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.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Song #845: "Wild Wild West" by Will Smith featuring Dru Hill and Kool Mo Dee
Date: Jul 24, 1999
Weeks: 1
I'm trying something a little different with the format, here. I wasn't having much luck keeping up the pace, so I'm going to try writing longer-form entries less often. Let's see how that goes.
After the 1997 success of Will Smith's theme song from "Men In Black," it seemed like a no-brainer to follow it up with a theme song to his next big summer movie. Sell records, promote the movie, everybody wins. Well, everybody except the movie-going public, perhaps, who got really excited for a movie that turned out to be pretty terrible. I'm a big sucker for sci-fi westerns myself, so I was willing to give the movie a lot of leeway. But it didn't fail to disappoint even me. I was just looking for cheesy, exciting fun, and it couldn't deliver.
The good news for our purposes is that all the fun that was missing from the movie seems to have ended up in the song. Or, more particularly, in the music video. That video tells a better story than the movie, and somehow everything that was ridiculous in the movie becomes cool in the music video. Maybe it's because the breaks to sing and dance provide just enough heightened reality to make the wacky steampunk setting cool.
This song is super-catchy. It samples from some healthy sources, and that works to its benefit. Stevie Wonder's "I Wish" provides an insanely catchy beat that provides an exciting energy that carries through the song. The chanting of the "Wild Wild West" title during the chorus comes from Kool Moe Dee's "Wild Wild West." That song is okay, but the chanting is definitely the best part. On top of those are added some catchy bass hooks and additional 70s synth tracks that come off charming, rather than dated. Stevie Wonder has a writing credit on this song, and I wonder if it's just because they used his sample or if he actually contributed some of the additional material. Either way, it really works.
I really enjoy the vocals in this song, too. Will Smith is my favorite rapper. He has an excellent sense of meter and rhyme. I won't say I always like his songs, but I always like his performance. On top of that we have singing vocals by the band Dru Hill, especially the lead singer, Sisqo. I've heard a lot about Sisqo, but I can't say I've heard any of his own songs before. He's really showing off here, but he's not really overperforming because the annoying vocal flourishes are kept to a minimum. I think if his was the only performance in the song, I would call it high-pitched and annoying. But it works here with Will Smith and the backup vocals balancing him.
I love these lyrics, too. Somebody realized that the boastfulness typical in a lot of rap songs mirrored the braggadocio of the wild west cowboy, or at least the romanticized movie image of the wild west cowboy. And that's a great idea for a song. In particular, I like the section that goes "Trying to bring down me, the champion? When y'all clowns going to see that it can't be done?" That's a lyric that could come from any rap song and would leave me scratching my head what it's about. But in a rap song from a cowboy movie? I immediately picture the bad guy's henchmen having a shootout with the hero. And I even like that the lyrics directly reference characters and plot from the movie. It helps make the song tell a story, even if the story is kind of vague.
My verdict: Like it. It's a great song on its own. Listening to it again actually got me kind of excited to watch the movie again. Fortunately I remembered it was pretty bad, so I think I can resist the temptation.
Weeks: 1
I'm trying something a little different with the format, here. I wasn't having much luck keeping up the pace, so I'm going to try writing longer-form entries less often. Let's see how that goes.
After the 1997 success of Will Smith's theme song from "Men In Black," it seemed like a no-brainer to follow it up with a theme song to his next big summer movie. Sell records, promote the movie, everybody wins. Well, everybody except the movie-going public, perhaps, who got really excited for a movie that turned out to be pretty terrible. I'm a big sucker for sci-fi westerns myself, so I was willing to give the movie a lot of leeway. But it didn't fail to disappoint even me. I was just looking for cheesy, exciting fun, and it couldn't deliver.
The good news for our purposes is that all the fun that was missing from the movie seems to have ended up in the song. Or, more particularly, in the music video. That video tells a better story than the movie, and somehow everything that was ridiculous in the movie becomes cool in the music video. Maybe it's because the breaks to sing and dance provide just enough heightened reality to make the wacky steampunk setting cool.
This song is super-catchy. It samples from some healthy sources, and that works to its benefit. Stevie Wonder's "I Wish" provides an insanely catchy beat that provides an exciting energy that carries through the song. The chanting of the "Wild Wild West" title during the chorus comes from Kool Moe Dee's "Wild Wild West." That song is okay, but the chanting is definitely the best part. On top of those are added some catchy bass hooks and additional 70s synth tracks that come off charming, rather than dated. Stevie Wonder has a writing credit on this song, and I wonder if it's just because they used his sample or if he actually contributed some of the additional material. Either way, it really works.
I really enjoy the vocals in this song, too. Will Smith is my favorite rapper. He has an excellent sense of meter and rhyme. I won't say I always like his songs, but I always like his performance. On top of that we have singing vocals by the band Dru Hill, especially the lead singer, Sisqo. I've heard a lot about Sisqo, but I can't say I've heard any of his own songs before. He's really showing off here, but he's not really overperforming because the annoying vocal flourishes are kept to a minimum. I think if his was the only performance in the song, I would call it high-pitched and annoying. But it works here with Will Smith and the backup vocals balancing him.
I love these lyrics, too. Somebody realized that the boastfulness typical in a lot of rap songs mirrored the braggadocio of the wild west cowboy, or at least the romanticized movie image of the wild west cowboy. And that's a great idea for a song. In particular, I like the section that goes "Trying to bring down me, the champion? When y'all clowns going to see that it can't be done?" That's a lyric that could come from any rap song and would leave me scratching my head what it's about. But in a rap song from a cowboy movie? I immediately picture the bad guy's henchmen having a shootout with the hero. And I even like that the lyrics directly reference characters and plot from the movie. It helps make the song tell a story, even if the story is kind of vague.
My verdict: Like it. It's a great song on its own. Listening to it again actually got me kind of excited to watch the movie again. Fortunately I remembered it was pretty bad, so I think I can resist the temptation.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Song #549: "Let's Hear It For The Boy" by Deniece Williams
Date: May 26, 1984
Weeks: 2
All right, I think I've finally found a song in the 1980s that isn't trying to sneak a synthesizer into a song where it doesn't belong. This song is all synthesizers, and the effect is clearly deliberate. The result is a kind of charming, bright sound that is sort of appealing. Certainly music eventually figured out how to use synthesizers properly, and I'm glad to find such an early example.
Unfortunately, there's a lot to dislike here, too. The overall sound is quite thin. A little heavier bass and some more sustained tones might have helped create a more compelling overall sound. The drum machine feels robotic, too, which I think is a miscalculation. It makes it feel like a karaoke song.
Deniece Williams's voice is a bit hard to take. She's very whiny. Although, there's a part at the end where she really aims for a high note and hits it, presaging Mariah Carey's signature, that suggests to me that she really can sing. Wikipedia notes that she "has a five-octave range." That seems likely, but she's not really putting it to proper use in this song. I don't know if it's that she's outside her best range or if it's just the style of music she's doing, but her voice is pretty obnoxious throughout most of this song. I'm sure she's very talented, but she's not putting her talent to good use here.
The lyrics are fine. The sentiment is that she loves the guy she's with even though he has flaws. Nothing wrong with that. I can't really find fault with the lyrics, and really, they're pretty energizing. Hooray for love that's pleasant and happy.
This is one of those songs that bugs me by continuing on well after it's actually ended. After she sings that opera note, the song really ought to start its fade out right away, but the video I linked continues on for almost a minute more. It doesn't add anything to a song that's already pretty repetitive.
My verdict: Don't like it. This is a junk food song. It's pleasing enough the first time through, but the more I listen to it, the more it starts to bother me. Insubstantial pop songs can and should be better and not make me regret them before they're over.
Weeks: 2
All right, I think I've finally found a song in the 1980s that isn't trying to sneak a synthesizer into a song where it doesn't belong. This song is all synthesizers, and the effect is clearly deliberate. The result is a kind of charming, bright sound that is sort of appealing. Certainly music eventually figured out how to use synthesizers properly, and I'm glad to find such an early example.
Unfortunately, there's a lot to dislike here, too. The overall sound is quite thin. A little heavier bass and some more sustained tones might have helped create a more compelling overall sound. The drum machine feels robotic, too, which I think is a miscalculation. It makes it feel like a karaoke song.
Deniece Williams's voice is a bit hard to take. She's very whiny. Although, there's a part at the end where she really aims for a high note and hits it, presaging Mariah Carey's signature, that suggests to me that she really can sing. Wikipedia notes that she "has a five-octave range." That seems likely, but she's not really putting it to proper use in this song. I don't know if it's that she's outside her best range or if it's just the style of music she's doing, but her voice is pretty obnoxious throughout most of this song. I'm sure she's very talented, but she's not putting her talent to good use here.
The lyrics are fine. The sentiment is that she loves the guy she's with even though he has flaws. Nothing wrong with that. I can't really find fault with the lyrics, and really, they're pretty energizing. Hooray for love that's pleasant and happy.
This is one of those songs that bugs me by continuing on well after it's actually ended. After she sings that opera note, the song really ought to start its fade out right away, but the video I linked continues on for almost a minute more. It doesn't add anything to a song that's already pretty repetitive.
My verdict: Don't like it. This is a junk food song. It's pleasing enough the first time through, but the more I listen to it, the more it starts to bother me. Insubstantial pop songs can and should be better and not make me regret them before they're over.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Song #156: "The Ballad Of The Green Berets" by S Sgt Barry Sadler
Date: Mar 5, 1966
Weeks: 5
This song, with its oompa-based Tuba sound, seems to have missed the pop-polka era by a good five years. The song's pro-military sentiment was certainly a rallying point for some during the Vietnam war, which probably explains its presence at the top of the charts at a time when music that sounded like this was falling out of favor.
The music sounds uses a military snare drum cadence as its percussion backbone. It then adds the tuba bass line and it's clear that the song is intended to sound like an army marching song. The song accomplishes what it sets out to do, but that doesn't necessarily make it interesting. Marching songs are supposed to be steady, unvarying, and uncomplicated, so that they are easy to march to. I'm not sure that makes it an interesting pop song to listen to, though.
The song does manage to stay relatively engaging. As much as I'd like to criticize the song for sounding overproduced, with its background singers and horn riffs, I have to admit that all the elements are actually well-used and well-mixed. Sadler's charming voice stands out on top of the track. Whoever arranged this recording exercised admirable restraint with regard to adding more and more elements, and the result is a song that is very classy and compelling. It's musically simple, but sometimes simple can be refreshing.
The lyrics are sort of about glorifying those who serve in the army, and the elite Green Berets squad in particular. The meaning of the lyrics is clear, although there's a weird moment at the beginning. "Fighting soldiers from the sky, fearless men who jump and die." That makes me imagine guys jumping from a plane without parachutes, even though I know the intent was to evoke paratroopers leaping into combat. It also bothers me a little at the end how he sort of romanticizes the notion of a soldier dying in combat, and having a posthumous message delivered to his wife asking her to make sure their song grows up to become a Green Beret. A soldier dying and leaving a family behind really ought to be a tragedy, not a romanticized ideal. And pressuring your child to follow in your footsteps as your "last request" seems a bit domineering. But those are small issues, really. I'm just happy to have a song with a meaning that's straightfoward and clear.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's okay, but I'm not a big fan of the march as pop music.
Weeks: 5
This song, with its oompa-based Tuba sound, seems to have missed the pop-polka era by a good five years. The song's pro-military sentiment was certainly a rallying point for some during the Vietnam war, which probably explains its presence at the top of the charts at a time when music that sounded like this was falling out of favor.
The music sounds uses a military snare drum cadence as its percussion backbone. It then adds the tuba bass line and it's clear that the song is intended to sound like an army marching song. The song accomplishes what it sets out to do, but that doesn't necessarily make it interesting. Marching songs are supposed to be steady, unvarying, and uncomplicated, so that they are easy to march to. I'm not sure that makes it an interesting pop song to listen to, though.
The song does manage to stay relatively engaging. As much as I'd like to criticize the song for sounding overproduced, with its background singers and horn riffs, I have to admit that all the elements are actually well-used and well-mixed. Sadler's charming voice stands out on top of the track. Whoever arranged this recording exercised admirable restraint with regard to adding more and more elements, and the result is a song that is very classy and compelling. It's musically simple, but sometimes simple can be refreshing.
The lyrics are sort of about glorifying those who serve in the army, and the elite Green Berets squad in particular. The meaning of the lyrics is clear, although there's a weird moment at the beginning. "Fighting soldiers from the sky, fearless men who jump and die." That makes me imagine guys jumping from a plane without parachutes, even though I know the intent was to evoke paratroopers leaping into combat. It also bothers me a little at the end how he sort of romanticizes the notion of a soldier dying in combat, and having a posthumous message delivered to his wife asking her to make sure their song grows up to become a Green Beret. A soldier dying and leaving a family behind really ought to be a tragedy, not a romanticized ideal. And pressuring your child to follow in your footsteps as your "last request" seems a bit domineering. But those are small issues, really. I'm just happy to have a song with a meaning that's straightfoward and clear.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's okay, but I'm not a big fan of the march as pop music.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Song #798: "Waterfalls" by TLC
Date: July 8, 1995
Weeks: 7
I mentioned before that TLC's vocals can be a bit contentious, as they can come across a little bit whiny. When it works, the vocals match the music and make a good song. When it doesn't... well, the results can get a little unpleasant. Unfortunately, this song falls into the latter category.
