Heartland

Hi @all.

I'm looking for the original version of "Under the gun" (it's called "two worlds apart", I think) by Bill Hughes & Roxanne Seeman for months now, but couldn't find it anywhere....
Has anybody a working dl - link or can mail it to me (520093913724-0001@t-online.de)?
I know, there's a topic about this already (I spent the whole last night reading this board *g*), but the links in it didn't work anymore and I also didn't want to push the old thread.
I'd really love to hear this version.

Greetings,
Mi.

You can find it through Soulseek easily enough. Keep an eye out next time I'm online!

anyone can explain it to me?

Lachert: Quite simply, Billie Hughes released a song called "Two Worlds Apart". It sounds like Under The Gun. It has the same lyrics for the most part, except the "goth rap" at the end. It's about an octave higher musically, and is a stonking song.

He released it quite a while before Under The Gun. Eldritch edited a few lyrics, got Terri Nunn to sing some stuff, and rapped a new ending. All in all, it's essentially a cover version, with some changes.

I have a 64kbps mp3. If anyone has a higher quality copy, PM me.

Until then, you can make your own minds up here:
Clicky

i didn´t know that "under the gun" is a cover of other soon!!!

thanks dark

Not a problem.

And it's not "advertised" as a cover, and Eldritch even said in an interview:

No, the word "coverversion" has a legal meaning. I've re-written the song, made it a little longer there and a little shorter there and I've given it a new end. The original was published ten years ago in Japan, but it's almost unknown.

So it seems basically a case of "Let's hope that since nobody really knows about it, nobody will say it's a cover"

If I recall it correctly, the original sounded very 80's-ballad-ish... but "Under The Gun" can't deny its origin.

Jan

CLT Two worlds apart, which is quite a nice track indeed. Sorry Uncle Eldo, you may rewritten and reinvented the song, still there's no denying UTG is a cover.
The drum pattern and the bass are very similar. There's also a "flute" synth sound that's very reminiscent of UTG.

As Eldritch wrote, legally it's not a cover version. As soon as one note is changed, it's a remix and therefore legally a completely different and a lot more complicated matter.

It's still the worst Sisters song of all time regardless of it's origins.

(ducks and waits for storm of protest)

Hom_Corleone wrote: (ducks and waits for storm of protest)

*applauds frenetically*

the term "goth rap" says it all.... ....

canon docre wrote:As Eldritch wrote, legally it's not a cover version. As soon as one note is changed, it's a remix and therefore legally a completely different and a lot more complicated matter.

Funny the things a man can do just to avoid paying royalties...
Otherwise, what's the point ? When Iggy Pop records Louie Louie and changes the lyrics completely (well, apart from the words "Louie Louie"), he still has to pay royalties to Richard Berry. Or so he says.

Badlander wrote:

canon docre wrote:As Eldritch wrote, legally it's not a cover version. As soon as one note is changed, it's a remix and therefore legally a completely different and a lot more complicated matter.

Funny the things a man can do just to avoid paying royalties...
Otherwise, what's the point ? When Iggy Pop records Louie Louie and changes the lyrics completely (well, apart from the words "Louie Louie"), he still has to pay royalties to Richard Berry. Or so he says.

you dont pay royalties for making a cover version you just dont earn any.

I'm sure I mentioned it elsewhere already, so sorry for repeating myself.
you make a cover version - all royalties go to the original author.
you make a remix - you need a permission from the original author to mess around with his song and for your effort you get a little share as co-author, because it is legally a new song.

Look on your Under the gun single. It should say: "written by: : Hughes, Seeman & Eldritch." *Correct?



* I cant look myself because....., yep, you guessed right I don't own it. See my post above.

canon docre wrote:

Hom_Corleone wrote: (ducks and waits for storm of protest)

*applauds frenetically*

the term "goth rap" says it all.... ....

Thanks Jess - Goth crap would be more appropriate.

canon docre wrote:you dont pay royalties for making a cover version you just dont earn any.

I'm sure I mentioned it elsewhere already, so sorry for repeating myself.
you make a cover version - all royalties go to the original author.
you make a remix - you need a permission from the original author to mess around with his song and for your effort you get a little share as co-author, because it is legally a new song.

Look on your Under the gun single. It should say: "written by: : Hughes, Seeman & Eldritch." *Correct?

but how many people bought sisters best of with one previously unrealized and the last at all realized new song and whos got more from it, andrew or bill?
you know cover versions attract people and when you've got nothing to say you put out a single with two practically the same remixes of cover and new version of one of your goldies, and then you don't need realized anything for 13 years

Hom_Corleone wrote:(ducks and waits for storm of protest)

Not even a bit. The rap is the only real redeeming feature, although I must say that I do find the live arrangement to be miles better, and even comparable in quality to the "new" stuff.

Funny really, I was just thinking about the "Dear Doktor" quote ("We'll try to ignore everything you put out in the last thirteen years.") - it currently only covers UTG, and pretty soon (sometime in August, I think) will cover precisely nothing.

canon docre wrote: Look on your Under the gun single. It should say: "written by: : Hughes, Seeman & Eldritch." *Correct?[/size]

Actually there's nothing on the single except "Produced by Hugues and Eldritch". Which for years led me to think it was an original song...

The official site sez : "This version © 1993. Words by Andrew Eldritch and Roxanne Seeman, Music by Billie Hughes."

Erm, sorry Herr Eldo, but I think you're being a little bit hypocritical here. Even if you're legally right.

How about Gimme shelter ? He did change the words "kiss" and "shot".

I'm pretty sure my copy says "Hughes/Seeman/Eldritch".

I don't think Von is quite the type to do a "Page/Plant" on stuff.

mh wrote: I don't think Von is quite the type to do a "Page/Plant" on stuff.

It's not that serious I guess, and he did it only once after all. Led Zep made a living out of it. Still... It is a cover in my book. Law's for lawyers (today's words of wisdom ) and I'm not one of them, not interested.

I only have the CD single. Is the 7" any different ? Different pressings ?

Strangely, I do quite like the song. Audio on CD is fine. Just watched the TOTP performance (live vocals) and Terri Nunn blows Eldo away. She just mouches about the stage and then belts out "are you living for love?"

If I wasn't a sisters fan, I would think "who is that female vocal?" Sad as well, as Andy had since stopped looking like a leather clad girl - in this he does look good as a man - but I think once again he missed the plot/timing/opportunity/whatever.

Coo, I never realised it was a "cover". I'll have to dig out the original. The TOTP performance looks really good to me (youtube it). Eldo at his most human (and possibly the most he's ever weighed?).

Now if you want a rubbish song I found and mp3 of 'You could be the one' online a while back. *That* must be the Sisters' lowest ebb.

Question: Has UTG ever been performed live?

bookish wrote:Question: Has UTG ever been performed live?

Yep, badly. clicky

You Could Be The One, as discussed before, is a great song. Under The Gun was a cover.. sorry, a REMAKE.. without even any new material on the flip side (Alice 93's alright, but it's still another remake. And don't get me started on the practically identical "mixes" of UTG)

Anyway, regarding earning royalties from covers.. well, I've spoken to the man involved, and we should have no problem with our next EP.. but then, we've never done proper contracts, as a band or a label.

Johnny M wrote:

bookish wrote:Question: Has UTG ever been performed live?

Yep, badly. clicky

You can't buy publicity like this

I believe the reason for Alice (1993) as a B-side is that there were tensions between and Warners and he couldn't be arsed to give them any real new material (say Come Together) and just banged out a couple of re-hashed numbers instead. Same goes for all the B-sides post More, they're all just bits and bobs that were already floating about.