Cover vs. Original

Sympathy For the Devil


Both good but Guns n' Roses has slash and is amazin guitar solo while keith richards isn't very outgoing in this track.
Both have annoying singers but gotta say that axl rose does better. And with the higher bass frequencies ,thanks to Duff with his high treble bass sounds, it also makes it sound fuller and more dynamic.

- Adrian Richards, New York, United States, 29.12.2005


Guns n' Roses
1994

vs.

The Rolling Stones
1968

CD-Cover: Guns n' Roses - Greatest Hits 56.4 % 43.6 % CD-Cover: The Rolling Stones - Beggars Banquet
Results of the voting: Cover versus Original
Click on the cover for listening Click on the cover for listening
Guns n' Roses 3383 Votes The Rolling Stones

Comments about Sympathy For the Devil:

1 2 3 4 5 6
The best cover of Sympathy is the stones version on Get your Ya Yas out. As good a live recording as exists anywhere.
- Gary, Sparks, Nv, United States, 07.01.2007
Obviously there are many Stones' fans out there but to me the original version of the song, though it might have been really rockin' in 1968, now sounds too peacefully. Guns, however, have managed to capture the spirit of it and to make it sound even betterand more cutting. Slash's solos surpass Keith's and Axl sounds like a screaming person being torn between hell and heaven - just as he should be!
- Sotir, Burgas, Bulgaria, 30.11.2006
Guns 'n Roses are one of the most awful bands ever. To me, this version of the song is a disgrace.
- Judith, Leiden, Netherlands, 24.11.2006
agree with all earlier comments about rolling stones doing this the best.. because they do.
- Emilia, Falun, Sweden, 11.11.2006
Rolling stones are 10000 times better than GnR in their delivery of this song. That's not to say I don't like GnR, they're one of my favourite bands, but seriously anyone who says GnR do a better version probably is a 16yo with a GnR 'best of' thought it sounded good and hasn't even the musical knowledge to have explored one of the greatest rock bands in history. Mick Jagger sounds convincing as the devil, Keith Richards plays just enough guitar without turning it into a guitar set piece wank off, its a masterpiece and in my top 10 songs ever easily.
- Dave, Sydney, Australia, 16.10.2006
The solo on the original is fantastic...full of swagger, char, yet biting aggression.

Keith is a king as far a guitar is concerned...his rythm is superb, and the Stones are in a groove on this track which is hard to beat...

...so hard in fact, Guns N' Roses don't manage it. While Axl prowls about, his vocals giving a really dark tone to this track, the band don't sound as if they really get the attitude behind the track.

Hell, it helped that the Stones had an actual devil in the band (good ol' Keef) hahaha


- Duke, r, England, 16.09.2006
I weep for your souls when the true devil (Mick Jagger) gets his hands on you. Axl Roses' lyrics are simply boring. These are very strong in the original and enrich the song no end, even with the fantastic backing from the rest of the Stones.

No question here, even if Slash had played the best guitar solo of his career.
- Alex, London, England, 05.09.2006
G&R ruins everything they touch as far as covers. Not so much the band but axl. He's a terrible voice.
- TheReal, Orlando, United States, 23.07.2006
Axl Rose a better singer? Slash a better guitarist?

you people don't deserve to be allowed to listen to music.
- Jez, Melbourne, Australia, 23.07.2006
Its pretty good.Rolling stones also sings this but Guns'N'Roses sing it with more emotion.You can feel them really getting into this song.Guns N Roses have always been a band who can make a great song better or can make a song there own. This is one of many song that Guns have improved ten fold. Great solo by Slash at the end of the song.
- Lucia, Slovakia, Other - Europe, 16.04.2006
1 2 3 4 5 6
««« Top