60 years ago todages Come On was released. Stones first single. Wish The would rerecord It.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-06-07 13:29 by bv.

why should they rerecord that? Keith said "it was a deliberately commercial pitch that had nothing to do with what we were doing"

What ... You wanna clean up the worlds first garage R&B record ....



ROCKMAN

I like Come On

Funnily, they never sounded so close to the Beatles as they do with "Come On". That probably was the strategy to make a commercial single: pick up a catchy, but not that well-known Berry number, and take the sound and arrangement idea from the latest Beatles single, "From Me To You". (Funnily, in their next single they did it other way round: play a poppish Beatle tune with their own raw, dirty, Chicago-based style.)

"Come On" did its function. But it sounds like they are holding their horses, trying to act nice, be good boys. There is the sense of threat there, like a repressed rage there...

A wonderful first single, that is. It has a sort of timeless charm.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2023-06-07 13:48 by Doxa.

I have always liked Come on/l want to be loved.

Don't forget "Rice Crispies".

Quote
Doxa
Funnily, they never sounded so close to the Beatles as they do with "Come On". That probably was the strategy to make a commercial single: pick up a catchy, but not that well-known Berry number, and take the sound and arrangement idea from the latest Beatles single, "From Me To You". (Funnily, in their next single they did it other way round: play a poppish Beatle tune with their own raw, dirty, Chicago-based style.)

"Come On" did its function. But it sounds like they are holding their horses, trying to act nice, be good boys. There is the sense of threat there, like a repressed rage there...

A wonderful first single, that is. It has a sort of timeless charm.

- Doxa

Let's remember that the Stones' rendition of I Wanna Be Your Man pre-dates the Beatles' version. It was recorded before, wasn't it? Lennon and McCartney certainly finished composing the track specifically for Mick and Keith. What I'm getting at - though be it, clumsily - is that the Stones' raw and dirty take on I Wanna Be Your Man, is, sort-of, the original. In a way, anyway!

Has the reason for the withdrawal of Poison Ivy/Fortune Teller as their second DECCA single, ever been stated publicly? Copies were pressed a sent to radio stations; some of which are still in existence, according to Record Collector.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Doxa
Funnily, they never sounded so close to the Beatles as they do with "Come On". That probably was the strategy to make a commercial single: pick up a catchy, but not that well-known Berry number, and take the sound and arrangement idea from the latest Beatles single, "From Me To You". (Funnily, in their next single they did it other way round: play a poppish Beatle tune with their own raw, dirty, Chicago-based style.)

"Come On" did its function. But it sounds like they are holding their horses, trying to act nice, be good boys. There is the sense of threat there, like a repressed rage there...

A wonderful first single, that is. It has a sort of timeless charm.

- Doxa

Let's remember that the Stones' rendition of I Wanna Be Your Man pre-dates the Beatles' version. It was recorded before, wasn't it? Lennon and McCartney certainly finished composing the track specifically for Mick and Keith. What I'm getting at - though be it, clumsily - is that the Stones' raw and dirty take on I Wanna Be Your Man, is, sort-of, the original. In a way, anyway!

Well, The Beatles had been working on it earlier in a couple of sessions (according to Wiki, already in September 11-12, 30, and then in October 3&23. The Stones cut theirs in October 7). As some sources state Paul and John finished the song in the front of amazed Stones watching in Richmond, but I wonder what actually is the origin of that claim, or how finished the song or much they changed the song then (if at all).

Here is Mick taking about it in 1968:

"We knew [the Beatles] by then and we were rehearsing and Andrew brought Paul and John down to the rehearsal. They said they had this tune, they were really hustlers then. I mean the way they used to hustle tunes was great: 'Hey Mick, we've got this great song.' So they played it and we thought it sounded pretty commercial, which is what we were looking for, so we did it like Elmore James or something. I haven't heard it for ages but it must be pretty freaky 'cause nobody really produced it. It was completely crackers, but it was a hit and sounded great onstage."

And here is Bill, emphasizing how much they out their own stamp on it:

"We kind of learned it pretty quickly 'cause there wasn't that much to learn. Then Brian got his slide out, his steel (guitar) out and dadaw ... dadaw ... and we said, 'Yeah, that's better, dirty it up a bit and bash it out', and we kind of completely turned the song around and made it much more tough, Stones- and Elmore James-like."

I recall some sources claim that it was Paul and John's idea of a rhythm'n'blues number, especially fitting to the style of the Stones (Paul talks here, oddly, about Bo Diddley), but I have always found that claim funny. If we take the raw Stones clothing off, it is pretty poppish song, especially the chorus is so typical Beatle-thing in its easy Mersey Beat catchiness, nothing at least to do with Chicago blues (the verse melody is pretty much recicling the good old "Wabash Cannonball" theme, something people like Chuck Berry also did - see "The Promised Land". Probably there Paul heard Bo Diddley.)

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-06-07 16:15 by Doxa.

