Another aspect of this that has been hinted at but not discussed in detail is the technological aspect of this phenomenon. With all the I.T. and other tech-savvy people that frequent this forum, I figured I'd open that can of worms.
In the old day, to be in a band, you had to pick up an instrument and learn to play it. Or you had to be able to sing without the benefits of Autotune or other studio trickery. Charlatans like Britney Spears would have been realized immediately as having no true vocal talent. Granted, there were the occasional music industry creations like the Monkees, but even they could play instruments and sing.
Back in the day, if a band covered a tune, it generally did so by playing in it's own style and adding something to the tune. I'm thinking of Van Halen's covers (Dancing in the Street, Pretty Woman, etc) as a prime example.
Skip ahead to the present, or, say, 1995 - present, and anyone with a computer can sample a song, twist a couple of knobs, and say they've made a new single. Now, I have enjoyed some modern covers, but to me the vast majority of them seem artificial and trashy. I know that's a matter of taste, but I personally don't like that kind of "progress". The ease of sampling and the entitled attitude that many samplers take really chaps my a$$. There's too many people not giving credit, acting like they have the right to sample anything, regardless of copyright, and acting like they've really created something significant when 98% of the work was done by the original artist. At least when Van Halen played a cover, they called it a cover.
On the positive side, technology has made it easier than ever to create music, so there is at least the chance that more good music will be made. It's just hard for me to filter out the crap and find the good stuff.
