Jump to content

Wow. Strong Heart cover.


TypeO

Recommended Posts

I've seen/heard really good cover performances before, but this surely ranks as one of the best I've ever heard.

Barracuda by Heart was a great song in it's time, and really stepped up the aggressiveness of hard rock at the time.

Now Alice In Chains I know about.

So before I listened, I figured they would give it the appropriate weight it deserved, and yet I was still surprised just how well they improved upon while still staying quite true to the original. Especially the solo.

Gretchen Wilson is another matter.

As a country singer, hers was just a name I've heard.

After reading her Wiki, I'm not surprised to learn Heart was a big influence on her.

I was, however, very surprised to hear her practically channeling Ann Wilson on this.

Throw in Nancy Wilson on guitar as well, and that's just pure profit.

Yeah, it was 2 years ago, but it was MTV, so you can at least understand how I missed it.

Apologies if this has been posted before, but either way, it's a great listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barracuda by Heart was a great song in it's time, and really stepped up the aggressiveness of hard rock at the time.

I always thought of Heart as being an MOR pop rock group (like Bon Jovi are) Not a Hard rock band.......Only my view i'm not saying my opinion is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

meh.

I'm really referring to this one song as opposed to Heart as a group.

True, every Heart song wasn't necessarily hard - they did a lot of soft pop-type songs.

In the 70s there wasn't anywhere near the myriad categories and sub-categories of music that exist today.

In the context of today, you are quite correct.

In the mid 70s, this song was pretty much hard rock.

Not the hardest, but hard rock all the same.

Pop rock was maybe Fleetwood Mac and Steely Dan.

Hell, back then the Eagles were considered at least rock, maybe not hard rock.

Today they'd be soft country or something.

And even the original Barracuda track would hardly be called Pop.

It displays much of the "chunkiness" that became one of the main characteristics of 90s grunge.

But then, Heart was a Seattle band.

And please, Fleetwood Mac and Steely Dan were the first groups that came to mind - I don't want to debate their proper classifications with anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that show and the only reason I had to watch is because they honoured "Heart", "Ozzy" and "Genesis" all of whom performed that night.

Probably the last good show MTV produced.

On the flip side the Lovemongers aka Ann and Nancy Wilson played a killer cover of Battle of Evermore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen/heard really good cover performances before, but this surely ranks as one of the best I've ever heard.

Barracuda by Heart was a great song in it's time, and really stepped up the aggressiveness of hard rock at the time.

Now Alice In Chains I know about.

So before I listened, I figured they would give it the appropriate weight it deserved, and yet I was still surprised just how well they improved upon while still staying quite true to the original. Especially the solo.

Gretchen Wilson is another matter.

As a country singer, hers was just a name I've heard.

After reading her Wiki, I'm not surprised to learn Heart was a big influence on her.

I was, however, very surprised to hear her practically channeling Ann Wilson on this.

Throw in Nancy Wilson on guitar as well, and that's just pure profit.

Yeah, it was 2 years ago, but it was MTV, so you can at least understand how I missed it.

Apologies if this has been posted before, but either way, it's a great listen.

OK, I can see your point about Gretchen doing an acceptable job singing the song, I did hear a hand full of spot's where she let her country voice (accent) come popping out ruining the mood of the song in those places. And the band was going at it sloppy with wayyyyyy to many guitar players on the stage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I can see your point about Gretchen doing an acceptable job singing the song, I did hear a hand full of spot's where she let her country voice (accent) come popping out ruining the mood of the song in those places. And the band was going at it sloppy with wayyyyyy to many guitar players on the stage!

You must be a musician/play in a band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I can see your point about Gretchen doing an acceptable job singing the song, I did hear a hand full of spot's where she let her country voice (accent) come popping out ruining the mood of the song in those places. And the band was going at it sloppy with wayyyyyy to many guitar players on the stage!

FWIW, When I played this vid my wife , who was not in the room at the time, thought that I was playing Heart. I thought it sounded better than Heart ever did it and I've seen that band live many many times. Jerry Cantrell can kick it out with the best of them and AIC has got to be one of the most underrated bands ever. Great song, great cover

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did see that performance more than a year ago just surfing channels one night, I had no idea who Gretchen was, but looked her up straightaway when i finished watching this rendition of Barracuda. She's amazing!

