Date: Nov 30, 1968
Weeks: 2
I'm not sure how to feel about this song. For one thing, it's starting to sound like the 70s, with the minor chords and backing string section, yet the guitar part still sounds very 60s. You can almost hear one decade awkwardly transitioning to the next. I like the guitar and the backing vocals, because they still have that 60s sound that I associate with the Supremes. The 70s string sound is much less compelling.
The next awkward thing is the subject matter of the lyrics. The singer is telling a man that she doesn't want to sleep with him because she doesn't to conceive a child out of wedlock. And the reason she gives is that she was herself a child born out of wedlock, and her life was pretty miserable growing up. I've never felt quite so out of touch with dated lyrics as this. I feel like there are better arguments to me made for not having sex if you're not ready. But I realize that 1968 is before the widespread availability of birth control, the safe-sex movement, and greater social acceptance of children born out of wedlock. So this song is a bit of a window into a different world for me. At any rate, the idea of contemplating all the potential consequences of sex is wise and timeless. "The love we're contemplating is worth the pain of waiting." That's a good point, for any era.
At any rate, the lyrics are well-written. They express the pain of growing up poor with an absentee parent, and a desire to not put her own child through that. They also communicate a fairly complex message. "Don't think that I don't need you. Don't think I don't want to please you." So she's not making up an excuse, this sentiment is genuine.
As always, Diana Ross's voice is excellent. The backing Supremes are shuffled way deep into the background of the mix here, which I guess is why this song is credited to "Diana Ross and the Supremes."
My verdict: Like it. I was pretty conflicted until I considered the lyrics. It's a well-written song that communicates a feeling even long after that feeling seems dated. I can overlook some of the less pleasant sounds of the 70s creeping in.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Song #792: "On Bended Knee" by Boyz II Men
Date: Dec 3, 1994
Weeks: 6
This is a way better song than the last Boyz II Men song I did. While the last song was more interested in showing off the talents of the singers than in making a good song, this song turns that around and judiciously combines their talents in just the right way to produce a pretty good song.
The vocals are the featured element again, but this time they seem to have discovered the strategy that I previously praised Mariah Carey for understanding: that when you want to show off as a singer and embellish a song with vocal flourishes, it's important to keep the song grounded and make sure the song comes out as intended, and then add vocal flourishes around that. And the great thing about a group like Boyz II Men is that one singer can flourish while the others harmonize, and that's how they spend the chorus in this song. It's the best part of the song, and it's quite good. This is how to use a talented band to create a good song.
The music is also better this time. Unlike "End Of The Road," the music in this song isn't delicate and afraid to intrude on the vocals. This time the music is wisely made to be fairly strong, which makes the singers' voices sound that much more powerful to be able to compete with it. The verses are still pretty delicate and not terribly interesting, but at least it's well-suited to the lyrics, which are a fairly delicate love song.
The lyrics are your fairly typical "give our relationship one last chance before you give up on it" love song. The singers perform it well with the right mix of pain and hope. I really like the lyric that starts the chorus, "Can we go back to the days our love was strong?" It's kind of hopeful and sad at the same time. Conversely, the lyric "I'll never walk again until you come back to me" doesn't work. I get that he's "down on bended knee," but he's basically saying he's just going to stay on that knee, down in one place, until he gets taken back. That's a pretty childish way to solve a problem. Will you be holding your breath until you get what you want next?
One comment on the video: What's with the guys with instruments in the background during the clips of the singers singing? I see a trumpet, a saxophone, and a big old sousaphone. I don't hear any trumpet or sousaphone to be sure. If there is a saxophone, it's buried way back in the mix. What are those guys doing there? The sousaphone in particular stands out.
My verdict: Like it. This is the right way to turn the raw talent in Boyz II Men into a good song.
Weeks: 6
This is a way better song than the last Boyz II Men song I did. While the last song was more interested in showing off the talents of the singers than in making a good song, this song turns that around and judiciously combines their talents in just the right way to produce a pretty good song.
The vocals are the featured element again, but this time they seem to have discovered the strategy that I previously praised Mariah Carey for understanding: that when you want to show off as a singer and embellish a song with vocal flourishes, it's important to keep the song grounded and make sure the song comes out as intended, and then add vocal flourishes around that. And the great thing about a group like Boyz II Men is that one singer can flourish while the others harmonize, and that's how they spend the chorus in this song. It's the best part of the song, and it's quite good. This is how to use a talented band to create a good song.
The music is also better this time. Unlike "End Of The Road," the music in this song isn't delicate and afraid to intrude on the vocals. This time the music is wisely made to be fairly strong, which makes the singers' voices sound that much more powerful to be able to compete with it. The verses are still pretty delicate and not terribly interesting, but at least it's well-suited to the lyrics, which are a fairly delicate love song.
The lyrics are your fairly typical "give our relationship one last chance before you give up on it" love song. The singers perform it well with the right mix of pain and hope. I really like the lyric that starts the chorus, "Can we go back to the days our love was strong?" It's kind of hopeful and sad at the same time. Conversely, the lyric "I'll never walk again until you come back to me" doesn't work. I get that he's "down on bended knee," but he's basically saying he's just going to stay on that knee, down in one place, until he gets taken back. That's a pretty childish way to solve a problem. Will you be holding your breath until you get what you want next?
One comment on the video: What's with the guys with instruments in the background during the clips of the singers singing? I see a trumpet, a saxophone, and a big old sousaphone. I don't hear any trumpet or sousaphone to be sure. If there is a saxophone, it's buried way back in the mix. What are those guys doing there? The sousaphone in particular stands out.
My verdict: Like it. This is the right way to turn the raw talent in Boyz II Men into a good song.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Song #259: "Uncle Albert / Admiral Halsey" by Paul & Linda McCartney
Date: Sept 4, 1971
Weeks: 1
I actually didn't set up that Pixies post as an introduction to discussing the pros and cons of experimental music, but I guess it's worked out that way, because this seems like an experimental song, too. The difference is that I cherry-picked a Pixies song that worked and became a classic. This song doesn't work, which is probably why I've never heard it before, despite it being the first No. 1 solo hit by the Beatle with the most post-Beatles No. 1 solo hits.
Let's start with the things I like. I like some of the song's odder moments. The section where a distorted recorded voice speaks "we're so sorry, Uncle Albert" is fun, and feels like a throwback to 1930s radio addresses. It made me think of King George VI's speech from the start of World War II (or at least Colin Firth at the end of The King's Speech, because that's the only place I've heard it). The transition from the slow "Uncle Albert" section to the faster "Admiral Halsey" section is pretty good, the way the song gradually accelerates. And the vocals and guitar parts in the chorus-like sections of the "Admiral Halsey" section are clever and charming.
Unfortunately, most of the song is filled with experimental ideas that don't quite work. The first half of the song is generally slow and unengaging. Its orchestrated by a full string section, which is a 70s trope that I've come to dislike. The space between choruses is occupied by sound effects with tangential relationships to the lyrics. The thunderstorm effect is neutral, not adding enough to be worthwhile but also not being a terrible idea. The phone-ringing effect distracts me because I'm pretty sure that's somebody's voice faking a phone ring. Why include a real thunderstorm but then use such an obviously fake phone ring?
In the second half of the song, the bizarre gets cranked up. The oompa-oompa bass line probably isn't a tuba, but it sure sounds like one, which makes the whole section sound like polka, especially the "gypsy" section.
The lyrics are fine for a song that is so deliberately odd and experimental. They come off as poetic, even if they might just be nonsense. At least they aren't lazy. The second-half chorus consists of "Hands across the water, hands across the sky," which, to a person living in a post-"Hands Across America" world, does feel lazy. But I concede that this song predates that event.
Also, this song is credited as being by Paul and Linda McCartney. Where's Linda? There's one spoken line ("Butter Pie?") that sounds like it's spoken by a female voice, and that's it. Did she play instruments? Wikipedia says she contributed to the harmonies, but I don't hear it. Maybe she's buried deep in the mix? I don't know.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's experimental, it's weird, and if anyone but an ex-Beatle had made it, it probably would have lived in obscurity. As with the Pixies song, I suspect this song may have had more influence on subsequent music than is obvious from a time period so far beyond it, but I don't think this song holds together on its own.
