just pointed out Poets almost copied the song note-to-note, word-to-word.
do you disagree it could benefit greatly from more thoughtful reworking?
They pretty much had to do it like that. You are allowed to record a cover of a song only if you don't change the lyrics and arrangement too much. If you do, it's not a "cover" any more but something different (don't know what that term is in English), and then the whole thing is different from the perspective of copyright laws. You might end up paying something to the makers of the original, and of course that's not an option for a small indie band. That's at least how it works in Finland. I know they had some discussion about how much they can change the original.
Anyway. The point I was trying to make is that what you are hearing is not really a "Poets of the Fall's version of the song". That's not how they normally make music. What you hear is what happens when you throw all six of them in a room, roll the tape, and record whatever they are playing, with live instruments (of course they had done some arrangement work and practicing beforehand, but I'm exaggerating a little
Had they made the version in the studio, like they normally do, with almost unlimited time and all the wonders of technology at their disposal (and a permission from the copyright holders to change the song more than that), I'm sure the end result would have been much different.
(Besides, it's far from a note-to-note copy... the key is different for starters, the vocal melody is different in places, the whole C part and the song ending are totally different in arrangement and structure, many guitar riffs are new, and so on. But I understand these things can be discussed to the end of the world and are ultimately matters of opinion.
Admin, at the very least, could you correct the topic's title, it hurts to read with missing letter n, thanks in advance.