Date: Nov 29, 1986
Weeks: 1
This song is arguably the best example of rock music in the late 80s.
The music has it all, strong electric guitars, heavy but well-used synth keyboards, a poundy 80s drum that mixes well with the rest of the music, rocking bass, and sheer exuberant energy. The synths may date the song, but they work as a piece of the whole.
The vocals are also matched to the music just right. They have that defiant edge and enthusiastic energy that an 80s rock song needs to have. Jon Bon Jovi walks a line between singing and yelling, without ever crossing over the line and becoming screechy.
There aren't a lot of lyrics here. I think they were trying to spend as much time on the crowd-pleasing chorus and as little time as possible in the verses. The music doesn't suffer for it, but there aren't a lot of lyrics to analyze. The picture I get is the a guy in a complicated relationship with a lot of drama. "You promise me heaven but put me through hell." I suppose I've seen a lot of that sort of thing doing this list. But for once, I don't think this guy minds. "No one can save me, the damage is done." I think he finds it appealing. Certainly, that's what Jon Bon Jovi's tone of voice is telling me.
My verdict: Like it. If there's a more persuasive example of the value of late 80s rock, I haven't found it yet.
Showing posts with label 1986. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1986. Show all posts
Monday, March 5, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Song #611: "True Colors" by Cyndi Lauper
Date: Oct 25, 1986
Weeks: 2
I'm torn on this song. I love Cyndi Lauper's voice here, but there are some bad choices in the backing music that undermine the emotional impact of her voice.
Cyndi Lauper's voice has a particular quality to it that is just appealing. It's when she hits the top of her energy and really lets loose, as she does in the chorus here, that I enjoy her the most. And she builds it up as the song goes along, so that the last chorus is way bigger than the first chorus was. More songs needs that kind of buildup and release. I think any song would be improved by making sure the last chorus is bigger than the first chorus. Or possibly doing the opposite if there's a particular artistic reason for it. At any rate, I think this is probably the finest vocal performance of a singer with a uniquely appealing style.
The music has a lot of problems, though. The 80s are doing their best to undermine a good song here. Almost all the music is done on weak, sad synthesizers. The artificiality sucks a lot of the genuine emotion out of it. The bongo drums probably seemed like a good choice for light percussion, but they actually wind up sort of overwhelming the weak synthesizers during the verse. The bongos work better in the chorus when Lauper's voice can outpower them. I don't understand the choice to end the song by repeating the bongo beat from the beginning. Are they trying to suggest the song is going to start over again? It's a weak choice for an ending. At best, I can infer from the video that the artificial surreality of the song is intentional, but I'm just not sure it works to make the song as low-key and subtle as was intended.
The lyrics are excellent. There are lots of songs that send a message to be comfortable with who you are, no matter how much you feel like you don't fit in, but this one is a bit unique. The singer of this song is declaring that they love you for who you are, not who you pretend to be. Even if you still feel the need to pretend, it's okay, the singer just wants you to know that they love you either way. It's a really good message for anyone who has ever felt like a misfit, and it's a great song to dedicate to a friend who is having a hard time.
My verdict: Like it. The music still isn't very good, but the song is more about the vocal performance and the lyrics. It's possible to find some good live performances that replace the 80s synthesizers with more acoustic instruments, and you can see the true strength of the song.
Weeks: 2
I'm torn on this song. I love Cyndi Lauper's voice here, but there are some bad choices in the backing music that undermine the emotional impact of her voice.
Cyndi Lauper's voice has a particular quality to it that is just appealing. It's when she hits the top of her energy and really lets loose, as she does in the chorus here, that I enjoy her the most. And she builds it up as the song goes along, so that the last chorus is way bigger than the first chorus was. More songs needs that kind of buildup and release. I think any song would be improved by making sure the last chorus is bigger than the first chorus. Or possibly doing the opposite if there's a particular artistic reason for it. At any rate, I think this is probably the finest vocal performance of a singer with a uniquely appealing style.
The music has a lot of problems, though. The 80s are doing their best to undermine a good song here. Almost all the music is done on weak, sad synthesizers. The artificiality sucks a lot of the genuine emotion out of it. The bongo drums probably seemed like a good choice for light percussion, but they actually wind up sort of overwhelming the weak synthesizers during the verse. The bongos work better in the chorus when Lauper's voice can outpower them. I don't understand the choice to end the song by repeating the bongo beat from the beginning. Are they trying to suggest the song is going to start over again? It's a weak choice for an ending. At best, I can infer from the video that the artificial surreality of the song is intentional, but I'm just not sure it works to make the song as low-key and subtle as was intended.
The lyrics are excellent. There are lots of songs that send a message to be comfortable with who you are, no matter how much you feel like you don't fit in, but this one is a bit unique. The singer of this song is declaring that they love you for who you are, not who you pretend to be. Even if you still feel the need to pretend, it's okay, the singer just wants you to know that they love you either way. It's a really good message for anyone who has ever felt like a misfit, and it's a great song to dedicate to a friend who is having a hard time.
My verdict: Like it. The music still isn't very good, but the song is more about the vocal performance and the lyrics. It's possible to find some good live performances that replace the 80s synthesizers with more acoustic instruments, and you can see the true strength of the song.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Song #609: "Stuck With You" by Huey Lewis & The News
Date: Sept 20, 1986
Weeks: 3
Huey Lewis and the News are an underrated musical act in my opinion. There's something appealing about their style of pop/rock music. It's very fundamental and straightforward without being boring. It's also generally very bright and cheery, and fun.
This is one of the most relaxed and slow-tempo Huey Lewis songs that I know of, but somehow that just makes it more cheery and happy. That organ that accents the song really brings the mood up, but the bright drum and strummy guitar accents also help. Huey Lewis's voice sounds like he's singing through a smile. And even the backup singers sound bright and happy. The soundscape is well filled without getting crowded and full of extraneous instruments. I really enjoy the organ solo in the bridge, too. I can't really find much to criticize in the music. It's a pleasant, fun little song that is orchestrated perfectly.
"We are bound by all the rest. Like the same phone number, all the same friends, and the same address." This couple is saying they stay together because breaking up would be too much effort. And that sentiment could come across as the jaded, bitter rantings of someone whose relationship is over. But the chorus is "I'm so happy to be stuck with you." So it really comes across more as the kind of joke old married people tell when in truth, they wouldn't have it any other way. It's corny, and kind of a dumb idea for a song, but on the other hand it's not like any other song sentiment I've heard so far. Plus, Huey Lewis's voice is just happy enough to sell this concept.
My verdict: Like it. It just feels like a happy song, even if it's a little bit corny.
Weeks: 3
Huey Lewis and the News are an underrated musical act in my opinion. There's something appealing about their style of pop/rock music. It's very fundamental and straightforward without being boring. It's also generally very bright and cheery, and fun.
This is one of the most relaxed and slow-tempo Huey Lewis songs that I know of, but somehow that just makes it more cheery and happy. That organ that accents the song really brings the mood up, but the bright drum and strummy guitar accents also help. Huey Lewis's voice sounds like he's singing through a smile. And even the backup singers sound bright and happy. The soundscape is well filled without getting crowded and full of extraneous instruments. I really enjoy the organ solo in the bridge, too. I can't really find much to criticize in the music. It's a pleasant, fun little song that is orchestrated perfectly.
"We are bound by all the rest. Like the same phone number, all the same friends, and the same address." This couple is saying they stay together because breaking up would be too much effort. And that sentiment could come across as the jaded, bitter rantings of someone whose relationship is over. But the chorus is "I'm so happy to be stuck with you." So it really comes across more as the kind of joke old married people tell when in truth, they wouldn't have it any other way. It's corny, and kind of a dumb idea for a song, but on the other hand it's not like any other song sentiment I've heard so far. Plus, Huey Lewis's voice is just happy enough to sell this concept.
My verdict: Like it. It just feels like a happy song, even if it's a little bit corny.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Song #610: "When I Think Of You" by Janet Jackson
Date: Oct 11, 1986
Weeks: 2
I'm a little torn on this song. On the one hand, it's fun and energetic enough. On the other hand, it has a lot of little moments I don't care for, and Janet Jackson has a lot of better songs, even if the charts don't necessarily reflect my opinion of their quality. I mean, this is from the same album as "Control," "Nasty," and "What Have You Done For Me Lately," but out of all those this is the only one that reached No. 1, even though it's easily the most forgettable of the set.
The song is perfectly enjoyable and through the first and second verses and both of those choruses. This song does a lot to justify many of the tropes of the 80s that I've complained about before. That 80s poundy drum correctly captures the intended bold energy. That matches the synthesized horn stings, which sound different enough from real horns to create an intriguing sound. The bass is simple but appealing enough. Janet Jackson's light voice is appealing and floats pleasantly in a layer of sound above the appealing background. The song gets off to a good start and seems to be building to a big musical payoff in the bridge.
