I know! It's like I can't even walk down to that little cafe on the corner for an asagio whole wheat bagel and a caramel latte without love sucking me into an filthy alleyway, going all Fatal Attraction on me and just ripping my limbs off. posted by CynicalKnight at 8:29 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
because swans are real assholes.
I got bitten by a swan when I was a very small child. In Ireland. Legend had it they were magical. Ugly f***ing ducklings indeed. posted by philip-random at 8:31 AM on February 14
I went to a party recently where for 3 hours all they played was love will tear us apart covers, with no repetition. It wasn't very fun. But there was free whisky. posted by pmcp at 8:32 AM on February 14
My knee jerk reaction is because it's the "again" that makes the song both super depressing and yet jolly. Just as in Bruce Springsteen's "Drive All Night," when he offers to drive all night just to buy his baby some shoes ... again. posted by chavenet at 8:39 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
Compared to the covers, Joy Division's own version (the last link) sounds positively ... jaunty.
I think we've reached peak Love Will Tear Us Apart.
Anthropologists will study our culture in ten thousand years and determine we possessed only one song. And find that fact very weird. posted by Keith Talent at 8:59 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
I think the Beatles would have something to say about that claim as well. (Or at least John Elmes at The Independent would.)
Though "Love Will Tear Us Apart" is super depressing, it has, since about 1992, always filled me with a bit of joy because a 12" vinyl was a gift between a friend of mine in high school, so it's always made me smile a bit. So for a while, whenever I'd hear it play through college and beyond, I'd be the guy with a smile on his face when this would come on.
It's weird how songs -- or any media -- can somehow become separate from the original intention, especially when it's a commodity. Kids today aren't missing out on much but I do have to imagine that MP3s and playlists aren't the same as records you can hang on walls and mix tapes.
It's also weird right now because dude is a MeFite as well. posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:02 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
@neroli: I like the "Landslide" lead-in. posted by spaceboy86 at 9:03 AM on February 14
Ok, ok. I retract what I said about the most covered song ever. It was wrong, and I shouldn't have said it. posted by veedubya at 9:05 AM on February 14
Calexico. Unexpected. Kinda wish they'd gone more mariachi on it. posted by gompa at 9:17 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
I've really loved this song for 25 years or so, but most of these cover versions are just awful, I'm afraid. I think for me, an unusually high percentage of the song's strength comes from both Ian Curtis' hauntingly dispassionate voice, along with the production itself. The melody & lyrics just aren't enough to successfully carry over to a re-imagining, at least to my ears. posted by ShutterBun at 9:32 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
Covering this song well is tough. The original Joy Division recording has very spare harmonic content. Much of the song consists of that melody line with no chords. The bass always plays that melody riff. The synth, for the most part, copies the melody riff. Even when the synth changes up in the verses, it plays only a 1-5, never a third. The only other instrument is Ian Curtis' voice.
So when you sit down with your guitar to strum the tune, what do you play? Sure, you can find chords that don't clash, but you can't really copy what's there. And so most of the covers, even the New Order cover, end up with harmony that's different from the original. To my ear, it always sounds a little fake. Of course, it's always gives you a good excuse to listen to the original. posted by factory123 at 10:09 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
I don't get why anyone would want to cover this song when the original is so definitive. And it's not really the melody or harmonic structure that makes the song so good. posted by timsneezed at 10:39 AM on February 14
All these covers I listened seem to take the song out of character in their non-drabness. posted by Anything at 10:54 AM on February 14
New Order's version sounds like it's had the stuffing beat out of it. The only bonus is it isn't live ("C'mon!!").
Here's the Stanton Miranda version. Not necessarily the best version, but it's got some enthusiasm behind it. posted by panboi at 11:07 AM on February 14
Came for the post links, stayed for the comment links. posted by immlass at 11:41 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
A few weeks back I was surprised and delighted to learn that Depeche Mode's Dave Gahan covered the song for a Musicares benefit concert last year. It's a fairly unsurprising rendition, but it was pretty cool to see one of my favorite singers perform one of my favorite songs.
I have always been a Joy Division fan but this song has never done it for me. Having said that, it sounds way better from having heard the covers. posted by juiceCake at 1:37 PM on February 14
IIRC The Joy Division version of Ceremony is from a rehearsal tape, on account of Ian Curtis dropping dead, and probably not so great because of that. posted by Artw at 1:42 PM on February 14
I think that the secret to covering the song well is in the time between 'apart' and 'again'. the best ones sound more like this than English: "love will tear us apar… tagain." or at least that the people who think that that is how the two words should go together are more likely to do things with the rest of the song that sound right to me.
So now I've been thinking about it and, plate of beans in hand, realize that my teenage understanding of this song was wrong. It is not that this couple is being constantly torn apart, but that once they were apart, then brought together, and now love will tear them apart, again.
Spindle's right, the key to the song is the space between apart & again.
Also probably the key to everything... posted by chavenet at 2:50 PM on February 14
Thank you. I love this song. It's always made me want to be miserable, so that I could enjoy it more. posted by peagood at 6:00 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]
No no no no no no. NO!
Nothing even comes close to the original.
Please stop covering this. posted by popaopee at 1:17 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
« Older Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the Gregory Brothers and the... | Rhodri Marsden, journalist and... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by chavenet at 8:17 AM on February 14 [10 favorites]