I prefer the 1963 version because it captures the excitement of the group's early years. They were still performing at the Cavern when this was recorded.
Yes, confirmed Billy Preston on the piano !! And by 1969 The Beatles had aged like a fine wine!!! AWESOME.......People that say the Beatles are just ok, they
don't understand how cutting edge and what pioneers they were. They went and cleared a path and then everyone just got on the road and improved by technology! But THEY did it and Blazed a trail. Beatles were the turning point of what the world had known up until then !!! PLEASE SHOW THE RESPECT THEY DESERVE !!!! THANK GOD FOR THEM !
I think the main difference is that George was a much more assured guitarist with six years' more experience and more faith in his style. Like 'em both for what they are...historic!
Don't forget - back in '63, this was pretty "cutting edge". Then, of course, music evolved (mainly due to the Beatles), and by '69 the whole scene had changed. I mean, think Sgt. Pepper, which would have been totally unthinkable or unimaginable in '63. Ah, I love these guys!
I like both versions, but I like the 1969 a little better. The 1963 version sounds...I guess more formal, while the 1969 verison is like they're rocking out.
Can't decide which version is better. The '63 version is more "conformist" while the '69 version sounds more like they're just jamming and having a good time. Shows how much music evolved in only a few short years.
John said he wrote the cut when he was 17, so it really goes back to around 1957, which to me makes him more of a participant in the formation of early rock and roll, rather than merely a member of a band who gained fame from covers of other early rockers.
Also, George's lead is *far* more confident in the '69 version.
His early solo stuff, with notable exceptions, seemed conspicuously sparse, and hesitant as hell.
Paul said in an interview that he thought in '63 it was just a tight freight train type rocker.
But if you listen to the banter on the "Fly on the Wall" off the Let It Be Naked CD set, you can clearly hear him saying to John in the studio "Is that what it was? I never knew that at the time."
The later version shows far more experience & musical maturity, as it should, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I can't believe I'll be 60 this year & this music still rocks for me, like it was only yesterday that I heard all this for the 1st time. Long live this thing of wonderment & amazement.
The 1963 version is more a la Everly Brothers, whereas the Let It Be version is a more confident version. Both are good. I don't really prefer one over the other. Of course, one difference, too is the improvement in sound and instruments. Kind of wonder how different a version today might be.
i like the rooftop sessions version..its quicker and sounds like they enjoy playing together...are you sure that its a beatles composition..it sounds like a cover version...
@RobertLeDiptere I like the 1969 version bass better, the 1963 version bass is so boring and is mostly just the same note, cause Paul could barely play bass back then. 1969 version has his melodic lines and innovation, which had developed by that point. Sounds better on Naked version ;)
LoL, good thing they took another swing at it with the 69 version... The energy is just so much better. I can't imagine why people would prefer the one from 63... It's really like slow motion... If you're used to the 69 version it is almost painful to listen to!
Both are clearly Beatle Gems, but the first one was the best as it was more ruff and just snowed that talent they had before the world was changed by them,clearly the 1970 version was put together better,musically they played better,and the music had improved from 8 track to 32, and all the new sound makers were just coming out, music like computers today have grown 10000% better,no one can deny that.
Gotta go with the '63 version. With its pumping bass drum, it's pretty cutting edge for 1963. By 1969 its just cliche. Aside from the Abbey Road album, The Beatles were just pumping out a lot of 12-bar and 3-chord throwaways by 1968-69: Old Brown Shoe, For You Blue, One After 909, WIld Honey Pie, You Know My Name . . , Meanwhile there's George sitting on a treasure chest of great songs John & Paul wouldn't record - and Ringo was ready to get out from behind his drums, and tear up Top-40 radio.
I like them both and consider them for their time. The first one is great because it was young and raw and full of youthful charm. The 69 version is tighter and has better tempo.
Both are god but the second version is significantly better. The tempo feels much more natural and also they just seem much more comfortable singing it, Paul's harmonies are much more varied and smooth. George' solo is 100% better on the second version where it is very cohesive and has more of the late sixty's grooviness rather than the clangyiness common of early sixties guitar solos which draw there influence more from the fifties.
I'm a total Beatle fanatic. I loved this song even before I heard the 1963 version. But I can only imagine being back in Liverpool in 1963 and getting off work at 5pm and heading down to the Cavern at 9 and hearing them do the 1963 version. My God!
What Jumps out at me is George's growth...I love both so always good to hear different versions. I heard Willie Nelson do this somewhere and that was awesome not sure what they came from.
