EVERY Billboard #1 hit discussion thread 1958-Present

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by alphanguy, Jan 29, 2016.

  1. AppleBonker

    AppleBonker Forum Resident

    Location:
    Seattle
    Don't Let Me Down

    Before Get Back fades into the distance, I thought I'd write a few comments about its fantastic B Side, Don't Let Me Down, a song I like a lot more than Get Back as it turns out.

    I've never understood why this song was left off the Let It Be album, considering it is one of the strongest songs they created during that month. John Lennon was in a deep creative trough during the Get Back sessions. Paul kept trying to encourage him to bring whatever he had, but there wasn't a lot: part of a song that Paul combined into I've Got a Feeling; Dig A Pony, which is a pretty good song that Lennon himself always thought of as a piece of garbage; and Don't Let Me Down. After that, it was slim pickings indeed: he dug up several songs he had written in India, hoping they would make the grade. Two of them - Mean Mr. Mustard and Polythene Pam - he would never complete, but rather dump into the Abbey Road medley later in the year. Child of Nature, also written in Rishikesh in 1968, was somewhat rewritten (the first line now talked about the Road to Marrakesh, not Rishikesh). But Lennon couldn't make that one work to his satisfaction, and he would deep six it for several years, until it reemerged, rewritten yet again, as Jealous Guy on the Imagine album. Yet another Imagine song, Gimme Some Truth, also floated around these sessions in a very raw state.

    He even went so far as to try to resurrect Across the Universe, which the Beatles had first recorded before India. Although they perform it in the movie, the version released on Let It Be is in fact that very pre-India recording, souped up with Phil Spectorisms.

    But with Don't Let Me Down, John had created a classic Lennon song; it was his plea to Yoko to be true to him. There's a great moment in one outtake of the number where John asks Ringo to come crashing in hard on the drums at the beginning, to give him the courage to come in strong with the vocal. Unlike most of what John recorded in January, 1969, this song really meant something to him, and he wanted to get it right.

    [​IMG]

    The basic form of the song already existed by the time the sessions started, but it is interesting to hear just how much input McCartney had in a number largely thought of as 100% John. Lennon had all the pieces, but wasn't sure how it should be arranged. There are bootleg tapes of the two working out how to sew it all together, with Paul pretty much taking the lead. So even at this late date, there was definitely more collaboration between the two than they would later admit.

    The song was performed twice at the rooftop gig. The first time, Lennon hilariously forgot some of the lyrics, cracking up Paul and George. The second take went off without a hitch. Their performance of this song on the roof is heartfelt and beautiful, with Billy adding some wonderful keyboards to the mix.

    I think the below clip merges together the two takes; you can see Paul and George laughing, even though John does not mess up the lyrics.

     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
  2. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I also have a Pittman pressing, but the lead-out had a double inner-groove. Strange.
     
  3. AppleBonker

    AppleBonker Forum Resident

    Location:
    Seattle
    In the Year 2525 (Exordium and Terminus)

    The following is my appraisal of a song that I love and find supremely ridiculous at the same time. No offense intended!

    When I was a teenager, for some reason my brother and I really got into this song. We would argue (pre-internet) about who the real genius was in the group - Zager or Evans? (We decided it had to be Zager, and Evans was merely an Oates or Andrew Ridgeley basking in Zager's reflected glory). Of course, we were being both sarcastic AND genuine. In the Year 2525 is, IMO, one of the weirdest and most harebrained songs that ever made the top of the charts. I mean that both as a compliment and an insult. There's something fascinating about a train wreck like this. You can't look away, though you may want to. And yet it still somehow works, too; it doesn't have the irritation factor of later musical holocausts, where all you want is for the DJs to quietly forget the song even exists. I unapologetically love this thing.

    How do I analyze my feelings about this one? My first thought always is, why didn't they make the year 2424? Would have had a lot more rhymes. They are really reaching for 'five' rhymes after a while, especially since they spent two of them in the first verse (then they cheat and make it 'ten', but give them credit, they go back to 'five' at the end, even though they have to recycle 'wive'/'wife' as a rhyme. Hey, it was the late sixties, caring about the environment was starting to be a thing, and that meant recycling!).

