Song #766: "To Be With You" by Mr. Big

Date: Feb 29, 1992
Weeks: 3

You may also remember Mr. Big as the band behind the song "Wild World." I guess this one came first, although really they're so similar that you can be forgiven for getting them confused. This apparently wasn't the type of music Mr. Big usually made. Their usual music was a bit harder, kind of similar to what Aerosmith was doing at the time. But they wrote a softer song on a lark and stuck it on their album, and somehow that's the song that got popular, and here it is at No. 1.

For whatever reason, hard rock bands loved doing acoustic songs in the late 80s and early 90s, and people rewarded them for it, I guess because they thought the songs had deeper meanings just because they were presented as soft songs. The problem is that when all the production falls away and leaves only a basic string of guitar chords, with tambourines and handclaps for percussion, the song winds up living and dying on its vocals.

And the vocals are not great. Look, you don't need to be a great singer to sing great music, but singers need to know their strengths and weaknesses and match themselves to the right kind of music. Hard rock is the right kind of music for these singers; acoustic guitar songs are not. The lead singer is especially problematic. I think he's going for "emotionally vulnerable and intense" but he winds up being "whiny and arrhythmic" instead. The other members of the band harmonizing on the chorus do a better job, but they aren't an especially talented group of singers because I don't think that's what they joined the band to do.

As for the lyrics, the general idea is that this guy has been waiting for a woman to stop dating other guys and get around to noticing him. I feel like I just reviewed the exact same song yesterday. Is it universal, or is it cliche? This one at least has some silly lines in it, though. "Your game of love was all rained out." That's a bit of a thin metaphor right there. "Waited on a line of greens and blues." What does that even mean? Somebody out there claims it's referring to the singer's envy (green) and sadness (blue), but that seems like a thin metaphor considering how that sentence is constructed. Also, the song keeps referring to the woman as "little girl," which is obnoxious. I mean, I get why relatively immature guys refer to women as "girls," but "little girl" just seems intentionally diminishing.

My verdict: Don't like it. I was going to criticize the singer for just waiting around and never saying anything to this woman, but I suppose the song itself is a declaration of his affection. Anyway, I sort of liked this song back when it was new, but time has not been kind to it.

Song #859: "Everything You Want" by Vertical Horizon

Date: July 15, 2000
Weeks: 1

As long as there has been rock music, there has also been gentle rock music. This is a great example of that genre from the early 2000s. It's not soft, exactly, but it's also not the least bit hard. It's a pleasant enough little piece of ear candy that is largely designed to be as inoffensive as possible. And yet, despite being notably bland, it's not bad.

The traditional guitar-and-drums rock sound is full and the bridge is fairly compelling. But I think it's the synthesized beat that keeps the song interesting. It's fairly unique where the rest of the song is not. The traditional rock part of the song isn't particularly original or deep, but it serves its purpose well enough. It stays listenable throughout.

The vocals are pretty terrible. The lead singer has a really weak and light voice. He sounds like a doormat, which at least matches the lyrics.

As for the lyrics, it's basically that universal "I'm in love with someone who doesn't know I'm alive." thing. The singer laments that the object of his affections is in and out of relationships and wondering why they aren't working out. "He means nothing to you and you don't know why." Meanwhile he's saying "I mean nothing to you and I don't know why." It's pretty unremarkable subject matter, and the lyrics aren't particularly clever, not even the twist of pronouns to make a point in the lines I quoted. It's not as clever as the songwriter thinks it is. Plus it causes this lyric: "I say all the right things at exactly the right time." When you've just used that lyric to express that the other guy isn't as great as he seems to be, you can't turn it around on yourself and expect it to have a different meaning.

My verdict: Like it. This is just barely a pass for me, and it's because the synth is unique and the overall tone of the music is pleasant. Not a great song, but a decent enough one.

Song #423: "Hotel California" by The Eagles

Date: May 7, 1977
Weeks: 1

This is a nice little 4-minute song that somebody decided needed to be padded out with 2 and a half minutes of additional guitars. Fans of this song always want to make it out to be more important and meaningful than I think it really is, but it just keeps going and going well past its finish.

Other than its length, there's a lot to like here. The music is quality guitar and drum rock, with plenty of rising action and quiet moments of reflection. While I still think the length is arbitrary, at least the guitars are pleasant to listen to after the lyrics are done.

I think the lyrics are cleverly written. They tell an intriguing fantasy story about a traveler who winds up at a mysterious hotel filled with characters and odd events, and then he finds he can't leave. There's obviously a deeper meaning hinted at here. You can probably find far more detailed discussion about the song's lyrics elsewhere, as I know this song has fans who have discussed and interpreted the lyrics for years. Personally, I connect it to a theory I heard once about how nobody makes their home in Los Angeles, they all just stay there because that's where they work. All of Los Angeles is the Hotel California. Granted, that only covers the famous "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" line, but since it's how the song ends it's the line that sticks with me. Anyway, I think that interpretation works well with most of the rest of the song, too.

My verdict: Like it. I don't think this song is as deep as some of its more intense fans do, but it's certainly a nice enough song, and the lyrics are cleverly written.

Song #243: "Cracklin' Rosie" by Neil Diamond

Oct 10, 1970
Weeks: 1

Ah, the vagaries of the pop charts. I've never heard this song before, but here it is at No. 1 in 1970. On the same album Neil Diamond also released "Sweet Caroline," which peaked at No. 4, but that song has endured the test of time.

This song has some musical similarities to "Sweet Caroline," especially in the transition to the chorus, but is different enough that I can't say it's a copy. Of course, Neil Diamond's voice is unique, and a lot of his songs sound kind of the same to me because the thing that grabs my attention most of all is his gravelly, Neil-Diamond-voice.

The strings-and-horn instrumentation that seemed to be so popular in the 70s doesn't even bother me here. Ultimately, the music is little more than background accents for Diamond's voice, which is the featured part of this song.

The lyrics seem to be about the singer's affection for a woman, but apparently the song is actually about a man who doesn't have a woman, but is in love with a bottle of wine. This makes lyrics like "You're a store-bought woman" and "Have me a time with a poor man's lady" make sense in a way that's not as insulting as it appears to be on first glance. I'm glad I found that description out there on the Internet, or else I might think less of Neil Diamond for those comments.

My verdict: Like it. I don't think it's a great song, and I agree with popular culture that "Sweet Caroline" is a better song. But it's pleasant enough and I there's nothing objectionable enough to make me dislike it.

