Cover vs. Original

Loverman


This is a example for a song, in which the cover version is a great improvement over the original. Metallica's version is one of my all-time favorite Metallica songs, whereas the original is a mediocre punk song.

- TomGaines, Landshut, Germany, 22.09.2005


Metallica
1998

vs.

Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds
1994

CD-Cover: Metallica - Garage, Inc. 49.7 % 50.3 % CD-Cover: Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds - Let Love In
Results of the voting: Cover versus Original
Click on the cover for listening Click on the cover for listening
Metallica 2137 Votes Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds

Comments about Loverman:

1 2 3 4 5
I think there are differences. Nick sings it more as a warning. James sings it more like "Yeah, there's a devil... Me." Nick's singing is more romantic as opposed to James, whose singing sounds more sexual to me. They're both really great, but this might have been obscured by my large crush on James. Just hearing him growl out those acronyms, you can practically feel his hot breath on your neck, and that's what got me hooked. This song is an amazing intro if you want to get into a great Alternative band, though. I highly recommend any Nick Cave song.
- Aki, Sunrise, United States, 24.01.2009
Only Nick Cave!!
- Julia, Sydney, Other - Europe, 23.11.2008
In my opinion both version are very good. But i prefer Nicks version, it`s much more coming from heart..it`s much more trustful..Nick is just unique song writer...
btw there is no option of my country:D SR
- jasmina, kosice, Czech Republic, 14.10.2008
I like Master Of Puppets as much as the next guy but if you vote for Metallica, you are an idiot. Truly.
- M8Km, Stow, England, 03.09.2008
"Mediocre punk song?" Are you asking for a smack in the mouth?

Metallica totally ruined this song, especially on the vocals.
- Liam, London, England, 11.05.2008
There's not much to choose between these two versions; it just comes down to personal taste and so I prefer Metallica's take on it.
- Giuseppe, Bucharest, Romania, 23.04.2008
I loved Metallica's version when I heard it. I only realized today that it is a cover version! And then I've heard the Nick Cave version over and over till it does sound much better. Like someone said, Metallica's version is more sinister, while Nick's is more seductive. It frightens you a little less.
- Honest, Calcutta, India, 30.03.2008
I like Metallica's version better. Nick Cave has this weird voice, and the song just lacks focus. But, with James Hetfield at the helm...he's got this snarl in his voice that makes it so much better than the original. Backed by Lars's pounding of the drums...Metallica's version is just so much better.
- , , United States, 03.03.2008
Both versions of this song are about a man who wants to love you like no one ever has, but he's so crazy and wicked he might just end up killing you, instead.
The difference? When Nick Cave sings it, you feel like it might be worth the risk.
My vote goes to the Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.
- QuinnEGorges, Mexico City, Mexico, 02.02.2008
Honestly, it's difficult to choose. I think that the various versions (three of which I'm aware to date) mainly serve to illustrate the durability of the song itself. Good on Nick Cave for writing it.

In particular, Cave's version feels dysphoric, out-of-focus, and dream-like (or nightmare-like), whereas the Metallica cover (typically for Metallica) has a quality of focused menace. I'll be the first to admit that James Hetfield's vocals are an acquired taste, one that I, incidentally, happen to have acquired. If a weapon was being held to my head, I'd say I prefer the Metallica cover, but it's purely a personal aesthetic choice.
- Mol, Atlanta, Georgia, United States, 13.01.2008
1 2 3 4 5
««« Top