Song #75: "Breaking Up Is Hard To Do" by Neil Sedaka

Date: Aug 11, 1962
Weeks: 2

This song opens with the catchy and memorably weird hook "Down doobie doo down down, comma comma down doobie doo down down." That hook has probably outlived the rest of the song in popular consciousness. When I listened to it, I initially thought, "Oh, this is that song, I know this song." And then I realized I didn't know anything past that.

Past that part, the song starts out well enough. Sedaka and his backup singers create a pleasant harmony in the first verse. That part of the song is representative of the early 60s era, and I like it. Unfortunately, the song then gives way to the weird chorus. Is it the chorus? It seems to occur less often than the verse, yet it's the only part of the lyrics that repeats. Maybe it's the bridge? I'm not sure. This song seems to defy conventional pop song structure. Not that that's a bad thing, it just makes me work harder to find the right words to describe it.

Anyway, the part that starts "They say that breaking up is hard to do" is the part I want to complain about. It sounds like a completely different song. The tune changes, the instrumentation changes, and the chord progression changes. I don't like the music in that part at all. Truthfully, this section almost single-handedly ruins the song for me.

I say "almost" because I'm also not a fan of the lyrics. I have no objection to the oddly specific "down doobie doo" stuff. I object more to the song's general sentiment. Basically, the guy is begging not to get dumped and the best argument he can seem to make is that breaking up is harder than staying together. Just because staying together is easier doesn't mean it's the best thing for anyone, Neil.

I thought that maybe a good cover version could change the music just enough to make me like the song, if not this performance of it, but I can't find a good one. The Carpenters made one, but other than nicer vocals, it doesn't fix any of the problems. The Partridge Family version adds new problems without fixing anything. Apparently Neil Sedaka himself re-recorded it as a slow lounge song, but that's almost a completely different song.

My verdict: Don't like it. It starts off with a great hook, but doesn't live up to that initial promise.

Song #276: "Lean On Me" by Bill Withers

Date: July 8, 1972
Weeks: 3

This is a classic song that has been covered several times over the years. I remember it was big on the radio again in the late 80s around the time of the release of the film Lean On Me. Or rather, a very 80s cover of it was on the radio. But this version is the original, performed by the songwriter.

Happily, this song eschews the 70s audio habits of its era, and as a result feels classic and timeless. It's basically a piano piece, but it also adds just enough tasteful light drum, bass, strings, and background singers to make it more interesting without ever seeming overdone. The rather simple piano chord scales that dominate the music make the song feel very satisfying.

Bill Withers has a nice voice for this, as well. He's not showing off an incredible vocal talent, but the low-key music does bring his vocals to the front, and his voice is pleasant enough to make the song that much better.

The lyrics are really good. "Lean on me when you're not strong and I'll be your friend...For it won't be long 'til I'm going to need somebody to lean on." Not only is that a great sentiment, but the verbal and conceptual symmetry is poetic. There's a positive message about friendship all throughout. These are some good lyrics. I can see why the song has been covered so many times.

My verdict: Like it. A timeless classic with a positive message. Good stuff.

Song #715: "Love Will Lead You Back" by Taylor Dayne

Date: Apr 7, 1990
Weeks: 1

Here's a song to remind us of the gap between popular music and good music. Not only were there better songs in 1990 that missed being No. 1 because this song was there, but Taylor Dayne has better songs than this that should have made No. 1. Unfortunately, this is her only No. 1 song.

The biggest problem with this song is the late-80s power ballad backing music. It's too soft and gentle and Taylor Dayne's powerful, bold voice completely drowns it out. And she's holding herself back, too. This is a woman whose voice can dominate a full 80s synth song. She can cover a Barry White song and not do half-bad. She's poorly matched to this song.

The song was written by Diane Warren, a songwriter responsible for some of the cheesiest schmaltz songs ever to reach the pop charts. Personally, I know her best for this particular crime against music. I guess Warren's writing explains much of my problem with this song, although maybe with more acoustic instruments and a more gentle singer this song could be okay.

The lyrics are essentially just an expansion of that old expression that if you love something, set it free, and if it comes back to you it was truly meant to be. Expand that idea to 4 minutes and as many words as possible, and you have this song. It's not that creative an idea for a song, although I guess there's nothing in particular wrong with the lyrics.

My verdict: Don't like it. Taylor Dayne should be remembered for better songs than this.

Song #451: "Kiss You All Over" by Exile

Date: Sept 30, 1978
Weeks: 4

This song starts off promisingly enough. The singer's low voice is particularly striking, and it seems to foreshadow a sexy song. Unfortuantely, that voice comes off pretty quickly and he turns out to have a pretty average-range gravelly voice. It's not bad, but his voice at the opening promises a more intriguing song than the one that results.

The music is also initially appealing. The opening contains plenty of bass guitar, drums, and some low piano and synth notes. The remainder of the first verse adds in some guitar and it feels kind of classic and timeless. The verse is spent building the music up to a big musical payoff. By the end of the first verse, I was thinking I liked this song, and I was looking forward to the exciting payoff.

Unfortunately, the payoff is filled with a high-pitched chorus, strings, and all those 70s disco hallmarks I've complained about before. It's the same kind of thing that ruined "Convoy"; an initially appealing song is ruined by layering way too much 70s-specific sound on top of the chorus. This one seems like it might be at home as the romantic song that you dance to at the disco. It feels like it would fit better as the romantic theme to Saturday Night Fever than "If I Can't Have You."

I actually like the lyrics. The lyrics are clearly about a monogamous, long-term relationship that is just as passionate and romantic as any other relationship out there. "When I get home, babe" indicates a couple that lives together. "Every time I'm with you, babe, I can't believe it's true" shows that monogamous familiarity has deepened their affection. The lyrics make this a nice love song for a couple in a committed relationship. Which makes it that much more unfortunate that the music sounds like something that should be playing in a disco club, rather than something a couple might put on their home stereo to create a romantic mood.

My verdict: Don't like it. Appealing lyrics and a promising musical beginning, but it builds up to a chorus that disappoints.

