Date: Apr 3, 1971
Weeks: 2
Not every song that is slow, quiet, and gentle is bad. Here's a song that is at least soothing and pleasant to listen to. Unfortunately, it's also extraordinarily low on energy, and I'm not entirely convinced the sound matches its lyrics entirely appropriately.
I could see a song that sounded like this being a sweet little love song. There are parts of it, especially in the verses, that feel like a stroll with your sweetheart on a nice day. But that's not what this song is about, because the singer turns out to be imagining the whole thing. The music doesn't really match that, because the music isn't really sad at all. It's just soft. I'm not going to go too hard on the song for the singer building this whole relationship around this woman who is walking by, because he does repeatedly acknowledge the reality of the situation, with both the song's title and the line "in reality she doesn't even know me."
The vocal harmonies in this song are, of course, excellent. But the music is too much like the rest of the 70s, with huge string sections attached to very slight and inconsequential percussion. I don't think strings are a bad match for the song, but there's too much of them here. And the horns in the bridge are really misplaced, sounding like they came from some epic stage musical, rather than the inconsequential musings of a man sitting alone with his imagination.
My verdict: Don't like it. The only thing this song seems good for is wallowing in self-pity over failed relationships. There's value in that, but it's not a great song from outside that context.
Showing posts with label The Temptations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Temptations. Show all posts
Monday, April 9, 2012
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Song #129: "My Girl" by The Temptations
Date: Mar 6, 1965
Weeks: 2
Here's a song that's difficult to separate from its cultural legacy. When people refer to the sound of the Motown label, this is the song that comes to my mind. This is the classic song by the classic Motown band, at least for me. It's one of the defining songs of its era, and that makes it difficult to analyze as just a song.
The easy part to critique is the vocals. The Temptations are all very talented and have a wonderful vocal harmony. This is their first single to chart, as far as I can tell, so it didn't chart based on their reputation or popularity. It charted because they could sing it, and it built their popularity. So it's well-sung, to be sure.
The music is pleasant. It sets out to create a specific mood of pleasantness, and it succeeds. The guitar line is recognizably classic all on its own. The drums are pretty basic, but fit the song well. The strings fill out the bulk of the backing music, but I think they seem a bit too orchestral. They support the general tone of pleasantness, to be sure, so it's a small nitpick. The only part of the music I don't like is the horns. They pop up with a quick fanfare from time to time, and I don't think they support the rest of the music. They sound like they're from a different song. Overall, though, I think the music achieves what it needs to. The entire song is very gentle, which fits the theme of the lyrics.
The theme is, of course, that the guy feels happy because he's in love with a girl. And I think the lyrics are quite clever in the way they describe this. "I've got sunshine on a cloudy day" is a classic metaphor and it uses contrast to make a great point. I'd like to highlight every line in the verses as excellent songwriting, but suffice to say I like them all. I'm a little less enamored of the line in the chorus "I guess you'll say what can make me feel this way?" That feels a little awkward. A better way to express that might be "Wonder why I feel this way?" but of course that doesn't fit the meter. On paper, the line reads badly, is all. It works in-context, probably because the rest of the song is so good.
My verdict: Like it. It's not perfect, but it's very enjoyable. The pros easily outweigh the cons.
Weeks: 2
Here's a song that's difficult to separate from its cultural legacy. When people refer to the sound of the Motown label, this is the song that comes to my mind. This is the classic song by the classic Motown band, at least for me. It's one of the defining songs of its era, and that makes it difficult to analyze as just a song.
The easy part to critique is the vocals. The Temptations are all very talented and have a wonderful vocal harmony. This is their first single to chart, as far as I can tell, so it didn't chart based on their reputation or popularity. It charted because they could sing it, and it built their popularity. So it's well-sung, to be sure.
The music is pleasant. It sets out to create a specific mood of pleasantness, and it succeeds. The guitar line is recognizably classic all on its own. The drums are pretty basic, but fit the song well. The strings fill out the bulk of the backing music, but I think they seem a bit too orchestral. They support the general tone of pleasantness, to be sure, so it's a small nitpick. The only part of the music I don't like is the horns. They pop up with a quick fanfare from time to time, and I don't think they support the rest of the music. They sound like they're from a different song. Overall, though, I think the music achieves what it needs to. The entire song is very gentle, which fits the theme of the lyrics.
The theme is, of course, that the guy feels happy because he's in love with a girl. And I think the lyrics are quite clever in the way they describe this. "I've got sunshine on a cloudy day" is a classic metaphor and it uses contrast to make a great point. I'd like to highlight every line in the verses as excellent songwriting, but suffice to say I like them all. I'm a little less enamored of the line in the chorus "I guess you'll say what can make me feel this way?" That feels a little awkward. A better way to express that might be "Wonder why I feel this way?" but of course that doesn't fit the meter. On paper, the line reads badly, is all. It works in-context, probably because the rest of the song is so good.
