MOG

I've  always had a thumbnail theory about the distinction and  differences between The Beatles and the Stones songs (based on my own eye witness evidence from family parties during the seventies) - The Beatles make people sing, the Stones make people dance - or put another way The Beatles are about the tunes. The Stones are about the groove. 

This isn't set in stone or tried and tested under strictly controlled conditions,  it's just a rough rule of thumb, and as these fab four flavours of 'Get Back' show Beatles tunes can just as easily be refried funky side up...

Get Back - Chris Clark

<em>The Merseybeaters get given a Motown makeover </em>




Get Back - Deidre Wilson Tabac

<em>A bubbly,shuffely, loose limbed lollop-a-long re-work.</em>




Get Back - Sarah Vaughan

<em>A brain-frying team up between those beardy <strike>buggers</strike> brothers from Toto and their squiddly diddly synths, a'topped off with Sarah Vaughan's deep velvet vocals.</em>




Get Back - Shirley Scott & The Soul Saxes

<em>A hat-popping, horn-stomping spectacular so fast and furious it rollocks along like a runaway train.</em>



There's a couple of other tasty Beatles treats well worth grabbing...

BLTP's unearthing of a gorgeous rework of 'Rain' - nothing like the original and none the worse for it - here

And Larry F16's Beatles based million-hit-mix here