Quote:
Originally Posted by ahtka-chan
I feel more comfortable with the term "version". Self-cover is just so... weird.
|
but you still find it under the "Cover" page on wikipedia. It's probably just your own idea, but i don't find anything strange about the term anyways *shrugs* :
from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version
Other artists release new versions of their own previous songs, like German singer Nena who recorded an entire album with great success, with new versions of older hits. Cover songs can be used to display creativity of a performers work through the talent of another artist's previous production. Not to be confused with a Remix, which is defined as altering or distorting the original sound electronically; Cover Versions give a performer the ability to adapt music to their own style, typically allowing them to change the genre of a song and recreating it to their own taste. For example, in 2008, Fall Out Boy covered Michael Jackson's hit song "Beat It", changing the genre from pop rock to a more punk rock feel. This is more common with today's covers, taking older popular music and revamping it to compare with modern popular music. Aretha Franklin's cover of Otis Redding's "Respect" was voted the greatest cover song of all-time, according to Forbes.com
there is even a whole page called "Self-Cover" albums and since it is a music-term, it is ok. the term Cover itself must be wrong for you then, since it technically means something different, but thats just what it is called:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...-covers_albums