Date: Apr 23, 1988
Weeks: 2
Now this is a song that doesn't waste Whitney Houston.
I know I talk about singers "oversinging" a lot, but here's a great counterexample. Whitney Houston demonstrates how to sing fancily and elaborately without overdoing it and ruining the enjoyability of the song overall. She sings the song elaborately and fancily, but never strays so far from a basic vocal performance to detract from the basic song. I suppose there are a handful of occasions where she gets fancy, especially near the end, but that's when background singers are well-employed to keep the song balanced.
The music is deep into cheap 80s synthesizer territory, with its synthesized strings, sparkly chords, and fake bongo drums. The fakeness of it is really pretty awful. It feels like I'm listening to the karaoke version of this song. I'd like to label it the most excessive use of cheap, fake 80s synthesizers I've encountered yet, but I feel like I've said that before and might wind up saying it again. However, the result of that synthesized performance is that the music is fairly slight. It successfully places itself in the background, and lets Houston's vocals do all the work. This song is all about her voice, and the music does a good job of letting her voice be the main feature of the song. Yes, I just said the best thing about the music was that it didn't get in the way of the vocal performance, and I meant it as a compliment.
The lyrics are about the singer regretting a breakup, and this is her request to get back together. They're pretty simple, and I don't think there are any particularly clever turns of phrase here, but there are also no contradictory or regrettable parts, either. The main chorus is pretty memorable, and the song's intent is clear, even if you only catch the chorus and title.
My verdict: Like it. This song may be the peak of the talent and popularity of a great singer, and the lackluster backing music is mitigated by the fact that it doesn't interfere with the vocals.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Song #149: "Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is A Season" by The Byrds
Date: Dec 4, 1965
Weeks: 3
As I mentioned before, when a movie wants to establish the 1960s, they only have to play the first 4 seconds of this song. This is an indisputable classic.
The lyrics famously come straight from the Book of Ecclesiastes. The only additions to the song are the title phrase "Turn! Turn! Turn!" and the ending line "a time for peace, I swear it's not too late." That end line has turned it into a rather famous peace anthem from the Vietnam War era, which goes right back to explain why this song is so synonymous with the 60s. I'm not entirely clear on the meaning of "turn," but perhaps it's supposed to express the passage of time, the turning of the Earth, that sort of thing. Anyway, setting existing poetry to music is a pretty good trick, so the lyrics certainly get a pass from me.
As for the music, it's classic. The bass is excellent. The vocals are well-performed and harmonized. The guitars sound downright pretty. But the subtle standout is the percussion. During the verses, the percussion is mostly light cymbal-taps and tambourines. But when the chorus comes up, the percussion adds more drums. I have to say, I think the percussion is the main reason this song works so well. The drums modulate the intensity in a way that lets the nice, gentle verse build into a relatively intense chorus.
My verdict: Like it. Even without the historical context, this is just plain a great-sounding song.
Weeks: 3
As I mentioned before, when a movie wants to establish the 1960s, they only have to play the first 4 seconds of this song. This is an indisputable classic.
The lyrics famously come straight from the Book of Ecclesiastes. The only additions to the song are the title phrase "Turn! Turn! Turn!" and the ending line "a time for peace, I swear it's not too late." That end line has turned it into a rather famous peace anthem from the Vietnam War era, which goes right back to explain why this song is so synonymous with the 60s. I'm not entirely clear on the meaning of "turn," but perhaps it's supposed to express the passage of time, the turning of the Earth, that sort of thing. Anyway, setting existing poetry to music is a pretty good trick, so the lyrics certainly get a pass from me.
As for the music, it's classic. The bass is excellent. The vocals are well-performed and harmonized. The guitars sound downright pretty. But the subtle standout is the percussion. During the verses, the percussion is mostly light cymbal-taps and tambourines. But when the chorus comes up, the percussion adds more drums. I have to say, I think the percussion is the main reason this song works so well. The drums modulate the intensity in a way that lets the nice, gentle verse build into a relatively intense chorus.
My verdict: Like it. Even without the historical context, this is just plain a great-sounding song.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Song #772: "End Of The Road" by Boyz II Men
Date: Aug 15, 1992
Weeks: 13
Boyz II Men set a standard for emotional slow songs in the early 90s, and spawned plenty of imitators and parodies. Any time a joke song stops and somebody speaks in a really deep voice? They're parodying this song. Boyz II Men are genuinely talented, but their talent is not always well-used.
This song has two major problems. The first is a simple matter of oversinging. Yes, these guys are talented vocalists. The chorus is excellent. Their vocal harmony is great and when the song showcases that harmony, it shines. But their singing in the verses is overwrought, overdramatic, and overdone. It's not necessary and it feels like they're showing off instead of creating a good performance of the song. The spoken bass part is particularly cheesy.
The second problem is the backing music. It's cheesy and really delicate. The bass is fine, but the drums are too slight, and the synth chords and plucked guitar sounds feel out of place. They don't mesh with the vocals. When the vocals are so harmonious, making the instruments compete with them doesn't really work out in the song's favor.
Near the end of the song, the instruments fall away, and it becomes an a capella song. And that is when we see that the song should have been an a capella song all along. The instruments were only masking what Boyz II Men could really do. That small section of the song shows what might have been, but it also shows why the rest of the song fails.
The lyrics are very doormat-y. The song is about a girl who cheated, and it's from the point of view of the guy she cheated on. He's lamenting the end of their relationship, and how painful it is for him. And that's a perfectly fine and interesting topic for a song, but all he wants to do is forgive her, get back together, and forget the cheating. Because, I guess, he just can't get used to not being with her? I suppose this song could be interpreted as his inner thoughts and weaknesses, rather than what he's actually saying to the girl in question, but it's hard to take it that way when you consider this song is intended to be played as a love song on the radio or at a dance or whatever.
My verdict: Don't like it. It could be a decent enough song with a few tweaks, and Boyz II Men are talented performers, but this performance of it is not good.
Weeks: 13
Boyz II Men set a standard for emotional slow songs in the early 90s, and spawned plenty of imitators and parodies. Any time a joke song stops and somebody speaks in a really deep voice? They're parodying this song. Boyz II Men are genuinely talented, but their talent is not always well-used.
This song has two major problems. The first is a simple matter of oversinging. Yes, these guys are talented vocalists. The chorus is excellent. Their vocal harmony is great and when the song showcases that harmony, it shines. But their singing in the verses is overwrought, overdramatic, and overdone. It's not necessary and it feels like they're showing off instead of creating a good performance of the song. The spoken bass part is particularly cheesy.
The second problem is the backing music. It's cheesy and really delicate. The bass is fine, but the drums are too slight, and the synth chords and plucked guitar sounds feel out of place. They don't mesh with the vocals. When the vocals are so harmonious, making the instruments compete with them doesn't really work out in the song's favor.
Near the end of the song, the instruments fall away, and it becomes an a capella song. And that is when we see that the song should have been an a capella song all along. The instruments were only masking what Boyz II Men could really do. That small section of the song shows what might have been, but it also shows why the rest of the song fails.
The lyrics are very doormat-y. The song is about a girl who cheated, and it's from the point of view of the guy she cheated on. He's lamenting the end of their relationship, and how painful it is for him. And that's a perfectly fine and interesting topic for a song, but all he wants to do is forgive her, get back together, and forget the cheating. Because, I guess, he just can't get used to not being with her? I suppose this song could be interpreted as his inner thoughts and weaknesses, rather than what he's actually saying to the girl in question, but it's hard to take it that way when you consider this song is intended to be played as a love song on the radio or at a dance or whatever.
My verdict: Don't like it. It could be a decent enough song with a few tweaks, and Boyz II Men are talented performers, but this performance of it is not good.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Song #510: "Private Eyes" by Darryl Hall & John Oates
Date: Nov 7, 1981
Weeks: 2
Now here's a prime example of that early-80s "thin" sound. I think the prime source of that sound may be the fake piano. Something about the way the synthesized pianos of the time failed to fill a room with sound the way a regular piano would created this unique sound. You just don't hear that any more, because fake pianos these days are generally better at faking it.
I like the conservative use of instruments. There's rarely more sound than is needed at any moment. The guitars and piano and vocals all come in when they are needed, and drop out when they aren't. That keeps the song more interesting than it would be if the sound was just constant the entire time.
Hall's voice isn't quite as compelling as it was in the last Hall & Oates song I reviewed, but it's well-suited to the song. He sings it well, and he adds a little bit of pleasant flourish to several parts that doesn't overwhelm the rest of the music. And that vocal flourish when he sings "Private eyes" at the conclusion of the chorus is an important part of what makes the song work.
