Log In
Register
Read the original blog post12.14pm
31 March 2008
Offline
1
Recorded: 1972; March-July 1973
Producer: Richard Perry
Released: 2 November 1973 (US), 23 November 1973 (UK)
Available on:
Ringo
Personnel
Ringo Starr: vocals, drums
Vini Poncia. Jimmy Calvert: electric guitar
Klaus Voormann: bass guitar
Nicky Hopkins: piano
Jim Keltner: drums
Paul McCartney, Harry Nilsson: vocals
‘You’re Sixteen’ was the second single released from Ringo Starr’s 1973 album Ringo.
It was first recorded by American singer Johny Burnette, whose version reached number 8 on the US Billboard Hot 100 in December 1960, and number 3 on the UK singles chart in 1961.
Starr’s recording featured Harry Nilsson and Paul McCartney on backing vocals, the latter imitating a kazoo. The 1978 video features Star Wars actor Carrie Fisher. See more…
Paul was good enough to write a song for Ringo, and we had two or three nights of wonderful recording when he and Linda came down.
In fact, the solo on ‘You’re Sixteen’, which sounds like a kazoo or something, was Paul singing very spontaneously as we played that track back, so he’s singing the solo on that.
The following people thank Joe for this post:
BeatlebugCan buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
3.27am
30 December 2022
Offline Well, I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole that I like to call “Ringo Starr solo music” and this song is why. I know it’s a cover but oh man Ringo.. this didn’t age well. It’s okay though cause it’s a lovely song. 
Peace and Love.
The following people thank Neely for this post:
Beatlebug, Richard12.56pm
31 March 2008
Offline It’s definitely not aged well, and would never fly in this century, but I guess nobody took the lyrics too seriously back then (or should now). Carrie Fisher looks stunning in the 1978 Ringo sequence too.
Ringo should release an updated version, ‘You’re Sixty’.
The following people thank Joe for this post:
Ahhh Girl, Beatlebug, Von BonteeCan buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
12.10am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline There are a number of songs from similar times that haven’t aged well. Personally, I always found the song to be unpleasant ultra-sweet candyfloss, be it Ringo’s cover or Burnette’s original.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Von Bontee"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
1.47am
4 September 2019
Offline I get a little irritated by people who are offended by Ringo singing this song. Yeah, people today would complain, what don’t they complain about? I’m sure in Ringo’s mind, he just liked the song, so he sang it. Just like he sang The Shirelles song Boys , and people didn’t think he was homosexual. Was Ringo singing You’re Sixteen really much worse than Johnny Burnette singing it when he was 26? I imagine in Ringo’s mind, if he even thought about it that much, he was singing the song because he imagined some of his younger fans might relate to it.
In 1960, when the song originally came out, it wasn’t that uncommon a thing for a sixteen year old girl to get married. At that time, women weren’t seeking careers so much like they are today, but rather a husband to support them. Things were starting to change, but they hadn’t yet, not fully. On the Dick Van Dyke Show, it was revealed Robert Petrie married Laura when she was 17 (although she lied about her age). It was a different world back then.
The following people thank forn for this post:
norwegianwood, Sea Belt, Beatlebug, Mr. Moonlight, Rube10.58am
2 May 2013
Offline At the end of the day is it really any different to “Well she was just seventeen / You know what I mean” in intent? Different times, different moral standards. That could also be argued not to have aged well from some quarters.
The following people thank Old Soak for this post:
forn3.42am
7 November 2022
Offline Two things in this regard save that Beatles song: “seventeen” is the only teen age with 3 syllables, which fits the song better than two syllables (e.g. “eighteen” or “nineteen”); and secondly, I’d say it was implicitly understood the “I” of the song’s story is a boy of comparable age.
The following people thank Sea Belt for this post:
RubeNow today I find, you have changed your mind
11.23am
4 September 2019
Offline Sea Belt said
Two things in this regard save that Beatles song: “seventeen” is the only teen age with 3 syllables, which fits the song better than two syllables (e.g. “eighteen” or “nineteen”); and secondly, I’d say it was implicitly understood the “I” of the song’s story is a boy of comparable age.
How about this:
“Well, she was just 23, and you know what I mean…”?
Of course, Paul wasn’t even 23 when he wrote it.
11.57pm
7 November 2022
Offline 23 works syllable-wise, though I was reminded that the line “and you know what I mean” seems to be an obvious wink at the young age of 17, so it might be puzzling to hear 23 in that context
Now today I find, you have changed your mind
7.21pm
10 January 2024
Offline Some one told me that Seventeen is nearly an adult (Legally) plus I think Paul was in his early twenties when he wrote that song.
But back to You’re sixteen, I think it would be hard to justify signing it nowdays. I think everyone’s kind of right about the song not aging well.
Person: You only like the Beatles because they're hot!
Me: No, I like them because their wives are hot.
7.24pm
4 September 2019
Offline Oakwood said
Some one told me that Seventeen is nearly an adult (Legally) plus I think Paul was in his early twenties when he wrote that song.But back to You’re sixteen, I think it would be hard to justify signing it nowdays. I think everyone’s kind of right about the song not aging well.
I’m sure 17 was likely within the age of consent in Paul’s day, although I’m just guessing. Generally speaking, ages of consent are higher today than they were in the ’60. And for a 20 year old like Paul at the time, I doubt too many eyebrows would be raised at that particular matchup.
As for You’re Sixteen, I just don’t care, it’s just a song for teenagers. It’s not like Ringo wrote it as a 70 year old married man, it’s just an old song he’s singing, partly for nostalgia. The Beach Boys also sang music for teenagers when they were adults, although not without some criticism.
Didn’t Elvis and Priscilla meet when she was 14? Maybe he should have sung it but renamed it “You’re Fourteen”. And we won’t even get into Jerry Lee Lewis…
12.13am
14 December 2009
Offline At the end of the day is it really any different to “Well she was just seventeen / You know what I mean” in intent?
Old Soak said
I guess in either song you could make the argument that Ringo/Paul/Johnny Burnette are hypothetically singing “in character” as 17-year old teenagers themselves.
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
1 Guest(s)
