I agree with most of the sentiments above, but also think sometimes artists and bands, usually pushed by their record companies, do well known covers just to have a hit, offering nothing new in most occasions, and in some cases making a travesty of the original song (Far Corporation's disco-funk Stairway to Heaven anyone???)/

When done as a proper tribute however, artists often find new dimensions to the original song. Doro's Egypt for example, with her strong but vulnerable voice (neat trick, don't know how she does it!) brings extra depth to the song by Dio; Dio's Welcome to my Nightmare brings the original Cooper song into rock stadium status; the astonishing Lucie Silvas piano and angelic voice version of Metallica's Nothing Else Matters is one of the most haunting songs I have ever heard.

Often of course bands do a cover of a song but make it their own so much people forget the original. With a Little Help From My Friends by Joe Cocker walks all over the Beatles' original, there is no comparison at all between the Jimi Hendrix cover of Dylan's All Along The Watchtower, whilst Judas Priest's assimilation of the Joan Baez song Diamonds and Rust is so complete many of us thought it was their own composition!

I think what I object to primarily is cover releases done to simply have a hit. Thankfully, this is mainly confined to the Radio 1 songs of the world, with most rock covers done from the right frame of mind. Except if you are Far Corporation of course.

Pass me the CFR Sick Bag will you?

I like a GOOD cover (who doesn't), but I would say it's a mistake to try and break with one without a good solid portfolio of well written original material waiting in the wings, else you'll likely end up a one trick pony.

If you do opt for a cover, it MUST bring something new to the party and I don't mean a reggae version of "Smoke on the Water" LOL

i agree with the above, some songs just can't be given justice by cover, however when you look at nightwish, Kobra and the Lotus, Halestorm to name a few, their first album of covers led to inspiration of some great albums!

however if they are going to just play covers there isn't much hope for been more than a pub band, audiences love original material :) that said it is great at times to hear a cover done in a different way as part of an original album!

Van Halen did covers on all their early albums and it didn't do them any harm. Best one is You Really Got Me. Still my favourite cover version.

I agree totally with Rob and Robin's comments. For me a couple of the best cover songs are Rebecca Downes with Hallelujah - a brilliant rendition with Rebecca's immaculate voice on one of the most covered song in history - and Jimi Hendrix' cover of Dylan's All Along The Watchtower. Both added something to the original in their own way and neither were done at the starts of their respective careers. But many bands have to do covers at the start of their careers to 'get the punters in' but the really good ones build on that and do more of their own material.

Most of the groups that started out life in the 60's in the blues-rock boom did cover versions of the old blues classics but rocked them up. Never did Cream any harm nor The Stones nor Led Zeppelin!

As Rob said, " Releasing a cover version early in their career is harmless, to rely on covers only is a bad move. "

I agree with Robert's comment that releasing a cover version early in their career does a band no harm, expecting to make a living out of it is a different story. If a cover is done well then i see no reason for it to be given the credit it deserves, two examples of this are Motorhead covering Heroes and Doro Pesch covering A Whiter Shade of Pale.

In my opinion both covers are excellent Motorhead did it in their usual style, loud over the top and rocking, having listened to it a few times i can say i prefer it to the original, but thats just my taste. The same could be said for Doro, she didn't alter the track but covered it in her style. Again i prefer it to the original but then i am biased as i like pretty much everything she has done :)

Some covers are a sin and should never be released such as the punk band The Dickies covering Nights in White Satin, that was just awful and should be considered a crime against music, same could be said for Marilyn Manson's cover Tainted Love, i was never a fan of the original but his version is dire.

Having done a few cover versions special shows i have been surprised at some tracks that i always considered to be original only to find out different, i suppose it is down to the individual listener but again i will quote Robert Fogg.

When i played Egypt (the chains are on) recently in my Doro showcase he said

"I have to say, I think this is far superior to the original, and you can't often say that with regards to the legendary Ronnie James Dio. "

Personally i think if the cover version is done right it provides a new dimension to the song and i see no harm in it.

It is hard for new bands to push themselves with their own music in some pubs and clubs and they are "advised" to do more covers.

Like Skid Row in 1989 did when they broke through, their debut album had all their own songs but live, they did a few Ramones and Sex Pistols covers as these bands influenced them.

I think releasing a cover version early in their career is harmless, to rely on covers only is a bad move.

When you look at AC/DC, they have never recorded and released a cover version as a single in their entire history, I don't think today's bands or singers can get away that.