Original Objections

Your honor(s), I'd like to introduce these songs into evidence. They've been remade, and we need your opinion on which one deserves to be recognized in music history.
Me: Thank you. I will do my best to judge these songs at their very best and make a fair decision on which one is better and deserves recognition.
See...many songs have remade throughout history. Bad ones, Great ones, and mediocre ones. Some remakes have outshined their original lyricists. And as much as you hate that I'm going to write another blog on the entertainment industry, fuck you, because music is way more interesting than the Top 7 Mistresses in History (next blog, don't worry). This blog is about music and its cover songs. The plaintiff's will be the original performers and the defendant will be the cover-er. Here's 7 Cover Song Court Cases. P.S. I'm drunk while writing this, so excuse grammatics. Fuck you, spell check, grammatics is a word.

7. Otis Redding v. Aretha Franklin
Dispute: Redding's original version of "Respect" (1965) against Franklin's version in 1967.
Plaintiff's Argument (Redding): Aretha gets all the recognition for this song even though she stole my lyrics. Most importantly, she changed the meaning of the song. This song was meant to be a plea for respect to a girl, written by a man. She totally reversed the meaning and turned it into an anthem for women, who totally control relationships anyway. Plus, I wrote this damn song and nobody even knows it is a cover. I don't appreciate my music being used as an anthem for the feminist movement, especially because the feminist movement is a load of crap. THERE! I SAID IT!
Defendant's Argument (Franklin): The feminist movement needed an anthem at the time, and I gave it to them. Also, it propelled my career as "that fat woman who can really sing." You see, women don't get enough respect and I thought Otis' lyrics were basically written for me to turn around. Not to mention my version is a much more catchy and has achieved much more respect (no pub intended) in the music industry. Otis is a great musician, but he must of been on an estrogen high while writing this song because men get plenty of respect all of the time, especially at the time this song was written. Women could barely work for half a man's salary when he wrote that song. So fuck that, I'm Aretha and I deserve a Cheeseburger.
Dolan's Verdict: I'll give it to Aretha. Her song has had much more of a lasting impact on society, as much as I hate to see feminist anthems. Aretha wins, providing that she lose some weight and that Redding stay dead, like he has for the last 40 years. Insensitive? Yes. Fair? Also Yes.


6. Elvis Presley v. Big Mama Thorton
Dispute: Thorton's original "Hound dog" (1952) against Presley's cover (1956)
Plaintiff's Argument (Big Mama): First of all, this song was written as a blues song, not a rock song. I wrote this song on the back of a paper bag and it helped us breakthrough into the industry. The song was to supposed to exemplify the relationship the pain of a man going through a relationship with a manipulative woman. This is a country blues song at heart and as a rock song, the meaning becomes distorted and catchy to the point that its more of a happy song, which it is not.
Defendant's Argument (Elvis): My version of this song shook the very foundation of rock and roll as we know it. Although Big Mama's recording was very good for a blues song, I gave people something they had never heard before and it caught on. It's not my fault that my song was more influential to music because I shook my hips and gyrated toward the audience. I did what I needed to do to get ahead and it worked. I'm a legend, where you would need to go to a African American nursing home to find someone who knew who "Big Mama" Thorton was.
Dolan's Verdict: Although Elvis' insults are extremely unnecessary and racist, I still rule in favor of his version. Both versions are good, but Elvis' song impacted music much more than Big Mama's did. Besides, Elvis died relatively young and was embarrassingly fat at the end of his life. Isn't that enough of a punishment, Big Mama? Wait...with that nickname, your probably pretty big too. Whatever, Elvis has it, get out of my courtroom.