While the lyrics initially seem to be about stalker-y obsession, with the chorus of "Private eyes are watching you, they see your every move," I don't think that's what the song is really about. With lines like "Don't lie when you're hurting inside, 'cause you can't escape my private eyes," I think the song is more about how the singer is telling the person he's singing to that he knows them well enough to see through their brave front to their real feelings. At any rate, there's more to it than just a stalking anthem.
My verdict: Like it. Maybe not an all-time great song, but it's perfectly pleasant and entertaining.
Weeks: 2
Now here's a prime example of that early-80s "thin" sound. I think the prime source of that sound may be the fake piano. Something about the way the synthesized pianos of the time failed to fill a room with sound the way a regular piano would created this unique sound. You just don't hear that any more, because fake pianos these days are generally better at faking it.
I like the conservative use of instruments. There's rarely more sound than is needed at any moment. The guitars and piano and vocals all come in when they are needed, and drop out when they aren't. That keeps the song more interesting than it would be if the sound was just constant the entire time.
Hall's voice isn't quite as compelling as it was in the last Hall & Oates song I reviewed, but it's well-suited to the song. He sings it well, and he adds a little bit of pleasant flourish to several parts that doesn't overwhelm the rest of the music. And that vocal flourish when he sings "Private eyes" at the conclusion of the chorus is an important part of what makes the song work.
While the lyrics initially seem to be about stalker-y obsession, with the chorus of "Private eyes are watching you, they see your every move," I don't think that's what the song is really about. With lines like "Don't lie when you're hurting inside, 'cause you can't escape my private eyes," I think the song is more about how the singer is telling the person he's singing to that he knows them well enough to see through their brave front to their real feelings. At any rate, there's more to it than just a stalking anthem.
My verdict: Like it. Maybe not an all-time great song, but it's perfectly pleasant and entertaining.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Song #902: "Yeah!" by Usher featuring Lil John and Ludacris
Date: Feb 28, 2004
Weeks: 12
This song's overall sound is great. While the synthesizer was horribly abused in the 70s and 80s, somewhere in the 90s someone figured out how to properly use it as part of the musical palette. And this song shows how the synthesizer can be used to wonderful effect. The synthesizer sting that dominates this song is pure gold. As long as the rest of the song can stay out of its way, that sting will carry the song. And the rest of the song generally does that. Other than some minimal percussion and bass, there's not a lot of other music here to interfere.
As for the vocals, I think I've said before that Usher has a good voice. I enjoy listening to him sing. The relatively stark soundscape shows off his voice, and it's great. Ludacris raps for a verse here, too. And I was right before, Ludacris raps well and doesn't need his voice to be manipulated weirdly to be entertaining. Ludacris's rap verse sounds really good. Ludacris and Usher have made two decent songs here and successfully fused them together in a way that works. Lil John has a really obnoxious voice and he's pretty terrible, but the song uses him in the best way possible: minimally. If Lil John had even a whole verse I'd probably be pointing to it as the point where the song broke down, but that doesn't happen.
Now, the lyrics are where the song starts to come apart. It seems Usher has a favorite theme for his songs: seeing an attractive woman at a dance club. I seem to be moving backwards through Usher's career, so maybe he's just copying the formula that worked for him here, but I kind of want to hear him sing about something else. Anyway, like the other songs I've reviewed, this one reduces the woman he's singing about to her attractiveness, and Usher implies he has no willpower to resist her, even though he has a girlfriend and totally should. Ludacris's lyrics are possibly even worse, including the line "if you hold the head steady, I'ma milk the cow." I'm not sure I've fully deciphered the metaphor, but I'm pretty sure he's just compared women to cows, or at least to milk. This song at least avoids using pre-teen words like "Boobies," and isn't about having sex in public, so I suppose of all the Usher songs I've done, it's the least offensive lyrically.
My verdict: Like it. I don't care about the lyrics. That synthesizer hook is a winner, and the quality of the vocals are a good thing. I can mostly overlook the lyrics.
Weeks: 12
This song's overall sound is great. While the synthesizer was horribly abused in the 70s and 80s, somewhere in the 90s someone figured out how to properly use it as part of the musical palette. And this song shows how the synthesizer can be used to wonderful effect. The synthesizer sting that dominates this song is pure gold. As long as the rest of the song can stay out of its way, that sting will carry the song. And the rest of the song generally does that. Other than some minimal percussion and bass, there's not a lot of other music here to interfere.
As for the vocals, I think I've said before that Usher has a good voice. I enjoy listening to him sing. The relatively stark soundscape shows off his voice, and it's great. Ludacris raps for a verse here, too. And I was right before, Ludacris raps well and doesn't need his voice to be manipulated weirdly to be entertaining. Ludacris's rap verse sounds really good. Ludacris and Usher have made two decent songs here and successfully fused them together in a way that works. Lil John has a really obnoxious voice and he's pretty terrible, but the song uses him in the best way possible: minimally. If Lil John had even a whole verse I'd probably be pointing to it as the point where the song broke down, but that doesn't happen.
Now, the lyrics are where the song starts to come apart. It seems Usher has a favorite theme for his songs: seeing an attractive woman at a dance club. I seem to be moving backwards through Usher's career, so maybe he's just copying the formula that worked for him here, but I kind of want to hear him sing about something else. Anyway, like the other songs I've reviewed, this one reduces the woman he's singing about to her attractiveness, and Usher implies he has no willpower to resist her, even though he has a girlfriend and totally should. Ludacris's lyrics are possibly even worse, including the line "if you hold the head steady, I'ma milk the cow." I'm not sure I've fully deciphered the metaphor, but I'm pretty sure he's just compared women to cows, or at least to milk. This song at least avoids using pre-teen words like "Boobies," and isn't about having sex in public, so I suppose of all the Usher songs I've done, it's the least offensive lyrically.
My verdict: Like it. I don't care about the lyrics. That synthesizer hook is a winner, and the quality of the vocals are a good thing. I can mostly overlook the lyrics.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Song #563: "Careless Whisper" by Wham! featuring George Michael
Date: Feb 16, 1985
Weeks: 3
I had forgotten about this song. When I started it up, I immediately recognized it. "Hey, it's that cheesy saxophone riff that gets used a lot when a sexy scene is being played for laughs." Then I realized that reaction probably wouldn't work in the song's favor.
Everything about this song is so desperate to be sincere, but it's hard to take it seriously when I have to dig through layers of dated 80s-specific cheese. The saxophone. The whispery, echoing background vocals. The overly passionate, yet insincere lead singing. Synthesized keyboard stings. All terrible tropes of soft rock in the 80s that feel really dated now.
I suppose the drum, bass, and guitar lines aren't so bad. If you put them under a different song, maybe they'd be fine. But the song leaves me with the overall impression that it's trying to be sexy, but it really doesn't succeed.
And then the lyrics. This is a "sorry I cheated on you" song. "I'm never gonna dance again, guilty feet have got no rhythm." "I should have known better than to cheat a friend." Basic stuff, I suppose, but there's something else here. First there's the bridge that says "Now who's gonna dance with me. Please stay." Then the overall (attempted) sexy tone of the music. This isn't a "sorry I cheated on you, I feel bad about it, goodbye" song. This is a "sorry I cheated on you, but if you walk away, you're the one giving up on a good relationship" song. It's got it's sentiment in entirely the wrong place. It's one thing to try to be a "sorry I cheated on you, please forgive me and give me another chance" song. But this song fails to even use the words "sorry" or "forgive." Nope, this is the kind of song a shallow inconsiderate person uses to try to seduce their ex back after cheating on them.
My verdict: Don't like it. The sentiment implied by the lyrics is lousy, the music is dripping with the worst cheese of the 80s, and both George Michael and Wham have better songs than this.
Weeks: 3
I had forgotten about this song. When I started it up, I immediately recognized it. "Hey, it's that cheesy saxophone riff that gets used a lot when a sexy scene is being played for laughs." Then I realized that reaction probably wouldn't work in the song's favor.
Everything about this song is so desperate to be sincere, but it's hard to take it seriously when I have to dig through layers of dated 80s-specific cheese. The saxophone. The whispery, echoing background vocals. The overly passionate, yet insincere lead singing. Synthesized keyboard stings. All terrible tropes of soft rock in the 80s that feel really dated now.
I suppose the drum, bass, and guitar lines aren't so bad. If you put them under a different song, maybe they'd be fine. But the song leaves me with the overall impression that it's trying to be sexy, but it really doesn't succeed.
