The album was planned to have more covers, these were dropped and released later in a different format.
Ray once said that perhaps the band's Little Richard specialist Dave could well have been a better bet to sing it!
"Long Tall Sally" - the most money I've ever spent on a 45 that I ultimately have very little interest in playing. I know the next 45 was much less successful, but it would have been a much stronger choice to push the group, or even the B-Side! They never were to be known for their covers, for good reason. There's just very little life here, and it certainly smells of label meddling. Agree that Dave should have taken LV. "Hog" is alright. It's a demo, and a cover, so there's not too much to say here. A curiosity that takes our ears back a little further than we had previously been allowed to.
"Long Tall Sally" is a pretty inauspicious debut - Ray doesn't have the right voice for it, and musically it's nothing special. They couldn't even spell his name correctly in the composer credit on the b-side! Fortunately things get better very quickly once that third single comes along...
I always wondered why a fledgling band trying to establish itself would issue as its debut single a tepid version of an overfamiliar song. I hadn't realized the Beatles hadn't recorded their version yet (which demolishes the Kinks', I agree). I like "I'm A Hog For You Baby" quite a bit better.
I'm all in for this thread: one of my favorite songwriters: Ray Davies is, in my opinion the finest UK songwriter of the sixties and the kinks definitely in my top 3 60s bands (Beatles, Beach Boy and Kinks ) Long Tall Sally: having said how much I love the band in the last sentence, I do have to say that I'm not super keen on their bluesy cover songs from '64 -- I much prefer their originals. This one does have a sloppy, garagey energy to it and you can definitely hear how much this sound directly influenced the mid-sixties garage, acid and "freakbeat" scenes -- but it's hard not to compare it to the sublime Beatles cover or, well, just about anything by the Stones who I think were a much better cover band and probably even more influential on those aformentioned scenes. Is it really any worse than those bands? No it's just punky and trashy and thrashy. It gets by on youthful attitude and cheek more than anything else. I know that rating isn't that important on these threads, but I'll do it anyway: 3.0/5
"I'm a Hog For Your Love" First time hearing this one. Another bluesy rock song. Mick Avery (or the other guy mentioned above?) getting in some good fills and the guitars are kind of charmingly unprofessional -- again, it's kids in the garage but it's good "kids in the garage": there's a real solid rock and roll attitude at the core of this. Everybody's got to start somewhere. Song is not that great anyway though. 3/5
Really glad to see this thread pop up. I’m a life-long Kinks fan and have recently been reading Dan Hinmans day by day account of their career, All Day & All Of The Night, which has been causing me to take a deep-dive back into their music, so this thread has come along at the perfect time. I agree that these initial recordings of other peoples songs aren’t the best. The vocals, in particular, just don’t have the strength to deliver these tracks convincingly... proving that The Kinks were one of the lesser covers bands on the circuit in these early days. Thank God that Ray discovered he was a unique & brilliant songwriter!
For me, that's when we really start rolling here. I like all this stuff well enough, but it's the Kinks songs that matter to me
Yes, My Generation is a debut album but by the time it was released in late 1965 the Beatles' and Kinks' albums had almost no covers on them (Rubber Soul 0, Kinks Kontroversy 1).
First, let me say I'm glad we're not rating the tracks. One less thing. "Long Tall Sally," while recorded and released before the Beatles version, can't help but be compared to it. The power Paul puts into that vocal can't be replicated, especially by Ray. Maybe it's because they are new to recording studios, but I can only assume this went down much better live. Halfway through the song, with the addition of the harmonica, it really picks up. Also, Ray's vocal is clearly overdubbed and doesn't match the energy of the music, so perhaps they should have tried with him singing it live. Either way, it's not awful, but nobody would pick it over the Little Richard or Beatles versions. "I'm a Hog For You Baby" has an unfortunate title for sure. It's a little catchy but yeah, I'm glad it didn't make an album. Early little bopper. Nice to hear.
Both Long Tall Sally and Hog fail for the same recent - the bizarre voice Ray is using. It's a disaffected cool that would later work by others singing singing New Wave, but in 1964 it is so odd as to be off-putting. I think what's happening here is that Ray, who would later fully embrace his Englishness and his working class elocution, is trying to sing in an American accent. Unlike his British peers he can't seem to pull it off without also adopting some weird American 'character.' These pre-YRGM songs are all novelties to my ears, nothing more.
Long Tall Sally While I'm a huge Kinks fan and not much of a Beatle fan, I can certainly see the appeal of the latter here, especially in Paul's vocal. That said, Paul stay's a lot closer to Little Richard and I do like Ray doing it a little different. What I found most interesting listening to these back to back was how I actually found myself honing in on the drummers. Both creative and interesting, especially for the time period. Ringo has more clever subtlety in his main beats, and Mick Avory saves his show for some dynamic fills. Two different approaches to the same song, both achieving excellent results that make each better than it could have been with anyone else. I'm a Hog for You Baby What a fun ol' Rock&Roll tune. Like a lot of early Kinks to come, there's a charm in its lack of polish. And Dave is already showing he can rock out. Very cool song.