Date: Jan 10, 1976
Weeks: 1
I feel like I need annotated lyrics to even understand what's going on here. I can interpret a lot of the trucker lingo by context, but I'm confused on a few points. First, I don't understand why the convoy of truckers is so hostile to the police. I understand a little resentment of speeding tickets, but the singer is describing driving through roadblocks. Second, I've deciphered most of the trucker lingo, but I'm confused about what they mean by "hogs." I'm guessing they don't mean motorcycles.
I can only find a few loose explanations gathered around the Internet. Wikipedia seems to be the gathering point for a lot of them. Apparently the truckers are mostly upset about the recently enacted 55-mph national speed limit and other trucking regulations. Oh! And "hogs" are a truckload of pigs. I guess I was analyzing too hard there.
I really like C.W. McCall's voice in this song. He's got a good, deep Johnny Cash country music voice. Mix that with the trucker-speak lyrics, and that's a fun time.
So it's a shame about that chorus.
It's not the lyrics I take issue with, it's the high-pitched chorus singing it that I don't like. It stands in contrast with McCall's deep, rich voice, and this is not a case where the complementary vocal styles create an enjoyable contrast. The chorus is something I have to endure to get back to another verse that I can enjoy.
And that extends to the music, too. The background music is a good country rock song through the verses, with a great mix of guitar, banjo, and drums. But then there's a string line that feels really out of place, and it takes over the sound during the chorus. It's like they started with a decent country song and weren't confident it could hold anyone's interest in the mid-70s, so they added a really wimpy 70s pop chorus to it.
My verdict: Don't like it. The overly 70s pop sound of the chorus completely undermines what is otherwise a decent enough country rock song.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Song #580: "Take On Me" by A-Ha
Date: Oct 19, 1985
Weeks: 1
If I had to sum up the music of the 1980s in one song, it would be "Take On Me" by A-Ha. There's a reason it keeps showing up at the center of 80s music retrospectives.
The music is manufactured almost entirely in a synthesizer, and doesn't apologize for it for a second. That heavy 80s drum kit sound, synthesized keyboards, and even the singer's high-pitched voice are all hallmarks of the era. The video shows a guitar, but it's way in the background of the soundscape here and you could be forgiven for not knowing it was there.
Synthesized or not, the music drives the song. The drums and keyboards propel it forward during the chorus and instrumental sections, but get out of the way to let the vocals carry the verses. The keyboard riff that opens the song and repeats during the bridge is probably the song's most recognizable part because it's so bold. That keyboard riff alone would probably make this song a classic, but the great thing about this song is that there's more to it than that.
The high-pitched vocals are attention-grabbing but never grating. The singer keeps his voice controlled and is still pleasant to listen to even when he hits the falsetto range. And his slight Norwegian accent adds a certain quality that forgives the silliness of the lyrics.
And the lyrics are entirely silly, but who cares? The keyboards, drums, and vocals are all so attention-getting and fun that there's barely any room left in your attention span for the lyrics. As far as I can tell, they're about how the guy is kind of shy about talking to the object of his affection. It plays into that stereotype of the quiet, shy person who can't express how they feel except by writing a song about it. That's a fairly classic sentiment in pop music. I'm still not sure what "Take on me. Take me on" really means, but who cares? The music is so awesome, you could replace the lyrics entirely and still have a great song.
The music video is also a classic, and I have no doubt it contributed to the popularity of the song. It's got intriguing visuals, a simple plot, and a bit of "how'd they do that?" special effects. I suppose those 3 elements are present in just about every great music video.
My verdict: Like it. It's an era-defining classic. And it lends itself well to stylish remakes by some of my favorite bands.
Weeks: 1
If I had to sum up the music of the 1980s in one song, it would be "Take On Me" by A-Ha. There's a reason it keeps showing up at the center of 80s music retrospectives.
The music is manufactured almost entirely in a synthesizer, and doesn't apologize for it for a second. That heavy 80s drum kit sound, synthesized keyboards, and even the singer's high-pitched voice are all hallmarks of the era. The video shows a guitar, but it's way in the background of the soundscape here and you could be forgiven for not knowing it was there.
Synthesized or not, the music drives the song. The drums and keyboards propel it forward during the chorus and instrumental sections, but get out of the way to let the vocals carry the verses. The keyboard riff that opens the song and repeats during the bridge is probably the song's most recognizable part because it's so bold. That keyboard riff alone would probably make this song a classic, but the great thing about this song is that there's more to it than that.
The high-pitched vocals are attention-grabbing but never grating. The singer keeps his voice controlled and is still pleasant to listen to even when he hits the falsetto range. And his slight Norwegian accent adds a certain quality that forgives the silliness of the lyrics.
And the lyrics are entirely silly, but who cares? The keyboards, drums, and vocals are all so attention-getting and fun that there's barely any room left in your attention span for the lyrics. As far as I can tell, they're about how the guy is kind of shy about talking to the object of his affection. It plays into that stereotype of the quiet, shy person who can't express how they feel except by writing a song about it. That's a fairly classic sentiment in pop music. I'm still not sure what "Take on me. Take me on" really means, but who cares? The music is so awesome, you could replace the lyrics entirely and still have a great song.
The music video is also a classic, and I have no doubt it contributed to the popularity of the song. It's got intriguing visuals, a simple plot, and a bit of "how'd they do that?" special effects. I suppose those 3 elements are present in just about every great music video.
My verdict: Like it. It's an era-defining classic. And it lends itself well to stylish remakes by some of my favorite bands.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Song #765: "I'm Too Sexy" by Right Said Fred
Date: Feb 8, 1992
Weeks: 3
This song has always given me a good laugh. I was shocked a while ago when I read someone call this song "unintentionally hilarious." I'm pretty sure with lines like "I'm too sexy for my cat," there's nothing unintentional about it. This is a novelty song. It's a bit of satire. It imagines the world from the point of view of a self-absorbed male model and has a bit of fun with it.
All parts of this song work together to create an enjoyable comedy song. The singer's deep, gravelly voice strains on the verses in a funny way. But he sings the chorus relatively straight, preventing the funny singing from turning annoying.
The dance beat pops and is hard to resist dancing to. The music builds, adding more elements through each verse until it gets to the chorus and all the elements gather and have a little party. I really like the bass line. It shines during the verses when it's left alone with the drums and vocals, but it's the backbone of the whole song. I also really like the guitar interstitial between verses. Apparently it's taken from a Jimi Hendrix song, so there's only so much credit this song deserves for the guitar part. But still, it's employed well.
Should I even get into the lyrics? They're funny. Like the music, they build. First he's too sexy for his shirt, and you're not sure if he's kidding. Then it's fashion cities, a party, his car, his hat, his cat, and his love. Each item he's too sexy for gets gradually more ridiculous. How can you be too sexy for a cat? What does being "too sexy for my love" even mean? And the capstone joke is that he's too sexy for the song, at which point the song abruptly ends. That's funny.
If the lyrics have a weakness, it's the line "you know what I mean?" It's filler. That may not have been the right space for another joke, but something a little less generic there would have been nicer.
My verdict: Like it. It's funny and you can dance to it.
Weeks: 3
This song has always given me a good laugh. I was shocked a while ago when I read someone call this song "unintentionally hilarious." I'm pretty sure with lines like "I'm too sexy for my cat," there's nothing unintentional about it. This is a novelty song. It's a bit of satire. It imagines the world from the point of view of a self-absorbed male model and has a bit of fun with it.
All parts of this song work together to create an enjoyable comedy song. The singer's deep, gravelly voice strains on the verses in a funny way. But he sings the chorus relatively straight, preventing the funny singing from turning annoying.
The dance beat pops and is hard to resist dancing to. The music builds, adding more elements through each verse until it gets to the chorus and all the elements gather and have a little party. I really like the bass line. It shines during the verses when it's left alone with the drums and vocals, but it's the backbone of the whole song. I also really like the guitar interstitial between verses. Apparently it's taken from a Jimi Hendrix song, so there's only so much credit this song deserves for the guitar part. But still, it's employed well.
Should I even get into the lyrics? They're funny. Like the music, they build. First he's too sexy for his shirt, and you're not sure if he's kidding. Then it's fashion cities, a party, his car, his hat, his cat, and his love. Each item he's too sexy for gets gradually more ridiculous. How can you be too sexy for a cat? What does being "too sexy for my love" even mean? And the capstone joke is that he's too sexy for the song, at which point the song abruptly ends. That's funny.
If the lyrics have a weakness, it's the line "you know what I mean?" It's filler. That may not have been the right space for another joke, but something a little less generic there would have been nicer.
My verdict: Like it. It's funny and you can dance to it.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Song #110: "Chapel of Love" by The Dixie Cups
Date: June 6, 1964
Weeks: 3
"Chapel of Love?" Never heard of it. Oh you mean, "Going to the Chapel and we're gonna get married?" Oh yeah, that's a classic. Well, it's a classic in the sense that everyone knows the hook. Certainly anyone who's ever gotten married has had it stuck in their head for at least a little while.
It's a good thing this song carved out that niche for itself because otherwise it would be completely forgotten. The lyrics don't have much else to say, other than describing a pretty day for a wedding. I suppose that focus is a good thing, but I feel like there are more things that could be said about a pretty wedding day.
The Dixie Cups don't even sing it that well. They are not the Ronettes, nor the Supremes. Their performance is very basic and bland. Full credit to them for continuing to perform together, though. I'm impressed that any music group can last close to 50 years.
There's not a lot interesting happening in the music, either. Basic drums, basic bass, and a sprinkle of horns and xylophone for flavor. It's slow and plodding, yet not nearly slow enough that anyone could march up the aisle to it.
My verdict: Don't like it. It'll get in the head of anyone who is about to get married, but then you'll never think about it again.
Weeks: 3
"Chapel of Love?" Never heard of it. Oh you mean, "Going to the Chapel and we're gonna get married?" Oh yeah, that's a classic. Well, it's a classic in the sense that everyone knows the hook. Certainly anyone who's ever gotten married has had it stuck in their head for at least a little while.
It's a good thing this song carved out that niche for itself because otherwise it would be completely forgotten. The lyrics don't have much else to say, other than describing a pretty day for a wedding. I suppose that focus is a good thing, but I feel like there are more things that could be said about a pretty wedding day.
The Dixie Cups don't even sing it that well. They are not the Ronettes, nor the Supremes. Their performance is very basic and bland. Full credit to them for continuing to perform together, though. I'm impressed that any music group can last close to 50 years.
There's not a lot interesting happening in the music, either. Basic drums, basic bass, and a sprinkle of horns and xylophone for flavor. It's slow and plodding, yet not nearly slow enough that anyone could march up the aisle to it.
My verdict: Don't like it. It'll get in the head of anyone who is about to get married, but then you'll never think about it again.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Song #864: "Music" by Madonna
Date: Sept 16, 2000
Weeks: 4
How is that just like with Whitney Houston, my randomizer has me reviewing Madonna's last No. 1 hit first? It's really unfair to both of them to start this late in their careers, when perhaps the main thing putting these songs on the top of the charts is a strong dose of goodwill from the American public, rather than any actual quality.
I don't know what it was with Madonna in this era, but she seemed determined that what she wanted to do was make dance club hits. "Music" really strains under that effort. It feels overproduced, trying to hit every dance music trope of the time, and each one that comes up makes the song that much less fun to dance to. It feels heavy and dark, filled with squeally synthesizers that test the limit of your tolerance for squeally synthesizers. Compare this to her 1998 song "Ray of Light" or her 1999 cover of "American Pie." Those songs are both more natural and more fun to dance to, and come from roughly the same period in her career.
This song did kind of predict the shift in pop music to almost entirely dance club music in the late 2000s and early 2010s. I suppose Madonna deserves credit for being ahead of her time, not that it's been a change for the better.
It seems silly to even notice the lyrics in a song like this, but there was one that bugged me. "Music makes the people come together," is a decent enough sentiment. It puts the image in my head of people from all walks of life dancing and happy on the dance floor. And that's good, it seems like that's the point the (very few) lyrics are trying to make.
But then, "Music mix the bourgeoisie and the rebels." Way to undermine the previous line by elaborating too much. First of all, "bourgeoisie" is way too smart a word for a dance club song. That could be a clever way to write a dance song, full of political commentary, which is something Madonna, of all people, could totally do. But that's not what she did here. Putting that aside, how exactly does music mix the bourgeoisie with the rebels? Aren't these generally two groups of people who like radically different types of music? Rebels generally listen to music that is trying to be different, or stop listening to a particular type of music if it starts to gain the sort of mainstream appeal that leads to to being heard by anybody who might be called bourgeoisie. And this applies at all levels of the word "rebel", from the French Revolution to kids at the mall.
I intentionally didn't embed the music video because it does that thing I hate where people in the music video turn down the music and talk over it. And one of those people is a pre-Borat Sacha Baren Cohen. But I suppose it's interesting enough to partially account for the song's popularity. If you're interested, here it is.
My verdict: Don't like it. It feels like Madonna trying to match a popular sound that isn't her own, and it's kind of unpleasant as a result.
