Joe > Average
5202 replies · 145232 views
Worst Song Remakes
It seems that song remakes are an inevitable part of the music industry. Some are okay, some are good, some are great, some are bad and some aren't that bad but are just unnecessary. People have sentimental attatchments to songs for different reasons and that can cloud their judgement to a degree, but others are bad to a listener whether they know or like the original song or not. I tried to go by face value rather than principle. By principle, Celine Deion's You Shook Me would deserve a mention and most lists include her, but if it were the first time I had heard the song, I wouldn't have said it was awful. There was also a version of a Motown song sung by some cheerleaders on a commercial one time, but I wasn't sure who it was and they might not have been famous, so I left it off too. Most lists also include Korn's Another Brick in the Wall as well. I personally find their version to be both inferior and unnecessary, but if it were the first time I had heard it, I'd just assume it was the best Korn song ever. Some lists also include Marilyn Manson's Sweet Dreams and although his voice is technically inferior by comparisson, I actually like his version too. Some renditions probably wouldn't be hated as much if they were original, but its the familiarity with the original artists that makes it seem like a crime. You interfere with people's sentiments, memories, some songs may just not need it. I tried not to lean too much toward the principle, but that's not to say that the principle wasn't thrown in as well, but face value sucking was factored in as well. Honorable mentions to anything by Shatner, Kidz Bop ect.
10. Tuti Fruiti by Pat Boone - in the early days of rock and roll, record companies would generally ask black artists to do traditional pop albums on the side to make music that was acceptable to the white audiences. At the same time, they would have white artists remake the black songs to be presented as socially accepted versions. They were then unaware that white teenagers were buying the black versions anyway. That said, Boone was the posterchild of this and a wide range of super lame remakes were the result. Its worth mentioning that Boone resurfaced decades later to give hard rock and heavy metal songs the same treatment. Lets just consider them all tied here. If this isn't the lamest, its as lame as any, but unfortunatley there are much worse singers.
.
9. I Love Rock & Roll by Brittney Spears - for most mainstream pop stars, it isn't enough to have the money and acceptability of the pop audience. Deep down inside, they want some cred with some other genre. They may not be willing to make the sacrifices to their mainstream acceptablity in order to make this happen legitimately, but they are willing to remake songs.
.
8. Behind Blue Eyes by Limp Bizkit - this one stays the most true to my criteria as I'm ashamed to say that, even despite liking The Who, this is actually the first version I ever heard 
and hated the song as a result. It even comes up first when you get the title even halfway typed into a search. The original version redeemed the song for me, but I still hate this one.
7. My Lips are Sealed by Hilary and Haily Duff - I'm still not overly familiar with the original version, but when I heard this was a remake, I couldn't help but include it .
6. Imagine by Avril Lavine - Imagine there's a singer with a really annoying voice with no range, no unique phrasing who wants to look like a rocker chick but makes pop music. The imagine her ruining a classic song. I hear it was for a good cause, but I still couldn't help but include it.
5. Satisfaction by Brittney Spears - Its fitting that Brittney covers one of the most popular songs of the British invation as she invades the list again with another stinker.
4. Colors of the Wind by Ashanti and sister - speaking of invading the list again, here's another song with an equally untalented sister tagging along .
3. Smells Like Teen Spirity by Miley Cyrus - LOL
Bonus: Do You Think I'm Sexy? by Paris Hilton - I added it as a bunus since she isn't technically an artist much like Shatner's awful Beatles cover. In this case, the original song is probably one of the most unintentionally funny songs of all time, performed by a rock artist selling out to disco. This one has Paris singing.
2. Living for the City by Lindsay Lohan - this is one of the hardest hitting songs of all time, from the subject matter to the opening instrumental and line to the very end. Hearing Lindsay sing this is almost like hearing Boone sing Strange Fruit. It just ought not to be.
1. My Generation by Hilary Duff - Not only is Hilary one of the worst singers of all time, but her voice is so weak that is almost sounds like it hurts despite the fact that she can barely even attempt to carry a note. Here we see two generations shamed at once. On one hand, Townsend shames his by allowing this to happen and Duff disgraces her own by doing it .
My friend Lirik playing Dayz
5:29 of WIN. "Nice change from communism" 
Nice Joe list, I'm glad to say I probably heard only 2 of these covers 
when I got to Avril Lavigne on this list it reminded me of something I read yesterday: she and Chad Kroeger (Nickelback) just got engaged 
Yeah, one could make a case for you doing something else in almost any case. People that work to save animals should be working to save the children instead, people that work long hours should be spending time with their children. If you're reading fiction, you could be reading philosophy or something. If you're reading philosophy, you could be holding up a protest sign somewhere ect. At the end of the day, we all need something to enjoy. Oh, speaking of that ceremony and enjoying life, there was also some song about think positive not on the negative or something that I strangely enjoyed
Britney Spears loves rock & roll like Paul McCartney loves flame grilled whoppers. 
