Date: Oct 9, 1976
Weeks: 1
I don't like this song, and yet I can't quite explain why. Let me see if I can solve the mystery.
I don't object to it on the conceptual grounds of updating a piece of classical music to a modern style. It's not Christmas to me until I've heard the Vandals' version of "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies." I can enjoy the rock version of Pachelbel's "Canon in D". So it's not the concept I object to.
I don't dislike it because it's disco. I've spent enough time mucking around in the popular music of the 70s to realize that disco was actually one of the better musical ideas happening in the decade. Not better than 70s rock, which is woefully underrepresented in this list, but certainly better than a lot of the wimpy soft rock of the time.
It's not because it's specifically a disco remix of classical music. Not to trample an upcoming review, but the disco "Star Wars Theme" is pretty fun. Heck, even this song's fellow Saturday Night Fever soundtrack song "Night on Disco Mountain" tickles me.
And it's not because I think the specific source material shouldn't be messed with. I don't think of Beethoven any more highly than any other classical composer. The portion of Beethoven's 5th Symphony being referenced here is arguably the most well-known piece of classical music that there is, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to remix it.
I think the problem comes in how the remix is handled. What I just realized while listening to all those videos I linked is this: This song includes far too much new material that doesn't seem to be based on Beethoven at all. The generic electric organ track that plays throughout is particular evidence of this. I admit I don't know all parts of Beethoven's 5th, but I just listened to both this remix and the original back-to-back and I don't hear that organ part reflected in the original at all. The new material in this song isn't good enough on its own, but its too prominent to just be filler that connects one Beethoven part to another.
The song also feels really thinly instrumented. It sounds like the song was remixed from a string quartet's recording of Beethoven, rather than from an orchestra's recording.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a bad concept, but it needed to be bigger. Use an entire orchestra, make the song longer, and when you have gaps use remixed parts of the original to fill them.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
Song #141: "I'm Henry VIII, I Am" by Herman's Hermits
Date: Aug 7, 1965
Weeks: 1
A few months back, I had half-composed a mini-rant about dumb, repetitive lyrics in the pop music of the 2000s. Then I randomly stumbled across "I'm Henry VIII, I Am," and it changed my mind. Turns out repetitive pop music lyrics and pop music junk food have a long and proud tradition.
These lyrics aren't dumb, I guess. They're really better described as silly. It's a silly story about a guy who's married to a woman with 7 ex-husbands, and all of them are named Henry. It's amusing. And I suppose I have to give credit for cleverness, because it's no coincidence that King Henry VIII of England was rather famously married 6 times. These lyrics are from a much older, shorter song and are repeated over and over, and that's where this song breaks down. Rather than add new lyrics as a verse, this song just sings the chorus 3 times in a row and calls it good. Sure, they add in "Second verse, same as the first" as a sort of winking acknowledgment of the problem, but I'm not sure that sufficiently makes up for it. It's fine to make a song that's silly, but a silly song will usually be funnier with some variety, or at least a humorous twist on the third iteration.
As for the vocals, the exaggerated cockney pronunciation of "Henery" is required by the song's meter, but it also provides another clue that the whole song is a bit of a goof. It also seems clear that the song is carefully calculated to capitalize on the British Invasion of the mid-60s, by featuring the most exaggerated British accent possible. It all contributes to the silliness, but I guess it's all in good fun.
Musically, it's pretty basic early 60s rock music. Drums, bass, guitar, vocals. Not a wide variety of chords required to play it. It seems like it would be pretty easy to learn how to play this song in your garage band, and annoy your friends with its utter lack of variety. Even the guitar solo in the middle isn't all that interesting, being largely a guitar version of the vocal part. At least the song is short. At under 2 minutes, it doesn't last long enough to wear on your nerves.
My verdict: Like it. It's 60s pop music junk food, but it's fun and doesn't wear out its welcome.
Weeks: 1
A few months back, I had half-composed a mini-rant about dumb, repetitive lyrics in the pop music of the 2000s. Then I randomly stumbled across "I'm Henry VIII, I Am," and it changed my mind. Turns out repetitive pop music lyrics and pop music junk food have a long and proud tradition.
These lyrics aren't dumb, I guess. They're really better described as silly. It's a silly story about a guy who's married to a woman with 7 ex-husbands, and all of them are named Henry. It's amusing. And I suppose I have to give credit for cleverness, because it's no coincidence that King Henry VIII of England was rather famously married 6 times. These lyrics are from a much older, shorter song and are repeated over and over, and that's where this song breaks down. Rather than add new lyrics as a verse, this song just sings the chorus 3 times in a row and calls it good. Sure, they add in "Second verse, same as the first" as a sort of winking acknowledgment of the problem, but I'm not sure that sufficiently makes up for it. It's fine to make a song that's silly, but a silly song will usually be funnier with some variety, or at least a humorous twist on the third iteration.
As for the vocals, the exaggerated cockney pronunciation of "Henery" is required by the song's meter, but it also provides another clue that the whole song is a bit of a goof. It also seems clear that the song is carefully calculated to capitalize on the British Invasion of the mid-60s, by featuring the most exaggerated British accent possible. It all contributes to the silliness, but I guess it's all in good fun.
Musically, it's pretty basic early 60s rock music. Drums, bass, guitar, vocals. Not a wide variety of chords required to play it. It seems like it would be pretty easy to learn how to play this song in your garage band, and annoy your friends with its utter lack of variety. Even the guitar solo in the middle isn't all that interesting, being largely a guitar version of the vocal part. At least the song is short. At under 2 minutes, it doesn't last long enough to wear on your nerves.
My verdict: Like it. It's 60s pop music junk food, but it's fun and doesn't wear out its welcome.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Song #964: "So What" by Pink
Date: Sept 27, 2008
Weeks: 1
Pink is one of those singers that crept up on me. When she first came along, she seemed to be a fairly generic R&B singer and I dismissed her as not being terribly interesting. "Get The Party Started" seemed vaguely catchy but vapid. I liked "Don't Let Me Get Me" a little, but it seemed to be atypical of her work to that point. It wasn't until I heard this song in the Rock Band video game that
I discovered Pink had been making rock music with judicious traces of both Punk and R&B, and that her songs were catchy and fun.