Weeks: 4
How is that just like with Whitney Houston, my randomizer has me reviewing Madonna's last No. 1 hit first? It's really unfair to both of them to start this late in their careers, when perhaps the main thing putting these songs on the top of the charts is a strong dose of goodwill from the American public, rather than any actual quality.
I don't know what it was with Madonna in this era, but she seemed determined that what she wanted to do was make dance club hits. "Music" really strains under that effort. It feels overproduced, trying to hit every dance music trope of the time, and each one that comes up makes the song that much less fun to dance to. It feels heavy and dark, filled with squeally synthesizers that test the limit of your tolerance for squeally synthesizers. Compare this to her 1998 song "Ray of Light" or her 1999 cover of "American Pie." Those songs are both more natural and more fun to dance to, and come from roughly the same period in her career.
This song did kind of predict the shift in pop music to almost entirely dance club music in the late 2000s and early 2010s. I suppose Madonna deserves credit for being ahead of her time, not that it's been a change for the better.
It seems silly to even notice the lyrics in a song like this, but there was one that bugged me. "Music makes the people come together," is a decent enough sentiment. It puts the image in my head of people from all walks of life dancing and happy on the dance floor. And that's good, it seems like that's the point the (very few) lyrics are trying to make.
But then, "Music mix the bourgeoisie and the rebels." Way to undermine the previous line by elaborating too much. First of all, "bourgeoisie" is way too smart a word for a dance club song. That could be a clever way to write a dance song, full of political commentary, which is something Madonna, of all people, could totally do. But that's not what she did here. Putting that aside, how exactly does music mix the bourgeoisie with the rebels? Aren't these generally two groups of people who like radically different types of music? Rebels generally listen to music that is trying to be different, or stop listening to a particular type of music if it starts to gain the sort of mainstream appeal that leads to to being heard by anybody who might be called bourgeoisie. And this applies at all levels of the word "rebel", from the French Revolution to kids at the mall.
I intentionally didn't embed the music video because it does that thing I hate where people in the music video turn down the music and talk over it. And one of those people is a pre-Borat Sacha Baren Cohen. But I suppose it's interesting enough to partially account for the song's popularity. If you're interested, here it is.
My verdict: Don't like it. It feels like Madonna trying to match a popular sound that isn't her own, and it's kind of unpleasant as a result.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Song #465: "Hot Stuff" by Donna Summer
Date: June 2, 1979
Weeks: 3
Weeks: 3
This one's tough to evaluate on its own merits. It has carved out a very particular niche context that is hard to separate it from. Wikipedia cites a representative example: "'Hot Stuff" is the background song in Episode 31 of Sex and the City in which Carrie Bradshaw is a guest celebrity judge on Staten Island for the New York City Fire Department's 'Calendar Contest'." That's exactly the image that pops into my head when I hear this song. But I'll try to ignore that and focus on the song itself.
Is this disco? I'm not even sure. It's certainly a dance song from the disco era, but its disco sounds are relatively muted, and it employs heavier drums than most disco songs I've heard. There's even a prominently featured rock guitar, which gets a lengthy solo during the bridge. The guitar is really pretty good. I enjoy the solo.
The song's lyrics are straightforward and consistent. Donna Summer is looking for loving and she's calling everybody she knows until she gets some. I don't know that the sentiment is all that interesting or relatable for me, but full credit for a consistent message and lyrics that all apply to the point the song is trying to make.
The lyrics "hot stuff" start to wear out their welcome, though. It's not necessarily a problem within the chorus, where the repetition is used effectively, but when the background singers get involved it starts to get tired. The part just after the guitar solo where the background singers sing "hot, hot, hot, hot, stuu-uff, hot, hot, hot" is intolerable both lyrically and musically. There's repetition for emphasis, and then there's having no other ideas what to do in the bridge. And the pitch bending they do on "stuff" is trying to be interesting, but just sounds flat and out of place.
Ultimately, the repetition is the thing that hurts the song most. It's not so bad if you listen to the song just once. But as part of my review process I listen to every song several times, and I'm really dreading my next listen because I find myself getting tired of the repetitive chorus. There are some attempts to inject variety around the phrase, but they mostly fall flat because all I hear is "blah blah Hot Stuff blah blah blah. blah blah Hot Stuff blah blah blah."
My verdict: Don't like it. It's a fine enough song to listen to once, but pop songs need to be fun to listen to multiple times. I don't think this one passes that test.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Song #467: "Ring My Bell" by Anita Ward
Date: June 30, 1979
Weeks: 2
Doing these reviews has certainly challenged many of my musical prejudices. One of the biggest was that disco was bad. However, I've heard a few disco songs now that I actually kind of like. It's not a universally bad genre.
But then I run across the songs that remind me why I have that prejudice in the first place. This is one of those.
The worst part of the song is the music and the choice of instruments. There's that weird space-age "pew" sound that overwhelms everything at the start. There's the overactive background singers, who manage to interfere with any sense that the song will tell a personal story. And there's the fact that a song called "Ring My Bell" uses a really weak and wimpy bell sound. I think it's actually a xylophone.
The lyrics are stupid. Not that there are many of them. Most of the song is just "You can ring my bell" over and over and over again. And I don't even get what that's supposed to mean. The most obvious interpretation is that the singer is inviting somebody to ring her doorbell so they can get together for some loving. Sounds like a booty call song. But the rest of the lyrics make it sound like they live together. "I'm glad you're home." Not "here," but "home." "Lay back and relax while I put away the dishes." Sure, put off the romantic mood until a household chore is done. That doesn't sound like a booty call, it sounds like a couple who lives together and knows the chores need to get done. So what is the bell that's being rung? Maybe it's a euphemism, but I don't get the etymology of it. Here is where the song needs to explain it, at least via metaphor.
And on top of all that, Anita Ward isn't even a very strong singer. Hearing her sing "Ring my bee-eee-eel" grates on my ears, and it's over and over and over again in this song. It goes on and on long after it's run out of ideas, none of which were any good in the first place.
My verdict: Don't like it. Exhibit A in the case against disco.
Weeks: 2
Doing these reviews has certainly challenged many of my musical prejudices. One of the biggest was that disco was bad. However, I've heard a few disco songs now that I actually kind of like. It's not a universally bad genre.
But then I run across the songs that remind me why I have that prejudice in the first place. This is one of those.
The worst part of the song is the music and the choice of instruments. There's that weird space-age "pew" sound that overwhelms everything at the start. There's the overactive background singers, who manage to interfere with any sense that the song will tell a personal story. And there's the fact that a song called "Ring My Bell" uses a really weak and wimpy bell sound. I think it's actually a xylophone.
The lyrics are stupid. Not that there are many of them. Most of the song is just "You can ring my bell" over and over and over again. And I don't even get what that's supposed to mean. The most obvious interpretation is that the singer is inviting somebody to ring her doorbell so they can get together for some loving. Sounds like a booty call song. But the rest of the lyrics make it sound like they live together. "I'm glad you're home." Not "here," but "home." "Lay back and relax while I put away the dishes." Sure, put off the romantic mood until a household chore is done. That doesn't sound like a booty call, it sounds like a couple who lives together and knows the chores need to get done. So what is the bell that's being rung? Maybe it's a euphemism, but I don't get the etymology of it. Here is where the song needs to explain it, at least via metaphor.
And on top of all that, Anita Ward isn't even a very strong singer. Hearing her sing "Ring my bee-eee-eel" grates on my ears, and it's over and over and over again in this song. It goes on and on long after it's run out of ideas, none of which were any good in the first place.
My verdict: Don't like it. Exhibit A in the case against disco.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Song #155: "These Boots Are Made For Walkin'" by Nancy Sinatra
Date: Feb 26, 1966
Weeks: 1
I was just thinking yesterday about how difficult it can be to review newer pop songs that haven't had the time for pop culture to decide whether or not they will be eternally remembered or completely forgotten. The other side of that coin is a song like this, which is almost better known for its title than the song itself.
It's a feminist anthem, of course, all about having the strength to move on from a bad relationship. It's not the least bit subtle about it, which is exactly what makes it awesome.
While the chorus is an established part of pop culture history, the rest of the song is excellent as well. I'm particularly impressed by the cleverly ungrammatical lyrics. "You keep lyin' when you oughta be truthin'" is my particular favorite example. So many songs try to cheat grammar for the sake of rhyme or rhythm, but few pull it off this successfully. These are some clever lyrics.
The music is also excellent. It's fairly simple guitar and tambourine stuff, but it's representative of a certain sound of the 60s. There's a brass section that comes in and only enhances the song when it arrives. And that descending chromatic scale guitar opening is just plain fun. And it all matches Nancy Sinatra's voice quite well.
It kind of falls apart at the end, though. "Are you ready boots? Start walkin'!" is kind of a stupid line, and then the song doesn't really end, it's just fades out. The song's only two and a half minutes long. If they had continued on into a quick little instrumental bridge and given the chorus a final run-through, I think the song would be that much better.
My verdict: Like it. I didn't expect to like it so much, but I didn't realize how strong the song's verses were, or how much fun that guitar was.
Weeks: 1
I was just thinking yesterday about how difficult it can be to review newer pop songs that haven't had the time for pop culture to decide whether or not they will be eternally remembered or completely forgotten. The other side of that coin is a song like this, which is almost better known for its title than the song itself.
It's a feminist anthem, of course, all about having the strength to move on from a bad relationship. It's not the least bit subtle about it, which is exactly what makes it awesome.
While the chorus is an established part of pop culture history, the rest of the song is excellent as well. I'm particularly impressed by the cleverly ungrammatical lyrics. "You keep lyin' when you oughta be truthin'" is my particular favorite example. So many songs try to cheat grammar for the sake of rhyme or rhythm, but few pull it off this successfully. These are some clever lyrics.
The music is also excellent. It's fairly simple guitar and tambourine stuff, but it's representative of a certain sound of the 60s. There's a brass section that comes in and only enhances the song when it arrives. And that descending chromatic scale guitar opening is just plain fun. And it all matches Nancy Sinatra's voice quite well.
It kind of falls apart at the end, though. "Are you ready boots? Start walkin'!" is kind of a stupid line, and then the song doesn't really end, it's just fades out. The song's only two and a half minutes long. If they had continued on into a quick little instrumental bridge and given the chorus a final run-through, I think the song would be that much better.
My verdict: Like it. I didn't expect to like it so much, but I didn't realize how strong the song's verses were, or how much fun that guitar was.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Song #978: "Whatcha Say" by Jason Derulo
Date: Nov 14, 2009
Weeks: 1
Oh come on. You can't do that!
You can't take a song sample that has been used as a joke by a fairly well-known Saturday Night Live sketch and subsequent Internet send-ups, turn it around, and try to build a serious song around it. It's not like this is based on a different part of the source song ("Hide and Seek" by Imogen Heap) and this is all some coincidence. It's the exact same part of the song. So Jason Derulo seems to be trying to leverage that popularity for his own benefit. It's like trying to create a serious song with the lyrics of a knock-knock joke.
So, okay, it's a bad idea, but that doesn't mean it can't overcome that problem and still work, right?
The first thing Jason Derulo sings is "Jason Derulo." Oh boy. As far as I can tell, that's him trying to head off the inevitable question you always hear, "who sings this song?" It doesn't even have any context within the song. It's like an auditory watermark.
The rest of the lyrics are pretty despicable. It's about a guy who got caught cheating on his girlfriend. And I can't help noticing that he's not quite apologizing. "I was caught up in her lust when I don't really want no one else." So he avoids apologizing and blames the other woman for causing him to cheat. Classic jerk tactic. "Cause when the roof cave in and truth came out I just didn't know what to do." He's not sorry he cheated. He's just sorry he got caught. This whole song is like the worst apology ever. The only point on the bad apology checklist he missed was somehow blaming his girlfriend for causing him to cheat.
The music isn't bad. The backing track is varied and interesting enough. Derulo seems to sing well enough. There's clear evidence of Auto-Tune on his voice but at least it's not that overly intentionally fakey Auto-Tuned sound.
And I have to say, despite complaining about the sampling choice earlier, this song does use that "Whatcha say" sample in a better way than the original. In "Hide and Seek", it's just the bridge (I think. That song is kind of formless). In this song, it's the chorus, which is really what it deserves to be. It's a decent hook to center a song around. Musically, at least. I don't understand how it links into the lyrics.
My verdict: Don't like it. The lyrics are really insulting and the whole sampling issue is grating. And the music, while not unpleasant, isn't good enough to save it.
Weeks: 1
Oh come on. You can't do that!
You can't take a song sample that has been used as a joke by a fairly well-known Saturday Night Live sketch and subsequent Internet send-ups, turn it around, and try to build a serious song around it. It's not like this is based on a different part of the source song ("Hide and Seek" by Imogen Heap) and this is all some coincidence. It's the exact same part of the song. So Jason Derulo seems to be trying to leverage that popularity for his own benefit. It's like trying to create a serious song with the lyrics of a knock-knock joke.
So, okay, it's a bad idea, but that doesn't mean it can't overcome that problem and still work, right?