Unfortunately, the bridge is where the song falls apart. Rather than getting bigger and more impressive, the bridge is full of studio tricks and very little sound. The section of bongo drums and weird grunts just isn't that appealing. The part where they add an echo to "when I think of you [you you you you]" is one of those things that just comes off insincere. And that conflicts with Jackson's spoken "when I think of you," which sounds very sincere, except in the context in which it's presented.
The lyrics are simple, and they're fine, but they're not very deep. When she feels bad, she thinks about her love, and she feels better. There's no odd phrases to mock, but there's not really anything all that clever to praise. The lyrics are ultimately pretty neutral. Except for the part in the bridge where she says "Bass" just before there's a small bass solo. That's one of those things that only works in a band where the singer calls attention to the guitar player who is also a member of the band, and even then it only really works live. A solo artist calling attention to the anonymous studio musician who did her bass line is just odd.
Also, the background singers doing the "So in love" lyric sing it in an overly staccato way that makes it sound like they're singing something else. For years I thought the lyric was something like "Sovinfur," and I wondered what that word meant.
My verdict: Don't like it. It starts off strong, but gets weird at the halfway point. And Janet Jackson has way better songs than this, even if some of her best aren't represented on this list.
Weeks: 2
I'm a little torn on this song. On the one hand, it's fun and energetic enough. On the other hand, it has a lot of little moments I don't care for, and Janet Jackson has a lot of better songs, even if the charts don't necessarily reflect my opinion of their quality. I mean, this is from the same album as "Control," "Nasty," and "What Have You Done For Me Lately," but out of all those this is the only one that reached No. 1, even though it's easily the most forgettable of the set.
The song is perfectly enjoyable and through the first and second verses and both of those choruses. This song does a lot to justify many of the tropes of the 80s that I've complained about before. That 80s poundy drum correctly captures the intended bold energy. That matches the synthesized horn stings, which sound different enough from real horns to create an intriguing sound. The bass is simple but appealing enough. Janet Jackson's light voice is appealing and floats pleasantly in a layer of sound above the appealing background. The song gets off to a good start and seems to be building to a big musical payoff in the bridge.
Unfortunately, the bridge is where the song falls apart. Rather than getting bigger and more impressive, the bridge is full of studio tricks and very little sound. The section of bongo drums and weird grunts just isn't that appealing. The part where they add an echo to "when I think of you [you you you you]" is one of those things that just comes off insincere. And that conflicts with Jackson's spoken "when I think of you," which sounds very sincere, except in the context in which it's presented.
The lyrics are simple, and they're fine, but they're not very deep. When she feels bad, she thinks about her love, and she feels better. There's no odd phrases to mock, but there's not really anything all that clever to praise. The lyrics are ultimately pretty neutral. Except for the part in the bridge where she says "Bass" just before there's a small bass solo. That's one of those things that only works in a band where the singer calls attention to the guitar player who is also a member of the band, and even then it only really works live. A solo artist calling attention to the anonymous studio musician who did her bass line is just odd.
Also, the background singers doing the "So in love" lyric sing it in an overly staccato way that makes it sound like they're singing something else. For years I thought the lyric was something like "Sovinfur," and I wondered what that word meant.
My verdict: Don't like it. It starts off strong, but gets weird at the halfway point. And Janet Jackson has way better songs than this, even if some of her best aren't represented on this list.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Song #596: "West End Girls" by Pet Shop Boys
Date: May 10, 1986
Weeks: 1
Here is a song that really puts synthesizers to their test. I've complained about songs from the late 70s and 80s using synthesizers as a cheap alternative to real instruments, and the songs sound cheap because of them. Songs in the late 90s and 2000s seem to have figured out that synthesizers are best used boldly, to create unique sounds that natural instruments just can't make. This song seems determined to take the good synthesizer and the bad synthesizer and mix them together in the same song.
I like a lot of what's happening in this song. The fake-string synthesizer track that leads off the song works pretty well. It creates a sort of surreal environment for the rest of the song to operate in. It's sort of like listening to a string section through an aural fog. Since the song is about London, that feels appropriate. The bass line is also pretty good. It's not kidding around about being a synthesizer, and that works to the song's benefit. I think the bass would be better if it sustained more notes, but it's okay as it is. Unfortunately, somewhere around the bridge, some odd choices get made. The synthesized chorus is never a good idea, but its gets put front and center for a bit here, and the song suffers for it. There's also a muted trumpet sound around the bridge that is just terrible. Maybe it's supposed to sound like car horns honking in traffic, but it's too good an imitation, and not musical at all.
