Cocker as Caliban, hearing the spirit voices singing……

I believe/like it because it is absurd. Yes, this recording is absurd. This is a song about acknowledging that one does not, indeed cannot, stand alone. This is completely and unambiguously convincing (not to mention) when sung with Ringo’s quavering baritone. But here we have Cocker’s big growling, grunting, menacing, even bullying voice that seems as if it would tear the song’s sentiments to shreds. If this is not absolutely absurd, it is surely at least incongruous.

And I like its sense of dialogue. Perhaps my opera background is creeping in here, but what clinches it more me is the section later in the performance where the volume drops and the female voices (including the fabulous Madeline Bell) ask “Would you believe in a love at first sight?”, he responds, with a slight hesitation, “I’m certain that it happens all the time, yeah,” as if this is a completely new idea–a contrast with the previous bluster. (The Beatles, on the other hand, treat this exchange in a very matter-of-fact way, as if there could be no other answer.) This moment comes close to unintentional camp–but not quite. I’m almost convinced it’s sincere–an assumption I rarely make.

I suppose what I like about it is that it strikes me as if it represents the bully, the bloke without the slightest finesse or subtelty, coming to realize that he isn’t self-sufficient after all. Somehow, this doesn’t seem like what was supposed to happen after the bravura of the opening.

I won’t say that’s necessarily an improvement over Ringo modestly acknowledging what is already quite apparent. I think the original point of the song what that it was custom-made for Ringo, whose voice bears no resemblance to Joe Cocker’s. (And, by the way, I am still quite fond of the Beatles’ version as well.)

I could, of course, be entirely wrong. And I daresay that those who disagree can offer reasonable suggestions to the contrary. We like what we like.

But one other thing that should be said in its favor is that it’s a CREATIVE cover version that doesn’t merely recapitulate what the original did. What’s the point in that? (And that’s the question that I have to ask about the NEXT Beatles cover, coming up soon.

Take a BAD song and make it better.

(if you can……………)

http://freakytrigger.co.uk/old-ft/nylpm/2004/08/how-to-do-a-cover-version/

The other thing I meant to say before in defence of the Cocker version is how fab the arrangement is. I mentioned the dynamic range in passing above (and far from the musiciams playing slovenly, as someone said, I hear every beat and pause as incredibly calculated). Not to mention the change from the clomp clomp 4/4 (or skippety skippety 12/8 if you prefer) of the original to waltz time; the Cocker version is not just slowed down. Some thought has gone into how to make it work as a slow dance.

*substitute “not very well thought through” for “complex” if you prefer. But I don’t think you can dismiss it as a ’silly song’, if by that is meant ‘tossed off’. There’s too much going on in it for that.

OK I shut up now.

Blount (2nd post) - OTM!

Mark - I will respond to this disgraceful slur in future reviews!!

i like this song (danica mckellar and julie condra possibly why), i like the switch-up between verses, i like the call-and-response of the original taken to its logical soul variant, i like the mock grandeur of those page guitar sweeps during the chorus (ie. ‘5′). this + plus jude - you can see the import and bloat seeping in and cresting over, rock’s a beached whale by this point and 1966 seems a long time ago.

Sigh. I guess you had to be there at the time to get the Cocker version.

Number one “live album ‘ever : ” Waiting For Columbus ” by Little Feat.

I did find it rather scary at age 7, but I think it has its plus points (or at least some features of interest).

While the song is remembered for its OTT-ness, the verses are actually rendered very softly with minimal backing. The way Cocker sings “What/ would you do-oo/ if I sang/ outa toon” and then holds back a bit before rushing the next line with an almost audible ’sorrowful shake of the head’ works for me: Cocker may be hamming it up, but it’s genuinely pathetic (as in generates a bit of sympathy). But actually he’s lulling you into a false sense of superiority. He’s stronger than you think. He gets by with the help of his friends. Just a little help, but together he and his friends are stronger than you, who is walking out on Joe and his out of toon voice.

The second verse also offers a different perspective to the original by virtue of having the backing singers sing the second and fourth lines. The focus is thus continuously on Cocker: does it worry YOU, Joe to be alone? “No no” he replies. Are YOU sad to be on your own, Joe? No, Joe gets by… (The way Ringo sings it, the message is more universal, communal)

It’s not necessarily a better take on the song. But, as I say, it is interesting for the way the meaning is twisted without changing the lyric as such. Jeff’s cover version Rule #1 (if you’re going to cover something, do something new with it) = tick.

A couple other points that work against it for me. First, the playing seems so sloppy. I’m sure all the musicians are talented, but their performances seem slovenly. Second, this might be THE song where it seems to me that popular music (read: white rock) became impossible to dance to, which I’m convinced is the moment when any particular genre begins to lose its hold on mass popularity. You can’t slow dance to this, you can’t fast dance - really, you can get very stoned, stand in one spot, and sway woozily back and forth. I seem to recall audience members doing in the movie of Woodstock, and it just never seemed like a good time to me.