Beatles Survivor Poll - Please Please Me Side B / Round 3

[WestwayKid]

Although Twist and Shout is probably going to win, There's a Place is a perfect distillation of early Beatles -- great harmonies, great energy, great melody, fantastic musicianship, so catchy. An absolute all-timer.

I agree. The execution is a bit rough, most likely the result of Lennon's awful cold, the rapid pace in which they recorded this session, and their inexperience in the studio. The song itself is impressive, with a real sense of urgency that propels the melody. Great interplay between Lennon and McCartney on vocals.

[Dr. Medulla]

Although Twist and Shout is probably going to win, There's a Place is a perfect distillation of early Beatles -- great harmonies, great energy, great melody, fantastic musicianship, so catchy. An absolute all-timer.

I could maybe be persuaded to back this at the end, but my gut still tells me that T&S is just pure rocket fuel.

[Wolter]

I’m gonna split the difference: Twist and Shout is both good and overrated.

Bah. That's the agreeableness of a base Canadian.

I just massively prefer the Isley Bothers.

Come to think of it, I almost always prefer the original to any Beatles cover, even when it’s a good cover.

[Flex]

Come to think of it, I almost always prefer the original to any Beatles cover, even when it’s a good cover.

Never thought of it but same, now that you mention it. I'll be hoping T&S makes another couple rounds but then I'll be backing an original.

[Dr. Medulla]

Come to think of it, I almost always prefer the original to any Beatles cover, even when it’s a good cover.

Never thought of it but same, now that you mention it. I'll be hoping T&S makes another couple rounds but then I'll be backing an original.

This seems reminiscent to the conversation about covers during the women's album poll. Whether you think the Isley Brothers original version is superior to the Beatles cover isn't really germane in this competition. It's whether T&S is better than the other Beatles songs up for the vote. Comparing it first to some other version just adds an extra hurdle for any cover.

[Wolter]

Come to think of it, I almost always prefer the original to any Beatles cover, even when it’s a good cover.

Never thought of it but same, now that you mention it. I'll be hoping T&S makes another couple rounds but then I'll be backing an original.

This seems reminiscent to the conversation about covers during the women's album poll. Whether you think the Isley Brothers original version is superior to the Beatles cover isn't really germane in this competition. It's whether T&S is better than the other Beatles songs up for the vote. Comparing it first to some other version just adds an extra hurdle for any cover.

Except, of course, if it’s impossible to extricate the two, and that means you’ve never understood why everyone else loves a cover that you find “decent, but not better than numerous other tracks on the same album.”

[Flex]

yeah, i'm not sure i buy the premise that our extra-textual understanding of a song "shouldn't" influence how we relate to and consider it (i.e. the idea that these songs should be evaluated purely in a vacuum between each other with no undue influence from tastes or considerations outside the tracks as they relate to each other). For one, I think that's impossible (our consideration of songs necessarily is influenced by all of our experiences with those songs) and for another, it's not even clear to me that attempting such a shorning off context would be desirable or against the spirit of these proceedings. No rule has been stated, to my knowledge, that limits what factors we're supposed to use in deciding how much we like a song or not. Being not-the-best version of a song influences my listening experience of it, regardless of whether I want it to or not. Not accommodating that reaction would be dishonest, imho. Extra-textual understanding of I Saw Her Standing There was, in fact, used to defend it earlier today!

[Flex]

We should do an ultimate covers poll next, lol

[Dr. Medulla]

yeah, i'm not sure i buy the premise that our extra-textual understanding of a song "shouldn't" influence how we relate to and consider it (i.e. the idea that these songs should be evaluated purely in a vacuum between each other with no undue influence from tastes or considerations outside the tracks as they relate to each other). For one, I think that's impossible (our consideration of songs necessarily is influenced by all of our experiences with those songs) and for another, it's not even clear to me that attempting such a shorning off context would be desirable or against the spirit of these proceedings. No rule has been stated, to my knowledge, that limits what factors we're supposed to use in deciding how much we like a song or not. Being not-the-best version of a song influences my listening experience of it, regardless of whether I want it to or not. Not accommodating that reaction would be dishonest, imho. Extra-textual understanding of I Saw Her Standing There was, in fact, used to defend it earlier today!

