[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]
Cult With No Name — Golden Brown
Album: Careful What You Wish For
Avg rating:
5.6

Your rating:
Total ratings: 340









Released: 2009
Length: 4:19
Plays (last 30 days): 0
Golden brown texture like sun
Lays me down with my might she runs
Throughout the night
No need to fight
Never a frown with golden brown

Every time just like the last
On her ship tied to the mast
To distant lands
Takes both my hands
Never a frown with golden brown

Golden brown finer temptress
Through the ages she's heading west
From far away
Stays for a day
Never a frown with golden brown

Never a frown
With golden brown
Never a frown
With golden brown
Comments (112)add comment
Excellent and refreshing cover. 

Don't know what the (negative) fuzz is all about.
{#Silenced}  If I can`t say something nice..............
The Stranglers nailed it, this not so much.  {#Snooty}
eek, a very lacking cover methinks {#Sad}. the allegroooooan approach just does not work for me. i'll also venture that there are very few rock-ish genre songs that sound good with a harpsichord; golden brown by stranglers crushes it
 {#Bananapiano}
Awful cover. Dave Greenfield added so much to the original and this has totally missed the spot!!!!
Seriously....they've missed the point and killed the song. 
Ahh! That is NOT very good.
I don't like songs where the singer sounds too lazy/sleepy/bored/stoned to be bothered to sing well.  It's crap.
Truly awful. Definitely the worst song that I have heard on RP
Simply a way to make some $$$$ out of a great song by making it "emotional" :(

My MDD is not severe enough to enjoy this...
Excellent cover. . .
No. This is not even a mediocre attempt at a very fine and rather peculiar tune. Just disappointing... {#Snooty}
Could there be a more dispirited performance?
 clive369 wrote:

Agreed. Works well as karaoke.
 
Is that actually possible?
 lexica wrote:
Not sure whether this falls under "The Why Bother?" or "The Pointlessly Different" on this chart...

 
Agreed. Works well as karaoke.
 anotherlistener wrote:
I miss the harpsichord as well, but I also like the slower tempo.  Can't have it all.
 play it on 33!


I miss the harpsichord as well, but I also like the slower tempo.  Can't have it all.
I think they missed the whole point. 
Most of all, I like the piano. I was a little disappointed to hear vocals when they entered.
Humm, I miss the harpsichord. Nonetheless quite a pleasant version.
 peter_james_bond wrote:

I disagree, I find this version adds some weight to the original. Don't get me wrong, I like the original but the fast tempo of that version gives it a light and, almost, comical feel.

 
{#Iamwithstupid}
 soulcollision wrote:
never heard the original... i like this.
 

I'm with you — either never heard the other one, or they are so different I don't compare them.

I like it, too.
 gandalfbmg wrote:
Oh, if I only had photoshop skills (hear that internet, I'm making a request!)

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVHVvbnmgjM

Hugh Cornwell

... needs more cowbell...?
Nice on a decent hi fi.
Not sure whether this falls under "The Why Bother?" or "The Pointlessly Different" on this chart...

Wow.  This morning's selections are making me sleepy.  Yawn.  Guess I'm just tired.
What's the point?
Hearing this song without that electronic harpsichord, is like hearing Jimmy Hendrix without a guitar...
The best element of this song has just been removed! 
I think the piano is quite lovely.
I think The Stranglers will be strangling someone with no name
 rah wrote:
this song is like a ceiling fan turning too slowly.
 


 rah wrote:
this song is like a ceiling fan turning too slowly.
  Yes, rah, you put your finger on it! I like the other version better, the one from Snatch. This doesn't do it for me.


That's funny! dannyboy57 wrote:
{#Grumpy}Hugh Cornwell should clock this guy

 


 FredInShanghai wrote:
Stranglers' Version = 10,  CWNN Version = 7
 
+1
I don't think alternative interpretations should be carbon copies of the original.  This one succeeds nicely on several different emotional levels.

Stranglers' Version = 10,  CWNN Version = 7
this song is like a ceiling fan turning too slowly.
It'd be really disappointed hearing this, had I not heard the original (on my iPod) like 2 hours ago.

I say again: NEEDS MORE HARPSICHORD!!
 peter_james_bond wrote:

I disagree, I find this version adds some weight to the original. Don't get me wrong, I like the original but the fast tempo of that version gives it a light and, almost, comical feel.

 
I like how they slowed this down.  I too was confused by the light up beat tempo of the original.  I always felt it was about a girl and not drug abuse.  But that said I don't think this singer put the emotion needed to actually lament his drug use.

Edit:

So I did the Wiki thing...
There has been much controversy surrounding the lyrics. In his 2001 book The Stranglers Song By Song, Hugh Cornwell clearly states "'Golden Brown' works on two levels. It's about heroin and also about a girl". Essentially the lyrics describe how "both provided me with pleasurable times".

I'm feeling good that I got the point about the girl.  I really have a hard time with understanding poetry and lyrics unless they are really blatant. 

As I listened to this, I kept thinking of "Mad World" where the original fast beat song is great.  While the slower piano only version conveys the emotion and loneliness much more effectively.  Based on that I wanted to give this song more of a chance.  But after reading what Hugh had to say, I like the original more.

Wow, this is horrible. Please, make it stop...
 a_genuine_find wrote:

I gotta fever and the only cure is more
HARPSICHORD?!?!?!

 


  Oh, if I only had photoshop skills (hear that internet, I'm making a request!)

 akousa wrote:
If you're going to do a junkie's lament, at least write your own.
 
Oh please.  Its not like a 1000 blues men didn't already cover the top 10 songs about addiction 10,000 times. 

If you're going to complain about this cover, at least write something original. . .

{#Meditate}

Why oh why can't Bill just play the original? 
If you're going to do a junkie's lament, at least write your own.
IF Original = Excellent THEN This = NotSoMuch;
that was really lame compared to the original. In fact, that was just limp.
never heard the original... i like this.
 socalhol wrote:
pale interpretation — rather hear the original
 

I'll second that.
 socalhol wrote:
pale interpretation — rather hear the original
Yup. The original had that bounce. Seems like he's going for "dreamy", here, but it ends up ponderous in my ear. Such prissy pronunciation for a song about heroin?

Good - but prefer original!
("6-7")
 socalhol wrote:
pale interpretation — rather hear the original
 
I completely agree.

pale interpretation — rather hear the original
well. it stoped me putting together my now dead motorcycle to see who the herll this werz.
I am not sure how to rate it.
Yea, I'm not down with this either!!{#No}
 dannyboy57 wrote:
{#Grumpy}Hugh Cornwell should clock this guy

 
Pow right in his emo kisser!  This sucks!


a good take on a classic.. very good one in fact
{#Grumpy}Hugh Cornwell should clock this guy

Pretty song. I like it.
This singer reeks of pretentiousness. Ugh. Is he the same guy that's in Muse? {#Lol}

 HutchHarrison wrote:
How to murder a classic. No balls, no edge, completely shit version of a belter for the Emo generation. "oooh, it's got piano" Plink plonk...
 
Nice use of language.  Bad day heh?  {#Moon}

Many times I have liked a song that was a cover, not knowing that it was because I'd never heard the original.  This is one of those times. Whenever that happens and then later on I hear the original version it usually works out that I like the cover better.   I can think of some great songs, which are covers, for which I have never even heard the original version.  Which all poses several problems for me.  How do I objectively rate covers?  It screws up my ratings scheme since I don't want to give songs double credit, and I don't want to rate great songs both high and low at the same time (which is ridiculous) because in general I am opposed to covers.  It's pretty hard for me, especially when the melody becomes played out for me, which is usually the case.   What to do?  {#Ask}


How to murder a classic. No balls, no edge, completely shit version of a belter for the Emo generation. "oooh, it's got piano" Plink plonk...
 davidwillis wrote:
This song is a ripoff of Nightporter by Japan.   The piano, the vocal, the melody line, everything is the same.
 
Just as that was in turn a rip off of Eric Satie Trois Gymnopedies?

contacted these guys via youtube and asked for the sheet music. Very nice guys responded (3 times) and are going to send it to me !! I dropped the "heard you on radioparadise" tag also - Thanks again Bill & Reb - I love the covers you guys share with us.
 peter_james_bond wrote:

I disagree, I find this version adds some weight to the original. Don't get me wrong, I like the original but the fast tempo of that version gives it a light and, almost, comical feel.

 
Totally with you on that one

Yep, definitely this version doesn't stand for the original song...
I've tried to stop hating.... but this is the third time I've heard this in a week. At least mix in the original once. 
Tedious, man, tedious!