Song #848: "Unpretty" by TLC

Date: Sept 8, 1999
Weeks: 3

This song is basically a pop music version of The Beauty Myth. It's been simplified and poeticized, but the intended message is essentially the same

The lyrics are obviously the most important part of the song. They're intended to educate women, especially the young women listening to pop music, about the dangers of holding themselves up to the impossible beauty standards that are promoted by the media. It also encourages women to reject men who try to push that standard upon them and can't accept them for who they are. The video gets even more explicit about this. While the song may simplify the issue a bit, I have to admire its message overall.

The music is pretty average. It's soft guitar and drum stuff, mostly, with a bit of strings to accent. The music isn't anything spectacular, but it's interesting enough for the duration of the song. It's good enough to keep you listening to catch the lyrics, anyway.

The vocals may be a point of contention. TLC's vocals can be a bit of an acquired taste. They are not the Supremes, they don't have raw harmonic singing talent, and their voices can come across as a bit whiny. Despite that, I've always kind of liked their unique vocal style, and it fits with the music in this case. Often the moment of contention in a TLC song is the rap verse, and your reaction to it will probably predict your opinion of the song overall. But in this case, there is no rap verse, so the issue is happily sidestepped.

My verdict: Like it. I think it's a decent enough song with a good message.

Song #618: "Shake You Down" by Gregory Abbott

Date: Jan 17, 1987
Weeks: 1

This could be the most generic soft song ever.  It's just so gentle and inoffensive and bland. The music is thin, and yet I can hear a harmonica, a guitar, a drum, and plenty of background vocals. But they all get used so sparingly that there's barely anything there.

When the music is this thin, it falls to the singer showing off his talent to save the song. But Gregory Abbott's voice isn't very compelling. It's high-pitched and nasal, especially during the bridge when he has a talky part. The song wants so badly to be sexy, but Abbott can't carry it.

Not that any other singer could pull it off with lyrics like these. First of all, "Shake you down?" Is that sexy slang? I always thought that was what loan sharks did to people who didn't pay. According to Songfacts:

"Shake You Down" is a phrase Abbott came up with that he thought expressed the way a man feels when he sees an attractive woman - "Girl, I want to shake you down." He tried the phrase out on a female friend and when she responded positively, it became the title for a song he was working on.

So it doesn't mean anything, except in the songwriter's head, and he didn't bother to explain it to the rest of us. Thanks, Gregory Abbott.

I've spent way too much time now trying to hammer the rest of the lyrics into some semblance of sense. With lyrics like "I've been watching you from so far across the floor" and "I can't stop thinking of the things we do," the song seems unclear about whether it's a pickup song or a long-term relationship song. My best interpretation is that the relationship he's in is going through a rough patch, and he thinks that they can solve all their problems in the bedroom. And he indicates that she agrees. And now I think I've spent more time thinking about these lyrics than anyone else ever has.

My verdict: Don't like it. The funny thing is I remember that this song was all over the radio at the time, but it never comes up when people are being nostalgic about the 80s. It seems like a song that is best left forgotten.

Song #823: "Together Again" by Janet Jackson

Date: Jan 31, 1998
Weeks: 2

This is a happy, bouncy song about people who have passed away.

I joke, but honestly I have to respect the song's tone. The lyrics are about happy memories of a friend, feeling that friend is still around in some way, and looking forward to seeing that friend again in Heaven some day. A lot of songs about that would be slow and maudlin. But this one remembers that its lyrics are ultimately happy, and the result is a bouncy happy dance song.

Most of the music works really well and contributes to the happy spirit of the song. The one point of contention regarding quality might be the bass line, which makes up most of the non-vocal component of this song. Sometimes it strikes me as simplistic, and other times it seems classic. But I like so much of everything else that's going on, I'm willing to meet the song half way.

Because there's not a lot of music beyond the bass line, a lot of the song is riding on Janet Jackson's voice. And she doesn't disappoint. Her voice is softly musical and perfectly matched to the music here. I'm not sure she was always letting herself sing like this. In the 80s she seemed to be trying to be the female Michael Jackson, but she seems to have gotten better in the 90s once she started carving out her own style.

My verdict: Like it. This is a bouncy, deep, well-performed, and fun tune.

Song #550: "Time After Time" by Cyndi Lauper

Date: June 9, 1984
Weeks: 2

When I reviewed Starship's "Sara," I complained about the song's inability to commit to being the soft rock song it wanted to be. Now, if you want to hear what a soft rock song in the 80s is supposed to be like, listen to "Time After Time."

The drums are clearly drum machines and most of the background music is provided by synth-keyboards, with only a little guitar in the bridge. The drum line is subtle. The artificially perfect sound of the synthesizers makes the song feel pure. And that's all there is to it. Other than some subtle accents, that's all that's going on in this song. There's no hard drum, there's no big guitar solo. This is a soft song that only wants to be a soft song, and it's great for it.

Cyndi Lauper has a really great voice for a song like this, especially during the chorus when she breaks out of the rhythm on the line "I will be waiting." It's genuinely emotional. A lot of singers try that sort of thing, but Cyndi Lauper's voice pulls it off.

The lyrics are well-matched to the music. It's about the emotional connection maintained between people who have split up. My original interpretation was that it was about people who have broken off a relationship but who sometimes still think about each other fondly. But after watching the video and researching a bit I realized it could also be about a runaway child missing their parents. The lyrics are pretty good, and I can't even find anything to nitpick.

My verdict: Like it. Now let's all celebrate with the goofy Romy and Michelle dance.

Song #218: "Honky Tonk Women" by The Rolling Stones

Date: Aug 23, 1969
Weeks: 4

Now here is some classic rock and roll. Guitar-driven rock, percussion, a little sax way in the background, and bold vocals. That's the way rock music should be.