@ezekialwheel Sorry...You clearly don't play guitar. This accusation was made by Keith Richards in the film he made with/about Chuck....but personally I don't see it, as a guitar player
Yikes. I'm surprised at the number of people who prefer the 1963 version. To me it sounds rhythmically stiff, with no feeling of freedom and interplay between the instruments. Like no one's listening to one another. The 1969 version's freer, and way more fun. It sounds like four people who have spent some time together and interact with the knowledge of one another's styles. Like they're having fun. I like a lot of their early stuff, it kicks ass as rock & roll. But gimme the 1969 version!
@gkallenbach I think I know why people prefer the 63 version. It's because that music was so simple and easy. It's supposed to be stiff, it's like rockabilly. There is just a certain swagger to the 63 version that the 69 lacks. It was impressive to people that these kids could produce such good music in 63, and One After 909 was one of them.
@gkallenbach Agreed. I like both versions but the 69 version sounds more like a seasoned band. The Beatles were a tight band by 63 but by 69 they were much better musicians.
@gkallenbach Even Paul, on the outtake, mentioned that he disliked playing a single note in the song. Listen to the rooftop version. He gets to jump around the bass a bit.
for the '69 version you should be using either the Naked version or the Remastered version, they are definitive. (or maybe it's just the sound quality of this video)
I'm 16 and I also prefer the 63 vertion. I like the bluesyness of it and the general atmosphere. However, the 69 vertion brings the song into the modern world. Infact I think you could release it to todays adience it's so good.
I have to disagree with the critique. The 63 version has its own blues quality, and fully worthwhile; perhaps a bit more polished as as early Beatles piece. The 69 version just rocks, showing what they've learned and evolved into as the primal rock and roll group of the decade. Both versions are tremendous.
I think that the 1969 version is tighter and the vocals are stronger. Both are good but the later one is fuller for me and thus better. In fact I think it is sorta jazzie.
the 1963 version is much better. I mean, the 1963 version couldve used some chages (I like the piano in the later) but it is much better, more energetic
The 63 version is simpler, but not better. There's really nothing about the arrangement or the playing. The 69 version has better guitar parts and a Preston's piano. It's a much more fully realized arrangement of a mature band. The later version is far superior.
1963 is a lot better... when people say that the '63 version is missing something, they're probably referring to George's more distorted lead (Go figure...), but then again it's what you prefer. I just think that the '69 version wasn't as good because it was recorded live, like most of the Let it be album. the sound quality and bluesy influence of the '63 version is a lot more appealing to me rather than the more raw, fast paced element of the Let it be version... so my vote is for '63.
Another example of where tempo plays an important role. The 1969 version is at the right speed, IMHO. They did this with 'Please, Please Me'. George Martin suggested they speed up the tempo, and the rest is history. Question? is there a rough demo of 'Please, Please Me" in a slow tempo ala Roy Orbison anywhere?...thanks in advance
The second version sounds like a Las Vegas-style cover band that's just running through it. It's catchy but it's so fast, you'd have a hard time dancing to it. The first version is actual music - it's good and it's dance-friendly.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the 1962 version sounds great.
the rooftop version sounds like shit.
I hate lennons heroin-victim voice which started ~1967-1968.
don't be angry with me, but you can't say that Maggy Mae, Mean Mr. Mustard or this fuckin worst song of all time "being benefit of Mr. Kite!" sound good xD
but at last I'm a big fan of him and also fan of the rest of the beatles^^
everybody who makes thumbsdown: your an ignorant fag! xD respect others!
I love how you ask for respect, yet you call people "ignorant fags" to anyone that disagrees with you. For the record I can honestly say I LOVE all of the above mentioned tracks. Secondly, while you can keep your unsupported views on 63's sound by all means, but man does it sound monotone vs 69's life and energy. Oh and I must not forget your thumbs down as I am such a "ignorant fag" :)
@Vorpol02 isn't it enough that I love all of the other songs? xD
A day in the life and Accross the universe are also one of his last beatles works and they are great anyway xD but you really like being benefit of Mr. Kite and Maggy Mae? xD why? xD
and there is no real energy in John Lennons voice after the 1967. it sounds like if he thought "fuck, why am I still living!"
oh and this contradiction "ignorant fag...respect others" was ironic.
What do those two have to do with anything? I'm already aware of how amazing those tracks are. Why do you care why I listen to the mentioned tracks. I don't listen to music because I seek your approval, I listen to them *gasp* because I enjoy 'em, strange concept I know. I also suppose you haven't heard ANY of John Lennon's solo work or even "Don't Let Me Down" for that matter... Furthermore where are you getting this whole prospect of John wondering why he still lives?