And then the lyrics. This is a "sorry I cheated on you" song. "I'm never gonna dance again, guilty feet have got no rhythm." "I should have known better than to cheat a friend." Basic stuff, I suppose, but there's something else here. First there's the bridge that says "Now who's gonna dance with me. Please stay." Then the overall (attempted) sexy tone of the music. This isn't a "sorry I cheated on you, I feel bad about it, goodbye" song. This is a "sorry I cheated on you, but if you walk away, you're the one giving up on a good relationship" song. It's got it's sentiment in entirely the wrong place. It's one thing to try to be a "sorry I cheated on you, please forgive me and give me another chance" song. But this song fails to even use the words "sorry" or "forgive." Nope, this is the kind of song a shallow inconsiderate person uses to try to seduce their ex back after cheating on them.
My verdict: Don't like it. The sentiment implied by the lyrics is lousy, the music is dripping with the worst cheese of the 80s, and both George Michael and Wham have better songs than this.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Remake-off: Song #174: "You Keep Me Hangin' On" by the Supremes vs. Song #628: "You Keep Me Hangin' On" by Kim Wilde
Date: Nov 19, 1966
Weeks: 2
The Supremes have 12 No. 1 hits, of which this is not one of the better-known. Kim Wilde has just this one, and it's not nearly as well-known as her song "Kids in America." So which is the better version?
The lyrics are about the singer lamenting that this guy she used to date no longer wants to be with her, but is still around her, and she now realizes she can't get over him while he's still around. "Get out my life, why don't you babe? 'Cause you don't really love me, you just keep me hangin' on." "But how can we still be friends when seeing you only breaks my heart again?" He's keeping her at arm's length, neither getting back together with her nor leaving her alone, and she's declaring her intention to stay away from him and get on with her life.
The Supremes' version makes this meaning very clear. Much of the Supremes' body of work is about a women declaring her independence and self-dependence and her right to make decisions about her own love life, and their song perfectly fits that theme. That performance is mostly in their strong voices, but the driving drum line, tambourine beats, and bass line help convey the complicated emotions. I even like the constantly-strumming rhythm guitar that opens the song and continues throughout. It drives the song and helps communicate the emotion of being persistently tense in this situation.
Kim Wilde's version is a bit muddier. Her voice is not nearly as strong, and her performance gets overwhelmed by the strong electric guitars more often. The chords are a bit more minor-sounding through the chorus, which makes Kim Wilde's version sound more dramatic. The effect is to make her sound more helpless and powerless to do anything about the situation. But that goes directly against the original intent of the lyrics, which have the woman declaring that she has the power to resolve the situation to her satisfaction.
On top of not communicating the intent nearly as well, Wilde's version contains some of the more obnoxious tropes of the 80s, including the keyboards, powerful electric guitars, and poundy drums. Wilde's version does attempt to redefine the sound of the chorus and make it her own, and I think that has to be respected. Unfortunately, that redesign of the sound didn't extend to the verses, where the song sounds like a fairly straight cover of the Supremes' song.
My verdict: The Supremes version is the better version, and it earns a Like it. Kim Wilde's version takes a good song and applies some of the worst excesses of the 80s to it, and I have to say I Don't like it.
Weeks: 2
vs.
Date: June 6, 1987
Weeks: 1
The Supremes have 12 No. 1 hits, of which this is not one of the better-known. Kim Wilde has just this one, and it's not nearly as well-known as her song "Kids in America." So which is the better version?
The lyrics are about the singer lamenting that this guy she used to date no longer wants to be with her, but is still around her, and she now realizes she can't get over him while he's still around. "Get out my life, why don't you babe? 'Cause you don't really love me, you just keep me hangin' on." "But how can we still be friends when seeing you only breaks my heart again?" He's keeping her at arm's length, neither getting back together with her nor leaving her alone, and she's declaring her intention to stay away from him and get on with her life.
The Supremes' version makes this meaning very clear. Much of the Supremes' body of work is about a women declaring her independence and self-dependence and her right to make decisions about her own love life, and their song perfectly fits that theme. That performance is mostly in their strong voices, but the driving drum line, tambourine beats, and bass line help convey the complicated emotions. I even like the constantly-strumming rhythm guitar that opens the song and continues throughout. It drives the song and helps communicate the emotion of being persistently tense in this situation.
Kim Wilde's version is a bit muddier. Her voice is not nearly as strong, and her performance gets overwhelmed by the strong electric guitars more often. The chords are a bit more minor-sounding through the chorus, which makes Kim Wilde's version sound more dramatic. The effect is to make her sound more helpless and powerless to do anything about the situation. But that goes directly against the original intent of the lyrics, which have the woman declaring that she has the power to resolve the situation to her satisfaction.
On top of not communicating the intent nearly as well, Wilde's version contains some of the more obnoxious tropes of the 80s, including the keyboards, powerful electric guitars, and poundy drums. Wilde's version does attempt to redefine the sound of the chorus and make it her own, and I think that has to be respected. Unfortunately, that redesign of the sound didn't extend to the verses, where the song sounds like a fairly straight cover of the Supremes' song.
My verdict: The Supremes version is the better version, and it earns a Like it. Kim Wilde's version takes a good song and applies some of the worst excesses of the 80s to it, and I have to say I Don't like it.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Song #702: "Hangin' Tough" by New Kids On The Block
Date: Sept 9, 1989
Weeks: 1
I promise I didn't take that week-long break just because I was daunted by the idea of trying to review the New Kids. In fact, although I had noticed a New Kids song was next, I hadn't actually sat down to listen to it. But now that I have, part of me wants to run away and hide from trying to discuss this song.
The problem with New Kids on the Block is that everything about them is inauthentic. You can see that right here. They are trying to be tough and mean, but everything about them is ridiculously gentle. The singing is alternately harmonic and shouty. Apparently the shouting was supposed to be considered rap, but one line isn't rap. It's a pale imitation of rap, and lacks even the least bit of actual toughness. Also, that "whoa, oa, oa, oa, oa" chant is obnoxious, and feels like it lacks any sense of tune or tempo.
The music is also trying to sound tougher than it is. I particularly like the occasional use of what sounds like a police whistle. I think that sound is trying to evoke the mental image of a gang of kids who hang out on corners and spray graffiti, occasionally trying to run from the police. Unfortunately, whoever thought a police whistle was a good way to convey that must have been very old, because it mostly just makes me think of the Little Rascals, and similar groups of very small children being hassled by fictional police for the most gentle crimes imaginable.
Apart from the police whistle, the overly artificial production of the music doesn't help. Synth-keyboards, electric guitars, and drum machines don't fit with the mental image of kids who hang out on street corners. It's studio-produced and fake, and sounds it. And it's not that you can't make music that way, but it's not compatible with the type of attitude the New Kids are trying to convey.
The lyrics are more of the same. "Everybody's always talkin' 'bout who's on top. Don't cross our path or you're gonna get stomped." "Stomped" seems like an overly gentle threat, and just further shows how inauthentic they are. Actually, reading over the lyrics now, it's seems more like they're talking about the Billboard chart. Don't get in their way as they rise to the top of the charts. "And if you try to keep us down we're gonna come right back." If their song sinks off the charts, they'll just have another one coming along shortly.
My verdict: Don't like it. Also, a note for people who make music-videos: making the singer play air guitar in their own music video just calls attention to the fact that the guitar is being recorded by studio musicians. Unless you're using air guitars for comedy, they're a terrible idea in a music video.
Weeks: 1
I promise I didn't take that week-long break just because I was daunted by the idea of trying to review the New Kids. In fact, although I had noticed a New Kids song was next, I hadn't actually sat down to listen to it. But now that I have, part of me wants to run away and hide from trying to discuss this song.
The problem with New Kids on the Block is that everything about them is inauthentic. You can see that right here. They are trying to be tough and mean, but everything about them is ridiculously gentle. The singing is alternately harmonic and shouty. Apparently the shouting was supposed to be considered rap, but one line isn't rap. It's a pale imitation of rap, and lacks even the least bit of actual toughness. Also, that "whoa, oa, oa, oa, oa" chant is obnoxious, and feels like it lacks any sense of tune or tempo.
The music is also trying to sound tougher than it is. I particularly like the occasional use of what sounds like a police whistle. I think that sound is trying to evoke the mental image of a gang of kids who hang out on corners and spray graffiti, occasionally trying to run from the police. Unfortunately, whoever thought a police whistle was a good way to convey that must have been very old, because it mostly just makes me think of the Little Rascals, and similar groups of very small children being hassled by fictional police for the most gentle crimes imaginable.
Apart from the police whistle, the overly artificial production of the music doesn't help. Synth-keyboards, electric guitars, and drum machines don't fit with the mental image of kids who hang out on street corners. It's studio-produced and fake, and sounds it. And it's not that you can't make music that way, but it's not compatible with the type of attitude the New Kids are trying to convey.
