Michael said
> No, Richard; NOT that one. I was careful to specify the 1977 rendition. So go back to the one you mentioned in YouTube & click on the one I was ref'g to in the side panel. It was when he was that young fella with the long hair, begorrah.. <

Ah, fine, pity there wasn't a direct link to it, so here is one now.

GSS said
> the 1977 version is much better,and is very good.,his breathing is good.,i still cant see the point of the instrumental break in the middle,the most appropriate place is at the beginning.,it [imo]interupts the flow.

I agree. Clearly there are different opinions here about the pros and cons of putting an instrumental break in the middle. In this instance my personal preference would be either the same minimal interval as between the other verses or, perhaps, half a verse's worth of tune. A whole verse's worth, at the fairly slow pace of this performance, loses the thread of the narrative.

Part of the reason why the words in the 1977 version are so much clearer can be seen in the video: separate mikes for the voice and the guitar, and an appropriate balance between them (thanks, presumably, to someone on the sound desk). The later performance has, as far as can be seen, only a single mike.

I note the various opinions about repeating the last verse at the end. I agree that it can complete a circle, but I think that applies in very few songs. Sometimes it makes a nonsense, and usually it seems to me just a waste of time. But it seems to be increasingly prevalent, as if people think they're supposed to do it.

I suggest the crucial question to ask oneself about repeating the first verse is the same as about accompaniment: Does it enhance the performance or does it distract from the essence of the ballad?

BTW a Guid New Year to all.

Richard