I know I've said this several times before, but I really wonder who it was that thought mixing cheap synthesizers with heartfelt emotional songs was a good idea. Because this song isn't so bad, but some terrible choices were made in its construction.
And it's not like you can't make interesting music with synthesizers. Expose's own earlier song "Point of No Return" is a fine song and it has the same poundy drum and synthesized tones. But because it's more upbeat and poppy, it works in a way that the same synthesizers don't work here. Also, that blaring 80s saxophone is really overbearing here.
Lyrically, it's about the sadness of a relationship that hasn't stood the test of time. I sort of like the lyrics. Lines like "It's been so long since I found you yet it seems like yesterday" have a simple poetry to them. The singing is also pretty good. The lead singing and the backing harmonies try their hardest to convey the emotions expressed by the lyrics, but they just can't penetrate the thick wall of the synthesizer.
My verdict: Don't like it. The synthesizer is just too overbearing.
This song seems terribly miscalculated. I think the meaning is really supposed to be reflected by one of the later lyrics, "Get outta my mind, get into my life." That's what you say when you want to stop admiring someone from afar and pursue a real relationship with them.
Unfortunately, somewhere in the writing process the metaphor "Get outta my dreams, get into my car" came along. And the rest of the song was written around literalizing that metaphor as much as possible. Lyrics like "touch my bumper" and "lady driver" merge with car horn sounds and revving engines, and the result is a song that isn't serious enough to be meaningful, but doesn't quite reach the level of humorous novelty song, either. Also, what is meant by the line "get in the back seat, baby?" Is that still a metaphor, or have they abandoned all metaphorical pretensions and just tossed in a car reference for fun?
The overly bright horns and noisy percussion and synthesizer stings don't help much, either. This is a song locked into the sound of the late 80s, in a way that doesn't make much sense outside the context of 80s music. I don't care much for the female vocals, either. They seem unnecessary and designed to just complicate the sound. And then they can't even be consistent with their car metaphors, choosing to try something else with "Hey Cinderella, step in your shoe." You made the song about the car metaphor, you stick with it.
The whole "Touch my bumper [bumper]" moment is this song in a nutshell. I spent all my time listening to this song waiting for that line to repeat, because I just sort of dread how dumb that moment is, encapsulating everything that bugs me about this song.
My verdict: Don't like it. I really hope this song was written specifically for License To Drive, and that the car metaphor was written first. At least that's a commercial enterprise I can understand. Because if someone just thought the car metaphor was a good idea on an artistic level, that person was sorely mistaken.
I wasn't even thinking about this song when I reviewed "Separate Lives" ( #585) and said "Phil Collins does a fine job making rock music most of the time, and he's got a decent voice for that, but he's not a particularly talented singer when it comes to singing over minimal music." But that sentence may apply even more strongly to this song.
Where to even start with this thing? Well, I'll start with the title. "Groovy Kind Of Love" sounds more like a song from the 1960s, and it is. The Mindbenders took it to number 2 in the mid-60s. Their version isn't exactly mindbending (ha!), but it has its charm. It sounds like the 60s, so its concept of "a groovy kind of love" doesn't seem incongruous. But Phil Collins's version doesn't sound anything like the 60s. It's mired neck-deep in the sound of the 80s, with the overly genuine synthesizer keyboard trying to make some kind of emotional impact, and that poundy drum undermining everything. I think it's also going for a cinematic sound with its backing orchestra, since the song was recorded for a movie (called Buster, which starred Phil Collins, and for some reason I've never heard of it). This song is trying so hard to be genuine and heartfelt, but it feels so fake.
A better singer might have rescued this song, but Phil Collins isn't that better singer. I don't know if they're running his voice through a terrible filter or what, but somehow he always sounds processed and Auto-tuned, even though this was long before Auto-tune was a thing. His performance is just underwhelming and doesn't convey the emotion I think he's trying to convey. These soft love songs are not his strength as a performer, and I wish he'd stop doing them.
The thing that shocks me about the lyrics is that the song is essentially a happy, sweet song. It's about how the singer is happy to be with the person they love. And that's a fine sentiment. Other than finding the choice of "a groovy kind of love" too specific to the 1960s, I can't find many problems with the lyrics. But Phil Collins sounds so sad singing this song that I'm shocked to realize the song isn't actually sad. It's like he latched on to the first lyrics, "When I'm feeling blue, all I have to do is take a look at you, then I'm not so blue," and made the song sad. Although the interpretation isn't supported by the lyrics, the music makes me believe Phil Collins is sad because his relationship has ended, and now he no longer has any reason to be happy. It's a bummer, and it's not an emotional resonant bummer, so I don't particularly care for it.
My verdict: Don't like it. Phil Collins is good at many things, but he's bad at sad love songs.
I sort of liked Chicago in the 80s. I thought their music was emotional and appealing. But now I find their music just kind of emotionally manipulative. It's like it's been carefully calculated to be as heart-wrenching as possible, without necessarily earning it via any genuine sentiment.
I think the lyrics of this song illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. "If you see me walking by, and the tears are in my eyes, look away." It's supposed to be a sad image, of a man crying over lost love. But the lyric itself seems to suggest that he's just going to be walking around bawling, possibly for years afterward. It's kind of paints a funny image.
The verses of this song aren't so bad. It's the story of your ex moving on and how that kind of put a finality to the relationship that you had sort of held out a glimmer of hope for. The lyrics in the verses are at least clear about the story they're telling, and the sentiments expressed feel genuine enough. "I tell you I'm fine, but sometimes I just pretend." It's the chorus where things get absurd and overdramatic. "Don't look at me. I don't want you to see me this way." Here I am, singing a sad song about how I don't want you to see me feeling sad. Aren't guys who don't want attention all cool and sexy? Pay attention to me saying that I don't want you to pay attention to me!
Musically, this is a pretty egregious example of the excesses of the late 80s. There are a lot of synthesizers put to bad use here. Synthesizers are not good at gentle music, 80s. Then on top of that is that blaring guitar that always gets used in Diane Warren songs. Yes, this is another song from Diane Warren. Cheesy schmaltz with blaring guitars. I'm not even sure if the drums here are real or a drum machine.
With all the fake instruments, the emotional heavy lifting has to be done by the guitars, which do an okay job in that 80s power ballad kind of way, and the vocals. This after Peter Cetera left the band, so at least we don't have to confront the question of his quality just now. This lead singer is Bill Champlin. He does an okay job, his voice is pleasant enough. But he does have that kind of trite, gravelly intonation that was so popular in the era. He also kind of overdoes it in the last chorus, reaching back and coming up with some really growly vocals. He also sounds really, overly, kind of cartoonishly sad in the last lyrics "I'm really happy for you." It sounds like he's about to turn away from the microphone and start bawling, and it's kind of unintentionally funny.
My verdict: Don't like it. Even back when I liked Chicago, I didn't care much about this song. These days it seems kind of typical of many fake-emotional songs of the time.
Now this is a song that doesn't waste Whitney Houston.
I know I talk about singers "oversinging" a lot, but here's a great counterexample. Whitney Houston demonstrates how to sing fancily and elaborately without overdoing it and ruining the enjoyability of the song overall. She sings the song elaborately and fancily, but never strays so far from a basic vocal performance to detract from the basic song. I suppose there are a handful of occasions where she gets fancy, especially near the end, but that's when background singers are well-employed to keep the song balanced.
The music is deep into cheap 80s synthesizer territory, with its synthesized strings, sparkly chords, and fake bongo drums. The fakeness of it is really pretty awful. It feels like I'm listening to the karaoke version of this song. I'd like to label it the most excessive use of cheap, fake 80s synthesizers I've encountered yet, but I feel like I've said that before and might wind up saying it again. However, the result of that synthesized performance is that the music is fairly slight. It successfully places itself in the background, and lets Houston's vocals do all the work. This song is all about her voice, and the music does a good job of letting her voice be the main feature of the song. Yes, I just said the best thing about the music was that it didn't get in the way of the vocal performance, and I meant it as a compliment.
The lyrics are about the singer regretting a breakup, and this is her request to get back together. They're pretty simple, and I don't think there are any particularly clever turns of phrase here, but there are also no contradictory or regrettable parts, either. The main chorus is pretty memorable, and the song's intent is clear, even if you only catch the chorus and title.
My verdict: Like it. This song may be the peak of the talent and popularity of a great singer, and the lackluster backing music is mitigated by the fact that it doesn't interfere with the vocals.
"Heading for the 90s living in the wild wild west." It seems very odd to write a song with those lyrics less than a year and a half before the 90s came along. And the lyric is so central to the song, and repeated often enough, that it's hard to just overlook. The song revolves around it.
This song is a bunch of chaotic 80s rock fun. Guitars, that thumping 80s rock drum, saxophones, I think there's some synth-keyboards in there, and an unapologetic woodblock driving the whole thing along. There's nothing remotely western about the music, except for the gunshot sound that goes off periodically. The singer clearly has a British accent, but he's singing about the Wild West, and somebody does Spanish-with-a-Jamaican-accent rap for the bridge. It's silly chaos, but it's fun silly chaos.
I have no idea what this song is supposed to be about. The lyrics are utter nonsense. Songfacts has some attempted interpretations, but mostly it's just a list of coded references to things that was on the band's mind in the late 80s. "Waiting for the big boom" references nuclear war with the Soviet Union, "safe sex" was a new idea in the 80s, and I guess "her wild, wild hair" is supposed to reference the women of punk rock, but the reiteration of "wild, wild" makes me think of jungle hair.