The lyrics are more of the same. "Everybody's always talkin' 'bout who's on top. Don't cross our path or you're gonna get stomped." "Stomped" seems like an overly gentle threat, and just further shows how inauthentic they are. Actually, reading over the lyrics now, it's seems more like they're talking about the Billboard chart. Don't get in their way as they rise to the top of the charts. "And if you try to keep us down we're gonna come right back." If their song sinks off the charts, they'll just have another one coming along shortly.
My verdict: Don't like it. Also, a note for people who make music-videos: making the singer play air guitar in their own music video just calls attention to the fact that the guitar is being recorded by studio musicians. Unless you're using air guitars for comedy, they're a terrible idea in a music video.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Song #578: "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits
Date: Sept 21, 1985
Weeks: 3
This is a classic of 80s rock, but it's probably best known for its music video. That is some early computer animation there, with its huge blocks, gliding movements, and barely-present shading. It's kind of funny that as I write this, I've got Finding Nemo on the TV. It's remarkable how far computer animation has come. This video also got played all over MTV, not least because it mentions MTV in the lyrics, creating a wonderful little cross-promotional synergy that both MTV and Dire Straits benefited from.
As for the actual song, the whole song is based around a great guitar riff. This is some plain and straightforward rock music here. The lead guitar carries the song, and everything else is secondary. There are synth-keyboards that are well-used as accents, and the drum line is unremarkably ordinary, which is a blessing in an 80s song.
The lyrics are pretty interesting. They are from the perspective of a very blue-collar guy who works delivering appliances, and he's envious that MTV stars have managed to figure out how to get paid a lot for doing very little actual work. "That's the way you do it. You play the guitar on the MTV." There's also some more colorful and offensive language in the lyrics that is also obviously from this character's perspective. As art, the offensive language is forgiven by the perspective, but as pop music it's a little rough to hear on the radio. Anyway, it's almost certainly accurate for the time.
My verdict: Like it. It's an 80s rock classic, and reminds me of MTV's best days.
Weeks: 3
This is a classic of 80s rock, but it's probably best known for its music video. That is some early computer animation there, with its huge blocks, gliding movements, and barely-present shading. It's kind of funny that as I write this, I've got Finding Nemo on the TV. It's remarkable how far computer animation has come. This video also got played all over MTV, not least because it mentions MTV in the lyrics, creating a wonderful little cross-promotional synergy that both MTV and Dire Straits benefited from.
As for the actual song, the whole song is based around a great guitar riff. This is some plain and straightforward rock music here. The lead guitar carries the song, and everything else is secondary. There are synth-keyboards that are well-used as accents, and the drum line is unremarkably ordinary, which is a blessing in an 80s song.
The lyrics are pretty interesting. They are from the perspective of a very blue-collar guy who works delivering appliances, and he's envious that MTV stars have managed to figure out how to get paid a lot for doing very little actual work. "That's the way you do it. You play the guitar on the MTV." There's also some more colorful and offensive language in the lyrics that is also obviously from this character's perspective. As art, the offensive language is forgiven by the perspective, but as pop music it's a little rough to hear on the radio. Anyway, it's almost certainly accurate for the time.
My verdict: Like it. It's an 80s rock classic, and reminds me of MTV's best days.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Song #399: "Afternoon Delight" by Starland Vocal Band
Date: July 10, 1976
Weeks: 2
I think everyone but the most ardent fan of 70s music would agree that this is a pretty lousy song from all angles.
The lyrics are a coded reference to having sex in the afternoon. Except it's really not that coded. I appreciate that I have the benefit of 35 years of lyrical analysis behind me, but how was anyone fooled into thinking this song was about anything else? "Gonna find my baby, gonna hold her tight, gonna grab some afternoon delight." I guess that's kind of vague, but then there's "We could make a lot of lovin' 'fore the sun goes down." And it's not that I object to the obvious sex reference, but I feel like that's all there is to this song. It's about cleverly getting away with something, except it's not that clever. Once the meaning is know to you, the song doesn't have anything else clever to say.
The music is bland and boring. Strummy acoustic guitars, the lightest drum I've ever heard, and the ever-present 70s string section. I don't know if that chirping bird on the version I linked is actually on the original single, but if so this may be the most aggressively pleasant song I've ever heard. And I'm not a fan of aggressively pleasant.
The vocals are similarly aggressively pleasant, but they're not even that pleasant. Doing vocal harmonies well is hard, and the Starland Vocal Band isn't good at it. Most of this song is really jarring and unpleasant because I just don't enjoy the voices.
I will say that there is a good moment in the chorus of this song. When they sing "Skyrockets in flight. Afternoon delight," the song clicks. There's a nice guitar tone in there that I wish the song made more use of. And the vocal harmonies right there even work well. It's a nice moment, and it's rightly the centerpiece of the song, since it features the title. It makes me think I like the song more than I do, that the rest of the song has been building to a good moment. But unfortunately, it's not good enough to make up for the rest of the music.
My verdict: Don't like it. Maybe if it was less 70s in its sound, maybe if the lyrics were about something more than getting away with saying something naughty on the radio, or maybe if the singing was just better, this could be a good song. But it's not.
Weeks: 2
I think everyone but the most ardent fan of 70s music would agree that this is a pretty lousy song from all angles.
The lyrics are a coded reference to having sex in the afternoon. Except it's really not that coded. I appreciate that I have the benefit of 35 years of lyrical analysis behind me, but how was anyone fooled into thinking this song was about anything else? "Gonna find my baby, gonna hold her tight, gonna grab some afternoon delight." I guess that's kind of vague, but then there's "We could make a lot of lovin' 'fore the sun goes down." And it's not that I object to the obvious sex reference, but I feel like that's all there is to this song. It's about cleverly getting away with something, except it's not that clever. Once the meaning is know to you, the song doesn't have anything else clever to say.
The music is bland and boring. Strummy acoustic guitars, the lightest drum I've ever heard, and the ever-present 70s string section. I don't know if that chirping bird on the version I linked is actually on the original single, but if so this may be the most aggressively pleasant song I've ever heard. And I'm not a fan of aggressively pleasant.
The vocals are similarly aggressively pleasant, but they're not even that pleasant. Doing vocal harmonies well is hard, and the Starland Vocal Band isn't good at it. Most of this song is really jarring and unpleasant because I just don't enjoy the voices.
I will say that there is a good moment in the chorus of this song. When they sing "Skyrockets in flight. Afternoon delight," the song clicks. There's a nice guitar tone in there that I wish the song made more use of. And the vocal harmonies right there even work well. It's a nice moment, and it's rightly the centerpiece of the song, since it features the title. It makes me think I like the song more than I do, that the rest of the song has been building to a good moment. But unfortunately, it's not good enough to make up for the rest of the music.
My verdict: Don't like it. Maybe if it was less 70s in its sound, maybe if the lyrics were about something more than getting away with saying something naughty on the radio, or maybe if the singing was just better, this could be a good song. But it's not.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Song #418: "Rich Girl" by Darryl Hall and John Oates
Date: Mar 26, 1977
Weeks: 2
I'm not sure if this song is properly credited to "Hall & Oates" or "Darryl Hall & John Oates." The Billboard list says "Darryl Hall John Oates," which seems like they just threw up their hands in confusion and went with nonsense. Anyway, it's the same two guys.
I've always associated Hall & Oates with the 80s. I've heard this song before and I didn't realize their career extended so far back into the 70s. This doesn't quite sound like a 70s song to me. Other than the strings, that is. The strings are a dead giveaway that it's the 70s. The beat and bass line feel like they're from the 80s, and the vocals sound more 80s to me. I guess it's possible I'm just associating this with other Hall & Oates's songs I know, which generally abandoned the 70s strings for 80s synths, and the similar song makes it feel more 80s to me. It's kind of ridiculous to nitpick the decade of a band that straddles the decade line, but it's always fascinating to me to hear one type of music evolving into the next.
Anyway, I like the music generally, although I wish the strings were replaced with a different sound. The overuse of strings were not the best feature of 70s music.
Darryl Hall's vocals are very good. They're impassioned and very rock.. funk... ish. I can't be entirely sure, but I think this song may be something of a turning point in pop music vocals. Before this point, so many singers on this list are Bobby Goldsboro. After this, the singers get a little more Robert Palmer. Probably Michael Jackson had more to do with that than anyone, but Hall & Oates provide a great example of the transition of vocal styles among singers known for singing.
