Topic: you've Really Got A Hold On Me (Read 5178 times)

roscoe · « **on:** June 05, 2009, 03:39:04 AM »

There is a particular reason that this song is unique among Beatles Songs. Does anyone have an idea why? A hint will be given if no one can figure it out.

The Swine · « **Reply #1 on:** June 05, 2009, 07:21:39 AM »

i bet you think it is about your catholic thing.

fendertele · « **Reply #2 on:** June 05, 2009, 07:45:59 AM »

im not sure but i think it might be that it has a very Gospel feeling to it, with the temp the way the piano is played and also with how the vocals are performed ?

alexis · « **Reply #3 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:25:21 PM »

Is it because it's the only originally released Harrison/Lennon vocal duet ?

roscoe · « **Reply #4 on:** June 05, 2009, 05:57:03 PM »

Alexis is the winner-- what a classic.

fendertele · « **Reply #5 on:** June 05, 2009, 06:17:41 PM »

never ever ntoiced that before always took it there was 3 of them singing, there are 3 though for the chorus ? then 2 for the verse.

Damn Johns voice was fantastic in the early days, he was really suited for the songs they were doing at the beginning.

roscoe · « **Reply #6 on:** June 05, 2009, 06:23:39 PM »

Listen closely as Paul only contibutes an occasional note-- it's almost all John and George.

The Swine · « **Reply #7 on:** June 05, 2009, 06:47:06 PM »

wow you are really showing off your beatlesknowledge here roscow. by the way you misspelled the title but you probably already knew that.

alexis · « **Reply #8 on:** June 05, 2009, 07:09:40 PM »

Quote from: 758

never ever ntoiced that before always took it there was 3 of them singing, there are 3 though for the chorus ? then 2 for the verse.

Damn Johns voice was fantastic in the early days, he was really suited for the songs they were doing at the beginning.

Yeah, fendertele, John's voice was the absolute perfection in the early days, I think his voice alone was one of the best things EVER in popular music, right up there with Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby - different kind of voice of course, but what I kind of mean is absolute top of the class.

There was that guy from the Temptations that had a gravelly voice like John (Levi Stubbs?), but somehow young 20-24 year old John could do things with his voice that no one else really could. Gravelly like Money/Twist and Shout, but he could also do soft like To Know Her is to Love Her or the low harmony on If I Fell, and then soaring like the solos on This Boy and Yes It Is - IMHO, absolutely untouchable and unsurpassable.

If I had lost that voice in the late 60s like he did, I would have gotten depressed too ...
I get sad thinking about it even now!

alexis · « **Reply #9 on:** June 05, 2009, 07:13:06 PM »

Quote from: 2121

Listen closely as Paul only contibutes an occasional note-- it's almost all John and George.

I think I hear Paul in the words beginning with "you": "I love YOU, AND ALL I WANT YOU TO DO".

And on the break "Hold me ... hold me ... hold me ... hold me".

The "hold me"'s are fine, but pretty routine for 3 voices, but the way he goes way up there for the word "YOU..." and the rest of that phrase has always sent a chill down my spine. Genius, pure genius!

Bobber · « **Reply #10 on:** June 05, 2009, 07:14:48 PM »

Quote from: 568

Yeah, fendertele, John's voice was the absolute perfection in the early days, I think his voice alone was one of the best things EVER in popular music, right up there with Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby - different kind of voice of course, but what I kind of mean is absolute top of the class.

There was that guy from the Temptations that had a gravelly voice like John (Levi Stubbs?), but somehow young 20-24 year old John could do things with his voice that no one else really could. Gravelly like Money/Twist and Shout, but he could also do soft like To Know Her is to Love Her or the low harmony on If I Fell, and then soaring like the solos on This Boy and Yes It Is - IMHO, absolutely untouchable and unsurpassable.

If I had lost that voice in the late 60s like he did, I would have gotten depressed too ...
I get sad thinking about it even now!

Interesting thoughts in a dull thread there, alexis.

Especially because I recently read somewhere that all bands of that time and especially in the early Beatles days (pre 1963) were jealous of Paul McCartney. I quote anynomous 'No one could sing like Paul McCartney'.

alexis · « **Reply #11 on:** June 05, 2009, 07:26:44 PM »

Quote from: 63

Interesting thoughts in a dull thread there, alexis. Especially because I recently read somewhere that all bands of that time and especially in the early Beatles days (pre 1963) were jealous of Paul McCartney. I quote anynomous 'No one could sing like Paul McCartney'.

I think I remember reading that too! Maybe someone from the Pacemakers. IIRC, they were referring to his Little Richard voice, Long Tall Sally/Kansas City/Lucille/Clarabella/Ooh My Soul, and the like.