Nice Joe list, I'm glad to say I probably heard only 2 of these covers
Oh god, no. Imagine the kids! :voodoo:
^ that is strangely accurate 
maybe they'll procreate and their kids would make a band? :wub2: (or worse-each of them will go solo! 
)
^A band would certainly be preferable to two solo careers equalling twice as much music output.
Actually, on closer inspection, the pictures could just be recent shots of Edward Furlong and David Spade. 
Oh, when you said that name, I assumed you were referring to one of the other ones since besides Posh, I don't know them by their real names . Its a bold claim indeed, but I can back it up 
, I think .
If you've only heard two, then lucky you then . I must admit that a sick part of me finds them kindof funny in a strange way. LOL @ the news, pics and emoticon at the end . Don't forget you have your own 
of course .
I must say though, with as many talented couples that have turned out untalented children, these might turn around and create the next Elton John or something .
No, I´m reffering to the tram you did tell me that the link was broken, but how about the tram?
Ending all posts with this gif.
Joe, your lists always amaze me but this one was a pure hell First it was Miley and her "I love myself I´m such a great singer and DAMN YOU I´M A ROCK GIRL" stupidity that made my brain hurt, and when I thought that was the worst I come to see Lindsay LoL singing - well, "singing" rather, and DANCING SHOPPING CARTS.
Is it even legal???
^Bold claims Joe - best watch you're posting back from now on...
Oh yeah :evil:
Britney Spears loves rock & roll like Paul McCartney loves flame grilled whoppers.
Nice Joe list, I'm glad to say I probably heard only 2 of these covers
Oh god, no. Imagine the kids! :voodoo:
I still very vividly remember that conversation that was held about Nickelback - I did not understand then. I do, though, understand now.
Chad Kroeger and Avril Lavigne are getting married lord help us all:
Joe/Baron:
My statement is related to my preference of re-allocating activities from sports to other uses, not a censure of 'activity' itself or aggregate demand. Everything can be packaged and sold. We can pay people seven figures to dig holes in the ground and fill them up and remunerate them with tax collection. Money is being funneled with no value created on the other end. The 'value' 'sports' deliver to the civilization are disproportionate to its costs (time, infrastructure, caloric expenditure, etc.) in our society. The 'supply side' (a key component, the youth of children most wastefully) are not being properly remunerated. In 'Gini coefficient' terms, there is great 'income inequality' as clearly there is an elitist market to the whole thing.
Good sports teams, like the New York Yankees, regularly cost hundreds of millions to their owners in the forms of contracts. Is the sports/media economy worth it?
Is Religion worth it?
Is the War economy worth it? If we were to close the US war economy today, it would launch a true depression (1.5 Trillion dollar economy that's effected, broadest exposure to 780+ Billion public expenditures), and there would (like shutting off the sports economy) entail a massive dislocation of society's resources.
It's hard to answer these questions, as there clearly are positives and negatives, and you are correct that it is 'in the eye of the beholder'. For instance, I was introduced to the culture of the US Marines via my mentor, a money manager. There are people who enjoy war, and want it to continue forever. Activity for the sake of activity. That's capitalism, actually...:-l....
Then there are humanists, who are concerned with the loss of 200,000+ lives (or more, the estimates vary, we certainly have at least 200K confirmed enemy civilian and military kills). Then are people who are embedded in the 'war economy', most obviously in general research, who do develop technologies that eventually spill over to the private sector and thus benefit people in the end. Everybody has a rice bowl, and it's from a different source.
Personally, I probably gave up two years of my childhood, in total (all day, 365 etc.) to sports and music. I was decent in the first and relatively excellent in the second. I consider most of it a waste. 'Teamwork, discipline coordination' etc. are skills that can be gained more rapidly through taking a part-time job or sports 'in moderation'. Or something else, frankly, because at this point, it's reaching. If someone tells me that they did, I take note, but I also take note of the fact that they expended a large quantity of time on these activities that could have been deployed elsewhere during this timeframe.
If I was organizing an infantry company, I'd prefer to allocate 'sports stars' to the infantry and deploy them into the combat zone. Outside of that, these muscle memories, etc. are marginally deploy-able. I won't even talk about the impoverished areas in the US...Instead of burning off their calories playing sports, these kids should be staying in school or 'finding themselves'. Because 'finding themselves' , like many liberal arts undergrads do, is very important as well.
'Sports' is technically part of 'culture', I think it's 'too much' of our culture, and it's excessive. It's everywhere. So it needs to be balanced out with other interests. This is also a personal preference.