The problem isn't that they decided to make a song with a serious message. "Unpretty" (#848) is also a song with a serious message, and I liked that one. And it's not even that the vocals are bad. It's just that the vocals and the music don't match very well. The vocals are serious and subdued. The music is serious and subdued. But it seems like both the vocals and the music are intentionally subdued so as not to overpower the other, with the result being a bit of a vacuum of sound. Just because a song contains serious subject matter doesn't mean it needs to be bland.
Even the rap verse is bland. It's monotone when it doesn't have to be, and the music isn't any different during the rap verse than it is in any other verse. It also just feels poorly integrated and tacked on and out of place when it's just tacked into the bridge. I wonder if the song might have been better if they had used the rap for the verses and then sang the choruses.
The song's lyrics are pretty well known for trying to tackle subjects that people felt were important to talk about in the mid-90s, such as gang violence and AIDS. I'm not sure those messages come across very clearly without the video to back them up. The lyrics are badly constructed. They don't reveal until the end of each verse what the verse was about, almost requiring you to listen to the song several times in a row to make the meaning clear. Also, I always thought the metaphor in the chorus was stretched really thin. "Don't go chasing waterfalls." Okay, don't pursue unattainable goals that might wind up harming you, I understand that. "Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to." What does that mean? Sure, in context I understand that they're supposed to represent safer, known goals to achieve, but metaphors generally are supposed to be intriguing when divorced from context. They're not supposed to be nonsense.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's possible that my opinion of this song was irreversibly tainted by the video, and the awful computer-generated water-dancers with their one silly arm-bob dance move that I can't help see in my mind every second this song is playing. But I stand by my opinion. And at least there's a Weird Al version to enjoy that fixes most of my issues.
Weeks: 7
I mentioned before that TLC's vocals can be a bit contentious, as they can come across a little bit whiny. When it works, the vocals match the music and make a good song. When it doesn't... well, the results can get a little unpleasant. Unfortunately, this song falls into the latter category.
The problem isn't that they decided to make a song with a serious message. "Unpretty" (#848) is also a song with a serious message, and I liked that one. And it's not even that the vocals are bad. It's just that the vocals and the music don't match very well. The vocals are serious and subdued. The music is serious and subdued. But it seems like both the vocals and the music are intentionally subdued so as not to overpower the other, with the result being a bit of a vacuum of sound. Just because a song contains serious subject matter doesn't mean it needs to be bland.
Even the rap verse is bland. It's monotone when it doesn't have to be, and the music isn't any different during the rap verse than it is in any other verse. It also just feels poorly integrated and tacked on and out of place when it's just tacked into the bridge. I wonder if the song might have been better if they had used the rap for the verses and then sang the choruses.
The song's lyrics are pretty well known for trying to tackle subjects that people felt were important to talk about in the mid-90s, such as gang violence and AIDS. I'm not sure those messages come across very clearly without the video to back them up. The lyrics are badly constructed. They don't reveal until the end of each verse what the verse was about, almost requiring you to listen to the song several times in a row to make the meaning clear. Also, I always thought the metaphor in the chorus was stretched really thin. "Don't go chasing waterfalls." Okay, don't pursue unattainable goals that might wind up harming you, I understand that. "Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to." What does that mean? Sure, in context I understand that they're supposed to represent safer, known goals to achieve, but metaphors generally are supposed to be intriguing when divorced from context. They're not supposed to be nonsense.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's possible that my opinion of this song was irreversibly tainted by the video, and the awful computer-generated water-dancers with their one silly arm-bob dance move that I can't help see in my mind every second this song is playing. But I stand by my opinion. And at least there's a Weird Al version to enjoy that fixes most of my issues.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Song #358: "Black Water" by The Doobie Brothers
Date: Mar 15, 1975
Weeks: 1
I don't like relaxed songs like this one. I have no use for them. Give me a song that's full of energy and enthusiasm, and I'm happy. Give me a song that tells me to relax and do nothing and I have no use for it. Sure, that can be good background music, but this song has some flaws that keep it from even being good at that.
I don't care for the overly gentle and strummy guitars that open the song. I don't like the singer's pinched, tense, unpleasant vocals. I don't like the overall thinness of the sound for the first minute and a half. It's really unpleasant during that first part. Eventually the bass and the fiddle join in, and the song is much more enjoyable from that point on. It's still not a great song, and the vocals aren't any better, but it's at least pleasant background music. I think if I heard that part while I was having a conversation, or driving, or eating, or had my brain engaged in some other activity, I would enjoy it well enough.
Then the music fades out for an a cappella verse, and it's weird. The fade-out is an odd choice, and doesn't feel remotely natural. The a capella section is okay, but it seems utterly out of place right after a lengthy instrumental section. And then the music fades back in, and once again it's not remotely natural. That a cappella section is so weirdly out of place that it ruins whatever pleasure I was starting to derive from the fiddle. Admittedly, most of that pleasure was because it reminded me of Firefly, but the point stands that just when I was starting enjoy it, the song took a strange and sudden turn.
The lyrics seem like a lazy excuse for the song to not be purely instrumental. "Old black water, keep on rollin'. Mississippi moon won't you keep on shining on me." It's the story of a guy with nothing better to do than float on a raft down the Mississippi and admire the scenery. Part of me wonders if he even really has a raft or if he just decided to sit by the river. The lyrics are repetitive and minimal, and seem ideally situated for a lazy sing-along while you sit in the hot weather and drink.
My verdict: Don't like it. Some people like this kind of relaxed music, but it's just not for me, and this song doesn't even seem particularly well made.
Weeks: 1
I don't like relaxed songs like this one. I have no use for them. Give me a song that's full of energy and enthusiasm, and I'm happy. Give me a song that tells me to relax and do nothing and I have no use for it. Sure, that can be good background music, but this song has some flaws that keep it from even being good at that.
I don't care for the overly gentle and strummy guitars that open the song. I don't like the singer's pinched, tense, unpleasant vocals. I don't like the overall thinness of the sound for the first minute and a half. It's really unpleasant during that first part. Eventually the bass and the fiddle join in, and the song is much more enjoyable from that point on. It's still not a great song, and the vocals aren't any better, but it's at least pleasant background music. I think if I heard that part while I was having a conversation, or driving, or eating, or had my brain engaged in some other activity, I would enjoy it well enough.
Then the music fades out for an a cappella verse, and it's weird. The fade-out is an odd choice, and doesn't feel remotely natural. The a capella section is okay, but it seems utterly out of place right after a lengthy instrumental section. And then the music fades back in, and once again it's not remotely natural. That a cappella section is so weirdly out of place that it ruins whatever pleasure I was starting to derive from the fiddle. Admittedly, most of that pleasure was because it reminded me of Firefly, but the point stands that just when I was starting enjoy it, the song took a strange and sudden turn.
The lyrics seem like a lazy excuse for the song to not be purely instrumental. "Old black water, keep on rollin'. Mississippi moon won't you keep on shining on me." It's the story of a guy with nothing better to do than float on a raft down the Mississippi and admire the scenery. Part of me wonders if he even really has a raft or if he just decided to sit by the river. The lyrics are repetitive and minimal, and seem ideally situated for a lazy sing-along while you sit in the hot weather and drink.
My verdict: Don't like it. Some people like this kind of relaxed music, but it's just not for me, and this song doesn't even seem particularly well made.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Song #677: "Look Away" by Chicago
Date: Dec 10, 1988
Weeks: 2
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.
Weeks: 2
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.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Song #903: "Burn" by Usher
Date: May 22, 2004
Weeks: 8
It's kind of remarkable that Usher's "Yeah" (#902) was on top of the charts for 12 weeks, and it took another Usher song to replace it. I'm not entirely surprised. "Yeah" was a great song. This song... maybe not so much.
The problem with this song is that there's not a lot of sound to it. The music is very thin, and perfunctory. It's like they were trying to avoid obscuring Usher's voice, but couldn't commit to a soft sound that would complement the vocals. The result is some hard bass and light guitar, with a bunch of extra random noises interspersed throughout. It's also really out of place for its era. I would expect to hear a song like this in the early 90s, not in 2004. They were trying to let the vocals stand out, and I feel like they missed the mark a bit.
And the vocals aren't very good, either. Don't get me wrong, Usher has a great voice. But he makes some choices in this song that don't work for me. He starts doing one of those low-register speaking parts, then he sings a very pleasing half verse in his usual range, then he jumps up to a falsetto range, I guess because he's trying to sound more emotional. But it lasts too long, and it gets unpleasant to listen to. He hits falsetto again in the chorus, and that works better because it's shorter. And then in the bridge he sings "woo-hoo" in this falsetto while the music does almost nothing, and the result is a really uninteresting bridge where nothing happens. I also want to make a comment that I think there's too much backup singing. I don't mind the thing where Usher sings the song straight while also singing a more elaborately spontaneous track on top of it. But occasionally throughout there are these stings of backup singing added that just feel overproduced. And that overproduction really harms the raw feeling the song is aiming for.
The lyrics fare a bit better. I'm not sure I've heard another song with quite this sentiment. It's about breaking up with someone, and then maybe wondering whether you've made the right choice. I think I've reviewed a couple songs where somebody breaks up with somebody else and tries to get back together, including perspectives from both the dumper and the dumpee. But what makes this song stand out is that Usher remains ambivalent about the breakup. "One side of me is telling me that I need to move on, on the other side I want to break down and cry." It's an exploration of the regret of a breakup, but it's not necessarily a "let's get back together" song. That's not something I've really heard before. "Gotta let it burn" kind of cleverly refers to the fact that this hurts, but he has to let it hurt to get better. Unfortunately, the lyrics are kind of undermined by the inclusion of some unnecessary slang that really comes off silly. "Get my shorty back" is awkward, and the especially bad is the attention given to the line "without my boo." I'm not opposed to slang in songs, but slang undermines sincerity in a heartfelt, soft, relationship song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not bad, but it's not well put together. I think maybe if there had been some different musical choices, this song could have been saved. But the music doesn't work, and the song's other flaws drag it down.
Weeks: 8
It's kind of remarkable that Usher's "Yeah" (#902) was on top of the charts for 12 weeks, and it took another Usher song to replace it. I'm not entirely surprised. "Yeah" was a great song. This song... maybe not so much.
The problem with this song is that there's not a lot of sound to it. The music is very thin, and perfunctory. It's like they were trying to avoid obscuring Usher's voice, but couldn't commit to a soft sound that would complement the vocals. The result is some hard bass and light guitar, with a bunch of extra random noises interspersed throughout. It's also really out of place for its era. I would expect to hear a song like this in the early 90s, not in 2004. They were trying to let the vocals stand out, and I feel like they missed the mark a bit.
And the vocals aren't very good, either. Don't get me wrong, Usher has a great voice. But he makes some choices in this song that don't work for me. He starts doing one of those low-register speaking parts, then he sings a very pleasing half verse in his usual range, then he jumps up to a falsetto range, I guess because he's trying to sound more emotional. But it lasts too long, and it gets unpleasant to listen to. He hits falsetto again in the chorus, and that works better because it's shorter. And then in the bridge he sings "woo-hoo" in this falsetto while the music does almost nothing, and the result is a really uninteresting bridge where nothing happens. I also want to make a comment that I think there's too much backup singing. I don't mind the thing where Usher sings the song straight while also singing a more elaborately spontaneous track on top of it. But occasionally throughout there are these stings of backup singing added that just feel overproduced. And that overproduction really harms the raw feeling the song is aiming for.
The lyrics fare a bit better. I'm not sure I've heard another song with quite this sentiment. It's about breaking up with someone, and then maybe wondering whether you've made the right choice. I think I've reviewed a couple songs where somebody breaks up with somebody else and tries to get back together, including perspectives from both the dumper and the dumpee. But what makes this song stand out is that Usher remains ambivalent about the breakup. "One side of me is telling me that I need to move on, on the other side I want to break down and cry." It's an exploration of the regret of a breakup, but it's not necessarily a "let's get back together" song. That's not something I've really heard before. "Gotta let it burn" kind of cleverly refers to the fact that this hurts, but he has to let it hurt to get better. Unfortunately, the lyrics are kind of undermined by the inclusion of some unnecessary slang that really comes off silly. "Get my shorty back" is awkward, and the especially bad is the attention given to the line "without my boo." I'm not opposed to slang in songs, but slang undermines sincerity in a heartfelt, soft, relationship song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not bad, but it's not well put together. I think maybe if there had been some different musical choices, this song could have been saved. But the music doesn't work, and the song's other flaws drag it down.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Song #314: "The Joker" by Steve Miller Band
Date: Jan 12, 1974
Weeks: 1
You know those certain songs that come on the radio, and people around you start cheering and freaking out and singing along at the top of their lungs, and you don't really get why people love this song this much? And you know how sometimes the quality of the people who like it don't quite cast the best light on it? This is one of those songs for me. It was Homer Simpson's favorite song in high school. That's not exactly a quality endorsement. That said, it didn't take more than sitting down and giving it my undivided attention to let it win me over and change my mind.