The music is this song is excellent. It's a tightly performed, tightly produced rock song with a big wall of sound, and every part contributes to the whole in an excellent way. The lead guitar riff is excellent and attention-grabbing, and quits during the chorus so that it doesn't get annoying. The drum line is driving and is an absolute blast to clap along to. The chorus uses a synthesizer bass that I enjoy. I sometimes complain about synthesizers in the 80s, but by the late 90s and 2000s pop musicians had figured out how to use the particular timbre of synthesizers to their advantage. There's a higher-pitched, warbling snyth sound in the chorus that risks being superfluous, but it contributes to the intentional chaos of the overall sound
That chaos really seems to be the intent, because the lyrics are all about the anger of getting over an ended relationship. She's declaring that she's going to be fine for all kinds of reasons. "I don't need you." "I'm having more fun." And now she can see that the relationship wasn't that great anyway. "You weren't there. You never were." As many whiny, weepy, denial-based breakup songs as I've reviewed, I'm glad to find one that is the perfect song for the moment you realize that you're actually glad to be out of that relationship.
The vocals in the chorus are the part of the song that is probably the most fun. Rather than singing, Pink practically shouts. I bet this song is an absolute blast to see performed live, with the audience participating in a shout-along at the top of their lungs. In a clever touch, Pink gets to show off her actual vocal abilities by doing her own backup singing in the last chorus. In those backup flourishes, she actually opens up and sings in a way that feels raw and exposed and a bit painful. And I think it's that pain in her voice that gives me the interpretation that despite her brave front, she is a bit hurt by the breakup. I had that idea after listening to the song the first time and when I went back to review the lyrics I couldn't find any support for it. But then I realized it's not in the lyrics, it's in the vocals. Even though she's sure she's better off now, she's still a little hurt over it. And that depth is communicated in the performance rather than the music or the lyrics. And that's an excellent performance that can communicate that.
My verdict: Like it. It was just plain fun the first time I listened to it, and revealed hidden emotional depths after several listens. This song is everything pop music should aspire to be.
Weeks: 1
Pink is one of those singers that crept up on me. When she first came along, she seemed to be a fairly generic R&B singer and I dismissed her as not being terribly interesting. "Get The Party Started" seemed vaguely catchy but vapid. I liked "Don't Let Me Get Me" a little, but it seemed to be atypical of her work to that point. It wasn't until I heard this song in the Rock Band video game that
I discovered Pink had been making rock music with judicious traces of both Punk and R&B, and that her songs were catchy and fun.
The music is this song is excellent. It's a tightly performed, tightly produced rock song with a big wall of sound, and every part contributes to the whole in an excellent way. The lead guitar riff is excellent and attention-grabbing, and quits during the chorus so that it doesn't get annoying. The drum line is driving and is an absolute blast to clap along to. The chorus uses a synthesizer bass that I enjoy. I sometimes complain about synthesizers in the 80s, but by the late 90s and 2000s pop musicians had figured out how to use the particular timbre of synthesizers to their advantage. There's a higher-pitched, warbling snyth sound in the chorus that risks being superfluous, but it contributes to the intentional chaos of the overall sound
That chaos really seems to be the intent, because the lyrics are all about the anger of getting over an ended relationship. She's declaring that she's going to be fine for all kinds of reasons. "I don't need you." "I'm having more fun." And now she can see that the relationship wasn't that great anyway. "You weren't there. You never were." As many whiny, weepy, denial-based breakup songs as I've reviewed, I'm glad to find one that is the perfect song for the moment you realize that you're actually glad to be out of that relationship.
The vocals in the chorus are the part of the song that is probably the most fun. Rather than singing, Pink practically shouts. I bet this song is an absolute blast to see performed live, with the audience participating in a shout-along at the top of their lungs. In a clever touch, Pink gets to show off her actual vocal abilities by doing her own backup singing in the last chorus. In those backup flourishes, she actually opens up and sings in a way that feels raw and exposed and a bit painful. And I think it's that pain in her voice that gives me the interpretation that despite her brave front, she is a bit hurt by the breakup. I had that idea after listening to the song the first time and when I went back to review the lyrics I couldn't find any support for it. But then I realized it's not in the lyrics, it's in the vocals. Even though she's sure she's better off now, she's still a little hurt over it. And that depth is communicated in the performance rather than the music or the lyrics. And that's an excellent performance that can communicate that.
My verdict: Like it. It was just plain fun the first time I listened to it, and revealed hidden emotional depths after several listens. This song is everything pop music should aspire to be.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Song #616: "The Way It Is" by Bruce Hornsby & The Range
Date: Dec 13, 1986
Weeks: 1
I didn't mean to skip almost a week, but I caught a nasty cold that's had me down and out for a bit. I'm still not feeling that great, but it's easier to resume this blog when I get to come back to a piece of 80s comfort food like this. But despite my generally warm nostalgia for this song, does it really hold up?
At the song's core is an absolutely wonderful piano part. The piano part expresses a great mix of sadness and hope, which perfectly matches the tone of the lyrics, which I'll get to later. It's well-played, and in a decade known for synthesized keyboards, it's refreshing to hear a genuine piano. I mean, I think it's genuine. If it is simulated, they at least made it sound realistic, which is not what a lot of 80s keyboard sounds were aiming for.
Unfortunately, everything else in the soundtrack is terribly fake, or at least fake-feeling. The drum line is constant and unchanging, and sounds like a drum machine. The bass guitar line sounds synthesized and fake. There's a lead guitar sting that pops in that also feels processed and fake. And I barely noticed, but there's an almost-constant background synth chord running through the whole song. I suspect this song could work with just the piano, but it really needs to drop the synth-chord background and the lead-guitar stings, and replace the bass with a more authentic sound. The drum line is okay, but it needs more variety around transitions. The backing tracks just feel passionless, like they were made with a machine, which is a terrible match to such an authentic piano piece.
Hornsby's vocals are fine, if a bit overly gravelly. He doesn't try to do too much vocally, and when he does his voice sounds strained. It's not necessary to sing well to make a song like this work, because the piano is carrying the song, but the vocals are not a net positive. Also the bridge part when he whispers "That's just the way it is" is kind of silly and unneeded.
The lyrics are clever and well-written. It tells tales of the poor and victims of racism and segregation, and ends each one seemingly resigned to the notion that "That's just the way it is." But then each chorus ends with the line "But don't you believe them." The overall intent is to convince the listener not to accept "that's just the way it is" as an answer for social ills, and that things can get better. It's a good topic and well-written.
The piano really matches the lyrics well, too. While Hornby sings "That's just the way it is," the piano manages to be sad and soft. But after he finishes the chorus with "Don't you believe them," the piano gets bright, triumphant, and hopeful.
My verdict: Like it. The piano and lyrics, and especially the way they match to create a consistent and appealing mood, overcomes the lousy backing tracks.