Song #289: "Crocodile Rock" by Elton John

Date: Feb 3, 1973
Weeks: 3

Just yesterday I was talking about a throwback song, and I was going through some examples in my mind. But somehow I completely ignored "Crocodile Rock." It's done in a very 50s, Jerry Lee Lewis, rocking-piano style, and it's excellent. This is Elton John's first No. 1, and it's one of his best. I'm sure my first exposure to him was his episode of The Muppet Show, and among the songs he performed was this one, with Crocodiles performing the "la la la" chorus.

The music is mostly a healthy mix of synthesized keyboards and genuine piano, with a great bass track at the foundation. The song is trying to emulate that Jerry Lee Lewis sound, but update it with some early 70s instrumentation, and it does so very successfully. The song is built around nostalgia for that type of 50s music, and it recreates it excellently. If anything, I think "Crocodile Rock" is a better song than "Great Balls of Fire."

Elton John's voice is great at any time. He can really belt out a tune, and he always has a good performance to match the music he's playing. This song is certainly no exception to that. His falsetto also successfully references the music of the 50s. As I've encountered already, there was a lot of that falsetto singing in the early rock music he's trying to reference.

Lyrically, the song is about nostalgia for the singer's youth. Specifically lost love, lost youth, and lost music. Pretty universal concept. What's a more effective way to sing about your nostalgia for a type of music than to make a song in that style? Admittedly, after listening to this song for years without really taking in the lyrics, I expected there to be a bit more of a reference to crocodiles, or being in a place known for crocodiles. But no, there's really not. Crocodile Rock is a fictional concept from the past, and the origins of it are never explained. That's fine.

My verdict: Like it. This is a great song. I think it's Elton John's best, although there are a few others on this list that might be close.

Song #103: "There! I've Said It Again" by Bobby Vinton

Date: Jan 3, 1964
Weeks: 2

I've heard it said that rock and roll was a passing fad of the 1950s until the Beatles came along and established it. I've certainly encountered several songs already that made me believe that. But I can't think of a more striking example than this. A soft, 1940s-esque, rock-free, soft song that was at No. 1 the week before the Beatles hit No. 1 with their first song.

In fairness, it seems this song is a deliberate throwback to the 40s. It's actually a cover of a song from the 40s. And throwback songs aren't unique to this era, so I guess it's unfair to throw the "thank goodness the Beatles came along and stopped this" mantle on this song. People in 1964 would have known this wasn't a current sound.

This is one of those big band songs that doesn't make good use of its big band. Despite all the strings and piano and percussion, you never hear more than a couple instruments at once. I have a hard time explaining what's really wrong with it, but this instrumental version of the song really is much better.

The clear showcase is Bobby Vinton's vocals. But even that's not that great. His voice has way too much vibrato, and it's actually kind of irritating. His voice is cloying and there's no genuine emotion. It's too well-rehearsed and comes across as such.

The lyrics are based on a pretty old trope. I love you so much I can't even find the words to express how much I love you. Which is a genuine enough sentiment, I suppose, but I always think songwriters need to do better. You're writing a love song, you need to find the words. You can't just sing about how words are insufficient. Do better, song!

My verdict: Don't like it. It's bad big band music 20 years too late.

Song #717: "Nothing Compares 2 U" by Sinead O'Connor

Date: Apr 21, 1990
Weeks: 4

I've never thought very highly of this song. It's such a slow song, and it's so long, that it always felt like a 5-minute delay of fun whenever it came on the radio. I always got a kick out of some of the spoofier covers, like this Happy Sad Song version. I loved the Me First and the Gimme Gimmes cover.

And now that I've just heard the Sinead O'Connor version for the first time in a very long time, I'm struck by the fact that this version is actually quite good. Is it just my maturing tastes? Well, I don't think so. I think what's happening here is that this is a very emotional song.

The backing music is soft and subtle. The 80s synthesized keyboards find a place where they really work here. They create a sound more delicate than any piano, guitar, or even violin could sustain. When the backing drum picks up, it keeps the song feeling like it's moving forward but never ruins the delicacy of the rest of the song.

O'Connor's performance is astoundingly sincere. She shows off her vocal power with a bit of anger, but also has these lilting breaks where she expresses her wounded delicacy. Her performance is perfectly matched to what the lyrics require. You'll never see this on a list of songs that people listened to without realizing how sad the lyrics were, because O'Connor drives the sadness home.

As for the lyrics, I suppose it's well known that this song was originally written by Prince, which I guess is why the title is "2 U." Prince was doing that sort of thing long before Internet text messages came along. It seems kind of a shame that such a sincere song has such a goofy title, but thankfully you can pretend it's spelled "To You" when you listen to it. Anyway, the lyrics talk about all the normal things a person does, and how all they can think about is their break-up. Eating in a restaurant, dating anew, but all you want is to get back to your relationship. The lyrics expertly capture the emotional numbness of a fresh break-up.

And all that is the reason it's not a very good pop song. It's so emotionally draining that it's not necessarily the type of song you want to pop up on the radio when you're looking for some fun music to listen to while you drive. It's not the sort of song you want to listen to more than once a day, unless you yourself are suffering from a recent breakup and you want to wallow in your own sorrow a bit. And at 5 minutes, it can mean a long gap until a more fun song comes back on the radio. So all of that makes it kind of a drag when you're listening to pop music for the fun of it.

My verdict: Like it. It's an emotionally deep song that works fantastically in small doses, and I realize that now.

Song #674: "Wild, Wild West" by The Escape Club

Date: Nov 12, 1988
Weeks: 1

"Heading for the 90s living in the wild wild west." It seems very odd to write a song with those lyrics less than a year and a half before the 90s came along. And the lyric is so central to the song, and repeated often enough, that it's hard to just overlook. The song revolves around it.

This song is a bunch of chaotic 80s rock fun. Guitars, that thumping 80s rock drum, saxophones, I think there's some synth-keyboards in there, and an unapologetic woodblock driving the whole thing along. There's nothing remotely western about the music, except for the gunshot sound that goes off periodically. The singer clearly has a British accent, but he's singing about the Wild West, and somebody does Spanish-with-a-Jamaican-accent rap for the bridge. It's silly chaos, but it's fun silly chaos.

I have no idea what this song is supposed to be about. The lyrics are utter nonsense. Songfacts has some attempted interpretations, but mostly it's just a list of coded references to things that was on the band's mind in the late 80s. "Waiting for the big boom" references nuclear war with the Soviet Union, "safe sex" was a new idea in the 80s, and I guess "her wild, wild hair" is supposed to reference the women of punk rock, but the reiteration of "wild, wild" makes me think of jungle hair.