There's also a terrible "dit-dit-dit" breaking news sound that follows every iteration of the verse that began to grate my nerves. Yes, the song probably needs some sound there, but I don't think they picked the right one. The drums also sounds very fake, and there is almost never a time when artificial drums are the right answer. The best you can hope for with a drum kit is that it'll go undetected.
Overall, there's not a lot of variety of sound in this song, either. It doesn't change very much from chorus to verse, and at the end it just sort of fades away, rather than feeling like it reached anything like a conclusion
I think I need a little metaphor help to decipher the lyrics. Now, I know that London's West End is upscale and ritzy and the East End is lower-class. So at first glance, with lines like "East End boys and West End girls," it seems the song is lyrically trying to copy Billy Joel's "Uptown Girl." But while that song seems to be about love despite social class difference, this song doesn't seem to be about that at all. Is it about casual hookups? If so, what's that first verse about? "Kicking in chairs and knocking down tables in a a restaurant in a west end town." The second verse makes vague allusion to someone selling something "How much have you got?" But is it sex? Drugs?
My best guess, based on reading the lyrics several times, is that maybe it's about the low-class elements that hide in an upper-class town. Drugs, prostitution, robbery, and so on, that lurk underneath the fancy veneer of a high-class neighborhood.
My verdict: Don't like it. There's some good stuff going on here, but the overall sound hasn't aged well and sounds cheap.
Weeks: 1
Here is a song that really puts synthesizers to their test. I've complained about songs from the late 70s and 80s using synthesizers as a cheap alternative to real instruments, and the songs sound cheap because of them. Songs in the late 90s and 2000s seem to have figured out that synthesizers are best used boldly, to create unique sounds that natural instruments just can't make. This song seems determined to take the good synthesizer and the bad synthesizer and mix them together in the same song.
I like a lot of what's happening in this song. The fake-string synthesizer track that leads off the song works pretty well. It creates a sort of surreal environment for the rest of the song to operate in. It's sort of like listening to a string section through an aural fog. Since the song is about London, that feels appropriate. The bass line is also pretty good. It's not kidding around about being a synthesizer, and that works to the song's benefit. I think the bass would be better if it sustained more notes, but it's okay as it is. Unfortunately, somewhere around the bridge, some odd choices get made. The synthesized chorus is never a good idea, but its gets put front and center for a bit here, and the song suffers for it. There's also a muted trumpet sound around the bridge that is just terrible. Maybe it's supposed to sound like car horns honking in traffic, but it's too good an imitation, and not musical at all.
There's also a terrible "dit-dit-dit" breaking news sound that follows every iteration of the verse that began to grate my nerves. Yes, the song probably needs some sound there, but I don't think they picked the right one. The drums also sounds very fake, and there is almost never a time when artificial drums are the right answer. The best you can hope for with a drum kit is that it'll go undetected.
Overall, there's not a lot of variety of sound in this song, either. It doesn't change very much from chorus to verse, and at the end it just sort of fades away, rather than feeling like it reached anything like a conclusion
I think I need a little metaphor help to decipher the lyrics. Now, I know that London's West End is upscale and ritzy and the East End is lower-class. So at first glance, with lines like "East End boys and West End girls," it seems the song is lyrically trying to copy Billy Joel's "Uptown Girl." But while that song seems to be about love despite social class difference, this song doesn't seem to be about that at all. Is it about casual hookups? If so, what's that first verse about? "Kicking in chairs and knocking down tables in a a restaurant in a west end town." The second verse makes vague allusion to someone selling something "How much have you got?" But is it sex? Drugs?
My best guess, based on reading the lyrics several times, is that maybe it's about the low-class elements that hide in an upper-class town. Drugs, prostitution, robbery, and so on, that lurk underneath the fancy veneer of a high-class neighborhood.