The sound here seems particularly southern, mostly because of the percussion. In addition to drums, it sounds like they're playing pots, pans, and various other found objects, in classic skiffle style. Skiffle, if you don't know (and I didn't until recently) is that type of music where the instruments are found objects such as washboards, jugs, etc. I'm not sure I actually hear a washboard, but one wouldn't be out of place. This is a great sound that invokes the origins of rock and blues, and so the music winds up feeling classic and kind of timeless.

The lyrics are pretty minimal. There are two verses that seem to tell unrelated stories of being set upon by sexually aggressive women. The rest of the song is the chorus "Honky tonk women give me the honkty tonk blues." I guess "honky tonk" is intended as a synonym for "country," given the rest of the context. But "country" didn't fit the meter and isn't as much fun to sing as "honky tonk." Ultimately, it's a bit of a nonsense lyric song. But that's okay, because it's fun anyway.

Mick Jagger's voice is really entertaining. So many other acts on the charts seem to include a lead singer who is over-emoting in a fake way, or underemoting in an unmotivating way. Jagger gets it just right, and the music is much more fun to listen to because of it. He's a classic example of a singer who may not have raw vocal talent, but makes up for it by being fun to listen to.

My verdict: Like it. I've never gotten into the Rolling Stones, but I'm starting to think I need to.

Song #591: "Sara" by Starship

Date: Mar 15, 1986
Weeks: 1

As I review more and more songs, I'm finding every era contains at least one recurring trope that really bugs me. In the 80s, it's the style of drum that gets used here. It's loud, it fills the space between beats with reverb, and it's inappropriately placed in otherwise soft songs. What is it with that drum? Is there a name for it? I always think of it as the "Born in the U.S.A." drum (mostly because of this old Conan O'Brien bit). It works in Springsteen's song, but it doesn't work nearly as well in a softer song like this.

This song's music is so cheesily sincere that it's hard to take it seriously. Soft, gentle keyboards provide most of the music, there's an occasional muted sax, and then there's an electric guitar. Much like the drums, the electric guitar seems like the result of an inability to commit to a gentle soft song, resulting in something that tries to be soft and hard at the same time and fails to successfully be either. This song might work better acoustically. (Yep. Thanks, Youtube cover artists)

The vocals have the same cheesy sincerity problem. Most of it isn't too bad, but the bridge gets pretty painful when they add in the lead singer backing himself up with a squeaky breaking voice. I guess they're trying to make him sound emotional, but the self-backup effect sounds far too fake. This track is simply overproduced.

The lyrics are also pretty goofy. The message is that even when you know a relationship needs to end, you're not necessarily happy about it. But this is communicated in the most overdramatic way possible. "We're fire and ice, the dream won't come true." You mean you're too different to get along? There's poetic license, and then there's a metaphorical fantasy epic.

Then there's "storms are brewing in your eyes." I've never really understood that line, until I finally watched the video a couple times. In the video, the titular Sara leaves the singer, and for some reason he flashes back to when a tornado destroyed his childhood home. It took me a couple views before I caught on to the metaphor of a breakup devastating him the way a tornado devastates a house. It's definitely not a point in the song's favor that you need to see the video to interpret the lyrics of the song.

My verdict: Don't like it. I liked this song when I was younger. I guess I thought it was deep. But I think I've matured too much to see depth in this song, and time has not been kind to the instrumental choices.

Song #658: "Wishing Well" by Terence Trent D'Arby

Date: May 7, 1988
Weeks: 1

Ah, there's that flute tune that has randomly popped into my head ever since this song was originally popular. That's an earworm that will definitely stick with you, long after the rest of the song has faded from memory. And here I am subjecting myself to it over and over again for the sake of the review. That's going to stick with me.

Terence Trent D'Arby's singing style is filled with Michael-Jackson-style interjections of the kind that only Michael Jackson really ever got away with. I can see why other singers in the 80s would try to emulate his style, but where Michael Jackson songs feel classic, most singers emulating his style feel dated. When D'Arby stops showing off his voice and sings straight, his voice is overly gravelly. It's not that bad, and he's clearly a talented singer, but he's overperforming for the rather simple musical accompaniment. It's a bad match.

The music is very simple. The drum beat is laid down early on and doesn't vary. There's some pretty minimal bass and some guitar accents throughout. The music in the verses in particular is very minimal and relies on the vocals to carry it. There's plenty of backup singing, but it's kind of disorganized and random, accenting unusual things at odd times.

Then there's that flute tune. It's basic, simple, repetitive, and inelegant. The entire song is built around it, so it's disappointing that it's not terribly interesting. And it's further disappointing that it gets lodged into your brain, to frustrate you with its catchy simpleness long after the song is over.

As for the lyrics, well... First I was reading some lyrics on a lyric site that claimed the chorus included the line "A wishing well of crocodile cheers." I scoffed. "Surely," I thought, "this lyric site has misheard a lyric that was meant to be 'crocodile tears,' because crocodile tears are a regular feature in metaphors, whereas I've never heard of 'crocodile cheers.'" So I listened closely to the song. Not only does the lyric indeed sound like "crocodile cheers," but it's written to rhyme with "butterfly tears." The distinction between "tears" and "cheers" is quite clear. So it's definitely "crocodile cheers." And yet I'm no closer to understanding what a wishing well of crocodile cheers means.

That should give you a sense of how nonsensical the lyrics are. Overall, the song seems to be a love song, based on lyrics like "I'm falling in love with you." But I'm still not sure I understand the real meaning.

My verdict: Don't like it. It's silly without actually being funny, and the singer isn't well-matched to the music.

Song #16: "Lonely Boy" by Paul Anka

Date: July 13, 1959
Weeks: 4

This song is a mess on every level. Paul Anka's voice is high-pitched and trembling and generally unpleasant. He was 18 years old at the time, but his voice sounds like he's about 14. These days some people will tell you that Justin Bieber is the first teenage pop star whose appeal is based more on looks than on talent, but there seem to be undertalented allegedly-attractive teenage pop stars all the way back here to the beginning of the pop charts, with Paul Anka.

The music is that uptight 50s pop sound that sort of wants to be like rock and roll but isn't. It's bland background music designed to showcase the singer's voice. A better singer could make it work, but Paul Anka can't.

The lyrics are pandering teenage tripe. "Oh, I'm just a sad and lonely teen pop idol, if only I could find a girl who was right for me." Paul Anka isn't selling a single, he's selling a fantasy to teenage girls of getting to date an attractive(?) teen idol. It's classic pandering teenage tripe, but teenage tripe nonetheless.

My verdict: Don't like it. I guess it's good to know that promoting a singer based on looks more than talent or even quality music is as old as the pop charts themselves.

Song# 285: "I Am Woman" by Helen Reddy

Date: Dec 9, 1972
Weeks: 1

This is an often-quoted feminist anthem. Women in 1975 must have been desperate to have an anthem, because this song isn't as good as what they deserved.

The music starts with a basic, dull, country base, then piles some of the worst hallmarks of 70s music on top of it. Too much brass, too many soft strings, too much backup singing. On top of that, Helen Reddy's voice isn't nearly strong enough to sing lyrics like "I am strong, I am invincible, I am woman." The whole song is too soft for its message.

This song needs a bolder and better singer, and a better musical arrangement. On that note, check out this version by Dusty Springfield. That version injects some more rock and has a stronger singer. It still has brass and strings, but they don't dominate the sound, and the song works much better overall for it.

The lyrics are successfully pro-feminism and I'm happy to say there are no unfortunate choices that undermine the song's intended meaning. But I can't help noticing one thing: if you subtracted the word "woman," would you really know this song was about feminism? This is the second verse:

You can bend but never break me, 'Cause it only serves to make me More determined to achieve my final goal. And I come back even stronger Not a novice any longer 'Cause you've deepened the conviction in my soul.

That's an admirable sentiment, but it's not really unique to women, is it? Much of this song could be applied to any oppressed group. That makes the song kind of generic and somewhat undermines its value as a song specifically for women. That point aside, the meaning of the lyrics is unmistakable and the message is quite clear, so at least it succeeds on that front.

My verdict: Don't like it. I'm willing to accept that there was nothing else quite like it in 1972, but I've heard better feminist music than this in the years since then.

Song #88: "He's So Fine" by The Chiffons

Date: Mar 30, 1963
Weeks: 4

This is classic doo-wop style music. Or "doo-lang," according to the backup singers. I suppose it's a representative example of the genre, but it's not one of the better examples.

The biggest problem is the singers, especially the lead. Her pitch doesn't seem to be quite right, leading to some pretty painful examples of singing out of tune, especially in the choruses. When the backup singers switch from "doo-lang" to "Oh yeah" the vocals get especially painful all around. Vocal talent isn't necessarily required for pop music, but this particular sub-genre generally relies on vocal harmonies, and the Chiffons are not as good at harmonizing as their contemporaries, such as the Supremes.

The songwriting is also kind of weak. The lyrics aren't anything special, either positively or negatively. It's typical generic teenage crush stuff. Where it's weak is the meter. The singer has to work hard to make the lyrics fit in the space she's given, especially on the line "But then I really can't shy." It feels rushed and it doesn't fit.

The backing music is probably the best part, but even then it's not really anything special. Bass, light guitar, drums, and so on. This is nothing you haven't heard in other, better doo-wop songs.

This song may be best known as the song that George Harrison supposedly plagiarized "My Sweet Lord" (#247) from. Many people have arranged intriguing comparisons. I have to say I can definitely hear the similarities. It's too bad he was sued over supposedly plagiarizing a pretty weak song.

My verdict: Don't like it. The singing and songwriting are pretty weak and the music isn't sufficiently special to make up for it.

Song #955: "Love In This Club" by Usher featuring Young Jeezy

Date: Mar 15, 2008
Weeks: 3

Usher seems to write a lot of songs about finding love on the floor of a dance club. In addition to "OMG" (#985), he has a song called "DJ Got Us Fallin' In Love." I guess there's a niche for songs like that. People go to dance clubs on dates and want a sexy song to amplify the mood, I suppose.

Even though the chorus is "I wanna make love in this club," Usher manages to keep it mostly metaphorical. Unlike Nelly, he doesn't literally want to get naked and have sex in the middle of the dance floor; he's practicing the art of seduction. At least until the point when he literally says he wants to get naked and have sex in the middle of the dance floor. "Let's both get undressed right here ... Imma give it to you nonstop and I don't care who's watchin'." Sigh. Can I choose to interpret that metaphorically, too? Like he's overcome with sexual energy and wants to have sex on the dance floor, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he will? No, I guess not. It was worth a try.

Even if I successfully persuaded myself that Usher's lyrics were metaphorical, Young Jeezy's rap lyrics would shatter my delusion. "On the couch, on the table, on the bar, or on the floor. You can meet me in the bathroom." It's like a dirty Dr. Seuss book. Young Jeezy demolishes any metaphor that Usher may be attempting to construct.

Usher has a great voice that adds to the sexy atmosphere he's trying to generate. That all works well enough until Young Jeezy comes along and ruins it with his grating and obnoxious voice. Young Jeezy does that thing that I really dislike in rap where he sounds like he's panting for breath after every line. Young Jeezy's voice also contrasts with the otherwise kind of delicate and sexy music and really breaks the mood.

The music is pretty good and is the most successfully sexy part of the song. The dominating synth sound consists of a fairly classic pop music chord progression. The bass beat is good and nicely varied throughout, which helps the song never feel stale. I also really like the bridge, with a descending piano leading into a complete breakdown in everything but the bass beat. I haven't actually heard this song in a dance club, but I've always liked those moments when a dance song gets quiet like that before kind of exploding back into its full energy. That's certainly a good moment in this song.

My verdict: Don't like it. This is a really close one. The music almost forgives all. But I have reservations about the lyrics and Young Jeezy's rap section is really obnoxious.

Song #883: "Ain't It Funny" by Jennifer Lopez featuring Ja Rule

Date: Mar 9, 2002
Weeks: 6

The song leads off with Ja Rule's really unpleasant voice screeching the word "ass" at me. Lovely. His voice is really grating and hard to listen to. Thankfully he only has two rap verses and Jennifer Lopez handles the rest of the song.

The next thing I notice is the backing music, which I really enjoy. It's sampled from another song, but I think this song improves on it by adding more sound layers and variety. This is a pleasantly understated and elegantly simple backing track. I think you could read a phone book to this track and come out with an entertaining song.

I'm not sure how much raw singing talent Jennifer Lopez has, but her voice is well-matched to the music here. The whole song is nicely cool and laid-back and understated, which is part of what makes Ja Rule's loud, grating voice so unpleasant. He just doesn't match the laid-back tone that the rest of the song establishes.

The part at the end about "is that your girlfriend?" is where that switches. Lopez's voice starts to sound like a whiny schoolyard taunt. But when Ja Rule sings during this part, I actually enjoy his voice. That makes me wish he had spent less time rapping and more time singing. Or just that they'd found someone else to do the rapping.

The lyrics are pretty good. Ja Rule's rap lyrics are nonsense, but the rest of the song is about getting one over on the ex who dumped you and the nice feeling you get when you tell them you don't want to take them back. I like that sentiment, and there aren't really any lyrics that stand out as undermining the idea.

My verdict: Like it. Overall I feel the positives (the excellent backing track) outweigh the negatives (Ja Rule's grating voice).

Song #91: "It's My Party" by Lesley Gore

Date: June 1, 1963
Weeks: 2

A certified classic that succeeds at every level.

Oh, I guess I should say more. But it's just going to be an expansion on "A certified classic that succeeds at every level."

I think the best part of this great song is Lesley Gore's voice. It has a memorable quality to it that is perfectly matched to the song's lyrics. She shows off her range in the verses, and then shows off her power in the chorus. Anyone else might make the chorus sound screechy, but Gore pulls it off.

The backing music is uniformly excellent. Guitar and drums keep the rhythm while a brass section provides transitions, and that's all great stuff. The backup singers are perfectly used. They are the main musical accompaniment through most of the song, and they create a great harmony in the chorus that amplifies Gore's vocal power.

The lyrics are good, although how well they work may vary by person. On the one hand, it's a bunch of teenage drama that most people over the age of 20 don't care about. But on the other hand, it's kind of a classic experience. Haven't we all dealt with inflated teenage emotions around teenage relationships? Haven't we all been sad on an occasion when we were expected to be happy, at any age? Lyrics that reflect a universal experience are a crucial part of any great pop song, and I think these lyrics are universal, whether that is specifically or more generally.

My verdict: Like it. Did I mention this is a certified classic that succeeds at every level?

Song #885: "Hot in Herre" by Nelly

Date: June 29, 2002
Weeks: 7

Make that "Hot in Herre [sic]" by Nelly. What's the meaning of that misspelling? Most misspellings are either trying to make a pun or capture how people talk, but this one just seems like a typo. If they wanted that word to sound drawn-out, wouldn't "Heere" be a better choice? And it doesn't even sound drawn out in the song, so it's really quite pointless.

The backing music is enjoyable. Everything happening in the bass line is good stuff, and the little guitar strum accents throughout are well-used. In researching the possible significance of the misspelling of "herre," I stumbled across a claim that this song's backing track is taken from "Bustin' Loose" by Chuck Brown. I definitely hear a rhythmic similarity in the bass. That can't be denied. But I think "Hot in Herre" is adding enough pitch variations to come off feeling sufficiently original.

I'm no expert in judging rap, but I know what I like, and I don't particularly like Nelly's voice. Mostly I think it's a little high-pitched and whiny. His rhythmic sense is good, but his tone is a bit hard to take. He seems to contrast with the music, rather than matching it.

The lyrics are complete nonsense and yet the gist is quite clear: Nelly wants everybody to get naked because he thinks it would be sexy. But it sounds more like he's just sexually harassing every woman in the room. "Take it off like you're home alone." Alone in the middle of the crowded dance club. "I got a friend with a pole in the basement. I'm just kidding like Jason. Unless you're gonna do it." Ah, one of my favorite slimy pickup techniques. Make an outrageous suggestion, then claim you were kidding. But you actually weren't kidding at all. Also, who is Jason, and why is he kidding? That feels like filler.

(Side note: I looked around, and some of the (very sincere) suggestions I read were hilarious. He's referring to a basketball player named Jason Kidd. He's referring to Jason in Friday the 13th (because he intends to murder the girl in the basement?) He's referring to Jason Alexander from Seinfeld (which had ended 4 years before this song hit No. 1). Nope, I'm more convinced than ever that it's just filler.)

Oh, I mentioned the lyrics were nonsense. "Nelly took a trip from the lunar to Neptune." Okay, "lunar" is an adjective. You can't use it as a two-syllable synonym for the moon because it fits your rhythm. Also, you went to Neptune? That might explain why these lyrics are borderline insane.

My verdict: Don't like it. I like the music, but not the lyrics. Thankfully, Weird Al has me covered. Also, while poking around, I found this funny folk-rock cover of the song.

Song #455: "You Don't Bring Me Flowers" by Barbra Streisand and Neil Diamond

Date: Dec 2, 1978
Weeks: 2

Barbara Streisand again, two days in a row? Curse you, Randomizer!

Her voice still bugs me by sounding fakely over-emotional. At least in this song Neil Diamond is around to help offset that. His voice is often-mocked, but I've always liked his unique sound and he acquits himself well here. He sounds genuine. And I like Streisand's voice more than usual. Maybe by trying not to overshadow Diamond, she's reigning herself in just the right amount. They're a good pair for a duet.

The music in this is actually pretty good. Rather than a quickly-dated pop sound, they've gone with something completely orchestral. It sounds like it could come from a musical. When I first listened to it, I thought it must have come from a Broadway musical and tried to figure out which one. That turns out not to have been the case, although Wikipedia says it was originally conceived as a TV theme song. So, partial credit to me then?

