Cover vs. Original

Handbags and Gladrags


While Rod Stewart's "original" was technically a cover itself (Mike D'Abo's original from a few years earlier), the Stereophonics win because... well, because they're not Rod Stewart.

- Matt, New York, United States, 18.10.2005


Stereophonics
2002

vs.

Rod Stewart
1969

CD-Cover: Stereophonics - Handbags and Gladrags 47.7 % 52.3 % CD-Cover: Rod Stewart - The Rod Stewart Album
Results of the voting: Cover versus Original
Click on the cover for listening Click on the cover for listening
Stereophonics 861 Votes Rod Stewart

Comments about Handbags and Gladrags:

1 2
Hey Ollie I beg to differ on originals always better than covers. This Flight Tonight. The Nazareth version as opposed to Joni Mitchells) is one of those songs that did better and was better than the original. Love Hurts (Also the Nazareth version as opposed to Roy Orbisons) Was also much better.
- Undertaker, Woodville, Canada, 08.09.2010
Yep, Rod in his prime had the best vocal out there for me. Kelly Jones has also got a brilliant voice and it was an obvious choice to cover this song as he shares the gravel voice that Rod owned. U could just as easily had Kelly singing Maggie May or You wear it well etc, picture it now, its an easy transition for KJ. On this song though, the original is more haunting for me and just shades it.
- Matt, London, England, 17.11.2008
It`s a shame people remember Rod for Sailin` and other atrocities.
Like has been said in earlier comments, the guy rocked with the Faces and on his first 4 albums.
As for the stereophonics: they added strings, more screams and more guitars but gained (in my opinion) nothing in conviction. They left nothing to the imagination of the listener which, in my book, is a serious weakness.

Rod wins this hands down!
- j beijst, nijmegen, Netherlands, 07.10.2008
stereophonics suck
and originals are always better than covers
- Ollie, Carlisle, England, 22.06.2008
stereophonics r my 2nd fave band & i av heard both versions and can easily say that the stereophonics version is much better.
- David Miller, London, England, 13.05.2008
As pointed out earlier the Rod Stewart version was not the original but an excellent interpretation and comes from a period when he was one of the finest artists around. Jes before you knock him go and listen to any of his Mercury albums from the late 60’s early 70’s, they are outstanding There was nothing wrong with Rod until he met Britt Ekland. For me the Stereophonics version is just a straight clone of Stewart's. If you are going to cover something add something to the song creatively. I think Stereophonics just hoped know one would realise where they nicked the arrangement from.
- Ian, London, England, 20.04.2008
The original version was actually by Chris Farlowe, written for him by Mike D'Abo who then featured later on Rod's effort. Rod Stewart's recording was better than the original but the version by the Stereophonics just shades it for me - slightly more melodic and bluesy in places but it's a close call.

For the record, Rod Stewart was a fabulous performer in the late 60s and 70s.
- Kevin, Hoddesdon, England, 02.04.2008
the new version is very good, but not different enough from Rod's original to earn my vote.
- DAN, Troy, MI, United States, 30.12.2007
how can you even compare rod and Stereophonics .. they are WORLS apart ..?????

- jes, NYC, United States, 25.11.2007
Sorry, but Chris Farlowe was the first to record the track
- Col, Cambridge, England, 16.10.2006
1 2
««« Top