I find more energy in the original. “Energy” in a song resides in different ways. It is something you may look for in relation to when you started listening and how. A lot of music in the past 50 years has come on as loud or fast or mean etc as possible. And people grow up with it. It’s a truism, but the slowest, softest song can have the most “energy”
No crime not to to feel something.
But, if you were to tell someone: “OK I want to remake this song with up to date studio musicians, and get Ray Charles to sing it” you would get exactly Joe’s version. If you love Joe and haven’t listened to Ray, like why? He stuck with the Ray template for his whole career. Can be great, but Ringo with his friends was unique.
Ah, now I see it. I don’t count simple songs against the Beatles at all. I think it is harder to write a great simple song than a knotty one. Those songs were absolutely great, and they zoomed to No. 1 for good reasons. They are just different from what Dylan wrote - not worse or better.
And I’d hardly call Hard Rain simple or lacking in symbolism. Musically very traditional, structurally very traditional, but very modern in content.
Then there is the brilliant Talkin WW III Blues, the best sf song ever. Simple or not? I’m not sure. Simple talkin’ blues style, but it demolishes every after the war cliche in just a few lines each, and then perfectly summarizes the fear and uncertainty of those of us who had just lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Like I said, Don’t Think Twice was way nasty. If you mean Dylan being personally nasty, I can see it. Listen to his stage talk at the 1964 Carnegie Hall Concert official bootleg versus the 1966 “Royal Albert Hall” one.
My thesis: Dylan and the Beatles came from very different musical traditions, and one could not have written the music of the other in the early days. By 1966 they influenced each other, so you see a lot more similarity in their work. So we are all richer for the diversity in their backgrounds and the even better stuff that came from their mutual influence.
That’s a great point. When I listen to songs from Sgt. Peppers on shuffle on my phone, I find that you lose a lot from them being pulled out of context. Not so much for the more standalone inner songs, but definitely for this one.
I wonder if there is a difference between those who listened to Sgt. Pepper and the song long before the Cocker version.
Well lets see if I can sum up my thoughts:
I think they came from almost identical musical traditions.
Dylan listened to folk,(Burl Ives as a child) country, and radio hits, maybe black stations at night etc. was galvanized by Rock and Roll as a teen, idolized Buddy Holly, Who he saw play) Elvis and imitated his great hero Little Richard. Played semi pro folkie during the boom Kingston Trio time, and threw in his lot with folk, because rock and roll got too lame and the possibility of success too remote, became a poet genius etc.
Lennon heard all this as a kid too. Maybe had less access to Blues, but he did say that Liverpool was a Country western city, due to the sailors and international influences, and then was galvanized by rock and roll, and idolized Buddy Holly, Elvis and Little Richard. Not only did McCartney see Buddy Holly live, he also idolized and imitated Little Richard (that’s why he was called Boogaloo). Lennon started a skiffle (folk) group (which was folk for people who couldn’t play yet) and probably thought that Rock and Roll was impossible for someone in his position to do. As time went on it became possible.
The differences between these artists seem those of opportunity, and cultural environment, and not music.
Dylan lived in the US during the folk boom and was a dropout drifter from a middle class family, who had big dreams and saw that as his way forward. he had a whole set of cities and campuses to visit and couches to stay on, and he was a loner.
The Beatles were from England which had a whole other set of frames to look out. What class am I? How do I make a living?
The differences: The Beatles were scrupulously original in their songs, musically. maybe because of McCartneys musical background, and perfectionism, but also due to their talent. Dylan was a magpie musically, he stole from everyone. Hard Rain is an old folk song, the talking blues is literally “old as the hills”. I could go on for pages. He could not hold the Beatles socks musically. It’s the truth. That’s why they blew him away.
You are right about the words though of course. WW#, Hard Rain, etc ad infinitum. He’s a great poet. But you said music, and he borrowed most of his music, adding his soul to it. Very complex mind, from day 1, but his music was no problem for the Beatles. They were blown away by his words.
BTW i have collected interviews Dylan did between 62 and 66 (Playboy, Cynthia Gooding, Studs Terkel etc.) Each year he needs the interview less, and gets meaner and more intolerant. It’s like watching Jack Nicholson change into the wolf. But don’t you think you’re overstating it to call Don’t think twice “nasty”? Seems more bittersweet, resolute.
I was 13 when the Beatles played on Ed Sullivan, the perfect age to grow up with them. I’ve said a million times here that no other band touches the Beatles overall. Too young for Dylan, though, so I had to find him when I was older, and then be amazed and awed at his achievements before the motorcycle took him away, the one set of American rock that can be called genius.
So please listen when I tell you, drad dog, that you’re wrong about many things. Mostly, though, you’re wrong about their influences being “almost identical.”