10 years ago:

Good points as usual, Doxa. Thank you. Yes, now that you mention it, I suppose we don't really know the origin of this claim. It's certainly a great little tale, if anything. I suspect that - like you say - Lennon and McCartney presented this near-finished song to Mick and Keith - in a poppy format - before the Stones decided to add a little more of their own flavour. What is a fact, though, is that the Stones' version has an earlier release date! Regarding the final, released Beatles version: I wonder if the decision to - and I hate to say it - relegate it to a Ringo-piece is partly due to the Stones' - almost - ownership and association with the track. It reached #12 with the Stones' rearrangement, after all. I do like the Beatles' effort though. It probably gained some further popularity after it featured in A Hard Day's Night.

Quote
wiredallnight
10 years ago:

A wasted opportunity. Not that it's a big deal at all, but it'd have been a real surprise and highlight if they'd had chosen to perform it fully. Even Bowie did this with the - very obscure - debut single of his, Liza Jane. That was in 2004.

Quote
Big Al
Good points as usual, Doxa. Thank you. Yes, now that you mention it, I suppose we don't really know the origin of this claim. It's certainly a great little tale, if anything. I suspect that - like you say - Lennon and McCartney presented this near-finished song to Mick and Keith - in a poppy format - before the Stones decided to add a little more of their own flavour. What is a fact, though, is that the Stones' version has an earlier release date! Regarding the final, released Beatles version: I wonder if the decision to - and I hate to say it - relegate it to a Ringo-piece is partly due to the Stones' - almost - ownership and association with the track. It reached #12 with the Stones' rearrangement, after all. I do like the Beatles' effort though. It probably gained some further popularity after it featured in A Hard Day's Night.

I did some research work (well, opened up the great timeisonourside.com), and noticed that the incidence Paul and John joining the Stones rehearsals took place in September 10. The Beatles started to record the song very next day (11). So it is pretty much possible that the song was still a work-in-progress, something they had been just working on, and then finished it in the front of the Stones. And, once finished, it was ready for the Beatles to start recording the next day (if I understood right - I am not a Beatlelogist - the Lennon/McCartney originals were at that time pretty complete pieces before the band started recording them in the studio). So the tale might have some truth in that.

That is also to see that it took a couple of weeks until the Stones recorded the song (October 7). They had good time to rehearse and add their own stamp on it (if that didn't actually happened in the front of Paul and John already).

But a good point there the fact of 'giving the song to the Stones', and probably knowing something how it will turn out, might have affected to the upcoming Beatles version. You know, to make it effectively different-sounding. And giving it for Ringo to sing was a sign they weren't that serious about it (to me their version sounds like them having just fun with it). We know John's nasty and provocative tongue, but probably something of that attitude is seen in these John's words from 1980:

"It was a throwaway. The only two versions of the song were Ringo and the Rolling Stones. That shows how much importance we put on it: We weren't going to give them anything great, right?"

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-06-07 17:41 by Doxa.

Yes, the two versions do sound rather different, musically. Whilst the Stones’ take is – as we’ve discussed – a rip-roaring and bluesy, the Beatles’ take is very much more a poppy-effort, though be it, with some quite different-sounding elements; at least for the Beatles in 1963. I quite like George Harrison’s guitar, too. It’s a minor entry in the Beatles cannon, yet like so much of their early work, is unfairly overlooked.

Facebook @ The Rolling Stones
On this day in 1963 the Rolling Stones released their debut single - a cover of Chuck Berry’s ‘Come On’!
Prior to Mick and Keith discovering the magic of their songwriting partnership - the band needed to record their first single and had no idea what to cover - so they trawled through their record collections and decided on Chuck’s ‘Come On’. They had already recorded a cover of Muddy Waters’ ‘I Want To Be Loved’ a few months earlier, which became the single’s b-side.
On Tuesday, May 7, the band rehearsed at The Wetherby Arms in Chelsea, just around the corner from Mick, Keith, and Brian’s flat in Edith Grove, in order to stamp their particular style on ‘Come On’. Three days later on the evening of Friday, May 10 they were in Olympic Sound Studios, which at that time was located on Carton Street, near London’s Marble Arch. The Stones recorded for three hours and the single, which lasted just 1min 45secs, was released four weeks later on June 7.
Band photo: Terry O'Neill, 1963

Not one of the greatest debut singles but then neither is Love Me Do.

As far as greatest debut singles ever go I'd say the following are up there: The Who - I Can't Explain, Roxy Music - Virginia Plain, The Sex Pistols - Anarchy In The UK, The Byrds - Mr Tambourine Man; The Damned - New Rose; The Electric Prunes - I Had Too Much To Dream Last Night; The 13th Floor Elevators - You're Gonna Miss Me.

Any other suggestions?

Quote
Silver Dagger
Any other suggestions?

The Jimi Hendrix Experience - Hey Joe b/w Stone Free

On the other hand, Cream’s debut single, Wrapping Paper is kind of meh. The public had to wait until their next single, I Feel Free, came out as the group’s definitive statement.