Weeks: 1
I didn't mean to skip almost a week, but I caught a nasty cold that's had me down and out for a bit. I'm still not feeling that great, but it's easier to resume this blog when I get to come back to a piece of 80s comfort food like this. But despite my generally warm nostalgia for this song, does it really hold up?
At the song's core is an absolutely wonderful piano part. The piano part expresses a great mix of sadness and hope, which perfectly matches the tone of the lyrics, which I'll get to later. It's well-played, and in a decade known for synthesized keyboards, it's refreshing to hear a genuine piano. I mean, I think it's genuine. If it is simulated, they at least made it sound realistic, which is not what a lot of 80s keyboard sounds were aiming for.
Unfortunately, everything else in the soundtrack is terribly fake, or at least fake-feeling. The drum line is constant and unchanging, and sounds like a drum machine. The bass guitar line sounds synthesized and fake. There's a lead guitar sting that pops in that also feels processed and fake. And I barely noticed, but there's an almost-constant background synth chord running through the whole song. I suspect this song could work with just the piano, but it really needs to drop the synth-chord background and the lead-guitar stings, and replace the bass with a more authentic sound. The drum line is okay, but it needs more variety around transitions. The backing tracks just feel passionless, like they were made with a machine, which is a terrible match to such an authentic piano piece.
Hornsby's vocals are fine, if a bit overly gravelly. He doesn't try to do too much vocally, and when he does his voice sounds strained. It's not necessary to sing well to make a song like this work, because the piano is carrying the song, but the vocals are not a net positive. Also the bridge part when he whispers "That's just the way it is" is kind of silly and unneeded.
The lyrics are clever and well-written. It tells tales of the poor and victims of racism and segregation, and ends each one seemingly resigned to the notion that "That's just the way it is." But then each chorus ends with the line "But don't you believe them." The overall intent is to convince the listener not to accept "that's just the way it is" as an answer for social ills, and that things can get better. It's a good topic and well-written.
The piano really matches the lyrics well, too. While Hornby sings "That's just the way it is," the piano manages to be sad and soft. But after he finishes the chorus with "Don't you believe them," the piano gets bright, triumphant, and hopeful.
My verdict: Like it. The piano and lyrics, and especially the way they match to create a consistent and appealing mood, overcomes the lousy backing tracks.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Song #165: "Wild Thing" by The Troggs
Date: July 30, 1966
Weeks: 2
So here's where I have to confess some of my biases. The first time I heard this song was when it was played in the movie Major League. The scene where Charlie Sheen's character enters the game as the entire stadium sings "Wild Thing" is a great movie moment. The problem is that that's the performance of the song that resonates with me. This song ought to be sung, nay yelled, by a giant chorus whose enthusiasm exceeds their vocal talent, while loud 80s guitars blare the tune. The Troggs' performance is substantially more subtle than that, and it's going to be hard for me to be fair to it.
The vocals are rough and chaotic, which is absolutely what the song calls for. But they're also not very enthusiastic. I do like the vocals during the breakdowns. "Wild thing I think I love you." It's sexy, which is clearly the intent.
The music is really basic. It's guitar strumming with very few chords and a really simple rhythm. I like the classic rock sound of guitar, bass, and drums, but this doesn't feel like it was recorded all that well. Maybe I'm just comparing to the Major League version, but I just feel like the sound isn't as full as it should be. Then there's a weird flute bridge that seems entirely unnecessary.
The lyrics are really simple. It's a proposition for sex. "Wild thing I think I love you, but I wanna know for sure." There aren't a lot of lyrics here to judge, but I find the simplicity fairly elegant and compelling.
My verdict: Don't like it. "Wild Thing" is a good song, but there are better recordings of it. The song demands more, and this version is too bare-bones.
Weeks: 2
So here's where I have to confess some of my biases. The first time I heard this song was when it was played in the movie Major League. The scene where Charlie Sheen's character enters the game as the entire stadium sings "Wild Thing" is a great movie moment. The problem is that that's the performance of the song that resonates with me. This song ought to be sung, nay yelled, by a giant chorus whose enthusiasm exceeds their vocal talent, while loud 80s guitars blare the tune. The Troggs' performance is substantially more subtle than that, and it's going to be hard for me to be fair to it.
The vocals are rough and chaotic, which is absolutely what the song calls for. But they're also not very enthusiastic. I do like the vocals during the breakdowns. "Wild thing I think I love you." It's sexy, which is clearly the intent.
The music is really basic. It's guitar strumming with very few chords and a really simple rhythm. I like the classic rock sound of guitar, bass, and drums, but this doesn't feel like it was recorded all that well. Maybe I'm just comparing to the Major League version, but I just feel like the sound isn't as full as it should be. Then there's a weird flute bridge that seems entirely unnecessary.
The lyrics are really simple. It's a proposition for sex. "Wild thing I think I love you, but I wanna know for sure." There aren't a lot of lyrics here to judge, but I find the simplicity fairly elegant and compelling.
My verdict: Don't like it. "Wild Thing" is a good song, but there are better recordings of it. The song demands more, and this version is too bare-bones.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Song #78: "Sherry" by The 4 Seasons
Date: Sept 15, 1962
Weeks: 5
Although I complained about falsetto vocals before, 50s do-wop like this is the kind of music where it has its best chance of working. It fits with the music here, in a way that it just doesn't when we move into the 70s.
I'm not sure it works all that well in this particular song, though. Lead singer Frankie Valli's seems to make it his style to test the limits of the listener's tolerance for nasally, whiny falsetto. He makes some unconventional pitch changes that border on unpleasant. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, though. Every time he seems to hit a wrong note and makes my ears want to scream, he then moves to the next pitch in the sequence and releases the tension built up by the "wrong" note. This is particularly evident when he sings and stretches out the word "Sherry" in the chorus. It's clever and stylistic and challenging for the listener. Unfortunately, he kind of ruins it when he sings "bay-ay-by," because his tone just gets whiny, and there is no tension relief from that. There's also a terrible bass part ("Why don't you...") that sounds like it's beyond the singer's natural range. It sounds fake and goofy.
The music is all right. It's basic guitar and bass chords performed over a percussion section that sounds like it consists mostly of hand claps and tambourines. I think the sound is intended to evoke street musicians using a capella percussion, and it's fairly successful at that, even if it doesn't commit to it.
The lyrics seem like basic 1950s "hey I like you so go out with me" stuff. "We'll dance the night away. I'm gonna make you mine." It seems to get a little more raunchy and like he's just admiring her body later on, though. "Why don't you come out with your red dress on. Mmm you look so fine." That's really just about how she looks. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it seems backwards. The lyrics should first talk about how great she looks, and then get into his desire to go out dancing with her. It would be nicer.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's close to likable, and I'm looking forward to trying another 4 Seasons song. But this one doesn't quite work for me.
