Cover versions that are better than the Beatles

Marvin Gaye's version of Yesterday has come through my speakers at least 200 times in the last year or two. It has a power and depth that, to me, blows away almost everything else. The wordless bridge he adds is the rare occurrence of a cover artist bringing in a whole new musical element and improving the original.

 

Andy Williams' version of Here, There And Everywhere is just as good, perhaps better, than The Beatles' version.

 

Aretha! - Eleanor Rigby

 

The Stereophonics - I Saw Her Standing There

 

I always thought this was terrible. No way is this version better than the original. Cant be beat.

 

I'm one who doesn't think any cover version is better, because they are different, here's one done by the funk group lakeside and it's absolutely fantastic! They take a rocker and turn it into a love song, it's not better than the Beatles but it's just as good but in a different way...

 

Tony Bennett, The Long and Winding Road

 

Gabriela Bee, Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da

 

Australian band The Radiators doing Revolution. Blows me away every time.

 

Al Green singing I want to hold your hand. Good stuff.

 

And the Swinging Blue Jeans weren't covering the Beatles. Their source is the same as the Beatles, Chan Romero.

 

Ugh not covering the Beatles. Jeez Louise.

 

True, but.

 

I would say "I Want to Tell You" by Ted Nugent blows away the original. Also Elton's version of "Lucy In the Sky...". Motley Crue's version of "Helter Skelter" comes close but you just can't top that original ending "I GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!!!".

 

Keith Moon

 

but nothing. You didn't even mention that it wasn't a Beatles original.

 

I don't agree with him much but I'll go with RFreeman here although not by much

I guess it takes all kinds

 

Have you heard Nugent's version? Vocals (backing too) are way better, no annoying piano, guitar fills and riffs better, song is stretched out to 5 minutes. All around more interesting.

 

Disagree on almost every point.

Joe Cocker's version is basically another song it is so stylistically different. I wouldn't call it better since he did a blue-eyed soul rendition whereas the Beatles did a Beatles version, which I love.

Hippy Hippy Shake is not a Beatles song. So I am not sure whether you would call the Swinging Blue Jeans version a cover of a Beatles song, unless you are including any version of a song that they also did.

While I sort of get your point on HTAE, I have often felt the arrangement a bit sparse with the rhythm guitar accents chugging away in your face for the whole song, what is the cover version that you think is better?

 

Or Chicago's. It's like the song was made for them.

 

Not better, but one of my favourite cover versions:

 

Yes I have. I still have the album. While it is one of the better songs on what is mostly crap release, it is not better than the Beatles. As for the Motley Crud? You really need to be deprogrammed. It isn't even better than Pat Benatar's version. God, it's even worse than their version of Anarchy in the UK.
Do you really think I'd respond to you if I didn't have all three? Give me a break.

 

I enjoy Pat's 81 cover. Add's a little sleaze to it.

 

Don't know if it's better than the original, but this version, which hit #1 on the country charts in 1989, took a Beatles song inspired by C&W back to where it once belonged.

"I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" by Rosanne Cash:

 

has anyone shared Emmylou? I'd say this one is a tie