It's the bass line that really sells this song, and the song gives it plenty of opportunity to shine. During verses, that bass is charming and compelling. The chorus lays extra guitars over the bass line and creates a really wonderful guitar harmony. That guitar harmony in the chorus is really what makes this song worthy of being considered a rock classic. The vocals throughout are pretty charming, as well, but again it's the harmony in the chorus that really elevates the song.
On the downside, the little breakdowns after the chorus before the verse comes back seem a little thin and flimsy, which is a real shame after the rich fullness of the chorus. And yeah, I'll say it, I don't care for the little "woo-woo" sound that punctuates the verses at odd times. Yes, they are attention-getting and are arguably the song's signature, and probably directly contributed to the popularity that put it on my list in the first place. But they're silly and weird and distracting. According to Wikipedia, those noises were made with a slide guitar, but I think the fact that that needs to be explained shows just how weird and out of place those noises are. Also, the song just kind of peters out at the end, trailing off in the middle of a verse, rather than in a repetition of the chorus like every other song ever. I wonder what that's about. I tried to find the LP version of the song to see if that answered anything, but I couldn't find it.
The lyrics are a bit of weird nonsense. The song is sung from the point of view of a bit of a directionless loser, who is affirming his commitment to his relationship. "People ... say I'm doing you wrong... But don't you worry, baby... 'cause I'm right here at home." But he's really rambling. Of course, the rambling is probably the most memorable part of the lyrics, with the whole "I'm a joker, I'm a smoker, I'm a midnight toker" thing. Of course, the "toker" line is probably part of the song's popularity, too, since it's basically an overt marijuana reference slipping through in a mainstream song. Overall, I think the lyrics are less about what they mean, and are more about how they sound. The rhyme scheme and the repetition and structure. Those things all work quite well, so the words sound good, even if there's not a lot of meaning.
My verdict: Like it. It's popcorn music. Fun if you just let it wash over you and don't over-analyze it.
Weeks: 1
You know those certain songs that come on the radio, and people around you start cheering and freaking out and singing along at the top of their lungs, and you don't really get why people love this song this much? And you know how sometimes the quality of the people who like it don't quite cast the best light on it? This is one of those songs for me. It was Homer Simpson's favorite song in high school. That's not exactly a quality endorsement. That said, it didn't take more than sitting down and giving it my undivided attention to let it win me over and change my mind.
It's the bass line that really sells this song, and the song gives it plenty of opportunity to shine. During verses, that bass is charming and compelling. The chorus lays extra guitars over the bass line and creates a really wonderful guitar harmony. That guitar harmony in the chorus is really what makes this song worthy of being considered a rock classic. The vocals throughout are pretty charming, as well, but again it's the harmony in the chorus that really elevates the song.
On the downside, the little breakdowns after the chorus before the verse comes back seem a little thin and flimsy, which is a real shame after the rich fullness of the chorus. And yeah, I'll say it, I don't care for the little "woo-woo" sound that punctuates the verses at odd times. Yes, they are attention-getting and are arguably the song's signature, and probably directly contributed to the popularity that put it on my list in the first place. But they're silly and weird and distracting. According to Wikipedia, those noises were made with a slide guitar, but I think the fact that that needs to be explained shows just how weird and out of place those noises are. Also, the song just kind of peters out at the end, trailing off in the middle of a verse, rather than in a repetition of the chorus like every other song ever. I wonder what that's about. I tried to find the LP version of the song to see if that answered anything, but I couldn't find it.
The lyrics are a bit of weird nonsense. The song is sung from the point of view of a bit of a directionless loser, who is affirming his commitment to his relationship. "People ... say I'm doing you wrong... But don't you worry, baby... 'cause I'm right here at home." But he's really rambling. Of course, the rambling is probably the most memorable part of the lyrics, with the whole "I'm a joker, I'm a smoker, I'm a midnight toker" thing. Of course, the "toker" line is probably part of the song's popularity, too, since it's basically an overt marijuana reference slipping through in a mainstream song. Overall, I think the lyrics are less about what they mean, and are more about how they sound. The rhyme scheme and the repetition and structure. Those things all work quite well, so the words sound good, even if there's not a lot of meaning.
My verdict: Like it. It's popcorn music. Fun if you just let it wash over you and don't over-analyze it.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Song #92: "Sukiyaki" by Kyu Sakamoto
Date: June 15, 1963
Weeks: 3
I remember in the 90s, there was an English-language cover of this song on the radio, by a Boyz II MEn clone band called 4pm. It came on once when I was in the car with my mom, and she recognized it as a cover of this Japanese-language song. She listened to the English lyrics and was surprised that they were so sad, because she said the singer of this song always sounded so happy. And the funny thing is that the lyrics to that cover song weren't even as sad the lyrics to the original, which I'll get to in a minute.
The music is really happy and pleasant. It's got a nice little beat, a basic but effective bass line, and some pleasant orchestral instrumentation accents. I like the use of strings here, and the horns are well-used, too. I don't particularly like the xylophone, though. It's a bit too bright and cartoony and out of place. The whistling is all right, although it really does contribute to the idea that this is a happy song. And it's really not.
Now, the song is enjoyable without considering the lyrics. And maybe I shouldn't criticize the lyrics for a song in a language I don't speak. But I do feel it's important to point out the general sentiment expressed in the lyrics. "I look up when I walk so the tears won't fall," says this translation. "Remembering those happy summer days, but tonight I'm all alone." There are various interpretations, of course, but all interpretations agree with the general sentiment that the singer is sad because of the end of a relationship.The 4pm version explicitly frames it as "you took your love away from me," and hopes they can get back together. However, the literal interpretations I've seen are a bit bleak on that front. "Happiness lies above the clouds... above the sky." I'm pretty sure whoever he's singing this about has passed. So it's even more sad than 4pm knew.
I suppose you could look at it as being a song that is happy "remembering those happy summer days." And maybe that's where the happy tone of the singing comes in. But most of the lyrics are sad, so the happy tone is really incongruous. I've probably spent way too much time analyzing the lyrics, and maybe I don't even have a satisfying translation. So I'll stop that now.
My verdict: Like it. It's a nice tune, it's performed well, and there's a part of me that likes songs that sound happy but are secretly sad. And this version from the 60s has aged better than the 4pm cover from the 90s.
Weeks: 3
I remember in the 90s, there was an English-language cover of this song on the radio, by a Boyz II MEn clone band called 4pm. It came on once when I was in the car with my mom, and she recognized it as a cover of this Japanese-language song. She listened to the English lyrics and was surprised that they were so sad, because she said the singer of this song always sounded so happy. And the funny thing is that the lyrics to that cover song weren't even as sad the lyrics to the original, which I'll get to in a minute.
The music is really happy and pleasant. It's got a nice little beat, a basic but effective bass line, and some pleasant orchestral instrumentation accents. I like the use of strings here, and the horns are well-used, too. I don't particularly like the xylophone, though. It's a bit too bright and cartoony and out of place. The whistling is all right, although it really does contribute to the idea that this is a happy song. And it's really not.
Now, the song is enjoyable without considering the lyrics. And maybe I shouldn't criticize the lyrics for a song in a language I don't speak. But I do feel it's important to point out the general sentiment expressed in the lyrics. "I look up when I walk so the tears won't fall," says this translation. "Remembering those happy summer days, but tonight I'm all alone." There are various interpretations, of course, but all interpretations agree with the general sentiment that the singer is sad because of the end of a relationship.The 4pm version explicitly frames it as "you took your love away from me," and hopes they can get back together. However, the literal interpretations I've seen are a bit bleak on that front. "Happiness lies above the clouds... above the sky." I'm pretty sure whoever he's singing this about has passed. So it's even more sad than 4pm knew.
I suppose you could look at it as being a song that is happy "remembering those happy summer days." And maybe that's where the happy tone of the singing comes in. But most of the lyrics are sad, so the happy tone is really incongruous. I've probably spent way too much time analyzing the lyrics, and maybe I don't even have a satisfying translation. So I'll stop that now.
My verdict: Like it. It's a nice tune, it's performed well, and there's a part of me that likes songs that sound happy but are secretly sad. And this version from the 60s has aged better than the 4pm cover from the 90s.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Song #998: "Hold It Against Me" by Britney Spears
Date: Jan 29, 2011
Weeks: 1
This song at least puts its best foot forward, with that exaggeratedly synthetic bass track. I know that when it's 80s time around here, I often complain about how fake the synthetic instruments sound. But sometime during the 90s, somebody figured out that synthesizers worked if you didn't hide, but actually emphasized that fat, artificial quality of their sound, and worked especially well as a bass line. And this is a song that uses that idea to its advantage. The song lets it fall away too often and uses it to weird effect in the bridge, but otherwise I really enjoy the synthesized bass line in the majority of this song. Sure is a pity about everything else.
I've always found Britney Spears' voice whiny and unpleasant. And this song exaggerates that whininess to obnoxious effect. And because I started in liking the bass, I guess it disappointed me that much more to discover that nothing had been done about her whiny voice. Her voice actually clashes with the rest of the music. I also really hate the obnoxious affect put on the word "hazy." Why did they do that? It seems like desperate grab for attention, the aural equivalent of a blinky light. I do like the moment after that when the bass gets extra sawtooth-y and sloppy, so at least the song follows up its worst moment with its best.
The chorus, where the bass falls away, is way too thin. It doesn't maintain interest, and Spears's voice can't keep my attention. The bridge is such a random collection of sounds that it's barely even music any more. And I checked, the video version does add some random sounds, but the audio-only version of the song is just as random and chaotic.
Lyrically... look, Weird Al has a song that is just a series of goofy pick-up lines. Before that, MxPx had a similar idea of centering a song around a couple goofy pickup lines. This is well-trod ground. And this song brings no new ideas. This is simply a dance club song about picking someone up at the dance club using a cheesy pickup line. A cheesy pickup line that is played straight, that is the center of the song, that is the central lyric of the chorus. These lyrics are dumb, and not in a knowing, winking way.
My verdict: Don't like it. The bass line is interesting and fun, but nothing else in this song is.
Weeks: 1
This song at least puts its best foot forward, with that exaggeratedly synthetic bass track. I know that when it's 80s time around here, I often complain about how fake the synthetic instruments sound. But sometime during the 90s, somebody figured out that synthesizers worked if you didn't hide, but actually emphasized that fat, artificial quality of their sound, and worked especially well as a bass line. And this is a song that uses that idea to its advantage. The song lets it fall away too often and uses it to weird effect in the bridge, but otherwise I really enjoy the synthesized bass line in the majority of this song. Sure is a pity about everything else.
I've always found Britney Spears' voice whiny and unpleasant. And this song exaggerates that whininess to obnoxious effect. And because I started in liking the bass, I guess it disappointed me that much more to discover that nothing had been done about her whiny voice. Her voice actually clashes with the rest of the music. I also really hate the obnoxious affect put on the word "hazy." Why did they do that? It seems like desperate grab for attention, the aural equivalent of a blinky light. I do like the moment after that when the bass gets extra sawtooth-y and sloppy, so at least the song follows up its worst moment with its best.
The chorus, where the bass falls away, is way too thin. It doesn't maintain interest, and Spears's voice can't keep my attention. The bridge is such a random collection of sounds that it's barely even music any more. And I checked, the video version does add some random sounds, but the audio-only version of the song is just as random and chaotic.
Lyrically... look, Weird Al has a song that is just a series of goofy pick-up lines. Before that, MxPx had a similar idea of centering a song around a couple goofy pickup lines. This is well-trod ground. And this song brings no new ideas. This is simply a dance club song about picking someone up at the dance club using a cheesy pickup line. A cheesy pickup line that is played straight, that is the center of the song, that is the central lyric of the chorus. These lyrics are dumb, and not in a knowing, winking way.
My verdict: Don't like it. The bass line is interesting and fun, but nothing else in this song is.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Song #538: "Tell Her About It" by Billy Joel
Date: Sept 24, 1983
Weeks: 1
Billy Joel made a few of these throwback songs in the early 80s, including this song and "Uptown Girl." In this case, I think he did a pretty good job mimicking that early 60s sound. But since I'm also reviewing songs originally from that era, I don't think I can give it credit for the accuracy of of its mimicry, only the song's own quality.
Now, these Billy Joel throwback songs aren't my favorite Billy Joel songs, but I can't deny that this song is really catchy. The brass and sax and drums and bass all combine for a really compelling sound. The percussion, dominated by tambourine, is carefully mixed to sound like a crowd clapping along to the beat, and that helps gives the song that compelling crowd energy that makes it feel like a fun time. I feel like I've been down on saxophones in rock music lately, but this song is an example of how to do it right. The saxophone and brass aren't allowed to dominate, or featured in an awkward, out of place solo. Ultimately, this song's success may be a success of mixing, using every instrument appropriately.
Billy Joel's voice is compelling here, with a good mix of intensity and suave coolness. I do think there are some weird, sudden shifts in the tone of his voice from casual to shout-y, especially toward the end of the song when he shifts into the last iteration of the chorus. It feels like a weird edit. Maybe it's edited down from the full-length song, or maybe this is the complete song and this is just it was edited from the source tracks. It's a weird production glitch, but it doesn't ruin the song or anything.
The lyrics come across as relationship advice from "a man who's made mistakes." It's about communicating with your significant other, telling them they are important to you, and not letting them think you take them for granted. "You'll never let her go, but that's just the kind of thing she ought to know." Overall, it's pretty good advice, and I like the perspective of relationship advice from someone who has a failed relationship, but has learned from the experience and hasn't grown bitter about it.
The one lyrical oddity that has often obscured the meaning of this song for me is "But a nice girl wouldn't tell you what you should do." After examining the lyrics, I think this is supposed to be the listener's thought. He's objecting to the girl he dating telling him what he should do. And Billy Joel is advising him to communicate that with her, rather than letting resentment ruin the relationship. I don't think this part is contextualized appropriately to make the meaning clear, but if it's supposed to be Billy Joel expressing that opinion, it seems to run counter to everything else he's saying in the song.
My verdict: Like it. It's not of my favorite Billy Joel songs, but I do like the overall lyrical sentiment, and the music is too catchy to be resisted.
Weeks: 1
Billy Joel made a few of these throwback songs in the early 80s, including this song and "Uptown Girl." In this case, I think he did a pretty good job mimicking that early 60s sound. But since I'm also reviewing songs originally from that era, I don't think I can give it credit for the accuracy of of its mimicry, only the song's own quality.
Now, these Billy Joel throwback songs aren't my favorite Billy Joel songs, but I can't deny that this song is really catchy. The brass and sax and drums and bass all combine for a really compelling sound. The percussion, dominated by tambourine, is carefully mixed to sound like a crowd clapping along to the beat, and that helps gives the song that compelling crowd energy that makes it feel like a fun time. I feel like I've been down on saxophones in rock music lately, but this song is an example of how to do it right. The saxophone and brass aren't allowed to dominate, or featured in an awkward, out of place solo. Ultimately, this song's success may be a success of mixing, using every instrument appropriately.
Billy Joel's voice is compelling here, with a good mix of intensity and suave coolness. I do think there are some weird, sudden shifts in the tone of his voice from casual to shout-y, especially toward the end of the song when he shifts into the last iteration of the chorus. It feels like a weird edit. Maybe it's edited down from the full-length song, or maybe this is the complete song and this is just it was edited from the source tracks. It's a weird production glitch, but it doesn't ruin the song or anything.
The lyrics come across as relationship advice from "a man who's made mistakes." It's about communicating with your significant other, telling them they are important to you, and not letting them think you take them for granted. "You'll never let her go, but that's just the kind of thing she ought to know." Overall, it's pretty good advice, and I like the perspective of relationship advice from someone who has a failed relationship, but has learned from the experience and hasn't grown bitter about it.
The one lyrical oddity that has often obscured the meaning of this song for me is "But a nice girl wouldn't tell you what you should do." After examining the lyrics, I think this is supposed to be the listener's thought. He's objecting to the girl he dating telling him what he should do. And Billy Joel is advising him to communicate that with her, rather than letting resentment ruin the relationship. I don't think this part is contextualized appropriately to make the meaning clear, but if it's supposed to be Billy Joel expressing that opinion, it seems to run counter to everything else he's saying in the song.
My verdict: Like it. It's not of my favorite Billy Joel songs, but I do like the overall lyrical sentiment, and the music is too catchy to be resisted.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Song #492: "Another One Bites The Dust" by Queen
Date: Oct 4, 1980
Weeks: 3
I think it's interesting to have this song follow right after "Frankenstein" (#295), because they're actually pretty similar in a lot of ways. Both songs have somewhat traditional components, but then there's a percussion-only intermission in the middle followed by some experimental, weird sounds. And yet this song makes it work.
I think the primary reason it works so well is that there's a stronger through-line in this song. The percussion breakdown maintains a similar beat from earlier in the song. The vocals continue sporadically, and connect the song's beginning to its end. The percussion intermission doesn't feel like it lasts nearly as long. It's not that the intermission in this song is any less experimental and odd, it just doesn't seem quite so out of place, nor so aggressive and unpleasant.
This song has two points to recommend it most strongly: the excellent bass line, which stands out and uniquely identifies the song within the first three seconds, and Freddie Mercury's vocals. Mercury is, in my opinion, the best male vocalist who ever worked in rock and roll music. He had a big range and no fear. He sang boldly and highly and intensely, and this song is one of the finer examples of what he could do. The only bad Freddie Mercury song is one where he fails to explore his range, and this is not one of those songs.
One thing that makes this song unique is its restraint with the lead guitar. It comes in and provides occasional accents, but generally it lets the bass guitar carry the song. The odd sound effects scattered throughout are somewhat less successful, and keep the song from getting my unreserved recommendation. It's possible the song might be too repetitive without them, but the lead guitar could have carried that on its own, I think. I'm not sure if the simulated gunfire sound during the lyric "out of the doorway the bullets rip" is clever or silly, but it's certainly attention-getting.
I'm not sure if I've ever really understood the lyrics. On the surface, it seems to be about a street thug gunning down his opponents. He's lamenting the life that brought him here, including the unspecified person who kicked him out of his home, and the song seems to end with him being shot himself due to his dangerous lifestyle. On that level, I guess it works an interesting story, but it's quite dark for a pop song. Some quick research doesn't seem to advocate any alternate interpretations. That really is what it's about. I think it's interesting to learn that Queen supposedly released this as a single because Michael Jackson suggested it to them, because I was thinking the lyrics reminded me most of "Beat It" (#532). Similar songs about street thugs that don't necessarily advocate street thuggery. I saw hints that maybe this song was describing a cowboy, and I can see that interpretation, although to my mind, the music suggests wet streets and back alleys in a 20th-century city.
My verdict: Like it. The bass line and Freddie Mercury's voice are both too great to let any of the small problems I have with the song take over.
Weeks: 3
I think it's interesting to have this song follow right after "Frankenstein" (#295), because they're actually pretty similar in a lot of ways. Both songs have somewhat traditional components, but then there's a percussion-only intermission in the middle followed by some experimental, weird sounds. And yet this song makes it work.
I think the primary reason it works so well is that there's a stronger through-line in this song. The percussion breakdown maintains a similar beat from earlier in the song. The vocals continue sporadically, and connect the song's beginning to its end. The percussion intermission doesn't feel like it lasts nearly as long. It's not that the intermission in this song is any less experimental and odd, it just doesn't seem quite so out of place, nor so aggressive and unpleasant.
This song has two points to recommend it most strongly: the excellent bass line, which stands out and uniquely identifies the song within the first three seconds, and Freddie Mercury's vocals. Mercury is, in my opinion, the best male vocalist who ever worked in rock and roll music. He had a big range and no fear. He sang boldly and highly and intensely, and this song is one of the finer examples of what he could do. The only bad Freddie Mercury song is one where he fails to explore his range, and this is not one of those songs.
One thing that makes this song unique is its restraint with the lead guitar. It comes in and provides occasional accents, but generally it lets the bass guitar carry the song. The odd sound effects scattered throughout are somewhat less successful, and keep the song from getting my unreserved recommendation. It's possible the song might be too repetitive without them, but the lead guitar could have carried that on its own, I think. I'm not sure if the simulated gunfire sound during the lyric "out of the doorway the bullets rip" is clever or silly, but it's certainly attention-getting.
I'm not sure if I've ever really understood the lyrics. On the surface, it seems to be about a street thug gunning down his opponents. He's lamenting the life that brought him here, including the unspecified person who kicked him out of his home, and the song seems to end with him being shot himself due to his dangerous lifestyle. On that level, I guess it works an interesting story, but it's quite dark for a pop song. Some quick research doesn't seem to advocate any alternate interpretations. That really is what it's about. I think it's interesting to learn that Queen supposedly released this as a single because Michael Jackson suggested it to them, because I was thinking the lyrics reminded me most of "Beat It" (#532). Similar songs about street thugs that don't necessarily advocate street thuggery. I saw hints that maybe this song was describing a cowboy, and I can see that interpretation, although to my mind, the music suggests wet streets and back alleys in a 20th-century city.
My verdict: Like it. The bass line and Freddie Mercury's voice are both too great to let any of the small problems I have with the song take over.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Song #295: "Frankenstein" by Edgar Winter Group
Date: May 26, 1973
Weeks: 1
I've really only heard of Edgar Winter in that recent TV ad. I had no idea what kind of music he made, even though this very song is played at the end of that commercial. So I was kind of dreading another trip into the early 70s, anticipating one of the many light, insubstantial pop songs that topped the charts in that half-decade. But instead I got some genuine 70s experimental rock and roll, a genre which is woefully underrepresented on the charts. So I'm glad for that.
This song is a really weird instrumental piece. Oh, it starts off with an excellent guitar riff, and it's about two minutes of some really good guitar-and-drums rock and roll. Whenever that guitar is playing, this song is a blast. I even like the synthesized keyboards because the unique sound of them is being exploited to create something interesting and new. There's a saxophone that's less successful, but it doesn't wreck the song.
Then, about two minutes in, all that successful mixture of sounds collapses, and it turns into a weird extended drum solo, which lasts long past the point where it's still interesting. Then there are laser sound effects mixed in for no reason other than that they were capable of producing laser sound effects. The song finishes with a reprise of its excellent guitar riff, at least, but by then the song's momentum is gone.
Although I evaluate the single version of these songs, I'll try to check out the extended versions if there are any. And this one has a doozy. In this case, the extended version is just weirder, filled with more aural chaos. Although the extended version at least does a better job living up to the title, "Frankenstein." The extended version has a segment that actually sounds like lightning crashing and evokes the imagery of Dr. Frankenstein's lab. The basic song doesn't include any of that, so it leaves you wondering why it's titled that.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's got some nice guitar riffs, but the breakdown in the middle is too weird and completely interrupts a song that otherwise is kind of on the right course.
Weeks: 1
I've really only heard of Edgar Winter in that recent TV ad. I had no idea what kind of music he made, even though this very song is played at the end of that commercial. So I was kind of dreading another trip into the early 70s, anticipating one of the many light, insubstantial pop songs that topped the charts in that half-decade. But instead I got some genuine 70s experimental rock and roll, a genre which is woefully underrepresented on the charts. So I'm glad for that.
This song is a really weird instrumental piece. Oh, it starts off with an excellent guitar riff, and it's about two minutes of some really good guitar-and-drums rock and roll. Whenever that guitar is playing, this song is a blast. I even like the synthesized keyboards because the unique sound of them is being exploited to create something interesting and new. There's a saxophone that's less successful, but it doesn't wreck the song.
Then, about two minutes in, all that successful mixture of sounds collapses, and it turns into a weird extended drum solo, which lasts long past the point where it's still interesting. Then there are laser sound effects mixed in for no reason other than that they were capable of producing laser sound effects. The song finishes with a reprise of its excellent guitar riff, at least, but by then the song's momentum is gone.
Although I evaluate the single version of these songs, I'll try to check out the extended versions if there are any. And this one has a doozy. In this case, the extended version is just weirder, filled with more aural chaos. Although the extended version at least does a better job living up to the title, "Frankenstein." The extended version has a segment that actually sounds like lightning crashing and evokes the imagery of Dr. Frankenstein's lab. The basic song doesn't include any of that, so it leaves you wondering why it's titled that.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's got some nice guitar riffs, but the breakdown in the middle is too weird and completely interrupts a song that otherwise is kind of on the right course.
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.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Song #507: "Jessie's Girl" by Rick Springfield
Date: Aug 1, 1981
Weeks: 2
This song is probably best known for its lyrics, but the music is the big selling point for me. This sort of guitar-driven rock is just what was needed to sweep away the lingering remnants of disco and usher in the era of New Wave.
The guitars really are the big draw here. They repeat in just the right way to make the song stick in your head, but also have enough variety to keep the song from stagnating. The bridge is particularly compelling, when the key changes and the bass takes the show. Then there's a guitar solo, which is just what the song needs there. I suppose the 80s synth keyboards are a bit dated here, but honestly, they kind of work. They're kept in the background, accenting the song, and not calling attention to themselves. They're well-selected to produce a sound that no other instrument would make quite the same way. The drums are pretty basic, but weave into the tapestry of the song perfectly well. Ultimately, this is just a well-composed, simple rock song.