Weeks: 5
Although I complained about falsetto vocals before, 50s do-wop like this is the kind of music where it has its best chance of working. It fits with the music here, in a way that it just doesn't when we move into the 70s.
I'm not sure it works all that well in this particular song, though. Lead singer Frankie Valli's seems to make it his style to test the limits of the listener's tolerance for nasally, whiny falsetto. He makes some unconventional pitch changes that border on unpleasant. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, though. Every time he seems to hit a wrong note and makes my ears want to scream, he then moves to the next pitch in the sequence and releases the tension built up by the "wrong" note. This is particularly evident when he sings and stretches out the word "Sherry" in the chorus. It's clever and stylistic and challenging for the listener. Unfortunately, he kind of ruins it when he sings "bay-ay-by," because his tone just gets whiny, and there is no tension relief from that. There's also a terrible bass part ("Why don't you...") that sounds like it's beyond the singer's natural range. It sounds fake and goofy.
The music is all right. It's basic guitar and bass chords performed over a percussion section that sounds like it consists mostly of hand claps and tambourines. I think the sound is intended to evoke street musicians using a capella percussion, and it's fairly successful at that, even if it doesn't commit to it.
The lyrics seem like basic 1950s "hey I like you so go out with me" stuff. "We'll dance the night away. I'm gonna make you mine." It seems to get a little more raunchy and like he's just admiring her body later on, though. "Why don't you come out with your red dress on. Mmm you look so fine." That's really just about how she looks. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it seems backwards. The lyrics should first talk about how great she looks, and then get into his desire to go out dancing with her. It would be nicer.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's close to likable, and I'm looking forward to trying another 4 Seasons song. But this one doesn't quite work for me.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Song #629: "Always" by Atlantic Starr
Date: June 13, 1987
Weeks: 1
Ah, the pure cheesiness of a painfully sincere late-80s song. It wants so badly to be the definitive love song of its era. And I have to admit that its sincerity is actually kind of compelling.
The thing about this song that works best is the vocals. David Lewis and Barbara Weathers are the singers here. Atlantic Starr, and this song in particular, seem to be the biggest claim to fame for both of them. But they seem to be very talented, Weathers in particular. They aren't showy. They sing the song relatively straightforwardly, but they sing it well. They each solo well, but the best part of their vocals is their harmony in the chorus.
Unfortunately, the music doesn't support them as well as it should. This is one of those songs that has layered instruments on top of instruments without actually adding to the fullness of the overall sound. The percussion, in particular, is too imposing. That poundy 80s drum is completely out of place here. There's a plinky bell-like keyboard that conflicts with the rest of the sound. There's a bass that seems too powerful and inappropriate. All those parts make the song feel overproduced and rob it of its sincerity.
The song would have been better off stripped down to the parts that work. The vocals, the piano, and yes, I'll even acknowledge that the string section works here. I don't usually like strings in pop songs, but here it works and makes the song feel gentle, like the love song it wants to be.
The tempo in this song is way too slow. It goes way past deliberate, down to plodding. I think if it were stripped down to its core elements, the tempo might make it feel gentle and romantic. It makes me wonder if the song was originally intended as a gentle, romantic song with few instruments, and then they slapped a bunch of unnecessary extra sounds on top of it.
The lyrics are pretty generic love song lyrics. If anything, the song suffers from trying to be too big in scope. "I will love you so, for always." "We both know that our love will grow." It's not a bad sentiment, but it's almost like this is trying to be the ultimate love song that puts all other love songs to shame. Our love is perfect, eternal, ever-improving, and so on. It's not a bad sentiment, but they could have found a less generic way to express it. I might want to dedicate it to someone on the radio to impress them, but I'm not sure that makes it a good song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It has a lot of points in its favor, and it's definitely not a bad song. But it's overproduced and trying too hard to be bland, instead of trying to be unique.
Weeks: 1
Ah, the pure cheesiness of a painfully sincere late-80s song. It wants so badly to be the definitive love song of its era. And I have to admit that its sincerity is actually kind of compelling.
The thing about this song that works best is the vocals. David Lewis and Barbara Weathers are the singers here. Atlantic Starr, and this song in particular, seem to be the biggest claim to fame for both of them. But they seem to be very talented, Weathers in particular. They aren't showy. They sing the song relatively straightforwardly, but they sing it well. They each solo well, but the best part of their vocals is their harmony in the chorus.
Unfortunately, the music doesn't support them as well as it should. This is one of those songs that has layered instruments on top of instruments without actually adding to the fullness of the overall sound. The percussion, in particular, is too imposing. That poundy 80s drum is completely out of place here. There's a plinky bell-like keyboard that conflicts with the rest of the sound. There's a bass that seems too powerful and inappropriate. All those parts make the song feel overproduced and rob it of its sincerity.
The song would have been better off stripped down to the parts that work. The vocals, the piano, and yes, I'll even acknowledge that the string section works here. I don't usually like strings in pop songs, but here it works and makes the song feel gentle, like the love song it wants to be.
The tempo in this song is way too slow. It goes way past deliberate, down to plodding. I think if it were stripped down to its core elements, the tempo might make it feel gentle and romantic. It makes me wonder if the song was originally intended as a gentle, romantic song with few instruments, and then they slapped a bunch of unnecessary extra sounds on top of it.
The lyrics are pretty generic love song lyrics. If anything, the song suffers from trying to be too big in scope. "I will love you so, for always." "We both know that our love will grow." It's not a bad sentiment, but it's almost like this is trying to be the ultimate love song that puts all other love songs to shame. Our love is perfect, eternal, ever-improving, and so on. It's not a bad sentiment, but they could have found a less generic way to express it. I might want to dedicate it to someone on the radio to impress them, but I'm not sure that makes it a good song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It has a lot of points in its favor, and it's definitely not a bad song. But it's overproduced and trying too hard to be bland, instead of trying to be unique.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Song #256: "Indian Reservation (The Lament of the Cherokee Reservation Indian)" by The Raiders
Date: July 24, 1971
Weeks: 1
The music is this song is really neat. This is a well-crafted song, and for once we have a song with a string section that actually puts it to good use. This song aspires to create a hybrid rock/orchestra sound, and the result is fairly successful.
The song has an excellent and appealing bass backbone that I can't help but tap my foot to. I also really enjoy the orchestra stings. They intensify and punctuate the rest of the music. They are jolts of energy and contrast perfectly with the rather cool and relaxed bass. The drums also provide very neat accents throughout. They keyboard "plink" sound seems a bit unnecessary, but most of the additional instruments provide nice accents throughout.
The song's best moments come during the chorus. The instruments build up to their fullest sound, and the singers open up and yell "Cherokee People!" with an intensity that is appealing. In those moments, the song feels like the protest song it is intended to be. But what makes the song great is the alternating lulls and highs in both the music and the vocals. This is a well-composed and well-performed song.
As I said, this is a protest song, lamenting the fate of Native Americans, most obviously the Cherokee. I'm not well-versed on the culture of the Cherokee, so I'm not sure I feel comfortable criticizing the accuracy of the lyrics. It seems like the lines "They took away our way of life, the tomahawk and the bowie knife" lament the loss of a war culture that I don't think they had before there was someone trying to take it away from them, though. Other lyrics are better, such as "They took away our native tongue and taught their English to our young." That's a powerful statement of the cultural warfare that devastated their culture maybe more than the actual warfare. It's an effective lyric. Overall, it's an effective acknowledgment of the cultural conflict many Native Americans experience, trying to reconcile assimilating into a culture that destroyed their native culture.
My verdict: Like it. It's a well-crafted song with appealing variation that makes it a lot of fun, but also seems socially aware at the same time.
Weeks: 1
The music is this song is really neat. This is a well-crafted song, and for once we have a song with a string section that actually puts it to good use. This song aspires to create a hybrid rock/orchestra sound, and the result is fairly successful.
The song has an excellent and appealing bass backbone that I can't help but tap my foot to. I also really enjoy the orchestra stings. They intensify and punctuate the rest of the music. They are jolts of energy and contrast perfectly with the rather cool and relaxed bass. The drums also provide very neat accents throughout. They keyboard "plink" sound seems a bit unnecessary, but most of the additional instruments provide nice accents throughout.
The song's best moments come during the chorus. The instruments build up to their fullest sound, and the singers open up and yell "Cherokee People!" with an intensity that is appealing. In those moments, the song feels like the protest song it is intended to be. But what makes the song great is the alternating lulls and highs in both the music and the vocals. This is a well-composed and well-performed song.
As I said, this is a protest song, lamenting the fate of Native Americans, most obviously the Cherokee. I'm not well-versed on the culture of the Cherokee, so I'm not sure I feel comfortable criticizing the accuracy of the lyrics. It seems like the lines "They took away our way of life, the tomahawk and the bowie knife" lament the loss of a war culture that I don't think they had before there was someone trying to take it away from them, though. Other lyrics are better, such as "They took away our native tongue and taught their English to our young." That's a powerful statement of the cultural warfare that devastated their culture maybe more than the actual warfare. It's an effective lyric. Overall, it's an effective acknowledgment of the cultural conflict many Native Americans experience, trying to reconcile assimilating into a culture that destroyed their native culture.
My verdict: Like it. It's a well-crafted song with appealing variation that makes it a lot of fun, but also seems socially aware at the same time.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Song #129: "My Girl" by The Temptations
Date: Mar 6, 1965
Weeks: 2
Here's a song that's difficult to separate from its cultural legacy. When people refer to the sound of the Motown label, this is the song that comes to my mind. This is the classic song by the classic Motown band, at least for me. It's one of the defining songs of its era, and that makes it difficult to analyze as just a song.
The easy part to critique is the vocals. The Temptations are all very talented and have a wonderful vocal harmony. This is their first single to chart, as far as I can tell, so it didn't chart based on their reputation or popularity. It charted because they could sing it, and it built their popularity. So it's well-sung, to be sure.
The music is pleasant. It sets out to create a specific mood of pleasantness, and it succeeds. The guitar line is recognizably classic all on its own. The drums are pretty basic, but fit the song well. The strings fill out the bulk of the backing music, but I think they seem a bit too orchestral. They support the general tone of pleasantness, to be sure, so it's a small nitpick. The only part of the music I don't like is the horns. They pop up with a quick fanfare from time to time, and I don't think they support the rest of the music. They sound like they're from a different song. Overall, though, I think the music achieves what it needs to. The entire song is very gentle, which fits the theme of the lyrics.
The theme is, of course, that the guy feels happy because he's in love with a girl. And I think the lyrics are quite clever in the way they describe this. "I've got sunshine on a cloudy day" is a classic metaphor and it uses contrast to make a great point. I'd like to highlight every line in the verses as excellent songwriting, but suffice to say I like them all. I'm a little less enamored of the line in the chorus "I guess you'll say what can make me feel this way?" That feels a little awkward. A better way to express that might be "Wonder why I feel this way?" but of course that doesn't fit the meter. On paper, the line reads badly, is all. It works in-context, probably because the rest of the song is so good.
My verdict: Like it. It's not perfect, but it's very enjoyable. The pros easily outweigh the cons.
Weeks: 2
Here's a song that's difficult to separate from its cultural legacy. When people refer to the sound of the Motown label, this is the song that comes to my mind. This is the classic song by the classic Motown band, at least for me. It's one of the defining songs of its era, and that makes it difficult to analyze as just a song.
The easy part to critique is the vocals. The Temptations are all very talented and have a wonderful vocal harmony. This is their first single to chart, as far as I can tell, so it didn't chart based on their reputation or popularity. It charted because they could sing it, and it built their popularity. So it's well-sung, to be sure.
The music is pleasant. It sets out to create a specific mood of pleasantness, and it succeeds. The guitar line is recognizably classic all on its own. The drums are pretty basic, but fit the song well. The strings fill out the bulk of the backing music, but I think they seem a bit too orchestral. They support the general tone of pleasantness, to be sure, so it's a small nitpick. The only part of the music I don't like is the horns. They pop up with a quick fanfare from time to time, and I don't think they support the rest of the music. They sound like they're from a different song. Overall, though, I think the music achieves what it needs to. The entire song is very gentle, which fits the theme of the lyrics.
The theme is, of course, that the guy feels happy because he's in love with a girl. And I think the lyrics are quite clever in the way they describe this. "I've got sunshine on a cloudy day" is a classic metaphor and it uses contrast to make a great point. I'd like to highlight every line in the verses as excellent songwriting, but suffice to say I like them all. I'm a little less enamored of the line in the chorus "I guess you'll say what can make me feel this way?" That feels a little awkward. A better way to express that might be "Wonder why I feel this way?" but of course that doesn't fit the meter. On paper, the line reads badly, is all. It works in-context, probably because the rest of the song is so good.
