Date: Aug 29, 1987
Weeks: 3
This is a cover from the soundtrack to a movie about a singer who recorded a rock and roll version of a traditional dance song from Mexico. Is everybody clear on that?
The original rock and roll song was recorded by Ritchie Valens. I'm not sure whether I like his version more or not. It's more organic than this remake, so it has a bit more feeling, but it's also not nearly as tidy. Personally, I think I like the Los Lobos singer better, but I like most of the instruments in the Valens version better. Well, maybe not the wood block percussion. Mostly I just want to get rid of the irritating guitar solo from the Los Lobos version. Regardless of all of that, the bottom line is that this song has a catchy tune. It will get stuck in your head. I don't understand why they added an acoustic lead-out from the song, though. Was that to tie it back to its traditional roots? Maybe, but it feels like a whole different song.
I've always wondered what the lyrics to this song meant. I've always been a little irritated by how often this song loops back to "Baila la la la bamba." Although I didn't understand the lyrics, I got the sense that they were very repetitive. And now that I've found a translation, I see that I was pretty much right. But it's really not so bad, because the lyrics are basically "dance the bamba," where the bamba is a type of dance. Then it says "a little bit of grace is needed" and "and higher and higher." Basically the lyrics are just telling you to dance. I can't really complain that a dance song lacks meaningful lyrics. The meaning is in the dancing.
My verdict: Don't like it. I'm not sure I can offer a particularly eloquent explanation beyond that its style just doesn't connect with me. And I'm not quite willing to grant latitude to a song that's been made primarily to promote a movie. I might be more charitable with Ritchie Valens version, but that song didn't reach No. 1.
Showing posts with label 1987. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1987. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Song #626: "(I Just) Died In Your Arms" by Cutting Crew
Date: May 2, 1987
Weeks: 2
This is almost a demonstration piece of some of the worst tropes of 1980s music. And they all combine in a way that isn't awful, but isn't very appealing, either.
The song opens with that ill-advised synthesizer bit. This is one of the worst ways possible to use a synthesizer. It's so quiet and weak. I think it's trying to be subtle, and that's just the worst possible way to use your synthesizer. A good synthesizer needs to be bold and obvious. This one sounds like it's trying to pass as a woodwind chorus, and it's just painful.
Then there's that 80s poundy drum. Why was this so pervasive in the 80s, and why haven't I heard it in any other era? Did it just get better-integrated into music after the 80s? It's really starting to bug me.
Next up is a blaring, rambling lead guitar. It lacks both tight musicianship and the energy that comes from improvised performance. I do like the boldness of the guitar, and it fills space nicely during some of the transitions.
Then there's the lead singer's super-gravelly, almost toneless voice. Are gravelly-voiced singers a 1980s trope, or do they transcend the era? I feel like I know more singers like that from the 80s, but perhaps they just stood out more. Gravelly voices aren't very interesting, so it's critical when they are used for the music to be interesting. And when the music is this bland, it just doesn't work right.
What are the lyrics? "Her diary sits on a bedside table. The curtains are closed, the cats in the cradle." Oh no, it's random poetry. There's really no story, and if there is any meaning I'm not going to figure it out. Thank goodness, Songfacts has tracked down an admission from the lead singer that he wrote the song about getting back together for a one-night stand with an ex, and the confusing emotions it caused. I can see that. "I keep looking for something I can't get" actually means something in that context. So I suppose some credit is due the song for successfully confusing me.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's dark, poorly orchestrated, and feels derivative of other 80s music, using the tropes but not knowing how to use them right.
Weeks: 2
This is almost a demonstration piece of some of the worst tropes of 1980s music. And they all combine in a way that isn't awful, but isn't very appealing, either.
The song opens with that ill-advised synthesizer bit. This is one of the worst ways possible to use a synthesizer. It's so quiet and weak. I think it's trying to be subtle, and that's just the worst possible way to use your synthesizer. A good synthesizer needs to be bold and obvious. This one sounds like it's trying to pass as a woodwind chorus, and it's just painful.
Then there's that 80s poundy drum. Why was this so pervasive in the 80s, and why haven't I heard it in any other era? Did it just get better-integrated into music after the 80s? It's really starting to bug me.
Next up is a blaring, rambling lead guitar. It lacks both tight musicianship and the energy that comes from improvised performance. I do like the boldness of the guitar, and it fills space nicely during some of the transitions.