Despite the chaos in both music and lyrics, the music is really pretty solid. The bass line carries this song. The vocals are charming, even including the rap-reggae-whatever bridge....

Bleh.

I'm working really hard to justify my affection for this song when really I can't come up with anything more than that I liked it back in the day. It's goofy and cheesy and if I encountered a goofy and cheesy song from the 70s I'd mock it and tear it apart. But because I thought this song was fun in the 80s, it still feels fun to me today. And yet, isn't that the ultimate goal of pop music? Isn't it a successful song if it's fun, even if you can't quite explain why? Even if you have every reason to say it's silly and pointless and doesn't mean anything?

My verdict: Like it. Sorry, other decades. Songs from the 80s tickle my nostalgia bone in just the right way.

Song #682: "Straight Up" by Paula Abdul

Date: Feb 11, 1989
Weeks: 3

Much like yesterday's Blondie song illustrated the 70s giving way to the 80s, this song is a great example of the 80s turning into the 90s. The synth-keyboards of the 80s are there, but the funk and dance beat, and semi-rap verses, is the sound of the 90s starting to show.

The music is fun. This is a song that has figured out how synthesized keyboards work, and how the kinds of sounds they produce can be used to create unique sounds, rather than emulate other instruments. The bass is funky and fun and memorable. This is a tight sound, carefully engineered into a well-crafted piece of music.

Paula Abdul's voice is whiny, to be sure, but her voice fits well with the synthesizers here. In the verses, she's almost rapping. It's not quite rap, but it references the sound of rap while still being kind of sing-y. That sounds like an awkward mess, but it really does work here.

The lyrics are pretty empowering. "Straight up now tell me is it going to be you and me forever, or are you just having fun?" She's not sure if the relationship she's in is just a fling or if it's going somewhere. And rather than angst and complain about it, she's making this song a confrontation. "Do do you love me? Come on now!" It's a good message to women, or really to anyone. Be assertive in your relationships and don't be afraid to ask for what you want.

My verdict: Like it. Paula Abdul's Forever Your Girl was one of the first albums I owned on CD, and it's great. Almost any song from it is a winner in my book, and this is even one of the stronger songs from it.

Song #463: "Heart of Glass" by Blondie

Date: Apr 28, 1979
Weeks: 1

One of the great things about Blondie's best songs is that you can hear the 70s turning into the 80s. This song
is a great example of that. The backing drums and bass are very disco, but the keyboards and vocals are pure New Wave. On review of Wikipedia, I discovered this song was a bit controversial among punk fans at the time because of its disco sound. Blondie was accused of selling out by making their sound more mainstream, but in retrospect it seems more like they were just interested in trying out different musical styles, and they found a good one here.

This is another example of that early 80s "thin" sound I've referenced before. There is almost no lead guitar in this sound. Most of the music is in the bass line, with keyboards providing most of the treble side. There are some guitar rhythms as accents, but they aren't exactly the main thing happening musically here. I think that the thinness of the sound makes every part you do hear more enjoyable. The bass stands out, and it's a really good bass line. The rhythmic guitar line, despite being very subtle, manages to be catchy.

Debbie Harry's vocals are a great match for this sound, too. Her voice isn't particularly strong, so the music's restraint allows you to hear her. And her voice is very pleasant, especially in this song.

The lyrics are pretty clever. While the music and the vocals are playing like this is a sweet little love song about lost love, the lyrics are actually about how the singer realized her loving relationship wasn't so great after all, and she's glad it's over. There are a lot of songs that get sad about lost love, but this one is actually happy about it. "It seemed like the real thing but I was so blind."

My verdict: Like it. Blondie is a great band with a great sound, and this is one of their best songs. I'm glad it made this list.

Song #317: "The Way We Were" by Barbra Streisand

Date: Feb 2, 1974
Weeks: 3

I suppose it's to this song's credit that I thought it was older than this. Apparently it was originally written for a 1973 movie, The Way We Were, starring Robert Redford and Barbra Streisand. The movie is set in the 1930s, so it's appropriate that this feels like it should have been a song from the 1930s.

Well, that was my impression of it before I heard this recording, anyway, which I believe to be the recording that reached No. 1. While the lyrics and general string and piano music sound like they fit with the 1930s, this recording has carefully had several layers of unpleasant 70s excess piled on top of it. There's a bass guitar providing a 70s funk rhythm and cymbal percussion that just isn't needed. The string section is too big. The song just needs a pleasant little violin, but instead there are layers and layers of powerful strings that just makes the song feel way bigger than it needs to be.

Of course, the strings need to be that powerful to successfully compete with Barbra Streisand. As I complained before, Streisand oversings, and she's certainly doing that here. Again, it's too much power, and robs the song of its genuine emotion.

I like the lyrics. They feel appropriately timeless. "Can it be that it was all so simple then, or has time rewritten every line?" I like the overall awareness that we tend to look back fondly on the past and remember the good things. And I suppose now that I know that it's deliberately trying to be the type of song from the 1930s that people in the 1970s are remembering, the lyrics seem even more appropriate. Good on you, song.

My verdict: Don't like it. The way this song was performed in the movie is a little better, with a more genuine 1930s-style musical arrangement. That doesn't solve the problem of Streisand oversinging it, but it feels more timeless and classic with an arrangement that isn't so stuck in the 1970s.

Song #913: "Hollaback Girl" by Gwen Stefani

Date: May 7, 2005
Weeks: 4

I liked No Doubt when they were a ska band. "Just a Girl" is a great piece of feminist commentary and a solid song. Their later stuff like "Hey Baby" took me a while to warm up to, but I eventually came to like it. I'm not trying to hold Gwen Stefani's previous work up as some kind of standard she needs to live up to, I'm just trying to say that I wanted to like this song, but I couldn't.

For one thing, it strikes me as a song that was coldly calculated to appeal to high schoolers. There are lyrics referring to principals and bleachers, most of the music seems to be marching band-style brass and drums, and the "singing" is more like cheerleader-style shouting. And all of that imagery is in the video, so I don't think I'm far off the mark here. It's kind of pandering.

And the shouting is downright unpleasant. It's whiny. Gwen Stefani's never been a great singer, and I suppose she's always been whiny, but usually her voice matches the music and lyrics. With very little music in this song, there's not a lot to mask the whininess, and then she gets shouty and amps it up.

The music is just brass and drums. The song could be performed by a marching band, except they'd have to leave about half the band off the field to match the rather small amount of sound this song generates.