Anyway, the music is a piano and string arrangement. Very classic and classy. It would fit in a musical. Maybe not as the big bombastic song that moves the plot forward and sticks in your memory after the show is over, but certainly as an enjoyable early piece that sets up a relationship between two characters. The song is just as big as it would need to be to fill that role in a musical.

The lyrics are sad. It's about a couple that has started taking each other for granted. They don't bring flowers or sing love songs like they used to. It's sad and kind of depressing, but it does end with just a bit of hope, when they both say "You think I could learn how to tell you goodbye." But they can't say goodbye, because they still have affection for each other and neither of them is ready to give up on the relationship yet. I'm glad for that bit a hope. It turns an otherwise depressing song into something kind of sweet.

My verdict: Like it. It doesn't have a traditional pop sound, but I would enjoy this song if it were in the middle of a musical.

Song #493: "Woman In Love" by Barbra Streisand

Date: Oct 25, 1980
Weeks: 3

This song is so soft and so slow that it's an instant candidate for my insomnia playlist. Can't sleep? Pop on some of the softest, slowest, least interesting music you've ever heard and you'll be off to dreamland in no time.

The music is barely there. A slow guitar strums and a minimal drum beat is present, and there are occasional swells from strings. But even though the music is slight, it's not stark. A stark sound, such as a lone piano or an acoustic guitar, can make a song feel intimate and meaningful. But this sound is just full enough to rob it of that intimacy without replacing it with anything engaging. This music drones.

I suppose the music is so low-key to make sure it doesn't interfere with Barbra Streisand's vocals. I feel like Streisand's singing gets mocked a lot for sounding overemotional in a really fake way. Having listened to this song, I'm not going to argue with that perception. The emotion feels forced, like she's trying to show off her voice rather than convey a feeling.

The lyrics are meaningless. I don't understand what is being conveyed here. "I kiss the morning goodbye, but down inside you know, we never know why." What? We never know why you kiss the morning goodbye? At noon the morning ends and we don't intuitively understand how the rotation of the earth makes that happen? You know we don't know something? Did I know that? What does any of this even mean? And that's just a representative sample. Most of the rest of the lyrics have the same problem.

Not that you'll even notice the lyrics after the music puts you to sleep.

My verdict: Don't like it. This one fails on just about every level.

Song #821: "Candle in the Wind (1997)" by Elton John

Date: Oct 11, 1997
Weeks: 14

This is arguably the biggest single of all time. According to what I can find, it's sold more copies than any other single in both the US and the UK. Worldwide and all-time, it's second only to Bing Crosby's "White Christmas." And it's in a 6-way tie to be the second longest-reigning No. 1 hit on the US charts. Put all that together and you have what I think is the biggest single ever. And boy do I ever not get why.

Princess Diana was a nice woman who did good things and died too young. I don't dispute that she deserved a loving tribute song. Neither do I dispute that Elton John's original "Candle in the Wind" was a pretty good song. I liked that one quite a bit.

But something happens when you re-write the lyrics of an existing song to have a different meaning. No matter how serious your intent, it winds up being kind of funny anyway. So today we see parody after parody of people re-writing this same song for new dead celebrities, fictional characters, and so on.

It wouldn't be so bad if Elton John had just tied the new version thematically to the original song by re-using the melody. But he out-and-out reuses half the lyrics, and that's why it feels like a musical mad lib. "Goodbye [Nickname]. You [positive verb], when the rain set in." It detaches the song from its meaning and makes it less special, especially because it makes it seem easy to re-write for anyone. And thus all the parodies.

All that would be fine if this were just a song that was written and performed as a tribute on one occasion, but it was all over the radio and sat at No. 1 for 14 weeks in the US. And went on to be the No. 1 song of the year 1997, and the best-selling single of all time in both the US and UK. I understand that people liked the song, but I don't understand why they liked it so much that it had to be plastered across the radio for months on end.

The music is pretty good. Elton John is a great musician. His voice is sincere and meaningful. The music is a nice little voice-and-piano piece, with very subtle but well-used string and flute accents. Just like the original "Candle in the Wind," and I've always liked the original song. At least the music in this version hasn't changed in a way that diminishes it.

My verdict: Don't like it. I'd rather just listen to the original "Candle in the Wind."

Song #410: "You Don't Have To Be A Star (To Be In My Show)" by Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr.

Date: Jan 8, 1977
Weeks: 1

Ugh, another soft, 70s, disco-sounding, slow love song. This one sounds particularly generic, too. It's filled with all the same string and horn sounds you've heard in every other song of the era, and includes twee little flute accents on top of it. The music doesn't progress very much throughout the song.

The singers have nice enough voices. They're not setting a new standard for impressive vocals, but they're all right.

The lyrics are... Wait a minute... The lyrics are actually really good! In an otherwise forgettable soft 70s love song. Who would have guessed?

The general gist of the lyrics is that the singers love each other for who they are. Not who they think the other person could become, or anything the least bit superficial, but who they are currently. "To me you're worth what you have within." "I don't need no superstar, 'cause I'll accept you as you are." These are two people who love and respect each other without reservation.

It turns out Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. are married. Are still married, and have been for over 40 years. I found this video of them giving tips on how to have a successful marriage. Their central thesis is that people need to make sure they actually like the person they love. That's one of those things that seems obvious but not enough people seem to actually understand. And that exact message comes through in this song.

I've complained before about generic love songs. But this one is universal. That's an important distinction, and one that I hope is obvious because I'm not sure I can explain it.

My verdict: Don't like it. While I'm impressed by the lyrics, that 70s soft disco sound is too much to make me want to listen to it a lot.

Song #906: "Slow Motion" by Juvenile featuring Soulja Slim

Date: Aug 7, 2004
Weeks: 2

(Explicit lyric warning. I won't do that a lot, but I felt this song needed it.)

So you may remember yesterday I reviewed "Cherish" by The Association. I said that because the lyrics revolved around a delicate word, "cherish," the whole song came off as very delicate, and I criticized it for that. Well, here comes a song that shows that going too far the other way isn't a good thing, either.