The lyrics are about a rich girl who fails to understand how the world works because she doesn't have to care how to works. She can rely on her father's money to solve all her problems. It comes across a little patronizing on Hall's part. Especially with the use of the word "girl," it diminishes her to someone whose opinion can be easily dismissed as unimportant because she's too sheltered to understand. It's kind of interesting that, according to Wikipedia, the song was originally written about a rich young man. It's kind of a different song about a random crazy spoiled rich kid in that light, and doesn't take on the gender politics tone it does when it's called "Rich Girl," but it lacks the sexual tension tone that "Rich Girl" generates. It certainly wouldn't have done as well if it had been "Rich Boy" instead.
My verdict: Like it. Hall & Oates made some good 80s songs. Apparently before the 80s even began.
Weeks: 2
I'm not sure if this song is properly credited to "Hall & Oates" or "Darryl Hall & John Oates." The Billboard list says "Darryl Hall John Oates," which seems like they just threw up their hands in confusion and went with nonsense. Anyway, it's the same two guys.
I've always associated Hall & Oates with the 80s. I've heard this song before and I didn't realize their career extended so far back into the 70s. This doesn't quite sound like a 70s song to me. Other than the strings, that is. The strings are a dead giveaway that it's the 70s. The beat and bass line feel like they're from the 80s, and the vocals sound more 80s to me. I guess it's possible I'm just associating this with other Hall & Oates's songs I know, which generally abandoned the 70s strings for 80s synths, and the similar song makes it feel more 80s to me. It's kind of ridiculous to nitpick the decade of a band that straddles the decade line, but it's always fascinating to me to hear one type of music evolving into the next.
Anyway, I like the music generally, although I wish the strings were replaced with a different sound. The overuse of strings were not the best feature of 70s music.
Darryl Hall's vocals are very good. They're impassioned and very rock.. funk... ish. I can't be entirely sure, but I think this song may be something of a turning point in pop music vocals. Before this point, so many singers on this list are Bobby Goldsboro. After this, the singers get a little more Robert Palmer. Probably Michael Jackson had more to do with that than anyone, but Hall & Oates provide a great example of the transition of vocal styles among singers known for singing.
The lyrics are about a rich girl who fails to understand how the world works because she doesn't have to care how to works. She can rely on her father's money to solve all her problems. It comes across a little patronizing on Hall's part. Especially with the use of the word "girl," it diminishes her to someone whose opinion can be easily dismissed as unimportant because she's too sheltered to understand. It's kind of interesting that, according to Wikipedia, the song was originally written about a rich young man. It's kind of a different song about a random crazy spoiled rich kid in that light, and doesn't take on the gender politics tone it does when it's called "Rich Girl," but it lacks the sexual tension tone that "Rich Girl" generates. It certainly wouldn't have done as well if it had been "Rich Boy" instead.
My verdict: Like it. Hall & Oates made some good 80s songs. Apparently before the 80s even began.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Song #752: "Unbelievable" by EMF
Date: July 20, 1991
Weeks: 1
This song is unmistakably 90s, and unintentionally hilarious, especially when you watch the video.
The 80s New Wave influence over the vocals creates hilarious contrast as the singer tries to take a whispery, light, British voice and sort of half-sing, half-rap. It kind of sounds like they're trying to rap but won't commit to it, lest they alienate anyone who doesn't like rap. I'd like to say that it took rock music a long time to incorporate rap music successfully, but Run-DMC was doing that in the 80s. So let's just say that this was a bit experimental.
The music is easily the best part of the song. The bass and guitar are quite good. I liked this song a lot when I was younger, and I still have affection for it, and I definitely think it's because of the guitar and bass lines. Unfortunately, there's a lot more going on here. The drum line, in particular, is almost certainly a drum machine, and it's very regrettably basic and uninteresting. Then there's a lot of background vocals and voice samples. Apparently the "oh!" sample and the "it's unbelievable" sample are from Andrew "Dice" Clay, who is himself a largely forgotten part of the early 90s.
As for the lyrics, they're pretty obnoxious. The singer thinks that the person he's talking to is a snob, and he's figured out that this person is being snobby just to feel like they are better than other people. "The things you say, your purple prose just gives you away." So the guy thinks the person he's talking to is pretending to be better than they are by talking fancy. Of course, the term "purple prose" is pretty fancy, too, so I detect a bit of hypocrisy in the lyrics here. And to think I always thought that "you're unbelievable" was supposed to be a compliment in this song, when in fact it's a criticism.
My verdict: Don't like it. I definitely have a nostalgic affection for this song, and I still think the guitar and bass line are enjoyable. But there's too much else going on here that's pretty bad, especially the lyrics. It is much more ironically enjoyable when you add Tom Jones.
Weeks: 1
This song is unmistakably 90s, and unintentionally hilarious, especially when you watch the video.
The 80s New Wave influence over the vocals creates hilarious contrast as the singer tries to take a whispery, light, British voice and sort of half-sing, half-rap. It kind of sounds like they're trying to rap but won't commit to it, lest they alienate anyone who doesn't like rap. I'd like to say that it took rock music a long time to incorporate rap music successfully, but Run-DMC was doing that in the 80s. So let's just say that this was a bit experimental.
The music is easily the best part of the song. The bass and guitar are quite good. I liked this song a lot when I was younger, and I still have affection for it, and I definitely think it's because of the guitar and bass lines. Unfortunately, there's a lot more going on here. The drum line, in particular, is almost certainly a drum machine, and it's very regrettably basic and uninteresting. Then there's a lot of background vocals and voice samples. Apparently the "oh!" sample and the "it's unbelievable" sample are from Andrew "Dice" Clay, who is himself a largely forgotten part of the early 90s.
As for the lyrics, they're pretty obnoxious. The singer thinks that the person he's talking to is a snob, and he's figured out that this person is being snobby just to feel like they are better than other people. "The things you say, your purple prose just gives you away." So the guy thinks the person he's talking to is pretending to be better than they are by talking fancy. Of course, the term "purple prose" is pretty fancy, too, so I detect a bit of hypocrisy in the lyrics here. And to think I always thought that "you're unbelievable" was supposed to be a compliment in this song, when in fact it's a criticism.
My verdict: Don't like it. I definitely have a nostalgic affection for this song, and I still think the guitar and bass line are enjoyable. But there's too much else going on here that's pretty bad, especially the lyrics. It is much more ironically enjoyable when you add Tom Jones.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Song #197: "Green Tambourine" by The Lemon Pipers
Date: Feb 3, 1968
Weeks: 1
That sitar opening is fairly unmistakable as identifying the late 60s. Everything about this song sounds very uniquely 60s, including the special effects that get applied to the vocals. And yet this isn't a 60s song I've heard pushed as a classic example of the music in the 60s. This is new to me, and I like being able to come to it absolutely fresh and find something enjoyable.
The music is very catchy. The beat that the rhythm guitar is putting out is a very classic rhythm, and it's one I enjoy whenever I hear it. The bass line is also really fun. Everything else kind of gets layered on top of those, becoming more of a sense of sound than anything particularly melodic, but it's done just enough to create a great sound without overwhelming the song with noise.
And it's good that the tambourine is featured. It's a tough instrument to feature well, but they managed it here, and it enhances the story that is told in the lyrics.
As for the lyrics, they're pretty simple. A poor street musician says if you pay him, he'll play his tambourine for you. I'm not sure that method actually works for street musicians, as it's much more common to see them playing their instruments and accepting donations, but it kind of evokes an image of a funny hippie refusing to share his "deep" tambourine music with you unless you pay him first. So the song is a bit tongue-in-cheek without being a novelty song, exactly. And I always appreciate that kind of music.
My verdict: Like it. Songs like this are why I wanted to do this blog. I think it's very odd that a song can get popular enough to reach No. 1, and then get forgotten afterward, especially when it's actually a pretty good song.
Weeks: 1
That sitar opening is fairly unmistakable as identifying the late 60s. Everything about this song sounds very uniquely 60s, including the special effects that get applied to the vocals. And yet this isn't a 60s song I've heard pushed as a classic example of the music in the 60s. This is new to me, and I like being able to come to it absolutely fresh and find something enjoyable.
The music is very catchy. The beat that the rhythm guitar is putting out is a very classic rhythm, and it's one I enjoy whenever I hear it. The bass line is also really fun. Everything else kind of gets layered on top of those, becoming more of a sense of sound than anything particularly melodic, but it's done just enough to create a great sound without overwhelming the song with noise.
And it's good that the tambourine is featured. It's a tough instrument to feature well, but they managed it here, and it enhances the story that is told in the lyrics.
As for the lyrics, they're pretty simple. A poor street musician says if you pay him, he'll play his tambourine for you. I'm not sure that method actually works for street musicians, as it's much more common to see them playing their instruments and accepting donations, but it kind of evokes an image of a funny hippie refusing to share his "deep" tambourine music with you unless you pay him first. So the song is a bit tongue-in-cheek without being a novelty song, exactly. And I always appreciate that kind of music.