Of course, we can use whatever criteria we want. And it's not like we could disqualify votes. I guess it's just a matter of whether you're trying to persuade someone else to vote the way you do, too. I mean, I could say "Yesterday" should get booted because it's only Paul and some hired strings, so it's not really the Beatles. That'd be a dubious reason, imo, and I doubt I could persuade anyone on those grounds. Arguing that covers have to pass an extra test that original songs don't isn't persuasive to me out of my own sense of fairness(?) or how we should go about making picks.

[Flex]

Of course, we can use whatever criteria we want. And it's not like we could disqualify votes. I guess it's just a matter of whether you're trying to persuade someone else to vote the way you do, too. I mean, I could say "Yesterday" should get booted because it's only Paul and some hired strings, so it's not really the Beatles. That'd be a dubious reason, imo, and I doubt I could persuade anyone on those grounds. Arguing that covers have to pass an extra test that original songs don't isn't persuasive to me out of my own sense of fairness(?) or how we should go about making picks.

well, a few thoughts: 1) i think it's fair for covers to have to pass an extra test, and i wouldn't mind persuading people that that's a fine element to factor into their consideration of a song, especially for bands like the beatles that are known primarily known for their singer-songwriter chops. i'm still not entirely clear why that should be off the table; 2) i actually think if i considered an original and knew their was a better cover, it'd be even more damning to that song, so originals have a higher test to clear, in some sense; 3) i don't think any of this is about persuading anyone, since almost no one even bothers to show their homework about why they're voting for something in the first place. I figure at least I'm thinking through why I react to a song the way I do and sharing it, which is about all I would ask for from anyone. It's interesting to hear how people relate to songs, I like to hear how people think about the things they like (or don't like).

[matedog]

Side note - Apparently Ron Isley is still alive and only 79. He's still greasy looking as shit.

[Heston]

Maybe sacrilege but I think Rock and Roll Music is better than Chuck's.

[Flex]

Maybe sacrilege but I think Rock and Roll Music is better than Chuck's.

beach boys better than both tho

[Dr. Medulla]

Of course, we can use whatever criteria we want. And it's not like we could disqualify votes. I guess it's just a matter of whether you're trying to persuade someone else to vote the way you do, too. I mean, I could say "Yesterday" should get booted because it's only Paul and some hired strings, so it's not really the Beatles. That'd be a dubious reason, imo, and I doubt I could persuade anyone on those grounds. Arguing that covers have to pass an extra test that original songs don't isn't persuasive to me out of my own sense of fairness(?) or how we should go about making picks.

well, a few thoughts: 1) i think it's fair for covers to have to pass an extra test, and i wouldn't mind persuading people that that's a fine element to factor into their consideration of a song, especially for bands like the beatles that are known primarily known for their singer-songwriter chops. i'm still not entirely clear why that should be off the table

To me, it's because it's comparing the cover to not just the other songs that are in the poll, but also to all other versions of the song (presumably, if there is any even better cover out there, that would somehow reflect poorly on the Beatles version). So it serves to penalize (or maybe reward, if it's considered the best cover out there) a song in ways that originals don't have to be evaluated. It fundamentally raises the standard expected of the cover rather than just judging it against the other songs.

2) i actually think if i considered an original and knew their was a better cover, it'd be even more damning to that song, so originals have a higher test to clear, in some sense

So if you think Earth, Wind & Fire's cover of "Got To Get You Into My Life" is better than the original—note: it is—then that penalizes the original? Or a lousy cover—say, one of those songs George Burns sang in the Pepper movie—elevates the original? I'd respect the effort to add complexity to evaluation, but I'd still be thinking it's going off the rails.

3) i don't think any of this is about persuading anyone, since almost no one even bothers to show their homework about why they're voting for something in the first place. I figure at least I'm thinking through why I react to a song the way I do and sharing it, which is about all I would ask for from anyone. It's interesting to hear how people relate to songs, I like to hear how people think about the things they like (or don't like).

Fair enough if it's just about justification. I always assume that there's an element of persuasion that goes on in these things, even if it's not explicit. It doesn't mean being competitive or cut-throat, only that discourse has a tacit element of introducing a line of thought that others hadn't considered. And with that comes the possibility of altering a person's opinion. It doesn't have to be some kind of end game, but I think that's always embedded in there.

[Dr. Medulla]

Maybe sacrilege but I think Rock and Roll Music is better than Chuck's.

Me too, because Lennon had a better rock n roll voice.