Entertainment For Lively Minds
Jacks of two trades and masters of one?
The depressing thing for me about Leonard Cohen isn't the lazy cliché of tagging him as depressing; it's his entire career as a performing artist.
For me, he's the most striking example of a singer-songwriter whose career should have stayed strictly to the right of the hyphen. (Remember all those great performances by George Gershwin, Jimmy Van Heusen, Lorenz Hart and the other tin-pan-alley lads? Exactly.)
The songs he writes are always good, often brilliant, and hardly ever depressing, but his own performances of them tend to range from the pedestrian to the shockingly shoddy, with strings-by-numbers arrangements and vocal phrasing that's pure am-dram ham. Compare and contrast any of LC's finished products with any of Dan Penn's rush-job demos and surely the point is driven home.
And yet... Leonard Cohen is one of the very best songwriters of the last half century. No doubt about that at all.
Here's the oh-puhleez-est version I've ever heard of one of Wor Lenny's most-covered songs: his own -- and therefore allegedly "definitive" -- effort:
And here it is done properly (insuperably so, I'd suggest):
That song itself, like many of his, is a thing of uncommon beauty, and for that he deserves to be revered as a Living Legend and a Generally Good Thing, but why can't he leave the performance bit to people who can do the songs justice? Nobody expects to see fashion designers sashaying down the catwalk to model their own clothes, so why do we actively encourage songwriters to take to the stage and regale us with the "original" version of their songs, even if they don't cut the mustard as performers? Is it just "The Lennon-McCartney Effect" still holding sway 40-odd years down the road, as Mr H seemed to suggest not long ago?
Anyway, here's my main question: who else do people think should never have recorded anything more than a two-track demo -- James Taylor? Lou Reed? Or even [takes deep breath and ducks] Neil Young?* And, conversely, are there any other cases like Dan Penn and Spooner Oldham: songwriters whose talent as backroom performers often outshone that of the famous folk they wrote for?
Ella Fitzgerald couldn't probably couldn't even write a sick note, but does that mean she shouldn't be taken as seriously as the Bjorks of the world?
[*Yes, I like K.D. Lang's "Helpless" better than the original too. Is it OK to admit that around here?]
- More from Archie Valparaiso.
- Login or register to post comments
-
I disagree, Archie
but I agree that he more often needs to shoot his musical arrangers than himself, as the live "orchestrated/over girly vocalised/synthesized" versions can be peculiarly dire. With a simple arrangement he is his own best interpreter. Whether on "The Songs of" or "Im Your Man", his best 2 LPs, IMHO, he comes up trumps every time you abide by this warning. As to his very many covers, surely this merely demonstrates that a good song is a good song is a good song (but for every k.d.lang and Rufus Wainwright hallelujah, beware the Bonio and Willie Nelson)
Interestingly I feel his best ever vocal performance is on "Joan of Arc", but not his version, but on Jennifer warnes version, on which he guests as the fire. Fabulous!
Now here's a provocative one to out-outrage the Neil Young factions: Richard Thompson..........?
I'd be loath to do without
I'd be loath to do without Len's own versions of Sisters of Mercy or Democracy, but I think Archie has a point. The problem, it seems to me, isn't Cohen's voice but the ham-fistedness of the musical accompaniment, which seems to have been tacked on afterwards in a hurry.
To Retropath's choice of Richard Thompson, I'd say, I'll raise you - Bob Dylan! (before running away pursued by angry Word readers mob)
Since we're all being provocative..
I'll suggest Elvis Costello. I'm not saying that he's a bad singer, just that the quality of his songwriting (world-class) far outstrips the quality of his singing (pretty average, occasionally good) and the songs could benefit from being sung by other voices (e.g. Robert Wyatt but perhaps not Wendy James...)
I disagree too
I don't think it's up to the songwriter to provide the definitive version of one of their songs. In some cases - Jackson Browne's a good example - they're not even the first to record it. But Cohen has a gravelly wit that is all his own that - not surprisingly, 'cos he wrote 'em - sits very well with his songs.
And, as for Neil Young: do I really have to make this point again?
Point taken...
that says it all, really.
Music changed
I do still prefer the songwriter's versions in the case of Cohen, Dylan, Reed and Young. Their not 'proper' singing moves me in a way 'good' or 'proper' singers covers don't - even kd lang. Even with the cheesy backing singers on the clip I still prefer the Cohen one. I think the difference is that the singers I have referred to didn't intentionally write for another singer (as used to be the norm) - they wrote the songs intending to sing them themselves in their own style. I don't know if they are capable of writing a song for another artist or would want to. I don't think they think of their songs that way. The unconventional, personal, direct approach of these singers is what I want.
Not to say that good covers are not possible of course but the original is the thing for me.
Just wondering, Archie
Has the recent tour changed your view any? Uncertain if you saw, but Live in london is a pretty accurate template. Certainly changed my view about the naff arrangements he has previously saddled himself to.
Not yet
But since I tend to make a point of never letting the evidence get in the way of my prejudices, I might be some time.
And, however good he was - and, judging from the many thumbs-ups he got from Respected Opinion-Formers™ around these parts, I'm quite prepared to admit that he was very good indeed - I still maintain that LC + video walls = wrongity-wrong.