Weeks: 1
I actually didn't set up that Pixies post as an introduction to discussing the pros and cons of experimental music, but I guess it's worked out that way, because this seems like an experimental song, too. The difference is that I cherry-picked a Pixies song that worked and became a classic. This song doesn't work, which is probably why I've never heard it before, despite it being the first No. 1 solo hit by the Beatle with the most post-Beatles No. 1 solo hits.
Let's start with the things I like. I like some of the song's odder moments. The section where a distorted recorded voice speaks "we're so sorry, Uncle Albert" is fun, and feels like a throwback to 1930s radio addresses. It made me think of King George VI's speech from the start of World War II (or at least Colin Firth at the end of The King's Speech, because that's the only place I've heard it). The transition from the slow "Uncle Albert" section to the faster "Admiral Halsey" section is pretty good, the way the song gradually accelerates. And the vocals and guitar parts in the chorus-like sections of the "Admiral Halsey" section are clever and charming.
Unfortunately, most of the song is filled with experimental ideas that don't quite work. The first half of the song is generally slow and unengaging. Its orchestrated by a full string section, which is a 70s trope that I've come to dislike. The space between choruses is occupied by sound effects with tangential relationships to the lyrics. The thunderstorm effect is neutral, not adding enough to be worthwhile but also not being a terrible idea. The phone-ringing effect distracts me because I'm pretty sure that's somebody's voice faking a phone ring. Why include a real thunderstorm but then use such an obviously fake phone ring?
In the second half of the song, the bizarre gets cranked up. The oompa-oompa bass line probably isn't a tuba, but it sure sounds like one, which makes the whole section sound like polka, especially the "gypsy" section.
The lyrics are fine for a song that is so deliberately odd and experimental. They come off as poetic, even if they might just be nonsense. At least they aren't lazy. The second-half chorus consists of "Hands across the water, hands across the sky," which, to a person living in a post-"Hands Across America" world, does feel lazy. But I concede that this song predates that event.
Also, this song is credited as being by Paul and Linda McCartney. Where's Linda? There's one spoken line ("Butter Pie?") that sounds like it's spoken by a female voice, and that's it. Did she play instruments? Wikipedia says she contributed to the harmonies, but I don't hear it. Maybe she's buried deep in the mix? I don't know.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's experimental, it's weird, and if anyone but an ex-Beatle had made it, it probably would have lived in obscurity. As with the Pixies song, I suspect this song may have had more influence on subsequent music than is obvious from a time period so far beyond it, but I don't think this song holds together on its own.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Not No. 1: "Monkey Gone To Heaven" by The Pixies
Release date: March 20, 1989
Peak chart position: #5 on Billboard Modern Rock chart
No time for a proper post tonight, but I wanted to experiment with some filler for days when I can't make a full post.
I was listening to the Pixies album Doolittle recently and it struck me that their music was very experimental. Some songs worked, some didn't. Some parts of songs worked, some didn't. But one that worked very well, especially in its poetic lyrics, was this song.
Time has certainly popularized the Pixies, but they were far from chart-topping in their time. This didn't sound like anything else on the radio in 1989.
I suppose my goal with these filler posts will be to highlight some sounds in music that aren't very well represented on the list of No. 1s. Songs that didn't quite make it, despite now being considered classics, or artists that were under-appreciated in their time.
Peak chart position: #5 on Billboard Modern Rock chart
No time for a proper post tonight, but I wanted to experiment with some filler for days when I can't make a full post.
I was listening to the Pixies album Doolittle recently and it struck me that their music was very experimental. Some songs worked, some didn't. Some parts of songs worked, some didn't. But one that worked very well, especially in its poetic lyrics, was this song.
Time has certainly popularized the Pixies, but they were far from chart-topping in their time. This didn't sound like anything else on the radio in 1989.
I suppose my goal with these filler posts will be to highlight some sounds in music that aren't very well represented on the list of No. 1s. Songs that didn't quite make it, despite now being considered classics, or artists that were under-appreciated in their time.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Song #779: "Weak" by SWV
Date: July 10, 1993
Weeks: 2
I was filled with a sense of dread when I saw this song coming up. I remember hating this song when it was popular. Listening to it now, my opinion has softened a bit.
There are two different songs happening here. The first song is the one playing during the verses, and it's terrible. The lead singer handles all the singing during the verses, and there's something about the whiny quality of her voice that just drives me up the wall. Her voice is thin and lacks any power. The music during the verses is equally thin. Light percussion, occasional keyboard chords, and a tiny bit of bass punctuation. The music is trying to stay out of the way of the voice, but the voice isn't interesting enough to carry the song.
And the lyrics in the verses aren't even that clever, which makes the singer's voice that much more grating. When I'm listening to a voice I don't like and that voice says things as mundane as "I can't figure out just what to do when the cause and cure is you," and "Your love is strong it keeps on holding oo-ooo-on," it just makes my skin crawl. These verses are awful.
The chorus, on the other hand, is a breath of fresh air. The group is called SWV, which stands for "Sisters With Voices," and that plural is the key to their talent. Their vocal harmony during the chorus is charming and appealing. The music also ramps up, with more actual drums in the percussion line and a decent bass line. If the entire song was like the chorus, I might like it.
I think someone spent more time writing the lyrics in the chorus, too. They're simple and effective. The singer is overcome with the emotion of new love and feels "weak in the knees." "Your love is so sweet it knocks me right off of my feet." It's a classic and universal sentiment. There's a fine line between simple and mundane, but this song manages to find its way onto both sides of that line.
The last part of the song is the bridge, which falls somewhere between the verses and the chorus. And the bridge really highlights what I pointed out above: that the song works when all the members of the group are harmonizing and doesn't work when their lead singer goes it alone. She's just not that talented.
My verdict: Don't like it. When some parts of the song are catchy and stick in my head, and other parts are annoying and bad, it almost makes me dislike the song more than when a song is just all bad. And I think that's what made me dread this song so much. I'm glad I could work out why this song bothered me so much. Thanks for reading my therapy session.
Weeks: 2
I was filled with a sense of dread when I saw this song coming up. I remember hating this song when it was popular. Listening to it now, my opinion has softened a bit.
There are two different songs happening here. The first song is the one playing during the verses, and it's terrible. The lead singer handles all the singing during the verses, and there's something about the whiny quality of her voice that just drives me up the wall. Her voice is thin and lacks any power. The music during the verses is equally thin. Light percussion, occasional keyboard chords, and a tiny bit of bass punctuation. The music is trying to stay out of the way of the voice, but the voice isn't interesting enough to carry the song.
And the lyrics in the verses aren't even that clever, which makes the singer's voice that much more grating. When I'm listening to a voice I don't like and that voice says things as mundane as "I can't figure out just what to do when the cause and cure is you," and "Your love is strong it keeps on holding oo-ooo-on," it just makes my skin crawl. These verses are awful.
The chorus, on the other hand, is a breath of fresh air. The group is called SWV, which stands for "Sisters With Voices," and that plural is the key to their talent. Their vocal harmony during the chorus is charming and appealing. The music also ramps up, with more actual drums in the percussion line and a decent bass line. If the entire song was like the chorus, I might like it.
I think someone spent more time writing the lyrics in the chorus, too. They're simple and effective. The singer is overcome with the emotion of new love and feels "weak in the knees." "Your love is so sweet it knocks me right off of my feet." It's a classic and universal sentiment. There's a fine line between simple and mundane, but this song manages to find its way onto both sides of that line.
The last part of the song is the bridge, which falls somewhere between the verses and the chorus. And the bridge really highlights what I pointed out above: that the song works when all the members of the group are harmonizing and doesn't work when their lead singer goes it alone. She's just not that talented.