The first thing Jason Derulo sings is "Jason Derulo." Oh boy. As far as I can tell, that's him trying to head off the inevitable question you always hear, "who sings this song?" It doesn't even have any context within the song. It's like an auditory watermark.
The rest of the lyrics are pretty despicable. It's about a guy who got caught cheating on his girlfriend. And I can't help noticing that he's not quite apologizing. "I was caught up in her lust when I don't really want no one else." So he avoids apologizing and blames the other woman for causing him to cheat. Classic jerk tactic. "Cause when the roof cave in and truth came out I just didn't know what to do." He's not sorry he cheated. He's just sorry he got caught. This whole song is like the worst apology ever. The only point on the bad apology checklist he missed was somehow blaming his girlfriend for causing him to cheat.
The music isn't bad. The backing track is varied and interesting enough. Derulo seems to sing well enough. There's clear evidence of Auto-Tune on his voice but at least it's not that overly intentionally fakey Auto-Tuned sound.
And I have to say, despite complaining about the sampling choice earlier, this song does use that "Whatcha say" sample in a better way than the original. In "Hide and Seek", it's just the bridge (I think. That song is kind of formless). In this song, it's the chorus, which is really what it deserves to be. It's a decent hook to center a song around. Musically, at least. I don't understand how it links into the lyrics.
My verdict: Don't like it. The lyrics are really insulting and the whole sampling issue is grating. And the music, while not unpleasant, isn't good enough to save it.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Song #311: "Top Of The World" by Carpenters
Date: Dec 1, 1973
Weeks: 2
My randomizer seems to have hit the early 1970s a lot already, and I'm starting to dread it. How can music that is so excessively orchestrated manage to also be so weak and minimal? How does music like this dominate the pop charts in a post-Beatles world?
I understand that some of the point, especially with folk songs, is that it's easy for people to pick up a guitar, sing along, and make a campfire song out of it. And that's all well and good for a campfire song in theory, but it doesn't make for a particularly compelling musical performance here.
On the other hand, Karen Carpenter has a really great and strong voice, and this song does a good job showing it off with some impressive pitch changes from one note to the next. Her voice is doing the most interesting musical thing in the song, and it's really quite good. And yet it's not so complex that you can't try to sing along.
I suppose that's why the music is so minimal. It's trying to stay out of her way.
The lyrics she's singing match the song well, too. "Your love's put me at the top of the world." That's the lyrical content in a nutshell and the rest of the lyrics don't mix the message: I'm in love and that makes me happy. Most pop songs are about exactly that, but few are so direct about it.
My verdict: Like it. Karen Carpenter does enough to make up for the lacking backing music. Also, I have a generally positive association with this song because it's associated with this hilarious gag from Friends.
Weeks: 2
My randomizer seems to have hit the early 1970s a lot already, and I'm starting to dread it. How can music that is so excessively orchestrated manage to also be so weak and minimal? How does music like this dominate the pop charts in a post-Beatles world?
I understand that some of the point, especially with folk songs, is that it's easy for people to pick up a guitar, sing along, and make a campfire song out of it. And that's all well and good for a campfire song in theory, but it doesn't make for a particularly compelling musical performance here.
On the other hand, Karen Carpenter has a really great and strong voice, and this song does a good job showing it off with some impressive pitch changes from one note to the next. Her voice is doing the most interesting musical thing in the song, and it's really quite good. And yet it's not so complex that you can't try to sing along.
I suppose that's why the music is so minimal. It's trying to stay out of her way.
The lyrics she's singing match the song well, too. "Your love's put me at the top of the world." That's the lyrical content in a nutshell and the rest of the lyrics don't mix the message: I'm in love and that makes me happy. Most pop songs are about exactly that, but few are so direct about it.
My verdict: Like it. Karen Carpenter does enough to make up for the lacking backing music. Also, I have a generally positive association with this song because it's associated with this hilarious gag from Friends.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Song #200: "Honey" by Bobby Goldsboro
Date: Apr 13, 1968
Weeks: 5
Now there's a unique angle for a love song: A guy who's in love with a girl he doesn't even like.
"Came runnin' in all excited, slipped and almost hurt herself, and I laughed 'til I cried."
Wow. That's a degree of mean you rarely get in love songs. That's awful. I guess it's not awful if she was okay, but he didn't say "I made sure she was okay, and then I laughed because she did a great comedy pratfall."
"She was always young at heart, kind of dumb and kind of smart, and I loved her so."
!
I can't imagine saying anyone was "kind of dumb and kind of smart" and expecting anyone to think I liked them. How can I like this character if he says the woman he loved was dumb? I can't even...
Wait.
Is Honey a dog?
That would kind of make sense. She was excited and slipped but was fine. Yeah, it's funny when dogs do that. And "kind of dumb and kind of smart" is a perfect description of a lot of dogs. They're dumb, but they're also smart enough to be trained and we love them for it.
Okay, so Honey's a dog. Clever! I follow you now.
Oh, wait. "She wrecked the car and she was sad, and so afraid that I'd be mad."
*sigh*.
No, Honey is a grown woman. And this guy is awful and condescending to the woman he claims to love.
Then I guess Honey dies suddenly when he's not home. Well, all he says is that "the angels came." Thanks for bothering to understand and explain how the woman you say you loved died, dude. That's really deep of you. You must have really appreciated her.
Oh, unless he means that she was literally taken up by angels. I think I saw an episode of The X-Files like that. But somehow I doubt that's what he means. That would make this song a hundred times more interesting, though.
So the lyrics are condescending, awful, and incapable of even telling a proper story. Well done!
The music is bad, too. I've listened to the album version as well as a live performance. The music is barely there. Utterly generic, ignorable, and present merely to give the awful vocals something to be sung to.
My verdict: Don't like it. The song invests everything in the lyrics. And the lyrics are insulting and awful.
Weeks: 5
Now there's a unique angle for a love song: A guy who's in love with a girl he doesn't even like.
"Came runnin' in all excited, slipped and almost hurt herself, and I laughed 'til I cried."
Wow. That's a degree of mean you rarely get in love songs. That's awful. I guess it's not awful if she was okay, but he didn't say "I made sure she was okay, and then I laughed because she did a great comedy pratfall."
"She was always young at heart, kind of dumb and kind of smart, and I loved her so."
!
I can't imagine saying anyone was "kind of dumb and kind of smart" and expecting anyone to think I liked them. How can I like this character if he says the woman he loved was dumb? I can't even...
Wait.
Is Honey a dog?
That would kind of make sense. She was excited and slipped but was fine. Yeah, it's funny when dogs do that. And "kind of dumb and kind of smart" is a perfect description of a lot of dogs. They're dumb, but they're also smart enough to be trained and we love them for it.
Okay, so Honey's a dog. Clever! I follow you now.
Oh, wait. "She wrecked the car and she was sad, and so afraid that I'd be mad."
*sigh*.
No, Honey is a grown woman. And this guy is awful and condescending to the woman he claims to love.
Then I guess Honey dies suddenly when he's not home. Well, all he says is that "the angels came." Thanks for bothering to understand and explain how the woman you say you loved died, dude. That's really deep of you. You must have really appreciated her.
Oh, unless he means that she was literally taken up by angels. I think I saw an episode of The X-Files like that. But somehow I doubt that's what he means. That would make this song a hundred times more interesting, though.
So the lyrics are condescending, awful, and incapable of even telling a proper story. Well done!
The music is bad, too. I've listened to the album version as well as a live performance. The music is barely there. Utterly generic, ignorable, and present merely to give the awful vocals something to be sung to.
My verdict: Don't like it. The song invests everything in the lyrics. And the lyrics are insulting and awful.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Song #595: "Addicted to Love" by Robert Palmer
Date: May 3, 1986
Weeks: 1
Oh good. After "Broken Wings" by Mr. Mister, I was starting to worry that my 80s nostalgia was misplaced. But this song made me remember everything I liked in 80s music.
Unlike "Broken Wings," the guitar parts in this song drive it. They are bold and strong and featured. The drum is driving, but has just enough variety to stay interesting. The synth-keyboards accent the rest of the song properly. Synth-keyboards seem to be a bad match with soft rock songs, but other kinds of rock songs can make them awesome.
Robert Palmer has one of those great gravelly voices that makes anything sound cool. He's emotionally invested in the song and performs it well.
I'm working to adequately describe why this song sounds so great, but one of the great things about good pop music is that when it's good, it just works and you can't necessarily identify all the parts that make it work. I can talk about each element, but the bottom line is that they just click together. It's like alchemy. You turned lead into gold, but darned if you can figure out how you did it and manage to repeat it.
The lyrics are maybe the only weak spot, and they're not even that bad. Like a lot of songs since illicit drugs and rock music met, this song compares being in love to being addicted to drugs. This one in particular tackles withdrawal. "Your heart sweats, your body shakes, another kiss is what it takes."
That's fine, and I think in the 1980s there may not have been as many variations on this theme as there are now, but this song doesn't quite go into a story. Who's addicted to love? Why are they addicted? Who are you to this person, and why do you care? My best guess is that maybe this guy is looking for women who are on the rebound from an ended relationship because he's looking for an easy hookup. I'm basing almost all of this on the line "Another kiss and you'll be mine." If that line means something else, then I'm really not sure what the song's real meaning is.
Regardless, the lyrics in the verses are incidental. Nobody remembers anything but "Might as well face it, you're addicted to love" anyway. They also remember the music video, with the band of identical women. Other than a striking image, I'm not really sure I get what it's supposed to mean. I guess it could mean he's saying all women are the same, but since that interpretation interferes with my ability to enjoy the song, I prefer to just ignore it and enjoy the music.
My verdict: Like it. I haven't heard this song in a while, and I forgot how good it was. Definitely an 80s classic.
Weeks: 1
Oh good. After "Broken Wings" by Mr. Mister, I was starting to worry that my 80s nostalgia was misplaced. But this song made me remember everything I liked in 80s music.
Unlike "Broken Wings," the guitar parts in this song drive it. They are bold and strong and featured. The drum is driving, but has just enough variety to stay interesting. The synth-keyboards accent the rest of the song properly. Synth-keyboards seem to be a bad match with soft rock songs, but other kinds of rock songs can make them awesome.
Robert Palmer has one of those great gravelly voices that makes anything sound cool. He's emotionally invested in the song and performs it well.
I'm working to adequately describe why this song sounds so great, but one of the great things about good pop music is that when it's good, it just works and you can't necessarily identify all the parts that make it work. I can talk about each element, but the bottom line is that they just click together. It's like alchemy. You turned lead into gold, but darned if you can figure out how you did it and manage to repeat it.
The lyrics are maybe the only weak spot, and they're not even that bad. Like a lot of songs since illicit drugs and rock music met, this song compares being in love to being addicted to drugs. This one in particular tackles withdrawal. "Your heart sweats, your body shakes, another kiss is what it takes."
That's fine, and I think in the 1980s there may not have been as many variations on this theme as there are now, but this song doesn't quite go into a story. Who's addicted to love? Why are they addicted? Who are you to this person, and why do you care? My best guess is that maybe this guy is looking for women who are on the rebound from an ended relationship because he's looking for an easy hookup. I'm basing almost all of this on the line "Another kiss and you'll be mine." If that line means something else, then I'm really not sure what the song's real meaning is.
Regardless, the lyrics in the verses are incidental. Nobody remembers anything but "Might as well face it, you're addicted to love" anyway. They also remember the music video, with the band of identical women. Other than a striking image, I'm not really sure I get what it's supposed to mean. I guess it could mean he's saying all women are the same, but since that interpretation interferes with my ability to enjoy the song, I prefer to just ignore it and enjoy the music.
My verdict: Like it. I haven't heard this song in a while, and I forgot how good it was. Definitely an 80s classic.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Song #586: "Broken Wings" by Mr. Mister
Date: Dec 7, 1985
Weeks: 2
I mentioned the other day that I wasn't certain how to describe the soft rock sound of the 70s, but boy oh boy can I tell you all about the soft rock sound of the 80s. This is a great example of the 80s soft rock genre. It's so cheesy.
The male singer screeches, trying to sound passionate but coming off whiny. The guitars are overly restrained and repetitive, pushed to the background and not allowed to break out and become the featured part of the song. Synthesized keyboard accents complement the singing, but don't sound very good. It's kind of amazing how many bands in the 80s were unafraid of featuring that fake keyboard sound.
The lyrics make their general meaning apparent, but are so insufficiently descriptive that it's hard to maintain interest in them. The gist is that the guy is worried his relationship is failing, but he thinks that by singing this song and recommitting to the relationship, he can save it. It's like a pre-breakup song. But you'll note it's not an apology song.
My inner cynic can't help but express the following thought: Was Mr. Mister attempting to profit from people's pain by writing a song specifically for people whose relationship was currently hanging from a thread? Because this isn't one of those songs where the sentiment is still applicable years later, after the relationship has either been repaired or ended. The target window is oddly specific.
I really dislike the lyric "the book of love will open up and let us in." What's the book of love? How do you enter a book, unless you are Gumby? This is an odd metaphor. I'll give them the metaphor about a bird learning to fly after breaking its wings but the book of love metaphor feels like filler.