This song isn't breaking any stereotypes about how awful and disrespectful rap music is in its attitudes toward women. I don't think I even need to quote any lyrics. Even if you only pick up every fifth word, you'll still get the point. The rapper likes the way a woman looks, and describes how she looks and what he wants to do with her in fairly explicit terms. The song is shameless about its treatment of women and doesn't even include a clever turn of phrase to help redeem it.

I know I said "Cherish" was too delicate, but this song is too indelicate. You could have made the same point without being quite so rude, disrespectful, or foul-mouthed, guys.

I'm no great judge of rap talent, but these guys seem to have pleasant enough voices. I've certainly heard worse. If they just had different lyrics, I might appreciate them. Although that grunt they use to introduce the chorus every time ("Uh! I like it like that...") is pretty whiny and obnoxious.

I actually like the backing track they've used. That's a pretty nice guitar sound. It starts to wear thin after four minutes, making me wish there was a bit more variety to the music, but before it got old I kind of liked it.

My verdict: Don't like it. Nothing in this song is good enough to redeem the awful lyrics.

Song #169: "Cherish" by The Association

Date: Sept 24, 1966
Weeks: 3

"Cherish" is a popular song title. The first song I think of when I hear that title is a Madonna song, but there is also a song by Kool & The Gang that I remember. And despite the Madonna song using a similar lyric, "Cherish is the word I use to..." neither of those songs is a remake of this one. It's also worth noting that neither of those songs made it to No. 1.

The song starts out almost aggravatingly soft. It's so delicate and timid. And I suppose that's appropriate for lyrics about unrequited love. "Cherish" is a delicate and soft word, so it only makes sense to write a delicate and soft song around it. The song builds throughout, adding more vocalists, more guitars, and more drums. By the time it gets to the last iteration of the chorus, it's living up to its potential. It's big and bold, and every layer of sound is pleasant, the vocal harmony most of all. That last chorus has a great sound, and I like it quite a bit.

The lyrics are all right, but have you noticed that songs about unrequited love almost always contain that one lyric that hints at a different, not-as-nice version of the story? He wishes he could hold you, he wishes he could tell you how he feels. He loves you so much he doesn't think there exist sufficient words to describe it, and because of that he doesn't think he could express that his love is more special than what any other guy might say.

That's all fine, but then there's this: "You don't know how many times I've wished that I could mold you into someone who could cherish me as much as I cherish you." So... I love you, but only if I can change you. I guess if the only change he wants is to be loved back, it's not so bad, but still. Something about the words "mold you into someone who" triggers my ire. Maybe find someone you don't have to change to be with you, dude.

My verdict: Don't like it. That last chorus is good, and if more of the song were like that, I could like it. But overall it's too soft and the lyrics aren't sufficiently impressive to overcome that.

Song #284: "Papa Was a Rollin' Stone" by The Temptations

Date: Dec 2, 1972
Weeks: 1

The actual single of this song was apparently 7 minutes long. I listened to the whole thing, and I was tired of it before I'd even finished it the first time. So I linked this shorter performance to save time. All they've cut is a 3-minute musical intro that was basically that bass line over and over again.

In fact, the bass line over and over again seems to be the entire basis for this song. It gets old fast, and I can't believe anyone thought extending it to 7 minutes made the song better than the 4-minute version with lyrics. There are some other string, guitar, and horn accents throughout, but they're just jazzing-up the bass line, not contributing any musical ideas.

The lyrics are okay, I guess. The guy learns the father he never knew has died, and starts asking about him. And it turns out his father was a bit of a disreputable scoundrel. Then, like everything else about this song, it goes on well past the time when we've gotten the point.

My verdict: Don't like it. Unlike the song, I won't drag this review out beyond the point where it's interesting.

Song #484: "Another Brick in the Wall (Part II)" by Pink Floyd

Date: March 22, 1980
Weeks: 4

Ah, I remember seeing the music video for the full version of "Another Brick in the Wall" when I was way too young for it. There's some good old-fashioned nightmare fuel right there.

I've never particularly liked this song. Maybe it's due to that traumatic childhood memory, evoking the video every time I hear it. Maybe it's because I generally enjoyed school. Maybe it's because the song has been taken out of context and misappropriated as an anti-education anthem, and I'm not generally a fan of people who are anti-education. Or people who take things out of context, for that matter.

According to what I've read, the writer, Roger Waters, was specifically writing about his own grammar school experience in 1950s England. "He hated his grammar school teachers and felt they were more interested in keeping the kids quiet than teaching them." (SongFacts.com). That's fair. I certainly felt that way sometimes in school. But I don't think the lyrics successfully communicate that feeling. Instead the song makes education synonymous with thought control, and shouts "Teachers,  leave those kids alone." The actual message seems to have been lost during the writing, and it's just anti-school now.

The music is dark 70s guitar rock. It's full of minor chords, and is actually kind of unpleasant to listen to. Obviously that's the artistic intent and I won't fault Pink Floyd for making art. But that doesn't make it good pop music. In fact, this is exactly the kind of song that seems fine within the artistic context of an album, but once it escapes its context it loses a lot of value.

My verdict: Don't like it. Listening to it again now hasn't changed my mind about the points I made above.

Song #442: "If I Can't Have You" by Yvonne Elliman

Date: May 13, 1978
Weeks: 1

It's hard for me to approach this one. I first heard this song covered in the 90s (by Eve's Plum), and I really like how that cover has a throwback 70s sound at its core but fills out the sound with 90s post-grunge guitars. That's probably just my bias toward 90s rock. I'll have to try to overcome that for this review.

So maybe I should start with the lyrics. They're pretty much your typical "I'm in love with someone who doesn't love me back and it's driving me nuts" lyrics. Specifically the line "And it doesn't matter how I cry, my tears of love are a waste of time" is good at indicating the singer is torn up, but aware enough to understand herself. Overall, I suppose the lyrics are decent, but they're not especially noteworthy.

