Sucking in the Seventies

[Mike Boom]

Its the vocals innit , the Stones never had those great Beatle harmonies and both Lennon and Macca were better singers than Jagger.

[BARON CORNY DOG]

The Beatles were also better players at that point.

[Rayge]

so what made the Fabs' covers so much better? 'Rock and Roll Music', 'You Really Got A Hold On Me', 'Boys', 'Anna' all beat the originals, to my ears.

Proof positive that your ears are wrong

[Sneelock]

Its the vocals innit , the Stones never had those great Beatle harmonies and both Lennon and Macca were better singers than Jagger.

oh, MAN, do I disagree even though I agree. no, the Stones didn't have those great Beatles harmonies. yeah, lennon & Mc were both better singers than Jagger. here's where I disagree... I think "Not Fade Away", "Around & Around", "Route 66" and maybe any other covers I can think of from those early days totally ROCK!!!!!

I love the Stones and those early covers are a strong part of what I love about them. Beatles were better players, better singers, bla bla bla. yeah, so what?
the Stones covers have something. it's not really balls. maybe the word I'm looking for is "enthusiasm". whatever it is -- it's for me.

[sloopjohnc]

Any time - at any stage of their career - Jagger is given room to stretch out vocally, it's a fucking disaster. That goes for covers and their own songs.

Would you include "Sympathy..." in this assessment?

I'm not a huge fan of that one. But there's a lot going on behind the vocal - rhythmically, especially. It seems to spur him on. And the words are important - he's got a lot to get out. So there's less mewling and meowing.

Something like 'Wild Horses', tho' - I can hardly listen.

The first song I think of in this vein is The Girl with Faraway Eyes. It's beyond parody.

[Matt Wilson]

I'm not even sure the Beatles were better musicians.

[Mike Boom]

Its the vocals innit , the Stones never had those great Beatle harmonies and both Lennon and Macca were better singers than Jagger.

oh, MAN, do I disagree even though I agree. no, the Stones didn't have those great Beatles harmonies. yeah, lennon & Mc were both better singers than Jagger. here's where I disagree... I think "Not Fade Away", "Around & Around", "Route 66" and maybe any other covers I can think of from those early days totally ROCK!!!!!

I love the Stones and those early covers are a strong part of what I love about them. Beatles were better players, better singers, bla bla bla. yeah, so what?
the Stones covers have something. it's not really balls. maybe the word I'm looking for is "enthusiasm". whatever it is -- it's for me.

I agree totally that the Stones had their own thing happening, for me that really started blossoming around 68 and while I'm not a huge fan of their cover versions the Stones certainly didn't die with Brian Jones.

Sticky Fingers
Exile on Mainstreet
Goats Head Soup
Its Only Rock n Roll
Black and Blue
Some Girls

is a pretty fantastic seventies in my book, I love those all those albums, including Jaggers vocals.

[Brickyard Jack]

so what made the Fabs' covers so much better?

I dunno. Personnel?

Arrangements.

[BARON CORNY DOG]

I'm not even sure the Beatles were better musicians.

They were in the early days.

[Brickyard Jack]

Would you include "Sympathy..." in this assessment?

I'm not a huge fan of that one. But there's a lot going on behind the vocal - rhythmically, especially. It seems to spur him on. And the words are important - he's got a lot to get out. So there's less mewling and meowing.

Something like 'Wild Horses', tho' - I can hardly listen.

The first song I think of in this vein is The Girl with Faraway Eyes. It's beyond parody.

It is a parody. And brilliant.

[Brickyard Jack]

so what made the Fabs' covers so much better? 'Rock and Roll Music', 'You Really Got A Hold On Me', 'Boys', 'Anna' all beat the originals, to my ears.

Certainly true of money and soldier of love

[Quaco]

Whether The Beatles or Stones were "better" players is hard to say, but The Beatles' covers were usually done with a lot of energy. The drumming on, for example, "Boys" and "Please Mr. Postman" is really strong. The Stones specialized in coolness and vibe and weren't about to break a sweat. Often it worked in their favor, but in general it didn't add to the covers.

The idea that Jagger was (almost) always worse when he had space to emote is interesting. I think it happens to all kinds of singers when they find their sound. They immediately start to copy themselves, to become a parody of themselves basically, and serve the song less. Thus, a song like "Rocks Off", which is challenging just to get through satisfactorily, Jagger carries of beautifully because he doesn't have time to ad lib things. But talking songs ("Far Away Eyes") and the like are weakened because there's less song to sing, and he has to make up stuff. Pete Townshend is a case where at one time, as primarily a songwriter, he had a voice that was faulty but pure, and carried so much emotion. Once he learned to be a lead singer (mid-'80s), his voice no longer carried those emotions.

[sloopjohnc]

I'm not a huge fan of that one. But there's a lot going on behind the vocal - rhythmically, especially. It seems to spur him on. And the words are important - he's got a lot to get out. So there's less mewling and meowing.

Something like 'Wild Horses', tho' - I can hardly listen.

The first song I think of in this vein is The Girl with Faraway Eyes. It's beyond parody.

It is a parody. And brilliant.

It's no Joanna Newsom.

[Bent Fabric]

All of this said, "I Wanna Be Your Man" (by either group - but, relevant to the original topic - by the Rolling Stones) is slammin'.

[naughty boy]

I was about to say something very similar.

[Jimbo]

I think "Not Fade Away", "Around & Around", "Route 66" and maybe any other covers I can think of from those early days totally ROCK!!!!!

I do too! They're so much fun. A party and a playlist of old Stones covers would tear the roof off!

[Bent Fabric]

I was about to say something very similar.

Also, credit where its due: