I think tongue in cheek covers have there place.  To me, saying there's no 
point is like saying there's no place for humor in music, and I know JWH is 
not opposed to humor in music (e.g. "Goth Girl").

I like it when Barenaked Ladies break out a medley of crap current top 40 
hits during a show.  And I don't think a tongue in cheek cover is 
necessarily a pot shot at the original artist (The Squirrels "Oz on 45", 
Phyllis Diller "(I can't get no) Satisfaction").  I think that a tongue in 
cheek cover usually is a reaction to the overexposure of a song/artist, good 
or bad.

What annoys me are carbon copy covers. Now what's the point in that?

Damian

x----------------------------------------------x
The aspect of cover songs potentially being "tongue in cheek" reminds
me of an interview I heard on the radio with John Wesley Harding
(many years ago). He was in part referring to a tribute disc to the
Carpenters that was put out around that time ("If I were a Carpenter"
is that the name?). He felt it was likely largely a "tongue in cheek"
take at covers of their material. Which to quote him is making covers
of "for all the wrong reasons".  I tend to agree with him. If the
cover is a send off or a parody of the song then on same basic
level...what's the point?  Beyond taking a pot shot at an artist to
show how hip you are???
      In general I prefer JWH whom when I saw him live on one
occasion poked fun at Abba's attempt to take over the world with
their songs in various languages sweeping over the lands (had to be
there but hilarious).  However, he ended the show with a blistering
cover of Abba's "Name of the game". When he finished he walked off
rather emphatically stating "never underestimate a great song".  A
cool moment.
  Anyway, I know this isn't a black and white but just triggered this
mini-ramble.

Steve D