Cover songs better than the original

[Todd]

Iy’m sorryyy Iyyyy just don’t lyyke that kyyyynd of sqeakyyyy waiyyl (which is really had to parody in text ).

Dude, you really faceplanted that one.

The correct response to @Lorcan_Nagle was to post this:

[davidm]

sqeaky

Either you’ve never heard Kurt Cobain sing, or you’ve never heard a squeak

I might be using incorrect terminology. “Twang” might be the correct term, I don’t know. It seems that he has a really limited range and compensates by yodelling out random vowels to break up the monotony.

[davidm]

https://youtu.be/aWmkuH1k7uA

I wouldn’t want to embarrass Kurt Cobain by posting a performance that bad

[Lorcan_Nagle]

I might be using incorrect terminology. “Twang” might be the correct term, I don’t know. It seems that he has a really limited range and compensates by yodelling out random vowels to break up the monotony.

So you’ve never heard him sing, gotcha.

[davidm]

I’ve only heard him sing three songs that I can remember (and two of those only because I’ve heard them in the last 20 minutes). I stand by my statement in the context of those three songs only.

[Lorcan_Nagle]

Pretty sure you heard some other songs, based on the description you gave.

Or you’re hard of hearing, I dunno.

[davidm]

I’m pretty sure I’ve heard other songs too, I just can’t name them or hum them at the moment. I do like Smells Like Teen Spirit, it’s a nice composition and it works well with his limitations as a singer. I remember watching a Nirvana concert on TV 20-odd years ago (when all I knew was Teen Spirit, and expecting to like the band based on that) and being unimpressed.

[Lorcan_Nagle]

You just looked them up on Wiki.

[davidm]

Please. I’ll have no truck with these on-line so-called “encyclopedias”. If it’s not in my paper copy of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica it doesn’t exist.

[RonnieM]

Please. I’ll have no truck with these on-line so-called “encyclopedias”. If it’s not in my paper copy of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica it doesn’t exist.

Last printed in 2010 before going digital.

I assume yours is the 11th edition though so as not to be tainted by other worldviews.

[davidm]

Please. I’ll have no truck with these on-line so-called “encyclopedias”. If it’s not in my paper copy of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica it doesn’t exist.

Last printed in 2010 before going digital.

I didn’t know that!

I don’t have Britannica, it’s just on my wish list

[RonnieM]

My grandparents had a set of Encyclopedia Britannica from the 60’s (looks like most likely the “Revised 14th Edition”) that I used to read a lot as a kid. They were likely long outdated but in a pre-internet age were a great compact source of knowledge on a range of subjects. They gave them to my siblings and I. We eventually got rid of them as they were even further outdated by that time.

Edit: This one looks like them.

1962 Edition VTG Encyclopedia Britannica 1-23 Volume Complete Set Index & Atlas ...

[davidm]

I use a set of Everyman Encyclopaedia from 1954. Obviously it contains no current knowledge, but on everything that happened or existed before 1954, it’s fairly reliable. The Ottoman Empire looked the same to people in 1954 as it does to us now, the Tower of Piza leaned the same way in 1954 as it does now, the Indian Ocean was still, uh, next to India. Well, you get the idea. Yes some scientific notions have changed, and we look as some eras of history in a new light today, but the vast majority of human knowledge has not gone out of date - as long as you apply a bit of common sense when you read it.

[Todd]

My grandparents had a set of Encyclopedia Britannica from the 60’s (looks like most likely the “Revised 14th Edition”) that I used to read a lot as a kid. They were likely long outdated but in a pre-internet age were a great compact source of knowledge on a range of subjects. They gave them to my siblings and I. We eventually got rid of them as they were even further outdated by that time.

Growing up, my family had World Book.

[RonnieM]

I use a set of Everyman Encyclopaedia from 1954. Obviously it contains no current knowledge, but on everything that happened or existed before 1954, it’s fairly reliable. The Ottoman Empire looked the same to people in 1954 as it does to us now, the Tower of Piza leaned the same way in 1954 as it does now, the Indian Ocean was still, uh, next to India. Well, you get the idea. Yes some scientific notions have changed, and we look as some eras of history in a new light today, but the vast majority of human knowledge has not gone out of date - as long as you apply a bit of common sense when you read it.

You should read about the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica and the changes made from it to the 12th edition. It has almost a cult following.

[Todd]

I use a set of Everyman Encyclopaedia from 1954. Obviously it contains no current knowledge, but on everything that happened or existed before 1954, it’s fairly reliable. The Ottoman Empire looked the same to people in 1954 as it does to us now, the Tower of Piza leaned the same way in 1954 as it does now, the Indian Ocean was still, uh, next to India. Well, you get the idea. Yes some scientific notions have changed, and we look as some eras of history in a new light today, but the vast majority of human knowledge has not gone out of date - as long as you apply a bit of common sense when you read it.

The problem is the more we learn about history, the more we find that many things we thought we knew were wrong. Your set may not be as accurate as you would like it to be.

[davidm]

That’s why I said - common sense

[Lorcan_Nagle]

common sense

because that’s a thing

[PaulF]

Not better than the original, but worth a listen:

[Lorcan_Nagle]

Speaking of Bowie, idiosyncratic singers and a large ensemble of backing musicians