You're missing my point. I didn't say all covers sucked; in fact I wasn't even making a general statement about covers at all. I was saying that covers of classics bother me. Certain songs have achieved the status of "timeless" in my head, and no cover can possibly match the original recording. Maybe they're better quality, or better played, or better sung, but they don't evoke the same feeling of "timeless classic" and nostalgia that the original does. Which is as obvious as saying two completely different songs from two completely different groups don't produce the same emotions... they're different. Thus the comment about brass and gold. No matter how good the cover is, it won't be the original... which is the definition of "cover." If you like brass more than gold, that's up to you; I don't care.
Anyway, the only thing that bothers me about this one is the fact that it's just a cheap knockoff of the original. It's not as well-played, nor as well-sung, and it's clear that whoever did it was just trying to make a quick buck by riding on the laurels of something better.
Also, I don't see how liking the original more than a cover makes me a music snob. I don't even listen to the Beatles that often.
In other news, I really hate nullreference exceptions. GGGUUUUHHHHHH.