I see the lyrics were actually written by the Bee Gees, for the movie Saturday Night Fever. After the last Bee Gees song I reviewed, I'm starting to think one of those guys really got his heart broken badly. And here I had always associated them with fluffy, happy disco tunes.

Having never seen Saturday Night Fever, I'm left to wonder how this song gets used in that movie. It doesn't seem quite danceable enough to come from a dance scene, but it's also not slow enough to come from a romantic scene. The Internet seems to have failed me here, so I suppose I'm left to wonder. I'm not sure I'm ready to watch all of Saturday Night Fever to find out, but since I know it's well-represented on this list, I may have to before all is done here.

Yvonne Elliman does a good job with the vocals here. She gives the song an authentic pain that I'm not sure the Bee Gees could pull off. She seems to be genuinely talented. I checked around for some other samples of her singing, and my impression of her talent was unchanged. Some of her song choices don't necessarily connect with me, and she's not totally blowing my mind with raw talent, but she sounds like she could be good at a lot of types of music.

So I guess I can't put off the music any more. Like a lot of disco that I've heard, the music relies on strings and horns a lot. There's a woefully underused guitar that is very good whenever it comes up, but... well... it's woefully underused. The strings just doesn't satisfy me, not when I've heard that Eve's Plum cover that does it all on guitars. The whole song feels like it needs more.

My verdict: Don't like it. The good stuff isn't nearly good enough to overcome the overall bad backing music. I'll go enjoy that cover version instead.

Song #124: "Come See About Me" by The Supremes

Date: Dec 19, 1964
Weeks: 2

There were about a million of these "girl groups" in the 60s and from what I've heard so far the Supremes were the best of them. Diana Ross's voice is pleasant and well-matched to the music, and you can almost tell that she's not using all her talent.

This song is pretty typical of the sound that I've heard from the Supremes before. It's a great sound. The singers are backed up by a jazz band, brass section and all. The other singers provide great backup vocals. This is a good sound.

The problem is that sound doesn't vary a lot in this song. It starts off with one musical idea, and that idea doesn't really evolve at all. The verse and the chorus aren't all that different. It's a short song, but by the end of my first listen I was already a bit tired of it.

Lyrically it's a little troublesome, too. Check out this passage:

I've given up my friends just for you.
My friends are gone and you have too.
No peace shall I find 
Until you come back and be mine.
No matter what you do or say I'm gonna love you anyway.

So she gave up everything to be with this guy and he has gone away. Nothing indicates why he went away, or when he'll be back. I can't help thinking he's not coming back. Is this a breakup song so deep into the Denial phase that the narrator is unreliable?

My verdict: Don't Like it. It's not a bad song, exactly, but the Supremes have way better songs than this.

Song #532: "Beat It" by Michael Jackson

Date: April 30, 1983
Weeks: 3

Okay, so Weird Al's "Eat It" was not actually song #532. April Fools! In fact, that position belongs to the song Weird Al was parodying, "Beat It" by Michael Jackson.

I feel like this was the song that cemented Michael Jackson as a superstar. Maybe that's not accurate. His first appearance at No. 1 was "I Want You Back" (#228) as a member of the Jackson 5, 13 years earlier. And "Billie Jean" (#530) had been at No. 1 just before this. But this was the song that stuck with me at the time. Maybe that's because of the Weird Al parody, but the fact that Weird Al chose to parody this song suggests it was the biggest of Jackson's songs at the time.

Michael Jackson became huge because he fused rock and R&B into one popular sound, but this song is pretty straightforward rock and roll. Guitars dominate the song. The main backing guitar is probably the thing that this song is best remembered for, even more than the vocals. Well, that opening bell-sound may compete for most memorable music part, but I'm not entirely sure what's making that sound. Maybe that's the guitars, too. At any rate, the song is guitars, drums, vocals, and very little else. That's classic rock and roll.

Michael Jackson's vocals are always good, and this song is no exception. I suppose he could have embellished more, since he's definitely capable of singing something more elaborate. But he fits his voice into the music and doesn't try to compete with the guitar to be the most exciting thing happening musically. And that works to the song's advantage.

I've actually never been too clear on the meaning of the lyrics. I think it's about a guy on the streets trying to prove he's tough by fighting, and the song seems to sympathize with that sentiment without endorsing or condemning it. But the video doesn't really identify that protagonist. Instead it shows two gangs building up to a street fight until Michael Jackson shows up to get between them, and everybody dances. I went to Wikipedia for more insight, but even Wikipedia seems to throw up its hands with regard to the true meaning. "The lyrics of 'Beat It' are about defeat and courage, and have been described as a 'sad commentary on human nature'." That doesn't help me sort it out, thanks Wikipedia! At any rate, I understand that somewhere at the song's core, Michael Jackson is lamenting gang violence that so often is about people fighting just to prove that they are tough. And I can endorse that meaning.

My verdict: Like it. It's one of the pillars of Michael Jackson's superstardom, and rightfully so.

Song #532: "Eat It" by "Weird Al" Yankovic

Date: April 1, 1984
Weeks: 1

"Eat It" was Weird Al's first big hit, and it's a great song. It's about a parent trying to get their kid to eat something. It's basically a funny list of things the kid could be eating. It's clever and never fails to crack me up.

The one lyric that makes me scratch my head is "Don't you know that other kids are starving in Japan?" That kind of guilt is a classic gambit by the parent trying to get their kid to eat, but was there a time when hunger was an issue in Japan? I've heard of parents using China in this argument, and Africa was popular when I was young, but Japan? I suspect he may have fudged the lyrics there to make a rhyme.

The music is uniformly excellent, with a great guitar backing the whole track. That guitar goes nuts in the bridge and then literally explodes.That's good stuff.

I do kind of take issue with the funny little hand-fart noises that pepper the song. They seem like a pretty cheap joke, and they kind of don't fit. I know earlier in his career, Weird Al had a lot of goofy sound effects backing him up, but by this time he seemed to be making more genuine music, so they're kind of an unwelcome throwback.

My verdict: Like It. This set the tone for the rest of Weird Al's career, and it's a ton of fun.