Then there's the lead singer's super-gravelly, almost toneless voice. Are gravelly-voiced singers a 1980s trope, or do they transcend the era? I feel like I know more singers like that from the 80s, but perhaps they just stood out more. Gravelly voices aren't very interesting, so it's critical when they are used for the music to be interesting. And when the music is this bland, it just doesn't work right.
What are the lyrics? "Her diary sits on a bedside table. The curtains are closed, the cats in the cradle." Oh no, it's random poetry. There's really no story, and if there is any meaning I'm not going to figure it out. Thank goodness, Songfacts has tracked down an admission from the lead singer that he wrote the song about getting back together for a one-night stand with an ex, and the confusing emotions it caused. I can see that. "I keep looking for something I can't get" actually means something in that context. So I suppose some credit is due the song for successfully confusing me.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's dark, poorly orchestrated, and feels derivative of other 80s music, using the tropes but not knowing how to use them right.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Song #629: "Always" by Atlantic Starr
Date: June 13, 1987
Weeks: 1
Ah, the pure cheesiness of a painfully sincere late-80s song. It wants so badly to be the definitive love song of its era. And I have to admit that its sincerity is actually kind of compelling.
The thing about this song that works best is the vocals. David Lewis and Barbara Weathers are the singers here. Atlantic Starr, and this song in particular, seem to be the biggest claim to fame for both of them. But they seem to be very talented, Weathers in particular. They aren't showy. They sing the song relatively straightforwardly, but they sing it well. They each solo well, but the best part of their vocals is their harmony in the chorus.
Unfortunately, the music doesn't support them as well as it should. This is one of those songs that has layered instruments on top of instruments without actually adding to the fullness of the overall sound. The percussion, in particular, is too imposing. That poundy 80s drum is completely out of place here. There's a plinky bell-like keyboard that conflicts with the rest of the sound. There's a bass that seems too powerful and inappropriate. All those parts make the song feel overproduced and rob it of its sincerity.
The song would have been better off stripped down to the parts that work. The vocals, the piano, and yes, I'll even acknowledge that the string section works here. I don't usually like strings in pop songs, but here it works and makes the song feel gentle, like the love song it wants to be.
The tempo in this song is way too slow. It goes way past deliberate, down to plodding. I think if it were stripped down to its core elements, the tempo might make it feel gentle and romantic. It makes me wonder if the song was originally intended as a gentle, romantic song with few instruments, and then they slapped a bunch of unnecessary extra sounds on top of it.
The lyrics are pretty generic love song lyrics. If anything, the song suffers from trying to be too big in scope. "I will love you so, for always." "We both know that our love will grow." It's not a bad sentiment, but it's almost like this is trying to be the ultimate love song that puts all other love songs to shame. Our love is perfect, eternal, ever-improving, and so on. It's not a bad sentiment, but they could have found a less generic way to express it. I might want to dedicate it to someone on the radio to impress them, but I'm not sure that makes it a good song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It has a lot of points in its favor, and it's definitely not a bad song. But it's overproduced and trying too hard to be bland, instead of trying to be unique.
Weeks: 1
Ah, the pure cheesiness of a painfully sincere late-80s song. It wants so badly to be the definitive love song of its era. And I have to admit that its sincerity is actually kind of compelling.
The thing about this song that works best is the vocals. David Lewis and Barbara Weathers are the singers here. Atlantic Starr, and this song in particular, seem to be the biggest claim to fame for both of them. But they seem to be very talented, Weathers in particular. They aren't showy. They sing the song relatively straightforwardly, but they sing it well. They each solo well, but the best part of their vocals is their harmony in the chorus.
Unfortunately, the music doesn't support them as well as it should. This is one of those songs that has layered instruments on top of instruments without actually adding to the fullness of the overall sound. The percussion, in particular, is too imposing. That poundy 80s drum is completely out of place here. There's a plinky bell-like keyboard that conflicts with the rest of the sound. There's a bass that seems too powerful and inappropriate. All those parts make the song feel overproduced and rob it of its sincerity.
The song would have been better off stripped down to the parts that work. The vocals, the piano, and yes, I'll even acknowledge that the string section works here. I don't usually like strings in pop songs, but here it works and makes the song feel gentle, like the love song it wants to be.