@Vorpol02 why are you so unfriendly? sure I know his solo works, they are great, but even in songs like Imagine, Woman, Cold Turkey, Jealous Guy he sings with this weak "I hate my life" voice. I'ts surely because of his depressions.
in songs like "just like starting over" and "whatever gets you through the night" you can hear a few signals of lust for living.
I like "don't let me down" such as "dig a pony", but it's the same suicidal voice.
but please don't be that unfriendly and hurtful to me.
I'm not being unfriendly we're just talking here. You see you can go by what you think he's saying or go by the sheer emotion and volume in the way he sung in the later years. I'll get with the ladder. :)
I never heard that term 'heroin-victim voice'- I almost agree with you except for certain songs like 'A Day in the Life', 'Julia' or 'Cry Baby Cry' (among others) where you don't hear that harshness in his voice.
Nice rediscovery. The early version sounds much, much, much better to me. Much more refreshing the vocal harmonics and guitar playing are more approximate but suit more the style of it. And to me, Billy Prestons keyboards do not add much to the song, quite the opposite.
it's really weird! i was 10 when the anthology came out and was just getting into the Beatles. i hadn't heard Let It Be at that point so i heard the earlier version first.
i had no idea that it hadn't actually been released so i assumed they'd just "covered" one of their old songs for a laugh!
The later one is live and more off the cuff. They didn't record it properly like the early one, with studio retakes/dubs available, etc. 2nd one has more life for me, I prefer it.
Well, the '63 version is fresh and by the beatles before they wrecked themselves musically. Most overated band ever in later years (well, later years of their very short lifespan as a band).
umm they got better not worse . They started out as un-original imatators, good, but not at all innovatave. rubber soul began their ascent to musical evolution. they got better not worse
just 6 years, such a difference
rodhoces2 2 weeks ago
funny that it was written in 1957
Hubbleknarf 3 months ago
I love both versions...so hard to choose between the two!
JeepRuby101 3 months ago
1963
soulseeker300 3 months ago
the first 4 seconds is orgasmic
nightcrawler511 3 months ago
i think the 1969 versiohn is waaayyyyyyyyyyy better than the original 1963 version.
Just sayin'.
dweiner2 4 months ago
I prefer the 1963 version because it captures the excitement of the group's early years. They were still performing at the Cavern when this was recorded.
maxpowers518 4 months ago 3
Yes, confirmed Billy Preston on the piano !! And by 1969 The Beatles had aged like a fine wine!!! AWESOME.......People that say the Beatles are just ok, they
don't understand how cutting edge and what pioneers they were. They went and cleared a path and then everyone just got on the road and improved by technology! But THEY did it and Blazed a trail. Beatles were the turning point of what the world had known up until then !!! PLEASE SHOW THE RESPECT THEY DESERVE !!!! THANK GOD FOR THEM !
Helga1232 4 months ago
Comment removed
Helga1232 4 months ago
best part 0:47-0:57 and 3:16-3:21: "I said move over once, move over twice
Come on baby don't be cold as ice I said I'm trav'ling on the one after 909"
Querembas 5 months ago
Each one is great! But I definitely prefer the 1963 version, because IMO, it's more raw and has a better beat.
SuperMarioStar10 5 months ago 2
both of them is the best :D
TheHtter 6 months ago
I think the main difference is that George was a much more assured guitarist with six years' more experience and more faith in his style. Like 'em both for what they are...historic!
rpmhart 6 months ago
This is very close to a Chuck Berry song.
MAGICO240 6 months ago
The one after 909 is 1009 (John's birthday)
maccalex 7 months ago
Don't forget - back in '63, this was pretty "cutting edge". Then, of course, music evolved (mainly due to the Beatles), and by '69 the whole scene had changed. I mean, think Sgt. Pepper, which would have been totally unthinkable or unimaginable in '63. Ah, I love these guys!
Dogheadj 7 months ago
I like both versions, but I like the 1969 a little better. The 1963 version sounds...I guess more formal, while the 1969 verison is like they're rocking out.
christheawesome2423 7 months ago
George's guitar kicks ass on the second one. It just colors the song so well, which it didn't do in the 1963 version.
TheMicasa99 7 months ago
Can't decide which version is better. The '63 version is more "conformist" while the '69 version sounds more like they're just jamming and having a good time. Shows how much music evolved in only a few short years.
eruptionmat 7 months ago
I definitely like the 63' version better. I like the rhythm and John's voice is more audible.
bodhi3323 8 months ago
I like the '63 version.