My verdict: Don't like it. It kind of fails at all levels. It's an example of the 80s soft rock genre, but it also highlights what was wrong with 80s soft rock. I'm sure there will be some good 80s soft rock later, but this sure isn't it.
Weeks: 2
I mentioned the other day that I wasn't certain how to describe the soft rock sound of the 70s, but boy oh boy can I tell you all about the soft rock sound of the 80s. This is a great example of the 80s soft rock genre. It's so cheesy.
The male singer screeches, trying to sound passionate but coming off whiny. The guitars are overly restrained and repetitive, pushed to the background and not allowed to break out and become the featured part of the song. Synthesized keyboard accents complement the singing, but don't sound very good. It's kind of amazing how many bands in the 80s were unafraid of featuring that fake keyboard sound.
The lyrics make their general meaning apparent, but are so insufficiently descriptive that it's hard to maintain interest in them. The gist is that the guy is worried his relationship is failing, but he thinks that by singing this song and recommitting to the relationship, he can save it. It's like a pre-breakup song. But you'll note it's not an apology song.
My inner cynic can't help but express the following thought: Was Mr. Mister attempting to profit from people's pain by writing a song specifically for people whose relationship was currently hanging from a thread? Because this isn't one of those songs where the sentiment is still applicable years later, after the relationship has either been repaired or ended. The target window is oddly specific.
I really dislike the lyric "the book of love will open up and let us in." What's the book of love? How do you enter a book, unless you are Gumby? This is an odd metaphor. I'll give them the metaphor about a bird learning to fly after breaking its wings but the book of love metaphor feels like filler.
My verdict: Don't like it. It kind of fails at all levels. It's an example of the 80s soft rock genre, but it also highlights what was wrong with 80s soft rock. I'm sure there will be some good 80s soft rock later, but this sure isn't it.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Song #56: "Wooden Heart" by Joe Dowell
Date: Aug 28, 1961
Weeks: 1
I... er... what?
Okay, when I talked previously about Connie Francis trying to inject a polka sound into "Everybody's Somebody's Fool" (#30), I expected that to be the closest I would get to polka on the pop charts. Well, that and any songs that get used in a Weird Al Polka song.
I've seen and heard some rather unusual music on the list from the late 50s and early 60s, but an actual polka song? With a verse of German lyrics? How did that become the most popular song in the country? This merits research...
Oh, I see.
Joe Dowell's official website tells the story (and hooray for him for maintaining an official website that explains all this). The song was written for the Elvis Presley movie G.I. Blues, which is set in Germany. Joe Dowell (among others) recorded the song and released it as a single. But Elvis didn't release a single, possibly because he had another song on the charts at the time and his label didn't want to Elvis to compete with himself. So Joe Dowell's version, likely benefiting from the association with Elvis, went to the top of the charts.
This lead me to the question of how multiple artists could just hear a song and then race to record the best version and get it sold. That doesn't seem like something that happens any more. Maybe the answer to has to do with songwriters and record labels exercising stronger control over their songs these days. Perhaps I'll need to do some research and come back with a blog post with my findings. While I'm at it, I ought to analyze the large number of the pop songs that get to number one just because of their association with a popular movie.
Getting to the song itself, it's not great. It's far too polka for my tastes, even featuring a tuba and an accordion. Joe Dowell's site says they used a bass guitar and an organ, but they were trying to emulate the sounds of a tuba and accordion. I don't think that improves it. On top of that, Joe Dowell is a decent singer, but he's not Elvis.
I'm a bit lost in the lyrics. "Please don't break my heart in two. That's not hard to do, 'cause I don't have a wooden heart." Wait, what's not hard to do? Breaking your heart is not hard to do, or not breaking your heart is not hard to do? Is it easy to break your heart or easy to not? And is it easy or hard to break a wooden heart? Wood can be strong like a tree trunk, or weak like a branch. Is a wooden heart made of oak or balsa? Wouldn't a wooden heart be easier to break than a heart made of muscle? The muscle heart would bend but not break, whereas the wooden heart would resist bending initially but then break suddenly. Wood is a brittle material.
The point is, it's a confusing metaphor. The lyrics have me confused, and that's long before we even get to the German lyrics, which are apparently based on a 19th century German folk song.
My verdict: Don't like it. This is a classic case of a song that's pretty good within the context of its movie, but loses all meaning and appeal once separated from that context.
Weeks: 1
I... er... what?
Okay, when I talked previously about Connie Francis trying to inject a polka sound into "Everybody's Somebody's Fool" (#30), I expected that to be the closest I would get to polka on the pop charts. Well, that and any songs that get used in a Weird Al Polka song.
I've seen and heard some rather unusual music on the list from the late 50s and early 60s, but an actual polka song? With a verse of German lyrics? How did that become the most popular song in the country? This merits research...
Oh, I see.
Joe Dowell's official website tells the story (and hooray for him for maintaining an official website that explains all this). The song was written for the Elvis Presley movie G.I. Blues, which is set in Germany. Joe Dowell (among others) recorded the song and released it as a single. But Elvis didn't release a single, possibly because he had another song on the charts at the time and his label didn't want to Elvis to compete with himself. So Joe Dowell's version, likely benefiting from the association with Elvis, went to the top of the charts.
This lead me to the question of how multiple artists could just hear a song and then race to record the best version and get it sold. That doesn't seem like something that happens any more. Maybe the answer to has to do with songwriters and record labels exercising stronger control over their songs these days. Perhaps I'll need to do some research and come back with a blog post with my findings. While I'm at it, I ought to analyze the large number of the pop songs that get to number one just because of their association with a popular movie.
Getting to the song itself, it's not great. It's far too polka for my tastes, even featuring a tuba and an accordion. Joe Dowell's site says they used a bass guitar and an organ, but they were trying to emulate the sounds of a tuba and accordion. I don't think that improves it. On top of that, Joe Dowell is a decent singer, but he's not Elvis.
I'm a bit lost in the lyrics. "Please don't break my heart in two. That's not hard to do, 'cause I don't have a wooden heart." Wait, what's not hard to do? Breaking your heart is not hard to do, or not breaking your heart is not hard to do? Is it easy to break your heart or easy to not? And is it easy or hard to break a wooden heart? Wood can be strong like a tree trunk, or weak like a branch. Is a wooden heart made of oak or balsa? Wouldn't a wooden heart be easier to break than a heart made of muscle? The muscle heart would bend but not break, whereas the wooden heart would resist bending initially but then break suddenly. Wood is a brittle material.
The point is, it's a confusing metaphor. The lyrics have me confused, and that's long before we even get to the German lyrics, which are apparently based on a 19th century German folk song.
My verdict: Don't like it. This is a classic case of a song that's pretty good within the context of its movie, but loses all meaning and appeal once separated from that context.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Song #301: "Touch Me In The Morning" by Diana Ross
Date: Aug 18, 1973
Weeks: 1
I never saw what people liked about Diana Ross. I listened to some of her work from the 80s, and I'd heard some of her recordings with the Supremes. I thought she was okay but I didn't really understand the regard she seemed to be held in by some music fans. Now that I'm hearing some of her solo songs from the 1970s, I'm starting to realize what I was missing. The 1970s were the peak of her vocal talent and this song shows off her range and vocal power. She also manages to make an emotional connection with the listener.
The orchestral music does a great job matching her performance. It begins quietly and lulls you into the impression that this is just a slight song that is little more than backup to a voice performance. But after a bit both the music and the vocals crank up the power and you discover that the chorus of the song is far more compelling than that first verse.
While the music may be well-matched to the vocal performance, I'm not sure it's all that satisfying by any other measure. This song feels dated, and not in a "classic of the era" way, but in more of a "well, it was the 70s, and that's what we thought people liked" way.
Hmm. It occurs to me I need to develop my 1970s music vocabulary. I'm not even sure how to describe the type of sound this music is. The best I can do is 1970s soft rock. I'm not even sure if that's right. It doesn't sound very much like 1980s soft rock.
The lyrics seem to be a request for one last night together before a breakup. So it's sad, wistful, and firmly parked in the Denial phase of the Breakup Song Stages of Grief. The lyrics are also well-written and match the tone of the music well. I won't be nitpicking them.
My verdict: Don't like it. This is a well-made song and I won't think less of anyone who likes it. This is the hardest call I've had to make yet. But I can't get over how dated, yet not classic, the music is and I know Diana Ross will return to praise again.
Weeks: 1
I never saw what people liked about Diana Ross. I listened to some of her work from the 80s, and I'd heard some of her recordings with the Supremes. I thought she was okay but I didn't really understand the regard she seemed to be held in by some music fans. Now that I'm hearing some of her solo songs from the 1970s, I'm starting to realize what I was missing. The 1970s were the peak of her vocal talent and this song shows off her range and vocal power. She also manages to make an emotional connection with the listener.
The orchestral music does a great job matching her performance. It begins quietly and lulls you into the impression that this is just a slight song that is little more than backup to a voice performance. But after a bit both the music and the vocals crank up the power and you discover that the chorus of the song is far more compelling than that first verse.
While the music may be well-matched to the vocal performance, I'm not sure it's all that satisfying by any other measure. This song feels dated, and not in a "classic of the era" way, but in more of a "well, it was the 70s, and that's what we thought people liked" way.
Hmm. It occurs to me I need to develop my 1970s music vocabulary. I'm not even sure how to describe the type of sound this music is. The best I can do is 1970s soft rock. I'm not even sure if that's right. It doesn't sound very much like 1980s soft rock.
The lyrics seem to be a request for one last night together before a breakup. So it's sad, wistful, and firmly parked in the Denial phase of the Breakup Song Stages of Grief. The lyrics are also well-written and match the tone of the music well. I won't be nitpicking them.
My verdict: Don't like it. This is a well-made song and I won't think less of anyone who likes it. This is the hardest call I've had to make yet. But I can't get over how dated, yet not classic, the music is and I know Diana Ross will return to praise again.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Song #961: "I Kissed a Girl" by Katy Perry
Date: July 5, 2008
Weeks: 7
The first time I heard about this song, I assumed it was a cover of Jill Sobule's 90s song of the same name. It's a unique title. I really like Jill Sobule's song. It's a song about the serious issue of exploring sexuality disguised beneath light and fluffy music and vocals. I was curious what had been done with it.
Instead, Katy Perry's song is very different, and quite the opposite. Light and fluffy lyrics describe a scene intended mainly to titillate while the music gets to the serious business of creating thumping bass to dance to.
Not that the song totally lacks serious consideration of the topic, with lyrics like "It felt so wrong, it felt so right" and "my head gets so confused." But that consideration is undermined by lyrics like "I kissed a girl just to try it" and "don't mean I'm in love tonight" and "you're my experimental game."
At risk of harping too much on the comparison between the two songs, I think the difference can be best realized by looking at the different lyrics about the two women's boyfriends. Sobule sings that her boyfriend proposed and says "I'm not giving him an answer yet, I think I can do better." She's not certain about this guy, and by the chorus, it's apparent she's decided she doesn't need him. Perry sings, "I hope my boyfriend don't mind it." She's made up her mind by the chorus that she's sticking with her boyfriend. And then she continues to spend two minutes singing about kissing the girl, just for the sake of getting attention.
I've heard Katy Perry criticized across the Internet for not having much vocal ability. That's clear in this song as you can hear her voice straining in some parts. And I assume Auto-Tune was used to improve her performance. The song deserves credit for using Auto-Tune as intended to correct pitch problems, rather than to create a performance with a fake sound.
I have to say, though, that although she may not be a conventionally talented singer, Perry's vocals fit the song. It's not necessary to sing well to make entertaining pop songs, as long as you can find the right piece of music to match.
And I really enjoy the music. The synthesized thumping bass, synth-guitar, and drum lines are varied and always stay fun. The vocals match the music, particularly when she sings "It felt so wrong, it felt so right, don't mean I'm in love tonight." In that moment, all the sound layers are clicking and they fit together to make a great pop music moment.
My verdict: Like it. This was a tough call because I really wanted to hate it for the lyrics. But the catchy song got stuck in my head and ruined that. Also, it got the annoying lyrics stuck in my head. Anyone know a good mashup or foreign-language translation I can listen to instead?
Weeks: 7
The first time I heard about this song, I assumed it was a cover of Jill Sobule's 90s song of the same name. It's a unique title. I really like Jill Sobule's song. It's a song about the serious issue of exploring sexuality disguised beneath light and fluffy music and vocals. I was curious what had been done with it.
Instead, Katy Perry's song is very different, and quite the opposite. Light and fluffy lyrics describe a scene intended mainly to titillate while the music gets to the serious business of creating thumping bass to dance to.
Not that the song totally lacks serious consideration of the topic, with lyrics like "It felt so wrong, it felt so right" and "my head gets so confused." But that consideration is undermined by lyrics like "I kissed a girl just to try it" and "don't mean I'm in love tonight" and "you're my experimental game."
At risk of harping too much on the comparison between the two songs, I think the difference can be best realized by looking at the different lyrics about the two women's boyfriends. Sobule sings that her boyfriend proposed and says "I'm not giving him an answer yet, I think I can do better." She's not certain about this guy, and by the chorus, it's apparent she's decided she doesn't need him. Perry sings, "I hope my boyfriend don't mind it." She's made up her mind by the chorus that she's sticking with her boyfriend. And then she continues to spend two minutes singing about kissing the girl, just for the sake of getting attention.
