this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
547 points (95.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
5402 readers
3854 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
- !whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
- !best_of_mastodon@sh.itjust.works
- !curatedtwitter@sh.itjust.works
- !curatedtumblr@sh.itjust.works
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.