@cardman880 I'd have to agree with Lennon. This is truly awful. I thought the Hollies would have been a great choice of band to cover this song. Turns out they weren't.
No cover can compare to George's original. To begin with, the signature intro with that great 12 string Rickenbacker. And George and Paul's harmonies are exquisite, George with the soft mellow vocals and Paul's rough and soulful edge..... quintessential Beatle harmonies cannot be replicated.
A-W-E-S-O-M-E!
SnugglySara 1 month ago
@cardman880 I'd have to agree with Lennon. This is truly awful. I thought the Hollies would have been a great choice of band to cover this song. Turns out they weren't.
RubHerSoul1 3 months ago
Supposedly Lennon hated this version, he thought the Hollies simply ruined George Harrison's song.
cardman880 4 months ago
I love the lyrics to this song
ammittei 7 months ago
singing and harmonies are fine its the rest that isnt
GoucheGizmo 8 months ago
Not as good as the original, but still a great version
BlackCountryYamYam 8 months ago
@1olrocker yeah I agree. It is a bold move to do a cover of a beatles song
swatkins246 8 months ago
No cover can compare to George's original. To begin with, the signature intro with that great 12 string Rickenbacker. And George and Paul's harmonies are exquisite, George with the soft mellow vocals and Paul's rough and soulful edge..... quintessential Beatle harmonies cannot be replicated.
1olrocker 9 months ago 2
@AlFastguy The Beatles version isn't a cover. This is the cover version.
dead0piggy 1 year ago
Loving the Beatles as I do, I kind of thought it may have been a deference to the Hollies or the Byrds... perhaps I was wrong.
lamarlansing 1 year ago