I've heard Katy Perry criticized across the Internet for not having much vocal ability. That's clear in this song as you can hear her voice straining in some parts. And I assume Auto-Tune was used to improve her performance. The song deserves credit for using Auto-Tune as intended to correct pitch problems, rather than to create a performance with a fake sound.
I have to say, though, that although she may not be a conventionally talented singer, Perry's vocals fit the song. It's not necessary to sing well to make entertaining pop songs, as long as you can find the right piece of music to match.
And I really enjoy the music. The synthesized thumping bass, synth-guitar, and drum lines are varied and always stay fun. The vocals match the music, particularly when she sings "It felt so wrong, it felt so right, don't mean I'm in love tonight." In that moment, all the sound layers are clicking and they fit together to make a great pop music moment.
My verdict: Like it. This was a tough call because I really wanted to hate it for the lyrics. But the catchy song got stuck in my head and ruined that. Also, it got the annoying lyrics stuck in my head. Anyone know a good mashup or foreign-language translation I can listen to instead?
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Song #920: "Grillz" by Nelly (featuring Paul Wall and Ali & Gipp)
Date: Jan 21, 2006
Weeks: 2
I can easily imagine where grills originated and how they became a fad. Somebody, faced with the embarrassing prospect of getting adult braces, had way too much ego wrapped up in being cool, and way too much disposable income. They figured that if they put some bright decorations on their braces and refused to be embarrassed, they could own it and stay cool. Fellow nerds take note, the ability to own your uncoolness and turn it into a trend is what separates us from the truly cool.
It's easy to imagine how it spiraled from there. People who needed braces wanted the fancy and cool braces. Then people who didn't need braces wanted them anyway, and the trend culminated in this rap song at the top of the charts.
It's one thing to make a pop song that captures and promotes a cultural trend, like a dance or a fashion. But this song's intent is made clear in one particular line: "Call me George Foreman 'cause I'm selling everybody grillz." Yep, the song is upfront about it: it's an ad campaign designed to sell a product. In fact, the rapper of this particular lyric, Paul Wall, apparently owns a fairly significant grill business. This is starting to feel like a local business owner making a TV commercial rap about his products, but with higher production values and better talent.
The backing track to a lot of rap music is usually pretty minimal, but that doesn't mean it can't be entertaining. I'm a sucker for songs that use a good sample for a backing track. My favorite rap song is "O.P.P." by Naughty by Nature, entirely because of their excellent sampling of "ABC" by the Jackson Five (#233). But this song features a repetitive series of synthesizer tones and drum taps. It's not the worst backing track I've ever heard, but it's not very good either.
The vocals aren't bad. Nelly and his guests don't have unpleasant voices, and they generate a pleasant rhythm. The woman singing the chorus, Brandi Williams (who isn't credited as a featured artist despite carrying the chorus), does all right in a role that could easily come off whiny or obnoxious. The singing and rapping is the best part of the song. Any of these people could easily make a decent song if they just focused their efforts on another topic and found better music to back it up.
My verdict: Don't like it. "You see my grandmama hate it." And so do I.
Weeks: 2
I can easily imagine where grills originated and how they became a fad. Somebody, faced with the embarrassing prospect of getting adult braces, had way too much ego wrapped up in being cool, and way too much disposable income. They figured that if they put some bright decorations on their braces and refused to be embarrassed, they could own it and stay cool. Fellow nerds take note, the ability to own your uncoolness and turn it into a trend is what separates us from the truly cool.
It's easy to imagine how it spiraled from there. People who needed braces wanted the fancy and cool braces. Then people who didn't need braces wanted them anyway, and the trend culminated in this rap song at the top of the charts.
It's one thing to make a pop song that captures and promotes a cultural trend, like a dance or a fashion. But this song's intent is made clear in one particular line: "Call me George Foreman 'cause I'm selling everybody grillz." Yep, the song is upfront about it: it's an ad campaign designed to sell a product. In fact, the rapper of this particular lyric, Paul Wall, apparently owns a fairly significant grill business. This is starting to feel like a local business owner making a TV commercial rap about his products, but with higher production values and better talent.
The backing track to a lot of rap music is usually pretty minimal, but that doesn't mean it can't be entertaining. I'm a sucker for songs that use a good sample for a backing track. My favorite rap song is "O.P.P." by Naughty by Nature, entirely because of their excellent sampling of "ABC" by the Jackson Five (#233). But this song features a repetitive series of synthesizer tones and drum taps. It's not the worst backing track I've ever heard, but it's not very good either.
The vocals aren't bad. Nelly and his guests don't have unpleasant voices, and they generate a pleasant rhythm. The woman singing the chorus, Brandi Williams (who isn't credited as a featured artist despite carrying the chorus), does all right in a role that could easily come off whiny or obnoxious. The singing and rapping is the best part of the song. Any of these people could easily make a decent song if they just focused their efforts on another topic and found better music to back it up.
My verdict: Don't like it. "You see my grandmama hate it." And so do I.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Song #84: "Walk Right In" by The Rooftop Singers
Date: Jan 26, 1963
Weeks: 2
As I write this, this song is the centerpiece of a Supercuts ad campaign. It's a pretty sensible choice for a place that wants you to "Walk right in, set right down" and "let your hair hang down." Presumably then they cut that hair, but despite a good fit, the song doesn't actually go that way.
Outside of being a great fit for Supercuts, the lyrics are a bit of nonsense. "Everybody's talkin' 'bout a new way of walkin'." That's fine, I have no objection to nonsense lyrics, but these lyrics get repetitive really quickly.
Repetition is the song's biggest problem. The lyrics repeat. The vocal style is constant and unchanging. And even the guitar parts repeat themselves. There are two guitar sequences, one for the verses, one for the chorus, and the bridge doesn't even add any new variety; it's just a verse without lyrics.
Everything about this song is straight-laced and unvarying, and gets boring really quickly. It feels like the kind of basic and simple song my music teacher used to play in grade school to teach rhythm. And that's fine, but as an adult, I crave something that builds on basic and becomes something more.
So once again I find myself searching the Internet for covers for ideas to express what's missing. But in this case, the answer lies in the past, in a blues jug band version by Gus Cannon and His Jug Stompers, circa 1929. It's a blues-y banjo, harmonica, and jug-bass treat. This version is filled with little touches of variety in both the vocals and the instruments. It even adds what sounds like a kazoo in the bridge just for variety. It's fun and interesting. (Research note: Kazoos had been mass-produced by the 1920s, so that's probably what it is.)
It's natural for blues lyrics music to be repetitive; that's part of the genre. The variety is supposed to come from the musical performance. Mid-20th century folk music tends to involve interesting lyrics that tell a story set to simple and repetitive music, so the singer can strum a simple tune and focus attention on telling a story. You can't combine repetitive blues lyrics with repetitive folk music and expect to produce something interesting.
My verdict: Don't like it. Blues music and 1960s folk music don't seem like a good fit for each other, and this song doesn't convince me otherwise. It feels like it was made to be the Supercuts commercial jingle that it now is.
Weeks: 2
As I write this, this song is the centerpiece of a Supercuts ad campaign. It's a pretty sensible choice for a place that wants you to "Walk right in, set right down" and "let your hair hang down." Presumably then they cut that hair, but despite a good fit, the song doesn't actually go that way.
Outside of being a great fit for Supercuts, the lyrics are a bit of nonsense. "Everybody's talkin' 'bout a new way of walkin'." That's fine, I have no objection to nonsense lyrics, but these lyrics get repetitive really quickly.
Repetition is the song's biggest problem. The lyrics repeat. The vocal style is constant and unchanging. And even the guitar parts repeat themselves. There are two guitar sequences, one for the verses, one for the chorus, and the bridge doesn't even add any new variety; it's just a verse without lyrics.
Everything about this song is straight-laced and unvarying, and gets boring really quickly. It feels like the kind of basic and simple song my music teacher used to play in grade school to teach rhythm. And that's fine, but as an adult, I crave something that builds on basic and becomes something more.
So once again I find myself searching the Internet for covers for ideas to express what's missing. But in this case, the answer lies in the past, in a blues jug band version by Gus Cannon and His Jug Stompers, circa 1929. It's a blues-y banjo, harmonica, and jug-bass treat. This version is filled with little touches of variety in both the vocals and the instruments. It even adds what sounds like a kazoo in the bridge just for variety. It's fun and interesting. (Research note: Kazoos had been mass-produced by the 1920s, so that's probably what it is.)
It's natural for blues lyrics music to be repetitive; that's part of the genre. The variety is supposed to come from the musical performance. Mid-20th century folk music tends to involve interesting lyrics that tell a story set to simple and repetitive music, so the singer can strum a simple tune and focus attention on telling a story. You can't combine repetitive blues lyrics with repetitive folk music and expect to produce something interesting.
My verdict: Don't like it. Blues music and 1960s folk music don't seem like a good fit for each other, and this song doesn't convince me otherwise. It feels like it was made to be the Supercuts commercial jingle that it now is.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Song #324: "TSOP (The Sound of Philadelphia)" by MFSB featuring The Three Degrees
Date: April 20, 1974
Weeks: 2
My first reaction to reading the title "TSOP by MFSB featuring the Three Degrees" was that I was dealing with a rap song from some time around 2008. With that many acronyms and use of the word "featuring", what else could it be? It was a bit of a shock when I realized the song was from 1974.
When I listened to it, even though I'm not a disco fan, I instantly recognized it as a classic of the disco era. Although I've never seen Soul Train, I'm not remotely surprised to discover that this was the theme song for it.
Researching this song also cleared up some confusion for me. I've had this confused with "Love Train" (#291) forever, and I couldn't quite figure out why. Now I realize that it's because of the common "People all over the world" lyric. In "Love Train," it's a significant part of the chorus. In "TSOP," it's almost the entire lyrical content of the song and, I expect, a direct reference to "Love Train." I'm not sure if "TSOP" is intending to mix together multiple songs into one or not as this is the only sound I recognize. Is it a megamix?
Ooh, concept for a new megamix: Train songs. "Soul Train," "Love Train," "Runaway Train" by Soul Asylum, "Midnight Train to Georgia" by Gladys Knight and the Pips (#308), and, let's say "C'mon 'N' Ride It (The Train)" by Quad City DJs. That'll get popular music back on track! (Sorry.)
So there aren't any lyrics to pick on. It all comes down to music.
Disco isn't quite my thing. I knew I'd probably see a lot of it when I started this project, so I promised myself I'd keep an open mind. This song is a pretty good ambassador of the genre. It's catchy. The vocals by the Three Degrees add an important instrument to the song. Strings and saxes are put to good use. There's a great deal of variety throughout the song, yet no part of the song is weak. This is an entertaining composition.
My verdict: Like it. It's putting disco's best foot forward.
Weeks: 2
My first reaction to reading the title "TSOP by MFSB featuring the Three Degrees" was that I was dealing with a rap song from some time around 2008. With that many acronyms and use of the word "featuring", what else could it be? It was a bit of a shock when I realized the song was from 1974.
When I listened to it, even though I'm not a disco fan, I instantly recognized it as a classic of the disco era. Although I've never seen Soul Train, I'm not remotely surprised to discover that this was the theme song for it.
Researching this song also cleared up some confusion for me. I've had this confused with "Love Train" (#291) forever, and I couldn't quite figure out why. Now I realize that it's because of the common "People all over the world" lyric. In "Love Train," it's a significant part of the chorus. In "TSOP," it's almost the entire lyrical content of the song and, I expect, a direct reference to "Love Train." I'm not sure if "TSOP" is intending to mix together multiple songs into one or not as this is the only sound I recognize. Is it a megamix?
Ooh, concept for a new megamix: Train songs. "Soul Train," "Love Train," "Runaway Train" by Soul Asylum, "Midnight Train to Georgia" by Gladys Knight and the Pips (#308), and, let's say "C'mon 'N' Ride It (The Train)" by Quad City DJs. That'll get popular music back on track! (Sorry.)
So there aren't any lyrics to pick on. It all comes down to music.
Disco isn't quite my thing. I knew I'd probably see a lot of it when I started this project, so I promised myself I'd keep an open mind. This song is a pretty good ambassador of the genre. It's catchy. The vocals by the Three Degrees add an important instrument to the song. Strings and saxes are put to good use. There's a great deal of variety throughout the song, yet no part of the song is weak. This is an entertaining composition.
My verdict: Like it. It's putting disco's best foot forward.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Song #7: "To Know Him, Is To Love Him" by The Teddy Bears
Date: Dec 1, 1958
Weeks: 3
Dear singer of "To Know Him, Is To Love Him,"
Hello from the year 2011. I wanted to inquire a bit about your song "To Know Him, Is To Love Him." I need a few points of clarification to better understand the lyrics.
For example, you lead with "Just to see him smile makes my life worthwhile." I'm not sure I understand. Can you clarify why you feel that your life is not otherwise worthwhile? Do you not have a career, an education, a family, or any other personal life goals to accomplish?