Squeaky clean rockabilly by the Liverpool lads.
Rushmore222 8 months ago
In 1963 - children (but talented). In 1969 - adults & wise.
Volly6661 8 months ago in playlist Beatles 9
i like the 69 version. Georges solo was way better in my opinion. great song either way. John wrote this in 57 i still listen to it today. great song
Mr11950 8 months ago
Dont you think Billy Preston makes a difference?
lancashireyps 9 months ago
@lancashireyps i love bily preston..he played well at live gigs...ps i prefer the live 909 its more uplifting
radicalsystems 9 months ago
A coupla other points.
John said he wrote the cut when he was 17, so it really goes back to around 1957, which to me makes him more of a participant in the formation of early rock and roll, rather than merely a member of a band who gained fame from covers of other early rockers.
Also, George's lead is *far* more confident in the '69 version.
His early solo stuff, with notable exceptions, seemed conspicuously sparse, and hesitant as hell.
Rushmore222 9 months ago
Paul said in an interview that he thought in '63 it was just a tight freight train type rocker.
But if you listen to the banter on the "Fly on the Wall" off the Let It Be Naked CD set, you can clearly hear him saying to John in the studio "Is that what it was? I never knew that at the time."
Rushmore222 9 months ago
The later version shows far more experience & musical maturity, as it should, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I can't believe I'll be 60 this year & this music still rocks for me, like it was only yesterday that I heard all this for the 1st time. Long live this thing of wonderment & amazement.
LameBuffalo 9 months ago 2
Gimmie that '69 version, wooo!!! it's smokin' baby!
supernole100 9 months ago
i think that this is the greatest example of how rock & Roll and hard rock developed from the 12 bar blues
TeamXTREMEPANTERA 9 months ago
I definitely like the '69 version better. :)
xFightingBeaver2 9 months ago
The 1963 version is more a la Everly Brothers, whereas the Let It Be version is a more confident version. Both are good. I don't really prefer one over the other. Of course, one difference, too is the improvement in sound and instruments. Kind of wonder how different a version today might be.
1dublj 10 months ago
i love both
:D
klorenzenvonmer 10 months ago
i prefer the 1963 version...just has a better rock 'n' roll sound to it
hagen2357 10 months ago
So cute and innocent, if you think about it that's less than 10 years!!!! Only 4 between 1963 and Strawberry Fields! WOAH O.o
Teehee160 10 months ago
i like the rooftop sessions version..its quicker and sounds like they enjoy playing together...are you sure that its a beatles composition..it sounds like a cover version...
radicalsystems 10 months ago
@radicalsystems its The Beatles Anthology
CoIeStones 10 months ago
The 1963 Arrangement is way better. But - they don't perform it as well on this particular recording.
CentraCross 10 months ago
Have-You 'Heard' The-ANTHOLOGY-Version!!!??? It's The-One They 'Dropped'-OFF The: "WITH-The-BEATLES" Album In-Favour-of: "It-Won't-Be-LONG". >(*U^)<
WRETCHEDAVION 10 months ago
The Beatles meets the Everly Brothers.
Studmasterify 11 months ago
Really like both of them just as much as each other :)
OllieRetroSound 11 months ago
1963 is better i think.. though i know bassline is too simple
Aerosmissive 11 months ago
The Intro people - The Intro. There is Nothing - Nothing - that can beat such an Intro.
CentraCross 11 months ago
Don;t forget that it's Billy Preston on keyboards, too.
Fredo8160 11 months ago
The bassline is awesome in the 1963 version. Paul must have been asleep on the rooftop.
RobertLeDiptere 1 year ago
@RobertLeDiptere Actually that's what i like about the '69 version, it's got that simple bassline.
tomasdejong 1 year ago
Comment removed
juuhby3001 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RobertLeDiptere that's because Paul died in 1966
juuhby3001 11 months ago
Comment removed
juuhby3001 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RobertLeDiptere that's because Paul died in 1966
juuhby3001 11 months ago
@RobertLeDiptere That's becouse Paul died on 1966
juuhby3001 11 months ago
@juuhby3001 Jesus christ get over this whole Paul is dead bullshit.
tasteofmadness 11 months ago 2
@RobertLeDiptere I like the 1969 version bass better, the 1963 version bass is so boring and is mostly just the same note, cause Paul could barely play bass back then. 1969 version has his melodic lines and innovation, which had developed by that point. Sounds better on Naked version ;)
LordSputnik 11 months ago
@RobertLeDiptere LOL
that would explain a few things.