My verdict: Like it. It's not perfect, but it's very enjoyable. The pros easily outweigh the cons.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Song #773: "How Do You Talk To An Angel" by The Heights
Date: Nov 14, 1992
Weeks: 2
The Heights was a brief-lived TV show that was canceled one week after this song fell from the No. 1 spot. This was its theme song, which was all over the radio for months after the show was over and forgotten. Usually when a song from a TV show or movie reaches the top of the charts it's because the show is popular, but this time I think people were listening to the song who didn't even know it came from a TV show. I never watched the show, so thankfully my opinion of this song is entirely about the song. And this is a terrible song. It's not unpleasant, but it does showcase a lot of regrettable musical trends from the time.
The song opens in a way that sets the mood for an acoustic guitar song, which isn't something I generally care for. Then the song adds in a saxophone and a couple electric guitars. And none of them have any structure, they just improvise some blaring space-filler. This is classic generic power-ballad stuff, and it feels overmixed and overproduced and inorganic. I suppose that's what I should expect from a song specifically composed to be a network TV show theme song.
The sheer amount of vocals is part of that overproduction, too. I understand that this was supposed to be a showcase for the fictional band from the TV show, but when this many voices all sing the same thing, it loses its natural, organic feeling. The lead singer's voice is so gravelly, it almost seems like a parody of all the gravelly-voiced singers on the radio at the time (such as Bryan Adams, Michael Bolton, Rod Stewart, and so on). Maybe he has vocal talent, but I can't tell, because he's obscuring it behind his efforts to sound gravelly and bland.
For a 4 minute song, there aren't very many lyrics here. And even the few lyrics there are feel stretched to fill the time and the meter. The guy is trying to work up the courage to talk to a girl he's put up on a pedestal. "How do you talk to an angel?" It's a fine topic for a song, I suppose, although I think it's better to pursue the one you feel can talk to than the one you don't. The lyric-stretching really gets me on the line "Tell me, tell me, the words to define, the way I feel about someone so fine" Saying "tell me" twice is filler. "The words to define" is also one of those phrases that feels like they've deliberately tried to use as many words as possible to fill out the meter. Other than that, there aren't a lot of lyrics to nitpick, because there are only 2 verses, the second one is only 2 lines, and the rest is the chorus over and over and over again. Listen to this song once and you'll feel like you heard it twice.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's about as generic and bland as you would expect from a song written to be a TV show theme song. It doesn't strive to be anything better than that.
Weeks: 2
The Heights was a brief-lived TV show that was canceled one week after this song fell from the No. 1 spot. This was its theme song, which was all over the radio for months after the show was over and forgotten. Usually when a song from a TV show or movie reaches the top of the charts it's because the show is popular, but this time I think people were listening to the song who didn't even know it came from a TV show. I never watched the show, so thankfully my opinion of this song is entirely about the song. And this is a terrible song. It's not unpleasant, but it does showcase a lot of regrettable musical trends from the time.
The song opens in a way that sets the mood for an acoustic guitar song, which isn't something I generally care for. Then the song adds in a saxophone and a couple electric guitars. And none of them have any structure, they just improvise some blaring space-filler. This is classic generic power-ballad stuff, and it feels overmixed and overproduced and inorganic. I suppose that's what I should expect from a song specifically composed to be a network TV show theme song.
The sheer amount of vocals is part of that overproduction, too. I understand that this was supposed to be a showcase for the fictional band from the TV show, but when this many voices all sing the same thing, it loses its natural, organic feeling. The lead singer's voice is so gravelly, it almost seems like a parody of all the gravelly-voiced singers on the radio at the time (such as Bryan Adams, Michael Bolton, Rod Stewart, and so on). Maybe he has vocal talent, but I can't tell, because he's obscuring it behind his efforts to sound gravelly and bland.
For a 4 minute song, there aren't very many lyrics here. And even the few lyrics there are feel stretched to fill the time and the meter. The guy is trying to work up the courage to talk to a girl he's put up on a pedestal. "How do you talk to an angel?" It's a fine topic for a song, I suppose, although I think it's better to pursue the one you feel can talk to than the one you don't. The lyric-stretching really gets me on the line "Tell me, tell me, the words to define, the way I feel about someone so fine" Saying "tell me" twice is filler. "The words to define" is also one of those phrases that feels like they've deliberately tried to use as many words as possible to fill out the meter. Other than that, there aren't a lot of lyrics to nitpick, because there are only 2 verses, the second one is only 2 lines, and the rest is the chorus over and over and over again. Listen to this song once and you'll feel like you heard it twice.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's about as generic and bland as you would expect from a song written to be a TV show theme song. It doesn't strive to be anything better than that.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Song #288: "Superstition" by Stevie Wonder
Date: Jan 27, 1973
Weeks: 1
This is a rare ray of light from the 70s. Stevie Wonder is a genuine talent, and this is a great funky rock song of the type that somehow rarely rose to the top of the charts in the 70s. I almost picked an excellent studio performance video of this song, but the quality of its bass wasn't great and it wasn't quite as tightly edited.
That studio performance does a great job of showing each instrument and calling out its addition to the performance. I hadn't even detected the bongos in the song, but once I saw them, I certainly heard them and appreciated their value. And that's a great resource to have, because otherwise the tight integration of the music makes it difficult to pick out each instrument's integration. And yet I still find myself unable to say much more than this: This is an awesome wall of sound.
Obviously the organ/synthesizer part is the featured component and the backbone of this song. It makes this song stand out within the first 20 seconds, and is certainly the most-recognized part of the song. The trumpet line is probably less appreciated, but is just as important and just as effective. The trumpet line is superb, and the song is almost defined as the parts where the trumpets are playing and the parts where you're waiting for the trumpets to come back. The bass line complements the trumpet line, and would be great in any song, but here it's merely providing an excellent foundation. The drum line is also great.
Steve Wonder's vocals are also wonderful. He knows when to sing it straight, and when to embellish it. And he knows when to scream in an effective way. Like all the other instruments, his voice blends in to create an excellent whole.
The lyrics are a seemingly simple assertion that living your life by superstition is no way to live. "When you believe in things that you don't understand then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way." If there's a deeper meaning, I'm not sure I can extract it. I suppose there isn't a lot of clever phrasing to the lyrics or anything, but it doesn't really matter. When the music is as great as this, as long as the lyrics don't seem to contradict each other, the lyrics are fairly irrelevant.
My verdict: Like it. It's a funky classic, and a standout song from a decade I don't usually care for.
Weeks: 1
This is a rare ray of light from the 70s. Stevie Wonder is a genuine talent, and this is a great funky rock song of the type that somehow rarely rose to the top of the charts in the 70s. I almost picked an excellent studio performance video of this song, but the quality of its bass wasn't great and it wasn't quite as tightly edited.