Next you say "Why can't he see? How blind can he be?" What happened when you walked up and talked to him directly? I understand that when investigating a romantic prospect, it can pay to be a bit coy and protect yourself. But surely if you find this fellow important enough to write a song about, you can walk up, introduce yourself, and start a conversation with him.
Then you say "Someday he will see that he was meant for me." Can I ask how you determined this to be the case? It sounds like you haven't spent much time with him to get to know him if he can't see that you like him. So how can you be sure you're supposed to be together? You seem so darn sure, and I'm just curious how you can be.
Your music is a bit slow and low-key compared to much of the music I listen to these days. It's not bad, exactly, and it certainly seems to match the general sound of your era. But when I think of the 1950s, I tend to think of songs that are a bit more energetic. "Mr. Sandman," for example. Okay, I admit that most of my perception of the 1950s is defined by Back to the Future. Even so, "Mr. Sandman" is a good song.
Please respond with your answers to these questions. You can leave a letter with Western Union and tell them to deliver it to me in 2011. Like I said, I really like Back to the Future.
Regards.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's an outdated, sexist sentiment. Its only musical value is nostalgic, and there are better sources for nostalgia. Oh, I didn't type that part into the letter, did I?
Weeks: 3
Dear singer of "To Know Him, Is To Love Him,"
Hello from the year 2011. I wanted to inquire a bit about your song "To Know Him, Is To Love Him." I need a few points of clarification to better understand the lyrics.
For example, you lead with "Just to see him smile makes my life worthwhile." I'm not sure I understand. Can you clarify why you feel that your life is not otherwise worthwhile? Do you not have a career, an education, a family, or any other personal life goals to accomplish?
Next you say "Why can't he see? How blind can he be?" What happened when you walked up and talked to him directly? I understand that when investigating a romantic prospect, it can pay to be a bit coy and protect yourself. But surely if you find this fellow important enough to write a song about, you can walk up, introduce yourself, and start a conversation with him.
Then you say "Someday he will see that he was meant for me." Can I ask how you determined this to be the case? It sounds like you haven't spent much time with him to get to know him if he can't see that you like him. So how can you be sure you're supposed to be together? You seem so darn sure, and I'm just curious how you can be.
Your music is a bit slow and low-key compared to much of the music I listen to these days. It's not bad, exactly, and it certainly seems to match the general sound of your era. But when I think of the 1950s, I tend to think of songs that are a bit more energetic. "Mr. Sandman," for example. Okay, I admit that most of my perception of the 1950s is defined by Back to the Future. Even so, "Mr. Sandman" is a good song.
Please respond with your answers to these questions. You can leave a letter with Western Union and tell them to deliver it to me in 2011. Like I said, I really like Back to the Future.
Regards.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's an outdated, sexist sentiment. Its only musical value is nostalgic, and there are better sources for nostalgia. Oh, I didn't type that part into the letter, did I?
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Song #985: "OMG" by Usher (featuring will.i.am)
Date: May 15, 2010
Weeks: 4
The first thing that strikes me about this song is the overproduction. It seems the late 2000s have brought us back to the late 1980s in terms of stacking sound on top of sound until the actual song is hidden beneath layers and layers of unneeded noise. The most obviously unneeded noise here is the crowd shouts of "Whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh!" It's like they're trying to convince me that I'm enjoying the song by overdubbing the sound of other people singing along. It's the musical equivalent of canned laughter. And then there's the abuse of Auto-Tune.
From what I've heard from him, Usher is a fine singer, and that's certainly represented here. His voice is the best part of the song. There's not a lot of Auto-Tune used on his voice, but why is there any? I'm not sure I'll ever understand the notion that that phony Auto-Tune sound is preferable to natural vocals by a good singer. Meanwhile, will.i.am's performance seems to have been created entirely with Auto-Tune, and putting him next to Usher isn't doing the song any favors.
Lyrically... look, I get that singing "Oh my God" over and over on the radio is just potentially controversial enough that you want to avoid it if there's a handy substitute. But that's what "OMG" stands for. If you want to sing "Oh my gosh" instead, I understand that. Heck, it even sounds better. But then the title should really be "Oh My Gosh". I suppose I should just be thankful he's not singing "Oh Em Gee."
The line "Honey got some boobies like wow oh wow" is really terrible. Why was that permissible for a radio edit when "Oh my God" was that? There are better ways to compliment a woman's appearance. There are better ways to compliment a woman's chest, if that what you really feel you need to do.
At its core, this isn't a bad song. The gist of the song, that you saw someone attractive and want to meet them, is universal enough to connect with. Usher sings it well. And I really like the synthesizer as the basis of the music. It modulates and changes enough to stay fresh and interesting throughout the entire song. A lot of music intended as dance music doesn't do that. I actually like what's going on in the song when Usher sings "Oh my gosh, I'm so in love; I found you finally." That's a really good moment.
My verdict: Don't like it. A decent song at its core, but too many silly production choices and weird lyrics hurt it.
Weeks: 4
The first thing that strikes me about this song is the overproduction. It seems the late 2000s have brought us back to the late 1980s in terms of stacking sound on top of sound until the actual song is hidden beneath layers and layers of unneeded noise. The most obviously unneeded noise here is the crowd shouts of "Whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh!" It's like they're trying to convince me that I'm enjoying the song by overdubbing the sound of other people singing along. It's the musical equivalent of canned laughter. And then there's the abuse of Auto-Tune.
From what I've heard from him, Usher is a fine singer, and that's certainly represented here. His voice is the best part of the song. There's not a lot of Auto-Tune used on his voice, but why is there any? I'm not sure I'll ever understand the notion that that phony Auto-Tune sound is preferable to natural vocals by a good singer. Meanwhile, will.i.am's performance seems to have been created entirely with Auto-Tune, and putting him next to Usher isn't doing the song any favors.
Lyrically... look, I get that singing "Oh my God" over and over on the radio is just potentially controversial enough that you want to avoid it if there's a handy substitute. But that's what "OMG" stands for. If you want to sing "Oh my gosh" instead, I understand that. Heck, it even sounds better. But then the title should really be "Oh My Gosh". I suppose I should just be thankful he's not singing "Oh Em Gee."
The line "Honey got some boobies like wow oh wow" is really terrible. Why was that permissible for a radio edit when "Oh my God" was that? There are better ways to compliment a woman's appearance. There are better ways to compliment a woman's chest, if that what you really feel you need to do.
At its core, this isn't a bad song. The gist of the song, that you saw someone attractive and want to meet them, is universal enough to connect with. Usher sings it well. And I really like the synthesizer as the basis of the music. It modulates and changes enough to stay fresh and interesting throughout the entire song. A lot of music intended as dance music doesn't do that. I actually like what's going on in the song when Usher sings "Oh my gosh, I'm so in love; I found you finally." That's a really good moment.
My verdict: Don't like it. A decent song at its core, but too many silly production choices and weird lyrics hurt it.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Song #661: "Together Forever" by Rick Astley
Date: Jun 18, 1988
Weeks: 1
Q: How can you identify a child of the 1980s?
A: Ask them to sing the Rick Roll song. If they start singing "Together Forever" instead of "Never Gonna Give You Up," they are a child of the 1980s.
Now this is a song I remember from when it was popular. I'd have a hard time recalling which of Rick Astley's two big songs was bigger, not least because they sound so much alike that it can be difficult to tell them apart until you get to the chorus. If you only know him as the Rick Roll guy, you may not appreciate how challenging it is for me to separate this song from "Never Gonna Give You Up" (#654).
Rick Astley is a bit odd. It's like he was born 30 years too late. He, his deep voice, his pompadour, his stiff dance moves, and his suit should be back in the 1950s crooning soulful melodies while an acoustic guitar strums and a drummer keeps a simple beat. Instead, he's deep in the over-produced late 80s, where synthesized trills, fake-y drum kits, too much background singing, and a bright and colorful music video just completely overwhelm and obscure whatever actual talent he may have.
As for the song overall, it's not bad. It's got way too much going on, but that kind of overproduction is typical for the era. The sound is pleasant enough if you don't listen too deeply and try to just let the sound wash over you. It's good mall music, which is what the late 80s wanted.
The lyrics are wholesome and generic while simultaneously managing to be overbearing, but doormat-y:
"If they ever get you down, there's always something I can do.
Because I wouldn't ever want to see you frown, I'll always do what's best for you."
If you're ever not happy, I'm going to just keep pestering you until you're happy. Need time? Need space? Occasionally need a break from your perpetual fake smile? Too bad, because if you're ever not happy, I'm going to know it's because I didn't smother you enough. Also, I always know what's best for you, so don't worry your pretty little head about it.
Every time he sings "Together Forever Wichoo," I can't help but laugh. It's rare to hear such obviously fake slang outside a deliberate parody. I mean, half the time it's "Wichoo," and half the time it's "With You." His very British enunciation is flawless in either case. So phony and pandering to the kids of the day.
My verdict: Don't like it. This song is kind of fun as a danceable piece of nostalgia, but outside of that, I'm not sure it has much unironic value.
Weeks: 1
Q: How can you identify a child of the 1980s?
A: Ask them to sing the Rick Roll song. If they start singing "Together Forever" instead of "Never Gonna Give You Up," they are a child of the 1980s.
Now this is a song I remember from when it was popular. I'd have a hard time recalling which of Rick Astley's two big songs was bigger, not least because they sound so much alike that it can be difficult to tell them apart until you get to the chorus. If you only know him as the Rick Roll guy, you may not appreciate how challenging it is for me to separate this song from "Never Gonna Give You Up" (#654).
Rick Astley is a bit odd. It's like he was born 30 years too late. He, his deep voice, his pompadour, his stiff dance moves, and his suit should be back in the 1950s crooning soulful melodies while an acoustic guitar strums and a drummer keeps a simple beat. Instead, he's deep in the over-produced late 80s, where synthesized trills, fake-y drum kits, too much background singing, and a bright and colorful music video just completely overwhelm and obscure whatever actual talent he may have.
As for the song overall, it's not bad. It's got way too much going on, but that kind of overproduction is typical for the era. The sound is pleasant enough if you don't listen too deeply and try to just let the sound wash over you. It's good mall music, which is what the late 80s wanted.
The lyrics are wholesome and generic while simultaneously managing to be overbearing, but doormat-y:
"If they ever get you down, there's always something I can do.
Because I wouldn't ever want to see you frown, I'll always do what's best for you."
If you're ever not happy, I'm going to just keep pestering you until you're happy. Need time? Need space? Occasionally need a break from your perpetual fake smile? Too bad, because if you're ever not happy, I'm going to know it's because I didn't smother you enough. Also, I always know what's best for you, so don't worry your pretty little head about it.
Every time he sings "Together Forever Wichoo," I can't help but laugh. It's rare to hear such obviously fake slang outside a deliberate parody. I mean, half the time it's "Wichoo," and half the time it's "With You." His very British enunciation is flawless in either case. So phony and pandering to the kids of the day.
My verdict: Don't like it. This song is kind of fun as a danceable piece of nostalgia, but outside of that, I'm not sure it has much unironic value.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Song #30: "Everybody's Somebody's Fool" by Connie Francis
Date: June 27, 1960
Weeks: 2
So after I reviewed that Bee Gees song and said breakup songs should be sadder, along comes a poppy and happy and bouncy breakup song. I guess my randomizer enjoys pointing out the contradictions in my tastes in pop music.
The song starts with a cheery organ, and maintains a cheery, danceable beat throughout. It's vaguely country, but there was another sound that I couldn't quite place until I went looking for writing credits and discovered that Connie Francis was deliberately trying to invoke polka. And she succeeds. It's a country polka hit. How many of those do you see on the pop charts? If we can just successfully add a rap break, we'll have created a pop music emulsion. Somebody call DJ Alton Brown.
What sets this song apart from the usual breakup fare is this sentiment expressed in this verse:
I think most breakup songs are centered around one of the five stages of grief. Most go for Anger because that's the phase when a person wants to lash out at their ex by dedicating angry songs to them on the radio. The Bee Gees song "How Can You Mend a Broken Heart" (#258) is aiming for Depression. This song is planted firmly in Denial, hoping that the relationship can be saved, yet being clever enough to say that it probably can't be.
My verdict: Like it. It's not a sentiment you hear in a lot of popular music, and it's a catchy tune. That said, Loretta Lynn did a pure country version that I liked a little bit more.
Weeks: 2
So after I reviewed that Bee Gees song and said breakup songs should be sadder, along comes a poppy and happy and bouncy breakup song. I guess my randomizer enjoys pointing out the contradictions in my tastes in pop music.
The song starts with a cheery organ, and maintains a cheery, danceable beat throughout. It's vaguely country, but there was another sound that I couldn't quite place until I went looking for writing credits and discovered that Connie Francis was deliberately trying to invoke polka. And she succeeds. It's a country polka hit. How many of those do you see on the pop charts? If we can just successfully add a rap break, we'll have created a pop music emulsion. Somebody call DJ Alton Brown.
What sets this song apart from the usual breakup fare is this sentiment expressed in this verse:
- I told myself it's best that I forget you.