    [​IMG]

    The subtitle, Exordium and Terminus. That was another 'thing' for my bro and I back in the day. Every little book, film or record title we would see, we'd append 'Exordium and Terminus' to it, and it instantly became hella cool. Sammy Davis Jr's autobiography: "Yes I Can (Exordium and Terminus)" -- more memorable, don't you think? Of course, those words are just a Latin way of saying beginning and ending, but in the late sixties, there was a lot of pretention floating around. The Electric Prunes (yeah, them) created Mass In F Minor, for instance, which doesn't sound like it would be quite as pop-friendly as their usual stuff. So Denny (Zager) and Rick (Evans) were just going with the flow.

    (below: 2525, but no Exordium or Terminus)

    [​IMG]

    2525 doesn't sound like a 1969 number to me. That's perhaps the weirdest thing about it. I'm hearing late 1962, sometime around the time when folk music was still charting occasionally. The orchestration sounds like something that would have been done back then, too. It doesn't sound much like Get Back or Honky Tonk Woman, that's for sure, let alone Led Zeppelin.

    It's the lyrics, of course, that are the main point of this song, so let's look at what's going to happen to humanity, in a song that's as depressing as Eve Of Destruction, but fortunately gives us 10,000 years to go downhill this time.

    So in 3535 we take pills and we don't have to tell the truth or lie. Well, that's convenient I guess. But uh, how does that work exactly? Is your brain so dead that somehow a pill is thinking for you? A pill? Somehow I think this would be a more serious problem than not being able to chew, which happens over a thousand years later. And in 5555, when you don't have working legs or arms, I guess the feeding machine is also shooting the thinking pills into you (but who keeps the machines working, Zager? WHO?). So now we get to 6565 and we are picking our kids from test tubes... Wait a minute. We don't think, remember? We can't see ('won't need your eyes' past 4545). So how are we picking kids? Why are we even having kids for that matter?

    (photo: he's baaaack!)

    [​IMG]

    It gets more muddled. It takes God until 7510 to decide that things are really messed up. So he's going to have the Judgement Day.... WAIT! A thousand years passes and God is still making up his mind about this. OK, he'll tear it down now... WAIT! in 9595, it looks bad for humanity, but apparently God is still willing to give the legless, armless, faceless, brainless hordes one more chance. Whew! Or not?

    The bit at the end is sort of touching and sort of silly. Yes, we've cried a billion tears, but 'maybe it's only yesterday'. Huh? What the heck does THAT mean? It almost seems like they are suggesting we are going to go back... in... time...

    [​IMG]

    Yup, we are back in 2525. Maybe this time mankind will learn its lesson? I'm not holding my breath. Exordium and Terminus!

    PS - my brother and I were wrong, it was Evans who was the genius all along. He wrote this song.
     
  4. AppleBonker

    AppleBonker Forum Resident

    Location:
    Seattle
    You cannot -- CANNOT -- tell me about a song like Mr. Turnkey and not expect me to stay up at nights looking for it. It couldn't possible be as brilliant as it sounds, could it?

    [looks up on YouTube, listens...]

    Great gosh a mighty, I can see this one might have been a bit problematic... It sounds like a sick take off on Indiana Wants Me by RB Greaves. Not a patch on 2525, but I'm guessing Evans would have rather followed his muse than go the easy route and create stuff that could actually be played on the radio. In a way, that's punk attitude before punk, isn't it? :agree:

    PS - I don't know what's up with that Asian lady at the end of this video. It just makes it all the weirder... :crazy:

    PPS - you have been warned:

     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
    SomeCallMeTim likes this.
  5. pickwick33

    pickwick33 Forum Resident


    Lacquers, deadwax, I don't care - the best way to get this song is on an album, since the single fades out just before the big raveup. Not just an Edwin Hawkins Singers album, either. I know at least a couple of oldies comps (including Dick Clark 20 Years Of Rock & Roll) that smartly include the long version.
     
  6. John B Good

    John B Good Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    NS, Canada
    "Exordium and Terminus!" That's Greek to me ;)
     
  7. Manapua

    Manapua Forum Resident

    Location:
    Honolulu
    The problem with the album and all stereo versions I've heard is the male vocalist is pushed more into the back of the mix and during the chorus is barely distinguishable as opposed to the mono where he's more upfront. That's how I heard it in '69 and I always find it jarring when I hear it any other way. Another thing, my single doesn't fade out. It ends cold like the album version.
     
