For the sake of it

[calorific]

Just been listening to some kid putting her tuppence worth into interpreting "bridge over troubled waters" on the X factor in the background.

Is there really any need to add a load of unnecessary notes and arpeggios to a simple tune? The simplicity of the original was its genius. To try and beef it up is an insult and IMO show a lack of imagination, not some kind of new insight.

 

[snico]

Why would watch a show containing so much drivel though?

 

[conny]

Like a lot of good songs, this is just one that can never be bettered than the original.

 

[calorific]

Why would watch a show containing so much drivel though?

Nowt else on at the time - just background noise

Like a lot of good songs, this is just one that can never be bettered than the original.

Can any?

 

[conny]

Not that I can think of at the moment.
Though 'True Colours from either Phil Collins or Cyndi Lauper is a difficult decision.

 

[chapeau]

Saw Slash do "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" at Manchester Apollo and have to say he did it better than David Gilmour. Could have been the atmosphere of course.

How about Tragedy by Steps ???

 

[calorific]

Did they put a load of tremolos in it, with the sole purpose of trying to hint at some kind of prodigious vocal ability whereas all it does is make them sound pretentious and stupid?

 

[longdogs]

It really annoys me when singers try to replace one note with a hundred just to demonstrate how good they are at singing up and down the scale. I think this probably came from gospel music which is fine but not in simple pop songs.

 

[joinerjohn]

One song I can think of , that was far better than the original was Joe Cockers version of "With a Little Help From My Friends". Absolute classic version, much better than the Beatles original recording.