The guitars are a little sloppy, but this isn't the studio...it's live and it's supposed to be fun.

Mission accomplished. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let me clarify this a bit more, I see a perfect cover (if some one tells me that they think it's the best cover of the song they ever heard) as needing to be as close as possible to the original. Not just passing as best as can be expected, not giving it your, my or their own finger print and changing up the song. But to say, "this is how we or I head it a long time ago and we are going to cover it the way it was."

Now, if some one want's to take an old song and reproduce it, giving it a new sound or feel, that's ok too but, if it's going to be a perfect cover then it need's to be a mirror of the original recording(s).

Example

A band I used to play in, we did a cover of Led Zeppelin's, Whole Lotta Love, we where a three man band and could never, ever, ever in a million years pull off the studio track from Led Zeppelin II. So we did the next best thing and started working on the version from The Song Remains The Same album (movie version).

I would not have called our rendition of the song perfect, as we did one or two thing's that where slightly different. We had no theremin, so my guitar player used a delay peddle to get some funky sound's going at those places in the song. And I was unable to play heavy drum's and do all of Robert Plant's voicing at those spot's in the song too, so we where not really covering the song as was originally done, just doing it as best we could to our abilities.

We did a good job and people enjoyed it and some even gave us great compliments but, I didn't see us as doing the song to perfection just playing it as we could. And others would give the same observation form the audience and would say, "you guy's should write your own song's!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow is right. She really nailed it.

Speaking of which, I don't normally go for Redneck girls but I'm damn sure willing to make an exception here. wub.gif

Don't fall for a "redneck" girl if you're not man enough. Admire. But admire from a distance. If you have the gonads pursue full throttle. Trust me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let me clarify this a bit more, I see a perfect cover (if some one tells me that they think it's the best cover of the song they ever heard) as needing to be as close as possible to the original. Not just passing as best as can be expected, not giving it your, my or their own finger print and changing up the song. But to say, "this is how we or I head it a long time ago and we are going to cover it the way it was."

Now, if some one want's to take an old song and reproduce it, giving it a new sound or feel, that's ok too but, if it's going to be a perfect cover then it need's to be a mirror of the original recording(s).

Example

A band I used to play in, we did a cover of Led Zeppelin's, Whole Lotta Love, we where a three man band and could never, ever, ever in a million years pull off the studio track from Led Zeppelin II. So we did the next best thing and started working on the version from The Song Remains The Same album (movie version).

I would not have called our rendition of the song perfect, as we did one or two thing's that where slightly different. We had no theremin, so my guitar player used a delay peddle to get some funky sound's going at those places in the song. And I was unable to play heavy drum's and do all of Robert Plant's voicing at those spot's in the song too, so we where not really covering the song as was originally done, just doing it as best we could to our abilities.

We did a good job and people enjoyed it and some even gave us great compliments but, I didn't see us as doing the song to perfection just playing it as we could. And others would give the same observation form the audience and would say, "you guy's should write your own song's!"

Good for you BLD, as a fanatic of Led Zeppelins music, for those of you that didnt know, i have seen about six different Led Zeppelin tribute bands, all did different renditions of Zepp songs, and i enjoyed every one as much as the next one. The point is this, you are out there to give pleasure to your audiance as well as yourselves, and as long as thats what you are doing you cant go far wrong. Do you have to do an exact version? hell do, if i wanted that i would go to see a DJ playing it like i used too do. As long as your audiance likes it and it satisfies you then keep on rockin, and that is all i have to say on the matter.

Regards, Danny

PS, How you been sleeping lately?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let me clarify this a bit more, I see a perfect cover (if some one tells me that they think it's the best cover of the song they ever heard) as needing to be as close as possible to the original. Not just passing as best as can be expected, not giving it your, my or their own finger print and changing up the song. But to say, "this is how we or I head it a long time ago and we are going to cover it the way it was."

Now, if some one want's to take an old song and reproduce it, giving it a new sound or feel, that's ok too but, if it's going to be a perfect cover then it need's to be a mirror of the original recording(s).

Wow.

I just thought it was an awesome cover of Barracuda.

I didn't make this thread to debate folks, I stick to politics for that. lulz.