My verdict: Don't like it. When some parts of the song are catchy and stick in my head, and other parts are annoying and bad, it almost makes me dislike the song more than when a song is just all bad. And I think that's what made me dread this song so much. I'm glad I could work out why this song bothered me so much. Thanks for reading my therapy session.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Song #220: "I Can't Get Next To You" by The Temptations
Date: Oct 18, 1969
Weeks: 2
This is easily a more interesting song than the last Temptations song I reviewed. For one thing, it's much more concise. For another, it doesn't stray quite so far from the idea I had of what the Temptations were about. I guess that's largely because this song is still in the 60s, and the band isn't yet trying to redefine their sound for the 70s.
It's difficult to dissect this song. There's a lot going on in the music most of the time, and it's kind of an overwhelming wall of sound. That's not a bad thing, but it's hard to nitpick what parts are good and bad. My overall impression is that the music is enjoyable, but not necessarily outstanding. The chorus is probably the best part, when the bass and lead guitars play some pleasing chords over each other. There's a lot of that disco-guitar noise happening the background. I guess that's pre-disco guitar noise, since this is the 60s.
The vocals are loose, but they don't stray too far from the music. The singers' voices are a bit too different from each other, and the transition between them grates a little. At least they are better than the last time, and the bass and falsetto singers don't sound quite so goofy and out of place this time.
The lyrics are based around the premise that the singers have amazing magic powers and they can bend the laws of space and time to make anything they want happen, such as "I can make a ship sail on dry land" and "I can turn a river into a raging fire." But despite all their powers, they can't date the woman that they want to date. I suppose it's a classic theme, but there's a part of me that thinks this would make a hilarious premise for a Weird Al song. But I suppose as a regular song, it's okay, too.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a bad song, but it didn't really hook me.
Weeks: 2
This is easily a more interesting song than the last Temptations song I reviewed. For one thing, it's much more concise. For another, it doesn't stray quite so far from the idea I had of what the Temptations were about. I guess that's largely because this song is still in the 60s, and the band isn't yet trying to redefine their sound for the 70s.
It's difficult to dissect this song. There's a lot going on in the music most of the time, and it's kind of an overwhelming wall of sound. That's not a bad thing, but it's hard to nitpick what parts are good and bad. My overall impression is that the music is enjoyable, but not necessarily outstanding. The chorus is probably the best part, when the bass and lead guitars play some pleasing chords over each other. There's a lot of that disco-guitar noise happening the background. I guess that's pre-disco guitar noise, since this is the 60s.
The vocals are loose, but they don't stray too far from the music. The singers' voices are a bit too different from each other, and the transition between them grates a little. At least they are better than the last time, and the bass and falsetto singers don't sound quite so goofy and out of place this time.
The lyrics are based around the premise that the singers have amazing magic powers and they can bend the laws of space and time to make anything they want happen, such as "I can make a ship sail on dry land" and "I can turn a river into a raging fire." But despite all their powers, they can't date the woman that they want to date. I suppose it's a classic theme, but there's a part of me that thinks this would make a hilarious premise for a Weird Al song. But I suppose as a regular song, it's okay, too.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a bad song, but it didn't really hook me.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Song #365: "Shining Star" by Earth, Wind, & Fire
Date: May 24, 1975
Weeks: 1
This song has recently been used in a series of TV commercials, and it's a testament to how poor the ads are that I can't remember what company they're for. I want to say FedEx? But I can't find it by searching that, so... I guess not. It's also a testament to the song's quality that its impact isn't diminished by that.
I think the reason for that is the fact that the song's chorus is what gets overused and overexposed, but it's not the chorus that draws me in. The more interesting and entertaining part of the song is the verses. The format of the verses, with the strong bass line and loose vocal style, is the part of the song that's really fun. That's the part of the song that makes me want to get up and dance. That bass line, with occasional brass interjections, is classic and I really enjoy it. It's really a shame that when the chorus comes along, it turns into a different song. The bass falls away, the vocals get less loose, and I'm left waiting for the chorus to end so the good part of the song can come back.
The vocal harmonies in this song are good. I already mentioned the loose vocal style in the verses, which I really enjoy. It's only during the chorus, again, where the life seems to go out of the vocals. What is it that inspires that chorus to be so bland?
There's not a lot to nitpick in the lyrics. It's a generally positive song that tells the listener they're special, a shining star. It sounds a lot like the Mr. Rogers message of "everybody's special," which isn't a bad message for kids to get. It's also pretty clear that the line that a shining star will "shine its watchful light on you" is intended to be a religious message. It's a decently-crafted metaphor. I can't object to it.
My verdict: Like it. I wish they would crank up the bass in the chorus, as that would vastly improve the song. But that's a fairly small nitpick against a really good song.
Weeks: 1
This song has recently been used in a series of TV commercials, and it's a testament to how poor the ads are that I can't remember what company they're for. I want to say FedEx? But I can't find it by searching that, so... I guess not. It's also a testament to the song's quality that its impact isn't diminished by that.
I think the reason for that is the fact that the song's chorus is what gets overused and overexposed, but it's not the chorus that draws me in. The more interesting and entertaining part of the song is the verses. The format of the verses, with the strong bass line and loose vocal style, is the part of the song that's really fun. That's the part of the song that makes me want to get up and dance. That bass line, with occasional brass interjections, is classic and I really enjoy it. It's really a shame that when the chorus comes along, it turns into a different song. The bass falls away, the vocals get less loose, and I'm left waiting for the chorus to end so the good part of the song can come back.
The vocal harmonies in this song are good. I already mentioned the loose vocal style in the verses, which I really enjoy. It's only during the chorus, again, where the life seems to go out of the vocals. What is it that inspires that chorus to be so bland?
There's not a lot to nitpick in the lyrics. It's a generally positive song that tells the listener they're special, a shining star. It sounds a lot like the Mr. Rogers message of "everybody's special," which isn't a bad message for kids to get. It's also pretty clear that the line that a shining star will "shine its watchful light on you" is intended to be a religious message. It's a decently-crafted metaphor. I can't object to it.
My verdict: Like it. I wish they would crank up the bass in the chorus, as that would vastly improve the song. But that's a fairly small nitpick against a really good song.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Song #808: "California Love" by 2Pac featuring Dr. Dre and Roger Troutman
Date: July 13, 1996
Weeks: 2
There are a lot of odd rules to the Billboard chart. Although it seems straightforward, the existence of B-side songs on a single became confusing. If the B-side song gets some radio airplay, it becomes difficult to separate the performance of the A-side track from the performance of the B-side track, especially when they have same sales. One of the more unusual rules that results from that is that both songs get listed together on the chart. But there is always one song that is more popular than the other. So far, I've been able to separate that out and easily determine which song was the popular one, based on its reputation. Unfortunately, this time I just have to take a really good guess. Even though "How Do U Want It" by 2Pac (featuring K-Ci and JoJo) is listed first, and K-Ci and JoJo are listed as the featured artists on the Billboard list, I realized that "California Love" is actually the more popular song. I've heard it used in a movie trailer, it made some year-end lists, and it seems to have more longevity to it.
Also, it's a way better song.
The song is based around an excellent sample, which is from Joe Cocker's "Woman To Woman." That song is all right, but this song takes that sample and turns it into an excellent foundation. It's a testament to how good the sample is that even though it doesn't change much, it doesn't get old or tired for the duration of the song. And it has to carry the song, because the only other music happening is vocal.
A lot of that vocal sound is provided by the heavily altered singing voice of Roger Troutman. Apparently this effect is produced by a talkbox. It's kind of a pre-Auto-tune device that was mostly used to create funky effects like the ones here. It makes the voice sound like a synthesizer, and I think it works very well here. It's very unreal and unusual, and really makes the chorus stand out as something unusual and fun.
I've said before I'm no expert on rap, but I know what I like. And this song showcases two of the best. Dr. Dre and Tupac Shakur both sound great. I didn't like Dr. Dre for a long time because his deep voice made everything sound so dire and serious, but apparently all he needed was fun music underneath him to make me like him. Tupac's voice is better and doesn't come with that same baggage, even if he himself comes with a bit more baggage. But that's not what I'm here to talk about. At any rate, these guys are widely regarded as two of the best rappers of the 90s, and I can certainly see why.