My verdict: Don't like it. There's some good stuff going on here, but the overall sound hasn't aged well and sounds cheap.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Song #588: "That's What Friends Are For" by Dionne & Friends
Date: Jan 18, 1986
Weeks: 4
I'm not why this song is credited to "Dionne & Friends," other than that perhaps the 1980s wasn't quite ready to handle "Dionne Warwick featuring Elton John, Gladys Knight, and Stevie Wonder." I really loathe this song. It's like a blander version of "We Are The World" (#566). I was originally going to say "but without being for a cause," but a quick glance at Wikipedia reveals this song's proceeds benefited AIDS research. Even so, everyone involved deserved a better song than this. With 3 very talented singers, plus Dionne Warwick, you would think the results would have been better.
Something about Dionne Warwick's voice bugs me. She sounds insincere and unspontaneous and overly practiced. I admit that if you put her in the right song, the problems I have with her voice are minimized somewhat. But this song is not the right song.
The song's biggest problem is that it's so gentle, so synthesized, and so light that it sounds like a karaoke song. It sounds like the 8-bit adaptation of itself. There's almost nothing organic and natural about the music. I'm sure there's real sax, piano, drums, and even light guitar involved here, but they are so slight that they might as well me synthesized. Oh, but I do like the harmonica okay.
The next biggest problem is that while the music is too gentle, Stevie Wonder, Elton John, and Gladys Knight are overdoing it. These are three very talented singers, but they are completely overpowering the music. It's a terrible match. Part of me wonders if they thought they were going to be performing this song over another, much better instrumental accompaniment. To be fair, Dionne Warwick's performance does match the music. And the song does seem a bit warmer whenever she is singing.
The lyrics are so padded out I almost expect to find styrofoam peanuts in them. They're just a little too warm and cheesy and full of casual use of the word "love" for me. "Keep smiling, keep shining." The smiling part is fine, but the "shining" part is filler, with no context to explain it. I suppose I must concede that the lyrics make a bit more sense with the AIDS context, if you imagine this is a conversation between two friends, one of whom is dying from disease. Still, that meaning isn't exactly explained within the song. Overall, the lyrics are fine, I guess, but they are so bland and generally devoid of meaning that I don't care for them.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's obviously trying to imitate "We Are The World," which wasn't a very good song itself, but it can't even live up to that standard.
Weeks: 4
I'm not why this song is credited to "Dionne & Friends," other than that perhaps the 1980s wasn't quite ready to handle "Dionne Warwick featuring Elton John, Gladys Knight, and Stevie Wonder." I really loathe this song. It's like a blander version of "We Are The World" (#566). I was originally going to say "but without being for a cause," but a quick glance at Wikipedia reveals this song's proceeds benefited AIDS research. Even so, everyone involved deserved a better song than this. With 3 very talented singers, plus Dionne Warwick, you would think the results would have been better.
Something about Dionne Warwick's voice bugs me. She sounds insincere and unspontaneous and overly practiced. I admit that if you put her in the right song, the problems I have with her voice are minimized somewhat. But this song is not the right song.
The song's biggest problem is that it's so gentle, so synthesized, and so light that it sounds like a karaoke song. It sounds like the 8-bit adaptation of itself. There's almost nothing organic and natural about the music. I'm sure there's real sax, piano, drums, and even light guitar involved here, but they are so slight that they might as well me synthesized. Oh, but I do like the harmonica okay.
The next biggest problem is that while the music is too gentle, Stevie Wonder, Elton John, and Gladys Knight are overdoing it. These are three very talented singers, but they are completely overpowering the music. It's a terrible match. Part of me wonders if they thought they were going to be performing this song over another, much better instrumental accompaniment. To be fair, Dionne Warwick's performance does match the music. And the song does seem a bit warmer whenever she is singing.
The lyrics are so padded out I almost expect to find styrofoam peanuts in them. They're just a little too warm and cheesy and full of casual use of the word "love" for me. "Keep smiling, keep shining." The smiling part is fine, but the "shining" part is filler, with no context to explain it. I suppose I must concede that the lyrics make a bit more sense with the AIDS context, if you imagine this is a conversation between two friends, one of whom is dying from disease. Still, that meaning isn't exactly explained within the song. Overall, the lyrics are fine, I guess, but they are so bland and generally devoid of meaning that I don't care for them.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's obviously trying to imitate "We Are The World," which wasn't a very good song itself, but it can't even live up to that standard.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Song #593: "Rock Me Amadeus" by Falco
Date: Mar 29, 1986
Weeks: 3
I always knew this blog would poke into the past, but I didn't expect to be discussing Henry VIII, Beethoven, and Mozart all in one week. That's a bit further into the past than I expected.
