Topic: recordings of songs in musical theatre productions – covers or not?

while i cannot find the specific source to cite this, i had long believed that the use of the "cover" attribute does not include songs that were recorded within the context of musical cast productions, especially so when they were written specifically for those musicals. whether it might have been derived from similar guidelines for performances of classical/opera music (where the "cover" attribute is also not used), or for some other reason, i don't know. but i think it makes sense, or at least shares a fair bit of consistency especially with opera recordings.

think about it: if all the songs recorded in a later cast production of a musical are covers of an earlier original production, isn't that like saying all later production soundtracks are covers of the original production soundtrack?

if, however, a song is recorded by an artist as part of a non-soundtrack album (and unless the artist had originally recorded the song before it was ever used in any musical, say like in jukebox musicals that often use previously recorded songs) then the above might arguably not apply and the "cover" attribute might be appropriate in that case.

especially now that the new theatre guideline assigns the recording artist credit to the performer rather than the musical composer (which had long been the case, before the revision), this distinction at least sets apart recordings made within the context of musical productions and those that are recorded as part of non-soundtrack contemporary albums by artists (though i expect some of you may doubt the worth of such a distinction).

Re: recordings of songs in musical theatre productions – covers or not?

I would avoid using the cover attribute in cases where the original composer/writer did not perform it. (i.e. stuff that is written for someone else, including musical theatre.

But then, I find the cover attribute to be pretty useless and rarely bother to use it.

Re: recordings of songs in musical theatre productions – covers or not?

I wouldn't use it for a musical theatre production. I only use the cover attribute for pop music.

Re: recordings of songs in musical theatre productions – covers or not?

Hawke: that applies to most pop music, and yet people would call a Spice Girls cover a Spice Girls cover, or whatever...

Unless you mean "written by or *for* a specific performer".

Re: recordings of songs in musical theatre productions – covers or not?

If you mean like a self-cover (where a composer performs his/her own version of a song he/she wrote for someone else), then I'd still count that as a cover.

Re: recordings of songs in musical theatre productions – covers or not?

reosarevok wrote:

Hawke: that applies to most pop music, and yet people would call a Spice Girls cover a Spice Girls cover, or whatever...

Unless you mean "written by or *for* a specific performer".

Ah, true, yes.

Re: recordings of songs in musical theatre productions – covers or not?

HibiscusKazeneko wrote:

If you mean like a self-cover (where a composer performs his/her own version of a song he/she wrote for someone else), then I'd still count that as a cover.

That seems nonsensical to me: an artist cannot cover him/herself.

Re: recordings of songs in musical theatre productions – covers or not?

Hawke wrote:
HibiscusKazeneko wrote:

If you mean like a self-cover (where a composer performs his/her own version of a song he/she wrote for someone else), then I'd still count that as a cover.

That seems nonsensical to me: an artist cannot cover him/herself.

It's an actual term used in Japan. The logic is that the first person who performs the song is the original artist, and anyone else who follows (including the composer) is covering that song.

Re: recordings of songs in musical theatre productions – covers or not?

Hmm, do any composers write songs sight-unseen, that is without playing them for themselves to hear first? :-p

Re: recordings of songs in musical theatre productions – covers or not?

Hawke wrote:

Hmm, do any composers write songs sight-unseen, that is without playing them for themselves to hear first? :-p

Doubtful. Those preliminary performances usually aren't recorded (to my knowledge) and almost always occur behind closed doors. The first recording designation is usually reserved for the first commercially released performance of a work (either on a recorded medium or as a live performance).

Re: recordings of songs in musical theatre productions – covers or not?

thks for all the feedback. i'm also of the opinion that the "cover" attribute should be excluded from all musical cast production recordings (and i do mean strictly musical cast recordings) to bring them in line with classical /opera recordings. and this would include even jukebox musicals that may use previously recorded material, which i'll explain a little later*.

at the broader level (since this thread has digressed somewhat), where all contemporary music is also considered, @Torc (in an edit which prompted me to post this query) asked why we couldn't just attach an attribute to the first-known recording of a song instead of attaching a converse attribute to all the others (and it's a valid question when you think about it). wouldn't that be a lot less work, and clearer? because when you do the latter but do it incompletely, unintended ambiguity sets in because some covers will invariably be left unmarked. maybe we're just following industry/popular terminology, or maybe there's another good reason for it that's been explained before, but i'm just saying…

* so, say we deprecate the "cover" attribute. then we wouldn't have to consider, when a previously recorded song is re-used in a jukebox musical, whether or not that new recording is a cover, even when it is in turn included later still (either by the artist who performed it, or by others) in a separate non-soundtrack release. this allows us to avoid the dilemma that presents itself when the context of a recording changes with the nature of the album it is included in.

does that make sense?