Oh, holy shrine of aural pleasure!

(You all thought of something dirty, didn't you? Cretins!)

Okay, here's another thing that's been rolling around in my head for a while, so everyone put their rant helmets on.

Like most people, I love listening to music, and there are some singers and bands and genres I like more than others. There are others I can't stand. But I try to be respectful of everyone's tastes and to keep an open mind. One thing I can't stand though, is music elitism. This takes many forms, obviously the most common is "This artist is the best in the world and everyone else is crap". Most people don't necessarily say it like that, but that's the implication. Usually, it has something to do with technical skill. I reject that as a basis for greatness. Certainly, a musician had best be able to play his/her instrument to be considered great, and obviously there must be some talent but...Yngwie Malmsteen is considered the fastest guitarist in the world but that doesn't change the fact that his music has no soul. Equally as annoying is "Oh, you like X type of music? Do you like Y artist? Well then you don't know anything about X music!"

A slightly subtler, but personally more vexing form of musical elitism is having a problem with covers. Now, I realize that some covers totally suck, and I also realize that 'totally suck' is a normative term and a matter of opinion. Fine, we can argue over whether this or that cover is really bad, but that is different from what I'm talking about.
Here are my reasons for hating the haters. Or at least hating the hating.

1. It used to be...before records, before any form of preserving music through technological means...that the only way for an artist to have his/her songs heard elsewhere was by someone ELSE covering it in some other King's court or in some other tavern. Covers are the only reason we still have some old songs. That is how music used to be perpetuated.
2. It is NOT being disrespectful. Most people who cover a song, especially if they are really trying, are doing it as an homage, out of respect for the original. I mean, think about it. Everyone sings their favorite songs. Musicians don't live in some other dimensino where they don't get to do what everyone else does. If you get paid to sing anyway, then there's nothing wrong with singing the songs you'd like to, that you'd be singing regardless.
3. Most importantly: NO ONE IS SACRED. WTF, people, why is it that someone can cover THIS band and no one minds, they even support it, but when an artist covers THAT band, oh bob, the world is freaking OVER...?! It doesn't make any flipping sense. I know, I know, sometimes it seems like some bands have no business touching another because of difference in genre or style or (for some odd reason) morality, but it isn't our place to decide that. We don't get to say who plays what.

Here are my two biggest peeves: Bob Dylan and Pink Flloyd.
First of all, listening to Bob Dylan is like having your ear object raped with a screwdriver. I know he's a great poet but seriously, I cannot listen to him sing, and I know this for a fact because I have to at least 2 days a week since my boss loves him.
So when My Chemical Romance covers 'Desolation Row' for Watchmen, I do not get up in arms about it. For one thing, I like MCR WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more than I like Bob Dylan. Secondly, even if it doesn't quite 'fit' the original, it fit the movie (in my opinion) and it made a lot of sense to me. I enjoyed listening to it. Now, I'm down with arguing that if you're going to change a song a lot, you shoudln't really be singing it, I understand that. It does seem a little strange. On the other hand, Me First and the Gimmie Gimmies only does punk covers of songs, usually showtunes. And I like their version of 'What I Did For Love' a lot more than the version from A Chorus Line. I think if an artist wants to get a little expiremental with their music...well that IS kind of their job isn't it?
Now, there is something equally appealing about staying more or less true to the original song while improving on it. I give you exhibit 'Nightwish-Phantom of the Opera', which has all the original elements of Andrew Lloyd Webber's classic rock opera but with someone who sings a lot better than Sarah Brightman does. Again, just my opinion, but my point is that we can't just sweep away all covers as bad AND we can't pick and choose which ones we are willing to accept as legitimate.

Next...there are a LOT of good reasons not to like KoRn. And I respect pretty much all of them. I like listening to KoRn under certain circumstances and only for short periods of time. I like...maybe four songs. So don't get me wrong, if someone were to say 'Yeah, I don't like KoRn', I would nod and say 'That's cool, I understand that.'
What I do NOT understand is rejecting them as a band because they covered 'Another Brick in the Wall Part 2'. I mean, seriously, of all the decent reasons, this one just seems dumb. Pink Floyd is not some holy parliament of music. To be honest, they don't really do a thing for me, yet their fans are among the most elitist people I've ever heard. I like the KoRn version more, I think it expresses what I personally take to be the meaning of the song better. Obviously, I coudl be misunderstanding the song, and maybe that's just how bad they butchered it but if I had to choose which of those two I was going to listen to, I would take KoRn over the original. Heresy, I know.

It just aggravates me because I don't consider these bands/artists the paragons of musical greatness. I mean, no one gets really upset when someone covers the Beatles. And when Metallica did Queen's 'Stone cold Crazy' they got a friggin' GRAMMY out of it, and even Queen likes their version more than the original. So if we aren't going to get violent over the Beatles and Queen...two bands that I would definitely consider Greats before either Bob Dylan OR Pink Floyd...why do we freak out over others? Metallica loved it when KoRn covered them, they thought it was cool. It's a form of flattery.

I know this is all really subjective, but I'm hoping that my fellow philosophers understand at least the concept that I'm fighting against here. Covering another band is not a good reason not to like someone, and no one is so special that they can't be loved enough that another band will pay their respects in their own fashion.

Consider all ye selves warned.