Arthur Alexander - Soldier of Love

Arthur Alexander sings "Soldier of Love". One of his best, from 1962.

Category:

Music

Tags:

• Arthur
• Alexander
• Soldier
• of
• Love

[QueenieG7]

honestly to me it's pointless to compare such iconic musicians. different people have different taste of music. anyway i madly love this song. thanks for posting

[SirBasildeBrush]

@QueenieG7 and thanks for the comment.

[TheBabyboomkidof53]

john lennon was a big arthur alexander. first beatle album has " anna ( go to him ) " an arthur song.

[SirBasildeBrush]

@TheBabyboomkidof53 Very true.

[Marievil68]

This will be my last song to listen tonite on YT. I don't know why but this makes me in tears everytime I hear it, and I don't care if I sound odd, but it makes me want someone to hold me. Thank you Sir... have to listen it again. X

[SirBasildeBrush]

@Marievil68 Strangely, if you look back at the very first comment two years ago, grandprix63 says much the same thing. But I think he felt that because the song is so exquisitively good, rather than the romantic sense of longing I know you feel. I can see (hear) why...

[Cogniscent1]

I had never heard the Beatles' sing 'Soldier of Love' until a few minutes ago, though the song sounded vaguely familiar from somewhere in my life. Nor had I heard Arthur Alexander sing the song and presumably he predated their version. Both the versions are bloody good, and what has happened here occurred so often in the 1960s, namely British musicians praising their often obscure influences and people then beating a path to the door of the originals. Everyone wins.

[Figgzt]

older music is amazing. i think the original from Alexander is better than the Beattle's cover of this song. his voice fits better with the song.

[scottyrocks9]

It is a testament to Lennon that he was tuned into these artists that remained largely overlooked and obscure but put out fantastic music, like this great classic by Arthur Alexander. I never heard the original before tonight. Always loved the song.

[BeatlesLover20000]

I first saw the beatles version, i´m a huge fan of the beatles. I think the beatles covered it well, it´s just as good as thisone =) but arthur's voice is really beautiful =D

[rj689]

@zebula8 if the beatles suck then music period suck cause its none out there that sound better then theres

[venezmilord]

@calwaite Heh, okay, I misunderstood you slightly then but I still don't agree with you. I don't think they're voices only work for pop songs at all. Ah well. :D

[calwaite]

@venezmilord I didn't say the Beatles were "only" pop singers, as if implying pop singers weren't good singers. I simply said they were "pop singers," meaning their voices were not really great for singing soul music...which they aren't. Most pop singers lack a deep in the gut passionate sound, and that passion is what makes soul music so appealing to me. I've heard every song the Beatles ever made, many of which were masterpieces. I mean the songs were masterpieces, not their singing.

[venezmilord]

@calwaite Duuude, saying that The Beatles were only pop singers is very ignorant. Have you actually heard The Beatles?

[Robotdrummerzzk]

@kblera55 Yes, but The Beatles were far better musicians and wrote songs a million times better than Arthur's best work.

[daiseyknight]

Great song, wonderful voice, nobody can touch Arthur Alexander on this one.....nobody..

[charlysaenz]

@Cogniscent1 Yes that's the point, everyone wins. Even Pearl Jam does a very nice version live. And Beatles' version might have been a hit single. But the original is so perfect in any case. Arthur Alexander is a great 60s "original musician", and his last album should be heard too, very good material.