Cover vs. Original

Helter Skelter


I like the Crue version better.

- John Barron, , Groß Britannien, 18.12.2005


Mötley Crüe
1983

vs.

The Beatles
1968

CD-Cover: Mötley Crüe - Shout at the Devil 44.7 % 55.3 % CD-Cover: The Beatles - The White Album
Results of the voting: Cover versus Original
Click on the cover for listening Click on the cover for listening
Mötley Crüe 1211 Votes The Beatles

Comments about Helter Skelter:

1 2
the beatles version kills its hard but i love the way the drums come in in the motley version. im definitly voting motley. u2 sucks and whoever said that motley did this song to promote red white n crue is retarded. they played it way before that
- nyles , minnesota, United States, 31.12.2010
the beatles version kills its hard but i love the way the drums come in in the motley version. im definitly voting motley. u2 sucks and whoever said that motley did this song to promote red white n crue is retarded. they played it way before that
- nyles , minnesota, United States, 31.12.2010
Motley Crue look like girls, so I vote for The Beatles
- Katherine, Fort Worth, United States, 04.09.2010
Beatles are great band, but Helter skelter by Beatels is slow and boring. Motley Crue cover is much better, but I say, I havet got anythink against Beatles. They are great band too.
- GlaDOS, Jedovnice, Czech Republic, 27.04.2010
lol @ Brian from Philly - well played sir (not that you'll ever come back and read this response to your 3-year-old comment). There are a lot of excited people here commenting about this. Jesus. Take it for what it is. The Beatles are The Beatles. Absolutely ground-breaking for their time. Without them, nothing in music would be the same. The same could be said for Mötley Crüe too - it was just 15 years later. I actually prefer Mötley Crüe's version of this song over The Beatles' version; but that doesn't mean I hate the Beatles. Has anyone on here ever thought of the possibility of liking the Beatles AND Mötley Crüe at the same time??? It's actually possible - I'm living proof.
-Peace
- Chris, Detroit, United States, 14.04.2010
Mötley Crüe sucks big balls to begein with and the they had the nerve to cover a beatles song i hope thier satan loving ass burn in hell
- j-rhymz, shit springs ohio, United States, 08.01.2010
im gay
- josh cote, queersville, United States, 28.09.2009
Guys, wake up.
Oasis did it best.
- Jens, Dayton, United States, 10.10.2008
guys Motley crue is the best ban in the world far better than the fuckin beatles.. you all need to give it a rest about hte fuckin beatles get over it, hal are dead and the others are nearly there, the only good thing ringo starr did was born to boogie with marc bolan and t-rex! everyone gets off over john lennon, fucking hell he wasnt that good!
Lets bring back the glam days!
and PATRICK M from st louis, What the fuck is wrong with england? if it wasnt for england you wouldnt even be jacking off over the beatles, we also gave the world black sabbath, led zepp, t-rex, Slash! Motorhead, THE BEATLES, rolling stones, the who, blondie, the police, you motherfuckers wouldnt have got anywere without new wave brititsh heavy metal, metallica wouldnt be the same without it and nor would any other band...

your welcome..


- sleaze, Birmingham, England, 21.09.2008
At least the Beatles didn't have to do this song as a shitty promotion for a really bad album of rehashed songs that qualify as ok at best. Have you ever listened to "Red, White, and Crue"? It sucked. Fuck those don't like the Beatles. Fuck hair bands.
- Zach, St. Louis, United States, 06.02.2008
1 2
««« Top