And obviously I was correct when I said BLD was a musician.

Here's what I meant.

I'm a graphic artist.

When I see many photoshopped images on the web, I immediately give it my professional critical eye and find all kinds of fault.

Poor masking, blending, the shadows are off, etc.

Everybody else says "OMG! That cat has a dog's head!!! ROFL!"

Not being a musician, when I heard this cover, I thought it was awesome, they didn't seem to try and turn it into their own song, most of the guitar solo was recognizable.

Since BLD is a musician, he has a much more critical eye (ear) than I do.

That being said, I rarely give harsh critique of a photoshopped image unless it's amongst other graphic artists.

I take it for face value, as I figure my detailed critique would be perceived as nitpicking by those who aren't concerned with technique, just the final product.

I'm a little with BigDan on this point - BLD's description of a "perfect cover" would almost be pointless.

And I never said it was a "perfect cover".

But if it were lick for lick, note for note identical to the original, there would be little to get excited about.

Perhaps a musician would find the perfection satisfying.

I felt this cover took an excellent old song, stayed very close to the original tune yet gave it just enough fresh feel to keep it from sounding dated, thus making for a great cover IMO.

Had they improvised their own solo, changed the tempo, or otherwise violated the "integrity" of the original, I might not have enjoyed it as much.

Having grown up as a 70s guy, I've heard most Heart songs so many times I wouldn't take the time necessary to search YouTube for the original of Barracuda for a listen.

Yet, like Ally, I've listened to this cover a number of times just for the enjoyment of hearing the updated sound.

Opinions.

We all got 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget Hearts' performance that same night, Ann still has the golden pipessmile.gif

Don't fall for a "redneck" girl if you're not man enough. Admire. But admire from a distance. If you have the gonads pursue full throttle. Trust me.

Me likes dem redneck galswub.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget Hearts' performance that same night, Ann still has the golden pipessmile.gif

Me likes dem redneck galswub.gif

Me loves dem redneck women as well. Woe be to those out of the loop, Dzldoc. ROCKONFOREVER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

I just thought it was an awesome cover of Barracuda.

I didn't make this thread to debate folks, I stick to politics for that. lulz.

And obviously I was correct when I said BLD was a musician.

Here's what I meant.

I'm a graphic artist.

When I see many photoshopped images on the web, I immediately give it my professional critical eye and find all kinds of fault.

Poor masking, blending, the shadows are off, etc.

Everybody else says "OMG! That cat has a dog's head!!! ROFL!"

Not being a musician, when I heard this cover, I thought it was awesome, they didn't seem to try and turn it into their own song, most of the guitar solo was recognizable.

Since BLD is a musician, he has a much more critical eye (ear) than I do.

That being said, I rarely give harsh critique of a photoshopped image unless it's amongst other graphic artists.

I take it for face value, as I figure my detailed critique would be perceived as nitpicking by those who aren't concerned with technique, just the final product.

I'm a little with BigDan on this point - BLD's description of a "perfect cover" would almost be pointless.

And I never said it was a "perfect cover".

But if it were lick for lick, note for note identical to the original, there would be little to get excited about.

Perhaps a musician would find the perfection satisfying.

I felt this cover took an excellent old song, stayed very close to the original tune yet gave it just enough fresh feel to keep it from sounding dated, thus making for a great cover IMO.

Had they improvised their own solo, changed the tempo, or otherwise violated the "integrity" of the original, I might not have enjoyed it as much.

Having grown up as a 70s guy, I've heard most Heart songs so many times I wouldn't take the time necessary to search YouTube for the original of Barracuda for a listen.

Yet, like Ally, I've listened to this cover a number of times just for the enjoyment of hearing the updated sound.

Opinions.

We all got 'em.

Agreed

Everything is subjective to your own unique ear obviously. I am a musician, retired from the touring life, that plays in two cover bands. I play in a very competitive market, and make a LOT of money doing it...My bands fight for contracts with bands with female vocalists that can go toe to toe with circa 1982 Pat Benetar. One even does it whilst playing drums! B)

Anyway... my point is, my bands and the ones I mention above all do the best they can while emulating 40+ artists a night. Some artists you will be outfitted to be more successful at than others, but even the original artists sounds different live as we all know.