The lyrics extol the virtues of California as a place to party. There's a bit of nonspecific product-pimping, and a bit of casual use of women, but overall none of that is too bad, compared to a lot of later rap songs, or even several of its contemporaries. For the most part the lyrics are just about how great it is to be a rapper, or even a rap fan, in California.
My verdict: Like it. It's just a lot of fun, and I'm glad to finally find a 2Pac song that isn't supposed to be deep or meaningful in the wake of his death, but which is just a fun bit of pop music to be enjoyed.
Weeks: 2
There are a lot of odd rules to the Billboard chart. Although it seems straightforward, the existence of B-side songs on a single became confusing. If the B-side song gets some radio airplay, it becomes difficult to separate the performance of the A-side track from the performance of the B-side track, especially when they have same sales. One of the more unusual rules that results from that is that both songs get listed together on the chart. But there is always one song that is more popular than the other. So far, I've been able to separate that out and easily determine which song was the popular one, based on its reputation. Unfortunately, this time I just have to take a really good guess. Even though "How Do U Want It" by 2Pac (featuring K-Ci and JoJo) is listed first, and K-Ci and JoJo are listed as the featured artists on the Billboard list, I realized that "California Love" is actually the more popular song. I've heard it used in a movie trailer, it made some year-end lists, and it seems to have more longevity to it.
Also, it's a way better song.
The song is based around an excellent sample, which is from Joe Cocker's "Woman To Woman." That song is all right, but this song takes that sample and turns it into an excellent foundation. It's a testament to how good the sample is that even though it doesn't change much, it doesn't get old or tired for the duration of the song. And it has to carry the song, because the only other music happening is vocal.
A lot of that vocal sound is provided by the heavily altered singing voice of Roger Troutman. Apparently this effect is produced by a talkbox. It's kind of a pre-Auto-tune device that was mostly used to create funky effects like the ones here. It makes the voice sound like a synthesizer, and I think it works very well here. It's very unreal and unusual, and really makes the chorus stand out as something unusual and fun.
I've said before I'm no expert on rap, but I know what I like. And this song showcases two of the best. Dr. Dre and Tupac Shakur both sound great. I didn't like Dr. Dre for a long time because his deep voice made everything sound so dire and serious, but apparently all he needed was fun music underneath him to make me like him. Tupac's voice is better and doesn't come with that same baggage, even if he himself comes with a bit more baggage. But that's not what I'm here to talk about. At any rate, these guys are widely regarded as two of the best rappers of the 90s, and I can certainly see why.
The lyrics extol the virtues of California as a place to party. There's a bit of nonspecific product-pimping, and a bit of casual use of women, but overall none of that is too bad, compared to a lot of later rap songs, or even several of its contemporaries. For the most part the lyrics are just about how great it is to be a rapper, or even a rap fan, in California.
My verdict: Like it. It's just a lot of fun, and I'm glad to finally find a 2Pac song that isn't supposed to be deep or meaningful in the wake of his death, but which is just a fun bit of pop music to be enjoyed.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Song #471: "Sad Eyes" by Robert John
Date: Oct 6, 1979
Weeks: 1
This deep into the 70s, it's a bit refreshing to hear a song that isn't disco, or disco-infused. This feels like it comes from the Hall & Oates school of trying to turn the 70s into the 80s. It doesn't entirely escape some of the more obnoxious 70s tropes, though.
The music is the first thing I noticed about this song. It's not disco, yet it's not exactly far from disco. The bass line seems derived from 70s-style funk, the periodic syncopated guitar strum is that disco guitar sound, and of course there's a string line through it all. All of that sound is okay, but makes the song feel dated, and very locked in the 70s. It's particularly bad during the verses. During the chorus, the drums pick up and they feel a bit more successfully timeless. During the bridge, someone fires up an electric guitar, and that guitar solo is pretty satisfying. That may be the key thing that makes the song feel like it's moving into the 80s, and edges the song out of the 70s soft rock doldrums into something a bit more interesting and engaging.
The vocals are the awful, no-good, 70s falsetto vocals. I've ranted about this before, but why was this such a big thing in the 70s? I suppose Robert John deserves a bit more credit because most of the chorus seems to be sung in his normal range, his normal range is just a bit on the high side. But the verses and the part at the end send him into shrill territory. Although the song isn't sung badly, the vocals are very piercing and grating. This song seems like it would be vastly better being sung in a lower register. I just had an imaginary Barry White cover of this song run through my head, and that version is much better.
The lyrics are about the end of a relationship. The singer is breaking off a relationship, and the "sad eyes" are the eyes of the person he's singing to. He's saying not to be sad, and to "try to remember the magic that we shared." I think that's a nice sentiment. Too many break-up songs are about pain and vilification, so it's nice to have one around that just says, "This isn't working out and we need to end it, and although it's sad, we should remember the good times."
Unfortunately, there are a couple lyrics that hint at a different reason for the breakup. In the chorus, there's this line: "You knew there'd come a day when we would have to say goodbye." It's unusual for a relationship to have that kind of expected terminus on it. Generally most people are going for "happily ever after." So why was the relationship expected to end? Terminal disease? The end of summer vacation? The philosophical idea that eventually all relationships end, either in separation or death?
No, it seems the answer lies in the first lines of the song. They sneak in before you even have the context to understand their meaning. "Looks like it's over, you knew I couldn't stay. She's coming home today." That's right, this guy's wife, or girlfriend, or whoever, is coming back. So this is a heartbreaking song from the point of view of a man who's sad that he has to break off his affair. And all that fake falsetto emotion is suddenly really hard to sympathize with.
I haven't come up with a viable alternate interpretation of the lyrics, so I'm left with the feeling that this is a pretty lousy love song to play for anyone.
My verdict: Don't like it. The lyrics are a big part of this, but honestly the music isn't that engaging, either. Other than the lyrics, it's not an awful song, but even without them it didn't really appeal to me.
Weeks: 1
This deep into the 70s, it's a bit refreshing to hear a song that isn't disco, or disco-infused. This feels like it comes from the Hall & Oates school of trying to turn the 70s into the 80s. It doesn't entirely escape some of the more obnoxious 70s tropes, though.
The music is the first thing I noticed about this song. It's not disco, yet it's not exactly far from disco. The bass line seems derived from 70s-style funk, the periodic syncopated guitar strum is that disco guitar sound, and of course there's a string line through it all. All of that sound is okay, but makes the song feel dated, and very locked in the 70s. It's particularly bad during the verses. During the chorus, the drums pick up and they feel a bit more successfully timeless. During the bridge, someone fires up an electric guitar, and that guitar solo is pretty satisfying. That may be the key thing that makes the song feel like it's moving into the 80s, and edges the song out of the 70s soft rock doldrums into something a bit more interesting and engaging.
The vocals are the awful, no-good, 70s falsetto vocals. I've ranted about this before, but why was this such a big thing in the 70s? I suppose Robert John deserves a bit more credit because most of the chorus seems to be sung in his normal range, his normal range is just a bit on the high side. But the verses and the part at the end send him into shrill territory. Although the song isn't sung badly, the vocals are very piercing and grating. This song seems like it would be vastly better being sung in a lower register. I just had an imaginary Barry White cover of this song run through my head, and that version is much better.
The lyrics are about the end of a relationship. The singer is breaking off a relationship, and the "sad eyes" are the eyes of the person he's singing to. He's saying not to be sad, and to "try to remember the magic that we shared." I think that's a nice sentiment. Too many break-up songs are about pain and vilification, so it's nice to have one around that just says, "This isn't working out and we need to end it, and although it's sad, we should remember the good times."
Unfortunately, there are a couple lyrics that hint at a different reason for the breakup. In the chorus, there's this line: "You knew there'd come a day when we would have to say goodbye." It's unusual for a relationship to have that kind of expected terminus on it. Generally most people are going for "happily ever after." So why was the relationship expected to end? Terminal disease? The end of summer vacation? The philosophical idea that eventually all relationships end, either in separation or death?
