Apr 212007
One song. Three versions. Three bands. Your job: rank ’em!
The Original: Rufus Thomas
The Cover, The Rolling Stones
The Tribute, Aerosmith
One song. Three versions. Three bands. Your job: rank ’em!
The Original: Rufus Thomas
The Cover, The Rolling Stones
The Tribute, Aerosmith
stones, rufus, aerosmith:
i gotta give it to the stones…just the right tempo, effective use of handclaps, and they actually chose a key that brings out the sinister side of the melody and lyrics, while maintaining that laid back vibe.
rufus’ version is just a little too pokey (and jokey) for me.
aerosmith’s sounds silly…it’s one thing to bring out the sinister qualities in a mostly fun song. but it’s quite another to make it sound all tough guy / badassed.
Prof. Art —
Thanks for your prompt reply, but please explain what’s so “sinister” about this song:
LADY MAC DRESSED IN BLACK
SILVER BUTTONS ALL DOWN HER BACK
HELLO TIPSY TOE
SHE BROKE THE NEEDLE AND SHE CAN’T SEW
WALKING THE DOG
JUST A WALKING THE DOG
IT YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO DO IT
I’LL SHOW YOU HOW TO WALK THE DOG
ASKED MY MAMA FOR FIFTEEN CENTS
TO SEE THE ELEPHANT JUMP THE FENCE
HE JUMPED SO HIGH HE TOUCHED THE SKY
NEVER GOT BACK ‘TILL THE FOURTH OF JULY
chorus
MARY MARY QUITE CONTRARY
TELL ME HOW YOUR GARDEN GROWS
YOU GOT SILVER BELLS AND YOU GOT COCKLE SHELLS
PRETTY MAIDS ALL IN A ROW
chorus
first, let’s be clear (and fair): i said it was a “mostly fun” song, with a sinister aspect. i meant to suggest that the sinister aspect is subtle. i didn’t say, as you inaccurately recapitulate above, that it was a “sinister” song.
but fritz, you print those lyrics and then ask me what’s so sinister about this song? if i wanted to be a wiseacre, i would just reprint them, and ask you to tell me what’s NOT sinister about them.
it’s got it all: sexual overtones and hallucinatory language presented in that threatening new form of music, “the devil’s music” (can you say “sex, drugs, and rock and roll”?).
and besides, it’s about a dance. as a simulation of, and gateway to, sexual activity, dancing was actually seen as controversial back when rufus recorded this song.
it may sound quaint to us now (or “jokey” as I say above), but i think in the context of its time, it was meant to allude to the kind of fun that mommy and daddy didn’t want their kids to have.
i think the stones heard that in the original, and jagger’s leering deliver of a line like “mary…how does your garden grow” plays up the lecherous, girl-chasing aspect of the song.
again, it’s subtle, but it’s there…
John Cale did it on the Sabotage album, and it certainly sounded sinister there.
I would definitely vote for Rufus’ version, because it’s funkier than the others. What makes them all at least a little sinister is the dirty old man factor — using a nursery rhyme to teach ‘pretty maids’ how to … uh … dance. Rufus was already in his mid-40s when he had a hit with this, but he still manages to be sly and playful. He doesn’t overdo the double entendres in the lyrics, and opening with the Wedding March is a cheap laugh.
In contrast the Stones sound stiff and overeager (too much whistling), and Aerosmith just sound stoned and jaded (he sings “walking *your* dog”), although the waka-wakas after the tagline sound kind of cool.
1. Stones
2. Rufus
(Distant) 3. Aerosmith
I like the Stones’ pace and Jagger’s vocals much better than Rufus’ version. I always have a bit of resistance to Rufus Thomas’ vocals and phrasing. I don’t know that I can articulate it, but he sounds too revved up for the music.
The Aerosmith version loses me on that ominous build-up. It’s totally inappropriate. For ’70s Boston jive rockers, J. Geils Band should have tried covering this song. Maybe they did for all I know.
I just want you guys to know — all of you — that you’re very, very WRONG about this issue. What’s more, you’re WRONG for all the WRONG reasons.
WRONG!
Although the Stones clearly have the best of the three rhythm sections, their version probably comes in third for me.
1) Rufus’ version. He’s just got the best of the vocals here, the over-the-top growl, the casual swagger. It’s HIS song.
2) Sure, Aerosmith’s might be the pedophile version, and there are some dead moments in the playing. But they’re still bringing some over-the-top nasty attitude that’s in keeping with the swagger of the original.
3) I like the playing on the Stones number, but in their hands it comes out an okay, not very memorable standard issue rock and roll song. Jagger brings very little; he’s just going through the motions.
Townsman mwall, you’re getting closer to The Truth about these three versions. Well done!
