There's nothing you can do that can't be done
There's nothing you can sing that can't be sung
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy
There's nothing you can make that can't be made
There's no-one you can save that can't be saved
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time
It's easy
All you need is love
All you need is love
All you need is love
Love
Love is all you need
All you need is love
All you need is love
All you need is love
Love
Love is all you need
There's nothing you can know that isn't known
There's nothing you can see that isn't shown
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
It's easy
All you need is love
All you need is love
All you need is love
Love
Love is all you need
All you need is love (won rehtegot lla)
All you need is love (ydobyreve)
All you need is love
Love
Love is all you need
I'm not a big fan of cover versions. To my mind they almost always add nothing to the original and are largely filler for lazy songwriters. And I was never a big fan of the Beatles' original (not being 'into' 60s music). So when I discovered Warp and noted two versions with the title, I felt sure one of them had to be a cover version. I had mixed feelings. On the one hand, it was kind of 'different' to have two songs with the same name, one following the other, this one being a cover of a song everyone is familiar with. I was prepared to give it a go and see what they'd done with it.
But would it work? And why do it - does it add something to the original? Does NM really need to start doing cover versions - are they running out of ideas? These questions went through my head...
Well, it starts off promising. For me that intro is the best part.
The outro of the previous track merges seamlessly into this one, where 1.20 of spine tingling reversed synth (and reversed(?) vocal
snippets) create a mood of mystery and expectation. Then the song strikes up, and you are left in no doubt as to which song this is.
Unmistakable stuff then, but delivered in a much different way to the original.
Unlike the original which pre-dated this by 15 years, everything here is very synthetic. The percussion is almost disco beat, and somewhat plodding and monotonous with it.
Structurally it resembles much of the original except notably for the brass section of the chorus, replaced here by three distorted synth notes. Obviously not intended to sound like the original then - almost like it was mocking it in fact.
The Greensleeves section is delivered on piano, and the latter section seems to descend into free-form jazz. Reversed vocals samples are used, and at least they add a worthwhile contemporary touch to the tune. I suppose the whole electro thing going on here IS the point to it - taking the old and familiar and giving it a new cutting edge sound and feel.
I don't suppose this is anyone's favourite song. At 5.39 it is not short. I don't think Tony and co were trying to be sympathetic to the original, as it sounds too whimsical; almost tongue in cheek. I'd bet most Beatles fans would probably hate it, and I'd probably feel a tinge of embarrassment about if I were to play it in the company of others! Even for a committed NM fan it's a bit of a challenge to defend. To me it makes Tony's version with the same name sound great.
Maybe I don't really 'get' it?
It takes us to the end of side one of Warp, and one wonders if some listeners might have been questioning at this stage whether it was worth the effort in getting up and changing over the record at this point? (They should, obviously).
78/100
(Richard M)
After showing how a cover should be done, the boys prove that you can have too much of a good thing.
Having said that, the intro is interesting. It's basically the original Beatles tune played on synth, with the boys singing "Love Love Love", then totally reversed. Innovative as ever, it's the best part of the track.
Because what follows is a bit hard to fathom. Were they just trying to pad the album out?
"Hey guys, we're 5 mins short but I've got the Bontempi Beatles book here so let's whack out a filler".
It's all sounds so plodding, and Tony's vocals are so dead-pan. And the electronic percussion is just irksome. Whatever they were trying to do, it just doesn't work.
But there's more.
"Hey guys we're still a minute or two short". Clive pipes up "I'll throw Greensleeves onto the end then do a bit of jazz improv".
I'm probably being unkind, but the boy's standards were so high. And it is such an icon of a song. I think they left themselves open to a real pasting with this one, and I bet the musical press at the time didn't think twice about wading in. It would not surprise me if this one song may have sealed the bands fate.
Let's be optimistic though, I'm sure there can't be any worse tracks on the album. Can there? ;-)
PS the two reversed vocal phrases in the latter part of the track are "Everybody" and "All Together Now"
(Graham G)
I actually like this track, it's quirky and fun. Best bit is the intro: nice and gentle, it leads on well from the end of the previous track. I have actually done a cover of this cover. I tried to put the original brass notes in instead, but it didn't work. So I can totally understand why Tony changed the brassy bit to the 3 slightly off key synth notes. He also changed some of the time signature-y bits from the original. I think he thought it out well, just doesn't quite turn out the way he probably dreamt it would. And the Greensleeves bit at the end is homage to the original that had a 'bit' of Greensleeves at the end. I don't agree that the vocals are delivered totally dead pan, cos sometimes when he sings the word 'love' in the chorus you think he really means it, but mostly dead pan in the verses.
As a summary of side 1, there's a dodgy start, followed by hit & miss if you were expecting the style of A to B or Anywhere, 2 GREAT tracks and an iffy drawn out ending.
(Rich E)