The vid above gets as close to a perfect LIVE version of Barracuda, as Heart would do themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

I just thought it was an awesome cover of Barracuda.

I didn't make this thread to debate folks, I stick to politics for that. lulz.

And obviously I was correct when I said BLD was a musician.

Here's what I meant.

I'm a graphic artist.

When I see many photoshopped images on the web, I immediately give it my professional critical eye and find all kinds of fault.

Poor masking, blending, the shadows are off, etc.

Everybody else says "OMG! That cat has a dog's head!!! ROFL!"

Not being a musician, when I heard this cover, I thought it was awesome, they didn't seem to try and turn it into their own song, most of the guitar solo was recognizable.

Since BLD is a musician, he has a much more critical eye (ear) than I do.

That being said, I rarely give harsh critique of a photoshopped image unless it's amongst other graphic artists.

I take it for face value, as I figure my detailed critique would be perceived as nitpicking by those who aren't concerned with technique, just the final product.

I'm a little with BigDan on this point - BLD's description of a "perfect cover" would almost be pointless.

And I never said it was a "perfect cover".

But if it were lick for lick, note for note identical to the original, there would be little to get excited about.

Perhaps a musician would find the perfection satisfying.

I felt this cover took an excellent old song, stayed very close to the original tune yet gave it just enough fresh feel to keep it from sounding dated, thus making for a great cover IMO.

Had they improvised their own solo, changed the tempo, or otherwise violated the "integrity" of the original, I might not have enjoyed it as much.

Having grown up as a 70s guy, I've heard most Heart songs so many times I wouldn't take the time necessary to search YouTube for the original of Barracuda for a listen.

Yet, like Ally, I've listened to this cover a number of times just for the enjoyment of hearing the updated sound.

Opinions.

We all got 'em.

Agreed

Everything is subjective to your own unique ear obviously. I am a musician, retired from the touring life, that plays in two cover bands. I play in a very competitive market, and make a LOT of money doing it...My bands fight for contracts with bands with female vocalists that can go toe to toe with circa 1982 Pat Benetar. One even does it whilst playing drums! B)

Anyway... my point is, my bands and the ones I mention above all do the best they can while emulating 40+ artists a night. Some artists you will be outfitted to be more successful at than others, but even the original artists sounds different live as we all know.

The vid above gets as close to a perfect LIVE version of Barracuda, as Heart would do themselves.

Yes, I see your point(s) and I respect your opinion(s) but, I still say that if a perfect cover, witch a lot of band's will strive at getting right will not change anything. And a cover band will not go out and try a tune that they have not spent enough time on to get as it was meant to be heard.

This is how I see this reproduction of the Heart song, likely (but I was not there so I don't know for sure) they got together and said, "hey, you remember that song from Heart Barracuda?"

It just looks/sound's to me as they (the band) are struggling to get it together.

I'm not saying this is a total hack or anything, they did an ok job but it's not tight and clean. Maybe if they had some more time to work it out it would have been better, but it was a bit sloppy and un-organized if you ask me.

I had little trouble (after we practiced them) playing drum's and singing Rush covers in my day (I most likely could do again), not always perfect but pretty darn close! I don't think of competing with other band's or act's, I just take what I can get and if I have a good night, it's a good night. If I have a bad night I crawl off stage, go home complain to myself about how much I screwed up and get back to it for the next show. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Referring to the AIC-Gretchen-Nancy slam jam] Damn that was amazing, really strong. Who'd have thought such an unlikely combo could work. I don't get people saying the guitarwork was sloppy, but to each his/her own.

And I agree that Ann Wilson still has an incredible voice, she's lost nothing to age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I see your point(s) and I respect your opinion(s) but, I still say that if a perfect cover, witch a lot of band's will strive at getting right will not change anything. And a cover band will not go out and try a tune that they have not spent enough time on to get as it was meant to be heard.

This is how I see this reproduction of the Heart song, likely (but I was not there so I don't know for sure) they got together and said, "hey, you remember that song from Heart Barracuda?"

It just looks/sound's to me as they (the band) are struggling to get it together.