Golden brown finer temptress
Through the ages she's heading


8


 ick wrote:
How dare they desecrate the art of The Stranglers!!!  I can understand why they'd want to do it but really?
 
I disagree, I find this version adds some weight to the original. Don't get me wrong, I like the original but the fast tempo of that version gives it a light and, almost, comical feel.

Very decent version, very original and full of quality
This song is a ripoff of Nightporter by Japan.   The piano, the vocal, the melody line, everything is the same.
Destroys the original IMHO
 Toke wrote:
It's on the 'Careful What You Wish For' album... https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/cwnn2
Wheres this track on this Album ??  Info from AMG ..

Tracks
 
 
 
 
Title
Composer
Time


 


Wheres this track on this Album ??  Info from AMG ..

Tracks
 
 
 
 
Title
Composer
Time


                         




 Danimal174 wrote:
Prefer the original, but I really like the piano in this one.
 
Yes, that's all that elevates this above Ho-Hum. The song itself is a dull remake of a fairly MOR original.

An elevator version of this song, who of thunk it?
 
Prefer the original, but I really like the piano in this one.
WTF? Why did they even bother, oh wait the money, and people play them...
Yes, that was aimed at you Bill!!  
How dare they desecrate the art of The Stranglers!!!  I can understand why they'd want to do it but really?

 ziggytrix wrote:
makes me wanna hear the original.  {#Snooty}
 
Makes me wanna go shoot some heroin (just kidding).

Yet another cover that pales in comparison to the original material.


Love the station! This is a good example though, sometimes it gets to be a bit of a downer. I can live with this song once a month or less.
Vocals slide around like trying to wake up from a dream. Tough for the work day.
I guess I am not listening long enough to hear it everyday, but it is not so bad once every other week. Also love the orig.
yucccchhhhh. sounds like a cold, stale coldplay cover.  original is much better. much better.
It's been on everyday... please stop for God's sake....
Enough already.
Boo, bad cover. The original is SO much better, and I first heard that on RP as well. Plus that's a Kurzweil PC88 he's playing. I can't hear that thing and think it's a real piano.
I prefer the original but I quite like this version.  It's really well done!
Doesn't do it for me.  Seems to lack substance.
 ziggytrix wrote:
makes me wanna hear the original.  {#Snooty}
 
Was going to say the same.
 gandalfbmg wrote:
I know what's wrong... it needs more harpsichord. It's just not the same without it.

 
I gotta fever and the only cure is more

HARPSICHORD?!?!?!


makes me wanna hear the original.  {#Snooty}
Fromage...
teapot wrote:
Wow, this is certainly the day for cover songs! The Stranglers' version just sticks in my mind so much, but in this case I can honestly say I like this version. Unusual.


Stranglers: before the gravy  ... these guys: after?

I know what's wrong... it needs more harpsichord. It's just not the same without it.
 teapot wrote:
Wow, this is certainly the day for cover songs! The Stranglers' version just sticks in my mind so much, but in this case I can honestly say I like this version. Unusual.
 
Have to agree, actually I think I prefer this version, quite haunting .....
Ew....
{#Eek}
HEAVY DRUG LYRICS....
I should upload the Stranglers covering Dionne Warwick's Walk On By...
Wow, this is certainly the day for cover songs! The Stranglers' version just sticks in my mind so much, but in this case I can honestly say I like this version. Unusual.
Loved it! Keep 'em coming.
Definitely the coffee shop version of this song. Don't love it, yet.
Thanks sqqqrly and AliGator.  I didn't think I was crazy (well, I still could be).
 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
This better pick up quick.
 
edit: Not going to get better, is it?
 
3

 

{#Roflol}

Nope.
I used to get angry about BillG's sick fascination with horrifying cover tunes (well, ok, I still do), but now I know that it is just his idea of a joke. I think.
At first blush this isn't bad.....
 RedGuitar wrote:
Hasn't somebody else done this song?  It sounds very familiar.
 
The Stranglers.

This better pick up quick.
 
edit: Not going to get better, is it?
 
3

Hmmm...not sure about this. Will wait until I hear it a few more times before rating it, though.
Who else have I heard doing this song?
 
hmm.. one of those obscure covers we seem to hear often on RP..... I think I prefer the Stranglers better.
Hasn't somebody else done this song?  It sounds very familiar.