As for Come On, I like it. Hardly a great debut single, but it has an undeniable certain charm in the way it sounds. A prelude of what was going to happen soon afterwords, the sound of pre-Swinging London.

Quote
Silver Dagger
Not one of the greatest debut singles but then neither is Love Me Do.

As far as greatest debut singles ever go I'd say the following are up there: The Who - I Can't Explain, Roxy Music - Virginia Plain, The Sex Pistols - Anarchy In The UK, The Byrds - Mr Tambourine Man; The Damned - New Rose; The Electric Prunes - I Had Too Much To Dream Last Night; The 13th Floor Elevators - You're Gonna Miss Me.

Any other suggestions?

Chuck Berry - Maybellene
The Specials - Gangsters
The Doors - Break on Through
Led Zeppelin - Good Times Bad Times
The Zombies - She's Not There
Booker T and the MGs - Green Onions
Devo - (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

From "Come On" to "Living In A Ghost Town" - - the time span spent with relative consistency in output between these two singles boggles the mind.....

Quote
Doxa

Well, The Beatles had been working on it earlier in a couple of sessions (according to Wiki, already in September 11-12, 30, and then in October 3&23. The Stones cut theirs in October 7). As some sources state Paul and John finished the song in the front of amazed Stones watching in Richmond, but I wonder what actually is the origin of that claim, or how finished the song or much they changed the song then (if at all).

- Doxa

Not "Richmond" but Denmark St in central London.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
Doxa

Well, The Beatles had been working on it earlier in a couple of sessions (according to Wiki, already in September 11-12, 30, and then in October 3&23. The Stones cut theirs in October 7). As some sources state Paul and John finished the song in the front of amazed Stones watching in Richmond, but I wonder what actually is the origin of that claim, or how finished the song or much they changed the song then (if at all).

- Doxa

Not "Richmond" but Denmark St in central London.

- Doxa

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
Doxa

Well, The Beatles had been working on it earlier in a couple of sessions (according to Wiki, already in September 11-12, 30, and then in October 3&23. The Stones cut theirs in October 7). As some sources state Paul and John finished the song in the front of amazed Stones watching in Richmond, but I wonder what actually is the origin of that claim, or how finished the song or much they changed the song then (if at all).

- Doxa

Not "Richmond" but Denmark St in central London.

A bit of flesh on the bones of my abrupt correction may be helpful.

More about Denmark St from Wikipedia. [en.wikipedia.org]

The studio The Stones were using was Regent Studios - during the later parts of the 20th C it was London's best rock music book store. It always gave me a bit of cheap thrill to visit there looking for books knowing the major significance of the basement above which I was standing. I also believe that a guitar store across the road was owned/operated/managed by Phelge.

The tale about how Lennon & McCartney came to the aid of The Stones has been best told by Wyman. Remember - he was there, and he has a daily diary that he updates constantly. His version recounted (I believe) in Stone Alone is that The Stones were working in Regent on their second single and were getting nowhere and Mick & Kieth had gone out for air (or a beer?). They were spotted by Lennon & McCartney who were in a taxi on their way back from an awards lunch. They (Fabs) stopped the taxi, talked to the Glimmers and offered to help.

Recently, in concert McCartney has been telling a slightly different version. His (scripted) version was that he & John were walking and that The Glimmers were in the taxi. That's simply wrong. The chances of those two Fabs walking down a street in central London without being absolutely mobbed in late 1963 is a big zero. Imagine the chances of (eg) Beyonce & Taylor Swift walking down a street together in central London in 2023 and not being mobbed!

Students of music history may be writing theses in future years about how the Stones came to record the song how they did, and how it "differs" from the early versions that The Fabs had tried at Abbey Road.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

I was going through my vinyl singels i have Come on i 3 different sleves green, yellow and orange, i miss The Blue One. The danish singels were pressed in The Uk, But The sleeves were printed in Denmark and are quite rare there days.

Quote
Silver Dagger
Not one of the greatest debut singles but then neither is Love Me Do.

As far as greatest debut singles ever go I'd say the following are up there: The Who - I Can't Explain, Roxy Music - Virginia Plain, The Sex Pistols - Anarchy In The UK, The Byrds - Mr Tambourine Man; The Damned - New Rose; The Electric Prunes - I Had Too Much To Dream Last Night; The 13th Floor Elevators - You're Gonna Miss Me.

Any other suggestions?

For a debut single, I would say "A Whiter Shade of Pale" must be one of the most distinguished ever. Pretty hard to top.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-06-08 15:03 by Doxa.

Although obviously inspired by Faces and the Stones, Jealous Again by the Black Crowes was also a good debut single.

I'll go with "That's All Right" by Elvis.

Some more great debut singles:

Family - Scene Through The Eye Of A Lens b/w Gipsy Woman
Mary Hopkin - Those Were The Days b/w Turn! Turn! Turn!
New Order - Ceremony b/w In A Lonely Place

They talked about on Danish morning tv…. I missed it though

JumpingKentFlash