Cover vs. Original

Sympathy For the Devil


Both good but Guns n' Roses has slash and is amazin guitar solo while keith richards isn't very outgoing in this track.
Both have annoying singers but gotta say that axl rose does better. And with the higher bass frequencies ,thanks to Duff with his high treble bass sounds, it also makes it sound fuller and more dynamic.

- Adrian Richards, New York, United States, 29.12.2005


Guns n' Roses
1994

vs.

The Rolling Stones
1968

CD-Cover: Guns n' Roses - Greatest Hits 56.4 % 43.6 % CD-Cover: The Rolling Stones - Beggars Banquet
Results of the voting: Cover versus Original
Click on the cover for listening Click on the cover for listening
Guns n' Roses 3383 Votes The Rolling Stones

Comments about Sympathy For the Devil:

1 2 3 4 5 6
Natalie Merchant never officially recorded this song, but she does a great version at her concerts.
- Mark, Boston, United States, 11.10.2007

How can you chose? They're both wonderful.

- Marco, BI, Italy, 25.08.2007
I HAVEN'T VOTED GUNS BUT ONLY CLICKED ON THE COVER; HOWEVER IS IT BETTER A COVER THAN AN ORIGINAL IDEA? THE MUSIC IS OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT IN THE EXPERIENCED SEASONS, AND IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THE PIECE IN THE FIRST FORM: OR THE NEW VERSION IS AN IMITATION OR IT IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING BECOME DIFFERENT. IT SHOULD BE BETTER TO ASK: WHAT DO YOU LIKE WITHOUT A REAL EVALUATION? IS IT BETTER AN ORIGINAL JAG OF 1968 OR A GOOD COPY OF 1994?
- GEORGE, ROME, Italy, 31.07.2007
The Stones rock it so much better!!!
- David, Berlin, Germany, 28.07.2007
axl & slash are better than mick & keith
- EDHELL, Hyo, Peru, 18.07.2007
While Slash is a better guitar player, I prefer Keith's solo because he isn't as good of a soloist. I love the sloppiness of it. It sounds like he's reaching, like a car trying to turn over. Slash's solo is so smooth. I think Keith's fits the song better and that tone is incredible.
- Blake, Houston, United States, 21.05.2007
As much as i love GNR and their version of this song i don't think anyone can do it as good as the stones have done
- Glenn, Colchester, England, 18.04.2007
Although I come from the 60ties generation and was a Stones fan, I must admit, the song from Guns and Roses: WOOOWWWWW. Love it much better. Also the guy is looking better *g*
- Honky Tonk woman, Zurich, Switzerland, 28.03.2007
There is such a thing called emotional delivery. There is something about Micks version that as he sings it you believe him. It's as if he's confessing. When You see the stones at their prime youth there is no question what R&R is!

Axel on the other hand sounds as if it's a holloween Stunt. When I listen to him I'm thinkng Vincent Price.

I just saw the concert Version on PBS. Lennon was there and to see him groovin to that song made me realize Music will never be as raw and true again, the artist have too many other vested intrest in everyhing else but music now days.

At the end they sang salt of the earth.
- Da Vincis Son, Riverside, United States, 12.03.2007
i personally have no preference to either, they're both great! bt seriously, some people need to realise that both these bands are awesome! people hu say either one sucks clearly have no experience in music. Also, despite being a keith fan, slash is by far the superior guitarist, no question, people making snide comments about slash should go away and learn to play guitar, properly! once you can play you can appreciate just how good the man is, of course, keith is also damn gd!
- Dave, Bury St. Edmunds, England, 24.02.2007
1 2 3 4 5 6
««« Top