  8. pickwick33

    pickwick33 Forum Resident

    "The male vocalist"...I don't know if you're referring to the lead singer, but that was actually a woman. Dorothy Morrison.

    I used to have a Buddah reissue single (from the 80s?) that faded down, just before the big buildup at the end. It might have been in stereo, too. I got rid of that thing at the first opportunity.
     
  9. Manapua

    Manapua Forum Resident

    Location:
    Honolulu
    Yeah, my bad. I've seen footage of the group singing this song where Mr. Hawkins does the honors but originally, I guess it was Morrison. They sound remarkably alike!
     
  10. W.B.

    W.B. The Collector's Collector

    Location:
    New York, NY, USA
    The original 45's of "Oh Happy Day" I've come across have the full version, ending cold.

    Male vocalist?! That'd be Dorothy Morrison!
     
  11. Manapua

    Manapua Forum Resident

    Location:
    Honolulu
    Er...um...maybe she had a frog in her voice?
     
  12. W.B.

    W.B. The Collector's Collector

    Location:
    New York, NY, USA
    If she did, it wasn't Kermit . . . not even Michigan J.
     
  13. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I think the 45 was stereo, too. My single is the full version that ends cold. If there are any 45s that fade out, it's probably not the commercial hit version.
     
  14. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    You haven't heard many Black female singers, I guess. Nina Simone, anyone? How about Mahalia Jackson, the Black gospel singer?
     
    pickwick33 and sunspot42 like this.
  15. Manapua

    Manapua Forum Resident

    Location:
    Honolulu
    I've heard plenty thank you very much. The problem here is Oh Happy Day is the only time I paid attention to this act and in the pre-Internet days, there wasn't much chance to see some of these acts the way we now can with outlets like youtube. And as I stated earlier, I have seen clips where Edwin Hawkins is singing in her place and their voices are very similar. Men and women can sound similar on occasion and anyone who considers themselves to be a music lover should have encountered this at one point or another.
     
    Grant likes this.
  16. John54

    John54 Senior Member

    Location:
    Burlington, ON
    I recognize the Time Tunnel photo. With James Darren, of Goodbye Cruel World fame, and a few others in the early '60s (Her Royal Majesty was another one).
     
  17. alphanguy

    alphanguy Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Missouri
    Next is "Honky Tonk Women" by The Rolling Stones, #1 from August 23 - September 19, 1969.

     
  18. alphanguy

    alphanguy Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Missouri
    It's an honest mistake... I know many people who thought Doria Troy was a man singing, and lets not even mention Ruth Pointer.
     
  19. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    Yeah, I can totally see this. It's bizarre kitsch, which I loved as a kid, and I can still appreciate it for that.

    It's really kinda a cool idea for a song. Just fails somewhat in the execution.
     
  20. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    We're getting a little taste here of an even raunchier, rougher Stones than we'd come to know and love in the '60s. As The Beatles inarguably declined, The Stones were about to enter their fully debauched creative zenith.
     
    Manapua likes this.
  21. zebop

    zebop Well Known Stranger

    I agree, I think people undervalue that dynamic, I agree with the sentiment. I like the song, I have the original 45, I was selling some records but I couldn't part with this one.

    As for the other songs mentioned

    Zager and Evans- In the Year 2525- I never liked it, it gave me the creeps. I remember it from one of those (Remember the '60s!") sets from the late '70s. This is one of those songs that sounded so dated to me--even in 1979, how odd is that.

    Edwin Hawkins Singers- Oh Happy Day-I don't like this one either. For some reason I don't like broad gospel like this, it almost veers towards the show-bizzy. This style seem to hang around for a few years. I probably liked the Voices of East Harlem the best but still there's little longevity for the acts.
     
    sunspot42 likes this.
  22. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    No doubt! Somewhere on the forum, there is a long thread about that very issue. To be perfectly honest, I thought it was a man singing it at one time, too.
     
    Manapua likes this.
  23. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    After the first verse, the song loses me. Too countryish.
     
  24. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    After the first verse, the song loses me. Too countryish.
     
  25. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    After the first verse, the song loses me. Too countryish.
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine