[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]
Gnarls Barkley — Gone Daddy Gone
Album: St. Elsewhere
Avg rating:
5.8

Your rating:
Total ratings: 767









Released: 2006
Length: 2:27
Plays (last 30 days): 0
share tweet wikiwebsitesearchamg
cd
mp3
search
Beautiful girl, lovely dress
High school smiles, oh yes
Beautiful girl, lovely dress
Where she is now I can only guess

'Cause it's gone daddy gone
The love is gone
Yeah it's gone daddy gone
The love is gone
It's gone daddy gone
The love is gone
Yeah it's gone daddy gone
The love is gone away

When I see you
Eyes will turn blue
When I see you
A thousand eyes turning blue

'Cause it's gone daddy gone
The love is gone
Yeah it's gone daddy gone
The love is gone
It's gone daddy gone
The love is gone
Yeah it's gone daddy gone
The love is gone away

And I can tell by the way that you
Switch and walk
And I can see by the way
That you make me talk
And I know by the way that you
Treat your man
I can love you baby, 'til it's a crime
It's gone daddy gone
The love is gone
Yeah it's gone daddy gone
The love is gone
It's gone daddy gone
The love is gone
Yeah it's gone daddy gone
The love is gone away

(Gone daddy gone)
Beautiful girl, lovely dress
(Gone daddy gone)
Nicotine smiles, oh yes
(Gone daddy gone)
Beautiful girl, lovely dress
(Gone daddy gone)
Where she is now I can only guess

'Cause it's gone daddy gone
The love is gone
Yeah it's gone daddy gone
The love is gone
It's gone daddy gone
The love is gone
Yeah it's gone daddy gone
The love is gone away

I'm going away [Repeat 7x]
Comments (95)add comment
flashback to bad 60s TV show with very clean 'beatniks' using words like "Daddy-O"... this could have been the background music
Posted 8 months ago by xcranky_yankee    [ Reply ]
 tisha510 wrote:

Prefer the Femmes version, but this still puts a smile on my face and gets me dancing in the kitchen on a Friday afternoon.  High school, sigh....




I Agree completely!  PS: The marimba on the Femmes version was played by Todd Rundgren. He produced the album and brought in his personal marimba to play it on the tune.
Posted 10 months ago by joejennings    [ Reply ]
Prefer the Femmes version, but this still puts a smile on my face and gets me dancing in the kitchen on a Friday afternoon.  High school, sigh....
Posted 1 year ago by tisha510    [ Reply ]
 AquaChick wrote:

Play the original!!!  This one adds nothing and is irritating.



I like the original too! But to give you perspective, I like this version better :-)
Posted 1 year ago by Metaspace    [ Reply ]
 AquaChick wrote:

Play the original!!!  This one adds nothing and is irritating.



I think it is some kind of robot-love that Gnarls wants back
Posted 2 years ago by blackridge    [ Reply ]
 all_ears wrote:
Subtract a point for his goofy name (not his fault if that's his given name, but should use a performer name). 

Gnarls Barkley is a band, not a person.
Posted 2 years ago by dwhayslett    [ Reply ]
Could have done so much more with this.
Posted 2 years ago by Jelani    [ Reply ]
 Larrygrrl wrote:
I didn't think this song could get any worse than the original.  I stand corrected.
 

Yup, agreed, just had that VF disc playing a couple weeks ago. Not the best song from it. Not the best cover, a waste of time, I'm afraid.  Subtract a point for his goofy name (not his fault if that's his given name, but should use a performer name). On the plus side, it's less than 2 and a half minutes long.
Posted 3 years ago by all_ears    [ Reply ]
Oh no, what is that. My first time here  taking a vot of 1 . Violent Femmes, where are you? Have you ever played them?
Posted 3 years ago by malouna    [ Reply ]
This does nothing for the person performing it, nor the original song.
Posted 3 years ago by Jelani    [ Reply ]
Travesty!
Posted 3 years ago by Clark_Novato    [ Reply ]
Urgghhh!

Not a patch on a classic. Can't see the point myself.
Posted 3 years ago by be4con    [ Reply ]
I didn't think this song could get any worse than the original.  I stand corrected.
Posted 3 years ago by Larrygrrl    [ Reply ]
Garbage...2  Bye Bye daddy
Posted 5 years ago by Rockit9    [ Reply ]
All the people complaining that it "adds nothing" "nothing new" "didn't make it their own" ... funny, it sounds nothing like the Violent Femmes, to me.
Posted 5 years ago by ScottFromWyoming    [ Reply ]
Play the original!!!  This one adds nothing and is irritating.
Posted 5 years ago by AquaChick    [ Reply ]
Never realized the VF song dropped in the lyrics to "I Just Want to Make Love to You" in there...
Posted 5 years ago by Queue    [ Reply ]
A lack-lustre cover of a great original... meh..
Posted 5 years ago by adib    [ Reply ]
 DHoff wrote:
Nothing new here......hard to see the point 
 
the point is Ceelo
Posted 5 years ago by amyvoscas    [ Reply ]
Nothing new here......hard to see the point 
Posted 5 years ago by DHoff    [ Reply ]
 stevesaw wrote:


Agreed. When I hear I cover like this all I can think of is "Why?".