No, it seems the answer lies in the first lines of the song. They sneak in before you even have the context to understand their meaning. "Looks like it's over, you knew I couldn't stay. She's coming home today." That's right, this guy's wife, or girlfriend, or whoever, is coming back. So this is a heartbreaking song from the point of view of a man who's sad that he has to break off his affair. And all that fake falsetto emotion is suddenly really hard to sympathize with.
I haven't come up with a viable alternate interpretation of the lyrics, so I'm left with the feeling that this is a pretty lousy love song to play for anyone.
My verdict: Don't like it. The lyrics are a big part of this, but honestly the music isn't that engaging, either. Other than the lyrics, it's not an awful song, but even without them it didn't really appeal to me.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Song #15: "The Battle Of New Orleans" by Johnny Horton
Date: Jun 1, 1959
Weeks: 2
Apparently this song was originally written by a high school principal who was trying to create an educational song for his students. His name was Jimmie Driftwood, and his original version is a bit longer and more informative. Clearly his intent was to educate. The Johnny Horton version distills the lyrics a bit and boils it down to the essence of the story. It's probably not as educational, but the story is stronger for its focus.
I don't understand the decision to change "really gave 'em hell" to "Really gave 'em ...well." It feels really weak, and seems too much like a joke that isn't very funny, especially when the entire song pauses to acknowledge it. If anything, I would have expected the principal's version to shy away from the language, not the hit song version. Aside from that, the lyrics are really quite good. Whatever time went into condensing the lyrics in the Horton version was well-spent, because they really are sharp and focused, and contribute to a well-told story.
The song is also sung well. Horton brings a passion to the vocals that keeps the song fun and engaging. His voice builds in intensity throughout the song, peaking in the last few iterations of the chorus. That intensity feels appropriate for the generally war-themed song, like he's singing at the climax of the battle.
The choice of instruments in the music ties in to the subject matter, too. It's a colonial drum beat like the kind soldiers marched to in the War of 1812, with a banjo over the top of it, expressing the Southernness of the setting. Add in some backing vocals, voices of marching soldiers, and a light touch of bass, and you've got the entire song. It's musically very simple, but the simpleness is effective, and rightly throws attention to the lyrics.
My verdict: Like it. It's a well-told story, and the music and vocals are effective.
Weeks: 2
Apparently this song was originally written by a high school principal who was trying to create an educational song for his students. His name was Jimmie Driftwood, and his original version is a bit longer and more informative. Clearly his intent was to educate. The Johnny Horton version distills the lyrics a bit and boils it down to the essence of the story. It's probably not as educational, but the story is stronger for its focus.
I don't understand the decision to change "really gave 'em hell" to "Really gave 'em ...well." It feels really weak, and seems too much like a joke that isn't very funny, especially when the entire song pauses to acknowledge it. If anything, I would have expected the principal's version to shy away from the language, not the hit song version. Aside from that, the lyrics are really quite good. Whatever time went into condensing the lyrics in the Horton version was well-spent, because they really are sharp and focused, and contribute to a well-told story.
The song is also sung well. Horton brings a passion to the vocals that keeps the song fun and engaging. His voice builds in intensity throughout the song, peaking in the last few iterations of the chorus. That intensity feels appropriate for the generally war-themed song, like he's singing at the climax of the battle.
The choice of instruments in the music ties in to the subject matter, too. It's a colonial drum beat like the kind soldiers marched to in the War of 1812, with a banjo over the top of it, expressing the Southernness of the setting. Add in some backing vocals, voices of marching soldiers, and a light touch of bass, and you've got the entire song. It's musically very simple, but the simpleness is effective, and rightly throws attention to the lyrics.
My verdict: Like it. It's a well-told story, and the music and vocals are effective.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Song #829: "My All" by Mariah Carey
Date: May 23, 1998
Weeks: 1
I just realized the other day that for someone with as many No. 1 songs as Mariah Carey, it was surprising that I hadn't encountered her yet. Only the Beatles have more, and I've already done two of theirs.
Mariah Carey's voice is, as always, excellent. Here's a singer with a great sense of how to embellish her singing without straying so far from the melody that it takes away from the song itself. In this case, her vocals are the featured component and the music is secondary, so she has to carry the song and make it interesting. And she does a great job of that.
The music is pretty dull. Obviously this was intended as a sexy slow song, and the music is doing what it's supposed to do. It lays down a sexy slow beat for Mariah Carey to sing over. So it's pretty quiet. There are a lot of instruments involved in making so little music, including a wide variety of percussion, a lightly strummed guitar, and a string section, but it does create the sexy environment it's going for. The music is well-crafted, to be sure. It achieves its goal.
With lyrics like "I'd give my all to have just one more night with you," the message is one of regret and longing. It kind of sums up nostalgia for a relationship that didn't work out, a desire to revisit the past, an urge to reconcile and get back together, or just a desire to hook up with an ex for the short-term benefit of a one-night stand. The lyrics manage to touch on all that.
My verdict: Like it. I'm not sure I would seek this out to listen to for fun, but I can't deny that it's well-constructed and meets its goal.
Weeks: 1
I just realized the other day that for someone with as many No. 1 songs as Mariah Carey, it was surprising that I hadn't encountered her yet. Only the Beatles have more, and I've already done two of theirs.
Mariah Carey's voice is, as always, excellent. Here's a singer with a great sense of how to embellish her singing without straying so far from the melody that it takes away from the song itself. In this case, her vocals are the featured component and the music is secondary, so she has to carry the song and make it interesting. And she does a great job of that.
The music is pretty dull. Obviously this was intended as a sexy slow song, and the music is doing what it's supposed to do. It lays down a sexy slow beat for Mariah Carey to sing over. So it's pretty quiet. There are a lot of instruments involved in making so little music, including a wide variety of percussion, a lightly strummed guitar, and a string section, but it does create the sexy environment it's going for. The music is well-crafted, to be sure. It achieves its goal.
With lyrics like "I'd give my all to have just one more night with you," the message is one of regret and longing. It kind of sums up nostalgia for a relationship that didn't work out, a desire to revisit the past, an urge to reconcile and get back together, or just a desire to hook up with an ex for the short-term benefit of a one-night stand. The lyrics manage to touch on all that.
My verdict: Like it. I'm not sure I would seek this out to listen to for fun, but I can't deny that it's well-constructed and meets its goal.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Song #896: "Shake Ya Tailfeather" by Nelly, P. Diddy, & Murphy Lee
Date: Sept 6, 2003
Weeks: 4
Any song that contains both the Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop cheer and a recurring sample of a police siren is vying for the title of Most Annoying Song I've Ever Heard. And the worst thing is that that tomahawk cheer seems to be the closest this song comes to a melody.
The drum and bass line are actually very enjoyable. I like what's happening there. That is a solid base on which to build a fun song. Also a plus is P. Diddy's rapping. I like his voice and style. I can't say I've heard this Murphy Lee before, but his voice and style are okay. And that's about the end of the list of things I like about this song.
As for things I don't like, there's the tomahawk chop standing in for the melody, like I said before, and the police siren sample. Listening to this song in the car would irritate me. I'd constantly be checking my mirrors before I realized the siren was in the song, not coming up behind me on the freeway. I still don't like Nelly's voice, although this song helps explain why he spelled the title of that other song "Herre," because that's how he actually pronounces that word in this song.
Overall, though, I guess the general sound is kind of all right. If I ignore the things that irritate me, it's a decent enough song to dance to during some of the middle parts. It's from the movie Bad Boys 2, and I bet it fits in with the movie. But the lyrics... oh, the lyrics.
First we have the obnoxious branding. They make sure to insert the rappers' names into the beginning of the song. Not like they're singing about themselves, but like they're making sure if you hear the song on the radio or in the movie, you'll know exactly who sings it without having to ask or read the credits. Then they add "Bad Boys 2, the Soundtrack, let's go." So now you know exactly where you can buy this song. I guess I'm surprised this sort of thing doesn't happen more, but it sure removes any chance that a song could be mistaken for art.
