Cover vs. Original

Sympathy for the Devil


Props go to the Stones for penning this, but Perry and band perform it with far deeper passion!

- Joe Cicman, Columbus, OH, United States, 05.02.2006


Jane's Addiction
1987

vs.

Rolling Stones
1968

CD-Cover: Jane's Addiction - Jane's Addiction [LIVE] 33.7 % 66.3 % CD-Cover: Rolling Stones - Beggar's Banquet
Results of the voting: Cover versus Original
Click on the cover for listening Click on the cover for listening
Jane's Addiction 812 Votes Rolling Stones

Comments about Sympathy for the Devil:

1 2
well well well, Anthony burgess would like to say,but its a question of taste and education,what version one likes best.
lyrics are outstanding, but beethoven might have writen the better tunes...

- Andreas , Liezen, Austria, 24.09.2010
well well well, Anthony burgess would like to say,but its a question of taste and education,what version one likes best.
lyrics are outstanding, but beethoven might have writen the better tunes...

- Andreas , Liezen, Austria, 24.09.2010
Easy. Anybody trying to cover a song should consider first: The original, does it suck, or is it an icon? You can make yourself ridiculous the fast way by screwing up an all time classic. The internet contains a lot of covers of this song and most of the are just useless. Ozzy Osbourne is one of the few who comes close, most others show they haven't got the musical talent, technique or fantasy to be worthwhile.
Anybody preferring JA should be looking for professional help and stay away from self prescribed medication.
- Peter, Delft, Netherlands, 30.12.2009
Jane's addiction version is far more powerful than the original one, and of course Perry Farrel transmits a deeper feeling than Jagger in any theme he sings.

- Xavier, Barcelona, Spain, 13.05.2009
Not even close. The stones sound too playful and distanced. Perry makes it creepy, passionate, and personal, like it should be. Bryan Ferry, G&R, is a bad copy of the stones' take.
- JO Joeyjoejoe, D.C, United States, 09.03.2009
Not even close. The stones sound too playful and distanced. Perry makes it creepy, passionate, and personal, like it should be. Bryan Ferry, G&R, is a bad copy of the stones' take.
- JO Joeyjoejoe, D.C, United States, 09.03.2009
there's no comparision. the stone's version is way way better.
- brian, pittsburgh, United States, 05.03.2009
The best version of S.F.T.D., was by Bryan Ferry from the album 'These foolish Things'; give it an ear!
- JP, Plymouth, England, 11.11.2008
Jane's Addiction were and always will be an infinitely more talented and geunuine musical force than Stones ever were or could be. Props to Mic and Keith for writing the tune, but my god their original version is such a stale, poppy, background noise recording (just like most of their stuff). Don't get me wrong, I respect them for what they were. Jane's version is an incomparable experience with excellent repeatability. No comparison.
- D. Winfield, Bay City, MI, United States, 11.09.2008
I love the Jane's cover. Of course on record it doesn't come close to the majesty of the Stones but this is a live version and only a genius like Farrell could pull it off. Imagine being in that audience and watching a band of teenage punks tearing into Sympathy with such ferocity!! This is what covers should be; a homage, a tribute, a testament to greatness. Ask Mick n Keef; I'm sure they're proud.
- Jub Jub, Lome, Other, 07.03.2008
1 2
««« Top