Song #258: "How Can You Mend a Broken Heart" by Bee Gees

Date: Aug 7, 1971
Weeks: 4

Oh, excuse me, there must have been some mistake. I was going to review a song by the Bee Gees. I must have made an error in my search.

Hmm... No, that's the right song. Is it possible I've confused the Bee Gees with another band? I was thinking of the band that was the epitome of disco with songs like "Night Fever" and "Stayin' Alive." Who did those songs, then?

Oh, those are the Bee Gees, too. The same Bee Gees? Is this a case where a creative falling out and a lineup change altered a band's output? Wikipedia, help me out here.

Three brothers, eh? No lineup changes of any kind throughout the 1970s. Well, I guess I've learned something today. No matter how open-minded I try to be, a good surprise can still throw me.

So this unexpectedly strummy folk song is all about the sadness of a broken heart. The lyrics are entirely on-message and sad. "How can you mend this broken man? How can a loser ever win?" And it doesn't even have a hopeful ending. "Please help me mend this broken heart and let me live again." Depressing, but at least they make sense.

The music doesn't quite match the lyrics, although I'm having a hard time figuring out why. At first I thought the music was too happy, but there are plenty of sad string accents throughout. Then I thought the vocals were too cheery, but the singer (Barry Gibb in particular, according to Wikipedia's account of who sang which parts) is definitely injecting a sad vibrato, like he's on the verge of crying. So what is it that doesn't quite work for me?

I think the problem is that the lyrics demand that this be a personal song. The singer is supposed to be lonely. But when there are two distinct singers on the verses and 3-part harmony on the chorus, that loneliness isn't expressed. There are breakup songs that allow for backup singers in the chorus, in an "at least I still have my friends" kind of way, but that kind of song demands lyrics that are a bit more angry than this.

I looked around for some covers to verify this theory, and I think I'm comfortable declaring that the fewer performers are involved, the more successful the song is. This cover by Diana Krall is the one I found that works the best, and it's because it's the one with the fewest performers. It's basically a piano singer with some light bass and drum contributions. It's successfully the sad song it's supposed to be.

My verdict: Don't like it. It doesn't make the right musical choices to communicate the sentiment it's trying to communicate.