<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on Starstruck, Baby</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:05:04 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Nigel E. Richardson</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/08/20/185411.php#comment-188</link>
<description>Well, part of the problem is that they&#039;re &quot;tribute&quot; albums. People used to just cover - or maybe interpret if they wanted to be fancy - other people&#039;s material as if it was the most natural thing in the world. Just about every mid 60s album, be it by the Sandpipers, the Music Machine or Love had a version of &quot;Hey Joe&quot;, &quot;Louie Louie&quot; or &quot;Tax Man&quot;. 

Most tribute albums carry with them too many conotations of homage, deference and sycophancy, bands wanting to make a big deal of their artistic relationship, spiritual kinship et al to whoever&#039;s this week&#039;s rock legend. And the interpretations are usually too safe, rarely taking a chance or challenging the original version, as if afraid that they might overshadow the original or tarnish its reputation. 

In fact, I&#039;d go as far as to say that some of the best tributes are those by bands who evidently have never heard the originals until they&#039;ve been asked to interpret them....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">188@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:05:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>