An argument for covering songs perhaps? If there’s a song out there that appeals to you and you believe it’s got a message or story or conveyance of sone kind of feeling- that perhaps readers can benefit from then take that song and dissect what it means to you and cover the song not as a tribute but as a reinterpretation, or “Recomposition.”
What I mean by that is: if you cover a song, do not provide a carbon copy of it – instrumentally at least – use some different sound theme – vocally and structure chords, timing and BPM can either be slightly altered to fit your interpretation that is ideally protruding the same message but in a new way. Those last measures I personally like to keep same or close as possible to original as fans do not tend to covers that differ much! That’s not to say these covers won’t create fans of its own, however, when fans or people in general listen to the original which often happens upon discovery that something is a cover, it’s very beneficial if they like it, as it may increase exposure for both song versions and it’s never a bad thing to please the original artist.
The overall sound of the cover interpretation is what your feelings consequence of the listening to the original composition should be reflected in an expressive way. Music should always be expressive and doesn’t have to always be original.
Nothing really is original in the grand scheme. Artists steal for all – good artists to – covers aren’t what I’m referring to in the sense of major artists – they just don’t make it a big deal, and master the stolen art by molding it into their own design or music style.