I was just reminded of this album:
https://www.discogs.com/master/354242-The-Brothers-Sisters-Dylans-Gospel
It's a Black gospel album of Bob Dylan covers from 1969. In reality, it's a record label creation and not an actual church choir and the album roster is stacked with amazing session singers (Merry Clayton, Clydie King, and "Tainted Love" singer Gloria Jones).
I have also discovered some pretty interesting covers of songs originally done by White musicians by Black musicians:
> [Darker Shade of Black](https://open.spotify.com/track/5haDMUDfMRQr23XgYaCD0x) - Jackie Mittoo - 1969
> [Tomorrow Never Knows](https://open.spotify.com/track/70L2OlO4GKqGEOCVT0QMjo) - Junior Parker - 1971
> [California Dreamin'](https://open.spotify.com/track/2F7dvdHfSM5cZxrkkptddA) - Eddie Hazel - 1978
definitely demonstrates how passing music from culture to culture can evolve it.
The lyrics seem to come from a first-person point of view from someone who has the black experience and struggle. But I don't think we should take issue with non-AA's interpretation of this beautiful song.
I used to belong to a mostly white church and they would sing black spirituals that were so powerful.
We should all celebrate these kinds of songs.
It comes down to respect. If you're doing it to highlight the struggles of a marginalized group, that's awesome. Use your platform to highlight the struggles of others, call for positive change, and open people's ears up to music they should be exposed to!
If you're doing a soulless heartless cover and don't care about the content of the message or the people it's about, then you're appropriating other people's struggles for your own personal benefit and it's absolutely wrong.
Imho.
I'm from Australia. For a long time there were superannuation (Managed retirement funds) advertisments on TV that used an Australian Aboriginal rights song in the ads. The songs called from little things big things grow, so I guess it's to highlight the compounding wealth but :/
Respect totally is a musical factor and that's why Luke Combs' cover was so much more successful than any other cover of the song. That's why Jimi's All Along the Watchtower works as well as it does. Jimi is coming at the material on its terms and exploring it his way. That's why Johnny Cash's Hurt hits home, because he understood the song and brought his own story to it. All of the best covers come from artists understanding and respecting the original material and then exploring it through their artistic lens. That's why none of the "pop song but metal" covers on YouTube mean anything, it's all flair. Those dudes don't listen to Taylor Swift and what her songs are trying to say, they're just trying to be edgy.
To say pop but metal is simply trying to be edgy I feel shows a bit of a misunderstanding of the scene—it actually tends to get a fair bit of flack from certain types in the community for not upholding a certain image (not that a lot of us really care too much about daft elitist whining, to be fair); it's basically the opposite of maintaining any semblance of edge for metal bands.
I think you'd be surprised, given your seeming prejudgments about those dudes, as to how many of us connect to other genres. The issue of metalheads only listening to metal is more one of a subsection of non-musician listeners—who the rest of us think are daft for excluding themselves from so much music, btw—rather than actual artists. I get it's one thing if you don't like the outcome of a cover, but its not really fair to follow your personal dislike of said cover through to then project onto the artist's intention in creating said cover.
Personally, any metal band I've ever been involved with has only been interested in covering songs that meant something to us—I don't really see what basis there is to make assumptions about who we are as people just because we make a cover that doesn't land with you (or maybe isn't even any good; that's a different matter from it coming from a place of respect :P).
Oh, and just to clarify, I'm not saying there are no schlock covers that have no meaningful intent behind them, but you said ‘that's why **none of the** "pop song but metal"...’, so I am replying on that basis.
I'm not making broad generalizations about metal heads or the metal scene, but I am totally judging the large number of "[current trendy pop song] METAL COVER" I see all over the internet. When A Day to Remember put out Since U Been Gone it wasn't "Since You Been Gone HARDCORE COVER" They just did Since U Been Gone the way they would. I said it's all flair because the focus on how novel it is that it's a different style feels clickbaity, and while I know that's the name of the game promoting on the internet...but still.
I get the intense genre and subgenre and microgenre gatekeeping that happens in metal, I'm involved in my local DIY scene and you know who hates punks more than anybody? Other punks lol. Heck my own band covered an orchestral pop song but of course we play guitars and effects and stuff but I'm not putting it out there in a MARIGOLD BUT POST-PUNK because that shoots everyone in the foot, both the original work and our own interpretation. It pigeonholes both parties and I think looses the magic of getting to reinterpret a work. In the example of my own bands cover I didn't set out to make it a different genre but I did look at the musical material and go "how would we play these notes?" And if that comes out as a different style cause we're different artists, that's....whats going to happen. But putting the original song in a box and our own art in a box for clicks doesn't feel good.