Rick Springfield's vocals aren't really the center of the song, and maybe someone else could sing better, but he matches his voice to the music pretty well. He's also really good at matching his voice to the lyrics. He's whiny during the verse, which is a bit annoying, but that just makes the lyrics feel heartfelt. It's a good performance. I know he was an actor as well, and he's using that to his advantage by imbuing the vocals with the emotions called for by the lyrics.
The lyrics are the star of this particular show, of course. They are the part of the song that is best-remembered, even though I think the lyrics wouldn't have carried as much attention without the great music. The song is about a guy who has a crush on his friend's girlfriend, and how he tortures himself thinking about them being together when he wants to be with her. The song contains several clever turns of phrase. The one that always sticks in my head is "I want to tell her that I love her but the point is probably moot." I particularly like how that demonstrates the narrator's self-awareness that Jessie's girl is in love with Jessie, and the narrator doesn't figure into her picture at all. "I've been funny, I've been cool with the lines. Ain't that the way love's supposed to be?" He doesn't know what else he can do, but he's got enough self-awareness to know that he can't do much. The song is all frustration, with no hope, and I think that's a great emotional story to tell. It's an effective song for anyone who has ever been infatuated with someone who was in love with someone else, and knew it probably wasn't going to work out for them, but found it therapeutic to wallow in their misery for a bit.
My verdict: Like it. It's got a great tune, and tells a great story with its lyrics and performance. A true classic.
Weeks: 2
This song is probably best known for its lyrics, but the music is the big selling point for me. This sort of guitar-driven rock is just what was needed to sweep away the lingering remnants of disco and usher in the era of New Wave.
The guitars really are the big draw here. They repeat in just the right way to make the song stick in your head, but also have enough variety to keep the song from stagnating. The bridge is particularly compelling, when the key changes and the bass takes the show. Then there's a guitar solo, which is just what the song needs there. I suppose the 80s synth keyboards are a bit dated here, but honestly, they kind of work. They're kept in the background, accenting the song, and not calling attention to themselves. They're well-selected to produce a sound that no other instrument would make quite the same way. The drums are pretty basic, but weave into the tapestry of the song perfectly well. Ultimately, this is just a well-composed, simple rock song.
Rick Springfield's vocals aren't really the center of the song, and maybe someone else could sing better, but he matches his voice to the music pretty well. He's also really good at matching his voice to the lyrics. He's whiny during the verse, which is a bit annoying, but that just makes the lyrics feel heartfelt. It's a good performance. I know he was an actor as well, and he's using that to his advantage by imbuing the vocals with the emotions called for by the lyrics.
The lyrics are the star of this particular show, of course. They are the part of the song that is best-remembered, even though I think the lyrics wouldn't have carried as much attention without the great music. The song is about a guy who has a crush on his friend's girlfriend, and how he tortures himself thinking about them being together when he wants to be with her. The song contains several clever turns of phrase. The one that always sticks in my head is "I want to tell her that I love her but the point is probably moot." I particularly like how that demonstrates the narrator's self-awareness that Jessie's girl is in love with Jessie, and the narrator doesn't figure into her picture at all. "I've been funny, I've been cool with the lines. Ain't that the way love's supposed to be?" He doesn't know what else he can do, but he's got enough self-awareness to know that he can't do much. The song is all frustration, with no hope, and I think that's a great emotional story to tell. It's an effective song for anyone who has ever been infatuated with someone who was in love with someone else, and knew it probably wasn't going to work out for them, but found it therapeutic to wallow in their misery for a bit.
My verdict: Like it. It's got a great tune, and tells a great story with its lyrics and performance. A true classic.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Song #380: "Island Girl" by Elton John
Date: Nov 1, 1975
Weeks: 3
This is one of those songs that threatens to make me spend the entire entry wondering why the list of No. 1 songs is never quite the same as the list of all-time classic songs, even for a single artist. "Island Girl" somehow is among Elton John's No. 1 songs, but "Rocket Man" is not. And yet I don't think I've ever heard "Island Girl" before. I guess it just goes to show that popularity, and especially this type of instantaneous snapshot of popularity, is not necessarily an indicator of quality.
I suppose I should start with the lyrics, because they really bugged me. They strike me as racist. The song is about an "island" girl, who is described as "black as coal," from Jamaica. She's working as a prostitute in New York. The song describes a "black boy" who is trying save her and, I presume, take her back to Jamaica. The specific descriptions of race bug me a little, but what really bugs me is the line "what you wanting with the white man's world?" Essentially he's saying that this woman would be happier living someplace less developed because that's where she belongs, for no reason other than the color of her skin. It's a bit clever in its use of "island" to refer to both Jamaica and Manhattan, but I can't really get over the racism of the lyrics.
The music is pretty good, actually. As with other Elton John songs, the rock piano dominates in an appealing. The Caribbean theme is explored by including steel drums and bongos. I particularly like the energy of the verses, and the occasional staccato piano and drum hits in the chorus. As always, Elton John's voice is great and exciting, especially in a fast song like this. The weakest part of the song is the guitar riff intro, which gets repeated. The bridge filled with xylophones and weird high-pitched synthesizer noises is also in the negative column. Both of these parts lose track of the song's energy, and the song actually closes on the guitar riff with xylophones. So the song starts off bad and finishes bad, with a lot of good in between.
My verdict: Like it. The lyrics are bad, and the music has its bad moments. But Elton John is so good at what he does, he brings so much energy during the bulk of the song, that I'm still having fun listening to it, despite my reservations.
Weeks: 3
This is one of those songs that threatens to make me spend the entire entry wondering why the list of No. 1 songs is never quite the same as the list of all-time classic songs, even for a single artist. "Island Girl" somehow is among Elton John's No. 1 songs, but "Rocket Man" is not. And yet I don't think I've ever heard "Island Girl" before. I guess it just goes to show that popularity, and especially this type of instantaneous snapshot of popularity, is not necessarily an indicator of quality.
I suppose I should start with the lyrics, because they really bugged me. They strike me as racist. The song is about an "island" girl, who is described as "black as coal," from Jamaica. She's working as a prostitute in New York. The song describes a "black boy" who is trying save her and, I presume, take her back to Jamaica. The specific descriptions of race bug me a little, but what really bugs me is the line "what you wanting with the white man's world?" Essentially he's saying that this woman would be happier living someplace less developed because that's where she belongs, for no reason other than the color of her skin. It's a bit clever in its use of "island" to refer to both Jamaica and Manhattan, but I can't really get over the racism of the lyrics.
The music is pretty good, actually. As with other Elton John songs, the rock piano dominates in an appealing. The Caribbean theme is explored by including steel drums and bongos. I particularly like the energy of the verses, and the occasional staccato piano and drum hits in the chorus. As always, Elton John's voice is great and exciting, especially in a fast song like this. The weakest part of the song is the guitar riff intro, which gets repeated. The bridge filled with xylophones and weird high-pitched synthesizer noises is also in the negative column. Both of these parts lose track of the song's energy, and the song actually closes on the guitar riff with xylophones. So the song starts off bad and finishes bad, with a lot of good in between.
My verdict: Like it. The lyrics are bad, and the music has its bad moments. But Elton John is so good at what he does, he brings so much energy during the bulk of the song, that I'm still having fun listening to it, despite my reservations.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Song #352: "Laughter in the Rain" by Neil Sedaka
Date: Feb 1, 1975
Weeks: 1
This is the hardest type of song for me to do. It's definitely not my style, but it's not badly made, and it has moments that work. Of the genre of 70s soft pop, I suppose this is one of the least unpleasant examples.
I like the piano as the backbone of this song. It's a good base on which to build the rest of the song. Neil Sedaka's voice is also good. His voice is high, but he's not doing falsetto. He matches the music well and his voice sounds natural and effortless, even as he's exploring the high and low limits of his range. I don't even mind the background vocals here, because they are well-used for emphasis and color and to increase the scope of the chorus. The percussion line is also pleasant. It's subtle and has just enough variety to support this light song.
The strings are a definite negative, though. They over-dramatize and overwhelm what should be a pleasant little song and try to make it more grand, in a way that the song doesn't necessarily support. The saxophone bridge is cheesy. Really, pop music, saxophones need to be applied sparingly. Use them wrong and they can turn a decent song bad really quickly. There's also something just off about the chord progression leading into the chorus that I can't quite explain. It doesn't feel like the chorus follows naturally from the verse for some reason. Possibly it's just the unnecessary strings overwhelming the actual song.
The lyrics are about a couple that is so happy together that when they're caught out in the rain they just laugh. As long as they're together, nothing can spoil their mood. That's a fine sentiment, even if it's a bit cliche. The lyrics, like the rest of the song, are fine. They flow, they make sense, they communicate a feeling and do it well. I was going to nitpick the title lyric, wonder why he "hears" laughter in the rain, when supposedly he and his significant other are the ones doing the laughing. But then I realized that he's kind of talking about how the sound of rain makes him recall this moment, and he remembers the sound of their laughter whenever it rains. The lyrics are all in the present tense, which is why I think I had a hard time working that out at first, but other songs I've reviewed have certainly committed worse crimes against grammar and storytelling.
My verdict: Don't like it. I do respect it, it's a well-made but it doesn't quite click for me.
Weeks: 1
This is the hardest type of song for me to do. It's definitely not my style, but it's not badly made, and it has moments that work. Of the genre of 70s soft pop, I suppose this is one of the least unpleasant examples.
I like the piano as the backbone of this song. It's a good base on which to build the rest of the song. Neil Sedaka's voice is also good. His voice is high, but he's not doing falsetto. He matches the music well and his voice sounds natural and effortless, even as he's exploring the high and low limits of his range. I don't even mind the background vocals here, because they are well-used for emphasis and color and to increase the scope of the chorus. The percussion line is also pleasant. It's subtle and has just enough variety to support this light song.
The strings are a definite negative, though. They over-dramatize and overwhelm what should be a pleasant little song and try to make it more grand, in a way that the song doesn't necessarily support. The saxophone bridge is cheesy. Really, pop music, saxophones need to be applied sparingly. Use them wrong and they can turn a decent song bad really quickly. There's also something just off about the chord progression leading into the chorus that I can't quite explain. It doesn't feel like the chorus follows naturally from the verse for some reason. Possibly it's just the unnecessary strings overwhelming the actual song.
The lyrics are about a couple that is so happy together that when they're caught out in the rain they just laugh. As long as they're together, nothing can spoil their mood. That's a fine sentiment, even if it's a bit cliche. The lyrics, like the rest of the song, are fine. They flow, they make sense, they communicate a feeling and do it well. I was going to nitpick the title lyric, wonder why he "hears" laughter in the rain, when supposedly he and his significant other are the ones doing the laughing. But then I realized that he's kind of talking about how the sound of rain makes him recall this moment, and he remembers the sound of their laughter whenever it rains. The lyrics are all in the present tense, which is why I think I had a hard time working that out at first, but other songs I've reviewed have certainly committed worse crimes against grammar and storytelling.
My verdict: Don't like it. I do respect it, it's a well-made but it doesn't quite click for me.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Song #825: "My Heart Will Go On" by Celine Dion
Date: Feb 28, 1998
Weeks: 2
I've always liked the movie Titanic. I never bought into it as some classic romance story, I just thought it was an effective disaster movie, where the romance story was crucial to giving the disaster story emotional weight. This song, on the other hand, has some significant problems.
The biggest issue is that the version of the song that charted, the version embedded above, is overproduced in just the right way to drain away most of the emotional charm. The soundtrack version is a more effective, simpler piece of music that matches the movie score pretty well. It fits, and carries a genuine, if soft, emotion. The single version just adds more to the mix. There are extra windchimes and little plucky harp noises. The drums start up much sooner and get much bigger. There are unnecessary background singers. There's that 90s power ballad electric guitar for no reason except that's how you make a cheesy power ballad in the 90s. And the effect I hate the most is the vocal echo that is applied to Celine Dion's voice, especially in her very last "My heart will go on and ooon (on on on on)." It doesn't sound like she's singing it in an echo-y concert hall or stadium. It just sounds like a fake effect applied for emphasis, and it doesn't need to be there.
The music that works is the flute and the strings, which exactly what the soundtrack version of the song consists of. I even like how the soundtrack version builds in intensity and adds in some light drums when they are appropriate. The soundtrack song isn't the greatest thing ever, being kind of slow and plodding and overdramatic even for a song about the Titanic, but it is an effective song to match the movie's score. The overproduction in the single version ruins the parts of the original song that work. At least the version with movie sounds didn't gain too much traction, because it's dreadful.
Celine Dion is a good singer. She gained a reputation for oversinging later in her career, but here I think she gives the song the drama that is necessary. She matches the music, she's quiet and subtle when she needs to be, and she sings big when the song gets big. I like her performance here.
