nick manho

i grew up convinced that the cover versions performed by the beatles were better than the originals. it went against all logic, right? the original has to be better just by the fact that it's original. and it was proven over and over again by all the crap covers by brian poole and the tremeloes, herman's hermits, freddie and the dreamers, hundreds of others.

but the beatles were different. they were actually better than the original groups and their covers left the originals wheezing for breath in a dingy back alley after a good thrashing.

listening to these originals though, i've realised something funny. they're better than the beatles covers. and i've realised why i always thought the beatles versions were the best. it's because i'd never actually heard the originals.

take this one by the isleys for example:

The Isley Brothers: Twist And Shout


such a great record. maybe lennon's vocal was superior (lennon's vocals are always superior) but as a record the beatles version stinks next to this. there's just so much going on here: great vocal, bass, drums, harmonies, bit of cool latin brass. the arrangement is great. it bubbles, it swings, it bossanovas. listen to that drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, at the end. that's genius.



and look how cool they were:






manho's vote on twist and shout: isley brothers 9/10. beatles 8/10 (without lennon's vocal, 5/10).