Jump to content
Forum Look Announcement

Featured Replies

  • Author

Results

Hounds Of Love

[nominated by Michael*]

Original version by Kate Bush scored 6.6/10

Cover version by The Futureheads scored 5.3/10

Overall preference weighting goes to the ORIGINAL VERSION with 67.5% of the vote

87.5% of people preferred the original version

12.5% of people preferred the cover version

0% of people liked them equally

  • Author

Lithium

[nominated by donbot]

Original by Nirvana

Cover by The Polyphonic Spree

HOW TO VOTE:

1. Rate the original version objectively out of 10

2. Rate the cover version objectively out of 10

3. Distribute 5 points amongst the two, based on how much you prefer one version over the other

  • Author

Nirvana: 10

One of the best songs of the 90s :heart:

The Polyphonic Spree: 8

Well, it's almost sacrilege to cover Nirvana, but I just love the juxtaposition of this song with The Polyphonic Spree, and all the energy that bursts from their performances. They're such a fun band, and this song totally goes off live if you ever get the chance to see them :D

Original x 4

Cover x 1

Original - 10. :heart: Nirvana.

Cover - 5. I give them props for originality, and I have to admit, it's really not horrible, but... :/

Original x 5

Original x7

Cover x5

Original x4

Cover x1

Nirvana- 10. amazing song, amazing band,amazing everything.

The Polyphonic Spree- 6. His voice isn't raw enough for the song.

Original x 5

o.g. song -- 8

cover -- 7

the Spree Spring from a 90's band i loved far more than Nirvana, Tripping Daisy.they are godly, imo.

but the cover is merely disposable good fun while the original is obviously...well obvious.

o.g. 4

cover 1

Nirvana: 10
Polyphonic Spree: 7

The cover was a lot better than I expected, a pat on the collective back for trying to do something different with the song. The original however, was (and still is) one of my favourites of all time.

Original x4
Cover x1

Original: 10

Easily one of the best songs by Nirvana

Cover: 3

Well, they do something different with the song, and the results aren't bad...

But in general the version lacks the anger of the original, which I think it's an important element of the song.

Nirvana x5

Original - 10 :heart:

Cover - 1 DIAF!! blasphemous asshats! Absolutely dreadful! ^ waste of sperm and egg imho.... how do you even have the balls to one day say "Hey, I think I'm going to fuck with a classic".. Certain groups & songs should never be touched. The Cure, the Doors, Led Z and Nirvana to name just a few!

Original x 5

Original x8

Cover x4 :whistle:

Original x5

  • Author
Cover - 1 DIAF!! blasphemous asshats! Absolutely dreadful! ^ waste of sperm and egg imho.... how do you even have the balls to one day say "Hey, I think I'm going to fuck with a classic".. Certain groups & songs should never be touched. The Cure, the Doors, Led Z and Nirvana to name just a few!

I had a feeling that was coming :laugh:

Original: 6

Cover: 6

Original x2

Cover x3 I like it :ninja:

  • Author

Results

Lithium

[nominated by donbot]

Original version by Nirvana scored 8.9/10

Cover version by The Polyphonic Spree scored 5.1/10

Overall preference weighting goes to the ORIGINAL VERSION with 87.3% of the vote

90.9% of people preferred the original version

9.1% of people preferred the cover version

0% of people liked them equally

  • Author

Proud Mary

[nominated by Joe > Average]

Original by Creedence Clearwater Revival

Cover by Ike & Tina Turner

HOW TO VOTE:

1. Rate the original version objectively out of 10

2. Rate the cover version objectively out of 10

3. Distribute 5 points amongst the two, based on how much you prefer one version over the other

  • Author

Creedence: 8.5

:heart:

Ike & Tina: 5

Not really my thing, but an amazing voice

Original x 5

Original x9

Cover x8

Original x3

Cover x2

Creedence: 9

Ike & Tina: 8

Original x3

Cover x2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.