The lyrics are decent. They're a lost love. Obviously in the movie, that lost love is lost to death, but there's room to interpret the lyrics as referring to an old relationship that is over but still remembered fondly. "Far across the distance and spaces between us" can have either meaning. These lyrics walk that fine line between being generic and being universal, so I generally give them a pass. Except for one passage. "Love was when I loved you." Generally pop songs get mocked for using the word "love" that much in such a short space. It's immediately followed up with "One true time I hold to." That's a pretty generic lyric, too. It's not that it's badly written, exactly, but it just doesn't sound right. It doesn't flow, with all those "t" and "o" sounds so awkwardly placed. Coming so soon after the word "love" twice, it just doesn't sound good. It's an awkward part of a set of lyrics that's okay at best.
My verdict: Don't like it. I might have a harder time making this decision if I was judging the soundtrack version. But the annoying overproduction in the single version makes it easy.
Weeks: 2
I've always liked the movie Titanic. I never bought into it as some classic romance story, I just thought it was an effective disaster movie, where the romance story was crucial to giving the disaster story emotional weight. This song, on the other hand, has some significant problems.
The biggest issue is that the version of the song that charted, the version embedded above, is overproduced in just the right way to drain away most of the emotional charm. The soundtrack version is a more effective, simpler piece of music that matches the movie score pretty well. It fits, and carries a genuine, if soft, emotion. The single version just adds more to the mix. There are extra windchimes and little plucky harp noises. The drums start up much sooner and get much bigger. There are unnecessary background singers. There's that 90s power ballad electric guitar for no reason except that's how you make a cheesy power ballad in the 90s. And the effect I hate the most is the vocal echo that is applied to Celine Dion's voice, especially in her very last "My heart will go on and ooon (on on on on)." It doesn't sound like she's singing it in an echo-y concert hall or stadium. It just sounds like a fake effect applied for emphasis, and it doesn't need to be there.
The music that works is the flute and the strings, which exactly what the soundtrack version of the song consists of. I even like how the soundtrack version builds in intensity and adds in some light drums when they are appropriate. The soundtrack song isn't the greatest thing ever, being kind of slow and plodding and overdramatic even for a song about the Titanic, but it is an effective song to match the movie's score. The overproduction in the single version ruins the parts of the original song that work. At least the version with movie sounds didn't gain too much traction, because it's dreadful.
Celine Dion is a good singer. She gained a reputation for oversinging later in her career, but here I think she gives the song the drama that is necessary. She matches the music, she's quiet and subtle when she needs to be, and she sings big when the song gets big. I like her performance here.
The lyrics are decent. They're a lost love. Obviously in the movie, that lost love is lost to death, but there's room to interpret the lyrics as referring to an old relationship that is over but still remembered fondly. "Far across the distance and spaces between us" can have either meaning. These lyrics walk that fine line between being generic and being universal, so I generally give them a pass. Except for one passage. "Love was when I loved you." Generally pop songs get mocked for using the word "love" that much in such a short space. It's immediately followed up with "One true time I hold to." That's a pretty generic lyric, too. It's not that it's badly written, exactly, but it just doesn't sound right. It doesn't flow, with all those "t" and "o" sounds so awkwardly placed. Coming so soon after the word "love" twice, it just doesn't sound good. It's an awkward part of a set of lyrics that's okay at best.
My verdict: Don't like it. I might have a harder time making this decision if I was judging the soundtrack version. But the annoying overproduction in the single version makes it easy.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Song #50: "Mother-In-Law" by Ernie K-Doe
Date: May 22, 1961
Weeks: 1
Is... is this supposed to be a novelty song? It comes across like something I'd expect to hear on a Dr. Demento collection. And the subject matter of a guy singing about his evil mother-in-law seems like it's supposed to be funny. But he sounds so sincere, and novelty songs I've heard from this era are rarely this dry and subtle. But then maybe that's part of the joke. I don't know, 1961, I'm not sure I get your sense of humor.
The song is about the singer's evil mother-in-law. And I don't mean that metaphorically. He actually uses the words "Satan should be her name. To me they're about the same." Ultimately, his problem with his mother-in-law comes down to the stress she puts on his marriage. She criticizes how much money he makes, "she thinks her advice is the Constitution." Yeah, that's a bad situation, I suppose, but I guess the joke of the evil mother-in-law has been worn out by years of situation comedies and beer commercials. And it wasn't that great a joke in the first place, so age and overused has really diminished its charm. I suppose this song manages to balance a kernel of truth (other people commenting on your marriage can make it extra stressful) with an exaggerated joke (she's the Devil), in a way that works okay. I get a bit of wry amusement from the song.
Musically, I really like it. This is basic 1950s R&B, with all the gentle dance bop beat that implies. The guitar and drums are simple and effective. The transitions between verse and chorus are accented with horns effectively. There's a nice piano bridge. Everything is very basic and simple and clean. This is one of the building blocks of rock and roll, here. Ernie K-Doe himself does a fine job singing. His voice is very appealing and he has a good rhythmic sense. His background singers are a little goofier, especially the guy singing bass, but it's not so bad.
My verdict: Like it. The music is basic classic rock and roll and I'd listen to it under any lyrics. The lyrics are kind of silly, and the joke isn't all that funny, but they're fairly inoffensive overall.
Weeks: 1
Is... is this supposed to be a novelty song? It comes across like something I'd expect to hear on a Dr. Demento collection. And the subject matter of a guy singing about his evil mother-in-law seems like it's supposed to be funny. But he sounds so sincere, and novelty songs I've heard from this era are rarely this dry and subtle. But then maybe that's part of the joke. I don't know, 1961, I'm not sure I get your sense of humor.
The song is about the singer's evil mother-in-law. And I don't mean that metaphorically. He actually uses the words "Satan should be her name. To me they're about the same." Ultimately, his problem with his mother-in-law comes down to the stress she puts on his marriage. She criticizes how much money he makes, "she thinks her advice is the Constitution." Yeah, that's a bad situation, I suppose, but I guess the joke of the evil mother-in-law has been worn out by years of situation comedies and beer commercials. And it wasn't that great a joke in the first place, so age and overused has really diminished its charm. I suppose this song manages to balance a kernel of truth (other people commenting on your marriage can make it extra stressful) with an exaggerated joke (she's the Devil), in a way that works okay. I get a bit of wry amusement from the song.
Musically, I really like it. This is basic 1950s R&B, with all the gentle dance bop beat that implies. The guitar and drums are simple and effective. The transitions between verse and chorus are accented with horns effectively. There's a nice piano bridge. Everything is very basic and simple and clean. This is one of the building blocks of rock and roll, here. Ernie K-Doe himself does a fine job singing. His voice is very appealing and he has a good rhythmic sense. His background singers are a little goofier, especially the guy singing bass, but it's not so bad.
My verdict: Like it. The music is basic classic rock and roll and I'd listen to it under any lyrics. The lyrics are kind of silly, and the joke isn't all that funny, but they're fairly inoffensive overall.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Song #59: "Hit The Road Jack" by Ray Charles and his Orchestra
Date: Oct 9, 1961
Weeks: 2
I always thought this song was older than this. It sounds like a big band song from the 1940s, and seems to be such a widely-known phrase in the culture that I thought its origin must have been older than 1961. But no, although Ray Charles didn't write it, he did make the original recording. I spent some time poking around the Internet to see if I could find an older origin for the entire phrase "Hit the road, Jack," but I couldn't find one, so I assume its origin is this song. The song has been covered, remixed, and performed live so many times that I had a hard time finding the original studio recording. I hope this one is right, because I'm not so sure. It sounds way too clean, even for a remix.
Ray Charles is the epitome of cool. His sense of how to jazz up a song is wonderful. I have always loved his rendition of "America The Beautiful" in particular. His piano is always energetic and fun, even in a slow song. Ray Charles can do no wrong in his performance, and this song is no exception to that rule.
Which isn't to say the song is arranged perfectly. The piano chords acting as the bass line are a bit repetitive. There's an elegant simplicity to them, and I think that's part of the reason the song is so well-known. But they start to wear out their welcome, even in the short amount of time that the song runs. There's not quite enough variety, and the piano dominates the song. I like the drums and the occasional interjection from the brass section, though. The brass in particular livens up the chorus in an appealing way.
The background singers are fine. I guess he had a group of background singers called the Raylettes who provided the backup singing. Their performance isn't exceptional, but it doesn't need to be. That's why they're the backup singers. There was probably room to recruit a better vocal talent to provide the female counterpoint, that could have improved the song. But they do a sufficient job.
Lyrically, the song is about a man being thrown out of his home by the woman who feels wronged. The reasons aren't really explored, beyond when the female singer says "you ain't got no money, you just ain't no good." He offers no defense. "I guess if you say so, I have to pack my things and go." He complains that she's mean, she stands her ground. It doesn't so much tell a story as it captures the emotion of a breakup that maybe wasn't seen coming. I think the lyrics are effective, although the verses aren't really what's memorable. What's memorable is the chorus, "Hit the road, Jack." Like I said, it's become part of the cultural lexicon far divorced from its origins. I bet you can find people using this phrase who have never heard of this song.
My verdict: Like it. Ray Charles can do no wrong.
Weeks: 2
I always thought this song was older than this. It sounds like a big band song from the 1940s, and seems to be such a widely-known phrase in the culture that I thought its origin must have been older than 1961. But no, although Ray Charles didn't write it, he did make the original recording. I spent some time poking around the Internet to see if I could find an older origin for the entire phrase "Hit the road, Jack," but I couldn't find one, so I assume its origin is this song. The song has been covered, remixed, and performed live so many times that I had a hard time finding the original studio recording. I hope this one is right, because I'm not so sure. It sounds way too clean, even for a remix.
Ray Charles is the epitome of cool. His sense of how to jazz up a song is wonderful. I have always loved his rendition of "America The Beautiful" in particular. His piano is always energetic and fun, even in a slow song. Ray Charles can do no wrong in his performance, and this song is no exception to that rule.
Which isn't to say the song is arranged perfectly. The piano chords acting as the bass line are a bit repetitive. There's an elegant simplicity to them, and I think that's part of the reason the song is so well-known. But they start to wear out their welcome, even in the short amount of time that the song runs. There's not quite enough variety, and the piano dominates the song. I like the drums and the occasional interjection from the brass section, though. The brass in particular livens up the chorus in an appealing way.
The background singers are fine. I guess he had a group of background singers called the Raylettes who provided the backup singing. Their performance isn't exceptional, but it doesn't need to be. That's why they're the backup singers. There was probably room to recruit a better vocal talent to provide the female counterpoint, that could have improved the song. But they do a sufficient job.
Lyrically, the song is about a man being thrown out of his home by the woman who feels wronged. The reasons aren't really explored, beyond when the female singer says "you ain't got no money, you just ain't no good." He offers no defense. "I guess if you say so, I have to pack my things and go." He complains that she's mean, she stands her ground. It doesn't so much tell a story as it captures the emotion of a breakup that maybe wasn't seen coming. I think the lyrics are effective, although the verses aren't really what's memorable. What's memorable is the chorus, "Hit the road, Jack." Like I said, it's become part of the cultural lexicon far divorced from its origins. I bet you can find people using this phrase who have never heard of this song.
My verdict: Like it. Ray Charles can do no wrong.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Not No. 1: 20/20 Reports on New Wave in 1979
Date: Dec 1979
This is a neat bit of video that I got linked to a little bit ago. It's a 20/20 news segment from 1979, featuring Hugh Downs, that talks a bit about the history of rock and roll and the lead up to the New Wave movement. It's amusing to listen to them list off the names of "classic" rock musicians, and then try to make a funny comparison to a new band who would dare to compete to become the new classics. And then they bring up a bunch of bands that went on to become classics. Blondie, The Ramones, The Clash, Elvis Costello. Whoever picked these bands to profile did a good job picking bands that turned out to last a long time.
Anyway, it's an interesting and informative trip through the history of rock and roll to that point.
This is a neat bit of video that I got linked to a little bit ago. It's a 20/20 news segment from 1979, featuring Hugh Downs, that talks a bit about the history of rock and roll and the lead up to the New Wave movement. It's amusing to listen to them list off the names of "classic" rock musicians, and then try to make a funny comparison to a new band who would dare to compete to become the new classics. And then they bring up a bunch of bands that went on to become classics. Blondie, The Ramones, The Clash, Elvis Costello. Whoever picked these bands to profile did a good job picking bands that turned out to last a long time.
Anyway, it's an interesting and informative trip through the history of rock and roll to that point.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Song #477: "No More Tears (Enough Is Enough)" by Barbra Streisand and Donna Summer
Date: Nov 24, 1979
Weeks: 2
Oh no. Not another 1930s-style Barbra Streisand soft song. Oh no! Suddenly it turned into a repetitive Donna Summer disco song. It's the worst of both worlds. I've disliked both of their songs separately, and now I have to endure one where they mix their styles. How am I going to get through this?
