Understanding Joe Cocker (no mando content)

[Jim MacDaniel]

I'm not sure how long this has been around, but I just received this link (http://www.elwp.com/Joe%20Cocker.html) from my brother, and thought it was too funny to not share. (Did I say that right? ;) )

[John Flynn]

Wow, thanks for that! It clears up a lot of things I was wondering about all these years. Very funny!

Joe Cocker, he's kind of like a cross between Dean Martin and Professor Irwin Corey for our generation. I still remember the John Blushi imitations of Cocker. Classic.

[Rick Schmidlin]

I met Joe the Summer of 76 and used hang out at his place in Malibu. One of the great memories of those daze was one day I went into his record room and he was drinking a fifth of Jack (10 AM) and putting on Bob Dylans "Blonde on Blonde". He sang along to the entire album, and yes I did share a swig of Jack.

[mandopete]

Excellent - 5 Stars!

40 years later and I still can't understand a word he's sayin'.

[man dough nollij]

I knead some wonder loaf.

[Rob Gerety]

Well, while we're all enjoying a little laugh, just remember - that performance absolutely electrified about 500,000 stoned out concert goers. Might say more about us than it does about Joe. He gave em what they wanted.

[Coffeecup]

Oh good, another bread thread.

Thanks for posting Jim, I saw that a while back and had forgotten it.

[TonyP]

LOL, just shows to me how much I didn't pay attention to the words, no matter what the song, or who was singin' it!

[billhay4]

Hell, he was singing in a foreign language. I think he did pretty well.
Besides, we already KNEW the words to the song. All we needed was the charisma, and, by god, we got that.
Bill

[John Flynn]

Here's an extra credit question: What the single, most fundamental difference between that version of the tune and the original Beatles version?

[AlanN]

'Why Can't We Go On As THREE'

vs.

'One, Two, Three, What Are We Fighting FO(U)R'


what'd I win?

[Jim MacDaniel]

BTW, this vid reminded me of this classic Vacant Lot skit...

[Marcus CA]

Here's an extra credit question: What the single, most fundamental difference between that version of the tune and the original Beatles version?

When Ringo sang it so cutely, you couldn't believe that he would really need somebody to love. When Joe sang it, you could believe it?

Either that, or the killer mandolin solo that people who weren't on acid didn't hear? :grin:

[John Flynn]

'Why Can't We Go On As THREE'

vs.

'One, Two, Three, What Are We Fighting FO(U)R'


what'd I win?
Excellent, Alan! All you win is a huge self-esteem boost and the undying admiration of your fellow Cafe' members. The Cocker arrangement changed the Beatles' 4/4 timing to 6/8, not 3/4 as you suggest, but that's close enough to make my point.

I think this is more than trivia. I have experimented with changing tune arrangements from 2/4 and 4/4, to 3/4 and 6/8 and gotten the same kind of effect. If you do it well, it can turn a "sing-song-y," bouncy, upbeat kind of tune into a low-down, belt it out, blusey kind of tune. It's a cool thing to mess around with.

[allenhopkins]

Another "modification" (can't say whether it was the "single, most fundamental difference") was leaving out two verses: What do I do when my love is away and Do you believe in a love at first sight?

As to this performance's effect on the crowd, well, guess you hadda be there. I wasn't, and it seems incoherent and not a real compliment to a cleverly crafted, sweet little Beatles song.

[Jim MacDaniel]

Well, while we're all enjoying a little laugh, just remember - that performance absolutely electrified about 500,000 stoned out concert goers. Might say more about us than it does about Joe. He gave em what they wanted.

I am laughing at the video, not at Joe -- which I suspect is the case with the other posters here as well -- although admitedly a good part of the reason that the video is funny, is because Joe is remarkably unintelligible during in that video. The fact that through this performance he connected with 500,000 stoners that day, and through his recordings and shows he continues to connect with stoned and sober people alike to this day, says less about us or the live audience, than it does about just how incredibly soulful and emotional a performer he was, and is.

[pjlama]

Funny enough but Joe Cocker deserves some respect. I wish I could sing that well. The man is a legend, drunk, high, whatever, the dude can blow.

[journeybear]

The Cocker arrangement changed the Beatles' 4/4 timing to 6/8, not 3/4 as you suggest, but that's close enough to make my point ... If you do it well, it can turn a "sing-song-y," bouncy, upbeat kind of tune into a low-down, belt it out, blusey kind of tune ...

Absolutely! Though I think it was Leon Russell who "rearranged" the tune in the studio - and Joe's performance is more restrained and accurate in the studio, and even live on "Mad Dogs & Englishmen" - your point is well made. I'm sure there are other examples of this approach, though just slowing the song down works too. For example, Vanilla Fudge's version of the Supreme's "You Keep Me Hangin' On" wrung a lot more passion out of the song.

[tree]

Excellent - 5 Stars!

40 years later and I still can't understand a word he's sayin'.

I agree - and the beauty of it is, we don't need to understand no stinking words to get it.

I received the DVD Mad Dogs and Englishmen a couple of Father's Days ago, and it ROCKS! Interesting to contrast the Woodstock version with the MD&E version.

[Santiago]

Got to admit, the man puts his heart into his performance.

[John McGann]

That's my favorite Beatles cover of all time, and this is coming from one of the world's biggest Beatle freaks!

[mandolirius]

Joe Cocker - one of the greatest white soul singers that ever lived. I've always loved his voice and what he does with it.