The thing is, a cover can only "surpass" the original if the original sets the bar in the first place. You need that reference point to even know what surpassing means. And once you admit that, you're already admitting the original holds the structural power. What we remember is the handful of covers that actually work. That's survivorship bias, plain and simple. For every one cover that improves on a song, there are dozens that flatten it. It's a feedback loop too—the rare success gets amplified, so we think it happens often, but the noise of mediocre covers is the

How many times have we actually listened to a fan cover

But think about it, when was the last time you heard a cover that truly blew the original away, without already being familiar with the original song? I'd say it's rare. And that's because the original song sets the tone, the style, and the emotional resonance that the cover is trying to build upon. Take, for example, Jimi Hendrix's cover of "All Along the Watchtower" - it's often cited as a cover that surpasses the original, but doesn't it owe a lot of its power to Bob Dylan's original version? Without that foundation, the cover wouldn't have the same impact. And that's my point - the original song is what gives the cover its strength, not the other way around.