Though I'm a fool at least I know the score.
Yet darling I'd be twice as blue without you.
It hurts but I come running back for more.
I think most breakup songs are centered around one of the five stages of grief. Most go for Anger because that's the phase when a person wants to lash out at their ex by dedicating angry songs to them on the radio. The Bee Gees song "How Can You Mend a Broken Heart" (#258) is aiming for Depression. This song is planted firmly in Denial, hoping that the relationship can be saved, yet being clever enough to say that it probably can't be.
My verdict: Like it. It's not a sentiment you hear in a lot of popular music, and it's a catchy tune. That said, Loretta Lynn did a pure country version that I liked a little bit more.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Song #258: "How Can You Mend a Broken Heart" by Bee Gees
Date: Aug 7, 1971
Weeks: 4
Oh, excuse me, there must have been some mistake. I was going to review a song by the Bee Gees. I must have made an error in my search.
Hmm... No, that's the right song. Is it possible I've confused the Bee Gees with another band? I was thinking of the band that was the epitome of disco with songs like "Night Fever" and "Stayin' Alive." Who did those songs, then?
Oh, those are the Bee Gees, too. The same Bee Gees? Is this a case where a creative falling out and a lineup change altered a band's output? Wikipedia, help me out here.
Three brothers, eh? No lineup changes of any kind throughout the 1970s. Well, I guess I've learned something today. No matter how open-minded I try to be, a good surprise can still throw me.
So this unexpectedly strummy folk song is all about the sadness of a broken heart. The lyrics are entirely on-message and sad. "How can you mend this broken man? How can a loser ever win?" And it doesn't even have a hopeful ending. "Please help me mend this broken heart and let me live again." Depressing, but at least they make sense.
The music doesn't quite match the lyrics, although I'm having a hard time figuring out why. At first I thought the music was too happy, but there are plenty of sad string accents throughout. Then I thought the vocals were too cheery, but the singer (Barry Gibb in particular, according to Wikipedia's account of who sang which parts) is definitely injecting a sad vibrato, like he's on the verge of crying. So what is it that doesn't quite work for me?
I think the problem is that the lyrics demand that this be a personal song. The singer is supposed to be lonely. But when there are two distinct singers on the verses and 3-part harmony on the chorus, that loneliness isn't expressed. There are breakup songs that allow for backup singers in the chorus, in an "at least I still have my friends" kind of way, but that kind of song demands lyrics that are a bit more angry than this.
I looked around for some covers to verify this theory, and I think I'm comfortable declaring that the fewer performers are involved, the more successful the song is. This cover by Diana Krall is the one I found that works the best, and it's because it's the one with the fewest performers. It's basically a piano singer with some light bass and drum contributions. It's successfully the sad song it's supposed to be.
My verdict: Don't like it. It doesn't make the right musical choices to communicate the sentiment it's trying to communicate.
Weeks: 4
Oh, excuse me, there must have been some mistake. I was going to review a song by the Bee Gees. I must have made an error in my search.
Hmm... No, that's the right song. Is it possible I've confused the Bee Gees with another band? I was thinking of the band that was the epitome of disco with songs like "Night Fever" and "Stayin' Alive." Who did those songs, then?
Oh, those are the Bee Gees, too. The same Bee Gees? Is this a case where a creative falling out and a lineup change altered a band's output? Wikipedia, help me out here.
Three brothers, eh? No lineup changes of any kind throughout the 1970s. Well, I guess I've learned something today. No matter how open-minded I try to be, a good surprise can still throw me.
So this unexpectedly strummy folk song is all about the sadness of a broken heart. The lyrics are entirely on-message and sad. "How can you mend this broken man? How can a loser ever win?" And it doesn't even have a hopeful ending. "Please help me mend this broken heart and let me live again." Depressing, but at least they make sense.
The music doesn't quite match the lyrics, although I'm having a hard time figuring out why. At first I thought the music was too happy, but there are plenty of sad string accents throughout. Then I thought the vocals were too cheery, but the singer (Barry Gibb in particular, according to Wikipedia's account of who sang which parts) is definitely injecting a sad vibrato, like he's on the verge of crying. So what is it that doesn't quite work for me?
I think the problem is that the lyrics demand that this be a personal song. The singer is supposed to be lonely. But when there are two distinct singers on the verses and 3-part harmony on the chorus, that loneliness isn't expressed. There are breakup songs that allow for backup singers in the chorus, in an "at least I still have my friends" kind of way, but that kind of song demands lyrics that are a bit more angry than this.
I looked around for some covers to verify this theory, and I think I'm comfortable declaring that the fewer performers are involved, the more successful the song is. This cover by Diana Krall is the one I found that works the best, and it's because it's the one with the fewest performers. It's basically a piano singer with some light bass and drum contributions. It's successfully the sad song it's supposed to be.
My verdict: Don't like it. It doesn't make the right musical choices to communicate the sentiment it's trying to communicate.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Song #803: "Exhale (Shoop Shoop)" by Whitney Houston
Date: Nov 25, 1995
Weeks: 1
My list randomizer apparently started off in a mood for movies. This is the 5th post I've written, and it's already the 3rd song from a movie. And not just "this song was also in a movie once," but songs that have been branded with the "Original Motion Picture Soundtrack" iron. Oh, and of course all 3 are movies that I haven't seen. (Well, actually, I did just watch White Nights, but that's another story). At least this one isn't another Oscar-winner.
The "(Shoop Shoop)" in the title mystifies me. Was that really needed to make the song's identity or artistry clear? It brings unwanted attention to the substantial use of "Shoop" as a lyric in the chorus, which might have passed unnoticed if the title weren't pointing it out to me.
"For every win, someone must fail". Sounds like a slogan for FailBlog. And anyway, I'm pretty sure life doesn't actually work that way. Sometimes a person can win in life without anyone else having to lose.
But the song's lyrics keep returning to the theme of "You'll find your point when you will exhale." Okay, so that has to be a metaphor, obviously, because otherwise that point is every 3 seconds. But what does it mean? What is the point when you exhale? Is it about relaxing? Is it about letting go of frustration I don't need? The song doesn't explain it. Maybe the movie does. Should a movie be required viewing before I can understand a song that was presumably recorded to promote the movie?
Thanks to Urban Dictionary, I got a definition:
I've spent a lot of time on the lyrics because that was bugging me. I feel better now. Let's move on.
The music isn't anything special. Whitney Houston is coasting here. She can do so much more than what this song is asking of her, and she has 10 other number one songs on this list to prove it.
The backing percussion line is an unvarying "Bass drum. Snare. Sleigh bell. Snare. Bass drum. Snare. Sleigh bell. Snare." It starts to grate. Some more varied percussion could have helped.
The bridge does pick up a little bit. It doesn't quite achieve that phenomenon of being a totally different more awesome song, but both the backing string section and Houston seem to be trying a little harder while it lasts. Then I think the song shoots a photon torpedo? Or something? That's an odd way to end a bridge. Then the song "shoops" some more and comes to a close.
My verdict: Don't like it. Whitney Houston is wasted on this.
Weeks: 1
My list randomizer apparently started off in a mood for movies. This is the 5th post I've written, and it's already the 3rd song from a movie. And not just "this song was also in a movie once," but songs that have been branded with the "Original Motion Picture Soundtrack" iron. Oh, and of course all 3 are movies that I haven't seen. (Well, actually, I did just watch White Nights, but that's another story). At least this one isn't another Oscar-winner.
The "(Shoop Shoop)" in the title mystifies me. Was that really needed to make the song's identity or artistry clear? It brings unwanted attention to the substantial use of "Shoop" as a lyric in the chorus, which might have passed unnoticed if the title weren't pointing it out to me.
"For every win, someone must fail". Sounds like a slogan for FailBlog. And anyway, I'm pretty sure life doesn't actually work that way. Sometimes a person can win in life without anyone else having to lose.
But the song's lyrics keep returning to the theme of "You'll find your point when you will exhale." Okay, so that has to be a metaphor, obviously, because otherwise that point is every 3 seconds. But what does it mean? What is the point when you exhale? Is it about relaxing? Is it about letting go of frustration I don't need? The song doesn't explain it. Maybe the movie does. Should a movie be required viewing before I can understand a song that was presumably recorded to promote the movie?
Thanks to Urban Dictionary, I got a definition:
- the point before a woman finds a GOOD prospect of a man...once she has exhaled...he could be a keeper
- "I'm not sure if he's the one, so i'm still waiting to exhale. "
I've spent a lot of time on the lyrics because that was bugging me. I feel better now. Let's move on.
The music isn't anything special. Whitney Houston is coasting here. She can do so much more than what this song is asking of her, and she has 10 other number one songs on this list to prove it.
The backing percussion line is an unvarying "Bass drum. Snare. Sleigh bell. Snare. Bass drum. Snare. Sleigh bell. Snare." It starts to grate. Some more varied percussion could have helped.
The bridge does pick up a little bit. It doesn't quite achieve that phenomenon of being a totally different more awesome song, but both the backing string section and Houston seem to be trying a little harder while it lasts. Then I think the song shoots a photon torpedo? Or something? That's an odd way to end a bridge. Then the song "shoops" some more and comes to a close.
My verdict: Don't like it. Whitney Houston is wasted on this.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Song #139: "Mr. Tambourine Man" by The Byrds
Date: June 26, 1965
Weeks: 1
The Byrds' version of "Mr. Tambourine Man" is kind of a forgotten song.
1) The culture at large seems to remember "Mr. Tambourine Man" as a Bob Dylan song. A YouTube search for the title lists a ton of amateurs showing off their own covers, and they uniformly identify Bob Dylan as the originator. And that's fair; he did write it.
My verdict: Like it. The Byrds perform a piece of music solid enough to overcome silly lyrics and competing performances by more famous people.
Weeks: 1
The Byrds' version of "Mr. Tambourine Man" is kind of a forgotten song.
1) The culture at large seems to remember "Mr. Tambourine Man" as a Bob Dylan song. A YouTube search for the title lists a ton of amateurs showing off their own covers, and they uniformly identify Bob Dylan as the originator. And that's fair; he did write it.
2) William Shatner's version of this song is an infamous goofy spectacle.
3) It's not even the song the Byrds are best remembered for. That would be "Turn! Turn! Turn!" (#149). The opening chords of "Turn! Turn! Turn!" are practically movie shorthand for "This is the 1960s."
With all respect to Mr. Dylan, the lyrics are nonsense. "Waiting only for my boot heels to be wanderin’." You're waiting for your own feet to start walking? Don't you control that? I guess not if your brain is drug-addled, as much speculation seems to suggest with regard to this song's lyrics. Drugs or not, the meaning is poorly conveyed.
Nonsense lyrics aren't a problem for me. I've always thought that if pop music is catchy, it's okay if the lyrics are indecipherable. Fortunately, the Byrds make the music catchy. Unlike Dylan and Shatner, they field a full 1960s rock band, with 3 guitars, drums, and, yes, a tambourine. The result is a nicely full sound. The bass line is particularly compelling. The video I've chosen to link is a performance that has a lot of energy and is the most fun version I can find, but I've also been listening to a crisp remastered version of what I presume is the recording that was on the charts.
It's too bad those first 3 points I made have caused this song to be forgotten. It's really very enjoyable.
My verdict: Like it. The Byrds perform a piece of music solid enough to overcome silly lyrics and competing performances by more famous people.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Song #509: "Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do)" by Christopher Cross
Date: Oct 17, 1981
Weeks: 3
Weeks: 3
Oh, this is where the pop culture phrase "caught between the Moon and New York City" comes from? I didn't know. Seems like the song should have been titled that. The title "Arthur's Theme" tells me this is from the 1981 movie Arthur, and "Best That You Can Do" tells me nothing. What a terribly generic subtitle that is. So this song winds up as "that song from that movie". But the phrase "Caught Between the Moon and New York City" is so ridiculous, even if you've never heard it before you would guess it was a song. It would stand out.
I can't say that I've heard this song before. Maybe I have, but it never penetrated into the part of my brain that remembers things. It's really soft and unobtrusive, and the instrumentation is thin. I've noticed that for a time in the late 70s and very early 80s, there were several songs in this thin style, using plenty of instruments but not making a lot of sound with them. Billy Joel used this style to great effect on parts of songs like Movin' Out and "It's Still Rock and Roll to Me". But when the whole song stays thin, it doesn't really capture your attention.
I didn't expect to like this song. It's soft, it's slow, its sound is thin, it's from a movie I've never seen, and I haven't heard anyone exclaim the greatness of Christopher Cross as a singer. Also, it won the Oscar for Best Song over "The First Time It Happens" from The Great Muppet Caper, and Dudley Moore should never beat Miss Piggy at anything.
Despite all that, I kind of like it.
I don't know why. Maybe it's the nice sentiment expressed by the lyrics. Maybe it's just a pleasant sound with a classic pop song structure. Maybe I'm a sucker for a song that knows how to use a sax well, I don't know. Ultimately, it's just plain nice.
I do wonder if the performance could be better, though. Christopher Cross's voice strains sometimes, and while that early 80s thin sound isn't bad, I'm not sure it's the right fit for this song.