Okay, okay. Start by saying something positive. Well, in the soft part of the song, Summer's part is quite good. The 70s disco music that I'm used to hearing from her doesn't do her voice justice. Of course, that's kind of ruined by Streisand doing the same fake-sounding oversinging thing I've complained about before.
No, stay positive! The disco part of the song actually seems more compatible with Streisand's singing style. The bold music seems to actually match it. She should make this kind of music more often. Then again, she even manages to find ways to overwhelm the frantic disco music.
Okay, okay, what else. Well, the lyrics seem to be feminist. "Enough is enough is enough." Great message for women in tough relationships: get out. Of course, the song kind of undermines that when it tries to explain what's so wrong about the guy and comes up with "My love life is boring me to tears." Okay, but maybe it's a song about having the self-awareness to understand when a relationship is over. No, the song says "Pack his raincoat, show him out."
It's really two songs that have failed to properly integrate. One is a soft song that laments the sadness of a relationship that has gotten stale and just isn't exciting any more. The other is about a woman who has been wronged. They don't quite go together correctly.
Musically, each song is pretty mediocre. The first half is piano and strings, and resists the temptation to add too much additional sound to it, but is kind of plain and unexciting. The second half sounds a lot like "Hot Stuff" (#465). It's okay, but has the usual 70s problems of adding too many strings and not enough guitars.
The best part of the song is probably the bridge, when the song gets quiet except for the bongos driving the song forward. There is an extended version of the song that extends this bridge, and I think I like the extended version better for focusing on the best part of the song. Or maybe I've just taken the whole idea of staying positive too far and found the part that annoys me least.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's like they took two songs I didn't like and stuck them together with tape and glue.
Weeks: 2
Oh no. Not another 1930s-style Barbra Streisand soft song. Oh no! Suddenly it turned into a repetitive Donna Summer disco song. It's the worst of both worlds. I've disliked both of their songs separately, and now I have to endure one where they mix their styles. How am I going to get through this?
Okay, okay. Start by saying something positive. Well, in the soft part of the song, Summer's part is quite good. The 70s disco music that I'm used to hearing from her doesn't do her voice justice. Of course, that's kind of ruined by Streisand doing the same fake-sounding oversinging thing I've complained about before.
No, stay positive! The disco part of the song actually seems more compatible with Streisand's singing style. The bold music seems to actually match it. She should make this kind of music more often. Then again, she even manages to find ways to overwhelm the frantic disco music.
Okay, okay, what else. Well, the lyrics seem to be feminist. "Enough is enough is enough." Great message for women in tough relationships: get out. Of course, the song kind of undermines that when it tries to explain what's so wrong about the guy and comes up with "My love life is boring me to tears." Okay, but maybe it's a song about having the self-awareness to understand when a relationship is over. No, the song says "Pack his raincoat, show him out."
It's really two songs that have failed to properly integrate. One is a soft song that laments the sadness of a relationship that has gotten stale and just isn't exciting any more. The other is about a woman who has been wronged. They don't quite go together correctly.
Musically, each song is pretty mediocre. The first half is piano and strings, and resists the temptation to add too much additional sound to it, but is kind of plain and unexciting. The second half sounds a lot like "Hot Stuff" (#465). It's okay, but has the usual 70s problems of adding too many strings and not enough guitars.
The best part of the song is probably the bridge, when the song gets quiet except for the bongos driving the song forward. There is an extended version of the song that extends this bridge, and I think I like the extended version better for focusing on the best part of the song. Or maybe I've just taken the whole idea of staying positive too far and found the part that annoys me least.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's like they took two songs I didn't like and stuck them together with tape and glue.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Song #709: "We Didn't Start The Fire" by Billy Joel
Date: Dec 9, 1989
Weeks: 2
So this is basically a list of historical events that influenced Billy Joel when he was growing up. I've always been of two minds about this song and its lyrical content. On the one hand, it's a great tool for learning about U.S. history from the 1950s through the 1980s. The recent past often gets overlooked when trying to teach kids history, I think generally because adults consider anything that happened within their lifetimes as current events. I know there's a lot in this song I probably never would have learned about otherwise.
On the other hand, I've always been a bit bothered by the somewhat self-indulgent specificity of the era being covered. I'm not sure the sex scandal referenced by the line "British politician sex" is a major historical event that needs to be documented for future generations. It's also always bugged me that the lyrics spend 4 verses carefully documenting every event from 1949 to 1963, but then it covers 1964 to 1989 in a single verse. In that sense, it feels like the song is largely playing to people who are exactly the same age as Billy Joel. Or people who are the children of those people who at least consider this "the history that happened before I was old enough to pay attention to current events." I wonder how well this song will be regarded in 20 years.
So that's my ambivalence about the content of the lyrics. In terms of the construction of the lyrics, I'm impressed. Billy Joel plays fast and loose with the rhyme scheme and meter, but it never really feels like he's cheating. Wikipedia also insists that the events in the song are listed in chronological order, at least by year. That would seem to add an extra layer to the challenge of writing a song like this, so I'm kind of impressed that he managed to construct a song under all those constraints.
As for the chorus, I'm glad to see that Wikipedia echoes the interpretation of the song I've always held. That idea is that Billy Joel doesn't want his generation, the Baby Boomers, blamed for all the world's problems, because they inherited problems from the generation before. The song concludes with the implication that the world's problems will continue after his generation is gone. And yet it's not a bleak song, it's actually hopeful. The message is that the world has survived turmoil before, and it will survive whatever comes next.
The music is a lot of fun, but maintains a sort of frantically serious tone. The synthesizer keyboards are put to good use, creating a dramatic melody during the chorus that is probably the most memorable part of the music in this song. They are bold in a song that demands bold music. The bongos during the chorus also maintain the verses' frantic energy through the chorus. During the verses, there is an appealing guitar rhythm that sounds sort of like a 1950s classic rock rhythm. It's very basic and does a great job holding the song together. I also like the gradually accelerating feeling of chaos that is represented in both the guitars and the vocals. It symbolizes Billy Joel's increasing inability to understand and cope with the world's chaos and strife, and the universal feeling that the world's problems just keep getting worse and spinning out of control. And yet ultimately I still feel the song is about keeping those problems in perspective. The music really does a good job capturing all that frantic energy and turmoil.
I'm less certain about the use of occasional audio clips mixed throughout. There's a cheer for the line "Brooklyn has a winning team," and the music from Psycho plays when he references that movie. It seems a little silly to interject audio for those two things. On the other hand, the song is quite long, if not in runtime then in lyrical quantity, and those bits of audio do manage to inject some variety into the song at certain moments. Ultimately I think they are subtle but effective enhancements, rather than detractions.
My verdict: Like it. It's a fun, energetic song, and it's good for teaching history. If nothing else, its existence and popularity will keep the people and events referred to in the lyrics in the cultural consciousness longer than they might otherwise have been.
Weeks: 2
So this is basically a list of historical events that influenced Billy Joel when he was growing up. I've always been of two minds about this song and its lyrical content. On the one hand, it's a great tool for learning about U.S. history from the 1950s through the 1980s. The recent past often gets overlooked when trying to teach kids history, I think generally because adults consider anything that happened within their lifetimes as current events. I know there's a lot in this song I probably never would have learned about otherwise.
On the other hand, I've always been a bit bothered by the somewhat self-indulgent specificity of the era being covered. I'm not sure the sex scandal referenced by the line "British politician sex" is a major historical event that needs to be documented for future generations. It's also always bugged me that the lyrics spend 4 verses carefully documenting every event from 1949 to 1963, but then it covers 1964 to 1989 in a single verse. In that sense, it feels like the song is largely playing to people who are exactly the same age as Billy Joel. Or people who are the children of those people who at least consider this "the history that happened before I was old enough to pay attention to current events." I wonder how well this song will be regarded in 20 years.
So that's my ambivalence about the content of the lyrics. In terms of the construction of the lyrics, I'm impressed. Billy Joel plays fast and loose with the rhyme scheme and meter, but it never really feels like he's cheating. Wikipedia also insists that the events in the song are listed in chronological order, at least by year. That would seem to add an extra layer to the challenge of writing a song like this, so I'm kind of impressed that he managed to construct a song under all those constraints.
As for the chorus, I'm glad to see that Wikipedia echoes the interpretation of the song I've always held. That idea is that Billy Joel doesn't want his generation, the Baby Boomers, blamed for all the world's problems, because they inherited problems from the generation before. The song concludes with the implication that the world's problems will continue after his generation is gone. And yet it's not a bleak song, it's actually hopeful. The message is that the world has survived turmoil before, and it will survive whatever comes next.
The music is a lot of fun, but maintains a sort of frantically serious tone. The synthesizer keyboards are put to good use, creating a dramatic melody during the chorus that is probably the most memorable part of the music in this song. They are bold in a song that demands bold music. The bongos during the chorus also maintain the verses' frantic energy through the chorus. During the verses, there is an appealing guitar rhythm that sounds sort of like a 1950s classic rock rhythm. It's very basic and does a great job holding the song together. I also like the gradually accelerating feeling of chaos that is represented in both the guitars and the vocals. It symbolizes Billy Joel's increasing inability to understand and cope with the world's chaos and strife, and the universal feeling that the world's problems just keep getting worse and spinning out of control. And yet ultimately I still feel the song is about keeping those problems in perspective. The music really does a good job capturing all that frantic energy and turmoil.
I'm less certain about the use of occasional audio clips mixed throughout. There's a cheer for the line "Brooklyn has a winning team," and the music from Psycho plays when he references that movie. It seems a little silly to interject audio for those two things. On the other hand, the song is quite long, if not in runtime then in lyrical quantity, and those bits of audio do manage to inject some variety into the song at certain moments. Ultimately I think they are subtle but effective enhancements, rather than detractions.
My verdict: Like it. It's a fun, energetic song, and it's good for teaching history. If nothing else, its existence and popularity will keep the people and events referred to in the lyrics in the cultural consciousness longer than they might otherwise have been.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Song #855: "Say My Name" by Destiny's Child
Date: Mar 18, 2000
Weeks: 3
Destiny's Child is probably best known today for being the group that introduced the world to Beyonce. Actually, even at the time I think it was best known as the group backing up Beyonce. Maybe some big fans of the group would find more nuance to that position, but as a general music fan whose preferred genre this wasn't, that was my awareness of the group at the time.
The vocal harmonies are the most obvious feature of this song, and they're quite good. The backing music is generally soft and fairly inconsequential, so it's up to the vocals to carry the song. And this group of singers does a great job of it. Although Beyonce stands out as the lead singer, the rest of the group provides a great foundation, as well. There is a lot going on vocally during the chorus, and it's all very appealing. The verses are a little monotonous, but there is sufficient variety to remain entertaining. There are some poor harmonic choices in the little transition section between the verse and the chorus, especially on the lyric "Cause I know how you usually do." The voices go a little high there in a way that doesn't work for me. Otherwise, I think the vocals are very good. They're light and pleasant but combine in a strong way.
The backing track to this song is generally enjoyable, but this song feels like it's been overproduced. The bass and drum line is really good, and perfectly matched to the vocals. The lead synthesizer track during the chorus is also very good. The chorus is generally very appealing all around. The verses sort of fall apart musically, though. The song feels like it has been overproduced, with synthesizer stings and weird spring sound effects for no reason. Those noises were a serious miscalculation. The song would have been stronger without them. They very nearly ruin the song for me. There are also some vocal echoes that are there to spice up the verses that initially bugged me, but after listening to it for a while, I found those vocal echoes actually spiced up the otherwise pretty monotonous verses. The bridge doesn't include much of the usual variety that one expects from a bridge, although there is an unnecessary male voice that should have been left out. Also, the "yeah yeah yeah yeah" from Beyonce is weirdly enunciated, to the point where I thought she was saying something else.
Lyrically, the song is clearly about a women who thinks her significant other is cheating on her because he's acting oddly when she's talking to him over the phone. "If no one is around you, say 'baby I love you'." She's confident, she's self-assertive, and she's not going to put up with him if he's cheating. But I like that she's also not throwing around the accusation wildly and jumping to conclusions. She just wants him to pass the simple test of talking to her like she's his girlfriend and flushing out the other woman if there is one. I like the delicate balance that is struck in these lyrics, and I especially like the self-assertion.
My verdict: Like it. It's overproduced and I think a good remix would be better. But overall it's an enjoyable song, especially in the chorus where it counts.
Weeks: 3
Destiny's Child is probably best known today for being the group that introduced the world to Beyonce. Actually, even at the time I think it was best known as the group backing up Beyonce. Maybe some big fans of the group would find more nuance to that position, but as a general music fan whose preferred genre this wasn't, that was my awareness of the group at the time.