I feel like some of these lyrics in the Murphy Lee part need special individual commentary:
"They be like he the man, but I'm really a Thundercat." That's a really clumsy He-Man reference. No one would ever connect "he the man" to "He-Man" without the Thundercats reference. Also, would you rather be a Thundercat than He-Man? Especially when you're trying to reference your virility with regard to sex with women?
"Connect like Voltron." Murphy Lee was a nerd like me when he was a kid, wasn't he?
"Collect so much grass popo thinking we mow lawns." The police wouldn't think you're mowing lawns if you're "collecting" grass. Even I know that slang. Plus it makes little sense from a lawnmowing perspective. Maybe they should have said they collect so much grass, the police think they compost. No, that's stupid, too.
Otherwise, it's just your typical rap "I like to sleep with many women, and I get to because I am just that awesome" song. Nothing new to see here, lyrically.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a terrible overall sound, but there are too many obnoxious details that ruin it.
Weeks: 4
Any song that contains both the Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop cheer and a recurring sample of a police siren is vying for the title of Most Annoying Song I've Ever Heard. And the worst thing is that that tomahawk cheer seems to be the closest this song comes to a melody.
The drum and bass line are actually very enjoyable. I like what's happening there. That is a solid base on which to build a fun song. Also a plus is P. Diddy's rapping. I like his voice and style. I can't say I've heard this Murphy Lee before, but his voice and style are okay. And that's about the end of the list of things I like about this song.
As for things I don't like, there's the tomahawk chop standing in for the melody, like I said before, and the police siren sample. Listening to this song in the car would irritate me. I'd constantly be checking my mirrors before I realized the siren was in the song, not coming up behind me on the freeway. I still don't like Nelly's voice, although this song helps explain why he spelled the title of that other song "Herre," because that's how he actually pronounces that word in this song.
Overall, though, I guess the general sound is kind of all right. If I ignore the things that irritate me, it's a decent enough song to dance to during some of the middle parts. It's from the movie Bad Boys 2, and I bet it fits in with the movie. But the lyrics... oh, the lyrics.
First we have the obnoxious branding. They make sure to insert the rappers' names into the beginning of the song. Not like they're singing about themselves, but like they're making sure if you hear the song on the radio or in the movie, you'll know exactly who sings it without having to ask or read the credits. Then they add "Bad Boys 2, the Soundtrack, let's go." So now you know exactly where you can buy this song. I guess I'm surprised this sort of thing doesn't happen more, but it sure removes any chance that a song could be mistaken for art.
I feel like some of these lyrics in the Murphy Lee part need special individual commentary:
"They be like he the man, but I'm really a Thundercat." That's a really clumsy He-Man reference. No one would ever connect "he the man" to "He-Man" without the Thundercats reference. Also, would you rather be a Thundercat than He-Man? Especially when you're trying to reference your virility with regard to sex with women?
"Connect like Voltron." Murphy Lee was a nerd like me when he was a kid, wasn't he?
"Collect so much grass popo thinking we mow lawns." The police wouldn't think you're mowing lawns if you're "collecting" grass. Even I know that slang. Plus it makes little sense from a lawnmowing perspective. Maybe they should have said they collect so much grass, the police think they compost. No, that's stupid, too.
Otherwise, it's just your typical rap "I like to sleep with many women, and I get to because I am just that awesome" song. Nothing new to see here, lyrically.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a terrible overall sound, but there are too many obnoxious details that ruin it.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Song #6: "Tom Dooley" by The Kingston Trio
Date: Nov, 17, 1958
Weeks: 1
Folk music is always tough for me to review. I like to focus on the music and overall sound that a pop song creates, consider how well the vocals match it, and then move on to nitpicking the lyrics with the premise that the writers didn't pay enough attention to them. But folk music is built the opposite way around. Folk music starts off with a story to tell in the lyrics, then somebody sings it, and then there's a few gently strummed guitars tacked on.
So I guess I'll start with those lyrics. This song tells the story of a man, Tom Dooley, who was convicted of killing his fiance, and was hanged for it. This is a true story, with some creative alterations, such as the fact that the man's name was actually Tom Dula, that I guess became a piece of North Carolina folklore, mostly because I guess there was some doubt about his actual guilt
I don't think the lyrics tell the story particularly well. They go straight from "stabbed her with my knife" to "Poor boy, you're bound to die." There's not a lot of explanation about his supposed motivation for the killing. There's a hint that a man named Grayson is responsible for catching him, but the song doesn't clarify who Grayson is or what he did. I thought he was the sheriff, but Wikipedia implies Grayson was a guy who gave Dooley a job while he was on the run, and then turned him in when he realized who he was. The song doesn't argue or even try to ask whether Dooley was innocent, but seems to lay out a case of sympathy for him anyway by saying "Poor boy you're bound to die" over and over again. So no, despite the spoken opening claiming the song "tells the story," I didn't feel any more educated about the events after listening to the song. Well, I suppose hearing the song drove me to learn more about the story behind them. So maybe it's a win for education after all.
The vocals are very nicely harmonized. The Kingston Trio gives an interesting performance that catches my attention. The performance they give may be a little too gentle, though. I suppose they are trying to treat their somber subject matter with appropriate reverence, and that's good. Their tone is appropriate. But that doesn't make it fun.
And yet the guitars are happy, strummy folk guitars. They don't quite have the same somber tone as the vocals. Mostly they're just quiet in place of being somber, but that's not quite the same. As with most folk music, the music doesn't evolve much throughout the course of the song, consisting of largely the same chords over and over until the lyrics are done. There's a little bit of a crescendo a couple times to make the music more interesting, but it's mostly too little, too late.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's pleasant enough, but the music isn't terribly interesting, and the story isn't well-told enough to make up for it.
Weeks: 1
Folk music is always tough for me to review. I like to focus on the music and overall sound that a pop song creates, consider how well the vocals match it, and then move on to nitpicking the lyrics with the premise that the writers didn't pay enough attention to them. But folk music is built the opposite way around. Folk music starts off with a story to tell in the lyrics, then somebody sings it, and then there's a few gently strummed guitars tacked on.
So I guess I'll start with those lyrics. This song tells the story of a man, Tom Dooley, who was convicted of killing his fiance, and was hanged for it. This is a true story, with some creative alterations, such as the fact that the man's name was actually Tom Dula, that I guess became a piece of North Carolina folklore, mostly because I guess there was some doubt about his actual guilt
I don't think the lyrics tell the story particularly well. They go straight from "stabbed her with my knife" to "Poor boy, you're bound to die." There's not a lot of explanation about his supposed motivation for the killing. There's a hint that a man named Grayson is responsible for catching him, but the song doesn't clarify who Grayson is or what he did. I thought he was the sheriff, but Wikipedia implies Grayson was a guy who gave Dooley a job while he was on the run, and then turned him in when he realized who he was. The song doesn't argue or even try to ask whether Dooley was innocent, but seems to lay out a case of sympathy for him anyway by saying "Poor boy you're bound to die" over and over again. So no, despite the spoken opening claiming the song "tells the story," I didn't feel any more educated about the events after listening to the song. Well, I suppose hearing the song drove me to learn more about the story behind them. So maybe it's a win for education after all.
The vocals are very nicely harmonized. The Kingston Trio gives an interesting performance that catches my attention. The performance they give may be a little too gentle, though. I suppose they are trying to treat their somber subject matter with appropriate reverence, and that's good. Their tone is appropriate. But that doesn't make it fun.