An example of a worthwhile cover is The Cure doing Purple Haze.

 
Where are all these rules written down?  I keep looking around, but I never find them.
Posted 5 years ago by dwhayslett    [ Reply ]
When an artist(s) does a cover it should be about making it their own.  This shows a lack of imagination and quite frankly respect.  The VF did this song much better.  If this horrible band wants to cover it, they should find a way to do it properly.
Posted 5 years ago by pigtail    [ Reply ]
I'm crazy, I like this and loved the video........that was definately different!!!!!

Posted 15 years ago by crazy    [ Reply ]
It's awful, the original is so much better... 2 from me for lack of effort.{#Cry}
Posted 15 years ago by kongomush    [ Reply ]
 thewiseking wrote:
a cover should add something new.
the covering artist should make the song "their own"
Sorry Gnarls.
Ya blew the chance.
 

Agreed. When I hear I cover like this all I can think of is "Why?".

An example of a worthwhile cover is The Cure doing Purple Haze.

Posted 15 years ago by stevesaw    [ Reply ]
{#Eh}
Posted 15 years ago by shawshank    [ Reply ]
Nice.
Posted 15 years ago by poser    [ Reply ]
 thewiseking wrote:
a cover should add something new.
the covering artist should make the song "their own"
Sorry Gnarls.
Ya blew the chance.
 

The biggest similarity is that they kept the xylophone sound, and honestly I don't think I could listen to this song w/o that... If you remove that it's not even the same song...
Posted 15 years ago by gandalfbmg    [ Reply ]
Followed by the Violent Femmes doing his cover of "Crazy" makes this bearable.

Posted 15 years ago by 25demayo    [ Reply ]
 Thistle wrote:

Dude... it sounds the same.  How can you say it's not good when it's so faithful to the original?

 

I agree. I don't know that I've ever heard a cover sound so similar to the original version. I think they do a good job with this.

Posted 15 years ago by Danimal174    [ Reply ]

Violent Gnarly Femmes

Posted 15 years ago by vandal    [ Reply ]
a cover should add something new.
the covering artist should make the song "their own"
Sorry Gnarls.
Ya blew the chance.
Posted 15 years ago by thewiseking    [ Reply ]
There must have been a reason this had not been played since October of last year. It should have stayed that way.
Posted 15 years ago by 25demayo    [ Reply ]
 Thistle wrote:

Dude... it sounds the same.  How can you say it's not good when it's so faithful to the original?
 

Exactly. 
Posted 15 years ago by rtb    [ Reply ]
Gnarls Barkley does the Femmes?



Hmmmm...  OK, I can see that.

a solid 6

Posted 15 years ago by Alafia    [ Reply ]
islander wrote:
No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.
No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.
No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.
No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.
No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.
No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.
No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.
No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.
No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.
No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.
No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.
I don't mind covers, but this is just not a good one.

Dude... it sounds the same.  How can you say it's not good when it's so faithful to the original?

