ts7c and see how it was inspired by Cohen's version rather than Cale's version (and Schuler's background as a church choir singer is there rather than a singer songwriter background).
What was it about Cale’s version that Jeff Buckley latched on to that he wouldn’t have had he come across Cohen’s version while cat sitting for a friend? Do we know? I don’t think the author explains (if there even is an explanation).
> the claim that Buckley's version of Hallelujah is better than Cohen's (even the initial 1984 version) is controversial, at minimum :-)
It is controversial, but shouldn't be. Not because Buckley's version _is_ better, but because arguing over whose taste in music is better is obnoxious.
Buckley's version is trash in my opinion. I've just listened to the official video on YourTube. I had to give up halfway through and switch to Leonard Cohen's version Live in London. Cohen sings it like it matters, like it's a matter of life and death. Moved me to tears.
It’s apples and oranges comparing a studio recording to a live performance.
Anyway, I think this is a similar divide to the performances of ‘Hurt’ by Nine Inch Nails and Johnny Cash. People come to each with their own preconceptions and their own taste, and ultimately both tracks explore different ground and express different things through the same composition.
It is all a matter of taste; for what it’s worth, I think no one has to think something is good, but I have a lot of time for people whose sense of taste lets them explore the ground that the artist tries to take them to and understand the artist on their level, whether they think one particular performance is better or worse than another by some metric.
One of my favorite Cash songs is The Mercy Seat, I just think it’s a masterpiece. And it’s SO Johnny Cash (religion! crime! last line twist!) that I was stunned when I recently looked it up and realized he didn’t write it, it’s a cover of a Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds song. The Nick Cave version is… fine? I mean, it’s good! But the Johnny Cash version is sublime, there’s no comparison.
Must have been a weird feeling for an artist to hear Johnny Cash is covering your song. On the one hand, he’s a legend who inspired you and who you worship, but also it has to be a bit of “oh shit, his version is going to be so much better than mine, isn’t it? Well, I guess it’s Johnny’s song now. ”
> Must have been a weird feeling for an artist to hear Johnny Cash is covering your song. On the one hand, he’s a legend who inspired you and who you worship, but also it has to be a bit of “oh shit, his version is going to be so much better than mine, isn’t it? Well, I guess it’s Johnny’s song now. ”
Pff.
Based on monthly listeners on Spotify Johnny Cash is bigger than both Nice Cave and Nine Inch Nails. So what kind of position do you put artists who are both less known and younger in when you cover their songs? Well factoring in respect and professionalism: deference is a likely outcome. “It’s his song now!” Ridiculous.
“Hurt” by Nine Inch Nails is fine I guess. “Hurt” by Cash is just an old man voice over a steel string guitar. Very monotone and dull. I heard it way before I heard the NiN version (naturally) and I never understood why people were taken by it.
Another example is “My Body is a Cage” by Arcade Fire. Peter Gabriel did a similarly boring cover: flat vocals (compare with the AF vocals reaching for the higher notes) over a dun-dun-dun piano which builds into a orchestral backing. I guess the instrumentation is comparable but the vocals are just okay. But the vocals are supposedly the wow-factor for such artists.
But AF has done at least one Peter Gabriel cover. So it goes both ways.
To me, cover songs often fall flat because it sounds like the cover artist is just reading someone else's lines as opposed to having a distinct voice.
For me, Cale's version sounds "lived in", if you will. He's taken the words and made them his. There's bitterness, hurt, humour, and real meaning imbued in each line. It's not elegant, it's a bit rough and raw. I think Cale is an underrated vocalist.
Other cover versions like Buckley's sound technically very proficient but slick and emotionally hollow.
The hairs on my back of my neck always stand up when I hear I Keep A Close Watch (especially the M:FANS version [1], but the original Helen of Troy version is also great [2] and there's plenty of wonderful live versions).
The thing about Nine Inch Nails version of 'Hurt' is that it works best within the context of the album 'The Downward Spiral'. As a song by itself it's fine, but it doesn't really hit home unless you've been through the entire journey that the album takes you on. It segues right from the album's title track and maintains the noisy crackling from that song, making it feel incredibly fragile. It's a great way to cap off a very personal and self-reflective album, but take it out of that context and it's just, eh, pretty good I guess.
Johnny Cash's version takes the song and puts it into a new context, specifically as a reflection on Cash's own life and career. It hits very differently that way, and I think it's easier for people to relate to. Both versions are excellent in their own way, and I am grateful to Johnny Cash for bringing this song into the public consciousness.
Seems like an extreme take. I think Buckley’s version is sublime but love Cohen’s too (which I’ve been privileged to enjoy live on a couple occasions).
I think this is the 'It's either 5-stars or 1-star' principle in action. I feel given a different context they might say that both both renditions are good but one speaks to them on a more personal level.
I'm guessing this comes about as a desire to be heard causing a magnification of the opinion rather than the force of the opinion. If you feel like nobody takes notice of your moderate opinion one might feel like a expressing stronger opinion in the same direction might increase the impact.
I also just don't care for Buckley's cover, and it's not a "not quite as good as the other one" feeling but a "not good" impression, so I can see where GGP is coming from. Buckley needlessly draws out the song.
I own both Cohen's track from Various Positions and Buckley's cover from Grace, which Google gave away for free to try to convince people to use its music store. I don't listen to the latter. Even if I didn't have the former, I still wouldn't listen to the latter. That's just how I feel about it, and I understand that other people feel differently.
I think it's a matter of taste. I just watched your link and it seems performative to me. I imagine a video from one of his earliest performances would have come off as authentic. But decades later, does he really even feel the same way as when he wrote it?
As someone who has performed a number of songs (some of which I wrote) over several decades, and has played one cover song in particular at least several hundred times... every performance is unique.
It is a different experience for the performer than for the audience. As an audience member, I get tired of any particular song very quickly. As a performer, it often feels like a new challenge each time. One night I can struggle to feel anything at all and it's like I'm phoning it in. The next afternoon I can come away from a spontaneous run-through of the same piece and feel like I've found new insights and played it better than ever before.
That being said, while I recognize it's somewhat subjective, I vastly prefer Jeff Buckley's version of this song over all others. Maybe because I fell in love with that whole Grace album at a pivotal point in my life. If I'm going to pick a song I feel like Cohen fully owns, it's gotta be Everybody Knows.
One thing I really like about Buckley's version is that he says "But you don't really care for music, do you?" Not "do ya", which really jars with the rest of the song.
The observations about obscurity are good ones, however -- A Confederacy of Dunces is a fantastic book, and it's hard to say how many other fantastic works of music, literature, &c. are lost in closets and old laptop hard drives. But I think it's not as much about genius as the author seems to think: given that we don't actually know the denominator under "known great works to unknown great ones," it seems equally plausible to me that "genius" is not the rare or distinguishing thing we always treat it as.