And yet the guitars are happy, strummy folk guitars. They don't quite have the same somber tone as the vocals. Mostly they're just quiet in place of being somber, but that's not quite the same. As with most folk music, the music doesn't evolve much throughout the course of the song, consisting of largely the same chords over and over until the lyrics are done. There's a little bit of a crescendo a couple times to make the music more interesting, but it's mostly too little, too late.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's pleasant enough, but the music isn't terribly interesting, and the story isn't well-told enough to make up for it.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Song #433: "I Just Want To Be Your Everything" by Andy Gibb
Date: July 30, 1977
Weeks: 4
Oh no, not Andy Gibb again already, randomizer! But I've been good. Why are you doing this to me? Ugh. Well, maybe this one won't be so completely bad.
Phew. Good news. This one's not bad. It's not good, but it's not unpleasant.
The overall sound is that really gentle 70s soft-pop-with-disco-undertones sound. It's the disco dancer's interpretation of a sensitive love song, but one that can still be disco danced to. The falsetto vocals, the drums, the overall chords, it's all very generically disco. "(Love Is) Thicker Than Water" (#440) was a bit experimental and odd, and unfortunately that experimental oddness wasn't good. This song is playing it safe and trying to sound like every other soft 70s song. It's not ambitious, but it seems the 70s were an experimental time for music, and songs that tried to be different sometimes ended up really weird. Maybe this song is better for not trying too hard.
The synthesized backing track is the part of the song that stands out most, and its success is mixed. The song is at its least interesting when the synthesizer track is missing. But when it's playing, it sort of sounds like it's the music playing on a merry-go-round, especially during the synthesizer solo after the first chorus. It makes me feel like I'm at the state fair. Admittedly, I enjoy the state fair, but I'm not sure that's the emotion the song is going for.
Andy Gibb's falsetto vocals may be fine by the standards of the genre, but I don't like them. You should have a good reason to do falsetto vocals, and I just don't think they're necessary here. The song could have been just as good sung in a normal range.
The lyrics are typical overwrought love song stuff. "If I stay here without you, darling, I would die." Because according to the rules of teenage love, it's only real love if you literally could not live without the other person. I think there was a story about that once. Next up is "I'd do anything to be your everything." So if you don't feel the same dire sentiment about being unable to live without me, what can I do to make you feel that way? Obviously a lot of love songs contain similar sentiments, so I can't judge this one too harshly for it, but it's not to the song's credit to include it here.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a bad song, but it's striving too hard to be average.
Weeks: 4
Oh no, not Andy Gibb again already, randomizer! But I've been good. Why are you doing this to me? Ugh. Well, maybe this one won't be so completely bad.
Phew. Good news. This one's not bad. It's not good, but it's not unpleasant.
The overall sound is that really gentle 70s soft-pop-with-disco-undertones sound. It's the disco dancer's interpretation of a sensitive love song, but one that can still be disco danced to. The falsetto vocals, the drums, the overall chords, it's all very generically disco. "(Love Is) Thicker Than Water" (#440) was a bit experimental and odd, and unfortunately that experimental oddness wasn't good. This song is playing it safe and trying to sound like every other soft 70s song. It's not ambitious, but it seems the 70s were an experimental time for music, and songs that tried to be different sometimes ended up really weird. Maybe this song is better for not trying too hard.
The synthesized backing track is the part of the song that stands out most, and its success is mixed. The song is at its least interesting when the synthesizer track is missing. But when it's playing, it sort of sounds like it's the music playing on a merry-go-round, especially during the synthesizer solo after the first chorus. It makes me feel like I'm at the state fair. Admittedly, I enjoy the state fair, but I'm not sure that's the emotion the song is going for.
Andy Gibb's falsetto vocals may be fine by the standards of the genre, but I don't like them. You should have a good reason to do falsetto vocals, and I just don't think they're necessary here. The song could have been just as good sung in a normal range.
The lyrics are typical overwrought love song stuff. "If I stay here without you, darling, I would die." Because according to the rules of teenage love, it's only real love if you literally could not live without the other person. I think there was a story about that once. Next up is "I'd do anything to be your everything." So if you don't feel the same dire sentiment about being unable to live without me, what can I do to make you feel that way? Obviously a lot of love songs contain similar sentiments, so I can't judge this one too harshly for it, but it's not to the song's credit to include it here.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a bad song, but it's striving too hard to be average.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Song #440: "(Love Is) Thicker Than Water" by Andy Gibb
Date: Mar 4, 1978
Weeks: 2
I was going to make a comment like, "Well, I've been doing this blog long enough to have learned, without resorting to the Internet, that Andy Gibb is one of the Bee Gees, and this must be a solo effort." Then I fact-checked just to be sure and discovered that I'm only half right. The Bee Gees are 3 brothers all named Gibb, but Andy is their youngest brother. He was not in the Bee Gees, although he obviously occasionally performed with them. Just to be sure, I checked to see if there were any other Gibb siblings I should watch out for. Apparently there was a sister, Lesley Gibb, who performed onstage with the Bee Gees sometimes, but doesn't appear to have a solo career or to have even officially contributed to any albums.
This song is a very odd mix of 70s sounds. The chorus is pretty ordinary late-70s disco-style soft pop. The verse is in the style of the gentle early-70s barely-awake pop music. Then there's a kind of cool instrumental bridge of electric guitars and synthesizers, that reminds me of some of Queen's lighter songs (specifically "The Miracle" is the one that comes to mind). The bridge is really enjoyable and good. The verse is overly quiet, gentle, and not any good.
The chorus is... weird. It feels like it keeps going off-tempo. I listened carefully and realized it's not actually off-tempo, it just feels like it is in a way that would make dancing to the song really challenging. I suppose it's to the song's credit that it's musically challenging, but I don't think it works in the song's favor here.
Then the last half of the song is given over to a wimpy little lounge-singer-eqsue, mostly instrumental light guitar riff. The only lyric here is "la la la." I wish they'd taken that bridge that reminded me of Queen and used that as the basis for this instrumental portion instead. Actually, if I'm getting any wishes, I wish I was listening to Queen instead.
The lyrics are pretty bad, too, approaching the territory of "this women is awful for making me feel like I love her"-style lyrics. We've got gems like "She'll leave me crying in the end... but I can't leave her." And my favorite, calling the woman "Heaven's angel, Devil's daughter." She's the perfect woman, but I can't have her so she's an awful temptress. Forget Queen, I need to compare this song to the villian's song from Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's bad on several levels. That bride is about 20 seconds, and it's not good enough to make up for the rest of the song.
Weeks: 2
I was going to make a comment like, "Well, I've been doing this blog long enough to have learned, without resorting to the Internet, that Andy Gibb is one of the Bee Gees, and this must be a solo effort." Then I fact-checked just to be sure and discovered that I'm only half right. The Bee Gees are 3 brothers all named Gibb, but Andy is their youngest brother. He was not in the Bee Gees, although he obviously occasionally performed with them. Just to be sure, I checked to see if there were any other Gibb siblings I should watch out for. Apparently there was a sister, Lesley Gibb, who performed onstage with the Bee Gees sometimes, but doesn't appear to have a solo career or to have even officially contributed to any albums.
This song is a very odd mix of 70s sounds. The chorus is pretty ordinary late-70s disco-style soft pop. The verse is in the style of the gentle early-70s barely-awake pop music. Then there's a kind of cool instrumental bridge of electric guitars and synthesizers, that reminds me of some of Queen's lighter songs (specifically "The Miracle" is the one that comes to mind). The bridge is really enjoyable and good. The verse is overly quiet, gentle, and not any good.
The chorus is... weird. It feels like it keeps going off-tempo. I listened carefully and realized it's not actually off-tempo, it just feels like it is in a way that would make dancing to the song really challenging. I suppose it's to the song's credit that it's musically challenging, but I don't think it works in the song's favor here.
Then the last half of the song is given over to a wimpy little lounge-singer-eqsue, mostly instrumental light guitar riff. The only lyric here is "la la la." I wish they'd taken that bridge that reminded me of Queen and used that as the basis for this instrumental portion instead. Actually, if I'm getting any wishes, I wish I was listening to Queen instead.