Posted 15 years ago by Thistle    [ Reply ]
Ridiculous. Gratuitous. I could go on.
Posted 16 years ago by redeyespy    [ Reply ]
No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No. No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No. No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No. No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No. No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No. No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No. No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No. No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No. No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No. No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No. No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No. I don't mind covers, but this is just not a good one.
Posted 17 years ago by islander    [ Reply ]
The video is pretty good, though.
Posted 17 years ago by g-rod    [ Reply ]
What about the tin bucket?
Posted 17 years ago by eisbaer_67    [ Reply ]
JohnErle wrote:
And what, exactly, does this bring to the table which is "new"? Apart from a new singer, this is the exact same song, and utterly pointless on a station where everyone knows the original already.
Guess I should have been more clear that this version doesn't bring anything new to the table. Although not a fan of this cover, I have no problem with covers in general. Then again, using the above logic I would assume all countries should stick to the first recorded performance of their national anthems since their citizens already know them and its pointless to keep recreating them at sporting events, public gatherings, etc. Apples and Oranges, but I thought I would be snotty anyway. Now if only we can get Hollywood to stop releasing bad remakes of old TV shows.
Posted 17 years ago by gradys_kitchen    [ Reply ]
Ok really this song is not as bad as a 5. Everyone here needs to lighten up on the "All Covers Suck" position.
Posted 17 years ago by ElSupreme    [ Reply ]
mrs_amjohnson wrote:
what the heck! I thought this was violent femmes :(
Posted 17 years ago by trekhead    [ Reply ]
what the heck! I thought this was violent femmes :(
Posted 17 years ago by mrs_amjohnson    [ Reply ]
Beg to differ! This album is chock a block with raucous soul - musically and lyrically. -lmic coentje wrote:
exactly - they're not about the music - they're about the money
Posted 17 years ago by lmic    [ Reply ]
beautimuss. nothing is too sacred, and i like that.
Posted 17 years ago by rah    [ Reply ]
gradys_kitchen wrote:
Covers are fine just do them well and bring something new to the table.
And what, exactly, does this bring to the table which is "new"? Apart from a new singer, this is the exact same song, and utterly pointless on a station where everyone knows the original already. I have no problem with Gnarls Barkley throwing this onto their album as filler since it could expose a whole new generation to the Femmes, but here on RP it's a waste of bandwidth.
Posted 17 years ago by JohnErle    [ Reply ]
JohnErle wrote:
Maybe so, but the RP audience is old enough and musically-educated enough to be intimately familiar with the original, so what's the point of playing this cover here?
Covers are fine just do them well and bring something new to the table. As for my Gnarls request, throw on the title track or Who Cares and we are good.
Posted 17 years ago by gradys_kitchen    [ Reply ]
pobaldy wrote:
exactly, but i think the purpose of this cover is to introduce it to a whole new audience, not tweak it for the same.
Maybe so, but the RP audience is old enough and musically-educated enough to be intimately familiar with the original, so what's the point of playing this cover here?
Posted 17 years ago by JohnErle    [ Reply ]
cattgirl813 wrote:
... How about playing the first cut, Go-Go Gadget Gospel? That's my favorite song on the album. ...
I will second that comment.
Posted 17 years ago by ElSupreme    [ Reply ]
Gnarls Barkley is hip hop Moby? Pretty uneducated (not that you are uneducated) remark there, but if you've only heard Crazy then maybe so. The CD is bizzare and leaves the listener thinking, did they just sing about what I think they did? I love it when musicians just go out there and blow up genres. Sure someone has pushed them to get them on the radio (boy has that worked), but anytime CeeLo can get airply is a good time. Maybe more will check out his solo work and especially Goodie Mob. Cheers to Radio Paradise for spreading its wings into the present. Even if it is through a cover from my teenage days. BTW: I like both versions of the song, and would love to hear more Violent Femmes on RP.
Posted 17 years ago by elcarg    [ Reply ]
Gnarls Barkley is a musical collaboration between producer Danger Mouse (Brian Burton), and rapper/singer Cee-Lo (Thomas Callaway). (click for more)
Posted 17 years ago by ziggytrix    [ Reply ]
scruzer wrote:
wow! What's the purpose of this cover? I love covers where the band put's their own spin on a song. But this version doesn't include any of that. Pretty lame!
exactly, but i think the purpose of this cover is to introduce it to a whole new audience, not tweak it for the same.
Posted 17 years ago by pobaldy    [ Reply ]
SoundsGoodToMe wrote:
Coming soon to a car commercial near you.
you mean this isn't a VW commercial? this guy seems to be a hiphop approved Moby.
Posted 17 years ago by slartibart_O    [ Reply ]
nothing wrong with this... i hardly think the original (or any song for that matter) is so sacred that it is above being covered.
Posted 17 years ago by daveesh    [ Reply ]
i personally dig this version, not as much as the original, but i like it.
Posted 17 years ago by kbedgio    [ Reply ]
