I just don’t get the appeal and have never figured out what his version brings to the table…he wasn’t exactly a tortured artist and the music video is half him looking sad at a piano, half archival footage of all the cool things he did in his life.
I feel like if Johnny Cash wasn’t The Man In Black, that recording would have stayed in the studio.
[Edit] I know he had struggles, that’s not what a tortured artist means. If you’re gonna reply at all, address my opinion on the quality. What does it add other than a self-aggrandizing Jesus comparison? Would the song have any recognition if not for the singer?
I’m not a huge Cash fan but dude had some rough times with addiction. Alcohol, amphetamines, barbiturates…
It likely cost him his first marriage and he struggled with it his entire life. The movie “Walk the Line”, about Cash, features his substance abuse quite prominently.
Throughout their marriage, June attempted to keep Cash off amphetamines, often taking his drugs and flushing them down the toilet. June remained with him even throughout his multiple admissions for rehabilitation treatment and decades of drug addiction.
Dude also died less than a year after filming the music video, shortly after his (second) wife, June.
Reznor and Cash both struggled with addiction and guilt for the damage their addiction caused to those they cared about.
I think the perspective is very valuable. When Trent wrote the song, he was still young. It gives time to atone, to grow, to do better. When Cash covered it, it was near the end of his life. He doesn’t have the luxury of time to make up for his shortcomings. It’s a lot more fatalistic.
To answer your second question, no. I don’t think it would be as big without his name attached. Johnny Cash was so big, so iconic, that of course anything attached to him would get more attention. And the fact that more people are familiar with his life story and why this song would resonate so deeply with him definitely helped to spread the cover as well.
To answer your unasked third question, personally I prefer the original. I do appreciate Cash’s cover though, and am glad he made it.
I was a big fan of his earlier stuff growing up and know all about him. He wasn’t a manic depressive and he received recognition immediately when he started his music career. Any struggles he had in his life are kind of undercut by the montage of cool shit in the music video. No reference to amphetamines or painkillers, just his long and storied career.
Context aside, he just doesn’t sound good in the song. He sounds like any old man singing…which is why I said nobody would be gushing over it if it were not him.
Unrelated but I hate his lyric change in Hurt almost as much as what Cee Lo did to Imagine.
I just don’t get the appeal and have never figured out what his version brings to the table…he wasn’t exactly a tortured artist and the music video is half him looking sad at a piano, half archival footage of all the cool things he did in his life.
I feel like if Johnny Cash wasn’t The Man In Black, that recording would have stayed in the studio.
[Edit] I know he had struggles, that’s not what a tortured artist means. If you’re gonna reply at all, address my opinion on the quality. What does it add other than a self-aggrandizing Jesus comparison? Would the song have any recognition if not for the singer?
I’m not a huge Cash fan but dude had some rough times with addiction. Alcohol, amphetamines, barbiturates…
It likely cost him his first marriage and he struggled with it his entire life. The movie “Walk the Line”, about Cash, features his substance abuse quite prominently.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Cash#Personal_life
Dude also died less than a year after filming the music video, shortly after his (second) wife, June.
Reznor and Cash both struggled with addiction and guilt for the damage their addiction caused to those they cared about.
So what does his cover bring to the table? And do you think it would be as big as it is without his name attached to it?
I think the perspective is very valuable. When Trent wrote the song, he was still young. It gives time to atone, to grow, to do better. When Cash covered it, it was near the end of his life. He doesn’t have the luxury of time to make up for his shortcomings. It’s a lot more fatalistic.
To answer your second question, no. I don’t think it would be as big without his name attached. Johnny Cash was so big, so iconic, that of course anything attached to him would get more attention. And the fact that more people are familiar with his life story and why this song would resonate so deeply with him definitely helped to spread the cover as well.
To answer your unasked third question, personally I prefer the original. I do appreciate Cash’s cover though, and am glad he made it.
You sure? Do you need to learn more?
To me that album was a man facing his mortality and impending death.
I was a big fan of his earlier stuff growing up and know all about him. He wasn’t a manic depressive and he received recognition immediately when he started his music career. Any struggles he had in his life are kind of undercut by the montage of cool shit in the music video. No reference to amphetamines or painkillers, just his long and storied career.
Context aside, he just doesn’t sound good in the song. He sounds like any old man singing…which is why I said nobody would be gushing over it if it were not him.
Unrelated but I hate his lyric change in Hurt almost as much as what Cee Lo did to Imagine.
I heard the song before knowing who Johnny cash was and loved his gravelly voice. Its a good cover imo.