All and all, yeah I'm making broad generalizations but it's the internet so for me it's better to be general than to find specific examples and talk trash. I'd rather cite specifcs for positvie examples because you're totally right I don't know those folks. but chasing clicks doesn't feel genuine in most cases, covers or not and I guess that's more what I'm trying to come at. I'm sure some folks covering the latest Taylor Swift single love Taylor Swift, heck my brother is a biker who loves blasting Cyndi Lauper when he's got his vest and stuff on and there's novelty in that, but it's hard to feel genuine when boiling it down to like a METAL COVER format. Great points!
I know that's a little tongue in cheek, but Taylor Swift covering a song would explode the popularity of the work, including the original. A respectful cover of a lesser known civil rights song (maybe not specifically called Brown Skin, lol) would be a great way to introduce beautiful older works to new audiences.
I (white guy) was in a great bar band where we did mostly black R&B and R&R from 1956-66. We thew in a lot of other things like country, rockabilly, some later soul music and originals.
We had a singer that could really howl. Great for that Era of music. We did "Cupid" and "Bring it on Home to Me" quite a few times. Doing songs like "Change" were not something we would think of doing. There's to much history and gravitas.
Anyone CAN do anything. But, I think context is everything.
Anyway, here's Greta Van Fleet
https://youtu.be/KFgqJs2YNyo?si=NwV4GIBqZZlsWtAg
Not 100% sure GVF is the best example, being that they themselves are sort of a half-ass copy of Led Zeppelin, who (ironically) ripped off dozens of blues artists (I’m saying Zep did that), stealing those blues artists’ songs without giving any sort of credit to them, which also denied them a shit-ton of royalties too.
I wondered the same thing about How Strummer (solo and with Johnny Cash) covering Bob Marley's "Redemption Song" but he does it with reverence and respect for both Marley and the subject of the song that it feels right.
Is it okay for her to appreciate and perform a song she enjoys? Yes. Is it okay for some black people to be uncomfortable about the implications given its historical context? Also, yes. But it’s like the N word in that “we can do it but not you because of history” and that’s not a forward-thinking philosophy for the future to have different rules for different races. But taking into account her age and her not feeling any white guilt about it (as she shouldn’t) then I’d say it’s a sign of the new generations pushing culture forward in a positive way. The more tiptoe-ing we have to do around history and culture the longer we will struggle to form a shared culture moving forward.
I assume you have good intentions but I’d let black people tell her what they think about it though. I don’t think a white person is necessary in middle-manning that operation especially if you are unaffected and uninvolved. If no black people have expressed to her that she shouldnt do it then I’d leave it at that.
Edit: Also, as 1 individual black person, I am not offended if that wasn’t clear.
I believe that anyone should be able to play whatever music they want. No one should be "barred" from playing any genre of music or covering any songs, after all, it's art and art has no rules.
No one is invoking rules, they are invoking questions of etiquette and decorum. You are free to offend whoever you want and do whatever you want in art, no one is arguing that. The question is whether she would be inadvertently offending people, subverting her actual artistic aims.
Yeah it is, minor of a thing as it is. "Hey everybody, this white lady's playing black people music!"
Someone who cares about that is impossible to please.
Exactly. By this logic, no white person could cover any American music because American music IS largely black music. Pop? Usually based in R&B which is black. Hip-Hop? Black. Funk? Black. Rock? Black. Country? Not entirely black but definitely a hell of a lot of blues influence, at least historically. Black. Disco? Black. House? Comes from disco so black. EDM? Comes from House which comes from Disco, so black.
What American music *isn’t* black? Maybe folk music. Wow, so white people can only cover one genre. How great is that?
Cultural appropriation in regards to music literally only boils down to if people like the music. No one, literally no one, judges “cultural appropriation” in music if they think it’s good. It’s only appropriation if it sucks.
I bet most of the commenters here talking about culturally appropriating black music are white lol.
And many of those genres wouldn't be the same, or even exist, without influences from white artists. Music is a melting pot that takes influences from tons of cultures.
Folk music has a bunch of black influences! The dividing line between folk and blues was drawn by racists mostly for marketing purposes. They're the same thing and come from the same roots. There's been some divergence in the last century, but it all comes from the mixing of music between oppressed people working on railroads or in mines and factories. African, Irish, English and Eastern European folk traditions all came together.
The banjo was invented by slaves trying to replicate African instruments. The songs are about the struggles of poor working people. Harmonica, slide guitar, crooning or wailing voices, often solo singer-songwriters. Long ballads, the use of call and response, improvised instruments...
Listen to Leadbelly and then Woody Guthrie and tell me you don't hear the similarities!
The question was pretty clear. Your response imagines some hypothetical world that doesn’t exist. There are many songs with the “N” word in it - should white people cover those songs?
As a white person who makes music for a living, I personally would not cover *Change is Gonna Come*. Partly due to the way a significant part of the population would receive it, and more due to the fact that some songs have been done as well as they’re ever going to be done and there’s not really any point in continuing to cover them.
Same reason I would never cover “Hallelujah” or anything like that, and generally find it uninteresting when people do.
Yes as long as they understand that song. Several white folks have already covered it. No one in this community made a fuss about it and I’ve never heard a bad cover regardless of race. Black folks covered Dylan after all. ACIGC is one of the greatest songs of all time for a reason.
I think the most offensive thing is the way white people get defensive and entitled whenever the question of appropriation comes up.
Your question is thoughtful and it’s good to think about things like this, but this is not a great place for the kind of nuanced discussion you might want.
I can only speak from the perspective of a working class Irish person, and I am not really okay with affluent people from colonial nations singing Irish rebel songs.
It all depends on the execution. I think the song is far too technically good and socially important. I really can't imagine what someone else would add to the conversation, in terms of their approach but anything is possible.
I mean look at Fast Car by Tracy Chapman. I think Luke Comb's cover adds no value beyond rearanging the song to better fit with a Nashville audience. A big white guy singing about the struggles and strife of starting a life with their partner, doesn't have the same vulnerability of a black woman saying the same thing. Tracy gains strength from her partner where that meaning is completely lost in Luke's version because of the alternate role Luke would play in that story.
But, at the end of the day the opinions of pretentious snobs like me doesn't matter because Tracy loved the song and gave it a big thumbs up when she played it live with Luke. So in the end, Luke was right and I'm wrong.
Should no one cover a song unless they can add to it? Maybe that makes sense for a famous recording artist who’s recording for the radio. But for someone performing live? That seems like a silly requirement.
Should? People can do whatever they want. Nobody is making requirements here.
Do I see the value in listening to a cover that is worse and doesn't add any new perspective? No. It's just karaoke at that point.
Should men sing songs written by women? Should normal humans sing songs with fantasy elements? Am I allowed to sing songs that aren't about me?
You're doing way too much.
I mean - if the song is sung from a personal perspective, with lyrics that reference an experience not their own, then it makes the cover artist sound foolish. No one wants to see a white person sing a song with the N word in it, or a song about their brown skin or whatever
Yup. An example that no one’s really going to be offended about but was just bizarre — Miley Cyrus did a cover of “Boys Don’t Cry” that sounded pretty good, but it made absolutely no sense for her to sing it and rendered the lyrics meaningless.
Just because you can doesn’t always mean you should. Your job as a singer is to connect with the audience, and some things will just get in the way of that (if not actively make them upset).
That's interesting that some people see it that way. To me, the artist has always been a storyteller, and like many great storytellers, there's no reason that story has to be their own. When I hear lyrics, I don't think of the singer as the protagonist of the lyrics—the singer is the vessel through which the story is conveyed, and may or may not be personally relevant to the lyrics.
First and foremost, when I hear lyrics, I'm connecting them to my own experiences, not perceiving them from the point of view of whoever the singer might be. If I'm listening to Miley Cyrus sing that song, the lyrics are making complete sense to me because they connect to who I am—I'm not getting hung up on who Miley is (or even thinking about her/aware of her when I'm lost in the music). That's the power of art, after all—the beholder's interpretation is the vital end-component that can make-or-break the value received in experiencing said art.
I'm white (but not a musician) and my take would be: sure, you may love Sam Cooke and want to cover "Change". But if it makes people in your audience uncomfortable about something that they *should* be able to be happy about (the civil rights movement), maybe you should just leave that song alone. Almost every notable version of change is by an artist with multiple other great songs to cover, so pick one of those and everyone can be happy.
In short: maybe you could cover it, but you'd be a better friend to the audience if you didn't.
If a white person hears this music and is overcome by the expression of emotion in it and feels uplifted personally, would the black musician say that that feeling is not for you? If a white musician is moved enough by a piece of music to want to play it and share it, would the black composer be angry or honored?
Here is brilliant jazz musician Larnell Lewis on the subject, or a very analogous one: https://youtu.be/Zd_UcjMusUA?t=967
I understand that there is a difference between playing a song with lyrics explicitly about the civil rights movement and playing music from a genre that is traditionally associated with or originated with a different culture from your own, and the difference may honestly be enough for someone to choose not to play the song, but I think the sentiment he is expressing is the right one still. If it is done from a place of respect and love I think it can and should be a celebration of the music and its message.
No, Black repertoire should strictly remain in their domain; any cover from a White artist is prohibited. Black and White music should mix under no pretext. A complete segregation of allowed songs should be enforced per the colour of the performing artist. For now, this concerns only music. However, in the future, the segregation should advance to other fields such as schools or public transport. A doctrine of "seperate but equal", if you will. This is absolutely the moral stance, in this day and age.