The tempo in this song is way too slow. It goes way past deliberate, down to plodding. I think if it were stripped down to its core elements, the tempo might make it feel gentle and romantic. It makes me wonder if the song was originally intended as a gentle, romantic song with few instruments, and then they slapped a bunch of unnecessary extra sounds on top of it.
The lyrics are pretty generic love song lyrics. If anything, the song suffers from trying to be too big in scope. "I will love you so, for always." "We both know that our love will grow." It's not a bad sentiment, but it's almost like this is trying to be the ultimate love song that puts all other love songs to shame. Our love is perfect, eternal, ever-improving, and so on. It's not a bad sentiment, but they could have found a less generic way to express it. I might want to dedicate it to someone on the radio to impress them, but I'm not sure that makes it a good song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It has a lot of points in its favor, and it's definitely not a bad song. But it's overproduced and trying too hard to be bland, instead of trying to be unique.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Remake-off: Song #174: "You Keep Me Hangin' On" by the Supremes vs. Song #628: "You Keep Me Hangin' On" by Kim Wilde
Date: Nov 19, 1966
Weeks: 2
The Supremes have 12 No. 1 hits, of which this is not one of the better-known. Kim Wilde has just this one, and it's not nearly as well-known as her song "Kids in America." So which is the better version?
The lyrics are about the singer lamenting that this guy she used to date no longer wants to be with her, but is still around her, and she now realizes she can't get over him while he's still around. "Get out my life, why don't you babe? 'Cause you don't really love me, you just keep me hangin' on." "But how can we still be friends when seeing you only breaks my heart again?" He's keeping her at arm's length, neither getting back together with her nor leaving her alone, and she's declaring her intention to stay away from him and get on with her life.
The Supremes' version makes this meaning very clear. Much of the Supremes' body of work is about a women declaring her independence and self-dependence and her right to make decisions about her own love life, and their song perfectly fits that theme. That performance is mostly in their strong voices, but the driving drum line, tambourine beats, and bass line help convey the complicated emotions. I even like the constantly-strumming rhythm guitar that opens the song and continues throughout. It drives the song and helps communicate the emotion of being persistently tense in this situation.
Kim Wilde's version is a bit muddier. Her voice is not nearly as strong, and her performance gets overwhelmed by the strong electric guitars more often. The chords are a bit more minor-sounding through the chorus, which makes Kim Wilde's version sound more dramatic. The effect is to make her sound more helpless and powerless to do anything about the situation. But that goes directly against the original intent of the lyrics, which have the woman declaring that she has the power to resolve the situation to her satisfaction.
On top of not communicating the intent nearly as well, Wilde's version contains some of the more obnoxious tropes of the 80s, including the keyboards, powerful electric guitars, and poundy drums. Wilde's version does attempt to redefine the sound of the chorus and make it her own, and I think that has to be respected. Unfortunately, that redesign of the sound didn't extend to the verses, where the song sounds like a fairly straight cover of the Supremes' song.
My verdict: The Supremes version is the better version, and it earns a Like it. Kim Wilde's version takes a good song and applies some of the worst excesses of the 80s to it, and I have to say I Don't like it.
Weeks: 2
vs.
Date: June 6, 1987
Weeks: 1
The Supremes have 12 No. 1 hits, of which this is not one of the better-known. Kim Wilde has just this one, and it's not nearly as well-known as her song "Kids in America." So which is the better version?
The lyrics are about the singer lamenting that this guy she used to date no longer wants to be with her, but is still around her, and she now realizes she can't get over him while he's still around. "Get out my life, why don't you babe? 'Cause you don't really love me, you just keep me hangin' on." "But how can we still be friends when seeing you only breaks my heart again?" He's keeping her at arm's length, neither getting back together with her nor leaving her alone, and she's declaring her intention to stay away from him and get on with her life.
The Supremes' version makes this meaning very clear. Much of the Supremes' body of work is about a women declaring her independence and self-dependence and her right to make decisions about her own love life, and their song perfectly fits that theme. That performance is mostly in their strong voices, but the driving drum line, tambourine beats, and bass line help convey the complicated emotions. I even like the constantly-strumming rhythm guitar that opens the song and continues throughout. It drives the song and helps communicate the emotion of being persistently tense in this situation.