Maybe he just wasn't feeling it.
tasteofmadness 11 months ago
LoL, good thing they took another swing at it with the 69 version... The energy is just so much better. I can't imagine why people would prefer the one from 63... It's really like slow motion... If you're used to the 69 version it is almost painful to listen to!
roflgar 1 year ago
1963 version blows away the Let It Be version. Sorry, but it is the honest to God truth.
donlandstl 1 year ago
Both are clearly Beatle Gems, but the first one was the best as it was more ruff and just snowed that talent they had before the world was changed by them,clearly the 1970 version was put together better,musically they played better,and the music had improved from 8 track to 32, and all the new sound makers were just coming out, music like computers today have grown 10000% better,no one can deny that.
JJMFB1 1 year ago
Sounds like they're having more fun with the later version...not taking it too seriously.....better musicianship, too...I like both, though.
jddmr22181 1 year ago
Gotta go with the '63 version. With its pumping bass drum, it's pretty cutting edge for 1963. By 1969 its just cliche. Aside from the Abbey Road album, The Beatles were just pumping out a lot of 12-bar and 3-chord throwaways by 1968-69: Old Brown Shoe, For You Blue, One After 909, WIld Honey Pie, You Know My Name . . , Meanwhile there's George sitting on a treasure chest of great songs John & Paul wouldn't record - and Ringo was ready to get out from behind his drums, and tear up Top-40 radio.
TheBingsTV 1 year ago
I like them both and consider them for their time. The first one is great because it was young and raw and full of youthful charm. The 69 version is tighter and has better tempo.
I think if forced I would pick 1969
winstonthefan 1 year ago
honestly I LOVE BOTH :D call me a beatle freak but i do so deal with it :3
CorvetteStingray75 1 year ago
the second one is way better
mikedemilo 1 year ago
i like them both really i love both styles so i really cant choose
beatlezrawesome 1 year ago
Both are god but the second version is significantly better. The tempo feels much more natural and also they just seem much more comfortable singing it, Paul's harmonies are much more varied and smooth. George' solo is 100% better on the second version where it is very cohesive and has more of the late sixty's grooviness rather than the clangyiness common of early sixties guitar solos which draw there influence more from the fifties.
slaughterman1011 1 year ago
i think its obvious that the first recording is better. second one has nothing to add
rico40002000 1 year ago
i think its obvious that the first recording is better. second one has nothing to add
rico40002000 1 year ago
Neither are so great, relatively speaking. But I vote for the 63 version, I like john's voice better in that one.
gonzohelives 1 year ago
i don't know which one i like better... they both sound great!! :)
priestfan1223 1 year ago 14
I like the first one better
jeffersonstarship23 1 year ago
You can definitely hear the 1950's influence in the earlier version.
TheOtherFifthBeatle 1 year ago 2
I like da first version
mariano474 1 year ago
this is sooooo grooovy, man!! this has always been one of my favorite Beatle songs. Thanks for sharing!! :)
priestfan1223 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1969 solo grets, 1963 just good
Wiintendo 1 year ago
1969 solo gretas, 1963 just good
Wiintendo 1 year ago
I'm a total Beatle fanatic. I loved this song even before I heard the 1963 version. But I can only imagine being back in Liverpool in 1963 and getting off work at 5pm and heading down to the Cavern at 9 and hearing them do the 1963 version. My God!
ontman62 1 year ago
I prefer the 1963 version, I prefer the slightly slower tempo.
stevenjackson1958 1 year ago
first one is best- but both are cool
gavhenrad 1 year ago
I also like the 1963 version much better.
TRBWelcome 1 year ago
As awesome as both are, I personally prefer 1969
legostarfreak 1 year ago
i like the the 1963 one better
1027christian 1 year ago
The 63 version is FAB. (WIN)
The 69 version is MOD (WIN)
both are very cool, although personally I perfer the 63 version.
jubalate 1 year ago
What Jumps out at me is George's growth...I love both so always good to hear different versions. I heard Willie Nelson do this somewhere and that was awesome not sure what they came from.
rushwb 1 year ago
How can I get the 1963 version!