5. Johnny Cash v. Nine Inch Nails
Dispute: Cash's remake of "Hurt" in 2002 against Trent Reznor's original version in 1994.
Plaintiff's Dispute (Reznor): Look, everybody knows Cash is a legend and I'm honored that he would even consider covering one of my songs. These lyrics were emotional for me to write and I poured my heart and soul into this song. This was a deeply personal song for me to write. I love Johnny Cash and realize he went through many hardship's in his life as well. But this song was about the real feeling. Cash might have the more critically acclaimed version but that's just because people know Johnny Cash, and don't bother to acknowledge my version of the song, which is the basis for his very performance.
Defendant's Argument (Cash): Just because he wrote the song doesn't mean that he put more feeling and emotion to this song. I listened to this song and felt like it was written about me. It's not my fault people liked my version more, they could just have easily have ripped it for being unoriginal and not good. But guess what? I'm Johnny fucking Cash and who's he? Nine Inch Nails? Whatever. Call me when they get an Oscar-nominated biopic based on their lives.
Dolan's Verdict: As much as I enjoy Cash's version of this song (which is quite good), I am going to have to side with Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor. I admit I'd never heard the NIN version before this, and it has much more emotion in it, at least to me. And guess what? My opinion is the only one that matters in this case. So bam.


4. Sinead O'Connor v. Prince
Dispute: O'Connor's 1990 cover of Prince's original that was performed by the funk band The Family in 1985.
Plaintiff's Argument (Prince): First of all, this song was written about a woman. So, unless Sinead likes to sweep under the rug, it loses the true meaning of the song. Also, it was written as a funky/blues song, not a ballad. Plus, I'm Prince. Look at me. Does anyone think a song written by me should be sung by a white Irish woman? I mean, I'm freaky as all hell. I wrote this song in a blouse for christsake.
Defendant's Argument (Sinead): Prince's version was never even released as a single. Has anyone ever even heard his version of the song? I gave this song meaning and popularity. I put my heart and soul in this song, and it was one of the best song's of the 90s. Prince is a great artist and wrote a beautiful song, but let's face it: when I sang this song, people got chills and cried. The only people that cried during a Prince song were men's fashion designers. Those tears I cried while singing the song? Those were real. This song has more meaning to me than it does to Prince.
Dolan's Verdict: Prince, you are a freaky cat. Sinead, you ripped a picture of the Pope up on SNL. You both got problems that need addressing. I'm going to rule in favor of Sinead here. Her song has so much more emotion and even makes me get emotional. Touche, Sinead. It's just one song, Prince. If you want to evaluate careers, then we have a different victor here. But "Nothing Compares 2 U" belongs to Sinead O'Connor. (Plus points for having a really Irish name)


3. Marc Cohn v. Cher
Dispute: Cohn's original song "Walking in Memphis" released in 1991, covered and released by Cher in 1995.
Plaintiff's Argument (Cohn): My version is a soul-ish country song, not some silly pop song. Is Cher's version more catchy? Perhaps. But my version has more feeling, its more real. Plus, my version is actually a song. Listen to my voice, I make girls wet just by opening up those vocal chords. Notice how she also changed the lyrics to make it sound like a girl singing? My version is so much more powerful, full of emotion. When I say "Boy, you got a prayer in Memphis" even guys get hot for me. "Are you a Christian child?" Do you really believe for a second that anything about Cher is holy? Look at her, she looks like the leader of satanic cult. Cher's a performer, I'm a singer. What the hell does Cher have to do with Memphis anyway?
Defendant's Argument (Cher): Cohn's just mad that my version is more catchy and that I'm more of a name than him. Marc's song is good, but I bring attention to this song. So what if I turned it into a pop song? It just makes you want to get up and dance and sing along, not cry like a pussy boy. Was Madonna a virgin or holy when she sang "Like a Prayer" or "Like a Virgin"? I don't think so, so what does it matter if I'm a Christian to the quality of a song. I'm not trying to feel the emotion, I'm trying to get my listeners to feel it. And they feel it alright.
Dolan's Verdict: First of all, shame on you Cher. Second of all, Marc Cohn wins. His song is a much better version, whereas if I want to dance, I'll listen to "One Night in Bangkok", not this. I want to feel what its like to be "walking in memphis" not "dancing in memphis". Cohn, "Walking in Memphis" is yours and its damn good.


