The song Mick Jagger believed should remain untouched: "What’s the point?"
(Credits: Far Out / YouTube Still)
December 18, 2025, 8:00 AM, UK
In recent times, the trend of artists producing cover versions of songs has noticeably declined. However, back in the vibrant decades of the 1950s and '60s, pop and rock musicians were frequently reimagining tracks that had previously graced the charts. This era saw a remarkable number of covers being recorded, which may seem surprising, especially since many people nostalgically assert that music from the past was superior.
It raises an interesting question: if the music of earlier generations was so exceptional, why did so many artists feel compelled to cover songs rather than focus on creating original compositions? While undoubtedly some artists sought to honor songs they viewed as masterpieces, one could argue that it would have been even more impressive to hear a greater number of original works instead of relying heavily on reinterpreting existing melodies.
Interestingly, this isn’t necessarily indicative of a decline in songwriting talent; rather, the cultural landscape has shifted to place greater value on originality. In contrast, it was not unusual for well-known musicians of the past to put their own spin on the songs of others.
Take The Beatles, for instance. All four of their initial albums included at least one cover, showcasing their unique interpretations of older songs. Although they eventually moved away from this practice after releasing "Help!", fans still cherished their renditions of tracks like Barrett Strong's "Money" and The Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman" from their earlier works.
Many other artists from this period fully embraced the cover song phenomenon, dedicating entire segments of their albums to these renditions. For them, including covers was a strategic way to streamline the album-making process. Why labor over crafting original material when you could enrich your album’s content with carefully chosen covers?
Despite this widespread acceptance of covers, not every artist shared the enthusiasm. Mick Jagger, the iconic frontman of The Rolling Stones, had his reservations about some of the songs they chose to cover. Their debut album, released in 1964, was packed with covers, with only one track, "Tell Me (You’re Coming Back)," credited to Jagger and Keith Richards, who would later become the band's primary songwriting team. The majority of the album featured blues and soul classics from legends like Chuck Berry, Marvin Gaye, and Willie Dixon, reflecting the band’s musical influences.
However, Jagger was not entirely on board with this approach. He pondered the value of covering a song that already had a stellar rendition. He famously questioned, “What’s the point in listening to us doing ‘I’m a King Bee’ when you can hear Slim Harpo do it?” This sentiment captures a significant point: if The Rolling Stones' version closely mirrored the original, with only a notable slide guitar solo from Brian Jones to differentiate it, one might wonder why listeners would choose to hear a cover when the original is readily available.
It’s worth noting, though, that without The Rolling Stones’ interpretation of "I’m A King Bee," many British audiences might never have encountered the song, as Slim Harpo was relatively unknown across the Atlantic. Yet, Jagger’s argument remains valid: when a fantastic original exists, the need for a near-identical cover seems questionable.
What do you think? Should artists focus more on originality, or are there merits to covering beloved classics? We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