They did both incorporate a range of music, true. That range made them stand out over almost everybody else, especially the many blues purists who started so many bands who later got famous as rockers. That’s a glittering roster of my favorites, but Paul and John towered over them because they loved so many more different types of music. Music hall, and skiffle, and Broadway, and standards. Country and western, folk, celtic, trad jazz. And of course blues and r&b and rock ‘n’ roll. Their stay in Hamburg gave them exposure to European influences, including sound sculptors like Stockhausen and Cage. They simply had a wider net than anyone else in rock. Maybe ever.
Dylan was certainly a magpie of similar inclinations. He went far deeper into Americana, and had the same background in black music traditions. But he didn’t incorporate as many types into his music, which, as you say, never matched the Beatles either melodically or rhythmically. He didn’t need to: his lyrics, his attitude, and his sheer intensity were more important than the sonics. Nor did he have a George Martin who could contribute a dozen more genres in his accompaniments.
Sgt. Pepper’s is not of a piece. Paul had the idea for a concept album, nobody else cared, and they just gathered all the disparate songs they happened to write at that time. Of a piece? “Within You Without You” and “A Day in the Life”? Remember that “Penny Lane” and Strawberry Fields Forever" were intended for the album. Revolver and Rubber Soul might be said to be of a piece; Sgt. Pepper’s is all over the place. Maybe it’s better for that, but it’s the most important thing to be said about it.
And “With a Little Help From My Friends” is not a great song. It wasn’t then; it isn’t now. Cocker’s version of it is different but that doesn’t make a difference. I vote neither.
Exactly the line I was thinking of. He lived with this woman. They were lovers. And all he can say is that she wasted his time? And that “goodbye is too good a word”?
I’m not going to quote drad dog’s post here, since it is just above.
I read the book of interviews also. Dylan by 65 hated being called a protest singer.
In the '64 concert, people were calling out requests, and someone called out “Mary Had a Little Lamb.” Dylan said “Is that a protest song?” Just look at the famous press conference sequence in Don’t Look Back. The Beatles, who were a lot more in the public eye, had their “nice boy” image to maintain - unlike the Stones.
Look at the covers they did early on. Dylan did old blues and folk. The Beatles did rock, show tunes, and country and western (for Ringo.) Sure they all got exposed to a lot more than they used, but I’m having a hard time seeing a country and western influence on Dylan, until much later. After Blonde on Blonde is was in a lot of his songs.
Absolutely agree about Dylan being a magpie. That was folkies did. He seems to still be doing it today. But if we’re talking about influences, as I said Dylan himself cited Threepenny Opera and Weill and Brecht. Not much of that in the Beatles.
They both did get influenced by rock, true. But rock in 1962 was not an obvious career choice. It was increasingly shlocky, it was written in Tin Pan Alley, not somewhere out in the United States (though Carole King did good stuff) and it was being dominated by no-talent children of celebrities.
Dylan abandoned it for folk, the Beatles revolutionized it.
Background is interesting. The Beatles never diminished their background. But you’ll know from the book of interviews that Dylan pretty much made up his.
Theres a tape of Dylan in high school going on about his hero Johnny cash. He’s filmed playing long black veil in 1964 in Don’t Look Back. If you don’t hear country in dylans folk and blues, well I do. He has been candid about musical influences before, and i believe what he said then. It wasn’t all a put on.
Are you saying Dylan was playing show tunes or the Beatles? I can’t keep track. Threepenny opera was a show. You heard Kurt Weill in Dylan? Where? You know that Chronicles is not very historically trustworthy either?
Dylan was known to steal a guys discovery or arrangement, just when they were going to record it themselves, or even their record collection. He did have great music in him too.
As far as Dont think twice. you guys are thin skinned. He’s a young guy who got left protecting his ego and being very clever, freewheelin’. If that’s nasty what happens when the S really hits the fan? You must’ve not been there when he kicked phil ochs out of his car for not liking his latest single.
No, I wasn’t there, and Dylan in fact sung nastier lines (“You’re an idiot babe, it’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe”) and did nastier things, but if I was told this after a serious relationship, it would certainly be a heavy blow, and I call that nasty.
The only place I disagree with you at all is on Sgt Pepper.
I hear it as a piece, way more than Rubber Soul, or Revolver (!?). I think that practically the whole world did too. I trust the art and not the artist. It’s all about loneliness, and public celebration and it has cohesion, and meaning, not a story line, which is actually better, IMO. It was a peak for their partnership even though the songs were not as good as Revolver etc. Some of the great moments in 20th century music on there. WALHFMF had swing, melody. Can’t be bested by a Ray Charles imitation in constant orgasmic stoptime. I’ll listen to Joe doing an original song by him.
By the way that wide musical net came from McCartney most of the time, because of his musical background in “show tunes” or “Music Hall” Those things cant’ be separated out. McCartney was the one who suggested the loops in Tomorrow Never Knows.
Joe Cocker’s cover of that song is one of the best covers ever, not just a remake but a transformation of the song.
I always felt the Beatles’ version sounded incomplete on its own, and wouldn’t work as a single. It makes much more sense as the second act of the introductory number. I almost visualize Ringo, lingering on stage after a thunderous concert, feeling alone after the show is over and the crowd is gone.