More later — the rest of you, contemplate how WRONG you’ve been.
Beside Townsman BigSteve, who sincerely stated his opinions without embarrassing himself at some point, anyone who has not agreed with Townsman Saturnismine and I is not necessarily wrong but mired in an assortment of prejudices that do not allow you to hear the true purpose of the music at hand.
Of course, I’m talking about Townsman Mwall and Townsman Hrrundi, and again, I stress that the display of prejudices is to varying degrees. I was fine with Mark’s tastes and the sincerity and knowledge thereof until this line:
Jagger’s the only singer of the bunch who makes this stone turd of a song in any way cool! And HBV, please don’t waste your time and ours typing out the lyrics to the song again. This is a near-idiotic song that only the sort of people who make the n’er-to-be-fulfilled fantasies of a movie like Black Snake Moan possible would bother to analyze. I say this with love and great respect for any of you, mind you.
Hrrundi, stop with this “wrong” business and tell me why you even bother to care about any of these 3 versions. If ever the device of handclaps justified a song, the Stones version is your example.
I can’t speak for the rest of you, but I expect to sleep the sleep of the just tonight.
I’m with the Rufus camp, too. I like almost everything I’ve ever heard by him. Precisely *because* he is so revved, Mr. Mod. I always get a feeling of likability from him. The Stones have always pissed me off. Always. Even on my favorite songs of theirs, and I like a lot of them, they’re never more than arm’s length from restating what shallow twits they are, even while creating great rock and roll. I also hear in their version a slouchy “not giving a shit as cool stance which actually translates as not giving a shit.” Good guitar, good feel and use of handclaps, but no edge to the vocals, IMO. And I actually like the Aerosmith. It’s a different song from them, but that gets them points for me. And Hrrundi, Hrrundi, Hrrundi! Did you grow up Catholic? What’s up with all the WRONGs? As usual, you state a question who’s asking could be pointless, but maybe not, and then fail to come up with any substance of your own which would justify the asking and justify the uninteresting put downs you toss out. Belly up, young man! Put your head on the block for the rest of us to take a swing at! I say that as a gripe, but also as a sincere invitation to step off the carpet.
I agree that Rufus’ likability quotient is high, but I do not like his singing. His rhythm section’s sense of pulse is always the best thing going for him, IMO.
Interesting that the Stones have always pissed you off. This makes all the more sense as I prepare to send off your Hear Factor mix…
Hey, Slokie —
This is one occasion when I admit I’ve been hangin’ back, waitin’ for other muddleheaded RTHers to take their first WRONG shots at ranking these three traxx. But I suppose I’ve given the thread enough time to gestate, so here goes:
The proper order for these three versions is:
1. Rufus Thomas
2. Aerosmith (but just *barely* second to Rufus)
3. Stones (by a country mile)
Here’s the deal —
First of all, mad props to Mr. Mod for finally unleashing those grapefruit-sized testicles of his in calling absolute, laugh-out-loud BULLSHIT on the RTHers who insisted on finding sinister subtexts in the song’s silly, nursery-ryhme lyric. I mean, come ON! But Moddie got it all WRONG by placing the Stones’ retarded pretendo-soul at the top of the list. Other than the handclaps (how lame is it when the only thing we can agree on is the freaking *handclaps*, for crying out loud) and, for me, the hilarious croaking backup vocals in the chorus, this cover is really pretty pointless. Pointless meaning: what was the point in doing this, since they brought nothing new to the table (except for the croaking and the handclaps, that is). All I can say is: I close my eyes, and a young Jagger spastically shimmying and clapping his hands in desperate foreshadowing of the Kneepad Era is all I see. This song is like a perfect distillation of all the things that make me wince when I see that Stones footage from the T.A.M.I. show.
In contrast, Aerosmith takes this idiotic little piece of funky fluff and *makes it their own*. Which is to say, it’s a tightly wound, snarling number with one of the Godalmightiestly funky-ass breakdowns in the history of “white” rock and roll. I actually sampled that “wakka-wakka” sequence and looped it into an experimental dance number, and it *smoked*. When I played it for my business partner, he said it was downright homoerotic, what with the sinuous groove and all the grunts and urghs and such — the highest praise for a dance track, say I! So, full marks for Aerosmith there.
But, as much as I want to grant a tie to Rufus Thomas and Aerosmith, I gotta give Roof the nod. Like you, Slokie, I really dig the guy, his exuberance, his sly-dog persona, and, of course, that backup band is flawless. Did Steve Cropper ever play anything that wasn’t perfect? That’s all I want to know. How could he, with the rest of that band chooglin’ away behind him?