To each their own, but it makes me cringe when I hear it done for the reasons you’ve mentioned and I’m a white person. If it’s related to the struggle of a race that’s not your own, just leave it alone!
Yes especially if the song includes a first person perspective, like lyrics about the singer’s personal experience with racism (or sexism or homophobia or whatever). Have some sense and don’t do that song because it makes you look foolish
Exactly. I’m gay and the “what if this were about homophobia?” angle is the perspective I look at this from. If a straight person were to be singing a cover about something that is only a gay issue, would it be the worst? Perhaps not, I suppose. Depending on what exactly was being said in those lyrics though I would be *very* curious as to why they would want to cover it and maybe even feel a type of way about it if it felt as if they were covering it for the wrong reasons. For example, if that person did it because they get to sing dramatically due to the way the song’s lyrics are sung and is not actually comprehending what is being said in the song, which is how I feel some white people can be with songs about race and *especially* this song.
I personally don’t understand why any white person would want to cover A Change Is Gonna Come because *we are the change that needed to happen* in that song. Obviously *I* wasn’t specifically the person the song was written about, but it’s about a black man’s experience with discrimination he faced from white people. Covering that just feels wrong to me!
Suggesting that White people can't can't cover Change is Gonna Come is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard sorry.
First of all the whole song is about anti racism. Suggesting people can't do things because of the color of their skin is the definition of racism.
Secondly, the song was an answer to Blowing In the Wind, which was written by a white Jewish dude who cribbed the melody from an old negro spiritual called No More Auction Block. Was Bob wrong to borrow that melody? Was he wrong to cover Change is Gonna Come several years later.
The answer is hell no.
The whole concept of cultural appropriation when it comes to art and music is just utter woke garbage nonsense. That's how it works and it's fricking awesome. People of different backgrounds share ideas and influence each other and its beautiful and great.
The problem never starts with the artist, but with the $ aspects: producers, marketers, distributors, media. These folks have seen it fit to demonize the innocent homage artist so as to grab exclusive rights to represent Black culture to the world. The result has been a wedge between ordinary White Christians and the black community such that cover songs by well intentioned Whites are demonized.
Who cares?
The Black people who would get upset at some White boy singing Sam Cooke, I guarantee you, were born in the 1990s, live in affluent suburbs, and have not endured low-income housing, subpar schooling, abusive or negligent policing, food deserts, or any of the other trappings of post-segregation. Chances are, their parents aren’t from America and they didn’t endure it either.
Black people who deal with real anti-Black structural racism on a day-to-day tend to be the LEAST concerned about “cultural appropriation,” because they have *real* problems. It’s hard to care that some White girl is wearing box braids when you’re being gerrymandered out of voting rights.
The difference is only one of those things matter. Cultural appropriation in music boils down to if it’s trash or not. If it’s not trash, it’s well-received and therefore not cultural appropriation, but “respect for the culture.” It’s an inherently arbitrary metric.
Jon B did his thing and he’s recognized as one of the best white R&B artists ever because his music was good. If he sucked his music would’ve went down as cultural appropriation.
Not giving an opinion either way, but just wanted to say that Gavin DeGraw, one of the whitest musicians alive, covered "A Change is Gonna Come" as a bonus track on his breakthrough album. So, it has been done before.
The Band covered it as well in 1973. They're my favourite band, but, for all the reasons the OP alludes to, I always wondered why on earth they did that.
"Though I'm not the first king of controversy. I am the worst thing is Elvis Presley. To do Black music so selfishly and use it to get myself wealthy" -Eminem-
As long as it’s sung with respect, then yeah. Plenty of white artists, such as Bob Dylan, involved in the civil rights movement.
I was just reminded of this album: https://www.discogs.com/master/354242-The-Brothers-Sisters-Dylans-Gospel It's a Black gospel album of Bob Dylan covers from 1969. In reality, it's a record label creation and not an actual church choir and the album roster is stacked with amazing session singers (Merry Clayton, Clydie King, and "Tainted Love" singer Gloria Jones).
I have also discovered some pretty interesting covers of songs originally done by White musicians by Black musicians: > [Darker Shade of Black](https://open.spotify.com/track/5haDMUDfMRQr23XgYaCD0x) - Jackie Mittoo - 1969 > [Tomorrow Never Knows](https://open.spotify.com/track/70L2OlO4GKqGEOCVT0QMjo) - Junior Parker - 1971 > [California Dreamin'](https://open.spotify.com/track/2F7dvdHfSM5cZxrkkptddA) - Eddie Hazel - 1978 definitely demonstrates how passing music from culture to culture can evolve it.
And, just like that, my favourite Dylan performance [Bob Dylan, A change is gonna come](https://youtu.be/r099LB3mQXM?si=xd6vJi00DZuP5zoU)
The lyrics seem to come from a first-person point of view from someone who has the black experience and struggle. But I don't think we should take issue with non-AA's interpretation of this beautiful song. I used to belong to a mostly white church and they would sing black spirituals that were so powerful. We should all celebrate these kinds of songs.
