They've been covering Sanitarium again?
Login to Account Create an Account
New Covers For Limp Bizkit
Posted 09 November 2013 - 11:47 PM
Posted 09 November 2013 - 11:53 PM
I think covering something and playing it as is are different things. Yeah, LB's Sanitatium is simple, yes, it doesn't have a solo, but that's basically a cover for you - not just a performance or re-recording.
Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:00 AM
You think wrong. If you cover a song, you should play the whole damn thing. Making it your own doesn't necessarily mean 'take all the complex parts out, just play what you can play lol.'
Solos are a very important part of metal, if you cover metal songs you should be able to play the solos. Make the solos your own, make the song your own, put a twist on the whole thing, but don't just play 30% of the song and simplify it everywhere.
Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:31 AM
Posted 10 November 2013 - 03:04 AM
Posted 10 November 2013 - 03:48 AM
Covers should be complete and should have the whole song even if it is different in style from the original. That is how covers feel fresh. Eg: Thieves. Whereas covers which don't even include the full song end up feeling a bit awkward and they also point out a band's incapability/laziness to play it properly. Eg: Sanitarium.
I believe that Metallica covers by nu metal bands be it LB or Korn (yes, their cover of One was shitty) have always been bad. Metallica and nu-metal in any way just doesn't go together and if anyone disagrees then he likes St.Anger
Posted 10 November 2013 - 09:25 AM
If thieves feel fresh to you then you probably hate Faith.
That's if you think that covers are always in the same genre as the original.
Posted 10 November 2013 - 10:20 AM
...but don't just play 30% of the song and simplify it everywhere.
That's why LB covers are so great, because of taking the best, most catchy part from the songs they cover.
On the other hand songs without groove thanks to Otto receive proper groove.
It's also fun to see how classical metal songs of gods of metal are being simplified for simple fun of it
Posted 10 November 2013 - 10:44 AM
Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:07 AM
LB's Sanitarium is 120'9348209348092384'029384'9203840928340928349 times better than the original. That is a FACT.
EDIT: But yeah, they should stop playing covers. Any cover they didn't make their own like RATM, Nirvana and all those that just suck. They can stick to I would for you or Opiate. But better if they stop covering songs.
Edited by VeLoCi, 10 November 2013 - 11:09 AM.
Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:11 AM
See? VeL approving this cover is pretty much proof that they shouldn't do it. That's the target audience for those simplified/dumbed down covers, and it's exactly why LB got so much shit to begin with as a band, cause they catered to the VeLoCis of this world. No offense hermano.
Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:14 AM
No offense taken, bro.
Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:31 AM
Anyway, since VeL is here, I'll use an extreme example to showcase that my principles about covers apply to the bands I like as well.
I don't think Metallica should ever cover Linkin Park. And I'm not talking about the shame of them covering such a band, let's assume LP was actually respected, or had a song worth covering. James couldn't sing like Chester, it would sound half-assed, with cookie monster vocals instead of the way Chester sings. I also don't think Metallica should cover Pantera ever, James can't sing like 90s Phil and Kirk can't do Dime justice, maybe 80s Kirk... MAYBE, but it's thin ice. And don't let me get started on Iron Maiden, a band very few bands should attempt to cover.
So it's not about which bands I like or don't like, I just think that when you have a song where you can't meet the required technical proficiency of the original musician(s), you shouldn't do it. In Metallica's case, it's the guitar. Wes can't play like James or Kirk, neither can Head or Munky. That's just a fact. So they should play something else, or maybe cover easier songs. When it comes to Metallica playing covers, I wouldn't want them to embarrass themselves trying to cover songs above their vocal or drumming capabilities either. Sometimes you just need to know your limits, not boil down a 6 minute song to a 2 minute medley of the parts you can play.
And I've been harsh on the MTV Icon performers since they probably didn't have enough time to arrange proper covers and MTV is at fault to begin with. They should have gotten Machine Head and other metal acts influenced by Metallica, not Snoop Dogg and Avril Lavigne.
But of course, this is my opinion. Obviously I'm not in charge of who gets or doesn't get to do covers, and I think each band is free to try anything they want. But in metal in general, guitar playing is a big big part of it, and if you can't play it properly you shouldn't cover it. Morph's Faith example is wrong, that's a basic song anyone can play. Think Whitney Houston or Mariah Carey, can anyone cover songs by them? No, because the highlight is their uniquely powerful voices, very hard to do them justice. Same goes for the guitar playing in metal, ESPECIALLY thrash metal.
Posted 11 November 2013 - 12:34 PM
Posted 12 November 2013 - 07:56 PM
But with the hip-hop element of Limp Bizkit, putting a spin on someone else's song kind of makes sense, doesn't it? That's the essence of a hip-hop musical backdrop: take someone else's song, sample the catchiest elements, and remix them.
Honestly, Limp Bizkit has had its most successful moments when taking someone else's material and putting their own unique spin on it. That's kind of their thing. Look at some of their biggest hits: Faith, Take a Look Around, and Behind Blue Eyes. Each one they took someone else's song, ran with it in a different direction, and made it their own. They're gimmicky, but I have to hand it to them, they're good at what they do. Hell, they even got their start as a new spin on Korn.
And I know this won't help you agree that it's okay, Alex, because I know your opinion of hip-hop. But I think at this point we just have to accept them for what they are: an oddball band who do their best work with a kick-start from another band. They're like the Weird Al Yankovic of rap-rock.
Posted 15 November 2013 - 02:00 PM
Think of a shitty rapper trying to cover a fast rap song like from Busta Rhymes or whatever. And slowing it down a lot.
Posted 16 November 2013 - 06:16 AM
Okay, that's fair, and I can agree with that. I guess my comment was more towards your characterization of their cover of Sanitarium. Given that they might not be able to cover it legitimately, I don't think they would have even if they could have.
Posted 16 November 2013 - 08:15 AM
I don't hate their cover of Sanitarium, and I'd rather hear them cover songs I like than songs I don't like or don't know. But, I don't know, Metallica is all about the guitars, and to see them simplified and cut in half by bands is a bit annoying. Like I said, I don't fault anyone at MTV Icon cause they didn't have the time to put a good cover together (or perform songs in their entirety). But I wouldn't like to see Sanitarium played again or god forbid, released as a single. As a one time thing at a show they were invited to, it's okay. But seeing it played live is a bit disheartening.
Posted 17 November 2013 - 10:03 AM
The Romantics - Talking In Your Sleep
Posted 23 November 2013 - 09:03 PM
I've called for Kelly Clarkson covers before, but I think I have the best one here: Addiction, from her Breakaway album.
If you take the song No Sex and were to make a song from the female perspective, this is it. It's a full frontal confession of obsession, admitting one's inability to quit an unhealthy relationship due to infatuation. There are plenty opportunities for Durst to convert emotional moments to screams, and I'm sure Wes would have a ball making the orchestral parts into his own unique guitar parts.
As a side note, I'd love to hear Clarkson and Durst together on a track. These two are basically the same person. They're emotionally damaged people who alternate between angry defiance and complete emotional vulnerability from song to song. I see a lot of similarity between Breakaway and Significant Other for this exact reason. You could call Since U Been Gone Clarkson's Nookie. They're both hollow "I don't give a fuck about you" songs, the hollowness evident from the rest of the songs on their respective albums. The two are obviously hurt and have trust issues. Hell, they're probably meant for each other.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users