Thursday, April 16, 2009

Oh I Give Up, It's Another Goddamn Early Clue to the New Direction Already!

From 1965, here's The Beatles and their exquisite version of Buddy Holly's "Words of Love."



I am aware that some people are not as excited as I am about the forthcoming remastered CD versions of the original Brit Beatles albums, the first several of which will contain both the mono and the previously unreleased stereo mixes. For me, anyway, this is a major cultural event because it returns Beatles For Sale -- pound for pound, still the most beautiful rock album ever made, and the one from whence this song derives -- to its original multi-channel gorgeousness.

No larger point, just saying.

In any case, as always, a coveted PowerPop No-Prize will be awarded the first reader who gleans the clip's relevance to tomorrow's Weekend Listomania.

22 comments:

Gummo said...

Best post-Beatles cover songs?

And I read that the stereo and mono remasters would be SEPARATE box sets, and that's one of the reasons so many fans are upset.

Because the early albums could easily fit both versions on 1 CD.

And that some extras would be on one box and not the other.

All of which are legit reasons to be disappointed, I think.

steve simels said...

Not exactly, but you're in the ballpark.

But I think you're wrong about the reissues...I'm almost positive I heard that they're doing the project right. From MOJO, I believe.

Gummo said...

Oh, I hope you're right, the original CDs up to at least Hard Day's Night are so trebly and shrill as to be unlistenable.

dave™© said...

Best post-Beatles cover of a pre-Beatles song?

Best use of overdubs?

Anonymous said...

god are they cute !!!
bands that covered buddy holly songs

Brooklyn Girl said...

They were adorable. And Brian Epstein was a marketing genius.

Elroy said...

Best post-Beatles Brit cover of American artist hit?

Peter said...

Best posthumous rehabilitation? The Beatles established Buddy Holly in the rock pantheon for good and all after he (for all his genius) was well on his way to a place beside Freddy "Boom Boom" Cannon in the Who-He Hall of Fame. In 7th grade, when the Beatles first hit, I already knew who Chuck Berry was, and Fats Domino, and Little Richard, and Elvis, and Jerry Lee. But I had no idea Buddy Holly ever existed.

The Stones did a lot for Chuck Berry, and Dylan did a lot for Woody Guthrie, but they didn't rescue them as completely as the Beatles did Buddy Holly.

And I don't want to hear a word about Don McLean.

Brooklyn Girl said...

Oh, I hope you're right, the original CDs up to at least Hard Day's Night are so trebly and shrill as to be unlistenable.That's how music sounded back then ... it was mixed to be heard on a single-speaker car, desktop or transistor radio.

Only the most serious audiophiles (meaning: parents) had actual stereo equipment. The Beatles' audience didn't, unless you count those record players that folded up into a suitcase.

Gummo said...

That's how music sounded back then ... it was mixed to be heard on a single-speaker car, desktop or transistor radio.Exactly, so when we heard them back then, they weren't trebly and shrill.

But this wasn't taken into account when the CDs were first issued, so instead of doing even the most basic equalization on them, they just put'em out as is.

And it huuuurtttsss me, my precioussss.

(BTW, George Harrison had some very cutting things to say about the Beatles' CDs. He thought Sgt. Pepper sounded horrible, mixed all wrong.)

CovetedNOPrizeWinnerWithOakLeafCluster said...

Bands named after other bands, e.g., Beatles/Crickets?

steve simels said...

No, no, no, no no ad no.

Jeebus -- I sound like that Human Beinz song.
:-)

Incidentally, I think Peter's right about the Beatles making Buddy Holly hep again.

Although so did the Stones. "Not Fade Away," and all that.

Brooklyn Girl said...

But this wasn't taken into account when the CDs were first issued, so instead of doing even the most basic equalization on them, they just put'em out as is.You're right, they did sound really sucky. But I assumed they always sounded sucky and I had just forgotten ...

TMink said...

If this Beatles project is as good as the Monkees remixes, I will be a happy music lover!

Songs with grammer in the title? Words, sentence, etc.

Trey

TJWood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
steve simels said...

Okay, one last hint.

The covers thing is the clue. And what kind of covers????????

TJWood said...

Regarding the remasters, I checked it out and Gummo has it right. The stereo and mono versions are being released in separate box sets. The stereo (but not the mono) versions of each album, will be available individually. See BeatlesNews.com for details. For whatever reason, I'm not able to post the link.

Re: this week's clue. Cover versions that equal or surpass the originals?

steve simels said...

That Beatles news might be irksome.

But no to your guess...
:-)

TMink said...

I will just get the mono mixes. Those were the ones the lads spent the most time on. They took two weeks to mix SPLHCB in mono and flew away to let George do the stereo mix by himself.

And I have the stereo mixes on some nice Brit and Japanese vinyl.

Note for note covers?

Trey

steve simels said...

Nope.
:-)

Mister Pleasant said...

Covers that are better known than the original version?

I nearly agree with you about Beatles For Sale, though many reviewers over the years consider it a lesser effort than its predecessor. Frankly I enjoy the darker side of the Beatles and BFS has that in spades.

dSmith said...

Guy named John Gabree wrote a book called the "World of Rock" back in '68. In it he claims Buddy Holly as an influence on Dylan. There was even a rumor floating around in 65/66 that Dylan had been a guitarist for Buddy Holly.