Interesting. Not often you get such a clear bimodal distribution on the RP song ratings. Like it or hate it.
Posted 17 years ago by xkolibuul    [ Reply ]
Can we get the Violent Femmes version instead?
Posted 17 years ago by DTCrockett    [ Reply ]
I could almost like this version, if it wasn't for the awful electronic percussion. Because of that, it gets a 4.
Posted 17 years ago by Gribnif    [ Reply ]
I love this album except for two of the songs - Necromancer, and this cut. I didn't like the original much either. How about playing the first cut, Go-Go Gadget Gospel? That's my favorite song on the album. Do they even call them albums or cuts any more, or am I showing my age?
Posted 17 years ago by cattgirl813    [ Reply ]
wow! What's the purpose of this cover? I love covers where the band put's their own spin on a song. But this version doesn't include any of that. Pretty lame!
Posted 17 years ago by scruzer    [ Reply ]
I thought covers were supposed to add to the original, give it something new and exciting. Not happenin' here.
Posted 17 years ago by chuck_flacks    [ Reply ]
gradys_kitchen wrote:
Poor cover but overall Gnarls Barkley has about 5 or 6 strong tacks on their new CD including 'Crazy' which by the end of its run will have achieved Outkast 'Hey Yeah' levels of overexposure.
Yeah, I heard the CD and it was better than I thought it would be. I was surprised by how much I liked it, actually. Maybe I was expecting it to suck. As for this song, I like it better than the original (but I never liked the Femmes much)...
Posted 17 years ago by DownHomeGirl    [ Reply ]
I love how amused Bill is by all of us down here. He just introduced this one by saying "Here's a Gnarls Barkley cover of a Violent Femmes song that everybody...well, I guess everybody doesn't hate it..." I for one am glad that our little flame wars aren't going to change what he serves up, but I also enjoy that he's in touch with it.
Posted 17 years ago by Zweiblumen    [ Reply ]
Kind of cool? As in "kind of" means "not very?"
Posted 17 years ago by meloman    [ Reply ]
Coming soon to a car commercial near you.
Posted 17 years ago by SoundsGoodToMe    [ Reply ]
Bill's right, it's good. But the original is still one of my favorite songs of all time...
Posted 17 years ago by gandalfbmg    [ Reply ]
Poor cover but overall Gnarls Barkley has about 5 or 6 strong tacks on their new CD including 'Crazy' which by the end of its run will have achieved Outkast 'Hey Yeah' levels of overexposure.
Posted 17 years ago by gradys_kitchen    [ Reply ]
One more reason for me to dislike covers.
Posted 17 years ago by handyrae    [ Reply ]
algrif wrote:
Yup. The track is a mixed rip-off from beginning to end. Not even worth rating as it is a zero in my book.
Crappy crap.
Posted 17 years ago by brokemusician    [ Reply ]
Yup. The track is a mixed rip-off from beginning to end. Not even worth rating as it is a zero in my book.
Posted 17 years ago by algrif    [ Reply ]
loud_family_fan wrote:
Another good song poorly covered.
yep
Posted 17 years ago by crowhog2000    [ Reply ]
Gnarly!
Posted 17 years ago by KurtfromLaQuinta    [ Reply ]
Huh, so that's Gnarls Barkley eh? Well, I like him/them so far.
Posted 17 years ago by forge    [ Reply ]
Loved the original - but this is an excellent cover.
Posted 17 years ago by zogma    [ Reply ]
Another good song poorly covered.
Posted 17 years ago by loud_family_fan    [ Reply ]
This is great! My favorite VF song, and it is covered very well!
Posted 17 years ago by damien    [ Reply ]
flyboy wrote:
Doesn't come close to Violent Femmes.
Actually I was thinking it was too close to the Femmes - a remake that too closely mimics the original to justify its own existence. Still, I kind of like it, though like most others, I'd sooner listen to the original.
Posted 17 years ago by drover    [ Reply ]
It's no "Go-Go Gadget Gospel" but it's still quality.
Posted 17 years ago by darukaru    [ Reply ]
... ...
Posted 17 years ago by Mari    [ Reply ]
Okay I started this out at a 5, thinking that was generous. Tonite, after a really surprisingly good segue out of Led Zep, it's a 7. Which really really surprises me. *shuffles off to ponder everything*
Posted 17 years ago by ScottFromWyoming    [ Reply ]
First he rips off charels barkley to get his name then he rips off Violent Femmes to get his songs? How original ">
Posted 17 years ago by heidig    [ Reply ]
Lazy8 wrote:
Why, Bill, why?
Because it's an eclectic radio station!
Posted 17 years ago by lixy    [ Reply ]
Too bad. This song right after Led Zeppelin makes it worse.
Posted 17 years ago by alfer    [ Reply ]
Maybe it's been too long since I've heard the original, but it took me a few minutes to realize this wasn't it. Very similar to my ears.
Posted 17 years ago by Shimmer    [ Reply ]
This is a travesty
Posted 17 years ago by Olympus_mons    [ Reply ]
flyboy wrote:
Doesn't come close to Violent Femmes.
True - but is was nice to hear the song - is this like the musak version?
Posted 17 years ago by Bizzarefall    [ Reply ]
WTF? 5
Posted 17 years ago by ScottFromWyoming    [ Reply ]
Why, Bill, why?
Posted 17 years ago by Lazy8    [ Reply ]
flyboy wrote:
Doesn't come close to Violent Femmes.
exactly - they're not about the music - they're about the money
Posted 17 years ago by coentje    [ Reply ]
Doesn't come close to Violent Femmes.
Posted 17 years ago by flyboy    [ Reply ]
catchy!
Posted 17 years ago by glassjawgrlxxx    [ Reply ]
This is a clever rhythm to a mesmerizing cut.
Posted 17 years ago by vinomori    [ Reply ]
You gotta love a stage name like Gnarls.
Posted 17 years ago by chthonic    [ Reply ]
Not too bad... prefer Violent Femmes version.
Posted 17 years ago by Duluoz    [ Reply ]