Most of the music one listens to today is unoriginal. With the changing landscape of the music industry, and the struggle artists face to sound different, most of the music heard today draws from many previous songs. The most obvious forms of artists’ use of other songs are samples and covers. Samples use only parts of older songs, whether it is lyrical, musical, or the direct copy and paste of a sound bite from the song. Covers, on the other hand, rework the entirety of the song: keeping the same lyrics but usually changing the music behind them, recreating an entirely new sounding song. The difference between the two is obvious; however, the implications each bring can be cloudy. Samples are inherently less risky: taking only a section of a song and placing it within a larger piece of work comes with less scrutiny, and in some cases, requires more creativity. However, with covers, keeping the exact lyrics and changing the feeling and sound behind them often times leads to controversy and subsequently requires more thought. Songs like Drake’s “Nice for What” and Young Thug’s “High” effectively sample the brilliance of both Lauryn Hill and Elton John, bringing the best out of their work and making it sound unique. However, covers like Taylor Swift’s “September” not only makes a fun-loving song a tear-jerking one, but also brings with it some serious cultural connotations that leave many listeners feeling uncomfortable due to its racial implications. These examples affirm the notion that covers are riskier than samples, and as a listener or an artist, one must think critically towards a piece and ask if it truly honors the song used.
Drake’s “Nice for What” finds new meaning in a historically famous song by sampling its most recognizable hook with creativity and homage. Using Lauryn Hill’s acclaimed anthem “Ex-Factor,” Drake reworks her previously introspective and regretful tone and forms it into an empowering, upbeat dance song for everyone to get down to. “Nice for What” is “weightless, but pounding, and vitally participatory,” and finds joy where Lauryn Hill seemed to find little (Peters). The message of her song surrounds the internal struggle she faces with a man for whom she keeps falling but who does not treat her with respect. The song is relatable for many women who find themselves in situations where men take advantage of them, and the song highlights the feelings many of these women are left with. However, twenty years later, these sentiments should be mute. Drake has created a song that, put into today’s social context, is one that many women can play and feel empowered through.
By changing Lauryn Hill’s hook into a fast-paced, fun-loving anthem, he shows women that they should never feel dragged down by the men in their life but instead find joy within themselves. In the music video for “Nice for What,” “[Drake] assembled a plurality of Women Doing the Damn Thing,” showing famous women in pop culture, sports, and other areas dancing with confidence (Peters). Not only in the actual song, but in the portrayal of the music video is Drake making his point clear to women across the world. With the changing context surrounding women in society today, contrary to Lauryn Hill’s era, Drake’s song can also be seen as a lesson on social change: “you can peel back the feel-good vibes to reveal the circuitry underneath — how could something like this not play well in the thick of the #MeToo moment?” (Peters). Similarly to the #MeToo movement, Drake gives women a voice and a strength that previously may not have been found in much of the hip hop and rap heard today, where many songs patronize and disgrace women. With this sample, Drake changes the feeling behind Lauryn Hill’s words, transforming them into an inspiring and uplifting song for all women to hear and walk away feeling special. At a time where women may seem vulnerable due to the continuous discoveries of heinous acts of sexual assault, Drake shows them that finding power in their own voices can take them farther than ever. He, undoubtedly, created a song worthy of the praise it has already received.
On the other hand, Taylor Swift’s cover of the classic hit “September” fails to pay homage to and respect the greatness of Earth, Wind & Fire and creates a cultural conflict where there never should have been one. First off, Swift’s version of the groovy dance hit fails to make anyone feel energized. Like a classic Swift song, it dwells over a lost boy with whom Swift never made it with and “strip[s] the song of its iconic funk elements, its soul, [and] its rhythm.” (Craven). When previously this song made everyone, especially the black community, feel uplifted and ready to let loose, Swift turns it into a sad love song, inciting an opposite feeling in its listeners. Although there is nothing wrong with changing the meaning of a song, it becomes an issue when the original has a meaning for a group of people. She, for more reasons than one, does not possess the tools to recreate this song effectively: “Swift lacks the passion, the liveliness, the rhythm and, frankly, the soul to properly honor the song.” (Craven). Swift’s musical style does not meet the standards for what this song’s intention was, and covering a song to repurpose the entire meaning of it eventually can lead to larger issues.
