Loving On Borrowed Time (original version)

soundog III

Tennalaga Class
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Location
New York
I'd long heard mutterings that this BIG fave of mine was a cover. Spent a bit of time googling the track & it turns out that sure enough that's the case. And surprisingly enough it's not bad at all, for what it is, that is...

Writing credits for both sides of the Half Pint Orlyn release reveal a certain L. Nestor was the composer. He evidently was in the Buckinghams for a bit, so this would make perfect sense. Wotta Guy !! 2 fantastic tracks, but what little info I found on Larry fails to mention Orphan Boy as one of his songs.

Anyway, here's links to a bit of background on Larry, and a Youtube spin of "Borrowed Time" by Phil Orsi & the Little Kings.

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Larry+Nestor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tO6hp1S0ms
 
I'd long heard mutterings that this BIG fave of mine was a cover. Spent a bit of time googling the track & it turns out that sure enough that's the case. And surprisingly enough it's not bad at all, for what it is, that is...

Writing credits for both sides of the Half Pint Orlyn release reveal a certain L. Nestor was the composer. He evidently was in the Buckinghams for a bit, so this would make perfect sense. Wotta Guy !! 2 fantastic tracks, but what little info I found on Larry fails to mention Orphan Boy as one of his songs.

Anyway, here's links to a bit of background on Larry, and a Youtube spin of "Borrowed Time" by Phil Orsi & the Little Kings.

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Larry Nestor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tO6hp1S0ms
Great cover. Not a remake (that's a movie term, Mike). Though I prefer Southern Soul, its mighty fine. Thanks for the posting.
 
Cover implies the song was released at the same time as the original. Remake means it was recorded after. At least that's how I've always understood the terms.
 
Cover implies the song was released at the same time as the original. Remake means it was recorded after. At least that's how I've always understood the terms.
A cover is just that, a song that is recorded/covered by another band or singer at a later date. Not the 1st version. A re-make would be a song that is re-made by the same artist. For instance:
Long Tall Sally originally done by Little Richard was later covered by the Beatles and many others.
 
Nope. Cover version is a version of a song released at the SAME TIME as the original.
People's misuse of the term over the years i s still incorrect.
If I record a version of "Why Do I Cry" next week with my band, we are doing a remake, not a cover.
That is the correct terminology. However, you are welcome to use it incorrectly. I"ll just think less of you ;)
 
Only records with covers can have cover versions. And there has to be at least two different versions of the cover, obviously. I think in the US they call them "sleeves". And if a "sleeve" falls apart and you glue it back together, it's a remake of a cover.
 
Only records with covers can have cover versions. And there has to be at least two different versions of the cover, obviously. I think in the US they call them "sleeves". And if a "sleeve" falls apart and you glue it back together, it's a remake of a cover.
weisenheimer:tiphat:
 
One of the more stimulating aspects of this forum is just how rarely anything is simply simple. In regards to the cover / remake contretemps I'll take a further liberty & interject my 2¢ to posit that, absent firm release date info on the Phil Orsi version, that we may have arrived at a bit of a bit of chicken / egg impasse.

Or, viewed another way, what is the cut-off point distinguishing a cover from a re-make? Seems to me a cover version would be one that follows a "hit" version. If a version hews closely to the original , and is released somewhat contemporaneously, yet invariably post the other version becoming a hit, I would imagine that would be a cover. If a version radically reworks the (original version of a) tune might that be more accurately characterized as a re-model?

With the consideration taken to mind that both the flip (Loving On Borrowed Time) & the top (Orphan Boy) are credited to the same composer might this prove an exception to this seemingly inscrutable ruling regarding what is which & when is one either or?

Might it be that Larry Nestor envisioned the song being performed in two quite distinct interpretations? And looked to double down on his chances of placing a hit on both the soul and rock popularity charts by offering it to both Half Pint & Phil Orsi?

I trust this seeming dilemma will be resolved, or at a minimum revisited once the formidable forum sleuth brain trust gets on the case...
 
The Phil Orsi version was also released in a slightly different mix as by The Velvet's on the NUMBER ONE label with a different flipside than on the WISE WORLD label release.

Also, Larry Nestor played on the recording of the Phil Orsi version if that is of any help.
 
I think Wikipedia has it right for the most part in this case. The meaning of the term "cover" has changed. In the '40s and '50s it meant rushing out a version of a hit song in an attempt to grab some market share. By the mid-'60s it meant mimicking the original performance, especially live.
 
A while back Benjamin Perry of the Renaissance wrote me a little story about the song "Borrowed Time". He said Larry Nestor wrote both sides and played piano on their first 45 (Toddlin Town label). They were working on a second 45 with Larry called “ Loving on borrowed time” in late 1966 when 3 of the four band members were drafted. The song was then given to Phil Orsi and the Little Kings who recorded it in a different tempo than we were working on.