Be Excellent To Each Other

OK, so my last posit was wrong. Can I be wrong twice in a row.

I posit that you can't improve a song by slowing it down. What do you guys think?

If you disagree with me, please provide examples...

The main theme of Inception is that French song about regretting nothing slowed down a lot. So I disagree

So you would prefer to hear "je ne regrette rien" played slowly than at full speed?

What I more meant was that a slowed down cover version can never be better than the original, not just playing a song back slowly...

Malc

"Every Rose Has Its Thorn" could be almost bearable if slowed down to say 0.4% normal speed.

Take for example, Eric Clapton's acoustic cover of Layla, it's good, but not as good as the Derrick and the Dominos original.

Or Gary Jules' version of Mad world, which is tripe (and kept The Darkness of christmas number one- Don't let the bells end is a much better christmas song) compared to Tears for fears...

etc

Malc

Then it would take about 16 hours to listen to though? (athough I must admit I actually quite like that song)

Malc

DJ Screw based an entire, good, career around slowing songs down.

I know from personal experience that playing the instrumental of the 'Thong Song' 45 at 33 yields awesome results.

I'm not sure what you are on about. But there is a painful trend of recent years, mostly used in commercials, of taking a famous song and presenting it as a slow often mournful ballad sung by someone with a Brit school accent. These are rarely an improvement.

Another question may be - "Can a song be improved by turning it into a show tune?" I've long imagined certain tracks from The Holy Bible sung by stripy suited umbrella twirling dancers with cod American accents. A bit like those odd crooner trios covering the Beatles in the early sixties.

<Sings> "Little people, in little houses, like maggots small blind and worthless". </sings>

All I'm saying is that 9999 times out of 10000 if you take two versions of the same (professionally released) song, the faster version will be better.

Please feel free to find the 1 song that's beter slow (I do not know of it0

Malc

Blasphemy, perhaps, but Don McLean's slower version of 'Crying' sounds better than Roy Orbison's version.

Fairly obscure example (I'll admit, my first instinct on reading the thread was to disagree but then spend ages trying to think of an example), but:

Exhibit A: "The Comedians" by Elvis Costello and the Attractions



Exhibit B (and my entry for the covers round of the first Song Wars): "The Comedians" as covered by Roy Orbison

Admittedly the cover has different lyrics in the verses and the time signature is changed from 5/4 to 4/4, but it's clearly the same tune slowed down, and (in my opinion, obviously) superior to the original.

Heh, Roy Orbison cross-over thread.

What about the Jurassic Park theme slowed down 1000%? That sounds awesome.

http://soundcloud.com/birdfeeder/jurass ... 000-slower

Couldn't agree more. I remember everyone going mad for the Gary Jules version when it was out - I begain to bore even myself by repeatedly saying "but the original is much better!".

Wrong already. Third time lucky, eh?

It's less wrong if you include the end of the sentence.

You mean slower in tempo, or like a ballad version?

If you idiots aren't listening to the Jurassic Park song slowed down 1000%, you're missing out!

It sounds like an orchestra covering Brian Eno.

Ha!

Slw it down by decreasing the speed of playback? No.
Slow it down by decreasing the tempo? Yes. Else all songs would be played at breakneck speed.

Slowing songs dwn oft gives them rom to breathe. I can think of ne example off the tp of my head where halving the tempo improved the song, but chances are yu wouldn't liike it anyway.
(Between my phone deciding to talk bollcks most of the time, and the o key dying on this laptop, I'm not having much luck with intelligable psts)

Wellcum to BeeX. Yool fitt in juzt fine hear.

If I may be so bold as to say, the original Layla is a bloody terrible song, while Clapton's acoustic version is really quite nice indeed. Also, the Gary Jules version of Mad World is quite excellent, and is a nice change of pace from the original (which is a great song in itself). Therefore you're wrong. Again.
Of course, it's all down to personal taste and stuff.

i like the Madness and Motorhead sung slowly on the beer adverts.

It's beautiful. But the original is to.

I can imagine listening to this in a floatation chamber.

Edit: Also, it's only 10 times slower.

Edit Edit: Which may or may not be a 1000% reduction. It's 8am. Fuck off.

The slower, acoustic, version of Counting Crows's Have You Seen Me Lately on their Live Across a Wire albumn is better than the version on Recovering the Satellites.

Yeah, they are good, however, I think that there is partly a novelty value there, if you were to listen to the slow ones as many times as the original you'd (well I'd) get bored of them, and crave the full speed versions...

Malc

What about songs that are originally recorded slower and then covered in a quick fashion?

I am undecided, everytime I have commented on a song being crapper than the original, it's been slower, name some examples, and I'll let you know what I think...

I imagine some will be better and some will be worse...

Malc

Slower one definitely better here.

Sisters of Mercy rarely ever make anything better. Even their own songs.

Hasn't Nouvelle Vague made a whole career from slowing down songs and covering them?

Not sure it is better, but the Kolacny Brothers/Scala Choir version of "Engel" by Rammstein is just as good as the original.

Sarah McLachlan does a beautiful piano only version of 'Possession" which I think is better than the original.

The only way to make folk songs listenable is to play them twice as fast.

Relevant.

Here's Justin Beiber's U Smile played at 8x normal speed, which was the inspiration for the Jurassic Park slowdown version discussed up the thread:



The episode of the Radiolab podcast that covered this had excerpts from a live orchestra playing Beethovan's Ninth Symphony, stretched out to last for 24 hours. The audience took sleeping bags and camped in the theatre overnight.

Is the Johnny Cash cover of 'Hurt' slower than the original?

And all songs by Me First and the Gimme Gimme Gimmes are faster than the originals (more or less), and are rarely better.

So, Malc is once again wrong.

I would suggest that there's a difference between "Making a song slower doesn't make it better" and "Songs are always better if you speed them up".

No.

The next time I see you I'm going to make you eat your own face.

Placebo's cpver of Running Up That Hill is slower and brilliant. what about Jose Gonzales singing Heartbeats? I think it's slower, but maybe it is the same speed with a poppy synthesised beat?

So what we're saying is that Malc is wrong again.

I would like to thank this thread for leading me, through research, to versions of rock and metal songs performed as both lounge tunes and gregorian chants.

Malc, do you mind starting a thread stating I'm not going to win the lottery this weekend?

Richard Cheese?

Yeah, amongst others.

Maybe I should rephrase this, as "more often than not, a slower coversion is not as good as the original"?

Or would people still disagree with that?

Malc

Give us some examples then!

How about,

"More often than not, a cover version is not as good as the original".

That about covers it. There are some very good exceptions that prove the rule, though.