Despite the chaos in both music and lyrics, the music is really pretty solid. The bass line carries this song. The vocals are charming, even including the rap-reggae-whatever bridge....
Bleh.
I'm working really hard to justify my affection for this song when really I can't come up with anything more than that I liked it back in the day. It's goofy and cheesy and if I encountered a goofy and cheesy song from the 70s I'd mock it and tear it apart. But because I thought this song was fun in the 80s, it still feels fun to me today. And yet, isn't that the ultimate goal of pop music? Isn't it a successful song if it's fun, even if you can't quite explain why? Even if you have every reason to say it's silly and pointless and doesn't mean anything?
My verdict: Like it. Sorry, other decades. Songs from the 80s tickle my nostalgia bone in just the right way.
Ah, there's that flute tune that has randomly popped into my head ever since this song was originally popular. That's an earworm that will definitely stick with you, long after the rest of the song has faded from memory. And here I am subjecting myself to it over and over again for the sake of the review. That's going to stick with me.
Terence Trent D'Arby's singing style is filled with Michael-Jackson-style interjections of the kind that only Michael Jackson really ever got away with. I can see why other singers in the 80s would try to emulate his style, but where Michael Jackson songs feel classic, most singers emulating his style feel dated. When D'Arby stops showing off his voice and sings straight, his voice is overly gravelly. It's not that bad, and he's clearly a talented singer, but he's overperforming for the rather simple musical accompaniment. It's a bad match.
The music is very simple. The drum beat is laid down early on and doesn't vary. There's some pretty minimal bass and some guitar accents throughout. The music in the verses in particular is very minimal and relies on the vocals to carry it. There's plenty of backup singing, but it's kind of disorganized and random, accenting unusual things at odd times.
Then there's that flute tune. It's basic, simple, repetitive, and inelegant. The entire song is built around it, so it's disappointing that it's not terribly interesting. And it's further disappointing that it gets lodged into your brain, to frustrate you with its catchy simpleness long after the song is over.
As for the lyrics, well... First I was reading some lyrics on a lyric site that claimed the chorus included the line "A wishing well of crocodile cheers." I scoffed. "Surely," I thought, "this lyric site has misheard a lyric that was meant to be 'crocodile tears,' because crocodile tears are a regular feature in metaphors, whereas I've never heard of 'crocodile cheers.'" So I listened closely to the song. Not only does the lyric indeed sound like "crocodile cheers," but it's written to rhyme with "butterfly tears." The distinction between "tears" and "cheers" is quite clear. So it's definitely "crocodile cheers." And yet I'm no closer to understanding what a wishing well of crocodile cheers means.
That should give you a sense of how nonsensical the lyrics are. Overall, the song seems to be a love song, based on lyrics like "I'm falling in love with you." But I'm still not sure I understand the real meaning.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's silly without actually being funny, and the singer isn't well-matched to the music.
Q: How can you identify a child of the 1980s? A: Ask them to sing the Rick Roll song. If they start singing "Together Forever" instead of "Never Gonna Give You Up," they are a child of the 1980s.
Now this is a song I remember from when it was popular. I'd have a hard time recalling which of Rick Astley's two big songs was bigger, not least because they sound so much alike that it can be difficult to tell them apart until you get to the chorus. If you only know him as the Rick Roll guy, you may not appreciate how challenging it is for me to separate this song from "Never Gonna Give You Up" (#654).
Rick Astley is a bit odd. It's like he was born 30 years too late. He, his deep voice, his pompadour, his stiff dance moves, and his suit should be back in the 1950s crooning soulful melodies while an acoustic guitar strums and a drummer keeps a simple beat. Instead, he's deep in the over-produced late 80s, where synthesized trills, fake-y drum kits, too much background singing, and a bright and colorful music video just completely overwhelm and obscure whatever actual talent he may have.
As for the song overall, it's not bad. It's got way too much going on, but that kind of overproduction is typical for the era. The sound is pleasant enough if you don't listen too deeply and try to just let the sound wash over you. It's good mall music, which is what the late 80s wanted.
The lyrics are wholesome and generic while simultaneously managing to be overbearing, but doormat-y:
"If they ever get you down, there's always something I can do.
Because I wouldn't ever want to see you frown, I'll always do what's best for you."
If you're ever not happy, I'm going to just keep pestering you until you're happy. Need time? Need space? Occasionally need a break from your perpetual fake smile? Too bad, because if you're ever not happy, I'm going to know it's because I didn't smother you enough. Also, I always know what's best for you, so don't worry your pretty little head about it.
Every time he sings "Together Forever Wichoo," I can't help but laugh. It's rare to hear such obviously fake slang outside a deliberate parody. I mean, half the time it's "Wichoo," and half the time it's "With You." His very British enunciation is flawless in either case. So phony and pandering to the kids of the day.
My verdict: Don't like it. This song is kind of fun as a danceable piece of nostalgia, but outside of that, I'm not sure it has much unironic value.