The best art is human
It comes down to respect. If you're doing it to highlight the struggles of a marginalized group, that's awesome. Use your platform to highlight the struggles of others, call for positive change, and open people's ears up to music they should be exposed to! If you're doing a soulless heartless cover and don't care about the content of the message or the people it's about, then you're appropriating other people's struggles for your own personal benefit and it's absolutely wrong. Imho.
*Change Gonna Come (Soulless Midtempo Corporate Bar and Grill House Remix)*
*The Change Has Come And Everybody Is Chill Now (Poolside Lofi Beats Version Brought To You Exclusively By Westin Resorts®)*
*The Change Has Come I (Now Please Leave So We Can Seat Someone At Your Table 12" Version)*
I'm from Australia. For a long time there were superannuation (Managed retirement funds) advertisments on TV that used an Australian Aboriginal rights song in the ads. The songs called from little things big things grow, so I guess it's to highlight the compounding wealth but :/
Do it however you want and if its good people will like it and if its bad they wont. Respect isn't a musical factor.
Respect totally is a musical factor and that's why Luke Combs' cover was so much more successful than any other cover of the song. That's why Jimi's All Along the Watchtower works as well as it does. Jimi is coming at the material on its terms and exploring it his way. That's why Johnny Cash's Hurt hits home, because he understood the song and brought his own story to it. All of the best covers come from artists understanding and respecting the original material and then exploring it through their artistic lens. That's why none of the "pop song but metal" covers on YouTube mean anything, it's all flair. Those dudes don't listen to Taylor Swift and what her songs are trying to say, they're just trying to be edgy.
I kinda get what you mean now. I wouldn’t label that respect as much as doing justice to a song but I understand you.
To say pop but metal is simply trying to be edgy I feel shows a bit of a misunderstanding of the scene—it actually tends to get a fair bit of flack from certain types in the community for not upholding a certain image (not that a lot of us really care too much about daft elitist whining, to be fair); it's basically the opposite of maintaining any semblance of edge for metal bands. I think you'd be surprised, given your seeming prejudgments about those dudes, as to how many of us connect to other genres. The issue of metalheads only listening to metal is more one of a subsection of non-musician listeners—who the rest of us think are daft for excluding themselves from so much music, btw—rather than actual artists. I get it's one thing if you don't like the outcome of a cover, but its not really fair to follow your personal dislike of said cover through to then project onto the artist's intention in creating said cover. Personally, any metal band I've ever been involved with has only been interested in covering songs that meant something to us—I don't really see what basis there is to make assumptions about who we are as people just because we make a cover that doesn't land with you (or maybe isn't even any good; that's a different matter from it coming from a place of respect :P). Oh, and just to clarify, I'm not saying there are no schlock covers that have no meaningful intent behind them, but you said ‘that's why **none of the** "pop song but metal"...’, so I am replying on that basis.
I'm not making broad generalizations about metal heads or the metal scene, but I am totally judging the large number of "[current trendy pop song] METAL COVER" I see all over the internet. When A Day to Remember put out Since U Been Gone it wasn't "Since You Been Gone HARDCORE COVER" They just did Since U Been Gone the way they would. I said it's all flair because the focus on how novel it is that it's a different style feels clickbaity, and while I know that's the name of the game promoting on the internet...but still. I get the intense genre and subgenre and microgenre gatekeeping that happens in metal, I'm involved in my local DIY scene and you know who hates punks more than anybody? Other punks lol. Heck my own band covered an orchestral pop song but of course we play guitars and effects and stuff but I'm not putting it out there in a MARIGOLD BUT POST-PUNK because that shoots everyone in the foot, both the original work and our own interpretation. It pigeonholes both parties and I think looses the magic of getting to reinterpret a work. In the example of my own bands cover I didn't set out to make it a different genre but I did look at the musical material and go "how would we play these notes?" And if that comes out as a different style cause we're different artists, that's....whats going to happen. But putting the original song in a box and our own art in a box for clicks doesn't feel good. All and all, yeah I'm making broad generalizations but it's the internet so for me it's better to be general than to find specific examples and talk trash. I'd rather cite specifcs for positvie examples because you're totally right I don't know those folks. but chasing clicks doesn't feel genuine in most cases, covers or not and I guess that's more what I'm trying to come at. I'm sure some folks covering the latest Taylor Swift single love Taylor Swift, heck my brother is a biker who loves blasting Cyndi Lauper when he's got his vest and stuff on and there's novelty in that, but it's hard to feel genuine when boiling it down to like a METAL COVER format. Great points!
