Sorry "Herman", Love this version!!

This amusing music hall number takes a coy turn of phrase and expands upon it, turning it into a lively bit suffused with wry wit. Those who are familiar with the 1965 hit with the same name by Herman's Hermits may be surprised and delighted to learn there was much more to the song than they provided. Indeed, what they sang repeatedly was only the chorus, exclusive of any of the three verses heard here. The well-known interjection, "second verse, same as the first," is thus a bit off, albeit charming.

It's well worth noting that the sound quality on this recording is exceptionally fine for the time period. There is no indication how it was recorded, though it was likely done with a Gramophone. Records made this way are often crude, yet many times the quality of the performance surpasses the limitations of the method. This is one such instance.

I want to take a little time to correct several egregiously erroneous statements left here earlier. I am quite perplexed by what people seem to think is suitable for a review here. This is archive.org, not youtube. I would like to think people would understand the concept of holding oneself to a higher standard, and if not possible, then holding one's tongue. The sort of nonsensical, unsubstantiated fabrications herein offered nake me yearn for editorial input. In the absence of such, I offer my humble attempts to set the record straight. If anyone who posted the following errors should happen to surf back this way, I hope you learn from this.

Linh My - This has nothing to do with The Beatles. Please note, that's the correct spelling.

catfishbob - Again, nothing to do with The Beatles. Your assertion that Herman's Hermits were actually The Beatles is one of the daftest notions I have ever seen in print. They were both real bands and quite different. Among the few things they had in common were they were from the same country and time period, and spoke the same language. HH were one of many bands that sprang up after The Beatles and tried to capitalize on that band's success. They plied the cuter aspects of The Beatles persona, which the latter were in the process of abandoning as they were progressing musically.

alikat - Much of what you say is correct. However, the assertion that The Archies were actually The Beatles is as wrongheaded as what catfishbob said. I am flummoxed as to how anyone could think this piffle could be true. The Archies were a fictional band, composed of studio musicians, and do not sound the slightest bit like The Beatles. Also, I see no evidence that Brian Epstein managed Joe Brown. Brian Epstein managed The Beatles and several other acts, but not Joe Brown. Wikipedia states his manager was Larry Parnes.

That said, it is worth noting that Joe Brown had a sizable UK hit with his version of this song in 1961. While it is possible Peter Noone heard this, wikipedia says he learned the song from his grandfather, who sang the song frequently during Noone's childhood. If this is so, it is reasonable to assume his grandfather just sang the chorus, being much more catchy and humorous than the verses, and thus this stuck in Noone' mind, leading to Herman's Hermits' version as is. And yet, the Herman's Hermits version follows Joe Brown's so closely, in repeating only the chorus and omitting the verses, and even copying the same alterations of the melody, that it seems reasonable to assume Noone was influenced by Brown. Compare here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60ROiYSNYYA

Nosenod - You are indulging in revisionism, looking at this recording through the prism of more recent history toward the past. This is the original version, from over a half-century earlier. Herman's Hermits' rendition is a shortened version of this, not the other way around. Also, what you call an intro is actually the first verse. There are three verses here, and a chorus which is repeated after each one, a standard song structure. In Herman's Hermits' recording, when Peter Noone says "second verse, same as the first," he is erroneously referring to the chorus as the verse.

TimothyHorrigan - Actually, Herman's Hermits used about half of the music, just only a quarter of the words - all chorus, no verses. ;)

The Herman's Hermits version of this song doesn't use much of the original music. Herman's Hermits had no particular connection with the Beatles aside from playing a similar brand of music, and coming from the same general region. (Herman's Hermit's hometown of Manchester is about 35 miles east of Liverpool.)

A bit hoarser and less bouncy than the familiar HH version, but there's more verses and an intro here.

As someone else has said a great music hall song & a very good quality recording.

This song was also recorded by Joe Brown & the Bruvvers in the early 60's, who were managed by Brian Epstein & some years later the Hermin Hermits recorded it & it became a hit.

I have to disagree with CatfishBob's statement, The Beatles & The Hermin Hermits who were led by Peter Noone, were both popular in their own right, but totally seperate bands.

As we all know the Beatles were from Liverpool, while the HH were from Manchester. I wonder if catfishbob is thinking of the Archies who brought out a novelty record called Sugar,Sugar (but were never seen) which is believed to actually have been recorded by the Beatles.

In a way you're both right- "Herman's Hermits" is the name under which the Beatles recorded a number of novelty tunes (for contractual and other reasons). Voice prints confirm that the vocal on the 1965 recording was in fact made by one Peter Noone, the mysterious "ninth Beatle".

Herman's Hermits covered this song. Not the Beatles.

Uhh....Linh My? Herman's Hermits covered this music hall song.

5 stars for newly discoverd (for me) verses, wit and sound quality.

Well sung. Good quality recording for 1911. I'm not really a Beetles fan. For those who are this should be great.

Not my cup of tea. I still think it is worth 4 stars. I don't give five stars unless it is my cup of tea.