I'm not saying this is a total hack or anything, they did an ok job but it's not tight and clean. Maybe if they had some more time to work it out it would have been better, but it was a bit sloppy and un-organized if you ask me.

I had little trouble (after we practiced them) playing drum's and singing Rush covers in my day (I most likely could do again), not always perfect but pretty darn close! I don't think of competing with other band's or act's, I just take what I can get and if I have a good night, it's a good night. If I have a bad night I crawl off stage, go home complain to myself about how much I screwed up and get back to it for the next show. B)

Definite difference of philosophy, but that's cool! B)

I'm betting the AIC/Gretchen wilson/Nancy wilson combo probably did not spend alot of time rehearsing together...why would they? If they go out and have a great time, the live mix is thumping, but they're a little loose (after all they aren't a functioning "band")nobody in the live audience even takes notice.

Our own hereos in Led Zeppelin struggled mightily to execute as a unit some nights...but music is a living breathing thing, and that's how I'll take it anytime. I'm a Rush fan as well...I quit seeing them live after the Signals tour because 1. they got too into keyboards and sequencing for my taste, and 2. They are as close to perfect as any rock band has ever been live...which bores me.

Show me something that isn't on your album, and I take home a memory that lasts forever, This vid demonstrated to me that A Heart song could sound a little heavier, and that someone other than the incredible Ann wilson can sing the shit out of that song.... I loved it for those reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definite difference of philosophy, but that's cool! B)

I'm betting the AIC/Gretchen wilson/Nancy wilson combo probably did not spend alot of time rehearsing together...why would they? If they go out and have a great time, the live mix is thumping, but they're a little loose (after all they aren't a functioning "band")nobody in the live audience even takes notice.

Our own hereos in Led Zeppelin struggled mightily to execute as a unit some nights...but music is a living breathing thing, and that's how I'll take it anytime. I'm a Rush fan as well...I quit seeing them live after the Signals tour because 1. they got too into keyboards and sequencing for my taste, and 2. They are as close to perfect as any rock band has ever been live...which bores me.

Show me something that isn't on your album, and I take home a memory that lasts forever, This vid demonstrated to me that A Heart song could sound a little heavier, and that someone other than the incredible Ann wilson can sing the shit out of that song.... I loved it for those reasons.

If I was going to do a song on stage in front of million's making million's in the process, I would want to have it down pat before hand, that's just the way I am. Sorry about being nit-picky, I do this even with my own song's, in fact I've been encouraged to go back to the local song writer's event next month with some more new material. I'll pick some old song's of mine and write a new one, but I'll want to re arrange some part's of the old one's and probably add/change some of the word's too.

From what I've learned, Led Zeppelin was not a rehearsing band, I asked Jason Bonham at a drum work shop about this and he told me that they would only rehearse for a week or so and then go out on there never ending tours. They where not noted as a band that would spend a lot of time in the studio with there recordings ether. Just a raw sounding group that would wax the room with a wall of sound that was them! And they could get away with it too, being as they where strong musician's to start with not just guy's that got together to whack away at a unimpressive speed.

Rush is a band that is so technical that many will go to there shows just to see Neil Pert and company do what they heard on the record, at least that's one of the reason's I went. I've only been to one of there show's and was not disappointed at all. In fact, I was blown away! I had spent a lot of time learning the drum part's I had to get down to pull off an acceptable cover and I always get off singing there song's. But I still could not believe how they where making it look so easy and sounded just like the record! It's not always true but a three man group needs to be a "live in the studio band" to make it on the road if you ask me.

We played most of the first side of 2112, Red Barchetta, Zanado, and one song from Counter Part's called Animate. There where a few others we attempted but I could not get comfortable with them so I said no and no one else would even try to sing them so we dropped them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Rush fan as well...I quit seeing them live after the Signals tour because 1. they got too into keyboards and sequencing for my taste, and 2. They are as close to perfect as any rock band has ever been live...which bores me.

Don't know if you've listened to Snakes and Arrows, but it's pretty awesome.

They seemed to have made a real effort to give their signature sound a fresh and current feel.

I saw both legs of the tour as well, and all I can say is I can die a happy man.

Especially the second leg last summer when they played Overture / Temples of Syrinx.

Seriously, it's been a long time since I got that excited.

Best audio I could find of Working Them Angels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...