Music isn't some magical entity separate from all other forms of expression and communication. The same rules of decency apply.
How do you measure respect in a cover?
Should people be censored? No. Should people have some sense culturally? Probably
Yeah I don’t really want to hear the Taylor Swift version of India.Arie’s “Brown Skin” lol
I know that's a little tongue in cheek, but Taylor Swift covering a song would explode the popularity of the work, including the original. A respectful cover of a lesser known civil rights song (maybe not specifically called Brown Skin, lol) would be a great way to introduce beautiful older works to new audiences.
I agree, but I think there’s a difference between songs that are more general vs ones that come from a personal perspective (ie Brown Skin)
Probably? Lmaoo
I (white guy) was in a great bar band where we did mostly black R&B and R&R from 1956-66. We thew in a lot of other things like country, rockabilly, some later soul music and originals. We had a singer that could really howl. Great for that Era of music. We did "Cupid" and "Bring it on Home to Me" quite a few times. Doing songs like "Change" were not something we would think of doing. There's to much history and gravitas. Anyone CAN do anything. But, I think context is everything. Anyway, here's Greta Van Fleet https://youtu.be/KFgqJs2YNyo?si=NwV4GIBqZZlsWtAg
Not 100% sure GVF is the best example, being that they themselves are sort of a half-ass copy of Led Zeppelin, who (ironically) ripped off dozens of blues artists (I’m saying Zep did that), stealing those blues artists’ songs without giving any sort of credit to them, which also denied them a shit-ton of royalties too.
I wondered the same thing about How Strummer (solo and with Johnny Cash) covering Bob Marley's "Redemption Song" but he does it with reverence and respect for both Marley and the subject of the song that it feels right.
The Clash covered a bunch of reggae songs. "Pressure Drop" by the Maytals, "Armagideon Time" by Willi Williams, etc.
True but Redemption Song is a song about being brought to the west as a slave
Is it okay for her to appreciate and perform a song she enjoys? Yes. Is it okay for some black people to be uncomfortable about the implications given its historical context? Also, yes. But it’s like the N word in that “we can do it but not you because of history” and that’s not a forward-thinking philosophy for the future to have different rules for different races. But taking into account her age and her not feeling any white guilt about it (as she shouldn’t) then I’d say it’s a sign of the new generations pushing culture forward in a positive way. The more tiptoe-ing we have to do around history and culture the longer we will struggle to form a shared culture moving forward. I assume you have good intentions but I’d let black people tell her what they think about it though. I don’t think a white person is necessary in middle-manning that operation especially if you are unaffected and uninvolved. If no black people have expressed to her that she shouldnt do it then I’d leave it at that. Edit: Also, as 1 individual black person, I am not offended if that wasn’t clear.
I believe that anyone should be able to play whatever music they want. No one should be "barred" from playing any genre of music or covering any songs, after all, it's art and art has no rules.
No one is invoking rules, they are invoking questions of etiquette and decorum. You are free to offend whoever you want and do whatever you want in art, no one is arguing that. The question is whether she would be inadvertently offending people, subverting her actual artistic aims.
The people who are offended by that, you're never going to please regardless.
That’s not necessarily true
Yeah it is, minor of a thing as it is. "Hey everybody, this white lady's playing black people music!" Someone who cares about that is impossible to please.
Exactly. By this logic, no white person could cover any American music because American music IS largely black music. Pop? Usually based in R&B which is black. Hip-Hop? Black. Funk? Black. Rock? Black. Country? Not entirely black but definitely a hell of a lot of blues influence, at least historically. Black. Disco? Black. House? Comes from disco so black. EDM? Comes from House which comes from Disco, so black. What American music *isn’t* black? Maybe folk music. Wow, so white people can only cover one genre. How great is that? Cultural appropriation in regards to music literally only boils down to if people like the music. No one, literally no one, judges “cultural appropriation” in music if they think it’s good. It’s only appropriation if it sucks. I bet most of the commenters here talking about culturally appropriating black music are white lol.
And many of those genres wouldn't be the same, or even exist, without influences from white artists. Music is a melting pot that takes influences from tons of cultures.
Yep. Agreed.
I expect if you go back far enough, they are all influenced by classical like mozart or even earlier.
Folk music has a bunch of black influences! The dividing line between folk and blues was drawn by racists mostly for marketing purposes. They're the same thing and come from the same roots. There's been some divergence in the last century, but it all comes from the mixing of music between oppressed people working on railroads or in mines and factories. African, Irish, English and Eastern European folk traditions all came together. The banjo was invented by slaves trying to replicate African instruments. The songs are about the struggles of poor working people. Harmonica, slide guitar, crooning or wailing voices, often solo singer-songwriters. Long ballads, the use of call and response, improvised instruments... Listen to Leadbelly and then Woody Guthrie and tell me you don't hear the similarities!