My verdict: Like it. It's not perfect, but it's very enjoyable. The pros easily outweigh the cons.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Song #220: "I Can't Get Next To You" by The Temptations
Date: Oct 18, 1969
Weeks: 2
This is easily a more interesting song than the last Temptations song I reviewed. For one thing, it's much more concise. For another, it doesn't stray quite so far from the idea I had of what the Temptations were about. I guess that's largely because this song is still in the 60s, and the band isn't yet trying to redefine their sound for the 70s.
It's difficult to dissect this song. There's a lot going on in the music most of the time, and it's kind of an overwhelming wall of sound. That's not a bad thing, but it's hard to nitpick what parts are good and bad. My overall impression is that the music is enjoyable, but not necessarily outstanding. The chorus is probably the best part, when the bass and lead guitars play some pleasing chords over each other. There's a lot of that disco-guitar noise happening the background. I guess that's pre-disco guitar noise, since this is the 60s.
The vocals are loose, but they don't stray too far from the music. The singers' voices are a bit too different from each other, and the transition between them grates a little. At least they are better than the last time, and the bass and falsetto singers don't sound quite so goofy and out of place this time.
The lyrics are based around the premise that the singers have amazing magic powers and they can bend the laws of space and time to make anything they want happen, such as "I can make a ship sail on dry land" and "I can turn a river into a raging fire." But despite all their powers, they can't date the woman that they want to date. I suppose it's a classic theme, but there's a part of me that thinks this would make a hilarious premise for a Weird Al song. But I suppose as a regular song, it's okay, too.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a bad song, but it didn't really hook me.
Weeks: 2
This is easily a more interesting song than the last Temptations song I reviewed. For one thing, it's much more concise. For another, it doesn't stray quite so far from the idea I had of what the Temptations were about. I guess that's largely because this song is still in the 60s, and the band isn't yet trying to redefine their sound for the 70s.
It's difficult to dissect this song. There's a lot going on in the music most of the time, and it's kind of an overwhelming wall of sound. That's not a bad thing, but it's hard to nitpick what parts are good and bad. My overall impression is that the music is enjoyable, but not necessarily outstanding. The chorus is probably the best part, when the bass and lead guitars play some pleasing chords over each other. There's a lot of that disco-guitar noise happening the background. I guess that's pre-disco guitar noise, since this is the 60s.
The vocals are loose, but they don't stray too far from the music. The singers' voices are a bit too different from each other, and the transition between them grates a little. At least they are better than the last time, and the bass and falsetto singers don't sound quite so goofy and out of place this time.
The lyrics are based around the premise that the singers have amazing magic powers and they can bend the laws of space and time to make anything they want happen, such as "I can make a ship sail on dry land" and "I can turn a river into a raging fire." But despite all their powers, they can't date the woman that they want to date. I suppose it's a classic theme, but there's a part of me that thinks this would make a hilarious premise for a Weird Al song. But I suppose as a regular song, it's okay, too.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a bad song, but it didn't really hook me.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Song #284: "Papa Was a Rollin' Stone" by The Temptations
Date: Dec 2, 1972
Weeks: 1
The actual single of this song was apparently 7 minutes long. I listened to the whole thing, and I was tired of it before I'd even finished it the first time. So I linked this shorter performance to save time. All they've cut is a 3-minute musical intro that was basically that bass line over and over again.
In fact, the bass line over and over again seems to be the entire basis for this song. It gets old fast, and I can't believe anyone thought extending it to 7 minutes made the song better than the 4-minute version with lyrics. There are some other string, guitar, and horn accents throughout, but they're just jazzing-up the bass line, not contributing any musical ideas.
The lyrics are okay, I guess. The guy learns the father he never knew has died, and starts asking about him. And it turns out his father was a bit of a disreputable scoundrel. Then, like everything else about this song, it goes on well past the time when we've gotten the point.
My verdict: Don't like it. Unlike the song, I won't drag this review out beyond the point where it's interesting.
Weeks: 1
The actual single of this song was apparently 7 minutes long. I listened to the whole thing, and I was tired of it before I'd even finished it the first time. So I linked this shorter performance to save time. All they've cut is a 3-minute musical intro that was basically that bass line over and over again.
In fact, the bass line over and over again seems to be the entire basis for this song. It gets old fast, and I can't believe anyone thought extending it to 7 minutes made the song better than the 4-minute version with lyrics. There are some other string, guitar, and horn accents throughout, but they're just jazzing-up the bass line, not contributing any musical ideas.
The lyrics are okay, I guess. The guy learns the father he never knew has died, and starts asking about him. And it turns out his father was a bit of a disreputable scoundrel. Then, like everything else about this song, it goes on well past the time when we've gotten the point.
My verdict: Don't like it. Unlike the song, I won't drag this review out beyond the point where it's interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)