cover songs

[tagnostic]

this is a long standing argument,
i hate cover songs
but alot of musicians tell me its art when you 'change' it
i don't think it needed to be changed
they say 'there are only so many notes, so its all covers'
i say no, when clapton, santana and real musicians play them
it is theres and should be left alone

when does a cover become art?

[Demosthenes]

First off, I find your use of the term "real musicians" quite disturbing. Where do you draw the line between a real musician and a fake? Is it the quality of their work? Is it some arbitrary designation to artists of genres you find respectable while excluding music contrary to your personal tastes?

I only ask, because the most obvious answer, that a "real musician" is one which creates original works, cannot work with your post. After all, Clapton's Crossroads, After Midnight, and I Shot the Sheriff are covers of other people's songs; his hit "For Your Love" with the Yardbirds was written by a songwriter not in the band as well. Santana's two biggest songs, Black Magic Woman and Oye Como Va, are both covers as well.

Honestly, I think you anwered your own question. When an artist covers a song, he puts himself into the song. It's a reinterpretation, and often worthy to stand on its own merits. However, many covers are just carbon copies of the original, with the artist's own stylings barely, if at all, shining through. To dismiss all covers as "not art" is too rash and callous a statement.

Also, you must HATE jazz and classical musicians.