Now, usually I'll be the first to go looking for the punk rock remake (there's a punk rock remake of everything, especially in the YouTube era. See?) . But in this case, I wonder if it would be better to strip it down. Make it thinner. Here's the song played on just a piano, and I think it's actually more poignant and classy stripped down like that.
As for vocals, I think they should have picked a singer with a more impressive range. I could make a list of singers past and present who might have fit the bill, but I'd have a hard time proving any of them could do the song justice unless they had recorded a performance. So here's a performance of the song by Shirley Bassey, who may not be the best, but is an improvement over Christopher Cross.
My Verdict: Like it. Except for the instruments. And the vocals. Otherwise, it's pretty good.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Song #940: "Glamorous" by Fergie (featuring Ludacris)
Date: Mar 24, 2007
Weeks: 2
This is one of those that came along when I wasn't paying much attention to the radio, so this is pretty much the first time I've heard it. It's an odd song for the pop charts, because it's kind of a downer. Not that there aren't sad pop songs, but they tend to aim for catharsis, like a breakup song that makes you feel better after you hear it.
But this one's just so low-key and quiet. It seems to want to be a dance club song, but imagine listening to some loud, bouncy dance hit and then this comes along and slows everything down.
Lyrically, I don't get it. Fergie wants us to know that although she dresses up like a pop star, that isn't who she really is and she still keeps it real. I think. Her only two examples of keeping it real are going to the Taco Bell drive-through and occasionally spending time with her family. The rest of the song is about having money and using it to dress up and act like a pop star. It's confused. Or maybe it's just confused me.
Then Ludacris pops up and raps about how he's got plenty of money to support their elaborate glamorous lifestyle. It's got the same weird dichotomy of how they don't need money, but money sure buys nice things. It also contains these totally unnecessary and unnatural pitch tweaks to his voice. What's the point of that? The section would be vastly improved if they'd just left his voice unaltered.
Then Fergie does that weird thing where she flashes back to dreaming about the day she'd be a famous pop star like she is right now. And it lasts just long enough to tell us that it happened. This is a weirdly Simpsons-esque narrative device (and if I could recall a specific example, I'd be quoting one here)
So it's a lyrically-confusing, low-key song with some really odd production choices. About the best thing I can say about it is that if it were playing in the background at a restaurant, I'd be able to continue my conversation without shouting.
Before I leave it, though, a couple other lyrical oddities. First, "I won't change by the glamorous". What does that mean? "I won't be changed by the glamor"? Or "I won't be changed by the glamorous people"? The grammar left me behind somewhere.
Second, why does she keep saying "flopsy, flopsy"? The lyrics sites I've seen are trying to claim she's saying "flossy" (as if that makes any more sense), but I watched her lips in the music video. It's "flopsy," I'm sure of it. Were Mopsy and Cottontail edited out of the song before it was released?
Finally, G.L.A.M.O. R.O.U.S.es? I don't think they exist.
My Verdict: Don't like it. This one's not for me, but Fergie's voice is pleasant enough in it, so I'll keep an open mind the next time I hear her sing.
Weeks: 2
This is one of those that came along when I wasn't paying much attention to the radio, so this is pretty much the first time I've heard it. It's an odd song for the pop charts, because it's kind of a downer. Not that there aren't sad pop songs, but they tend to aim for catharsis, like a breakup song that makes you feel better after you hear it.
But this one's just so low-key and quiet. It seems to want to be a dance club song, but imagine listening to some loud, bouncy dance hit and then this comes along and slows everything down.
Lyrically, I don't get it. Fergie wants us to know that although she dresses up like a pop star, that isn't who she really is and she still keeps it real. I think. Her only two examples of keeping it real are going to the Taco Bell drive-through and occasionally spending time with her family. The rest of the song is about having money and using it to dress up and act like a pop star. It's confused. Or maybe it's just confused me.
Then Ludacris pops up and raps about how he's got plenty of money to support their elaborate glamorous lifestyle. It's got the same weird dichotomy of how they don't need money, but money sure buys nice things. It also contains these totally unnecessary and unnatural pitch tweaks to his voice. What's the point of that? The section would be vastly improved if they'd just left his voice unaltered.
Then Fergie does that weird thing where she flashes back to dreaming about the day she'd be a famous pop star like she is right now. And it lasts just long enough to tell us that it happened. This is a weirdly Simpsons-esque narrative device (and if I could recall a specific example, I'd be quoting one here)
So it's a lyrically-confusing, low-key song with some really odd production choices. About the best thing I can say about it is that if it were playing in the background at a restaurant, I'd be able to continue my conversation without shouting.
Before I leave it, though, a couple other lyrical oddities. First, "I won't change by the glamorous". What does that mean? "I won't be changed by the glamor"? Or "I won't be changed by the glamorous people"? The grammar left me behind somewhere.
Second, why does she keep saying "flopsy, flopsy"? The lyrics sites I've seen are trying to claim she's saying "flossy" (as if that makes any more sense), but I watched her lips in the music video. It's "flopsy," I'm sure of it. Were Mopsy and Cottontail edited out of the song before it was released?
Finally, G.L.A.M.O. R.O.U.S.es? I don't think they exist.
My Verdict: Don't like it. This one's not for me, but Fergie's voice is pleasant enough in it, so I'll keep an open mind the next time I hear her sing.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Song #587: "Say You, Say Me" by Lionel Richie
Date: Dec 21, 1985
Weeks: 4
I guess my random generator decided to start me off in the deep end of 80s soft synth-cheese. This song makes no apologies for the synthesized sounds. "Boing boing boing", it says, "I sound nothing like an acoustic guitar and it's the 80s so you love it!"
I can't say I've followed Lionel Richie much. He sings okay, but his generally soft style is hard to maintain interest in. And I don't know what he's singing about here. "Say you, say me. Say it together. Naturally." Does Lionel Richie want "you" and "me" to be "together"? Naturally? I guess the gist is that everybody's lonely and looking for a friend, but like a lot of pop songs, you really have to dig through some silly lyrics to glean the meaning.
Then there's a climax of overly poundy 80s drums which leads to... nothing. The bland chorus starts over. Those drums promised a crescendo and failed to deliver. And we nap through verse 2 which just says the same thing. Everybody's lonely and it sucks.
Then the bridge happens, and it suddenly gets awesome. The synth falls away and a rock guitar and drums pick up. The tempo picks up and Lionel gets excited. "The whole world's got you dancin'." I'm not sure about the whole world, but these 20 seconds have me dancing. "Believe in who you are, you are a shining star!" Forget the thing about being lonely, we're all awesome as we are! Woo!
Then the bridge ends, and we're back in slow synth lonesome land. What the heck was that? It's like the song got bored of itself and decided to switch to a different song both by and about people that are way more fun. Fortunately, it ends soon after that, but not before the boring part can sap away all the goodwill the good part generated.
I wish they'd thrown out the rest of the song and just expanded that bridge to 4 minutes. I only vaguely remember hearing this song in the past, and I don't remember that bridge at all. I must have tuned out during the boring parts and completely overlooked the part that actually rocked.
Watching the video, this song must be from a movie based on the all the clips used, but I don't remember this movie, and the only person I recognize is Gregory Hines. I'm going to feel bad about forgetting this piece of 80s pop culture after I look it up...
White Nights, starring Gregory Hines and Mikhail Baryshnikov. I didn't know Baryshnikov made a movie. I don't remember this movie at all. What else...
Oh geez.
This song won the Oscar for Best Song.
Are you crazy, 1985? Most years, I would have let that slide. But 1985 brought us Back to the Future, which contained "The Power of Love" by Huey Lewis (#576 on the Number Ones list). That song was everywhere and it was awesome. At least "The Power of Love" was nominated. But people actually sat down to compare these two songs and somehow concluded that "Say You, Say Me" was better.
Then again, that 20 seconds of bridge was pretty awesome.
My Verdict: Don't like it. 20 good seconds doesn't make up for the rest.
Weeks: 4
I guess my random generator decided to start me off in the deep end of 80s soft synth-cheese. This song makes no apologies for the synthesized sounds. "Boing boing boing", it says, "I sound nothing like an acoustic guitar and it's the 80s so you love it!"
I can't say I've followed Lionel Richie much. He sings okay, but his generally soft style is hard to maintain interest in. And I don't know what he's singing about here. "Say you, say me. Say it together. Naturally." Does Lionel Richie want "you" and "me" to be "together"? Naturally? I guess the gist is that everybody's lonely and looking for a friend, but like a lot of pop songs, you really have to dig through some silly lyrics to glean the meaning.
Then there's a climax of overly poundy 80s drums which leads to... nothing. The bland chorus starts over. Those drums promised a crescendo and failed to deliver. And we nap through verse 2 which just says the same thing. Everybody's lonely and it sucks.
Then the bridge happens, and it suddenly gets awesome. The synth falls away and a rock guitar and drums pick up. The tempo picks up and Lionel gets excited. "The whole world's got you dancin'." I'm not sure about the whole world, but these 20 seconds have me dancing. "Believe in who you are, you are a shining star!" Forget the thing about being lonely, we're all awesome as we are! Woo!
Then the bridge ends, and we're back in slow synth lonesome land. What the heck was that? It's like the song got bored of itself and decided to switch to a different song both by and about people that are way more fun. Fortunately, it ends soon after that, but not before the boring part can sap away all the goodwill the good part generated.
I wish they'd thrown out the rest of the song and just expanded that bridge to 4 minutes. I only vaguely remember hearing this song in the past, and I don't remember that bridge at all. I must have tuned out during the boring parts and completely overlooked the part that actually rocked.
Watching the video, this song must be from a movie based on the all the clips used, but I don't remember this movie, and the only person I recognize is Gregory Hines. I'm going to feel bad about forgetting this piece of 80s pop culture after I look it up...
White Nights, starring Gregory Hines and Mikhail Baryshnikov. I didn't know Baryshnikov made a movie. I don't remember this movie at all. What else...
Oh geez.
This song won the Oscar for Best Song.
Are you crazy, 1985? Most years, I would have let that slide. But 1985 brought us Back to the Future, which contained "The Power of Love" by Huey Lewis (#576 on the Number Ones list). That song was everywhere and it was awesome. At least "The Power of Love" was nominated. But people actually sat down to compare these two songs and somehow concluded that "Say You, Say Me" was better.
Then again, that 20 seconds of bridge was pretty awesome.
My Verdict: Don't like it. 20 good seconds doesn't make up for the rest.
Logistics
So the way I'm planning to do this is to take the Billboard list, use a random sequence generator, and go through the list in random order. I figure this will allow a nice combination of eras to emerge.
I totally reserve the right to break the random order to talk about something randomly interesting, though.
My intention is to do 1 song per day. For 1000 songs, 7 days a week, that should take just under 3 years. We'll see how well I do with that.
I totally reserve the right to break the random order to talk about something randomly interesting, though.
My intention is to do 1 song per day. For 1000 songs, 7 days a week, that should take just under 3 years. We'll see how well I do with that.
Introduction
I've always enjoyed music in the nerdiest possible way.
The weekly Top 40 radio show fascinated me. It mathematically ranked songs, sorted them, tracked their history, tracked the artists' histories, and reported specific statistics that would make sports reporters jealous. And I could root for my favorite artists to climb to the top of these statistics and create legacies.
I remember a period in the early 90s when I listened to Casey Kasem count down the Top 40 every week, hoping this would be the week that Mariah Carey would break the record of the most Number One songs by a single artist (although I'm now fairly certain I've misremembered that statistic). And I remember rooting against some really irritating songs that I hated.
But then my musical interests diverged from what was popular, and the Top 40 lost its fascination for me.
When Billboard announced recently that they had tracked their 1000th Number One song, and presented a full list, I remembered my old interest and looked over the list. And I found an intriguing mix of era-defining classics, timeless gems, songs that time forgot, songs that time should have forgotten, and songs I'd never even heard of before.
So I thought it might be fun to go through the whole list and write some reviews for each song. See what has passed the test of time and what hasn't, what I still enjoy and what I renounce ever enjoying, what annoyed me and what I've gotten over.
The weekly Top 40 radio show fascinated me. It mathematically ranked songs, sorted them, tracked their history, tracked the artists' histories, and reported specific statistics that would make sports reporters jealous. And I could root for my favorite artists to climb to the top of these statistics and create legacies.
I remember a period in the early 90s when I listened to Casey Kasem count down the Top 40 every week, hoping this would be the week that Mariah Carey would break the record of the most Number One songs by a single artist (although I'm now fairly certain I've misremembered that statistic). And I remember rooting against some really irritating songs that I hated.
But then my musical interests diverged from what was popular, and the Top 40 lost its fascination for me.
When Billboard announced recently that they had tracked their 1000th Number One song, and presented a full list, I remembered my old interest and looked over the list. And I found an intriguing mix of era-defining classics, timeless gems, songs that time forgot, songs that time should have forgotten, and songs I'd never even heard of before.
So I thought it might be fun to go through the whole list and write some reviews for each song. See what has passed the test of time and what hasn't, what I still enjoy and what I renounce ever enjoying, what annoyed me and what I've gotten over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)