That studio performance does a great job of showing each instrument and calling out its addition to the performance. I hadn't even detected the bongos in the song, but once I saw them, I certainly heard them and appreciated their value. And that's a great resource to have, because otherwise the tight integration of the music makes it difficult to pick out each instrument's integration. And yet I still find myself unable to say much more than this: This is an awesome wall of sound.
Obviously the organ/synthesizer part is the featured component and the backbone of this song. It makes this song stand out within the first 20 seconds, and is certainly the most-recognized part of the song. The trumpet line is probably less appreciated, but is just as important and just as effective. The trumpet line is superb, and the song is almost defined as the parts where the trumpets are playing and the parts where you're waiting for the trumpets to come back. The bass line complements the trumpet line, and would be great in any song, but here it's merely providing an excellent foundation. The drum line is also great.
Steve Wonder's vocals are also wonderful. He knows when to sing it straight, and when to embellish it. And he knows when to scream in an effective way. Like all the other instruments, his voice blends in to create an excellent whole.
The lyrics are a seemingly simple assertion that living your life by superstition is no way to live. "When you believe in things that you don't understand then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way." If there's a deeper meaning, I'm not sure I can extract it. I suppose there isn't a lot of clever phrasing to the lyrics or anything, but it doesn't really matter. When the music is as great as this, as long as the lyrics don't seem to contradict each other, the lyrics are fairly irrelevant.
My verdict: Like it. It's a funky classic, and a standout song from a decade I don't usually care for.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Not No. 1: "Suffragette City" by David Bowie
Release date: July 9, 1976
Peak chart position: Never charted
I got some David Bowie songs stuck in my head recently, and this is one of his less well-known songs. Apparently it was an album track in 1972, released on the B-side of something else, and was released as its own single in 1976. As such, it never really reached the capacity required to even make the Billboard charts. Nevertheless, it's a bit of rocking fun to enjoy.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Song #506: "The One That You Love" by Air Supply
Date: July 25, 1981
Weeks: 1
I've never thought highly of Air Supply. I remember one of the first cassettes I bought was the soundtrack to Ghostbusters, which included a song by Air Supply that I absolutely loathed. It interrupted a high-energy soundtrack with a lousy slow song. And I couldn't even skip it, I had to fast forward through it and keep checking to see if it was over yet. This song is a bit better than that one. Or at least it's not stuck between me and the music I actually want to hear.
The instrumentation is pretty simple. It's piano, strings, and drums. Although I've spent a lot of time complaining about the songs of the 70s injecting string sections to no good purpose, this song commits to its style and sticks to it throughout. I have to respect it a bit for that. In particular, the orchestral swell during the chorus is pretty effective. But while I understand what it's going for, I'm not sure I like what it's going for. It's not that you can't mix a string orchestra with rock music, but all they've done here is add a drum, and that's just not sufficient to create an interesting sound.
The vocals by Russell Hitchcock are pretty good. He shows off his vocal range and manages to impress. The chorus and the bridge are particularly impressive. He can sound a little strained in the chorus, particularly the last iteration of it at the end, but the effect is to make him sound impassioned. The flip side is that whenever he's not strained, he's a bit bland. And the music builds and swells along with him, so while the chorus is decent overall, the verses are a chunk of blandness that must be endured before you can get back to the chorus.
Also, the part at the start of the bridge where the rest of the band sings high-pitched backup for exactly one line is silly and unnecessary. I don't know why they did that.
I'm not sure I understand the lyrics. With lines like "Must we end this way when so much here is hard to lose?" and "Here I am... asking for another day," it sounds like he's begging to not be dumped. But with lines like "Don't say the morning's come," it sounds like he's just spent the night with the person he loves. So maybe the story goes that he was going to get dumped, he begged for one last night together, got it, and now he's begging to avoid the breakup? I think that fits the lyrics best. That's kind of oddly specific for a radio love song. But I think the popularity probably just stemmed from the fairly universal sentiment expressed by the chorus. "Understand the one that you love loves you in so many ways."
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not terrible, but it's not especially interesting.
Weeks: 1
I've never thought highly of Air Supply. I remember one of the first cassettes I bought was the soundtrack to Ghostbusters, which included a song by Air Supply that I absolutely loathed. It interrupted a high-energy soundtrack with a lousy slow song. And I couldn't even skip it, I had to fast forward through it and keep checking to see if it was over yet. This song is a bit better than that one. Or at least it's not stuck between me and the music I actually want to hear.
The instrumentation is pretty simple. It's piano, strings, and drums. Although I've spent a lot of time complaining about the songs of the 70s injecting string sections to no good purpose, this song commits to its style and sticks to it throughout. I have to respect it a bit for that. In particular, the orchestral swell during the chorus is pretty effective. But while I understand what it's going for, I'm not sure I like what it's going for. It's not that you can't mix a string orchestra with rock music, but all they've done here is add a drum, and that's just not sufficient to create an interesting sound.
The vocals by Russell Hitchcock are pretty good. He shows off his vocal range and manages to impress. The chorus and the bridge are particularly impressive. He can sound a little strained in the chorus, particularly the last iteration of it at the end, but the effect is to make him sound impassioned. The flip side is that whenever he's not strained, he's a bit bland. And the music builds and swells along with him, so while the chorus is decent overall, the verses are a chunk of blandness that must be endured before you can get back to the chorus.
Also, the part at the start of the bridge where the rest of the band sings high-pitched backup for exactly one line is silly and unnecessary. I don't know why they did that.
I'm not sure I understand the lyrics. With lines like "Must we end this way when so much here is hard to lose?" and "Here I am... asking for another day," it sounds like he's begging to not be dumped. But with lines like "Don't say the morning's come," it sounds like he's just spent the night with the person he loves. So maybe the story goes that he was going to get dumped, he begged for one last night together, got it, and now he's begging to avoid the breakup? I think that fits the lyrics best. That's kind of oddly specific for a radio love song. But I think the popularity probably just stemmed from the fairly universal sentiment expressed by the chorus. "Understand the one that you love loves you in so many ways."
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not terrible, but it's not especially interesting.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Song #851: "What A Girl Wants" by Christina Aguilera
Date: Jan 15, 2000
Weeks: 2
I've spent too much time with this list. When I saw the number come up, I literally said to myself, "Oh, that'll be on the cusp of the 2000s. I didn't know it would literally be the first new No. 1 in January of the year 2000.
Christina Aguilera can clearly sing. She doesn't have quite the abnormal talent of Mariah Carey, but she does have Carey's knack for showing off her voice without ruining the song by deviating too far. So it seems a shame that her early work matched her with such terrible music as this.