The 21st century really demands a lot of education and self-reliance- as in understanding the broad environment and making decisions for oneself, understanding oneself, knowing what to do to make oneself grow. The requirements for people to prosper has been raised. The structure of employment skillsets has changed, and with it different demands and lifestyles. At the base of it, I'd love to see a growing economy, with the entire working population benefiting from the ownership and yield from long term investments along with wage income. I like prosperity, and justice if possible. And this wouldn't happen without an economy that works and delivers a degree of justice.
One could actually make a more solid argument that 'culture' is more of a hobby than sports. For example, I speak enough languages and know enough about other cultures to live in other societies, but it doesn't have any tangible value necessarily. One could make a much greater case to trivialize it as a waste of time and say that in the time it took me to learn another language, I could have done something more with my time.
The idea that sports is just a hobby and business is the real world is also naturally at conflict with itself seeing as how sports is a multi-billion dollar industry. That's big time business
At the end of the day though, its a sick, sad, crappy world out there. Children are starving, the ozone is wasting away, the glaciers are melting, the sea level is rising, processed, pesticide and hormone filled foods are killing us slowly, its getting hotter, animals go extinct by the day, the rainforest is disappearing at a rate of 5% or more a year, we're overpopulated and so on. In light of that, nothing that can distract you from it, give you a good time that's not in violation of the law should be written off just because it doesn't take place at a desk or book. Also, a lot of those qualities that you say parent's should teach their children can be learned in sports ironically. I have friends who were only good enough to make college and now work professional jobs who credit sports with teaching them discipline and teamwork, all of which are principles that still benefit them in their current occupations. At the end of the day, wasting of time is relative. I've heard lawyers make partner and tycoons take over companies saying they've wasted their life because they only did it because it was the family business and they really wanted to be a teacher or something. No one can really set a standard for everyone, its how you define what you want to do with your own time that makes it a waste or not.
When you move up the food chain...: Your typical small/medium private business owner in the US, for instance- who either fails or marginally runs eg. a few retail stores in Manhattan usually works harder and possesses more business knowledge/skill than a CEO, often a former CFO/theoretical/ accounting type...who secures a 9 or 8 figure payout from 'his' board for hand waving, vague statements, and the 'vision' thing for half a decade. More of it is due to the fact that he finds himself hired as the top employee of a large publically traded company with built-up long lived organization, risk, and a cost of capital that is a fraction of the private business....
No matter where people come from, the right character for the right 'place in history' or economy is pretty necessary, and that's an unfortunate fact that's patently unavoidable. It's raw material. That's where, more or less, some individualism and freedom for the individual's genetic proclivities are lost.
^It's always a similar argument when people talk about the price of art - that a Cezanne can go for near enough $250 million, yet the hospital next to the auction house needs a dialysis machine or similar... Of course economics is the driving force of society, but life is hardly worth living if the arts or sport is absent. We are not just tools - irrespective of religion we have souls that need more than discipline and constructive endeavour. I can't pretend to know what the balance is, and maybe you can argue that such frivolities are brought on by decadence - but yet you can still go to some corrupt African hellhole torn asunder by civil war and subsequent atrocities and yet on a patch of dirt in some refugee camp you'll find a bunch of kids playing football and smiling.
I actually thought you'd hate the Colors of the Wind one the most . What is a tram though ? I knew this one would be painful, but I felt obligated to throw it out there .
LOL, that gif is hypnotyzing .
Anyone that would rather do anything else than sports is fine by me . In a way, sports pay for themselves to a large degree. Millions of people love it and that interrest pays for a lot of them. For some, the expense is greater than the public interrest and for others, the public interrest is greater than the expense. I'd say soccer, NFL football and basketball are extremely cost efficient because the expense is very little (children with poor parents and who go to poor schools can do them) and the public interrest is huge. Right along those lines, I'd also put track because its even cheaper to do (Kenya holds most of the world records for goodness sakes) even though the public interrest outside of olympic time isn't nearly as high. After that would come sports like baseball because although the public interrest is relatively high, the expense is considerably greater than those previously mentioned. A lot of inner city schools can't even afford a baseball team and the programs that used to fund them took their services to the Dominican Republic with the idea that its cheaper to do. Hockey is probably along those lines. Its not nearly as popular as NFL, basketball, baseball or probably even college football here, but is the national sport of Canada and very popular in some other places. That said, it is very popular, but the expense is much greater than the first group. In the next group, there's sports like golf. With golf, the expense is considerable and public interrest isn't as great as the major sports, but its a big hit with 'high society' and the athletes make huge money anyway. In the next group, there's sports like gymnastics because the expense is not only considerable, but great. The majority of gymnasts have either A) at least one parent that is a former gymnast B) one or two rich parents C) at least one parent that is a former gymnastics coach D) lives close to a gym whereby they could have been seen by the right person that could have been convinced to invest in them despite them or E) working class or poor parents willing to make huge sacrifices to make it happen. Along with this, the public interrest varies. For the most part, its very popular during the olympics with relatively average popularity overall. If that isn't enough, the athlete's window of opportunity is very small on top of that. All in all, it costs way more money to do than say soccer, basketball or NFL football and makes nowhere near the money, so its far less cost efficient as a result. Swimming is a bit more cost efficient because even though it also has considerable expenses and is not one of the major sports outside of olympic time either, its much less competitive and you can do it longer, givging you more time to make more of the money back. Below those, I'd put things like skiiing. With skiing, you definitely need money and resources to be able to do it and the public interrest isn't all that big. That said, so many of them already had money to start with that even if they just break even, they haven't lost anything really. If you want to talk about waste though, look no further than the beef industry . It takes almost twenty pounds of food that you could be eating and 2,500 gallons of water that you could be drinking to produce only one pound of beef. Livestock also eat over 90% of our corn, oats, soy and deplete over 80% of our topsoil on top of that. That isn't paying for itself by any stretch of the imagination whereas sports where the public interrest greatly exceeds the expense (soccer, track, basketball, NFL) pull their own weight and even the ones you need money to do at least turn a profit. Even if you just end up working a 'regular' job, such activities can really color up a resume for any occupation.