The vocal harmonies are the most obvious feature of this song, and they're quite good. The backing music is generally soft and fairly inconsequential, so it's up to the vocals to carry the song. And this group of singers does a great job of it. Although Beyonce stands out as the lead singer, the rest of the group provides a great foundation, as well. There is a lot going on vocally during the chorus, and it's all very appealing. The verses are a little monotonous, but there is sufficient variety to remain entertaining. There are some poor harmonic choices in the little transition section between the verse and the chorus, especially on the lyric "Cause I know how you usually do." The voices go a little high there in a way that doesn't work for me. Otherwise, I think the vocals are very good. They're light and pleasant but combine in a strong way.
The backing track to this song is generally enjoyable, but this song feels like it's been overproduced. The bass and drum line is really good, and perfectly matched to the vocals. The lead synthesizer track during the chorus is also very good. The chorus is generally very appealing all around. The verses sort of fall apart musically, though. The song feels like it has been overproduced, with synthesizer stings and weird spring sound effects for no reason. Those noises were a serious miscalculation. The song would have been stronger without them. They very nearly ruin the song for me. There are also some vocal echoes that are there to spice up the verses that initially bugged me, but after listening to it for a while, I found those vocal echoes actually spiced up the otherwise pretty monotonous verses. The bridge doesn't include much of the usual variety that one expects from a bridge, although there is an unnecessary male voice that should have been left out. Also, the "yeah yeah yeah yeah" from Beyonce is weirdly enunciated, to the point where I thought she was saying something else.
Lyrically, the song is clearly about a women who thinks her significant other is cheating on her because he's acting oddly when she's talking to him over the phone. "If no one is around you, say 'baby I love you'." She's confident, she's self-assertive, and she's not going to put up with him if he's cheating. But I like that she's also not throwing around the accusation wildly and jumping to conclusions. She just wants him to pass the simple test of talking to her like she's his girlfriend and flushing out the other woman if there is one. I like the delicate balance that is struck in these lyrics, and I especially like the self-assertion.
My verdict: Like it. It's overproduced and I think a good remix would be better. But overall it's an enjoyable song, especially in the chorus where it counts.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Song #948: "Beautiful Girls" by Sean Kingston
Date: Aug 11, 2007
Weeks: 4
I'm not opposed to sampling in general, but this song samples so much of "Stand By Me" by Ben E. King that it's practically a remake. The bass line is the song's backbone, and this song just plain reuses it. So it's impossible to avoid comparing this song directly to that classic, and this song suffers in comparison.
"Stand By Me" is all about having someone to stand by you, and how that makes you able to withstand whatever the world might throw at you. It's a positive song, and the music supports that positivity with quiet cheeriness. "Beautiful Girls" turns the lyrics right around and is lyrically one of the most depressing pop songs I've encountered. It's hard to claim it's a feel-good song when the chorus features the line "They'll have you suicidal, suicidal." The repetition just emphasizes how depressing it is. And that stands in direct contrast to the cheery "Stand By Me" music. I see that the line "suicidal" was controversial and got the song edited a lot. Changing "suicidal" to "in denial" kind of obscures the meaning, though.
It could be clever irony, I suppose. Put depressing lyrics over a happy tune. But the lyrics don't seem to support that. The lyrics aren't about trying to maintain a happy attitude despite being sad. They're just about the misery of being dumped, and the pessimism of despairing of finding anyone else ever again. "You're way too beautiful girl, that's why it'll never work. You'll have me suicidal, suicidal." These lyrics need a sad tune, or an angry tune. They don't need this gentle, happy tune. I suppose overall I just find this teenage notion of suicidal despair because you were dumped at age 16 to be terribly overwrought. This isn't reminding me of how I felt in my own teenage years, it's just making me feel like teenagers are overdramatic and dumb.
It's also just kind of vaguely insulting to the "beautiful girls." "Damn all these beautiful girls." That makes me think of the Weezer song "El Scorcho," and its opening line that is often misinterpreted as "Goddamn you half-Japanese girls!" when in fact the line is "Goddamn! You half-Japanese girls do it to me every time." But "Beautiful Girls" doesn't have that. It really is just "Damn all these beautiful girls. They only want to do your dirt." I'm not sure what "do your dirt" means, but it's clearly not complimentary.
I could nitpick these lyrics for several more paragraphs, but I won't. Suffice to say I think the lyrics are bad and contrast sharply with the music, but not in a cleverly ironic way.
Kingston's slight Jamaican accent is just thin enough that I thought he was putting it on, but Wikipedia claims he was raised in Jamaica and therefore comes by it honestly. I suppose the Jamaican style in which he sings the song is okay. I guess I get too distracted by the words he's singing to really evaluate his singing. I think I'd rather hear him perform a straight cover of "Stand By Me."
Musically, this song isn't bad. The bass line, ripped straight out of "Stand By Me," is excellent, of course. But I like a lot of the style enhancements that have been made. There are a lot, but they are tastefully applied. There's a xylophone, a few soft synth stings, a string section that may be an imitation of strings used in the original. All good things. I even like the a capella bridge with the background singers. There's a timpani near the end that borders on overly-dramatic, but I don't mind that so much. If anything, I'd like a dramatic, orchestral take on "Stand By Me."
My verdict: Don't like it. I almost gave it a pass on the idea that if the same talent had been used to cover "Stand By Me" I would be happy. Unfortunately, the lyrics are really distracting, and they don't show off Kingston's vocals in a positive way.
Weeks: 4
I'm not opposed to sampling in general, but this song samples so much of "Stand By Me" by Ben E. King that it's practically a remake. The bass line is the song's backbone, and this song just plain reuses it. So it's impossible to avoid comparing this song directly to that classic, and this song suffers in comparison.
"Stand By Me" is all about having someone to stand by you, and how that makes you able to withstand whatever the world might throw at you. It's a positive song, and the music supports that positivity with quiet cheeriness. "Beautiful Girls" turns the lyrics right around and is lyrically one of the most depressing pop songs I've encountered. It's hard to claim it's a feel-good song when the chorus features the line "They'll have you suicidal, suicidal." The repetition just emphasizes how depressing it is. And that stands in direct contrast to the cheery "Stand By Me" music. I see that the line "suicidal" was controversial and got the song edited a lot. Changing "suicidal" to "in denial" kind of obscures the meaning, though.
It could be clever irony, I suppose. Put depressing lyrics over a happy tune. But the lyrics don't seem to support that. The lyrics aren't about trying to maintain a happy attitude despite being sad. They're just about the misery of being dumped, and the pessimism of despairing of finding anyone else ever again. "You're way too beautiful girl, that's why it'll never work. You'll have me suicidal, suicidal." These lyrics need a sad tune, or an angry tune. They don't need this gentle, happy tune. I suppose overall I just find this teenage notion of suicidal despair because you were dumped at age 16 to be terribly overwrought. This isn't reminding me of how I felt in my own teenage years, it's just making me feel like teenagers are overdramatic and dumb.
It's also just kind of vaguely insulting to the "beautiful girls." "Damn all these beautiful girls." That makes me think of the Weezer song "El Scorcho," and its opening line that is often misinterpreted as "Goddamn you half-Japanese girls!" when in fact the line is "Goddamn! You half-Japanese girls do it to me every time." But "Beautiful Girls" doesn't have that. It really is just "Damn all these beautiful girls. They only want to do your dirt." I'm not sure what "do your dirt" means, but it's clearly not complimentary.
I could nitpick these lyrics for several more paragraphs, but I won't. Suffice to say I think the lyrics are bad and contrast sharply with the music, but not in a cleverly ironic way.
Kingston's slight Jamaican accent is just thin enough that I thought he was putting it on, but Wikipedia claims he was raised in Jamaica and therefore comes by it honestly. I suppose the Jamaican style in which he sings the song is okay. I guess I get too distracted by the words he's singing to really evaluate his singing. I think I'd rather hear him perform a straight cover of "Stand By Me."
Musically, this song isn't bad. The bass line, ripped straight out of "Stand By Me," is excellent, of course. But I like a lot of the style enhancements that have been made. There are a lot, but they are tastefully applied. There's a xylophone, a few soft synth stings, a string section that may be an imitation of strings used in the original. All good things. I even like the a capella bridge with the background singers. There's a timpani near the end that borders on overly-dramatic, but I don't mind that so much. If anything, I'd like a dramatic, orchestral take on "Stand By Me."
My verdict: Don't like it. I almost gave it a pass on the idea that if the same talent had been used to cover "Stand By Me" I would be happy. Unfortunately, the lyrics are really distracting, and they don't show off Kingston's vocals in a positive way.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Song #157: "(You're My) Soul And Inspiration" by The Righteous Brothers
Date: Apr 9, 1966
Weeks: 3
While the Righteous Brothers have persisted in the consciousness of popular music, their songs haven't necessarily. Sure, "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" (#127) is a well-regarded classic. And "Unchained Melody" has also endured the test of time, thanks partially to the movie Ghost resurrecting it in the 1990s. But their other songs haven't really been remembered by the culture, and so I haven't really heard any others that I can think of. And so that brings us here, to a song that I know I've never heard before.
The first thing I notice about this song is that its composition seems very familiar. Every time the song builds up to the chorus, I fully expect to hear the chorus of "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin." And when that's not what I hear, I can't help but feel disappointed. And yet the more I listen to this song, the more I like this chorus. The sound is very big, with a backing chorus, and what sounds like an orchestra of generous size swelling to fill out the sound. It's actually bigger than the sound in the chorus of that other song. The vocal harmony of the two lead singers and the backing chorus is well-combined and pleasing. The great thing about the Righteous Brothers is that they sound like they are giving everything they've got during the chorus. It gives their songs passion and energy.
I'm not sure the verses match up to the chorus, though. The backup singers and orchestra aren't quite living up to their potential here. There's a wandering background string that just seems like it's there because they had an orchestra around and didn't know enough to say that less was more. The lead singers also aren't fulfilling their potential here. That low voice they sing in during the verses isn't very pleasant. It sounds so affected and fake. The bridge part with the talking is also one of those song features that just never works for me. I complained about that when Boyz II Men did it, but it's not really any better coming from the Righteous Brothers. At least I know where Boyz II Men got it from.
This is one of those breakup songs that's all about sadness and depression. The lyrics are a bit pathetic. "Without you, baby, what good am I?" He's begging not to be dumped, and yet all he's doing is trying to lay a down a guilt trip while making it all about himself. He even kind of suggests that he might kill himself if he's left alone, with lyrics like "How can I live through this" and "If you go it will kill me I swear" and, during the spoken part, "You're my reason... for living, for dying." Maybe he's just hinting at withering away to nothing, but he's not really making that clear. He's trying to guilt his way into being undumped. This is a terrible lyrical sentiment.
My verdict: Don't like it. The chorus has its moments, but the verse is hard to take and the lyrics aren't very admirable.
Weeks: 3
While the Righteous Brothers have persisted in the consciousness of popular music, their songs haven't necessarily. Sure, "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" (#127) is a well-regarded classic. And "Unchained Melody" has also endured the test of time, thanks partially to the movie Ghost resurrecting it in the 1990s. But their other songs haven't really been remembered by the culture, and so I haven't really heard any others that I can think of. And so that brings us here, to a song that I know I've never heard before.
The first thing I notice about this song is that its composition seems very familiar. Every time the song builds up to the chorus, I fully expect to hear the chorus of "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin." And when that's not what I hear, I can't help but feel disappointed. And yet the more I listen to this song, the more I like this chorus. The sound is very big, with a backing chorus, and what sounds like an orchestra of generous size swelling to fill out the sound. It's actually bigger than the sound in the chorus of that other song. The vocal harmony of the two lead singers and the backing chorus is well-combined and pleasing. The great thing about the Righteous Brothers is that they sound like they are giving everything they've got during the chorus. It gives their songs passion and energy.
I'm not sure the verses match up to the chorus, though. The backup singers and orchestra aren't quite living up to their potential here. There's a wandering background string that just seems like it's there because they had an orchestra around and didn't know enough to say that less was more. The lead singers also aren't fulfilling their potential here. That low voice they sing in during the verses isn't very pleasant. It sounds so affected and fake. The bridge part with the talking is also one of those song features that just never works for me. I complained about that when Boyz II Men did it, but it's not really any better coming from the Righteous Brothers. At least I know where Boyz II Men got it from.
This is one of those breakup songs that's all about sadness and depression. The lyrics are a bit pathetic. "Without you, baby, what good am I?" He's begging not to be dumped, and yet all he's doing is trying to lay a down a guilt trip while making it all about himself. He even kind of suggests that he might kill himself if he's left alone, with lyrics like "How can I live through this" and "If you go it will kill me I swear" and, during the spoken part, "You're my reason... for living, for dying." Maybe he's just hinting at withering away to nothing, but he's not really making that clear. He's trying to guilt his way into being undumped. This is a terrible lyrical sentiment.
My verdict: Don't like it. The chorus has its moments, but the verse is hard to take and the lyrics aren't very admirable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)