For some reason I'd always thought this song from from the 1984 movie Amadeus, but it turns out it was only inspired by it. It wasn't released until 1985. And I guess I never listened to it closely enough to realize the lyrics were in German. There were a lot of international remixes, and the music video used the original version. I had to hunt a bit to find the version that played on the radio in the U.S., but I think I've got the right one.
The additions for the US version of this song are superfluous and pointless. Credit to the record studio for cleverness, because the addition of an English chorus to the beginning and end of the song helps keep the casual listener from even noticing the song is in German. I understand why they did it, but it doesn't match the song very well. When the second English chorus comes in, it feels like a whole new song has started. The song would be better without it.
Fortunately, the US edit doesn't detract much from the quality of the original song. That 80s poundy drum that I usually complain about? This is the type of song where it works. The song is loud, it's brash, and the drum makes it a bit like a slow march. This is also the type of song that makes synthesized keyboards work. They aren't trying to be soft, or tender, or delicate, they're just trying to create a tune you can dance to. The bass sits comfortably in the background offering support. And there's plenty of variety in the percussion to keep it interesting. And I think variety is what makes the song successful. There's sufficient variety to stay interesting, but the song keeps wandering back to the theme. And that's why a song that is primarily remembered for saying "Rock me Amadeus" over and over manages to stay interesting the whole time.
The vocals are almost uncomfortably staccato and choked. I suppose that's partly because they are in German, but I think they're also stylized that way, although I'm not sure I entirely understand why.
The lyrics, translated, suggest that Mozart was the first punk rock star. He had groupies, he threw his money around, he lived the lifestyle of a rich and famous rock star. I admit that I don't know much about Mozart's life and I haven't seen Amadeus (which is known for not being very historically accurate anyway). So I don't know if Falco's interpretation of Mozart as a rock star is based on his life or the movie, and I don't know how accurate it is. But I can certainly see the point he's making. I think it was a relatively original idea at the time, as well. Since this song, it seems like a favorite pasttime of movie-makers to make movies that compares historical figures to modern-day celebrities.
My verdict: Like it. It's catchy and bouncy. The lyrics are clever, even if they're not exactly easy for an English-speaker to sing along with. It's the sound of the 80s presented in a fresh and interesting way.
Weeks: 3
I always knew this blog would poke into the past, but I didn't expect to be discussing Henry VIII, Beethoven, and Mozart all in one week. That's a bit further into the past than I expected.
For some reason I'd always thought this song from from the 1984 movie Amadeus, but it turns out it was only inspired by it. It wasn't released until 1985. And I guess I never listened to it closely enough to realize the lyrics were in German. There were a lot of international remixes, and the music video used the original version. I had to hunt a bit to find the version that played on the radio in the U.S., but I think I've got the right one.
The additions for the US version of this song are superfluous and pointless. Credit to the record studio for cleverness, because the addition of an English chorus to the beginning and end of the song helps keep the casual listener from even noticing the song is in German. I understand why they did it, but it doesn't match the song very well. When the second English chorus comes in, it feels like a whole new song has started. The song would be better without it.
Fortunately, the US edit doesn't detract much from the quality of the original song. That 80s poundy drum that I usually complain about? This is the type of song where it works. The song is loud, it's brash, and the drum makes it a bit like a slow march. This is also the type of song that makes synthesized keyboards work. They aren't trying to be soft, or tender, or delicate, they're just trying to create a tune you can dance to. The bass sits comfortably in the background offering support. And there's plenty of variety in the percussion to keep it interesting. And I think variety is what makes the song successful. There's sufficient variety to stay interesting, but the song keeps wandering back to the theme. And that's why a song that is primarily remembered for saying "Rock me Amadeus" over and over manages to stay interesting the whole time.
The vocals are almost uncomfortably staccato and choked. I suppose that's partly because they are in German, but I think they're also stylized that way, although I'm not sure I entirely understand why.
The lyrics, translated, suggest that Mozart was the first punk rock star. He had groupies, he threw his money around, he lived the lifestyle of a rich and famous rock star. I admit that I don't know much about Mozart's life and I haven't seen Amadeus (which is known for not being very historically accurate anyway). So I don't know if Falco's interpretation of Mozart as a rock star is based on his life or the movie, and I don't know how accurate it is. But I can certainly see the point he's making. I think it was a relatively original idea at the time, as well. Since this song, it seems like a favorite pasttime of movie-makers to make movies that compares historical figures to modern-day celebrities.