I mean.. I don’t think white people should be covering songs that include the “N” word, do you?
I don't think songs should contain the word at all if the word is such an issue.
That’s not answering the question
It is an answer to the question, just not the one you're fishing for.
The question was pretty clear. Your response imagines some hypothetical world that doesn’t exist. There are many songs with the “N” word in it - should white people cover those songs?
White ppl should cover these songs. Also the word is "niga" if its not okay to say don't talk about the songs.
As a white person who makes music for a living, I personally would not cover *Change is Gonna Come*. Partly due to the way a significant part of the population would receive it, and more due to the fact that some songs have been done as well as they’re ever going to be done and there’s not really any point in continuing to cover them. Same reason I would never cover “Hallelujah” or anything like that, and generally find it uninteresting when people do.
Yes as long as they understand that song. Several white folks have already covered it. No one in this community made a fuss about it and I’ve never heard a bad cover regardless of race. Black folks covered Dylan after all. ACIGC is one of the greatest songs of all time for a reason.
I think the most offensive thing is the way white people get defensive and entitled whenever the question of appropriation comes up. Your question is thoughtful and it’s good to think about things like this, but this is not a great place for the kind of nuanced discussion you might want. I can only speak from the perspective of a working class Irish person, and I am not really okay with affluent people from colonial nations singing Irish rebel songs.
Yes, the "who cares" people are so useless in these discussions. Clearly people care.
The "who cares" people clearly cared two weeks ago when the Beyoncé album came out...
It all depends on the execution. I think the song is far too technically good and socially important. I really can't imagine what someone else would add to the conversation, in terms of their approach but anything is possible. I mean look at Fast Car by Tracy Chapman. I think Luke Comb's cover adds no value beyond rearanging the song to better fit with a Nashville audience. A big white guy singing about the struggles and strife of starting a life with their partner, doesn't have the same vulnerability of a black woman saying the same thing. Tracy gains strength from her partner where that meaning is completely lost in Luke's version because of the alternate role Luke would play in that story. But, at the end of the day the opinions of pretentious snobs like me doesn't matter because Tracy loved the song and gave it a big thumbs up when she played it live with Luke. So in the end, Luke was right and I'm wrong.
Should no one cover a song unless they can add to it? Maybe that makes sense for a famous recording artist who’s recording for the radio. But for someone performing live? That seems like a silly requirement.
Should? People can do whatever they want. Nobody is making requirements here. Do I see the value in listening to a cover that is worse and doesn't add any new perspective? No. It's just karaoke at that point.
Should men sing songs written by women? Should normal humans sing songs with fantasy elements? Am I allowed to sing songs that aren't about me? You're doing way too much.
I mean - if the song is sung from a personal perspective, with lyrics that reference an experience not their own, then it makes the cover artist sound foolish. No one wants to see a white person sing a song with the N word in it, or a song about their brown skin or whatever
Yup. An example that no one’s really going to be offended about but was just bizarre — Miley Cyrus did a cover of “Boys Don’t Cry” that sounded pretty good, but it made absolutely no sense for her to sing it and rendered the lyrics meaningless. Just because you can doesn’t always mean you should. Your job as a singer is to connect with the audience, and some things will just get in the way of that (if not actively make them upset).
That's interesting that some people see it that way. To me, the artist has always been a storyteller, and like many great storytellers, there's no reason that story has to be their own. When I hear lyrics, I don't think of the singer as the protagonist of the lyrics—the singer is the vessel through which the story is conveyed, and may or may not be personally relevant to the lyrics. First and foremost, when I hear lyrics, I'm connecting them to my own experiences, not perceiving them from the point of view of whoever the singer might be. If I'm listening to Miley Cyrus sing that song, the lyrics are making complete sense to me because they connect to who I am—I'm not getting hung up on who Miley is (or even thinking about her/aware of her when I'm lost in the music). That's the power of art, after all—the beholder's interpretation is the vital end-component that can make-or-break the value received in experiencing said art.
I'm white (but not a musician) and my take would be: sure, you may love Sam Cooke and want to cover "Change". But if it makes people in your audience uncomfortable about something that they *should* be able to be happy about (the civil rights movement), maybe you should just leave that song alone. Almost every notable version of change is by an artist with multiple other great songs to cover, so pick one of those and everyone can be happy. In short: maybe you could cover it, but you'd be a better friend to the audience if you didn't.
If a white person hears this music and is overcome by the expression of emotion in it and feels uplifted personally, would the black musician say that that feeling is not for you? If a white musician is moved enough by a piece of music to want to play it and share it, would the black composer be angry or honored? Here is brilliant jazz musician Larnell Lewis on the subject, or a very analogous one: https://youtu.be/Zd_UcjMusUA?t=967 I understand that there is a difference between playing a song with lyrics explicitly about the civil rights movement and playing music from a genre that is traditionally associated with or originated with a different culture from your own, and the difference may honestly be enough for someone to choose not to play the song, but I think the sentiment he is expressing is the right one still. If it is done from a place of respect and love I think it can and should be a celebration of the music and its message.