So that leaves the lyrics. I guess she hears somebody talking bad about her and threatens to beat them up behind the bleachers. Because she's going to stand up for herself. I gather (from the Internet, not from the context of the song) that a hollaback girl is a girl who doesn't stand up for herself. I suppose this is Gwen Stefani trying to be a good role model for teenage girls. But then there's a call-and-answer section about spelling the word "Bananas," and it's just kind of weird.

My verdict: Don't like it. I guess it's not awful, but it's not pleasant to listen to.

Song #37: "Mr. Custer" by Larry Verne

Date: Oct 10, 1960
Weeks: 1

Ah, a novelty song. For some reason these rarely reach the top of the charts, although I'm starting to think it was a lot easier to top the charts in the early 60s than it was after the Beatles came along, so there seem to be more novelty songs back in the early part of the list.

As a novelty song, it gets a pass from me on music quality (which is basic guitar strumming) and singing quality (which is bad, but deliberately so; it's part of the joke). So I guess that leaves me to judge the lyrics, and specifically judge how funny they are.

I guess the gist is that the singer is in Custer's army, being surrounded by the Sioux at the Battle of Little Bighorn. The joke is that the guy singing the song is a coward, who asks to be excused and whines "Please, Mr. Custer, I don't want to go." It's broad humor, but it's kind of funny. I think the idea is kind of funny, anyway. The specific jokes may not be quite so entertaining, but the concept is worth a chuckle or two.

Is it racist? Well, the opening stereotypical Indian whooping "war cry" sure suggests so. However, other than further periodic war cries, it doesn't seem to have much else to say about Indians. The song doesn't exactly throw its sympathies behind Custer, preferring to portray his men as reluctant and cowardly. The singing character makes a handful of other racist comments, but since he's portrayed as an idiot it's hard to think the song is sympathetic toward him. In particular, at the end he makes a crack about how the Sioux are "running around like a bunch of wild Indians." Then he laughs lamely at his own joke, which makes it clear that we're supposed to think he's an idiot.

The funny thing is that around the Internet I can find people claiming to be "the most un-politically correct guy alive" who love the song, and people claiming Native American ancestry who also think it's funny.

My verdict: Don't like it. I'm glad I know the song exists. I got a chuckle out of it, once I realized it wasn't as racist as it initially appeared to be. But it's only good for a listen or two before it kind of wears itself out.

Song #185: "Groovin'" by The Young Rascals

Date: May 20, 1967
Weeks: 4

It's tough reviewing a song I've never heard from a band that is way better known for other songs. It's hard to escape the feeling that it reached the top of the charts based on goodwill from their other songs rather than on its own merits. The Young Rascals (a.k.a. The Rascals) have at least two songs that have passed the test of time. One hit No. 1 and we'll get to it eventually, "Good Lovin'" (#158). The other is "A Beautiful Morning." Both of those are regular features of television and movie soundtracks. Classics. This song has been forgotten by time.

And it's probably rightly forgotten. It's one of the most gentle songs I've ever heard, and that includes songs like "Shake You Down" (#618), and much of the rest of the late 80s. The music is slight and minimal. Even the percussion is gentle. The exception to this is the harmonica, which is bold but is also kind of cloying.

The singing isn't even that good. As I've said before, when the music is light the vocals stand out, and these guys just aren't that good. Their other songs are simply better music, because they focus on their talents, which is happy, poppy, music.

The lyrics are just as gentle as everything else, so at least it matches. "Groovin' on a Sunday afternoon." The lyrics make me think of a sunny summer day in the park. In that way, I suppose the lyrics successfully match the music.

My verdict: Don't like it. The whole song feels like it should be the soundtrack for a pleasant walk in the park on a nice day, but I prefer my walks in the park to just sound like chirping birds and natural park sounds.

Song #315: "Show And Tell" by Al Wilson

Date: Jan 19, 1974
Weeks: 1

This is a fine example of the 70s ruining an otherwise decent song. It's over-orchestrated and overproduced.

The first problem is the background singers. They start off with a "do do do do doo" that is just a bit too clearly enunciated to feel the least bit natural. I feel like I'm listening to some singers in a studio singing their assigned lyrics. And it continues throughout the song. They don't feel the least bit organic.

The next problem is the instrumentation. It's full of strings, horns, and every other instrument they can think to pile on. This problem seems typical of songs from the mid-70s. There's just too much going on here. This song would be nicer if it just continued with the same instruments it started with. All it needs is bass, drums, and Al Wilson's fine vocals. Maybe add in the horns or the background singers or the strings, but not all of them. It's too much going on at once.

The lyrics are fine, I guess. It's a fairly straightforward love song that can be summed up in the line "So show me and tell me that you feel the same way too." The lyrics are sexy and not sexist, which elevates them over a lot of songs on this list.

My verdict: Don't like it. This song could be saved with a simpler performance, but apparently overproduction was the norm in the mid 70s.

Song #828: "Too Close" by Next

Date: Apr 25, 1998
Weeks: 5

Random Youtube comment from the above video: "Most discrete song about getting a boner of all time!" Other than confusing "discrete" with "discreet", and probably meaning "subtle" anyway, and being totally wrong about anything in this song being either discreet or subtle, I think this person is exactly right.

That's pretty much all this song is about, too. The guy goes to the dance club and goes grind-dancing close to a women. He describes how she's getting him excited, and then she comments that she can tell because she can feel ... something that is left to our imaginations. But I think we can guess what it is. Him: "I love when you shake it like that." Her: "I see that you like it like that."

The writers of Saturday Night Live couldn't make a better spoof of dance club grinding music if they tried. I don't know what Next was trying to say by making this song. Were they addressing the most obvious problem with grinding in an attempt to de-stigmatize it? So the women in the dance club wouldn't be surprised when it happened? Is this an attempt at conditioning so they can keep on dancing the way they like without getting interrupted? I'm grasping for a logical explanation, when all I can really come up with is that this is a failed joke.

The music is pretty lousy and generic bass-and-drum soft R&B stuff, and doesn't even seem like very good dance music. The singers all sound pretty terrible. "You know what I waAAaaant to do." These guys need Auto-tune, but I guess it's not available yet. This is the quality of performance you'd expect from Saturday Night Live, with their rushed schedule and singers best known for their comedic talent. Are we sure this isn't an SNL sketch that somehow ran to the top of the pop charts?

My verdict: Don't like it. Unintentionally hilarious. And I prefer my humor to be intentional.

