Danielle Dax — Tomorrow Never Knows
Album: Blast the Human FlowerAvg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 573
Length: 5:10
Plays (last 30 days): 0
share
tweet
Turn off your mind, relax
And float down stream
It is not dying
It is not dying
Lay down all thought
Surrender to the void
It is shining
It is shining
That you may see
The meaning of within
It is being
It is being
That love is all
And love is everyone
It is knowing
It is knowing
That ignorance and hate
May mourn the dead
It is believing
It is believing
But listen to the
Color of your dreams
It is not living
It is not living
Or play the game
Existence to the end
Of the beginning
Of the beginning
Of the beginning
Of the beginning
Of the beginning
Of the beginning
And float down stream
It is not dying
It is not dying
Lay down all thought
Surrender to the void
It is shining
It is shining
That you may see
The meaning of within
It is being
It is being
That love is all
And love is everyone
It is knowing
It is knowing
That ignorance and hate
May mourn the dead
It is believing
It is believing
But listen to the
Color of your dreams
It is not living
It is not living
Or play the game
Existence to the end
Of the beginning
Of the beginning
Of the beginning
Of the beginning
Of the beginning
Of the beginning
Comments (39)add comment
Go listen to your own copy of it.
what is that squeaky noise?!?
2Hawks wrote:
I don't particularly like this version, but the original is pretty "repetitive" as well. It was sort of the point of the song: a one-note drone, looped drum beat, simplified melody line, etc.
I agree that The Beatles "used the 'birds' more intelligently", but that also made me think of how many other songs employ bird sounds too, and which artists used them more efficiently. It's not a question which comes up very often.
Some remakes/cover versions are pretty good. This one is repetitive, and the "bird" noises in the background are just annoying. Always the same, always the same places in the music, and used too often. The Beatles used the "birds" more intelligently.
I don't particularly like this version, but the original is pretty "repetitive" as well. It was sort of the point of the song: a one-note drone, looped drum beat, simplified melody line, etc.
I agree that The Beatles "used the 'birds' more intelligently", but that also made me think of how many other songs employ bird sounds too, and which artists used them more efficiently. It's not a question which comes up very often.
Oh dear!☹️
It is hard to beat the original, but I have yet to hear a version of this song I didn't like.
smartn1 wrote:
I have the original and play it pretty often, but I'd have never heard this take without RP. I like it!
Just play the original.
I have the original and play it pretty often, but I'd have never heard this take without RP. I like it!
Just play the original.
merobreno wrote:
Well, it's a fresh take on one of the B's deeper cuts, retaining a little of the original's east-Asian instrumental groove, adding some dance-able funky base -- same enough and different enough. Works for me.
What . Is. The. Point. Of. This?
Well, it's a fresh take on one of the B's deeper cuts, retaining a little of the original's east-Asian instrumental groove, adding some dance-able funky base -- same enough and different enough. Works for me.
I like the Shella Chandra
Monsoon
Version better !!
Monsoon
Version better !!
Some remakes/cover versions are pretty good. This one is repetitive, and the "bird" noises in the background are just annoying. Always the same, always the same places in the music, and used too often. The Beatles used the "birds" more intelligently.
Enlightenment for the roller rink crowd.
Wow great singer, too bad she retired
This took me by surprise.
Usually, beatles covers are a no go, but this is great!
Usually, beatles covers are a no go, but this is great!
Love to hear Danielle Dax here! Quite some years pass since I last heard her. Awesome choice to play
What . Is. The. Point. Of. This?
Horrible. Vapid and trite.
DunstanBurke wrote:
Very reminiscent of Mucha, don't you think? Art Nouveau with mushrooms or Dr Hofmann's third eye opener.
Great comment, but I was thinking more Alberto Vargas with said 'enhancements'.
Very reminiscent of Mucha, don't you think? Art Nouveau with mushrooms or Dr Hofmann's third eye opener.
(anonymous) wrote:
There are so very many covers of this song that no single one of them could be the "right one". Whatever that would even mean.
Uh.
If you want to play a cover, you already know that the 801 Live version is the right one.
This doesn't do anything except give her an excuse to have lyrics over the disco music. Nothing innovative about this.
There are so very many covers of this song that no single one of them could be the "right one". Whatever that would even mean.
Jelani wrote:
Very reminiscent of Mucha, don't you think? Art Nouveau with mushrooms or Dr Hofmann's third eye opener.
I want to see a larger version of that cover art. Looks very cool.
Very reminiscent of Mucha, don't you think? Art Nouveau with mushrooms or Dr Hofmann's third eye opener.
To be followed by Bananarama?
Please dig into her earlier work, sooooooooooooooooo much better.
I could see this song as a before to Talking Heads' "Days Go By."
I just started listening to my copy of this last week! Interesting artist. I forgot there is a Talking Heads sample in there too.
I want to see a larger version of that cover art. Looks very cool.
Interesting
Whoah! is that Yoko in there yodeling?
IanPhillips wrote:
I like it but - essential?
I don't think so.
This was recently heralded as an essential Beatles cover version by a music mag - and I have to agree. I LOVE it!!
I like it but - essential?
I don't think so.
(anonymous) wrote:
17 years later, this post is still true.
Uh. If you want to play a cover, you already know that the 801 Live version is the right one. This doesn't do anything except give her an excuse to have lyrics over the disco music. Nothing innovative about this.
17 years later, this post is still true.
Yup, this sounds like 1990, all right.
Just awful. Bat Mitzvah karaoke surpasses this.
Why even try!
As soon as I heard the intro:Is that Danielle Dax? Cool!
Wow, it's been years since I've heard this version. Great to hear!!!
This was recently heralded as an essential Beatles cover version by a music mag - and I have to agree. I LOVE it!!
this blows...