Aside from the conflicting message the song offers, the creation and misuse of the cover caused many to feel angry and betrayed. Primarily because Swift is a white woman who is not apart of the black community that holds this song in such high esteem as a culturally inspiring anthem, she frankly does not have a place to be recreating it. The fact that “September” was used, altered, and profited off of by a white artist who made the song sound inherently white, raises issues surrounding the validity of Swift’s version: “A white person strips something of its blackness and packages it for a white audience. It’s as old as America.” (Craven). Swift lacks the firsthand understanding of the history of the black community and is coming from a perspective of privilege. Crossing racial and cultural lines that divide music, or any type of art form for that matter, can always lead to issues of appropriation and a lack of empathy. This is precisely why covers are so difficult to pull off. If the original works so well, why change the feeling and mood behind it, especially for an entirely new audience? It is almost like misquoting someone: if you want to sound uniquely original, use your own lyrics.
These two examples of contrasting results highlight a broader claim surrounding samples and covers: covers bring with them a larger cultural context that the artist must take into consideration. For example, although Drake in part changes the meaning of “Ex-Factor,” the fact he didn’t use the entirety of the song limits how many issues the artist or others can take up with the sample. He, however, changes the meaning in a positive and topical context. Other samples like Young Thug’s “High” and Kanye West’s “Blood on the Leaves” also honor the original artists’ work by placing their intentions within modern day sound. When it comes to covers, it is harder to clarify the intentions of the artist due to the fact it is the same exact song lyrically, and there is less room for new creativity: “‘respect’ and “authenticity” are a subset of a more general, and deeply problematic, conception of “intention,” and determining the intention underlying one artist’s recording of another is fraught with substantial philosophical difficulties.” (Mosser 12). It is hard to create something that is original and came from solely one’s own creativity, so when someone else uses it and completely changes the meaning of it, it is hard not to be critical. Covers like Britney Spears’ “I love Rock n’ Roll” and Justin Bieber’s “Let it be” also fail to respect the original hits from Joan Jett and the Blackhearts and The Beatles by not adding a clear new perspective with substance, but instead seem to be lazy one off shots at making an extra dollar. There is also something to be said about crossing genres. When covering or sampling a song in a completely different genre (i.e. what Taylor Swift does with “September”), there is even more room for scrutiny. Whether it is because of a social restriction or an obvious failure of creativity, society will always be quicker to attack covers for their lack of ingenuity. And although many covers work fine in today’s world, we must be careful moving forward as a society and as artists to always remember to strive to respect our past hits and artists: because it’s getting harder and harder by the day to create completely original work.
Works Cited
- Craven, Julia. “I Listened to Taylor Swift’s ‘September’ Cover so Y’all Wouldn’t Have to.” Huffington Post, 13 Apr. 2018, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/i-listened-to-taylor-swifts-september-cover-so-yall-wouldnt-have-to_us_5ad0ff15e4b016a07e9c4d82, Accessed 18 Mar. 2019.
- Peters, Micah. “Nice for What” Is Another Inevitable Victory for Drake.” 9 Apr. 2018, https://www.theringer.com/music/2018/4/9/17215998/nice-for-what-drake-single-video, Accessed 20 Mar. 2019
- Mosser, Kurt. “Cover Songs”: Ambiguity, Multivalence, Polysemy” Popular Musicology Online. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1023&context=phl_fac_pub, Accessed 20 Mar. 2019.
- Drake “Nice for What,” Vevo. 6 Apr. 2018. https://www.google.com/search?q=nice+for+what+music+video&oq=nice+for+what+mus&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i60l2j69i57j0l2.4500j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8, Accessed 19 Mar. 2019
- Swift, Taylor. “September,” Youtube. 14 Apr. 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnDnphYTb0Q, Accessed 24 Mar. 2019.