Yeah, that was quite the voice too (and it sounds like he's still got 85%-90% of it on his last album, "That Was Me", or whatever it's called - incredible!). I can't really support why I think John wins the voice race in the early days by a hair ... maybe it's that he could do tenderness with his, while Paul didn't seem to get that part down on tape until maybe around Yesterday?

Re: Dull thread - I just saw some of his other stuff, but at least this one (so far) is free of the proselytizing - of the non-Beatles variety anyway!

Jane · « **Reply #12 on:** June 05, 2009, 09:45:05 PM »

Quote from: 568

Yeah, fendertele, John's voice was the absolute perfection in the early days, I think his voice alone was one of the best things EVER in popular music, right up there with Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby - different kind of voice of course, but what I kind of mean is absolute top of the class.

There was that guy from the Temptations that had a gravelly voice like John (Levi Stubbs?), but somehow young 20-24 year old John could do things with his voice that no one else really could. Gravelly like Money/Twist and Shout, but he could also do soft like To Know Her is to Love Her or the low harmony on If I Fell, and then soaring like the solos on This Boy and Yes It Is - IMHO, absolutely untouchable and unsurpassable.

If I had lost that voice in the late 60s like he did, I would have gotten depressed too ...

I support Alexis in this. In the early days John`s voice was incredible, fantastic. On Please Please Me...
His voice was even hard to describe but easily recognisable. For me it is better than Paul`s, whose voice is good but difficult to distinguish. IMO.

roscoe · « **Reply #13 on:** June 05, 2009, 09:51:46 PM »

Levi Stubbs is the Four Tops- he just died recently. What gives john's voice its unique quality on Please Please Me( Intro Beatles in America) is that he has a cold the day the album was recorded.

I cannot comprehend a statement that Johns voice is in the same catagory with a loser like Crosby-- Sinatra maybe

IMO the singer is the least imp member of any band. But re: Beatles it is George by far who has the best singing voice. It is much deeper richer and fuller than the other Beatles.

fendertele · « **Reply #14 on:** June 05, 2009, 10:16:26 PM »

Quote

Interesting thoughts in a dull thread there, alexis. Especially because I recently read somewhere that all bands of that time and especially in the early Beatles days (pre 1963) were jealous of Paul McCartney. I quote anynomous 'No one could sing like Paul McCartney'.

I can believe that most would still envy Macca's voice which was amazing and got better as time went on, of the two i would say Paul is the better overall singer. But on those early tracks John too had some magic not in what he could do with his voice but how it sounded it had so much soul and how it sat on the record, in the same way that Elvis wasn't the most gifted vocally imo but his voice just fit his songs perfectly.

I know this is gonna sound stupid, but just because you have a guitar part that fits a song note for note, doesnt mean it can sit well on it, some times you need to add effects or reverb to get it to sit nicely Eg: Nirvana - Teen Spirit, imagine his guitar was clean rockabilly sound for the chorus and then was screaming it would sound really strange ?

John's voice just sat nicely with there sound and production at the time.

Paul could Howl and John could Growl

pc31 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 06, 2009, 02:34:50 AM »

Quote from: 2121

Levi Stubbs is the Four Tops- he just died recently. What gives john's voice its unique quality on Please Please Me( Intro Beatles in America) is that he has a cold the day the album was recorded.

I cannot comprehend a statement that Johns voice is in the same catagory with a loser like Crosby-- Sinatra maybe

IMO the singer is the least imp member of any band. But re: Beatles it is George by far who has the best singing voice. It is much deeper richer and fuller than the other Beatles.

those lost 2 statments are a personal opinion i hope........

roscoe · « **Reply #16 on:** June 06, 2009, 04:03:10 AM »

Do you fear being burned at the stake for not complying?

Arthur Mullard · « **Reply #17 on:** June 06, 2009, 08:17:06 AM »

Quote from: 2121

Do you fear being burned at the stake for not complying?

George, the best voice? You saying that cos he's the 'spiritual one' and therefore he gets your vote? Georges voice is obviously quite thin and lacking in range compared to the others. Thats very apparent on nearly everything he sings. If he's your favourite fair enough that you like his voice more but the others have far greater range and depth.

pc31 · « **Reply #18 on:** June 06, 2009, 09:58:35 AM »

aaahhh clearer minds chiming in now...thanks......

Jane · « **Reply #19 on:** June 06, 2009, 08:16:09 PM »

If only our boys hadn`t smoked so much! Actually I believe that they all had terrific voices! Quite burned down (the favourite word of roscoe) by cigarettes by the beginning of their solo careers.

News:

Author Topic: you've Really Got A Hold On Me (Read 5178 times)

Bobber