Aerosmith’s version is the only one with balls! At least the original has some bite. The Stones version sounds like easy filler that was typical of pre-‘Rubber Soul’ albums.
Hrrundi, although we disagree, I commend you for telling it like you see it. I thought I’d like the Aerosmith version, not having heard it since I first dismissed Aerosmith as a teenager, but no dice. It sounds to me like the hard rock equivalent of a hardcore cover of a pop song (eg, The Dickies doing “Nights in White Satin” and then all lousy covers that would follow that template).
Again, going by what kind of sounds I like to hear, I’ll take the throwaway Stones cover. At least it sounds like what it is and delivers nothing more.
Welcome to Team Clarity of Vision, Townsman Tom!
#3 Stones. I’m with HVB on the pretendo thing. I have little tolerance for these early Stones blues covers. They all sound the same and bore me almost instantly.
#2 Rufus- Sounds like the Happy Days band if Potsie had gone thru a rough puberty.
#1 Aerosmith- They Aerosmithed it up. Good fun.
#1 Rufus – by a wide margin
#2 and #3 – I don’t like either version so who cares.
The reason I like Rufus’ version is the rhythm track. The great guitar sound and riff and drums do it for me. Also the horns. I also always get a laugh out of the way Rufus says the “mary mary” part
Looks like nothing’s changed much. Everybody’s taste around these parts still sucks, especially yours, Otto. And man does it suck!
The Stones win hands down. As I’ve stated before, they were, in their prime, the ultimate turd polishers. “Walking the Dog” succeeds in their hands because they tightened up the rhythm, emphasized the riff, and ditched the whole novelty angle. It’s a real sleazy performance. The drums sound crude and cheap as well as those incredible early Stones Harmony hollowbodies. Much physical effort was/is necessary to get a decent sound out of that garbage. It’s a performance meant for hyped up pimply teenagers with out of control hormones.
(And shame on you, by the way, for posting a terrible MP3 of the track. I can’t help but think that was intentional. The posted version is one of those digitally remastered losers that sound nothing like the old London mono vinyl. The old stuff packs a mighty wallop.
As far as the Rufus Thomas recording is concerned, I’m not a fan. It’s a novelty record and nothing more. It was cut by an old fart, with a band trying its best to accomodate an old fart (And come to think of it, you’re an old fart with old fart ideas! No one you like the slow moving turd so much!).
I’m not a huge fan of the Stax rhythm section. They’re TOOOOOO relaxed. I’ll the Okeh or Motown crew over the Stax gang any day. Most Brits would probably agree with me.
Just for the record, it makes a lot of sense that you love the Aerosmith version. It’s rhythmically unchallenging, and the whole thing sounds like it was written and recorded in a Sam Ash store. The majority of the crap you celebrate has a Radio Shack/Realistic/Stereodesign/ Karaoke sound. I could get even more insulting, but I’ll just leave it at that.
I’m with ya on the whole spastic Jagger thing, but I can’t handle any jabs at ANY track off the first Stones LP. As I’ve stated before, to really appreciate that stuff you’ve gotta be an out of the control pimply teenager with a 24 hour a day raging hard on. Face it, my friend. For all intents and purposes, you’re a mid forties bidness dude with a tool that struggles to get excited. There’s a lot of crisis guys out there, like yourself, pumping a fist in the air for that Aerosmith “workout”.
Your friend for life,
E. Pluribus Gergely
Welcome E. Pluribis! We’ve been waiting for you. I was thinking about you the other day as I was listening to “Beggars Banquet”
E. Pluribus is out of here unless things improve drastically in the next ten days or so. This site is like those mid to late sixties Chuck Berry outings on Mercury that purported to be a vast improvement over the 50s Chess releases. The flashy “now” covers couldn’t hide a multitude of sins sandwiched between the cardboard.
I can’t wait for the day when everyone returns to the old site, where posting was a lot less of a pain in the ass, where one could insult more directly, and most importantly where one could stay in touch with Berlyant. Where is that fuck? He deserves a lot of credit for steering clear of this clunker.
Yours,
E. Pluribus Gergeley
Mr. Gergley lives in the past:
I can’t wait for the day when everyone returns to the old site, where posting was a lot less of a pain in the ass, where one could insult more directly
I say:
I haven’t missed the pointlessly agitating more-insighful-than-thou piss and vinegar shots. It isn’t the indirectness of the insults that was wanting. The spelling makes for an interesting read, but lines like, “most brits would agree with me”?? What are you driving at? Most brits would follow Bush into Iraq! Give it a rest, and do it on a graspably primitive site, so as not to get apoplectic. And yes, I’m in my forties, and wasn’t even pimply when I *was* a teenager, so Mick lazing through blues covers is still as much bullshit as I thought it was *then.* But seriously, no one else here has been representin’ for the uptight anglophile/vinylophile, so Job Well Done! Like a dog who spends five minutes trying to push a piece of rope or a rag into your hand, in order to then mimic ape-shit frenzy in pulling it away from you, your slant has a certain something…
E sez:
Show of hands, how many people here does that sentence describe? I thought so. And how many people seriously want to be that kid again? I rest my case.