Song #811: "No Diggity" by Blackstreet featuring Dr. Dre and Queen Pen

Date: Nov 9, 1996
Weeks: 4

Now here's a song that creates a pleasing sound from a handful of samples, a couple guest rappers, and a group of good singers.

The music is the best part of this, and it's little more than a couple of repeating drum, piano, and voice samples. The piano in particular really works. I love the little low-note roll that happens regularly. It's like a period at the end of a musical sentence, ending one idea and moving on to the next. There's just enough variety in the song that the music manages to avoid wearing itself out by the end. And it only takes a small thing, like a pause in the track or a shift in the vocals, to create a sufficient impression of variety.



The singing in this song is quite good. Every singer takes his turn and sings half a verse, and all their voices are pretty nice. They're all very talented, and their voices match well with the music. At the time, Boyz II Men was all over the charts and there seemed to be a lot of acts trying to copy their generally a capella style. I like that these guys decided to do something very different, and they're very successful for carving out their own niche like that.


The rap verses by Dr. Dre at the beginning and Queen Pen at the end are also really good. Rap is always at its best when placed atop compelling background music like this, and Dr. Dre has one of the best rap voices I know. He's perfect here. Queen Pen isn't quite as good as Dr. Dre, and some of her rhythm feels forced, but she's still good overall. This is a great mixture of rap, singing, and music.

The lyrics are interesting. It seems like the song's premise can be summed up in its efforts to coin the term "playette," which seems to mean a female player. She sleeps around and gets what she wants, and the singer of this song admires her for it. He more than just admires her, he wants to get with her and be one of her conquests. I'm more than a bit impressed to hear such a sentiment in a hip-hop and rap song. These are genres not known for feminism, and yet here's this song being positively feminist by declaring that a woman who declares sexual independence is a "playette," rather than some of the nastier words that are often thrown at such women. Good for this song for advancing such a notion. It's a shame this sentiment hasn't caught on in these genres in the subsequent 15 years.

My verdict: Like it. I never would have discovered I liked this song if I hadn't done this list. Good stuff.

Song #919: "Laffy Taffy" by D4L

Date: Jan 14, 2006
Weeks: 1

This song has a pleasant enough sound to it. I really like the super-synthesizer that plugs away through the song. Beep beep boop! It sounds like a video game music remix, and I thoroughly enjoy those. The rapping is decent enough, and the chorus is like a chant, so they neatly sidestep the question of how well rappers can sing.

I like the overall sound, for about a minute. But it goes on too long with too little variety, and gets old really fast. Okay, beep beep boop, we get it. Add some variety. Build to something musically. But that doesn't happen.

Anyway, it's a rap song, so the music is besides the point and the lyrics are what matters, right? The chorus is "Girl shake that laffy taffy." Wait don't tell me, let me guess. "Laffy Taffy" means her butt, right? Oh. Oh no. It's something... else. Similar region, but... Sigh. They just had to be as crude as possible, didn't they? (Here's a link to it on Urban Dictionary, if you haven't figured it out and really want to know).

And then the rest of the song isn't any less crude. The first verse is filled with this kind of candy-as-sex metaphor. "Girls call me Jolly Rancher 'cause I stay so hard." It's sort of clever. It's like a dirtier version of "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies (#219). And I think that reference is intentional, considering the occasional interjections of "candy girl," a specific lyric in "Sugar, Sugar."

Unfortunately, this concept disappears in subsequent verses. I guess one guy in this group was interested in the candy-as-sex metaphor idea, but the rappers on the other two verses wanted no part of it. They both just rap about being at a strip club, and each of them raps about how he's just so special that he plans to win over the best-looking stripper and take her back to his place. Psst, guys, every stripper tries to make every guy feel like he is the only guy in the room and she's about to go home with him. A stripper who makes customers feel that way gets better pay and better tips. You're falling for the strip club's trick, and you're about one minute away from being escorted out by security, despite your assertion that "security guard don't scare nobody."

I suppose I don't even have to say that the song is totally sexist. Would it be so sexist if they left out the strip club stuff, leaving just the candy metaphor? And if "laffy taffy" didn't mean what it does? I guess it doesn't matter, because both those things are in this song.

My verdict: Don't like it. For about the first minute, I thought this song had potential to be good. But it wasn't.

Song #689: "I'll Be There For You" by Bon Jovi

Date: May 13, 1989
Weeks: 1

Bon Jovi is better than this. They are one of the bands that brought real, guitar-driven rock and roll back to the synthesizer-filled 80s. But it seems that if a band made rock with even the slightest edge to it in the 80s, they were also required to make a soft love song. And inevitably it's the soft love song that gets to the top of the charts. Thankfully, Bon Jovi has other No. 1 hits, all of which are better than this one.

The core problem here is that Jon Bon Jovi isn't much of a singer. His voice is constantly strained. His voice works with heavier rock songs because he's being accompanied by loud guitars, and his enthusiasm is more important than the actual quality of his singing. But here, with the slow tempo and relatively light guitars and drums, his voice is highlighted. And he's not up to having this spotlight. One of the lyrics is "When you get drunk, I'll be the wiiiiiiiiine." Yes, Jon Bon Jovi, you will be the whine. Ouch.

The music has a similar problem. It's.... Oh, I just realized this is a power ballad. Oh, hooray! I always struggle to come up with good examples of power ballads. So many of the ones I think of are just from hard bands making a soft song, and don't make a good example if you don't have the the context of the rest of the band's work. But this one tidily demonstrates on one song exactly what I think of when I hear the phrase: Rock music that is noticeably restrained to try to be soft. It's like a finely-tuned sportscar idling in the driveway, or a professional golfer playing mini-golf. You can tell there's power and talent present, but that power and talent isn't for this kind of work, and the contrast is jarring.

By contrast, see this acoustic performance from MTV's Unplugged. It's still not a great song, but it's a bit more sensitive and genuine and appropriate. Actually, I think the song would be better with even less. Maybe a ukulele? Thankfully, the Internet has already had that thought, and it turns out I was right. It's pretty good (audio quality issues aside).

And now to the lyrics. These are some overwrought breakup-regret lyrics. It's over, dude, move on. But here's a quick point-by-point:

"I heard your suitcase say goodbye." Seems like kind of a heavy metaphor, and it's a bit off since the suitcase probably didn't actually make any sounds. Why not "I knew your suitcase meant goodbye?"

"I know you know we've had some good times." That should just be "You know we've had some good times," but of course that doesn't fit the meter. Redundant filler to fit the meter feels like it doesn't fit the meter, either.