I already have the the 1969 version
WAYWARDTheBand 1 year ago
@ezekialwheel Actually, I'm old enough to have heard Chuck Berry live. And I stand by what I said
watersong111 1 year ago
@ezekialwheel Sorry...You clearly don't play guitar. This accusation was made by Keith Richards in the film he made with/about Chuck....but personally I don't see it, as a guitar player
watersong111 1 year ago
Yikes. I'm surprised at the number of people who prefer the 1963 version. To me it sounds rhythmically stiff, with no feeling of freedom and interplay between the instruments. Like no one's listening to one another. The 1969 version's freer, and way more fun. It sounds like four people who have spent some time together and interact with the knowledge of one another's styles. Like they're having fun. I like a lot of their early stuff, it kicks ass as rock & roll. But gimme the 1969 version!
gkallenbach 1 year ago 26
@gkallenbach I think I know why people prefer the 63 version. It's because that music was so simple and easy. It's supposed to be stiff, it's like rockabilly. There is just a certain swagger to the 63 version that the 69 lacks. It was impressive to people that these kids could produce such good music in 63, and One After 909 was one of them.
fivestander 1 year ago
@gkallenbach Agreed. I like both versions but the 69 version sounds more like a seasoned band. The Beatles were a tight band by 63 but by 69 they were much better musicians.
stratboy8 8 months ago
@gkallenbach Even Paul, on the outtake, mentioned that he disliked playing a single note in the song. Listen to the rooftop version. He gets to jump around the bass a bit.
Denthedragon 4 months ago
@gkallenbach Yeah it has a much more generic "rock n roll" sound wheras by 1970 the beatles had opened their minds with lsd and could play better
theblitz8 3 months ago
I like both. They should have released both the first at the very least a b side to something else.
thenintendogamer 1 year ago
for the '69 version you should be using either the Naked version or the Remastered version, they are definitive. (or maybe it's just the sound quality of this video)
snoogans999 1 year ago
69 is better
jdark15 1 year ago
i like 69 a lot better
k0stil 1 year ago
I'm 16 and I also prefer the 63 vertion. I like the bluesyness of it and the general atmosphere. However, the 69 vertion brings the song into the modern world. Infact I think you could release it to todays adience it's so good.
quizpubbob 1 year ago
@quizpubbob
Who cares how old you are?
Tobunshi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tobunshi Who cares how many niggers fuck your ass?
SCOPOtuaMADRE 1 year ago
@quizpubbob Todays audience fails so that isnt saying much lol
SgtPepperMKW 1 year ago
I have to disagree with the critique. The 63 version has its own blues quality, and fully worthwhile; perhaps a bit more polished as as early Beatles piece. The 69 version just rocks, showing what they've learned and evolved into as the primal rock and roll group of the decade. Both versions are tremendous.
PRR5406 1 year ago 2
I think that the 1969 version is tighter and the vocals are stronger. Both are good but the later one is fuller for me and thus better. In fact I think it is sorta jazzie.
winstonthefan 1 year ago
No comparison needed!! '63 is typical hard driving, bluesy early Beatles.
canrockfan 1 year ago
the 69 version is better. they look like they're having so much fun, a piano fits perfectly and george's lead is perfect
cristianolesco 1 year ago
the 1963 version is much better. I mean, the 1963 version couldve used some chages (I like the piano in the later) but it is much better, more energetic
WaCoproductions 1 year ago
The 63 version is simpler, but not better. There's really nothing about the arrangement or the playing. The 69 version has better guitar parts and a Preston's piano. It's a much more fully realized arrangement of a mature band. The later version is far superior.
dytakeda 1 year ago
1963 is a lot better... when people say that the '63 version is missing something, they're probably referring to George's more distorted lead (Go figure...), but then again it's what you prefer. I just think that the '69 version wasn't as good because it was recorded live, like most of the Let it be album. the sound quality and bluesy influence of the '63 version is a lot more appealing to me rather than the more raw, fast paced element of the Let it be version... so my vote is for '63.
jay62978 1 year ago
I'm caught between '63 and '69. They both have a good sizzle to the song.
Shancus32796 1 year ago
A vote for 1969 - tempo is right, George way better. The 1963 version seems to be missing something.
jiamair 1 year ago
@jiamair the '63 version is missing something. billy preston on keyboard.
crazziejoe 1 year ago
@crazziejoe You're right!! Haha!
jiamair 1 year ago
@jiamair Agreed
cristianolesco 1 year ago
1963 version for me, thanks
timin770 1 year ago
both good, but both have their own qualitys
PAULisDEADMANnumber9 1 year ago
i'm all about the '63 version :)
Beatles4President 1 year ago
George's lead in 69 makes it so much better.
