Overburdened?

The Rolling Stones - Beast of Burden



Following on to a question that I think I asked back in the mists of time - can a song's qualitybe influenced by subsequent covers of it? I'll wager that the coolness of Dylan's version of All Along the Watchtower is enhanced by Hendrix's version and that Tom Waits' Ol' 55 is diminished due to having been covered by The Eagles. In this case, how can we look rationally on Beast of Burden, knowing that it's been covered by Bette Midler?

We can't, obviously. Knowing that Mick and Keith's fine, fine song has been raped and pillaged by mecha-Midler sickens me, but knowing that Mick actually appeared in her video for the song is enough to reduce me to Virgin of Guadaloupe-like tears of blood.

Taken in isolation, the song itself is so classic and Stones-y that it may actually be an archetype for 'that Stones sound'. Keith and Ronnie Wood run amok, guitar lines entangled like two drunken fencers - all twangy epees and subtlety one minute, then countrified sabers and a bit of argy-bargy the next. Bill Wyman's bass and Charley Watts drums are largely anonymous but compliment the dueling guitars and one of Jaggers' finest vocal performances - his voice conveying resilience and frustration in its wails and croons and shouts.

It's a pity that Midler got her sweaty claws on it then. More so given the Stones' propensity for scaling the heights of rock nutterdom, which would have made this song a Rocky-esque contender.

Verdict: Good, or bette-r?

Tomorrow: Wilson Picket - Mustang Sally