2. Bob Dylan v. The Byrds
Dispute: Bob Dylan's original version released in 1965 after The Byrds released a cover of the song earlier in the year.
Plaintiff's Argument (Dylan): Listen here man, I'm more than a musician. I'm the greatest poet of the 20th century. My music is fucking poetry. I've written the best song of all time. It's ludicrous to think that my light-folk rock version of the song is inferior to the more upbeat, shorter version of the song. Some songs are just not meant to be touched and this is one of them. It's like remaking Hitchcock: you just don't do it (unless you're a tool). This song is poetry, not some god-damned pop song. Bastards even tried to release it before me to give themselves more attention. Guess what? I'm Bob F'n Dylan. My songs awaken the soul and open the mind.
Defendant's Argument (Byrds): Our version of this song essentially created folk rock. So you could say we were an influence for Bob Dylan's later work. We made this song over, electric-style, and made it more upbeat. Who doesn't like upbeat? Plus, if you look at Rolling Stone's Top 500 songs, our version is ranked higher than Bobby D's. We respect Bob's version and his music in general. Let's face it, remaking Bob Dylan is risky but we pulled it off. We basically created a new genre of music by remaking this song. How many people can say that?
Dolan's Verdict: Both versions are admittedly very good and very different. I'm still going to give this one to Bobby Dylan. As good as the Byrds version was, I still don't think it compares to the essence that Dylan has in every song. It's unbelievable to me. Plus, what the hell does Rolling Stone know? Are those songs really the top 500? Cause I've never heard of almost half of them. Get with the times. Dylan's version will be forever remembered, as well it should be. Bob Dylan, "Mr. Tambourine Man" belongs to you.


1. Bob Dylan v. Jimi Hendrix
Dispute: Bob Dylan's original 1967 version of "All Along the Watchtower" against Jimi Hendrix's cover version released in 1968.
Plaintiff's Argument (Dylan): Wasn't I just here? Listen, Hendrix brings a lot of intensity and fever to the song. That's not what the song was meant to sound like though. This is supposed to be a quiet acoustic ballad, not some loud rock song. Plus, why do people feel the need to remake my songs immediately after I release them? Give me a few years, Jesus Christ. Also, I've performed this song in concert more than any other: 1,748 times and counting. How many times has Jimi sang it live? Oh wait, he overdosed on drugs and has been dead for a long time.
Defendant's Argument (Hendrix): Dylan's version is great but I totally reworked this song and I did so obsessively. I reworked every aspect of this song and made it one of the best songs ever performed. Have you heard my guitar? It sounds like sex. Denying that my version is better is like saying a hand job is better than a blow job, only if it's done by an idiot is that true. Same with this song. I bring the vocals, I bring the power, I just bring it, period. No one is here to deny Bob Dylan's impact and talent as a musician. But you have to recognize mine too. When I yell "allllll along the watchtowaaa," girls get pregnant just from hearing it. Can you say that about any of Dylan's songs? Recognize.
Dolan's Verdict: Apparently Jimi has never heard "Like a Rolling Stone" or "Isis" before. Anyways, as much as I love you Bobby, there's just no way I could give this one to you. Jimi's version is the best cover version in the history of music, and one of music all-time great songs. Nothing really compares here. Dylan's version of the song isn't even great by any stretch of the imagination, Jimi's is outstanding. Jimi Hendrix, "All Along the Watchtower" belongs to you.

There you have it, the cover versions win 4-3. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go try to attempt to cover Raffi's version of "Banana Phone" so I can perform it at my wedding, if I ever get married. My wife is going to love me. So I hope your enjoying the extreme amounts of blogging I've been doing lately. I have to go though, as I need to go see WALL-E. I'm pretty sure these last few sentences have effectively taken my manhood away. Oh well, at least I'm a damn good blogger guy. And I drink your fucking milkshake.