MrZebraZombie 1 year ago
They are both good versions, but like 1963 demo version a little better. It just seems a little cleaner and a lot more raw and energetic.
toasteroven427 1 year ago
Another example of where tempo plays an important role. The 1969 version is at the right speed, IMHO. They did this with 'Please, Please Me'. George Martin suggested they speed up the tempo, and the rest is history. Question? is there a rough demo of 'Please, Please Me" in a slow tempo ala Roy Orbison anywhere?...thanks in advance
Tunz909 1 year ago
@Tunz909 Unfortunately the original version of Please Please Me was never put on tape - it would be fasinating to hear it.
SuperMikecarp 1 year ago
i gotta put a vote in for the '63 version.
crazziejoe 1 year ago
The later version is better and fast paced.
cometandcupids 1 year ago
@cometandcupids ugh i hate people that think music is better when its fast paced -_-
XtrmMcjohnson 1 year ago
the difference is there arent any 7th chords lol
kennyg03 1 year ago
@kennyg03 in the first version that is
kennyg03 1 year ago
The 1963 version was far better. Much more fine quality and cleaner.
Ishi680 1 year ago
personally i think the 69 version is better
juanit96 1 year ago
personally i think the 69 version is better
juanit96 1 year ago
69 version is better
H3r3Com3sTh3Sun 1 year ago
Billy Prestons piano makes the later 1 1ox better!
Sweepingreaper4 1 year ago
'63 version is my favorite Beatle recording.
fordson347 2 years ago 2
let me see ya twist c'mon!!!!!!!
1q6z 2 years ago
Both great versions!
Different times. I love the "got my bags, run to the station....." Lennon McCartney voice contrast in the 69 version
paulch9 2 years ago
ringo looks 12 in the first photo
DanM25456 2 years ago 19
@DanM25456 is it ringo?
svinet1994 1 year ago
@DanM25456 and ringo was the oldest of the bunch, hard to believe.
fivestander 1 year ago
@DanM25456 george harrison looks fantastic in that photo
specialness16 11 months ago
@specialness16 He looks fantastic in all photos.
tasteofmadness 11 months ago
@DanM25456 also, it might just be me, but Ringo looks a bit like Luke Pritchard from The Kooks :P
specialness16 11 months ago
The second version sounds like a Las Vegas-style cover band that's just running through it. It's catchy but it's so fast, you'd have a hard time dancing to it. The first version is actual music - it's good and it's dance-friendly.
xander7ful 2 years ago 4
i like the 63 version better :P
birdy47 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the 1962 version sounds great.
the rooftop version sounds like shit.
I hate lennons heroin-victim voice which started ~1967-1968.
don't be angry with me, but you can't say that Maggy Mae, Mean Mr. Mustard or this fuckin worst song of all time "being benefit of Mr. Kite!" sound good xD
but at last I'm a big fan of him and also fan of the rest of the beatles^^
everybody who makes thumbsdown: your an ignorant fag! xD respect others!
IIIIIawesIIIII 2 years ago
I love how you ask for respect, yet you call people "ignorant fags" to anyone that disagrees with you. For the record I can honestly say I LOVE all of the above mentioned tracks. Secondly, while you can keep your unsupported views on 63's sound by all means, but man does it sound monotone vs 69's life and energy. Oh and I must not forget your thumbs down as I am such a "ignorant fag" :)
Vorpol02 2 years ago 2
@Vorpol02 isn't it enough that I love all of the other songs? xD
A day in the life and Accross the universe are also one of his last beatles works and they are great anyway xD but you really like being benefit of Mr. Kite and Maggy Mae? xD why? xD
and there is no real energy in John Lennons voice after the 1967. it sounds like if he thought "fuck, why am I still living!"
oh and this contradiction "ignorant fag...respect others" was ironic.
don't take others too serious^^
IIIIIawesIIIII 2 years ago
What do those two have to do with anything? I'm already aware of how amazing those tracks are. Why do you care why I listen to the mentioned tracks. I don't listen to music because I seek your approval, I listen to them *gasp* because I enjoy 'em, strange concept I know. I also suppose you haven't heard ANY of John Lennon's solo work or even "Don't Let Me Down" for that matter... Furthermore where are you getting this whole prospect of John wondering why he still lives?
Vorpol02 2 years ago 2
@Vorpol02 why are you so unfriendly? sure I know his solo works, they are great, but even in songs like Imagine, Woman, Cold Turkey, Jealous Guy he sings with this weak "I hate my life" voice. I'ts surely because of his depressions.
in songs like "just like starting over" and "whatever gets you through the night" you can hear a few signals of lust for living.
I like "don't let me down" such as "dig a pony", but it's the same suicidal voice.
but please don't be that unfriendly and hurtful to me.
