This might be a bit off track, but…

I saw the Stones on their first US tour – I think it was Summer of 64. My friends and I were all worked up about the concert, but we were disappointed. The lead-in groups were great. One of the groups – I think they were called the Tradewinds – had a hit single at the time. The drummer was Cubby from Mickey Mouse Club. They were terrific. But the Stones SUCKED! My point being, I can't imagine anyone would want to cover any of the crap the Stones ruined for all time on that first tour. 30 minutes performance time, and they SUCKED.

They got better after that – which is a good thing because we'd not be talking about them today if they hadn't. But for the record, in case I didn't mention it, in the summer 64 tour they SUCKED. I'm still disappointed. It's often very windy here. I suspect that is because the Stones sucked so bad, the air is still moving.

Guess I've made my point.

Jim and I were talking about this the other day. There are certain songs that I feel should never be covered. Of course there are two types of those songs:

a ) songs that are perfection as they are, nobody could do them justice, don't try

b ) songs that were so terrible that they shouldn't be covered because who the hell would ever want to hear them again

there's maybe a third category – one hit wonders – don't cover them, it's their only glory…but we'll leave those out.

What songs should never be covered for either reason above?

A few of mine category A:

Let It Be (Beatles)

Comfortably Numb (Floyd)

Stairway to Heaven (Zep)

Layla (original version – not the crappy cover he did later) (Clapton/Cream)

Hotel California (Eagles)

Foreplay/Long Time (Boston)

Bohemian Rhapsody (Queen)

Category B:

Anything with Max Headroom in it

Radio Gaga (Queen)

Don't Cry Out Loud (Melissa Manchester)

Babe (Styx)

Yours??

Layla was Derek & the Dominos, not to be anal-retentive (is the dash superfluous?).

How do you feel about artists who cover stuff live? Not necessarily an official release for the general public, because I see a couple of songs on your list A that i've heard covers of that were pretty good just for their uniqueness. I heard Zappa do BOTH an instrumental and vocal version of stairway to heaven as well as a breathtaking Whipping Post. I saw Eric Clapton on the Pros & cons of hitchhiking tour w/Roger Waters back in either '84 or '85 do a version of Comfortably Numb that would blow the cajones off a rhino at 30 paces. He replaced the "known" 2 Gilmour solos in that song w/2 slowhand ones that were AMAZING! I agree w/you about it's just wrong to try to polish turds and it's definitely touch and go w/some of the classic songs. My personal feeling is that it's a matter of taste to the listener. It's like "jamming". Some people just want the artist to get to the point and stop fooling around others like that extra touch on a great song. For instance, All along the watchtower. I love the hendrix version and the grateful dead's version but loathe Dave Matthews doing it. I'm a DMB fan but i hear that and want to stick my head in a bucket w'pirhanas after nicking myself shaving. Then you hear clever renditions of things people do like Frank Zappa doing a reggae version of Johnny Cash's Ring of Fire and it's like holy smokes!

Anything Pink Floyd shouldn't be covered.

I remember hearing Pearl Jam covering them

and it felt like sacrilege to me haha

some things are sacred /wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />

I've got them doing a cover of interstellar overdrive and it's not so bad. Naturally, i don't think musically pearl jam touches the big pink on floyd's field, but vocally eddie's more then up to the task.

it's not about "quality"

like I said, some things are just sacred to me and shouldn't be touched /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

of course anything from after Waters left is Fair Game in my book,

because that's not really Floyd anyway /wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />

can you tell i'm a Waters gal? haha

Funny you should say that as I've called Momentary Lapse of Reason, "Momentary Lapse of Royalties" for years. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy the cd/music but it's missing Waters' bite & sarcasm. Not too fond of Divison Bell. As far as Roger's output, he sort of lost me after Radio Kaos (last tour I saw him on as well 3rd & final time 2x for Pros & cons), Amused to Death did nothing for me at all not too crazy about it. I'm very picky about my Floyd too. I didn't like the Final Cut too much either, had it's moments, but LOOVED the technology they utilized in the mixing it was way cool. To me that was a Roger Waters solo release w/the others as side men.

Not to dwell, I had to cut this short because Monkette needed the pc. My final thoughts on that whole Gilmour as grouch routine was that for years Waters has been pulling off some very unpopular moves in regards to his bandmates and the fan base itself. Whether it's to stop touring completely, firing or disregarding bandmates, court wrangling etc. But I think the final straw was the court thing over the rights to the name of Pink Floyd. He gave them the right to use the name for a pittance because his ego told him that without him they'd fail. When they didn't fail but blew up instead, he started to act like the jilted girlfriend and became a real thorn in their side. Ultimately, if i'm not mistaken, while he didn't receive a piece of their studio revenues he got a chunk of the touring $$$ contributing nothing to the investment itself. So he gets the reward with none of the risk for something he hated doing. Now, I will say this, he DID deserve to get a piece as it's mostly his material they were using so fair is fair. But meanwhile, it was all his bombast that made it such a burden to do the live show when he was a member. If they only streamlined the operation it would be less of a drag. So it's a lot easier for him to be all smiles and wow why don't we do this more often etc etc.

and i was beginning to like you Monk /dry.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />

/laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> j/k

we'll have to agree to disagree on who was to blame. i'm completely loyal to Waters

and you're obviously a Gilmour man haha. i've fought this battle before with someone /cool.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> ,

i'm just going to let it go this time /biggrin.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

I think that whenever you have tremendous creativity mixed with ego, these thing are bound to happen. I am of an opinion that both Waters and Gilmour were essential to the sound and success of the band – much like Lennon and McCartney were to the Beatles. With the Beatles, you needed Lennon's angst and McCartney's sunshiny "Everything is puppy dogs and roses" to really come up with the body of work that they had.

The same goes for Floyd. When Gilmour and Waters split, neither was ever as good as the sum of their parts again. Waters' darkness is one of the things I love about Floyd. But I also love Gilmour's voice and a lot of the songs in which he was instrumental in writing. His guitar work was phenomenal and a huge part of the sound of classic Floyd. Never was Pink Floyd better than on Dark Side of the Moon, which was a writing collaboration by the whole band. Although Dark Side of the Moon isn't my favorite Pink Floyd album, I still love it and can totally see the musical genius that went into making it. Wish You Were Here – equal parts Gilmour and Watersb- was also brilliant. I actually like it better than Dark Side of the Moon, but that is another story for another day. I do believe, however, that they reached the height of their brilliance than with The Wall, which was mostly Waters.

I went to both Pros and Cons of Hitchiking and Radio K.A.O.S. concerts, as well as the Momentary Lapse of Reason concert. I found them all equally disappointing, though I did like K.A.O.S. the best of the three. Waters and Gilmour needed one another. Tragically for fans, they couldn't set aside their monumental egos. So much for "The Show Must Go On."

I agree, neither of them was as good alone as they were together. And it is too bad for us fans that they

couldn't have found a way to continue working together /sad.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />

That's fair enough. I guess I could be labeled as a Gilmour guy, BUT that's only for his musical prowess. He's sadly lacking lyrically, his solo material doesn't have the darker elements that's Roger's specialty. So again to reiterate what's been stated a few times, they just compliment each other so well that when seperated it's painfully obvious who does what and the final product is a little bland.

And like NoWhammies accurately points out massive egos are usually the bane of any successful long term artistic collaboration.

I think we've found a nice common ground Monk /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' />

We both agree that together Waters & Gilmour are far superior to

either of them apart. And I'll be willing to concede that there is probably

enough blame to go around in regards to the split /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' />

There a nice peace treaty has been brokered /biggrin.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />