Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hoodoo Man

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers "cover songs"

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

And I think Shelter and others would...

Hey.. don't bring me into this. Oh, it's too late, is it.. Ok, then. Nah, still.. don't do it.

Seriously. You should know by now that I very much agree with the two of you on this one. Sure, I might see a bigger art and a bigger "essentiality" in the whole cover skit than you brands-and-copy-right freaks do, but over all - yes, you are right! - they did neglect too much of their own stuff! Do I really have to say it again. They did neglect.. aw.. com'on.. I'm not raising an argument that they didn't here. Don't try to argue with me. I'm not saying that you are wrong. I was just giving this thread the benefit of some room to breath.. for the covers to be discussed in their own right. At least I tried.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shelter said:

Don't try to argue with me. I'm not saying that you are wrong. I was just giving this thread the benefit of some room to breath.. for the covers to be discussed in their own right. At least I tried.

I guess I didn't quite communicate what I was going for which was, I know how much you enjoy the covers but you also enjoyed when they did pull out songs like Something Big. But yes, room to breathe, consider my longer previous post on the topic as my final word (sure right ha ha) on the topic or this particular angle, and the rest now, for people to wax poetic on their enjoyment of covers. Breathe yes.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

enjoyment

Aw.. Sometimes it's harder than it seems, apparently.. to distinquish between what to discuss and what to think about it. I think I speak for everyone when I say that no enjoyment is required. :D It can all just be a struggle, that's fine too. This then, to you, may be the thread of pain. 

But yeah.. again.. I much agree with your basic point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Shelter said:

(I never thought he was a good vocal fit for the Louie-s and Johnny-s.) And just about the ONLY real 'clunkers' in the latter eras were exactly the three you mention (and perhaps one or two others..). 

I hadn't thought so much about how Tom's voice fit with certain songs.  I'm more looking at how the whole band covered them, including Tom's voice.   I still think it all worked well on the Louies and Johnnys.  If Tom's voice was a factor, I don't know if it worked for the Buddy Holly songs like Peggy Sue and Not Fade Away, but I felt his voice worked for anything as long as it wasn't opera.

As to Mystic Eyes, Oh well, and Gloria being the only "clunkers", the thing is that those were 3 of the most played cover songs they did, not just since 1995 but ever.  See the list of covers from setlist.fm I linked earlier.  (BTW, I wouldn't consider Handle With Care  100% to be a cover - as that list does - since Tom co-wrote the song and was in the Wilburys himself).   I guess Tom was a friend of JJ Cale, but personally I'm not a fan of the Cale covers that TPATH did, which included Thirteen Days, They Call Me The Breeze, I'd Like To Love You Baby, etc.    

As far as whether we should talk about whether we preferred TPATH originals to covers, I don't think the two topics can be separated.  And I'm not sure that the fans were all that happy with so many covers, especially at the residencies.  Critics may have loved the covers, but professional critics are not the same as ticket-buying fans of the band.  It would have been interesting to see a poll of fans back when TPATH was still active, but I'm guessing that most fans would have preferred more original songs and fewer covers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

but I'm guessing that most fans would have preferred more original songs and fewer covers.  

Well...I agree, I honestly don't know how many others feel as we do.

But I think this topic is largely for the covers, not the perspective that Tom should've dug deeper into his own catalog instead of performing other musician's tunes. 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

I felt his voice worked for anything as long as it wasn't opera.

Haha.. yeah.. Sure. But surely, it may be worth contemplating - for you, as an opininated man when it comes to various technical sides of the music, as in instruments, arrangements, tempo, beat - the various aspects of vocals. Such as key, force, strain, phrasing. It's very complex and it's very integral to how the music sounds. To me these things makes all the difference in the world. And to me Tom's singing voice and his phrasing is one of the key aspect why I love his music and his "character" so much. But again, not all the material he ever took on landed well with his vocal cords, IMO. Sometimes it just got too busy, too eager..(?) sometimes strained a bit, on occasion the pitch was lost. I figure sometimes this was due to a personal "over charge" and sometimes perhaps to picking the wrong key, rather than on the material itself. Nevertheless, it's nothing that happened a lot, but it's my impression that it happened disproportinately much (not always) on the 50s Chuck Berry stuff. It's that "byyyyye-byye - byye-byye.." type notes that don't work well for me. Where the voice gets rolled out too thin, too shrill, and cracks in the wrong way for my taste.. he usually handled Around and Around pretty well, though, must say. 

You can view this as just a little side reflection on my part. You certainly don't have to agree. It - among other things - is about taste, after all.

 

11 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

the thing is that those were 3 of the most played cover songs they did, not just since 1995 but ever.

Fair enough. That is a good point. I agree.. that was a problem, very unfortunate. Like I said.

Perhaps the only song to top those three then, would be So You Wanna Be a Rock'n'Roll Star (as duly high-lighted in another post here just recently). But again, that's a song that TPATH - much thanks to the PUTP album/film - managed to "make their own", to a certain extent, especially after they "rediscovered" it and brough it back out in the latter era of their career. At least to my ear, that song was both a succesful rendition that worked very well and a song that people really came to associate with TPATH. So even if it (if not quite as badly as so many TPATH originals) suffered from extensive overplay/exhaustion at times, it had a lot more charm and good will to keep it rolling, than did the three songs you mention.

Other than that, it's a matter of definition. I mean, if you just look at the over all list of covers TPATH ever played and when he played them - or if you even look at in what era he played the best ones - I personally don't think he was losing any quality and ear after the early line-ups of the group, the way you seem to suggest. (I think he generally picked good ones thorughout. I even think he played some of the best ones in the 2000s/10s. On the other hand - If the definition is to be what era did he play the least interesting covers the most number of times, then I believe you are right. Then the latter years "wins". (I think you may want to take into account, though, since we are at it anyway, that the whole rotating aspect of the setlist - not that it was ever a personal obsession with TP to do much of it - got thrown over board little by little towards the latter tours. On this, I'm sure you will agree. That is- almost everything tended to stay on for longer once he was deep into his 90s, not only the go-to covers. Just saying) 

 

11 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

personally I'm not a fan of the Cale covers that TPATH did

I am not a fan of Cale. And to me this is exactly why Cale is a good example of what I was talking about earlier in this thread. I think TPATH made the ultimate versions of both 13 Days and Travelin' Light. They could, as far as I'm concerned, with very little alterations (mostly it's the lyrics that gives it away some) really be TP songs. Especially the latter one is fantastic and hugely overlooked. I think I'd Like To Love You and Call Me The Breeze are ok too, but not nearly as good songs as the first two mentioned, and not quite as stellar versions neither.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shelter said:

I am not a fan of Cale.

I am unfamiliar with his work (unless it's been in movies/tv without me knowing) so I can only take the TPATH covers for what they are. 

13 Days is a nice slow moody number. The chord progressions, the delivery, Tom's voice sounding weary, the baisc groove of the band all  make this work for me. Was it ever played with Stan? It sounds like something particulary suited to the post-WF band.

Travelin' Light is the flipside of 13 Days, again that feeling of movement but here it's with energy, some extended soloing, I'd much preferred them to play that in place of Gloria.

Spaking of which, I'd no idea it had been played that frequently.

Before I give someone else a turn on here, I think Rock-n-roll star was a fun one too. It could be nostalgia as it was the first live TPATH I'd ever heard, first time I'd heard the song and the energy they delivered with it made it seem like a perfect, jangly, chiming burst of pop-rock energy.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

13 Days is a nice slow moody number. The chord progressions, the delivery, Tom's voice sounding weary, the baisc groove of the band all  make this work for me. Was it ever played with Stan? It sounds like something particulary suited to the post-WF band.

Yep. There are several from 1993 for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shelter said:

I think TPATH made the ultimate versions of both 13 Days and Travelin' Light. They could, as far as I'm concerned, with very little alterations (mostly it's the lyrics that gives it away some) really be TP songs.

Well, respectfully, I disagree.  Thirteen Days does not sound like a TPATH song to me; and IMO it's not what the fans come to hear.  TPATH fans generally want to hear something a bit more uplifting, not a song about what a drag it is to be a touring rock star.  At least that's my take on that song, it's played at a weary, dismal pace, as if the singer will be glad when the "five to go" are over.  With the same lyrics and a different tempo, it might be viewed as a celebration of touring by a band that is not particularly successful (which would rule out TPATH anyway).  But the way TPATH performed it, true to the Cale version, it sounds like a chore for the band to tour and a chore for fans to hear (at least for me to hear). But the TPATH version still improves on Cale's original.  

Travelin' Light wasn't performed very often by TPATH, and it's mostly an instrumental.  They perform it well, but again I don't think it's what the TPATH fans come to hear.  Plus it's long, taking up space that their own songs could have had (there's that topic again).  Tom "sings" the song in the soft, "spoken word" style that's typical of JJ Cale but not of himself, so again I'm not seeing how this could be a TPATH song (were it not actually written by Cale).  Again the TPATH version improves on Cale's original, but Cale seems to have been more of a songwriter than performer.  

12 hours ago, Shelter said:

So You Wanna Be a Rock'n'Roll Star (as duly high-lighted in another post here just recently). But again, that's a song that TPATH - much thanks to the PUTP album/film - managed to "make their own", to a certain extent, especially after they "rediscovered" it and brough it back out in the latter era of their career.

TPATH at times sounds like The Byrds with their own songs, so it's not surprising and does fit the band to cover one of their songs.  It has a jangly, uplifting feel characteristic of many TPATH songs.  As far as making it their own, TPATH actually combined two Byrds songs there, by using part of Eight Miles High within the song - so in that sense it is their own.   I think I recall reading that either McGuinn or the reuinited Byrds (or both) played the song the way TPATH had done it, with the Eight Miles High interlude.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Ok, if that's what you wanna keep from my post, I'm glad you found something. 

To expand a bit on another interesting aspect that you may or may not feel worthy, would you at least agree that no matter how dreadful all the post Wildflowers (I'm not sure where to draw the line here, but I'm taking a wild guess) covers were to you, whenever one of them showed up, the loosely fixated 15-16 song core of originals that eventually weren't gonna go nowhere, also had a minor impact on the fact that there were few lesser known originals invited to the party? It can't all be due to that nightly cover ruining all the fun? Either way, I'm sure I'm about to be enlightened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

At least that's my take on that song, it's played at a weary, dismal pace, as if the singer will be glad when the "five to go" are over. 

That's how I understand the song as well, but figure it's less about the rigors of touring and more just a down/sad song to vary the energy of the set list. In that, for me, musically it works. I understand that you don't like it though.

Three covers I keep mixing up, are the letter, green onions, and call me the breeze. If I'm in a certain mood I'll listen to them, otherwise I'll skip them. Same goes for High Heel Sneakers from the Red Rocks show prior to the Last Dj.

As tunes go, the song structure of most of these just don't appeal to me, their fundamental dna as it were isn't of interest, so Tom's vox has little bearing; it comes down to the musical energy and performances and that's where the band shines. Apparently I can listen to quite a lot of Benmont's musical flourishes; most times I know I'm in for a fun time in person, on video or on a bootleg, anytime Tom signals or tells Benmont to take a solo. Same with Mike. 

Those moments are what elevate the covers. 13 Days and Travelin' Light both work for me musically, well, the way TPATH do them, in addition to any musical improvisations the band offers.

Louie Louie is just fun; same with You Are My Sunshine, just hearing them would put a smile on my face.

cheers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shelter said:

the loosely fixated 15-16 song core of originals that eventually weren't gonna go nowhere,

I'm jumping in to say my realization via your thoughts was the acceptance that not only were TPATH not ever going to really offer what I'd want in a live concert (and after 2017 never would in this world) but that at least the covers were a change from Free Fallin/Won't Back Down/YWM/Ishki/ref/run/YDKHIF etc. To be shown Travelin' Light was a nice surprise, here's something with energy and some interesting musical extrapolations.

Back to my general overview of covers, Psychotic Reaction was always fun, Stan's singing (later Tom's) and the propulsion of the song, that interplay between a general groove to a supercharged part was a lot of fun to hear.

Something in the  Air...now that's an impressive song. Not just for Benmont's solo turn but the strange, happy, sorta psychedelic feel of the tune itself, it's light and fun. Interesting how it seems to fit on GH. True they didn't play it often, maybe that adds to the unique feel of the song. 

It kinda feels like DCAHNM's younger brother.

cheers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shelter said:

...the loosely fixated 15-16 song core of originals that eventually weren't gonna go nowhere, also had a minor impact on the fact that there were few lesser known originals invited to the party? It can't all be due to that nightly cover ruining all the fun?

Shelter, I would say that the seemingly "set in stone" core setlist of the final 20 years of touring was more of a problem in crowding out the deeper TPATH original at most concerts, depending on the show.  Though at the theater "residencies" (SF 1997 & 1999, Chicago 2003, NYC 2013), it was the cover songs that did more to crowd out the deeper TPATH original songs.  The "core setlist" aka "greatest hits" is another topic.  And I wasn't happy that it didn't change much, especially when they were typically doing only 18-20 songs total per concert.    Also the cover songs were typically quite long, so a single cover song might be taking up the place of two original songs.  But I think I understand your point.  The "core" setlist was a problem, too, but a different problem.

Bruce Springsteen to my ears doesn't have a greater number of concert-worthy songs than Petty. In fact I'd say Petty had more, a lot more. But Springsteen did a much better job of varying his setlists from tour to  tour,  rotating songs in and out of the setlists.  About the only song you could be "sure" would be played on a Springsteen tour was Born To Run, and there were times where he didn't even play that one.  Below is a typical setlist from his 2006 tour, where he barely played any hits:

http://db.etree.org/lookup_show.php?shows_key=319005

Back to the subject of cover songs - here's a trivia question - how many cover songs did TPATH play on their 2017 tour?  Answer, 1 song, Carol (Chuck Berry), just two times (St. Louis and Red Rocks CO).    Most of the 2017 shows had zero covers.  So no it wasn't a problem on every tour, and it wasn't always just after 1995 (I identify that point because they started doing Gloria in 1997).  There were many tours where they did four covers per concert, or three covers but one or more would be very long.  At any rate, maybe TP himself decided they were doing too many covers, spending too much time on them and crowding out his own songs, and thus cut them back to virtually zero for the final tour.     

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Ok, thank you for that slight nod. At least it shows me I'm not totally in the dark here.

And as much as we agree on the "merits" of Team Gloria, at the core of this we don't seem to agree on much else (which is totally fine). We navigate by different maps is all. To you the early era covers was great and the latter era covers was not. I don't see a dividing line like that in the terrain. I see some bad ones here, some bad ones there, some that was too long and some that was too short, some that was played too often, some that wasn't played enough. Generally I see good and interesting covers from the early 70s to the late 10s.

Of course, you could argue that TPATH/Mudcrutch had a youthful energy back in the day that mellowed out later on. Stuff like Cry To Me or I'm Crying may try to tell you another story. You could argue that Tom, for better or worse, went into spoken intermissions on Gloria. But Dark End of The Street would certainly call from the 70s and tell you to take that back. (And so would Spike, for that matter.) You could argue that they did more of the frolicking 50s stuff early on, but the likes of Highscool Confidential and yes, Carol, would ask you to please stop trying so hard, to please just put it all down on nostalgia. With the possible exception of those Them and Cale songs discussed, is it possible that you would've liked much other covers (Animals, Kinks, Byrds, Stones, Feat, Reed, Dixon and what have you) played during the latter half of their career a lot better, had it been during the first half? It may seem a silly question, but I am starting respectfully to wonder. 

As a total side note here: Myself, I absolutely love it when TPATH went into the "trad.arr." territory.. Or when they when they went Buck Owens or Stanley Brothers.. When they gave the likes of Little Maggie, Rolling In My Sweet Baby's Arms, Blue Moon of Kentucky, Shady Groove..  But then again, that may have a lot to do both with me liking that type of music and me having the view I have on what playing covers is all about and what it may offer the audience.

As for the overall points made between all of us so far, I'd still say it's obvious:

1- Just the slightest bit of rotating (songs in/out) would've taken care of virtually all of the perceived "problems".* That's the overriding dimension to everything else, IMO. 

2- Some get what playing covers is about, some don't. And either one gets it or not, one may find it fun, interesting and unique (for the live experience) when it happens, or one may not. Let's call that an open ending.

 

 

-----

* Just, for the record: I really wasn't the one to insisting on bringing the set list issue into this, but I see it's part of anyones take on how the covers work within the set, so...  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

At any rate, maybe TP himself decided they were doing too many covers, spending too much time on them and crowding out his own songs, and thus cut them back to virtually zero for the final tour.     

It was interesting that aside from what you point out, the 2017 tour is the one with the least covers. Maybe he wanted to get in as many of their own in as possible since it was the 40th anniversary tour.

I think Carol only happened because of the rain delay issues at Red Rocks, so they weren't planning on playing any covers. Again, an interview asking the band members about the set overall and specific to the last tour would be interesting though the latter could be a bit painful for them still.

17 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

started doing Gloria in 1997)

 I love the last fillmore show but even at the time, listening to it on the radio I was surprised at the number of cover songs played. But I still like the show and it's the longest they played, and I just accept them as a band for what they are...were than what I thought they could be.

It is shocking to see how much they played Gloria; no doubt the crowd's enthusiastic response to the song was a huge factor and whatever variations he put into the story for Tom maybe.

ciao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shelter said:

When they gave the likes of Little Maggie, Rolling In My Sweet Baby's Arms, Blue Moon of Kentucky, Shady Groove..  But then again, that may have a lot to do both with me liking that type of music

Little Maggie is down there with Gloria for me. Carol isn't too hot either. Maybe it's the songs with proper names that Tom should not have covered...!

Don't Bring Me Down is one of their finer ones however. I think both Stan's touch and Steve's heavier approach suit the song well. And the vocals, not something I usually comment on work very well, Tom's voice having this scrappy underdog feel, nicely matching the drive of the music.

8 hours ago, Shelter said:

I really wasn't the one to insisting on bringing the set list issue into this,

Ha ha, the set list issue is like one of those terrible killers from 80s slasher flicks; just when you think its dead...here it comes again, look out!!!

8 hours ago, Shelter said:

Some get what playing covers is about, some don't. And either one gets it or not, one may find it fun, interesting and unique (for the live experience) when it happens, or one may not. Let's call that an open ending.

For me, there's a spectrum of songs they cover that work, either a bit more towards the psychedelic or ones with a lumbering groove I think. I'm not an avid bluegrass fan but if I ever listen to that style, I'd prefer it not be TPATH. If that's what Rolling/Maggie are. And with some exceptions, things like Carol and Bye Bye Johnny aside from inspired guitar work don't do much either, original or covers. I certainly recognize the history of something like Johnny, Chuck Berry and what it meant for TPATH but it doesn't do much for me when they ventured into those territories.

County Farm is more in the direction I favor, again when I'm in the mood for it. I enjoyed whenever TPATH went in a heavier direction both live and in the studio. No one would mistake them for Zeppelin but again, I think their unique approach to music was, perhaps compressed by the heaviness and made for an interesting and different feel.

I think audiences responded well to it too, see Come On Down To My House, even Too Much Ain't Enough. Now, of course, those are far from heavy metal, or heavy rock though maybe they flirt right up to the edge of the latter.

My long-winded point if I ever go to it here, is the band's heavier side was welcome, be it through an original or when they went for some guitar histrionics with County Farm.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shelter said:

Some get what playing covers is about, some don't. And either one gets it or not, one may find it fun, interesting and unique (for the live experience) when it happens, or one may not.

Perhaps some day you'll enlighten us as to what there is to "get" about playing covers.  Is there some sort of secret club where that information is shared? 

As to what we've been saying, I think we are spinning our wheels at this point.  Some agree, some don't, we are all Petty/Heartbreakers fans for some reason, so that's the common bond.  

In terms of the cover songs in the first two decades vs. the latter two decades: 

- In the early days, the band had fewer of their own songs to play.  Almost out of necessity, the earliest shows used covers to fill in for a lack of original material.

- As time went on, the band had more and more original songs that went unplayed in concert, or barely played.  Thus as time went on, time spent on a cover song was crowding out more original songs than had been the case in previous years.

- The early cover songs were in general, short and energetic, such as Jaguar & Thunderbird, Route 66, Louie Louie, Anyway You Want It, I Fought The Law, Bye Bye Johnny, Should I Stay or Should I Go, etc.  These were often in the beginning or end of the show.  Yes there were a few longer, less energetic songs such as Shout but those were rare.     

- The original premise of the band was "Don't bore us, get to the chorus", per Mike Campbell.  Covers were generally there to pick up the pace, not to slow things down.

- As the years went on, TPATH's original songs became somewhat slower, such as It's Good To Be King, or You Don't Know How It Feels.  There were fewer original rockers.  That's ok, change happens, maturity sets in.  But when you choose a cover song, do you really want to slow down the pace even more?  Thirteen Days is paced practically like a dirge, no matter how well they played it.  And while the original Gloria (by Them) is an energetic song, the version TPATH played 132 times was about 11 minutes long, with maybe 9 minutes of a story and 2 minutes of actual song.   A lot of the other late covers simply lacked energy, and took up too much time.      

- Anyone can do a cover song.  Only TPATH could do their own songs.  There are many fine cover bands.  Cover bands generally do cover songs because they don't have original songs that people want to hear.  Yes there is a spot for an occasional cover song.  But doing the same long cover song 132 times, when you have so many of your own great songs that have been played less that a handful of times, and many not even played once live, I have to point the finger at the cover songs as being a problem.  Especially when you have those "residency" concerts where the band didn't have to play all their core "greatest hits" - they missed a huge opportunity to play their own neglected song catalog, but instead Tom chose to do a bunch of cover songs that few people actually cared about, mostly from songwriters who weren't nearly as good or prolific as Tom himself.  And I do point the finger at Tom, because it seems to me that he was the one choosing the setlists. 

- How many times before a tour started, did we hear Tom say something like "We aren't promoting a specific album, we're just going to reach deep into our own song catalog this time"?  And we'd optimistically hope that was true, then we'd find out that the setlist was pretty much the same as on previous tours.  Did Tom not appreciate his own songs, or did he underestimate the audience's interest in his songs?  Or did he tailor it just right, for the fan who knew the Greatest Hits and Wildflowers albums, and not much else?    Nor did they have any interest in hearing songs they didn't know?   And yet if the idea was to only play songs that the casual audience member already knew, why play obscure covers such as JJ Cale songs that were never hits anywhere?  

- We are all fans here, we don't have to agree on things.  I did push back on the view that Tom did a "perfect" job of choosing the cover songs.  I gave my opinion there, some agree, some don't.  I don't think we're going to get anywhere by being snarky about other people's opinions.  If someone sees TPATH as the world's greatest cover band, and goes into spasms of ecstasy each and every one of the 132 times Tom told the Gloria story, that's fine.  I still am not going to agree that Tom did a "perfect" job of choosing the cover songs, or of choosing the setlists themselves, especially in the final 20 years of touring.

       

 

  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

Little Maggie is down there with Gloria for me. Carol isn't too hot either. Maybe it's the songs with proper names that Tom should not have covered...!

Ha ha, yes - and I agree about Little Maggie and Carol not being good songs.  It does seem Tom should have stayed away from songs with proper names, though I would have liked it if he performed Magnolia (his own song from YGGI, not JJ Cale's song of the same name).    

 

46 minutes ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

Don't Bring Me Down is one of their finer ones however. I think both Stan's touch and Steve's heavier approach suit the song well.

Yes for sure.  And their performance of it at Farm Aid I is especially good.  It seems likely that Don't Bring Me Down was originally done at the suggestion of Stan, who was a big fan of The Animals (who didn't write the song, but did the original hit version).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Carol" is one of the greatest rock and roll songs ever written.  It inspired millions of kids to play guitar - including the guys in TPATH and the Stones.  Chuck Berry is deservedly a legend to these guys. The Stones version of "Carol" on "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out!" remains one of my favorite performances of theirs ever.  Obviously Tom agreed.  Mike too. 

It's beyond absurd to see you guys calling it a bad song.  You lose all credibility saying things like that.  I see shit like that and I just don't even want to read what you have to say.  There's more with your nonsense about how you can arrange an album better than Tom, or how you can make setlists better than Tom, or how sure you are that Tom didn't like Steve Ferrone's drumming.  You actually believe that Tom just tolerated Steve Ferrone?  Incredible.

Maybe I'm just cranky with cabin fever, but there is some looney stuff on this forum.

Other than that, nothing but love for y'all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TomFest said:

It's beyond absurd to see you guys calling it a bad song

Agreed. For the record, just speaking for myself, I might not think this song was the optimal match for TP. But I would certainly never call it a bad song. In fact I think it can be Berry good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...