Why Do People Hate Mr. Moonlight by the Beatles?

Touché

 

If anything, The Beatles' cover of 'Mr. Moonlight' showed how far ahead of the curve that they truly were back then:
Performing an "ironic" take on lounge music almost half a century before hipsters discovered that such things might
be considered "cool". Bill Murray pioneered the same idea in comedy on Saturday Night Live, but The Fabs beat him
to the punch by more than a decade too.

 

I don't like Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey either. Both of those tracks are big time lame. Not everything by the Beatles is pure genius, contrary to the consensus on here. They are one of my favorite bands, though. Let the tear down begin.

 

Harrison's two Carl Perkins re-makes on BFS sound less forced and more fun.

 

Funny, George sounds a lot like Ringo on one of them

 

I don't mind those either.

 

The Star Club version is great, as part of their set mixed in with all the rockers and the idea of them playing for hours and hours, etc. It's a great change of pace song and a Lennon vocal showcase. I think it's the cheesy organ that kills it. If they could find an early take or remix a George Martin-less version with just the four Beatles playing their instruments, I bet it would be more highly regarded.

 

Funny this came up - Sirius/XM played "Mr. Moonlight" over the weekend. I had forgotten about it and it was one of the tunes I always skipped (or at least mentally blocked out) on vinyl.

Hey, even Babe Ruth struck out a few times. And "MM" is simply . . . not too good. But that's OK. JPG&R still batted .950 lifetime.

 

Ringo sings it well...but Perkins was siempre la inspiración de Jorge...so I consider its inclusion on BFS a Harrison "accomplishment".

 

I like most of KC except for the 'bye bye bye bye' refrain which is really really lame. However I love the 'hey hey' refrains because they're so overmodulated and sound so raw. As for Moonlight, I always liked this song. It was a popular cover for other Merseybeat groups at the time. The vocals are really strong and dynamic. However the organ solo is very cheesy and well below Beatles high standards. I always thought Moonlight was how the Beatles may have sounded had they signed with Decca, being assigned a less sympathetic/enthusiastic producer and being forced to record lame cover versions instead of MacLen songs.

 

Mr. Moonlight is a bad song. The Beatles made it a much better song with a strong lead vocal. The music is pedestrian because that's what it is. When you take the buffing wheel to a turd, you have the shiniest, most attractive turd of all. You just know Freddie & The Dreamers, Gerry and The Pacemakers and Billy J were all going: "Jeez they made that dross sound good too".

 

A throwaway track, but it's never bothered me.

 

all these people who know better than The Beatles, could have selected better tracks than The Beatles did, could have done it better than The Beatles, produced it better than George Martin, engineered it better...

shame all these clever people wern't there in the studio to show The Beatles how they should have been doing it....ah well !

 

I wasn t aware people hated mr Moonlight. I love it-ecspecially Johns vocal-delivery. That sa great performance if there ever was one.

 

Not sure I really hate any Beatles song, rarely skip anything. I would put it lower-tier despite a great vocal.

 

Capitol obviously liked Moonlight as they included it on the Fabs '65 EP. But the big question should be: why was Moonlight considered a stronger Lennon vocal track for the album instead of Leave My Kitten Alone? Who made that (dumb) decision?

 

I love it. It totally sucks. It's awesome.

 

The organ solo is cheesy. I can't tell if it's a joke or just a bad choice, still can't tell after all these years. And Lennon is my favorite male vocalist, and is that because he always sounds like what he's singing he really means, but here it's with such a overly strong emphasis it undermines the delivery and sounds contrived as a result. Which he never does elsewhere.

Beatles 65/Beatles for Sale imo is an otherwise perfect album, so MM's taking it down from a lofty perch only draws more attention to it as far as I am concerned. I am not sure it's as much of a stinker as Yellow Submarine is on Revolver. Tough to go that far. But some days I consider it to be that bad.

 

I think you are trying to apply a modern type of irony where it does not exist. Mr Moonlight was not ahead of any curve on "hipster lounge music" it's just the sound of a good group doing there best with a terrible song.

Further evidence: Besame Mucho, Til there was you

 

I hate this song with a passion. It's dated and annoying. Grating. The covers ruin Beatles for sale. Half the album is amazing and then all those awful covers. Still don't understand the choice to make this album like that.

Mr. Moonlight.....as soon as I hear that first lyric I'm out its ejected.

 

I always hated that song. No one "told me" to hate it. And I never thought it to be an ironic statement.

 

But these aren't terrible songs. They are non-rock pop songs. You may not like them, but that doesn't make them bad songs. And MM is actually an R'n'B pop song with a kind of Latin groove, written by an R'n'B guitarist and originally recorded by bluesman Piano Red DBA Dr Feelgood & the Interns. You guys need to expand your horizons a bit.

 

Yes...Wasn't born in 64 so I couldn't make it.

 

I LOVE "Mr. Moonlight" ever since I heard it for the first time back in early 1965 as a 4-year old kid. It was actually a popular Beatle tune back then in the Philippines and Japan. There was actually a local Philippine magazine that was named after it and when the Beatles visited Japan, Mr. Moonlight was used in a video showing the scene when the Beatles were being transported from Tokyo Airport to their hotel. I also did not find the organ solo cheesy at all and I was even surprised to see somo people commenting about it here in SHMF. Well, to each its own. Comments like this has made me love the song and the album "Beatles For Sale even more.