My verdict: Like it. It's catchy and bouncy. The lyrics are clever, even if they're not exactly easy for an English-speaker to sing along with. It's the sound of the 80s presented in a fresh and interesting way.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Song #616: "The Way It Is" by Bruce Hornsby & The Range
Date: Dec 13, 1986
Weeks: 1
I didn't mean to skip almost a week, but I caught a nasty cold that's had me down and out for a bit. I'm still not feeling that great, but it's easier to resume this blog when I get to come back to a piece of 80s comfort food like this. But despite my generally warm nostalgia for this song, does it really hold up?
At the song's core is an absolutely wonderful piano part. The piano part expresses a great mix of sadness and hope, which perfectly matches the tone of the lyrics, which I'll get to later. It's well-played, and in a decade known for synthesized keyboards, it's refreshing to hear a genuine piano. I mean, I think it's genuine. If it is simulated, they at least made it sound realistic, which is not what a lot of 80s keyboard sounds were aiming for.
Unfortunately, everything else in the soundtrack is terribly fake, or at least fake-feeling. The drum line is constant and unchanging, and sounds like a drum machine. The bass guitar line sounds synthesized and fake. There's a lead guitar sting that pops in that also feels processed and fake. And I barely noticed, but there's an almost-constant background synth chord running through the whole song. I suspect this song could work with just the piano, but it really needs to drop the synth-chord background and the lead-guitar stings, and replace the bass with a more authentic sound. The drum line is okay, but it needs more variety around transitions. The backing tracks just feel passionless, like they were made with a machine, which is a terrible match to such an authentic piano piece.
Hornsby's vocals are fine, if a bit overly gravelly. He doesn't try to do too much vocally, and when he does his voice sounds strained. It's not necessary to sing well to make a song like this work, because the piano is carrying the song, but the vocals are not a net positive. Also the bridge part when he whispers "That's just the way it is" is kind of silly and unneeded.
The lyrics are clever and well-written. It tells tales of the poor and victims of racism and segregation, and ends each one seemingly resigned to the notion that "That's just the way it is." But then each chorus ends with the line "But don't you believe them." The overall intent is to convince the listener not to accept "that's just the way it is" as an answer for social ills, and that things can get better. It's a good topic and well-written.
The piano really matches the lyrics well, too. While Hornby sings "That's just the way it is," the piano manages to be sad and soft. But after he finishes the chorus with "Don't you believe them," the piano gets bright, triumphant, and hopeful.
My verdict: Like it. The piano and lyrics, and especially the way they match to create a consistent and appealing mood, overcomes the lousy backing tracks.
Weeks: 1
I didn't mean to skip almost a week, but I caught a nasty cold that's had me down and out for a bit. I'm still not feeling that great, but it's easier to resume this blog when I get to come back to a piece of 80s comfort food like this. But despite my generally warm nostalgia for this song, does it really hold up?
At the song's core is an absolutely wonderful piano part. The piano part expresses a great mix of sadness and hope, which perfectly matches the tone of the lyrics, which I'll get to later. It's well-played, and in a decade known for synthesized keyboards, it's refreshing to hear a genuine piano. I mean, I think it's genuine. If it is simulated, they at least made it sound realistic, which is not what a lot of 80s keyboard sounds were aiming for.
Unfortunately, everything else in the soundtrack is terribly fake, or at least fake-feeling. The drum line is constant and unchanging, and sounds like a drum machine. The bass guitar line sounds synthesized and fake. There's a lead guitar sting that pops in that also feels processed and fake. And I barely noticed, but there's an almost-constant background synth chord running through the whole song. I suspect this song could work with just the piano, but it really needs to drop the synth-chord background and the lead-guitar stings, and replace the bass with a more authentic sound. The drum line is okay, but it needs more variety around transitions. The backing tracks just feel passionless, like they were made with a machine, which is a terrible match to such an authentic piano piece.
Hornsby's vocals are fine, if a bit overly gravelly. He doesn't try to do too much vocally, and when he does his voice sounds strained. It's not necessary to sing well to make a song like this work, because the piano is carrying the song, but the vocals are not a net positive. Also the bridge part when he whispers "That's just the way it is" is kind of silly and unneeded.
The lyrics are clever and well-written. It tells tales of the poor and victims of racism and segregation, and ends each one seemingly resigned to the notion that "That's just the way it is." But then each chorus ends with the line "But don't you believe them." The overall intent is to convince the listener not to accept "that's just the way it is" as an answer for social ills, and that things can get better. It's a good topic and well-written.
