• glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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?

        • corsicanguppy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          6 months ago

          wasn’t exactly a tortured artist

          You sure? Do you need to learn more?

          • glimse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • Brekky@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              I heard the song before knowing who Johnny cash was and loved his gravelly voice. Its a good cover imo.

        • theparadox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          6 months ago

          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

          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.

          • glimse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            6 months ago

            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?

            • Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      True, but like Watchtower by Hendrix, the covering artist to the original’s lunch money, and now that song is his.

    • g_the_b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      6 months ago

      I just can’t shake the feeling that the only way Johnny Cash COULD find any relevancy was to cover am edgy song. The Johnny Cash version just sounds like an old man trying to be cool, it’s really lame.