SHG: Bob Dylan: "Like a Rolling Stone"

Bob Dylan: “Like a Rolling Stone”
Entered the chart on: 8/14/65
Peaked on: 9/4/65
Weeks at #2: 2
Song at #1: “Help!” by the Beatles

Well, it took two years, but we finally get an appearance by Bob Dylan on Second Hand Goods on his own, not having one of his songs interpreted by someone else. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think that the British Invasion, specifically the popularity of the Rolling Stones, didn’t have a bit of a hand in this song’s chart success. Incidentally, the Rolling Stones covered “Like a Rolling Stone” themselves in 1995 and their version is...not very good!

But never mind about that, how about the composer’s original version?



I can’t believe it. These were the days when shorter was better, remember this was the next #2 hit after the 2 minute, 59 second “Save Your Heart for Me.” And here’s Bob Dylan with this rambling six-minute number. Apparently, Columbia were really reticent to release this as a single, on account of its length. In addition to that, Dylan had a reputation as a folk singer, and they were sort of antsy releasing a song by him with electric instruments on it.

That said, this is a fascinating song. Much has been written of Dylan deciding to strap on an electric guitar for this one, and of session man Al Kooper (another Gary Lewis link!) playing the unforgettable Hammond organ part on this song. And then there’s the matter of the lyrics. They seem a bit on the harsh side, especially since he seems to be prodding the female subject on her way down a cataclysmic fall from success. Kicking her when she’s down, so to speak. That said, and this has been pointed out by other reviewers, she doesn’t strike me as the nicest person in the world. Not saying that she deserves this much scorn, but still. There’s a lot we don’t know. As with Carly Simon’s later hit “You’re So Vain,” it’s become popular to ponder if some real-life person was the inspiration for the song, especially if said person might have been somebody famous.

Really, Dylan needs to be canonized for his lyric writing (Oh, what’s that? He was?). Because he really is a master with words. The “Once upon a dime you dressed so fine/Threw the bums a dime in your prime,” couplet is overflowing with internal rhyme, they roll off the tongue in an appealing way, and we’re only at the start of the song! It’s not the only time that happens, the entire song is like that.

Obviously, we have to address Dylan’s voice, which I know a lot of people don’t like. Ragged and untrained, it’s definitely not pretty. But there is a raw honesty to it, and he sells the subject matter with clearly audible fire in his belly. Would Peter, Paul & Mary have been able to channel the rage and bitterness Dylan brings forth with such ease and effectiveness here? I don’t think so! And his voice is echoed by his amateurish yet oddly appealing harmonica breaks leading from the refrain back into the verse. It’s like the punctuation mark of the song.

Listening to this is kind of like listening to that scruffy street musician on the corner. Only you realize that he’s no ordinary talentless bum jabbing at a guitar for pocket change. He actually has something interesting and profound to say.

I get why this was such a big hit. How could anything be the same after this?

Rating: 5

SHG: Sam the Sham & the Pharaohs: "Wooly Bully"

Sam the Sham & the Pharaohs: “Wooly Bully”
Entered the chart on: 5/10/65
Peaked on: 6/5/65
Weeks at #2: 2
Songs at #1: “Help Me Rhonda” by the Beach Boys and “Back in My Arms Again” by the Supremes

Sam the Sham & the Pharaohs, no matter how you look at them, are a damn strange band. First, there is the matter of their image. I’m guessing Domingo “Sam the Sham” Samudio decided, on account of his angular features and Van Dyke beard, that he looked good in sultan drag, and the rest of the band just fell in behind him on that.

Second, there is the matter of this song. On the surface, it’s following in the footsteps of the Kingsmen, more of that scrappy garage-y rock, only this time with Tex-Mex spice. But dig a little deeper and...um...huh? Well, let’s examine this more closely...



I have a hard time believing this was released on MGM. Really? The label that brought us Connie Francis and Joni James also brought us something this raucous and crude? It hardly seems possible!

While Sam’s cheap transistor organ places this squarely in the middle 60s, they seriously tap into the 50s rock spirit with this song, replete with wailing sax solo. It’s Sam’s crazy vocal performance that makes this, and I love that he includes a bit of his heritage in the count-in for the song right at the beginning (“Uno, dos...one, two, tres, cuatro!”).

And then there’s the matter of the lyrics. Um...what is this song about? As near as I can guess, it’s about a werewolf, tapping into the monster craze spurred by Universal’s re-release of their classic monster pictures around this time. But really, it’s anyone’s guess. It’s just funny doggerel for Sam to spit out as he and the band get the party hopping.

And really, I can’t imagine a more fun way to get it done.

Rating: 5

SHG: Gary Lewis & the Playboys: "Count Me In"

Gary Lewis & the Playboys: “Count Me In”
Entered the chart on: 4/17/65
Peaked on: 5/8/65
Weeks at #2: 2
Song at #1: “Mrs. Brown You’ve Got a Lovely Daughter” by Herman’s Hermits

Not to celebrate meaningless milestones, but we’ve hit Review #100 in the Second Hand Goods series. If I’ve learned anything in doing a hundred entries in this series, it’s that the pop charts are a horrible indicator of musical quality. It seems like half the reviews have me wondering why the song I’m reviewing only hit #2, when it seems more deserving than what was #1 that week. The rest have me wondering what the general public must have been thinking, voting with their dollars to have such a song rise as high as #2.