"I can't promise you tomorrow, but I can buy back yesterday." Or is it "I can promise you tomorrow, but I can't buy back yesterday?" Either interpretation seems valid. I can't promise that the future will be good, but I can apologize for the past. Or, I can promise the future will be better, but I can't change the past. Which is it? I really want to vote for the former, since I don't think he's in a position to promise tomorrow if he already got dumped once before.

Finally, "I'll be there for you. These five words I swear to you." Maybe it's just a pop music pet peeve of mine, but emphasizing a lyric by counting the words feels like it places a weird emphasis on the literal words, rather than their meaning. It's one thing if you're talking about "three small words," because that's a classic expression. But "these five words I swear to you?" No. Again, it feels like they wanted to say "I swear I'll be there for you," but needed something else to fit the meter.

My verdict: Don't like it. Bon Jovi is better when they are making music with a bit more edge. This feels like pandering to lovesick teenagers who are infatuated with Jon Bon Jovi.

Song #584: "We Built This City" by Starship

Date: Nov 16, 1985
Weeks: 2

Well, this is going to be a tough one. I've heard this song trashed up and down the Internet. It's an objectively terrible song, emblematic of everything that was wrong with cheesy synth-pop-rock in the 1980s. The problem for me is this: This was my first favorite song, and I still have warm feelings for it.

It's guilty of all the worst sins of 80s music. The synth keyboards blare in both the treble and the bass. The drums are primarily that echoing 80s drum I've complained about before. The guitars are also at their most blaring. The singers are fairly androgynous; it's hard to even tell Grace Slick's voice apart from Mickey Thomas unless you know the song. And yet it all manages to work together to create a cohesive whole. The song is so bold and unapologetic and unafraid to be an 80s pop-rock song that I can't help but like it still. I complained about the music for "Sara" (#591), but that was using many of these same sounds in a soft song, and it was incongruous and felt fake. This song isn't trying to be soft. It's just trying to be rock and roll, albeit in a gentle, synthesized 80s kind of way, and the enthusiasm is infectious.

The enthusiasm for what, I'm not sure. I have never understood the lyrics, and I still don't. They're utter nonsense. Songfacts has a wacky theory: "a cry of rebellion against a corporation trying to ban rock and roll in an imaginary future." Yes, the politics and culture of the 1980s was so friendly to popular music that they had to go pick an imaginary fight. And not communicate it very clearly. "Who rides the wrecking ball into our guitars?" Is this that classic evolution-of-metaphor problem? Let me see if I can trace it. "Someone is destroying music" expands to "Who is wrecking our guitars?" expands to "Who's taking a wrecking ball to our guitars?" expands to "Who rides the wrecking ball into our guitars?" The result is a flowery line that is so far removed from the original metaphor that all meaning has been lost.

The bigger lyrical problem is the chorus and title. "We built this city on rock and roll." That's almost certainly untrue. No cities were founded or built because of rock and roll. Am I wrong here? Are there any cities that were built or even expanded because of rock and roll? Music is big in Nashville, but that's mostly country music. Las Vegas boomed because of musical performances, but that was all kinds of music. Seattle boomed in the 90s because of grunge rock, but this song is from 1985. That hadn't happened yet. And most of the bigger cities in the world were big before rock and roll came along. Maybe it's Memphis? Elvis presumably drew rock and roll music to Memphis, even if Memphis isn't that big a city. Or maybe they mean that theoretical future city trying to ban rock and roll, but they don't bother to explain it. But whatever. The lyrics are nonsense and I don't care. Maybe this song is the reason I don't hold nonsense lyrics against a song, because I loved it even though I could never understand the meaning.

My verdict: Like it. It's a fun pop song, and a genuinely good product of its era. Maybe I have too much nostalgic affection for the song to view it objectively, but I still think it's good, anyway.

Song #164: "Hanky Panky" by Tommy James And The Shondells

Date: July 16, 1966
Weeks: 2

This is more like the type of music I expected to encounter a lot of in the 60s. Its sound is about halfway between the Beatles and the Beach Boys, without achieving quite the exciting enthusiasm of either band.

The biggest problem with this song is the chorus. "My baby does the hanky panky" over and over and over again. The line repeats 10 times to open the song, happens 5 more times in the middle, and then happens 5 more times at the end, before fading out as they sing the line over and over into eternity.

And then once I identified the repetitive chorus, I realized that what I thought were two verses were actually the same verse repeated twice. This would have been a great 1 minute song, but they unnecessarily stretch it out to 3 minutes, resulting in the longest 3-minute song I've ever heard.

Not that there's anything really wrong with the music in general. It's a pretty typical guitars-and-drums 60s rock song, with a decent guitar solo in the bridge. It's performed fairly well, and even though it sounds a little rough around the edges, it's probably more accurate to call its sound raw. But the music provides no reprieve from the repetition, since it just repeats itself along with the associated lyrics.

And they never even explain what they mean by "hanky panky." Is he just bragging that his girlfriend has sex with him? Is that supposed to be controversial just for the sake of controversy, or is there another message here that I'm missing? Oh, on consulting the Internet, it appears the Hanky Panky may have been a 60s dance that time has since forgotten.

My verdict: Don't like it. It has a decent sound, but sometimes less is more. Or, in this case, more turns out to be less.

Song #250: "Me And Bobby McGee" by Janis Joplin

Date: Mar 20, 1971
Weeks: 2

For a song that starts out like a simple guitar-and-vocals tune, this song manages to build into something pretty intense by the end. Near the end I can hear drums, banjo, piano, organ, guitars. It's just a big, fun bash.

Janis Joplin is often mentioned when people are discussing rock stars who can't sing very well. But her voice is not that bad. She doesn't have any trouble with pitch, and she's not trying to sing better than she's capable of. She's sings passionately, and doesn't hold anything back, so her voice breaks a lot as a result, which I think is why people criticize her vocal talent. Personally, I think pop music could use more of this sort of singing.

The music isn't very memorable. It feels like someone recorded a jam session with some vague bass chords planned out. Compare this to the catchy hook in the chorus of the Janis Joplin song "Piece Of My Heart." After listening to that song, can a person even remember the music to "Me and Bobby McGee" any more? So it may not be catchy, but it's sufficiently enjoyable.

The lyrics are okay. It feels like a country song at the core, telling a pretty typical lost love story. According to Wikipedia, the song was originally written from a male perspective, and Bobby McGee was a woman. In fact, I found a video of Johnny Cash singing this song. Janis Joplin changed Bobby McGee to a man, and this song is probably best remembered as her song. This song is also where the line "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" comes from, which is a memorable line to be sure. I think it was a popular pick for quote in my high school yearbook.

