This one's for those of you who are as sick of Beatles covers as I am. Instead of others covering Beatles songs... let's hear The Beatles doing the covering for a change.
The interesting thing about all the performers featured today is that they're all considered legendary within their own genre. Often a cover is performed by little-known bands looking for a big boost by performing a song everyone knows, but these bands don't really need a boost. Although when these bands covered the song, they were actually not very well known, so maybe they did need the boost. It's all a bit silly really.

So, here's the first legend - Little Richard. My goodness, he's excellent isn't he? Songs like Tutti Frutti and Good Golly, Miss Molly are dubbed as classics for obvious reasons, but it's not just them that are great; all his work is absolutely fantastic. So what about today's song? It's Long Tall Sally, that chart-topping tune from 1956 that went on to be a rock 'n' roll standard. Little Richard's characteristic "screaming" vocals go perfectly with the bass-plucking piano-thumping backing music, conbining to create a cocktail of what is pure delight turned up to 11 at seven in the morning (although I only did that once). Seriously, this is really why people listen to rock 'n' roll isn't it? Little Richard's revolutionised a genre, and we love him for it.
Little Richard - Long Tall Sally (mp3, 3.7mb)

Next up on the "legends" list is highly popular and personal favourite 60s rock group The Kinks. Long Tall Sally was their first ever single, released way back in 1964. If I'm honest I think it was a bad choice for a debut single: firstly, The Beatles had covered it just months before, causing The Kinks' version to be overlooked. Secondly, I'm not really sure announcing yourself to the world with a cover is the best move - it just gives out the message that you can't write your own material. Obviously, The Kinks can write their own material, and extremely well, so they proved that claim wrong.
Their cover of Long Tall Sally isn't the best, really. It's a little down-tempo to the original, which doesn't necessarily ruin it, but as the tempo diminishes, so does the characteristic energy and style of the much-loved piece. The vocals sound a little half-hearted, besides the screams. Sure, there's a great harmonica solo, but it leads to what? A lazy return to the original chorus, which doesn't really seem to be leading anywhere. On the plus side, it's got some nice instrument playing, and the singing's all fine and in key, just... dull. No wonder this wasn't their breakthrough single.
The Kinks - Long Tall Sally (mp3, 2.1mb)

As mentioned before, The Beatles performed this song. I see no real point in saying that, as everyone thinks it's by them anyway. Damn Beatles.
There's an interesting story behind this cover. The Beatles actually played some shows with Little Richard, who in return gave them a few singing lessons. That's right, Paul McCartney's only so good because of Little Richard! Anyway, when The Beatles decided to cover Long Tall Sally, Paul actually sang it in G, as opposed to little Richard's F. Do the maths - G is a whole tone (yeah, tone. Using "step" is incorrect.) up from F. No doubt it's harder to sing in G than F, so why did Paul take the unnecessary strain when no one besides those with perfect pitch will notice anyway? Some believe it was to show Little Richard up, trying to prove he's a better singer than the old man. Others believe it's to display how well Little Richard taught them. I guess we'll never know...
The cover itself was highly successful, and rightly so. It's full of energy, impressive vocals, and most importantly, a piano (!), something The Kinks unfortunately overlooked. The guitar solo's pretty good too. While not technically difficult, it's still a nice piece of work. Overrall, it's a brilliant cover, thus furthermore proving that The Beatles can do no wrong.
The Beatles - Long Tall Sally (mp3, 1.2mb)
There's an interesting story behind this cover. The Beatles actually played some shows with Little Richard, who in return gave them a few singing lessons. That's right, Paul McCartney's only so good because of Little Richard! Anyway, when The Beatles decided to cover Long Tall Sally, Paul actually sang it in G, as opposed to little Richard's F. Do the maths - G is a whole tone (yeah, tone. Using "step" is incorrect.) up from F. No doubt it's harder to sing in G than F, so why did Paul take the unnecessary strain when no one besides those with perfect pitch will notice anyway? Some believe it was to show Little Richard up, trying to prove he's a better singer than the old man. Others believe it's to display how well Little Richard taught them. I guess we'll never know...
The cover itself was highly successful, and rightly so. It's full of energy, impressive vocals, and most importantly, a piano (!), something The Kinks unfortunately overlooked. The guitar solo's pretty good too. While not technically difficult, it's still a nice piece of work. Overrall, it's a brilliant cover, thus furthermore proving that The Beatles can do no wrong.
The Beatles - Long Tall Sally (mp3, 1.2mb)
Support
Little Richard -- The Kinks -- The Beatles
Buy
Little Richard (UK) (US) -- The Kinks (UK) (US) -- The Beatles (UK) (US)
Little Richard -- The Kinks -- The Beatles
Buy
Little Richard (UK) (US) -- The Kinks (UK) (US) -- The Beatles (UK) (US)



. I'd be happy to feature your band! Just write me a quick note saying what type of music you play, maybe a link to your website/MySpace, and include a link to a few downloadable songs if you can (submissions without samples are usually disregarded).

0 replies:
Post a Comment