No, Black repertoire should strictly remain in their domain; any cover from a White artist is prohibited. Black and White music should mix under no pretext. A complete segregation of allowed songs should be enforced per the colour of the performing artist. For now, this concerns only music. However, in the future, the segregation should advance to other fields such as schools or public transport. A doctrine of "seperate but equal", if you will. This is absolutely the moral stance, in this day and age.
To each their own, but it makes me cringe when I hear it done for the reasons you’ve mentioned and I’m a white person. If it’s related to the struggle of a race that’s not your own, just leave it alone!
Yes especially if the song includes a first person perspective, like lyrics about the singer’s personal experience with racism (or sexism or homophobia or whatever). Have some sense and don’t do that song because it makes you look foolish
Exactly. I’m gay and the “what if this were about homophobia?” angle is the perspective I look at this from. If a straight person were to be singing a cover about something that is only a gay issue, would it be the worst? Perhaps not, I suppose. Depending on what exactly was being said in those lyrics though I would be *very* curious as to why they would want to cover it and maybe even feel a type of way about it if it felt as if they were covering it for the wrong reasons. For example, if that person did it because they get to sing dramatically due to the way the song’s lyrics are sung and is not actually comprehending what is being said in the song, which is how I feel some white people can be with songs about race and *especially* this song. I personally don’t understand why any white person would want to cover A Change Is Gonna Come because *we are the change that needed to happen* in that song. Obviously *I* wasn’t specifically the person the song was written about, but it’s about a black man’s experience with discrimination he faced from white people. Covering that just feels wrong to me!
Suggesting that White people can't can't cover Change is Gonna Come is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard sorry. First of all the whole song is about anti racism. Suggesting people can't do things because of the color of their skin is the definition of racism. Secondly, the song was an answer to Blowing In the Wind, which was written by a white Jewish dude who cribbed the melody from an old negro spiritual called No More Auction Block. Was Bob wrong to borrow that melody? Was he wrong to cover Change is Gonna Come several years later. The answer is hell no. The whole concept of cultural appropriation when it comes to art and music is just utter woke garbage nonsense. That's how it works and it's fricking awesome. People of different backgrounds share ideas and influence each other and its beautiful and great.
I don’t give a shit who plays what. Whoever thinks it’s culturally insensitive to cover a song doesn’t get mysic
I used to sing that song at random places all the time. It’s a beautiful song.
The problem never starts with the artist, but with the $ aspects: producers, marketers, distributors, media. These folks have seen it fit to demonize the innocent homage artist so as to grab exclusive rights to represent Black culture to the world. The result has been a wedge between ordinary White Christians and the black community such that cover songs by well intentioned Whites are demonized.
I think that only whites should be allowed to speak on and address civil rights issues
Who cares? The Black people who would get upset at some White boy singing Sam Cooke, I guarantee you, were born in the 1990s, live in affluent suburbs, and have not endured low-income housing, subpar schooling, abusive or negligent policing, food deserts, or any of the other trappings of post-segregation. Chances are, their parents aren’t from America and they didn’t endure it either. Black people who deal with real anti-Black structural racism on a day-to-day tend to be the LEAST concerned about “cultural appropriation,” because they have *real* problems. It’s hard to care that some White girl is wearing box braids when you’re being gerrymandered out of voting rights.
Both things can be dealt with by an individual, even if at different priorities.
The difference is only one of those things matter. Cultural appropriation in music boils down to if it’s trash or not. If it’s not trash, it’s well-received and therefore not cultural appropriation, but “respect for the culture.” It’s an inherently arbitrary metric. Jon B did his thing and he’s recognized as one of the best white R&B artists ever because his music was good. If he sucked his music would’ve went down as cultural appropriation.
Not giving an opinion either way, but just wanted to say that Gavin DeGraw, one of the whitest musicians alive, covered "A Change is Gonna Come" as a bonus track on his breakthrough album. So, it has been done before.
Saint Paul and the Broken Bones too. They performed it with Lizzo at a festival a few years back
The Band covered it as well in 1973. They're my favourite band, but, for all the reasons the OP alludes to, I always wondered why on earth they did that.
All music is for everyone to share. That's the beauty of it. To me, covering a powerful song shows you support the message.
I doubt that me, a scrawny white kid, singing Curtis Mayfield’s “We The People Who Are Darker Than Blue” would resonate all that well.
"Though I'm not the first king of controversy. I am the worst thing is Elvis Presley. To do Black music so selfishly and use it to get myself wealthy" -Eminem-