This is also one of those pop songs that has about 2 minutes of lyrical content, and then fills it out with 2 more minutes of instrumental jam session while the singer goes "la la la." The jam session is fun, to be sure, but this song is anything but a tightly composed tune. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not quite typical of pop music.

My verdict: Like it. I'm not sure the song actually belong on the pop charts, but it's interesting and fun by the end. Good enough for me.

P.S. It's also worth mentioning that this is Janis Joplin's only No. 1 hit, and it reached the top of the charts roughly six months after her death.

Song #910: "Drop It Like It's Hot" by Snoop Dogg featuring Pharrell

Date: Dec 11, 2004
Weeks: 3

This is awful. It's not even music. It's just noise. And I don't just mean that in a "wow, the crap kids listen to these days, it just sounds like noise" kind of way. I mean this is literally a series of random noises loosely strung together by some rap lyrics.

Here's a list of sounds in this song that irritate me:
- The tongue-clicking. It's like listening to somebody chew.
- The opening "Snooooooooop" vocal. It's so high-pitched and shrill.
- Everytime Snoop Dogg says "hot", there's a second "Hot?" layered on top of it. Why is it a question, why is it there constantly?
- The bass line. It's not a terrible bass line, but it's begging for some other music.

So what does that leave? The little snare drum beat that happens from time to time? That doesn't bother me very much. Oh, and I suppose that's not a bad keyboard sting that happens from time to time. In a better song, I might not hate it.

And I think that's a list of literally every sound in the song, other than Snoop Dogg and Pharrell's rapping. And neither of their rap styles appeals to me. Pharrell sounds like he's one step above being completely asleep. Snoop Dogg sounds like he barely understands the difference between rapping and just talking.

Do I even need to get into the lyrics? It's the usual terrible gansta rap stuff: I'm rich, I'm a gang member, I'm a badass, I get lots of women. Drug references, violence references, offensive to women, product placement for opulent clothing and alcohol.

And yet I could look past a lot of that if the overall sound weren't so hollow and empty. Add more music! Thankfully, Youtube mashups exist to provide an example of what I'm talking about.

My verdict: Don't like it. Terrible. The worst song I've reviewed so far.

Song #514: "I Love Rock 'N Roll" by Joan Jett and the Blackhearts

Date: Mar 20, 1982
Weeks: 7

Now this is more like it. This is classic rock and roll for the ages. It's got wailing guitar, vocals filled with attitude, and a percussion line you can't help but clap along to. I think this may be the closest thing to punk rock on this list. This song isn't punk rock, not really. It's a bit too slow for that. But Joan Jett makes punk rock (you can hear her excellent punk rock song "Bad Reputation" in the beginning of the above video). And as far as I'm aware, no other punk artist has reached No. 1. So this is the closest thing you'll find to punk on this list.

The biggest reason this song is so good is the music. The guitars are hard and heavy, but the drums are fairly soft. And the guitars drop out from time to time to let the vocals carry the song. The result is a song that makes use of hard guitars without ever feeling like they're so hard that they're unpleasant. I like punk rock, but I understand that it can be a little overwhelming for some people. This song nicely splits the difference for maximum awesomeness.

Joan Jett's vocals are also a really great part of this song. Her bratty, punk attitude works along with the guitars to make an energetic and fun song. The backing vocals are a bit of a cheat to make the listener feel like a huge crowd around them is singing along to an arena rock anthem, but I don't mind the cheat very much. Those backing vocals contribute extra energy, and that's a good thing.

The lyrics are pretty simple. She sees the guy at the jukebox at the bar, they bond over a shared affection for the same music, and they go home together. It's a simple enough rock and roll story, and Joan Jett's vocals are well-matched to these lyrics, emphasizing the bold, bratty, I'll-do-what-I-want-no-matter-what-anyone-thinks sentiment. The lyrics are really kind of secondary to just singing "I love rock 'n roll" over and over with much enthusiasm, but what's there is decent enough.

I think it's worth noting that this song is a cover. It was originally made by the Arrows in 1975. Their version is a pretty good song to start with, but Joan Jett's punk attitude and brash guitars improves on the original.

My verdict: Like it. I think this is my favorite song that I've reviewed so far.

Song #730: "I Don't Have The Heart" by James Ingram

Date: Oct 20, 1990
Weeks: 1

In yesterday's review, I mentioned that the singer seemed to be singing to create music, not to show off his vocals. Well, this is the opposite of that. James Ingram is showing off his voice more than he's trying to make a good song. He oversings this song, and draws attention away from the rest of the music.

Of course, even if he sang it better, the song isn't very good to start with. Almost all the music is made with those 80s synth-keyboards, and that really dates the song. Rather than coming across like a product of its era, I'm left feeling like I wish they'd just made it with acoustic instruments. There may be some genuine strings used on this song, but the piano is clearly fake, and there seems to be a very fake harp, too. I know that this kind of sound was expected in this era of popular music, but it was a terrible idea that was rightly abandoned.

Oversung vocals and synthesized instruments create one of the softest, most fakely emotional songs you'll hear. This is supposed to be a song that is slow-danced to at the prom. Or I suppose it's supposed to be a love song, except that the pesky lyrics prevent it from being very good at that.

"I don't have the heart to hurt you... but I don't have the heart to love you." That's not a love song, no matter how tender the music and vocals try to be. But then he says "I care about you, so much about you." So he's not exactly breaking up with you. Apparently he's happy to continue to use you for now, but he's sensitive enough to feel like he has to tell you, as sadly as possible. Is there actually anyone this self-aware and sensitive to say these things? Who is this song meant for? It isn't a breakup song, but it isn't a love song. I wonder if dedicating this song to your significant other on the radio is the most passive-aggressive way to break off a relationship ever, or if there's something worse.

(Oh, right, people who irritate their significant others in order to get dumped, instead of doing the dumping. I suppose that's more passive-aggressive. Not entirely sure that it's worse.)

My verdict: Don't like it. I had forgotten all about this song until it showed up on my list, but as soon as the opening chords picked up I remembered it and felt dread. I hated this song when it was on the pop charts, and time has only made me like it less.

Song #889: "Bump, Bump, Bump" by B2K and P. Diddy

Date: Feb 1, 2003
Weeks: 1

After listening to "Can't Buy Me Love" (#106) several times yesterday, I immediately checked to see what song came up next to give it a listen. And I immediately thought this was the worst song I'd ever heard.

24 hours later, my opinion has softened quite a bit. I realized that after raving about the full sound the Beatles were getting out of little more than a bass guitar, I got a bit of auditory whiplash moving on to the spare sound of this song.

