Teasing the Korean Posted January 24, 2011 Report Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) Michelle... Here There and Everywhere... And of course... The Fool on the Hill. Whenever Singers Unlimited did a Beatles tune, it always BLEW AWAY the Beatles' own version. That's it, we just finished fondue for dinner and we're going to watch either Purple Noon or Girl on a Motorcycle. Have a good week! - Your beloved TTK. Edited January 24, 2011 by Teasing the Korean Quote
Bright Moments Posted January 24, 2011 Report Posted January 24, 2011 really. . . . . but you have a good week too! Quote
danasgoodstuff Posted January 24, 2011 Report Posted January 24, 2011 I should join in the wpirit of this thread and start one entitled "The MGs do everyone better than anyone", but then I always prefered casting to trolling. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted January 24, 2011 Report Posted January 24, 2011 Yeeeesh! Now, if he'd said Sergio Mendes and Brasil '66... Quote
Teasing the Korean Posted January 24, 2011 Author Report Posted January 24, 2011 Yeeeesh! Now, if he'd said Sergio Mendes and Brasil '66... I did, a few weeks ago. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted January 24, 2011 Report Posted January 24, 2011 Sorry I missed it...Mas Que Nada is on right now. Quote
Teasing the Korean Posted January 24, 2011 Author Report Posted January 24, 2011 Sorry I missed it...Mas Que Nada is on right now. Here you go: Quote
GA Russell Posted January 24, 2011 Report Posted January 24, 2011 I have only one Singers Unlimited album, A Capela, which includes Michelle and Here, There and Everywhere; and for those two songs I would have to agree! Quote
JETman Posted January 24, 2011 Report Posted January 24, 2011 We get that you dislike the Beatles! Move on already. Quote
Bright Moments Posted January 24, 2011 Report Posted January 24, 2011 We get that you dislike the Beatles! Move on already. Quote
Quincy Posted January 24, 2011 Report Posted January 24, 2011 Might as well skip ahead to the next "better than the Beatles" entry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhYBDCXkTyE Quote
Teasing the Korean Posted January 24, 2011 Author Report Posted January 24, 2011 Incidentally, we wound up watching "Girl on a Motorcycle," which we hadn't seen in a while. Quote
crisp Posted January 24, 2011 Report Posted January 24, 2011 Michelle... Here There and Everywhere... And of course... The Fool on the Hill. Whenever Singers Unlimited did a Beatles tune, it always BLEW AWAY the Beatles' own version. Actually, you may be right. These are all McCartney songs and he tends to lean on the wistful little-boy-lost sentiment when he sings his own ballads. Gene Puerling's arrangements dig much deeper. But it's not a competition. We have both versions. Quote
Dave James Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 I am not, nor do I intend to become familiar with The Singers Unlimited. After sampling some of their music on iTunes, I thought for sure I was listening to the group that backed up Shelley Fabares on Johnny Angel. Different strokes for different folks, but I'm not sure how anyone can think these are better than the Beatles' originals. Quote
Brad Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 No comparison. When I listen to them, I'm somewhat reminded of Muzak or Lawrence Welk. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but these versions don't flatter the original. Quote
mikelz777 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 Having listened to the various samples of the songs mentioned here and another thread, I'm going with: Beatles > Brasil "66 > Singers Unlimited (">" = "greater than" with a pretty wide chasm between the Beatles and Brasil '66) Brasil "66 was kind of interesting and the Singers Unlimited much less so. Neither are really my bag. The Jazz Crusaders/Crusaders did some nice Beatles covers. I actually enjoy those covers but still wouldn't say that they're greater than the Beatles version. Just off the top of my head, I think Joe Cocker's version of "With A Little Help From My Friends" is the equal of the Beatle's version. Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 I love the harmonies and strange chord changes in the Singers Unlimited. They do some lovely Beatles arrangements but don't replace the Beatles versions for me. Don't give a bugger about who's the best. Quote
JETman Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 I love the harmonies and strange chord changes in the Singers Unlimited. They do some lovely Beatles arrangements but don't replace the Beatles versions for me. Don't give a bugger about who's the best. He's just yanking chains and trying to stir up some controversy with his fetishist musical tastes. Methinks it makes him feel unique, evolved and cool all rolled up into one. Quote
GA Russell Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 JETman, I don't know about evolved, but some of us think that TTK is indeed unique and cool! Quote
JETman Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 JETman, I don't know about evolved, but some of us think that TTK is indeed unique and cool! Really? Please enlighten me. Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) I'm just sticking up for the Singers Unlimited. From a different world to hipster jazzdom, but if you take them on their own terms, delicious. Edited January 25, 2011 by A Lark Ascending Quote
JSngry Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 Gene Puerling had some serious, serious skills. The "muzak-y" sounds of SU are real, but they are also entirely superficial and only occasional. There is a harmonic depth there (literally and figuratively) that is not to be underestimated or trifled with. A buddy of mine once described them as cotton-candy heroin, and that is not far off the mark, on either end. As far as "better than the Beatles", hey, whatever. I don't know what that means, really. Quote
Bright Moments Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 Gene Puerling had some serious, serious skills. The "muzak-y" sounds of SU are real, but they are also entirely superficial and only occasional. There is a harmonic depth there (literally and figuratively) that is not to be underestimated or trifled with. A buddy of mine once described them as cotton-candy heroin, and that is not far off the mark, on either end. As far as "better than the Beatles", hey, whatever. I don't know what that means, really. but are they better than "elvis"? Quote
GA Russell Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 I think the decline in great pop music occurred because of the popularity of the singer-songwriter, which I guess for the most part started with The Beatles. As a general rule, I think that singer-songwriters sing pretty well for composers, and write pretty well for singers. I have no difficulty believing that a good singer can perform a song better than its composer. Quote
JETman Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 I think the decline in great pop music occurred because of the popularity of the singer-songwriter, which I guess for the most part started with The Beatles. As a general rule, I think that singer-songwriters sing pretty well for composers, and write pretty well for singers. I have no difficulty believing that a good singer can perform a song better than its composer. But both Lennon and McCartney have long been considered exceptional singers! As a matter of fact, one of MY top ten moments in music is Lennon screaming "Twist and Shout" with his throat already torn to shreds. Politeness in music is not necessarily a good thing. Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.