The piano really matches the lyrics well, too. While Hornby sings "That's just the way it is," the piano manages to be sad and soft. But after he finishes the chorus with "Don't you believe them," the piano gets bright, triumphant, and hopeful.
My verdict: Like it. The piano and lyrics, and especially the way they match to create a consistent and appealing mood, overcomes the lousy backing tracks.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Song #591: "Sara" by Starship
Date: Mar 15, 1986
Weeks: 1
As I review more and more songs, I'm finding every era contains at least one recurring trope that really bugs me. In the 80s, it's the style of drum that gets used here. It's loud, it fills the space between beats with reverb, and it's inappropriately placed in otherwise soft songs. What is it with that drum? Is there a name for it? I always think of it as the "Born in the U.S.A." drum (mostly because of this old Conan O'Brien bit). It works in Springsteen's song, but it doesn't work nearly as well in a softer song like this.
This song's music is so cheesily sincere that it's hard to take it seriously. Soft, gentle keyboards provide most of the music, there's an occasional muted sax, and then there's an electric guitar. Much like the drums, the electric guitar seems like the result of an inability to commit to a gentle soft song, resulting in something that tries to be soft and hard at the same time and fails to successfully be either. This song might work better acoustically. (Yep. Thanks, Youtube cover artists)
The vocals have the same cheesy sincerity problem. Most of it isn't too bad, but the bridge gets pretty painful when they add in the lead singer backing himself up with a squeaky breaking voice. I guess they're trying to make him sound emotional, but the self-backup effect sounds far too fake. This track is simply overproduced.
The lyrics are also pretty goofy. The message is that even when you know a relationship needs to end, you're not necessarily happy about it. But this is communicated in the most overdramatic way possible. "We're fire and ice, the dream won't come true." You mean you're too different to get along? There's poetic license, and then there's a metaphorical fantasy epic.
Then there's "storms are brewing in your eyes." I've never really understood that line, until I finally watched the video a couple times. In the video, the titular Sara leaves the singer, and for some reason he flashes back to when a tornado destroyed his childhood home. It took me a couple views before I caught on to the metaphor of a breakup devastating him the way a tornado devastates a house. It's definitely not a point in the song's favor that you need to see the video to interpret the lyrics of the song.
My verdict: Don't like it. I liked this song when I was younger. I guess I thought it was deep. But I think I've matured too much to see depth in this song, and time has not been kind to the instrumental choices.
Weeks: 1
As I review more and more songs, I'm finding every era contains at least one recurring trope that really bugs me. In the 80s, it's the style of drum that gets used here. It's loud, it fills the space between beats with reverb, and it's inappropriately placed in otherwise soft songs. What is it with that drum? Is there a name for it? I always think of it as the "Born in the U.S.A." drum (mostly because of this old Conan O'Brien bit). It works in Springsteen's song, but it doesn't work nearly as well in a softer song like this.
This song's music is so cheesily sincere that it's hard to take it seriously. Soft, gentle keyboards provide most of the music, there's an occasional muted sax, and then there's an electric guitar. Much like the drums, the electric guitar seems like the result of an inability to commit to a gentle soft song, resulting in something that tries to be soft and hard at the same time and fails to successfully be either. This song might work better acoustically. (Yep. Thanks, Youtube cover artists)
The vocals have the same cheesy sincerity problem. Most of it isn't too bad, but the bridge gets pretty painful when they add in the lead singer backing himself up with a squeaky breaking voice. I guess they're trying to make him sound emotional, but the self-backup effect sounds far too fake. This track is simply overproduced.
The lyrics are also pretty goofy. The message is that even when you know a relationship needs to end, you're not necessarily happy about it. But this is communicated in the most overdramatic way possible. "We're fire and ice, the dream won't come true." You mean you're too different to get along? There's poetic license, and then there's a metaphorical fantasy epic.
Then there's "storms are brewing in your eyes." I've never really understood that line, until I finally watched the video a couple times. In the video, the titular Sara leaves the singer, and for some reason he flashes back to when a tornado destroyed his childhood home. It took me a couple views before I caught on to the metaphor of a breakup devastating him the way a tornado devastates a house. It's definitely not a point in the song's favor that you need to see the video to interpret the lyrics of the song.
My verdict: Don't like it. I liked this song when I was younger. I guess I thought it was deep. But I think I've matured too much to see depth in this song, and time has not been kind to the instrumental choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)