My verdict: Like it. Songs like this are why I wanted to do this blog. I think it's very odd that a song can get popular enough to reach No. 1, and then get forgotten afterward, especially when it's actually a pretty good song.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Song #175: "Winchester Cathedral" by The New Vaudeville Band
Date: Dec 3, 1966
Weeks: 3
This isn't quite the type of song I expected to find in the middle of the 60s. I suppose it's not too far off some songs that were popular at the time, but it's not exactly the sound of the 60s one usually hears. When I hear a song that seems so out of place, the most logical assumption is that it's from a movie that was popular at the time. That doesn't seem to be the case here, though. It turns out it's just a throwback song, with maybe a touch of novelty song for good measure.
Novelty songs tend to be funnier than this song is, although I suppose it's light and fluffy and a bit funny. The lyrics are about the singer regretting that the woman he loved left town, and he blames Winchester Cathedral for failing to ring its bells and distract her from her departure. Possibly I'm being overly literal here, and this is actually an expression of his regret that she left because he wouldn't commit to marrying her (the bells indicating the wedding). I suppose when I look at it that way, it's kind of cleverly and even humorously written. It's a really dry, kind of obscure sort of joke, the kind that I'm not entirely sure is a joke, but there you go.
The music is definitely vaudeville throwback, and seems out of place in the 60s. But it's not bad. It's kind of a charming throwback, and I feel like it's not the only song from the era that did this. It kind of reminds me of the song from Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, a legendarily bad movie from 1964. Anyway, the guitar and percussion style is overwhelmingly vaudeville, which makes it a type of song I hadn't anticipated hearing on this Billboard list.
My verdict: Don't like it. Like the vaudeville songs on which it's based, it's pleasant enough, but it doesn't really motivate me to want to listen to it repeatedly.
Weeks: 3
This isn't quite the type of song I expected to find in the middle of the 60s. I suppose it's not too far off some songs that were popular at the time, but it's not exactly the sound of the 60s one usually hears. When I hear a song that seems so out of place, the most logical assumption is that it's from a movie that was popular at the time. That doesn't seem to be the case here, though. It turns out it's just a throwback song, with maybe a touch of novelty song for good measure.
Novelty songs tend to be funnier than this song is, although I suppose it's light and fluffy and a bit funny. The lyrics are about the singer regretting that the woman he loved left town, and he blames Winchester Cathedral for failing to ring its bells and distract her from her departure. Possibly I'm being overly literal here, and this is actually an expression of his regret that she left because he wouldn't commit to marrying her (the bells indicating the wedding). I suppose when I look at it that way, it's kind of cleverly and even humorously written. It's a really dry, kind of obscure sort of joke, the kind that I'm not entirely sure is a joke, but there you go.
The music is definitely vaudeville throwback, and seems out of place in the 60s. But it's not bad. It's kind of a charming throwback, and I feel like it's not the only song from the era that did this. It kind of reminds me of the song from Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, a legendarily bad movie from 1964. Anyway, the guitar and percussion style is overwhelmingly vaudeville, which makes it a type of song I hadn't anticipated hearing on this Billboard list.
My verdict: Don't like it. Like the vaudeville songs on which it's based, it's pleasant enough, but it doesn't really motivate me to want to listen to it repeatedly.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Song #205: "Hello, I Love You" by the Doors
Date: Aug 3, 1968
Weeks: 2
I wasn't sure if the Doors had actually made it to the top of the charts, but it turns out they made it twice. Of course, I can't say I knew this song particularly well before now, while there are several Doors songs I do know that never made No. 1. But I'm rapidly discovering that's not that unusual.
I like the Doors sound. It's very raw, which is a great term I've learned to apply when the music is sloppy and unpolished, but I like it. This song starts out seeming a bit more organized than is usual for the Doors, but eventually spins off into the kind of barely controlled chaos that makes them appealing. The transition seems to happen right at the key change in the middle of the song. The rather dull first half of the song stops, there's a nice big hit as the music comes back, and then it spins off into chaos.
And that part right there is where the song gets fun. I was unimpressed after the first half, but the second half is so enjoyable that it retroactively justifies the first half. That was laying the foundation for the part of the song that's really very good.
The lyrics are about a man seeing a woman walking down the street and instantly lusting after her. "Hello, I love you won't you tell me your name?" Even though he's saying "I love you," he's not exactly waxing poetic on the topic of love at first sight. This is a raw sexual attraction that he's expressing here. Meanwhile he's doubting his worthiness to be with her. "Do you think you'll be the guy to make the queen of the angels sigh?" Usher really needs to take notes here, because this is the same topic as both of his songs that I've reviewed so far (encountering a sexy woman and expressing a desire to get with her), but the Doors manage to express that lust without resorting to talking about having sex in public, or luridly describing her body the way only a 12-year-old can do.
My verdict: Like it. There are definitely better Doors songs than this, but this isn't bad.
Weeks: 2
I wasn't sure if the Doors had actually made it to the top of the charts, but it turns out they made it twice. Of course, I can't say I knew this song particularly well before now, while there are several Doors songs I do know that never made No. 1. But I'm rapidly discovering that's not that unusual.
I like the Doors sound. It's very raw, which is a great term I've learned to apply when the music is sloppy and unpolished, but I like it. This song starts out seeming a bit more organized than is usual for the Doors, but eventually spins off into the kind of barely controlled chaos that makes them appealing. The transition seems to happen right at the key change in the middle of the song. The rather dull first half of the song stops, there's a nice big hit as the music comes back, and then it spins off into chaos.
And that part right there is where the song gets fun. I was unimpressed after the first half, but the second half is so enjoyable that it retroactively justifies the first half. That was laying the foundation for the part of the song that's really very good.
The lyrics are about a man seeing a woman walking down the street and instantly lusting after her. "Hello, I love you won't you tell me your name?" Even though he's saying "I love you," he's not exactly waxing poetic on the topic of love at first sight. This is a raw sexual attraction that he's expressing here. Meanwhile he's doubting his worthiness to be with her. "Do you think you'll be the guy to make the queen of the angels sigh?" Usher really needs to take notes here, because this is the same topic as both of his songs that I've reviewed so far (encountering a sexy woman and expressing a desire to get with her), but the Doors manage to express that lust without resorting to talking about having sex in public, or luridly describing her body the way only a 12-year-old can do.
My verdict: Like it. There are definitely better Doors songs than this, but this isn't bad.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Song #125: "I Feel Fine" by the Beatles
Date: Dec 26, 1964
Weeks: 3
This is definitely nowhere near as good a song as "Can't Buy Me Love" (#106). In fact, the Beatles had 6 No. 1s just in 1964, and this one is easily the least of them. I have heard it before, but it doesn't get played nearly as much as a lot of their other songs. Despite all that, this is still a good song.
The sound isn't nearly as full as a lot of other Beatles songs, but the relatively sparse sound doesn't seem to be intended for effect. And yet, the sound that is present is very good. The vocal harmonies are good. And all the guitar stuff is good. The recurring lead guitar theme stands out as the best part of the best. It's a great riff, and it varies just enough to prevent it from grating on you.
The lyrics are kind of weak on this one. They're not terribly creative. "I'm in love with her and I feel fine." I'm happy, I'm in love, everything's good. And that's all that's going on. There's no trick or twist or clever message. Even for the Beatles, whose lyrics I find often get caught up in the cliche-vs-classic debate, these lyrics are a bit cliched. I suppose it's nice to have a straightforward love song that you can dedicate to your significant other without having to deal with the unintended meaning of extraneous lyrics.
This is also a really short song. I guess I'm glad it's not any longer than it needs to be, but by the time you've gotten into it, it's over. I feel like if I had bought this as a single, I'd feel like it was a little bit lacking in value.
My verdict: Like it. Despite all the nitpicks, and even though this isn't one of their better songs, this is still an excellent example of the Beatles' early work, and it's certainly a pleasant song to listen to. I'm not saying the Beatles can do no wrong, but they haven't done wrong enough here to make me not like this song.
Weeks: 3
This is definitely nowhere near as good a song as "Can't Buy Me Love" (#106). In fact, the Beatles had 6 No. 1s just in 1964, and this one is easily the least of them. I have heard it before, but it doesn't get played nearly as much as a lot of their other songs. Despite all that, this is still a good song.
The sound isn't nearly as full as a lot of other Beatles songs, but the relatively sparse sound doesn't seem to be intended for effect. And yet, the sound that is present is very good. The vocal harmonies are good. And all the guitar stuff is good. The recurring lead guitar theme stands out as the best part of the best. It's a great riff, and it varies just enough to prevent it from grating on you.
The lyrics are kind of weak on this one. They're not terribly creative. "I'm in love with her and I feel fine." I'm happy, I'm in love, everything's good. And that's all that's going on. There's no trick or twist or clever message. Even for the Beatles, whose lyrics I find often get caught up in the cliche-vs-classic debate, these lyrics are a bit cliched. I suppose it's nice to have a straightforward love song that you can dedicate to your significant other without having to deal with the unintended meaning of extraneous lyrics.
This is also a really short song. I guess I'm glad it's not any longer than it needs to be, but by the time you've gotten into it, it's over. I feel like if I had bought this as a single, I'd feel like it was a little bit lacking in value.
My verdict: Like it. Despite all the nitpicks, and even though this isn't one of their better songs, this is still an excellent example of the Beatles' early work, and it's certainly a pleasant song to listen to. I'm not saying the Beatles can do no wrong, but they haven't done wrong enough here to make me not like this song.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Song #585: "Separate Lives" by Phil Collins and Marilyn Martin
Date: Nov 30, 1985
Weeks: 1
After I reviewed "Say You, Say Me" (#587) by Lionel Richie, I was intrigued by the movie it was from. I thought it was odd that I'd never heard of it before. So I watched White Nights. It was an interesting movie, especially as a time capsule of the era it was from. Maybe there was a little too much dancing, and maybe the Soviet bad guys were a little too unsubtle, but the notion of setting a movie in a place and time where the sun never sets was an idea I'd never seen before, outside an episode of Northern Exposure. Anyway, I left feeling that the Lionel Richie song made a little bit of sense in the context of the movie. It's about two guys who feel alone, but find out they aren't that dissimilar.
This song, however, makes no sense in the context of the movie. This is clearly a breakup song, and no one in the movie has broken up. I suppose it may have some thematic similarities to Baryshnikov's character and his love interest (played by Helen Mirren), with the whole "you have no right to ask me how I feel" thing, but I don't recall it playing near their scenes. It played during a scene between Gregory Hines and Isabella Rossellini, and their relationship never went through anything like this. So it's an odd fit to this particular movie.
The overall theme is that two people have broken up, and they still care about each other a little, but they couldn't make their relationship work, so now they're trying to figure out how to be broken up and live their separate lives, when they still kind of want to be together. I suppose it's kind of an original idea for a song.
So after all that discussion of the subject matter, we get on to the music, which is generally pretty terrible. It's really slow, it's got that poundy 80s drum, it has a synthesized keyboard layered on top of a piano, as well as a string orchestra. It's a huge production for a pretty minimal song.
And the singers aren't very good. Phil Collins does a fine job making rock music most of the time, and he's got a decent voice for that, but he's not a particularly talented singer when it comes to singing over minimal music. I've never heard of Marilyn Martin in any other context, and I can sort of see why. She's not bad, but she pushes herself to sing bigger and louder than she really has the talent to support. They both come off sounding really whiny and angsty. And that's the problem. This isn't an "I want" song where somebody whines about what they want. This is supposed to be a song where two people are resigned to their breakup. It needs to be more restrained and sadder. Phil Collins is doing a better job at that, but they're both pretty wrong for this song.
My verdict: Don't like it. Here's Phil Collins performing this song with Laura Pausini and an acoustic guitar. It's a better song for having one better singer and simpler instrumentation. So this could be a better song if it weren't quite so mired in tropes of the 1980s.
Weeks: 1
After I reviewed "Say You, Say Me" (#587) by Lionel Richie, I was intrigued by the movie it was from. I thought it was odd that I'd never heard of it before. So I watched White Nights. It was an interesting movie, especially as a time capsule of the era it was from. Maybe there was a little too much dancing, and maybe the Soviet bad guys were a little too unsubtle, but the notion of setting a movie in a place and time where the sun never sets was an idea I'd never seen before, outside an episode of Northern Exposure. Anyway, I left feeling that the Lionel Richie song made a little bit of sense in the context of the movie. It's about two guys who feel alone, but find out they aren't that dissimilar.
This song, however, makes no sense in the context of the movie. This is clearly a breakup song, and no one in the movie has broken up. I suppose it may have some thematic similarities to Baryshnikov's character and his love interest (played by Helen Mirren), with the whole "you have no right to ask me how I feel" thing, but I don't recall it playing near their scenes. It played during a scene between Gregory Hines and Isabella Rossellini, and their relationship never went through anything like this. So it's an odd fit to this particular movie.
The overall theme is that two people have broken up, and they still care about each other a little, but they couldn't make their relationship work, so now they're trying to figure out how to be broken up and live their separate lives, when they still kind of want to be together. I suppose it's kind of an original idea for a song.
So after all that discussion of the subject matter, we get on to the music, which is generally pretty terrible. It's really slow, it's got that poundy 80s drum, it has a synthesized keyboard layered on top of a piano, as well as a string orchestra. It's a huge production for a pretty minimal song.
And the singers aren't very good. Phil Collins does a fine job making rock music most of the time, and he's got a decent voice for that, but he's not a particularly talented singer when it comes to singing over minimal music. I've never heard of Marilyn Martin in any other context, and I can sort of see why. She's not bad, but she pushes herself to sing bigger and louder than she really has the talent to support. They both come off sounding really whiny and angsty. And that's the problem. This isn't an "I want" song where somebody whines about what they want. This is supposed to be a song where two people are resigned to their breakup. It needs to be more restrained and sadder. Phil Collins is doing a better job at that, but they're both pretty wrong for this song.
My verdict: Don't like it. Here's Phil Collins performing this song with Laura Pausini and an acoustic guitar. It's a better song for having one better singer and simpler instrumentation. So this could be a better song if it weren't quite so mired in tropes of the 1980s.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Song #323: "Bennie And The Jets" by Elton John
Date: Apr 13, 1974
Weeks: 1
I don't think I've ever heard the original recording of this song before. I had to do a bit of research when picking out the clip above. I generally try to find a version of the song that is as close to the original single recording as possible. That can be tricky sometimes, when music videos change the song, live performances abound, and remixes are plentiful. And that's before I even get to the issue of covers.
I was pretty sure this song had been a hit as a live recording, since I'd never heard it performed any other way. Well, one other way (Muppets!). I came to find out that the original recording was actually a fake-live recording. As in, it was a studio-recorded song, but they mixed it in such a way as to provide the impression of a live recording. While I might be tempted to attack the song for faking a live performance (which I have previously equated to a sitcom using canned laughter), it honestly feels like this song is improved as a live song.
There's not a lot of instrumentation going on here. The piano is at the forefront, and there's a bit of bass and drum providing backup. But the overall sound is kind of thin. It's also a bit repetitive overall, especially during the lingering piano solos, when Elton keeps singing "Bennie" over and over again. But the canned audience makes it feel fun. This is doubtless a centerpiece of an Elton John live show, where a genuine live audience reacts and participates by at least clapping along, if not outright singing counterpoint the same way the Muppets do. Reportedly, Elton John improvises and stylizes the ending and extends this song out to make a great piece of live entertainment, and the audience reactions in the original recording successfully capture that. Part of me wonders why he didn't just perform it live and record it, but whatever, the effect is essentially the same. I do think the sudden addition of a fairly random synthesizer toward the end of the song is entirely unnecessary, though.
As for the lyrics, it's kind of similar to "Crocodile Rock" (#289) in that Elton John is extolling the virtues of fictional music. I've honestly never considered the lyrics before, because Elton John oversings them in such a way that it's hard to make them out. Even the oversinging isn't a problem, though, since it just contributes to that live song energy that this song thrives on. In particular, the song gets really fun when he sings "She's got electric boots, a mohair suit, you know I read it in a magazine." I think between his pronunciation of "magazine" and his clever rhythmic stutter on "B-b-b-b-Bennie," he's created a really special song here. One that thrives as a live performance.
My verdict: Like it. While I like a well-mixed and carefully manufactured pop song as much as anyone, sometimes a great live song, even one that is fake-live, is wonderfully entertaining as well.
Weeks: 1
I don't think I've ever heard the original recording of this song before. I had to do a bit of research when picking out the clip above. I generally try to find a version of the song that is as close to the original single recording as possible. That can be tricky sometimes, when music videos change the song, live performances abound, and remixes are plentiful. And that's before I even get to the issue of covers.
I was pretty sure this song had been a hit as a live recording, since I'd never heard it performed any other way. Well, one other way (Muppets!). I came to find out that the original recording was actually a fake-live recording. As in, it was a studio-recorded song, but they mixed it in such a way as to provide the impression of a live recording. While I might be tempted to attack the song for faking a live performance (which I have previously equated to a sitcom using canned laughter), it honestly feels like this song is improved as a live song.
