Back in February, my Chicagoland counterpart, Kingsley Tang, wrote a great blog post that focused on the Leonard Cohen song “Hallelujah”. He also mentioned some of the greatest covers of that song. I noticed that he had excluded my favorite version, the one performed by John Cale. When I mentioned this to Kingsley, he said that Cale’s version never really did anything for him, but he was curious as to why I liked it so much (by the way, read his blog. It’s very well done).
Why is Cale's the best? Because the others weren’t covering Cohen…they were covering Cale.
Share |
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a huge Velvet Underground fan After listening to the solo projects of both Cale and Lou Reed, I quickly figured out that Cale was the true musical force behind the VU. I love Lou Reed, but he lost his fire after Berlin (1973). However, that’s not the reason why Cale's cover is my favorite.
By 1984, Leonard Cohen had abandoned his distinctive acoustic centric folk sound for a synthesized motif. The problem is that he didn’t change his folk style lyrics. So you have this weird blend of 80s pop music with Bleecher Street lyrics. Thus is the back story of “Hallelujah”. Cohen’s biblical lyrics over an aggressive bass line changed from studio version to multiple live performances. The song was potentially beautiful, but really a mess.
On the 1991 tribute album, I’m Your Fan, John Cale became the first to cover “Hallelujah”. Cale dropped the background choir and just played the piano. By playing the piano, the hypnotic melody of the song (which was hidden in Cohen’s version) is brought to the forefront. Cale didn’t re-write the song, but it was a noticeable change.
Cale’s vocals make you feel that the song really is a “Hallelujah!” Don’t get me wrong, I love Jeff Buckley’s version of the song, however he has more than a hint of pain in his voice. While it’s beautifully articulated, I just don’t feel that it fits the lyrics of the song.
Cale’s cover was the inspiration of Buckley’s version. If you listen to the guitar, Buckley focuses on the same melody that Cohen buried and Cale brought to life. Buckley also uses the same lyrics that John Cale selected from the 15 pages of original verse.
Basically, if John Cale didn’t cover this song, Buckley, Rufus Wainwright (whose version is identical to Cale’s) and the countless others probably wouldn’t have bothered.
Why is Cale's the best? Because the others weren’t covering Cohen…they were covering Cale.
Share |
2 comments:
Nicely put. I hadn't really thought about the way that Cohen downplays the melody in an almost Dylanesque way.
Most people who hear the original Cohen version with the choir from first knowing a later version really don't like it all that much.
Chances are if Cale didn't reinterpret this song it probably wouldn't be as popular as it is now. He broke down a barrier ala "Downtown Train" by Rod Stewart that creating a gateway to this song.
. . . man I feel like I could write a book about this song. . .
Do it...write the book. I would love to read it!
You made me work for this one. I really had to think about why this cover of the song moved me so.
I know that you already wrote about Stewart's cover of Downtown Train. Perhaps I need to write one about Waits' version...but there are so many other Waits songs I really want to write about first.
Post a Comment