IIIIIawesIIIII 2 years ago
I'm not being unfriendly we're just talking here. You see you can go by what you think he's saying or go by the sheer emotion and volume in the way he sung in the later years. I'll get with the ladder. :)
Vorpol02 2 years ago
I never heard that term 'heroin-victim voice'- I almost agree with you except for certain songs like 'A Day in the Life', 'Julia' or 'Cry Baby Cry' (among others) where you don't hear that harshness in his voice.
eartant 2 years ago
@eartant yeah, you're right^^ there are a few.
and "heroin-victim voice" is of course no real term, I was just searching for a funny phrase for this kind of voice ^^
IIIIIawesIIIII 2 years ago
63 is best :P
102Help 2 years ago
The '63 guitar solo is very poor and strange.
wveloso 2 years ago
It still pisses me off that the '63 version was rejected for the Please Please Me album - it's awesome and could have become a classic.
brandstifter68 2 years ago
The 1963 version is not technically a demo - it's a genuine studio outtake, recorded in the very same sessions as From Me To You and Thank You Girl.
JapaninArmeija 2 years ago
both version are good but i think the 63 version is better but its really close
FuzztoneProductions 2 years ago
i love both.
il927 2 years ago
The 63 version is young and fresh. The 69 version is a mature version.
inotnad 2 years ago
the 1963 version is better
daracenak 2 years ago 3
Nice rediscovery. The early version sounds much, much, much better to me. Much more refreshing the vocal harmonics and guitar playing are more approximate but suit more the style of it. And to me, Billy Prestons keyboards do not add much to the song, quite the opposite.
AlvarezCutaway 2 years ago 2
Nice idea, and good sound quality .....but you spoil it with your crude screen name.
troikagirl 2 years ago
i dont know what do you think but i prefer the '69 version
cristianolesco 2 years ago
The '63 version rocks! The '69 version almost sounds like carnival music lol!
1olrocker 2 years ago 7
@1olrocker anywayy... i agree 63´s version kick ass
alwayswithmyfaith 1 year ago 2
@1olrocker You must be kidding. '69 is waaaaaaay better IMO. :)
aledobretociastko 1 year ago
@1olrocker hey--- some alice cooper sounds like carnival music :)
priestfan1223 1 year ago
OMFG Listen to that solo in the 1969 version =O
Rotcivk 2 years ago
1963,hands down.
60Macushla 2 years ago
it's really weird! i was 10 when the anthology came out and was just getting into the Beatles. i hadn't heard Let It Be at that point so i heard the earlier version first.
i had no idea that it hadn't actually been released so i assumed they'd just "covered" one of their old songs for a laugh!
matafuko 2 years ago
I gotta go with the 1963 version hands down
huskernation9 2 years ago
The later one is live and more off the cuff. They didn't record it properly like the early one, with studio retakes/dubs available, etc. 2nd one has more life for me, I prefer it.
ApocalypseKurtz 2 years ago
Personally, for me, the early version is the one I prefer. There seems to be more energy from all of them.
There's something about the faster tempo & piano in the later version that sound too, I don't know, 1970's to me.
GcCa2Lv 2 years ago
Both are masterpieces!
TheJamesErss 2 years ago 4
estan xvrs todas!!
.:D
xxfranktonexx 2 years ago
Wow Larry, wipe the mud from your eyes. Or maybe your ears.
tylercrossleythe1ao 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The '63 is essentially a Chuck Berry ripp-off, the '69 version is at least more original, although neither version is very good.
taxmonkey123 2 years ago
@taxmonkey123
every chuck berry song is chuck berry`s rip off.
almost every song of the early sixties is chuck berry`s rip off.
but actually it`s okay cuz it`s rock and roll
k0stil 1 year ago
@k0stil
what a good joke, and next time you tell me come together is a chuck berry rip off because john borrowed one line.
OropherThranduil 1 year ago
both are superb - and is the '69 version is LIVE from what I recall.
MiicanStudios 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Well, the '63 version is fresh and by the beatles before they wrecked themselves musically. Most overated band ever in later years (well, later years of their very short lifespan as a band).
Larryshaw48 2 years ago
Larry is clueless.
jimmyintpa 2 years ago 2
umm they got better not worse . They started out as un-original imatators, good, but not at all innovatave. rubber soul began their ascent to musical evolution. they got better not worse
piklopedia 2 years ago
I hope they put in the '63 version at cavern club for The Beatles Rock Band, instead of the '69 Roof top Concert version.
givemeyourmoney909 2 years ago
1969 version is great, the livve performance gives life to the music
KingArthur13 2 years ago