Kim Wilde's version is a bit muddier. Her voice is not nearly as strong, and her performance gets overwhelmed by the strong electric guitars more often. The chords are a bit more minor-sounding through the chorus, which makes Kim Wilde's version sound more dramatic. The effect is to make her sound more helpless and powerless to do anything about the situation. But that goes directly against the original intent of the lyrics, which have the woman declaring that she has the power to resolve the situation to her satisfaction.
On top of not communicating the intent nearly as well, Wilde's version contains some of the more obnoxious tropes of the 80s, including the keyboards, powerful electric guitars, and poundy drums. Wilde's version does attempt to redefine the sound of the chorus and make it her own, and I think that has to be respected. Unfortunately, that redesign of the sound didn't extend to the verses, where the song sounds like a fairly straight cover of the Supremes' song.
My verdict: The Supremes version is the better version, and it earns a Like it. Kim Wilde's version takes a good song and applies some of the worst excesses of the 80s to it, and I have to say I Don't like it.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Song #618: "Shake You Down" by Gregory Abbott
Date: Jan 17, 1987
Weeks: 1
This could be the most generic soft song ever. It's just so gentle and inoffensive and bland. The music is thin, and yet I can hear a harmonica, a guitar, a drum, and plenty of background vocals. But they all get used so sparingly that there's barely anything there.
When the music is this thin, it falls to the singer showing off his talent to save the song. But Gregory Abbott's voice isn't very compelling. It's high-pitched and nasal, especially during the bridge when he has a talky part. The song wants so badly to be sexy, but Abbott can't carry it.
Not that any other singer could pull it off with lyrics like these. First of all, "Shake you down?" Is that sexy slang? I always thought that was what loan sharks did to people who didn't pay. According to Songfacts:
"Shake You Down" is a phrase Abbott came up with that he thought expressed the way a man feels when he sees an attractive woman - "Girl, I want to shake you down." He tried the phrase out on a female friend and when she responded positively, it became the title for a song he was working on.
So it doesn't mean anything, except in the songwriter's head, and he didn't bother to explain it to the rest of us. Thanks, Gregory Abbott.
I've spent way too much time now trying to hammer the rest of the lyrics into some semblance of sense. With lyrics like "I've been watching you from so far across the floor" and "I can't stop thinking of the things we do," the song seems unclear about whether it's a pickup song or a long-term relationship song. My best interpretation is that the relationship he's in is going through a rough patch, and he thinks that they can solve all their problems in the bedroom. And he indicates that she agrees. And now I think I've spent more time thinking about these lyrics than anyone else ever has.
My verdict: Don't like it. The funny thing is I remember that this song was all over the radio at the time, but it never comes up when people are being nostalgic about the 80s. It seems like a song that is best left forgotten.
Weeks: 1
This could be the most generic soft song ever. It's just so gentle and inoffensive and bland. The music is thin, and yet I can hear a harmonica, a guitar, a drum, and plenty of background vocals. But they all get used so sparingly that there's barely anything there.
When the music is this thin, it falls to the singer showing off his talent to save the song. But Gregory Abbott's voice isn't very compelling. It's high-pitched and nasal, especially during the bridge when he has a talky part. The song wants so badly to be sexy, but Abbott can't carry it.
Not that any other singer could pull it off with lyrics like these. First of all, "Shake you down?" Is that sexy slang? I always thought that was what loan sharks did to people who didn't pay. According to Songfacts:
"Shake You Down" is a phrase Abbott came up with that he thought expressed the way a man feels when he sees an attractive woman - "Girl, I want to shake you down." He tried the phrase out on a female friend and when she responded positively, it became the title for a song he was working on.
So it doesn't mean anything, except in the songwriter's head, and he didn't bother to explain it to the rest of us. Thanks, Gregory Abbott.
I've spent way too much time now trying to hammer the rest of the lyrics into some semblance of sense. With lyrics like "I've been watching you from so far across the floor" and "I can't stop thinking of the things we do," the song seems unclear about whether it's a pickup song or a long-term relationship song. My best interpretation is that the relationship he's in is going through a rough patch, and he thinks that they can solve all their problems in the bedroom. And he indicates that she agrees. And now I think I've spent more time thinking about these lyrics than anyone else ever has.
My verdict: Don't like it. The funny thing is I remember that this song was all over the radio at the time, but it never comes up when people are being nostalgic about the 80s. It seems like a song that is best left forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)