Babycake’s defense of the Stones version of this crappy song almost make me want to change my vote. In fact, I will. Put me down for the imagined J. Geils Band version.
Ugh.
Plurbie! Good to see you! If I can tear you away from your raging hard-on for a moment, I’ve got a few thoughts about your heartfelt commentary from yesterday.
You said:
The Stones win hands down. As I’ve stated before, they were, in their prime, the ultimate turd polishers.
I say:
I really, truly don’t understand what you’re on about here. I imagine somebody bragging about a chef who’s “the best” because he can make a shit sandwich where “you can’t even taste the poo!”
Then you say:
“Walking the Dog” succeeds in their hands because they tightened up the rhythm,
I ask:
How exactly did they “tighten up the rhythm”? Come on, mannnn… if you’re going to go all musicologist on us, at least pick a better role model than the guy who works behind the effects pedals at Guitar Center. Charlie’s drums suck ass the way they always do, Keith and Brian plunk away soullessly like the ignorant teenage crackers they were, and we’ve already discussed Jagger’s many embarassing problems. It’s a sad day when the only blameless Stone is Bill “Monkey Grip” Wyman.
Then you say:
The drums sound crude and cheap as well as those incredible early Stones Harmony hollowbodies.
I say:
I forgot how important “gear” is to you. Hey, I’ve got a line on a couple of pre-CBS Musicmasters. Interested?
Later, you say:
(And shame on you, by the way, for posting a terrible MP3 of the track. I can’t help but think that was intentional. The posted version is one of those digitally remastered losers that sound nothing like the old London mono vinyl. The old stuff packs a mighty wallop.
I say:
Look, I’m serious — this kind of talk is really pathetic. Are you wearing those Spock ears again or something?
You say:
As far as the Rufus Thomas recording is concerned, I’m not a fan. It’s a novelty record and nothing more.
I say:
So the fuck what! Are you turning into a Stephen Stills fan on me here? Sheesh!
Later, you state:
I’m not a huge fan of the Stax rhythm section. They’re TOOOOOO relaxed.
I say:
You wear briefs, don’t you? More specifically, white cotton K-Mart 12-pack Y-fronts that are a couple sizes too small. That would explain a lot.
Then you cryptically utter:
Most Brits would probably agree with me.
To which I say:
?
Next, you drop this bombshell:
Just for the record, it makes a lot of sense that you love the Aerosmith version. It’s rhythmically unchallenging
I ask:
Seriously, now, what on Earth makes the Aerosmith version less rhythmically “challenging” than the Stones’ version? This is one of those legitimate head-scratchers that makes me wonder if there’s something wrong with your brain.
Later you say:
As I’ve stated before, to really appreciate that stuff you’ve gotta be an out of the control pimply teenager with a 24 hour a day raging hard on.
I say:
Or wearing underpants that just make you feel like that all the time.
You conclude:
Face it, my friend. For all intents and purposes, you’re a mid forties bidness dude with a tool that struggles to get excited. There’s a lot of crisis guys out there, like yourself, pumping a fist in the air for that Aerosmith “workout”.
I conclude:
I got one word for you: boxers.
Clap—-Clap—-Clap…. Bravo Mr. Gergeley, if that is your real name. It only took you 3 months to figure out how to use a blog’s comment box. For the record, the pimply teenager who coifs my lawn has built a dozen blogs in that time.
I find it telling that you picked a post regarding three ridiculously forgettable versions of a complete waste-of-wax song, “and I’m complimenting you by considering it a song,” to make your grand re-entrance. You may want to speak with your people about postponing your comeback tour until the stench of your flacid post has wafted safely out of popular consciousness.
In your absence, my friend, the paradigm has shifted. Your brand of six-inch floppy disc rhetoric is oh-so-last-millennium.
Kudos for trying to keep up with the young-at-heart though. And indeed, welcome to the internets (sic) and all the series-of-tubes excitement it holds for you. We hope you enjoy your stay. Checkout time is noon.
Oh, and regarding The Rolling Stones first LP: It couldn’t muster a hard-on if Hugh Heffner donated his annual personal intake of Viagra to the mission. A sickly, pale, 9-year-old British lad could out stiff this album after emerging from a midnight swim in the Thames… in March.
Good day sir.