There's not a lot of instrumentation going on here. The piano is at the forefront, and there's a bit of bass and drum providing backup. But the overall sound is kind of thin. It's also a bit repetitive overall, especially during the lingering piano solos, when Elton keeps singing "Bennie" over and over again. But the canned audience makes it feel fun. This is doubtless a centerpiece of an Elton John live show, where a genuine live audience reacts and participates by at least clapping along, if not outright singing counterpoint the same way the Muppets do. Reportedly, Elton John improvises and stylizes the ending and extends this song out to make a great piece of live entertainment, and the audience reactions in the original recording successfully capture that. Part of me wonders why he didn't just perform it live and record it, but whatever, the effect is essentially the same. I do think the sudden addition of a fairly random synthesizer toward the end of the song is entirely unnecessary, though.
As for the lyrics, it's kind of similar to "Crocodile Rock" (#289) in that Elton John is extolling the virtues of fictional music. I've honestly never considered the lyrics before, because Elton John oversings them in such a way that it's hard to make them out. Even the oversinging isn't a problem, though, since it just contributes to that live song energy that this song thrives on. In particular, the song gets really fun when he sings "She's got electric boots, a mohair suit, you know I read it in a magazine." I think between his pronunciation of "magazine" and his clever rhythmic stutter on "B-b-b-b-Bennie," he's created a really special song here. One that thrives as a live performance.
My verdict: Like it. While I like a well-mixed and carefully manufactured pop song as much as anyone, sometimes a great live song, even one that is fake-live, is wonderfully entertaining as well.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Song #932: "SexyBack" by Justin Timberlake
Date: Sept 9, 2006
Weeks: 7
This song starts out promisingly enough. The sound it creates is appealing. The synth chords and percussion line create a nice little dance beat. It sounds like a great start to an intriguing song.
But then the song goes nowhere. The song doesn't evolve or change. It's content to just park on that sound for 4 minutes, and hopes you like that sound enough to endure 4 minutes of it. There's barely even a difference between the verse and the chorus. The synth chords change a bit, but it certainly doesn't create sufficient variety to be entertaining.
The sound is so shallow. That's a fine sound to create at the beginning of a song, when you're building to something. But this song builds to nothing. It needs more layers of sound. I don't even know what it needs. Maybe replace the bass-sting chords with more constant bass? Add an orchestra? I don't even know. Add anything, especially in the chorus, and this would be a better song.
I'm not sure the lyrics even deserve analysis. It's basically an excuse to say the word "sexy" as much as possible, while saying things that sound sexy but aren't. "I think it's special what's behind your back. So turn around and I'll pick up the slack." I don't think it's sexy to say that you'll pick up somebody's slacking butt. "Girl let me make up for the things you lack." That's the worst pick-up line I've ever heard.
My verdict: Don't like it. Dance music is trying to accomplish a very different goal from other music, which is to create one sound that can be stretched for as long as a dance club DJ wants. It may work in that context, but it rarely works as an arranged pop song in any other context.
Weeks: 7
This song starts out promisingly enough. The sound it creates is appealing. The synth chords and percussion line create a nice little dance beat. It sounds like a great start to an intriguing song.
But then the song goes nowhere. The song doesn't evolve or change. It's content to just park on that sound for 4 minutes, and hopes you like that sound enough to endure 4 minutes of it. There's barely even a difference between the verse and the chorus. The synth chords change a bit, but it certainly doesn't create sufficient variety to be entertaining.
The sound is so shallow. That's a fine sound to create at the beginning of a song, when you're building to something. But this song builds to nothing. It needs more layers of sound. I don't even know what it needs. Maybe replace the bass-sting chords with more constant bass? Add an orchestra? I don't even know. Add anything, especially in the chorus, and this would be a better song.
I'm not sure the lyrics even deserve analysis. It's basically an excuse to say the word "sexy" as much as possible, while saying things that sound sexy but aren't. "I think it's special what's behind your back. So turn around and I'll pick up the slack." I don't think it's sexy to say that you'll pick up somebody's slacking butt. "Girl let me make up for the things you lack." That's the worst pick-up line I've ever heard.
My verdict: Don't like it. Dance music is trying to accomplish a very different goal from other music, which is to create one sound that can be stretched for as long as a dance club DJ wants. It may work in that context, but it rarely works as an arranged pop song in any other context.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Song #688: "Like a Prayer" by Madonna
Date: Apr 22, 1989
Weeks: 3
The last Madonna song I reviewed did little to prove why Madonna is such a great and enduring artist. This one, on the other hand, is from roughly the peak of her career. It's a great example of what makes her so wonderful, and it's probably my favorite Madonna song.
The overall orchestration of the music is what makes this song for me. From the top down, every piece of this song just fits. Madonna's voice is perfect for this song, and she gives it everything she has. Her voice is a little sloppy and desperate to keep up with the song's pace, but that creates a very emotional performance that's perfectly matched to both the lyrics and the music. The gospel choir eventually became a trope that got overused in pop music, but it was a fairly new idea at the time. And when you consider the generally religious tone of both the lyrics and the video, the gospel choir is a perfect fit. The song wouldn't be half the song it is without the choir, and the lead singer of that choir also gives a wonderfully big performance.
Continuing from the top down, there's an organ that also conveys the religious theme. There's also a guitar and drum line that kind of fade into the background of the mix. They don't stick out, but the effect they create is a driving pace that helps keep the song well on the pop/rock spectrum. At the very bottom of the track is a bass line. I can't tell if the bass is a fat guitar or a synthesizer, but either way, it's a very appealing bass line and I think it makes the song for me. There's a lot of music happening in that bass line, and I think it's what makes the song so unique.
As for the lyrics, I feel under-qualified to really analyze them. Clearly this is a song that is conflating Madonna's love of God with her love of a man. It does so in a manner that is poetic, and yet clear enough that I was able to easily interpret it. I know the video is controversial for expounding on the same theme, but I think the video does a great job of telling the same music as the lyrics, while also adding an additional story on top of that, about Madonna's character witnessing a murder and overcoming her fear of the actual murderers to tell the police they've arrested the wrong man. And the video tackles the issue of racism on top of all of that. There's a lot going on here. This song, and especially the video, should be all the proof anyone needs of why Madonna is one of the great pop music artists of all time.
My verdict: Like it. This is definitely one of those songs that works because the whole is more than the sum of its parts. I can break it down and explain why I think each part of it works, but ultimately it comes down to each part complementing every other part until the whole just works and creates something wonderful.
Weeks: 3
The last Madonna song I reviewed did little to prove why Madonna is such a great and enduring artist. This one, on the other hand, is from roughly the peak of her career. It's a great example of what makes her so wonderful, and it's probably my favorite Madonna song.
The overall orchestration of the music is what makes this song for me. From the top down, every piece of this song just fits. Madonna's voice is perfect for this song, and she gives it everything she has. Her voice is a little sloppy and desperate to keep up with the song's pace, but that creates a very emotional performance that's perfectly matched to both the lyrics and the music. The gospel choir eventually became a trope that got overused in pop music, but it was a fairly new idea at the time. And when you consider the generally religious tone of both the lyrics and the video, the gospel choir is a perfect fit. The song wouldn't be half the song it is without the choir, and the lead singer of that choir also gives a wonderfully big performance.
Continuing from the top down, there's an organ that also conveys the religious theme. There's also a guitar and drum line that kind of fade into the background of the mix. They don't stick out, but the effect they create is a driving pace that helps keep the song well on the pop/rock spectrum. At the very bottom of the track is a bass line. I can't tell if the bass is a fat guitar or a synthesizer, but either way, it's a very appealing bass line and I think it makes the song for me. There's a lot of music happening in that bass line, and I think it's what makes the song so unique.
As for the lyrics, I feel under-qualified to really analyze them. Clearly this is a song that is conflating Madonna's love of God with her love of a man. It does so in a manner that is poetic, and yet clear enough that I was able to easily interpret it. I know the video is controversial for expounding on the same theme, but I think the video does a great job of telling the same music as the lyrics, while also adding an additional story on top of that, about Madonna's character witnessing a murder and overcoming her fear of the actual murderers to tell the police they've arrested the wrong man. And the video tackles the issue of racism on top of all of that. There's a lot going on here. This song, and especially the video, should be all the proof anyone needs of why Madonna is one of the great pop music artists of all time.
My verdict: Like it. This is definitely one of those songs that works because the whole is more than the sum of its parts. I can break it down and explain why I think each part of it works, but ultimately it comes down to each part complementing every other part until the whole just works and creates something wonderful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)