All that said, let’s talk about nepotism. The Playboys were a Disneyland house band discovered by talent agent Snuff Garrett. Someone at Liberty Records “discovered” their drummer was the son of famous comic actor/movie director Jerry Lewis and thrust him into the spotlight (I’m certain Jerry Lewis had nothing to do with this, hence the quotes). The younger Lewis wasn’t exactly comfortable with this decision, by his own admission not the best singer in the band. I understand “studio trickery” was involved in their records when recording his vocals. I’m guessing they used the same technique they used with the likes of Fabian and Shelly Fabares; i.e.: a harried studio engineer sat there “punching” in notes on the multitrack tape as Lewis sang the same note over and over until he got it right.

Nonetheless, Gary and the boys managed to shoot to the top of the charts with their debut hit, “This Diamond Ring.” Part of this was due to the built-in name recognition, part of this was due to the quality of the songwriting. Reportedly, co-writer Al Kooper was none too thrilled with what they did to his song, envisioning it as an R&B song suitable for the likes of the Temptations. He described Gary’s rendition as “bubblegum [expletive]” (wow, two songs in a row?).

I remembered this song as being similar; a song with potential let down by poor singing. Let’s see if it holds up:



Well, that’s some kind of amazing intro! I like how the piano and celeste kind of syncopate, offering counterpoint to one another. The celeste glissandos add a nice hook to the tune. The keyboard playing altogether is excellent. I assume that’s band member John West providing the proto-Benny Andersson-style piano playing on this (and there’s a little organ in the background near the end). Actually, it might be multi-instrumentalist Leon Russell, who arranged this.

I do remember this being a good song and it definitely is. I can’t rate it too highly, though, because it has one drawback, and predictably that’s Lewis’ voice. To be fair, he’s not awful, just thin and lacking in range. It’s just disappointing that for all the brilliant production that was lavished on this record, it just could have been so much better with a stronger singer to sell it.

So...yes, something of a wasted opportunity, sadly.

Rating: 3

SHG: The Jaynetts: "Sally Go Round the Roses"

The Jaynetts: “Sally Go Round the Roses”
Entered the chart on: 9/7/63
Peaked on: 9/28/63
Weeks at #2: 2
Song at #1: “Blue Velvet” by Bobby Vinton

So...we’ve had folk revival. We haven’t had “girl group” yet, but that’s about to change, and how! Here we have girl group in the guise of folk revival. Or is it the other way round? In any case, this was not an adaptation of an old folk song, but it was made to sound like one, done in the then-popular “girl group” style. They must have had some measure of success in that regard, as folk artists such as Pentangle, Judy Collins, Joan Baez and Tim Buckley adopted the song as their own.

The more I read up on this, the more I am fascinated by it. The Wikipedia article on the song makes producer Artie Butler out to be a sort of Brian Wilson-esque pop genius, with “Sally...” as his personal “Good Vibrations.” Reportedly, $60,000 was lavished onto the production, and no less than twenty singers performed on the disc. Staggering if true.

This is what I like about this feature. It gets me not only to listen to songs I never would have listened to before (hello, “A Blossom Fell”) but also to sit down and really listen to songs I’d heretofore neglected. Is it shameful that I am actually more familiar with Fanny’s 1975 remake than the original tune? Well, only one way to find out.



This one starts with a piano-led instrumental track, with the voices emanating out of what sounds like a long tunnel. Listening to this, I can believe twenty girls sang on it! This probably has the most striking use of dynamics I’ve heard in any song on Second Hand Goods thus far. No idea who it is singing lead but she sure does a good job of belting out at just the right point (“No, the roses won’t tell your secrets!”)

The backing track is almost hypnotic, raga-like. Is that a harmonium I hear adding accents? Some kind of crude electronic organ? In any case, that $60,000 shows in the striking production on this one. This is a lot more enigmatic and atmospheric than I am used to from records of this era, especially those aimed at the audience this is aiming for (i.e.: twist-crazed teenagers).

Really a gem of 60s pop. I am flabbergasted.

Rating: 5

SHG: Bill Doggett: "Honky Tonk"

Bill Doggett: “Honky Tonk (Parts 1 & 2)”
Entered the chart on: 8/25/1956
Peaked on: 10/6/1956
Weeks at #2: 3 weeks
Songs at #1: “Don’t Be Cruel” b/w “Hound Dog” by Elvis Presley

Why I prefer 1956 to 1955: diversity. Even that big chunk of female soloists we hit a couple of editions back had variety, from Cathy Carr’s traditional romantic ballad, Doris Day’s sprightly lullaby and Patti Page’s country-flavored mood piece. And now we have a second instrumental in a row, but I don’t expect it to be anything at all like “Canadian Sunset.” The reason? Keyboardist Bill Doggett was a jazz musician, sideman for Ella Fitzgerald and the like. And in two parts? I’m actually looking forward to this one! Don’t disappoint me, Bill!



I like how Bill gives a lot of space to his sidemen. His organ’s there, softly comping in the background, but the guitar plucks out that shuffle rhythm as the saxophones carry the head melody. Then the guitarist wails and we get a sax solo. Frustratingly, it fades out in the middle of it. “Parts 1 & 2” my ass! You’re ripping me off, King Records! I now need to seek out the extended album mix, as I’m sure Bill has an organ solo lurking there.

Crummy single edits aside, this is the closest thing to real rock & roll we’ve had since Carl Perkins’ tune. It’s structured like a jazz piece, though: head/solos/head. Only it fades out in the middle of the “solos” bit and we never get that head repeat. Which composer was it that would be irked if someone played an incomplete scale on the piano, and would need to get up from whatever he was doing, stroll over to the piano and finish it? Mendelssohn? Am I getting off topic now? In any case, the single edit reminds me of that.

All that aside, I enjoyed this immensely and would gladly listen to it again.

Rating: 4