What is a tram though
One of the means of public trasport 
known also as streetcar
^I think that's the crux, Joe. By far the worst (in my opinion) are the likes of Duff and Spears going through the motions. There is NO need for these covers as they aren't adding anything to the original - they are just anodyne rehashes designed to milk cash out of youngsters. They probably won't lead you to the original artist (which is often the default excuse used when others question the validity of the exercise), or at least only a tiny percentage; and they certainly don't give any credibility to the offender.It seems that song remakes are an inevitable part of the music industry. Some are okay, some are good, some are great, some are bad and some aren't that bad but are just unnecessary. People have sentimental attatchments to songs for different reasons and that can cloud their judgement to a degree, but others are bad to a listener whether they know or like the original song or not. I tried to go by face value rather than principle. By principle, Celine Deion's You Shook Me would deserve a mention and most lists include her, but if it were the first time I had heard the song, I wouldn't have said it was awful. There was also a version of a Motown song sung by some cheerleaders on a commercial one time, but I wasn't sure who it was and they might not have been famous, so I left it off too. Most lists also include Korn's Another Brick in the Wall as well. I personally find their version to be both inferior and unnecessary, but if it were the first time I had heard it, I'd just assume it was the best Korn song ever. Some lists also include Marilyn Manson's Sweet Dreams and although his voice is technically inferior by comparisson, I actually like his version too. Some renditions probably wouldn't be hated as much if they were original, but its the familiarity with the original artists that makes it seem like a crime. You interfere with people's sentiments, memories, some songs may just not need it.
Motown actually used to have several of it's stable sing the same song and see which one took. They were a bit like the Tin Pan Alley set in which you just had a building full of songwriters and then artists would pop in and see what was going. The Manson Sweet Dreams version, and even Shatner's attempts, I have no real problem with as at least they are adapting songs in their own style (whether I personally like that style or not). I guess some just feel mercenary and contrived, while some have integrity at their heart..?
^My god - Edward Furlong? Definitely!Actually, on closer inspection, the pictures could just be recent shots of Edward Furlong and David Spade.
^I think we may be arguing at cross-purposes here. I'm saying that people enjoy sport (and the arts) irrespective of their "career". It's important because they deem it to be. Even the different branches of the armed forces (at least both in Argentina and the UK) field sports teams to play against each other for some sort of bragging rights - which I guess is preferable to war!No matter where people come from, the right character for the right 'place in history' or economy is pretty necessary, and that's an unfortunate fact that's patently unavoidable. It's raw material. That's where, more or less, some individualism and freedom for the individual's genetic proclivities are lost.
'Sports' following is a non-productive surrogate for competitive desires, Baron. It's like videogames, gambling, or anything temporarily fun & addictive that absorbs the same signals from the frontal lobe. It's not a necessity, like sex or eating. But competitive desires and the 'will to power' is. So I propose that these desires be channeled into more effective uses.
^I think we may be arguing at cross-purposes here. I'm saying that people enjoy sport (and the arts) irrespective of their "career". It's important because they deem it to be. Even the different branches of the armed forces (at least both in Argentina and the UK) field sports teams to play against each other for some sort of bragging rights - which I guess is preferable to war!
Circa 2003, Americans were more interested in the superbowl than the invasion of Iraq. I found this unacceptable.
Joe- can you imagine a society where the daily national obsession with sports is substantially reduced? In your view, what would people do with their thoughts and their time?
''catch me Joeeee!!''
