Poll: Sound of Silence...Which Version is Better?

[happyninja42]

I like both versions, but to be honest, I'm kind of worn out on the original. I've heard it for like 30+ freaking years, all over the place. When I hear it, I don't actually hear it anymore. It's just sort of background noise at this point. The Disturbed version at least is arranged differently, has a different sound, and is a fresh take on the classic.

So since there is no "I like them the same" option, I will pick Disturbed. Not because it's really any better than the original? Just that the original is so ubiquitous, that I'm just tired of hearing it. Like Nirvana songs.

 

[Macgyvercas]

I generally dislike covers unless Lindsey Stirling is involved. Disturbed cover was no exception to that rule. I just feel the song needed the softer touch that S&G were able to give it (and I've never been a big fan of Disturbed to begin with).

 

[Suhi89]

I love the cover, but prefer the original.

There are very few covers I prefer, even when I like them. I prefer the NiN Hurt for example, even though the Cash version is awesome. The only exceptions that come to mind are All Along the Watchtower (Hendrix's, but I do like the Battlestar version too) and Hallelujah (Jeff Buckley's version).

 

[doggy go 7]

I'm going to be that guy and say the Original Original beats both.
So yeah, the only thing that can beat Simon and Garfunkle, is Simon and Garfunkle.

Genuinely, I came here thinking it was between the two Simon and garfunkle versions, and I completely agree that the original original is better; it's more stripped down, eerie and haunting.

No contest that either version kicks disturbed

 

[Queen Michael]

The original.

Not even a question.

My thoughts entirely. There's just no comparison.

 

[sageoftruth]

Both seem to be going for slightly different themes. I currently prefer the original, since I have no complaints about it whatsoever. With a few improvements, the Disturbed version might become more palatable for me and possibly able to stand on its own.

For instance, I was a bit put-off by how the Disturbed version had all that annoying lingering between words. Personally, I don't think I've ever seen that improve my listening experience in any music I've heard. It felt like he was waiting for the instruments to catch up with him. It would have been far more powerful if he just kept a steady tempo while the music kept pace with him. I assume it's done to create emphasis, but the instruments can handle that just fine without the singer slipping into William Shatner territory.

I also agree with some of the other posters that while dynamics are good for music, that level of shouting just doesn't work for a song like this. Once he started screaming, it seemed to clash with the tenderness of the music. If you want to get emotional in a piece like this, let the instruments do the heavy lifting while exercising more subtlety with the singing.

 

[RJ 17]

Well...at least I'm not alone in liking the cover more.

Don't get me wrong, the original is amazing and, as I stated in my OP, a truly timeless classic. I just like what Disturbed did with it. :3

 

[Silvanus]

The cover by Disturbed is surprisingly good, but it can't eclipse the Simon & Garfunkel classic.


SIMON & GARFUNKEL OBSESSIVE'S NOTE: the version on Sounds of Silence (the one linked in the OP) isn't actually the original exactly; it's the second incarnation. The first was on the first album, Wednesday Morning 3 A.M., and was notably much more stripped-down. The version on Sounds of Silence, among other differences, has a much more notable role for the guitar. EDIT: LegendaryGamer0 linked it above, I see.

About two years ago, I saw Paul Simon in Hyde Park. He was accompanied by Ladysmith Black Mambazo among other (brilliant) supporting artists for most of the set. At one point, they all headed off-stage, and the lights went off... then Simon returned, on his own, and delivered The Sound of Silence in the dark, no lights at all. It was absolutely beautiful. Stripped away all the production value for the simplicity and haunting, beautiful value of it.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Since VEVO doesn't allow to view that Simon and Garfunkel vid in my country(thaaanks) i'll have to go with...

Original Original

Yep.

On a side note though, what do you people think about this cover:

 

[visiblenoise]

Oh god, somebody used to play the Disturbed one at my usual pool hall every time I was there so I cannot stand it.

I also like the Nevermore one for being out-of-the-box.

 

[Leg End]

Since VEVO doesn't allow to view that Simon and Garfunkel vid in my country(thaaanks)

Try this?

On a side note though, what do you people think about this cover:

Honestly? I think I need to add it to the "Does nothing for the song and could easily be unrelated if not for the lyrics" pile. The Disturbed cover suffers from it heavily as well.

In my opinion, one of the only covers of a song that I felt like it did something with it was Five Finger Death Punch's rendition of Bad Company.
The original for comparison.

That being said, I still prefer the original because HHHNNNNNNNNG that's my shit right there. Also to others it may sound like my statement of the song doing nothing for the original, which I can see being done.

 

[Akytalusia]

oh. i thought this was about 4'33. i like that version. there's lots of covers for that one too.

 

[RJ 17]

Does nostalgia influence remakes as being inferior? It's possible, but in most cases I think the original has more soul and, well, originality. Remakes can often make some interesting changes though, which should generally be the point.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

Mm, hard to say, I like them both but they have different atmospheres to me so it's hard to choose one or the other.

That said, I kinda just came in here to share my personal favorite cover of Sound Of Silence.


Heavy bias from me since Welcome To Lunar Industries is my favorite movie score ever coming out of my favorite movie ever but I think these two work well together.

 

[gorfias]

So many covers of this fantastic cover! I just watched Simon and Garfunkle do it as very old men and it is still so good! Look to youtube: so many of them! Example! I like Disturbed better but, wow, so much out there! Among my all time favorite songs! (great strumming in this one at about 3:50)

 

[SmallHatLogan]

Not a fan of the cover, feels a bit too overblown and up its own arse.

a cynical cash grab.

Disturbed just did an overdone Hollywood version of it.

Kind of how I feel. My comparison was that I thought it sounded like something put together by a bunch of record company executives and given to one of the American Idol winners/runner ups for their one hit wonder.

 

[Chris Mosher]

S&G for sure. I have always found Disturbed to be an okay band but I could never justify paying for cd because their a little on the boring side imo. But hey without disturbed we would never have The Richard Cheese cover of Down With the Sickness and that's one hell of an awesome cover.

 

[Spider RedNight]

Well for starters, I prefer the acoustic version of Simon and Garfunkel's version.

Second of all, the Disturbed one is more within my range and doesn't require a duet to sing properly.

Both of those to say, I like both of 'em in their own right but I tend to lean more towards the Disturbed one - it's more "inspiring" music to draw to, I think.

 

[BreakfastMan]

The original, no question. The cover is intensely dull and generic, while the original feels like it has actual emotion behind it. And the harmony between the two really sounds a lot better than David Draiman's boring-ass, generic cleans. That opinion might be effected by the fact that I hate most Disturbed, but...

 

[Stewie Plisken]

Original original all the way.

But I will say I was impressed with Disturbed's version. I was expecting a mess when I first heard it and it's actually quite good for what it is.