The lyrics are pretty bad, too, approaching the territory of "this women is awful for making me feel like I love her"-style lyrics. We've got gems like "She'll leave me crying in the end... but I can't leave her." And my favorite, calling the woman "Heaven's angel, Devil's daughter." She's the perfect woman, but I can't have her so she's an awful temptress. Forget Queen, I need to compare this song to the villian's song from Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's bad on several levels. That bride is about 20 seconds, and it's not good enough to make up for the rest of the song.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Song #775: "A Whole New World" by Peabo Bryson & Regina Belle
Date: Mar 6, 1993
Weeks: 1
One thing I decided early on for this blog was that I had to review the performance that was recorded on the single that went on the charts. I could drive myself trying to compare every live performance, re-recording, cover, and remix. Sometimes I like to go to those alternate versions just to illustrate how the song could be made better, or why the performance that charted is bad, but ultimately I'm judging the version of the song that was popular.
And so with that all said, I can now safely state that I hate this song.
I loved Disney's Aladdin when it was new. I still like it now. And I think "A Whole New World," as performed by the characters in the movie, is a fine song (although the movie has better songs). But I hate this recording. It's overproduceed, oversung, overdone, and underinteresting.
The music is the first problem. It's just so gentle and slow. This is a problem in the alternating wood block/tambourine percussion line and the gentle steel drum music line, which makes up the base of the song. Eventually they switch over to the power ballad tropes of the poundy 80s drums, and the most gentle "rocking guitar solo" I think I've ever heard. There aren't very many layers of sound, and they are all extremely slow without being very sincere.
The other sincerity problem comes in the vocals. Peabo Bryson oversings it a little, but he isn't too bad. Actually, now that I'm focusing specifically on his performance, I think he may be the best part of this recording. He does a fine job and if he does oversing a little, his performance at least matches the music. The real problem here is Regina Belle. She is in full self-showcase, oversinging mode. She adds all kinds of trills where they don't belong, and even sings some of the notes wrong ("endless diamond sky" being a particularly egregious example). I think she's trying to add her unique style to the song, but this is a carefully calculated production designed to promote a Disney movie. The whole track is overproduced, and Belle's free vocal style here doesn't match it at all.
Belle further irritates me by being bad at pronunciation. "Soaring, tumbling, freewheeling through and en-less diamond sky." She misplaces the "d" sound from "endless" and turns "an" into "and." This isn't a live performance, or a raw recording where small mistakes add personal flavor. This is a Disney promotional song. Why didn't they do another take of that? Heck, this is the early 90s. Major entertainment companies could edit that sort of thing out of an audio track. In a track that is otherwise so irritatingly polished, why is that mistake allowed to stand out like that?
It's hard to criticize the lyrics from a musical. They make sense in their original context, so it's only a problem if the lyrics are weird and you manage to get far enough away from the context to emphasize their weirdness. That doesn't really happen here, so I guess the lyrics are fine.
My verdict: Don't like it. But I'm glad I reviewed it, because I now realize that Peabo Bryson isn't as bad as I though. He's the only good thing happening in this song.
Weeks: 1
One thing I decided early on for this blog was that I had to review the performance that was recorded on the single that went on the charts. I could drive myself trying to compare every live performance, re-recording, cover, and remix. Sometimes I like to go to those alternate versions just to illustrate how the song could be made better, or why the performance that charted is bad, but ultimately I'm judging the version of the song that was popular.
And so with that all said, I can now safely state that I hate this song.
I loved Disney's Aladdin when it was new. I still like it now. And I think "A Whole New World," as performed by the characters in the movie, is a fine song (although the movie has better songs). But I hate this recording. It's overproduceed, oversung, overdone, and underinteresting.
The music is the first problem. It's just so gentle and slow. This is a problem in the alternating wood block/tambourine percussion line and the gentle steel drum music line, which makes up the base of the song. Eventually they switch over to the power ballad tropes of the poundy 80s drums, and the most gentle "rocking guitar solo" I think I've ever heard. There aren't very many layers of sound, and they are all extremely slow without being very sincere.
The other sincerity problem comes in the vocals. Peabo Bryson oversings it a little, but he isn't too bad. Actually, now that I'm focusing specifically on his performance, I think he may be the best part of this recording. He does a fine job and if he does oversing a little, his performance at least matches the music. The real problem here is Regina Belle. She is in full self-showcase, oversinging mode. She adds all kinds of trills where they don't belong, and even sings some of the notes wrong ("endless diamond sky" being a particularly egregious example). I think she's trying to add her unique style to the song, but this is a carefully calculated production designed to promote a Disney movie. The whole track is overproduced, and Belle's free vocal style here doesn't match it at all.
Belle further irritates me by being bad at pronunciation. "Soaring, tumbling, freewheeling through and en-less diamond sky." She misplaces the "d" sound from "endless" and turns "an" into "and." This isn't a live performance, or a raw recording where small mistakes add personal flavor. This is a Disney promotional song. Why didn't they do another take of that? Heck, this is the early 90s. Major entertainment companies could edit that sort of thing out of an audio track. In a track that is otherwise so irritatingly polished, why is that mistake allowed to stand out like that?
It's hard to criticize the lyrics from a musical. They make sense in their original context, so it's only a problem if the lyrics are weird and you manage to get far enough away from the context to emphasize their weirdness. That doesn't really happen here, so I guess the lyrics are fine.
My verdict: Don't like it. But I'm glad I reviewed it, because I now realize that Peabo Bryson isn't as bad as I though. He's the only good thing happening in this song.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Song #761: "Set Adrift On Memory Bliss" by P.M. Dawn
Date: Nov 30, 1991
Weeks: 1
P.M. Dawn has a fairly unique sound. Gentle rap over laid-back synthesizer chords is not a kind of sound I've heard from many other artists. Not all their music is this relaxed, but this particular song feels like I should be listening to it while sitting in a lounge chair.
The backing music is relatively simple. It's a sample of a synthesized piano line from an earlier song ("True" by Spandau Ballet, from 1983), with a simple drum loop layered on top of it. Then they add some backing vocals and some rapping, and the result is a pleasant enough song. The song feels like it lacks structure. It doesn't have nearly enough division between verse and chorus, with the result that it feels kind of unstructured and loose and lacking a beginning and end.
The vocals may be a matter of taste. The singer, Prince Be, has a slight, nasally voice, and you're likely to either find it intriguingly unique or irritating. I generally like his voice myself, although I think his singing is better than his rapping.
The lyrics are generally nonsense, but there are some parts that feel particularly pointless. In particular, at the end of the first rap bridge, the singer brings up an ex who says he probably doesn't think about her very much any more. And he says she's probably right. So why did you bring her up in this song? The most likely explanation was that he needed to fill time until the chorus came around again.
My verdict: Like it. It's a decently relaxing song, and I think it's better than the song it samples from. P.M. Dawn has several better songs, though, such as this, this, and particularly this.
Weeks: 1
P.M. Dawn has a fairly unique sound. Gentle rap over laid-back synthesizer chords is not a kind of sound I've heard from many other artists. Not all their music is this relaxed, but this particular song feels like I should be listening to it while sitting in a lounge chair.
The backing music is relatively simple. It's a sample of a synthesized piano line from an earlier song ("True" by Spandau Ballet, from 1983), with a simple drum loop layered on top of it. Then they add some backing vocals and some rapping, and the result is a pleasant enough song. The song feels like it lacks structure. It doesn't have nearly enough division between verse and chorus, with the result that it feels kind of unstructured and loose and lacking a beginning and end.
The vocals may be a matter of taste. The singer, Prince Be, has a slight, nasally voice, and you're likely to either find it intriguingly unique or irritating. I generally like his voice myself, although I think his singing is better than his rapping.
The lyrics are generally nonsense, but there are some parts that feel particularly pointless. In particular, at the end of the first rap bridge, the singer brings up an ex who says he probably doesn't think about her very much any more. And he says she's probably right. So why did you bring her up in this song? The most likely explanation was that he needed to fill time until the chorus came around again.
My verdict: Like it. It's a decently relaxing song, and I think it's better than the song it samples from. P.M. Dawn has several better songs, though, such as this, this, and particularly this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)