The music is just so bare. It's a little light guitar and a very sparse thumping bass. Most of the music comes from the lead singer's voice, which I have to admit is pretty decent. He's expressive and has a good range. When he really explores his vocal range it seems like he's trying to create music, not that he's just showing off his range for the sake of showing it off. With very little music support he's carrying the song, and he does a pretty good job of it.

Unfortunately, he can't save the song from the terrible background vocals, nor from the awful orchestra stings that happen whenever they sing the title. It's an okay little song up to that point, then suddenly there is this musical slap in the face to get your attention. The song ought to be titled "BUMP, BUMP, BUMP" to properly express how hard and obnoxious that hit is. It's like they took all the music they drained out of the rest of the song and compressed it into those moments.

Then you have a rap break by P. Diddy. I've always liked P. Diddy's rapping well enough. He has a good rhythmic sense and matches his performance to the music he's using. His rap break here is generally okay. Except for the moment when a wimpy female voice comes in to sing "do do do do." That's pretty awful.

As for the lyrics, it's pretty typical "you're so sexy and I want to get with you" stuff. It objectifies women pretty badly, with lyrics like "Baby turn around and let me see that sexy body go bump, bump, bump. That is all I want to see." Don't show me your face, I just want to see your body, because that's the best thing about you. That's pretty bad objectification. Also, is it really supposed to be a compliment to call a woman a "ghetto queen?" Really? I'm going to leave alone the fact that P. Diddy keeps referring to the woman as "mommy" because according to the lyrics site I saw it's actually "mami." I know that's a thing in some cultures, and although I'm not sure P. Diddy belongs to those cultures, I don't know enough about the expression to make that assertion with any confidence. So I'll leave it alone. Except for the two sentences I just wrote about it. Ahem.

My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a good song, but don't listen to it right after listening to the Beatles, because then it'll seem worse.

Song #106: "Can't Buy Me Love" by The Beatles

Date: Apr 4, 1964
Weeks: 5

I wondered how long it would take me to get to a Beatles song. The Beatles have more No. 1 songs than anybody else. They have 20 which makes up a full 2% of the list. And that's just as the Beatles. If I count up solo hits from all four members of the band, plus Paul McCartney's time in Wings, I count 16 additional No. 1 hits. And that doesn't even count covers or writing credits, of which I'm sure there are a few, but those are harder to turn up by looking at data in a spreadsheet. Given all that, I'm surprised it took my randomizer this long to get around to a Beatles song. And not just any Beatles song, but one of my favorites.

I've never been a huge Beatles fan. I've certainly respected their influence on rock and pop music, especially recently after reviewing some pretty lousy songs from the early 60s. But so many people who talk about the greatness of the Beatles seem to want to talk about their later music, particularly the soft, the experimental, and the just plain weird. I never connected to any of it. Eventually I heard "Can't Buy Me Love" used in a clip on The Simpsons, and I heard what had previously been missing from my understanding of the Beatles: plain old rock and roll. And while I still wouldn't call them my favorite band ever, I definitely like their music more than I used to, now that I understand the rock and roll aspect of it better.

This is a great song all around, but by far my favorite part of it is the bass. The bass is the main thing happening through the song, but the sound is always full and warm and never feels like any other accompanying sound is missing. When the lead guitar does come in, it's to provide accents and then a great guitar-solo in the bridge. The instrumentation through the whole song is top-notch. It's a great song, and most of that can be attributed to the strong and super fun bass line.

I also really like the way John Lennon and Paul McCartney sing together in most of the early Beatles work. I don't think they're showing off any great vocal talent, but they are exuberant and enthusiastic. Maybe that's the quality that separates the Beatles music I like from the music I don't much like: the energetic singing from a couple of kids who can't believe they get to do this for a living, compared to their later years when they felt a drive to create "art." Anyway, their enthusiasm is infectious.

The lyrics are a bit weird. The title line is "Can't buy me love," but the song seems to be full of examples of buying love. "I'll buy you a diamond ring, my friend, if it makes you feel all right." I'll spend money on you, because I don't care about money, because money can't buy love. That's a weird sort of logic. And yet it makes a kind of sense. Why not spend the money if you have it, when the love between two people is about more than money? I guess. I don't know, I honestly only know the lyrics well enough to sing along and rock out to the song. This is a case where I would like the song just as much if the lyrics were "blah blah blah blah."

My verdict: Like it. One of the best songs by one of the objectively best bands in history. And it's just plain fun. It makes me want to run around in a field like the Beatles do in that clip from A Hard Day's Night.

Song #277: "Alone Again (Naturally)" by Gilbert O'Sullivan

Date: July 29, 1972
Weeks: 6

Well, there's a depressing song. And it's also light and not at all catchy. Why is this song on the top of the charts? Knocking off the genuine classic "Lean On Me" (#276)? And staying on top for six weeks?

To start with, the lyrics are just plain depressing. The guy plans a suicide attempt, remembers being left at the altar, takes a brief moment to lament the suffering of people besides himself, recalls the death of his parents, and ends every verse on the cheery thought that not only is he alone, but he deserves to be alone. There is no hope for the future and no sense that things can get better for him. Cheerful.

The lyrics also contain plenty of bad writing. My favorite example is early in the song. "I promise myself to treat myself."  You can't repeat words like that! The rhyme scheme seems to be pretty limerick-y, which I guess is why the writer felt the need to write that line. But you can't rhyme a word with itself to introduce the limerick rhyme scheme. And then he can't even stick to the limerick pattern very well, and he sticks those sorts of short rhyming couplets next to each other in several odd places. The rhyme scheme is a big mess.

Now, there are plenty of pop songs out there that have depressing lyrics, but most of them try to mask depressing lyrics with a happy tune. That is not what's happening here. Piano, drums, and a very sad flute add up to a really hollow, light, and sad tune. It's appropriate for the lyrics, I suppose, but that doesn't make it a good pop song. And this music isn't good by any standard.

Then the singer, Gillbert O'Sullivan, whose name I am happy to learn is a stage name that is an intentional play on Gilbert and Sullivan, has a whiny, sad voice. He's not some super-talented singer making me feel an emotion via his artistry. He's just a whiny sad sack.

All of this adds up to possibly the most depressing song on this list. I hope I'm not wrong about that. I would hate to think there's another No. 1 song out there more depressing than this.

My verdict: Don't like it. I don't understand how a depressing song that is musically unimpressive could not only reach the top of the list, but stay there for so long.