The part of the song I hate most is the title lyric. "What a girl wants, what a girl needs." There's something about the rhythm of that specific lyric that drives me up a wall. It's just so basic and quarter-note-y. It feels like it's from a a song that a 5-year-old would write. The song also falls apart in a lot of the interstitial moments that come between the chorus and the verses. The squeaky bass-synth going on in the background rises to the top of the mix and irritates.
Then you have the breakdown section in the bridge where they pull out the world's cheapest Casio keyboard and play its pre-programmed chords. What were they thinking with that? It's obviously fake, but they're not trying to exaggerate the fakeness to any particular artistic effect. It just seems cheap. They couldn't have hired an actual string section for that?
The verse and chorus are pretty decent, anyway. The verse has a fairly generic late-90s pop sound to it. The chorus is a little more distinctive. Neither is especially interesting or complex, but they're also not bad. The bulk of the song is not bad. It's just those little moments I already mentioned that bug me.
Oh, wait, the lyrics bug me too. With a title like "What a Girl Wants," you would think the song would tell you what she thinks a girl wants. But no. Instead "it's lucky for me you understand what a girl wants." The lyrics walk a fine line between making the guy seem patronizing and making him seem understanding and intuitive. I guess you can read it either way, although the latter interpretation is clearly what's intended. The song does eventually get around to answering the question implied by the title, in the bridge, with "A girl needs somebody sensitive and tough, somebody there when the going gets rough." It's generic, and doesn't even flow naturally from the rest of the lyrics. It's like someone midway through the songwriting process pointed out what I did earlier, so they tacked a little something onto the bridge.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not awful, but it's not good, either.
Weeks: 2
I've spent too much time with this list. When I saw the number come up, I literally said to myself, "Oh, that'll be on the cusp of the 2000s. I didn't know it would literally be the first new No. 1 in January of the year 2000.
Christina Aguilera can clearly sing. She doesn't have quite the abnormal talent of Mariah Carey, but she does have Carey's knack for showing off her voice without ruining the song by deviating too far. So it seems a shame that her early work matched her with such terrible music as this.
The part of the song I hate most is the title lyric. "What a girl wants, what a girl needs." There's something about the rhythm of that specific lyric that drives me up a wall. It's just so basic and quarter-note-y. It feels like it's from a a song that a 5-year-old would write. The song also falls apart in a lot of the interstitial moments that come between the chorus and the verses. The squeaky bass-synth going on in the background rises to the top of the mix and irritates.
Then you have the breakdown section in the bridge where they pull out the world's cheapest Casio keyboard and play its pre-programmed chords. What were they thinking with that? It's obviously fake, but they're not trying to exaggerate the fakeness to any particular artistic effect. It just seems cheap. They couldn't have hired an actual string section for that?
The verse and chorus are pretty decent, anyway. The verse has a fairly generic late-90s pop sound to it. The chorus is a little more distinctive. Neither is especially interesting or complex, but they're also not bad. The bulk of the song is not bad. It's just those little moments I already mentioned that bug me.
Oh, wait, the lyrics bug me too. With a title like "What a Girl Wants," you would think the song would tell you what she thinks a girl wants. But no. Instead "it's lucky for me you understand what a girl wants." The lyrics walk a fine line between making the guy seem patronizing and making him seem understanding and intuitive. I guess you can read it either way, although the latter interpretation is clearly what's intended. The song does eventually get around to answering the question implied by the title, in the bridge, with "A girl needs somebody sensitive and tough, somebody there when the going gets rough." It's generic, and doesn't even flow naturally from the rest of the lyrics. It's like someone midway through the songwriting process pointed out what I did earlier, so they tacked a little something onto the bridge.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not awful, but it's not good, either.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Song #411: "You Make Me Feel Like Dancing" by Leo Sayer
Date: Jan 15, 1977
Weeks: 1
This song is steeped in that 70s disco sound. It includes just about every 70s trope that bugs me.
The worst part for sure is the falsetto singing. I don't understand the popularity. I went to do some research on why it was so popular in the 70s and just came away with a list of male vocalists who employed falsetto in songs I enjoyed, Prince being the most notable example. So maybe it's not the falsetto itself but its application that bugs me. Certainly, this song is at its best during the brief moments when Sayer drops the falsetto and sings in his normal range. I still don't know why it was so popular in the 70s, though. Is it merely about 70s nostalgia for the 50s (as evidenced by Grease and Happy Days)?
The music is similarly mixed. Oddly, at the exact same moments that Sayer is singing in falsetto, the music is light and uninteresting, with very slight guitar, bass, and drums. But when he drops to his normal range the bass and drums kick into gear. That part of the song is really enjoyable. Specifically, the bits just before the chorus and just at the end of the chorus are really entertaining. That part of the song really works, and I almost fool myself into thinking I like the song overall. Unfortunately, they are far too few and far between.
The bridge is where the song could have saved itself, but instead they just have Sayer sing "doot do doo" over the same dull instrumentation that is otherwise terrible throughout. Late in the song they tack on some strings, too. I think it's supposed to make the song feel grander, but really it just makes it sound like every other disco-influenced song from the 70s.
The lyrics are basically an Usher-style falling-in-love-in-a-dance-club premise, about 30 years before Usher started making them. Leo Sayer doesn't use the words "dance club," but he does say "I don't want to go home" and "I can't get off of the floor." So he's clearly dancing at a disco. And why doesn't he want to stop? "You really slipped me a potion" and, of course, the title, "You make me feel like dancing." He's in love at the dance club, although admittedly the song could just as easily be about the person he came with, rather than someone he just met. So, I suppose the meaning is clear, but the lyrics aren't particularly clever or deep or interesting.
My verdict: Don't like it. I'd like to hear the part of the song where Sayer drops the falsetto and the music picks up expanded, but the rest of the song doesn't work for me.
Weeks: 1
This song is steeped in that 70s disco sound. It includes just about every 70s trope that bugs me.
The worst part for sure is the falsetto singing. I don't understand the popularity. I went to do some research on why it was so popular in the 70s and just came away with a list of male vocalists who employed falsetto in songs I enjoyed, Prince being the most notable example. So maybe it's not the falsetto itself but its application that bugs me. Certainly, this song is at its best during the brief moments when Sayer drops the falsetto and sings in his normal range. I still don't know why it was so popular in the 70s, though. Is it merely about 70s nostalgia for the 50s (as evidenced by Grease and Happy Days)?
The music is similarly mixed. Oddly, at the exact same moments that Sayer is singing in falsetto, the music is light and uninteresting, with very slight guitar, bass, and drums. But when he drops to his normal range the bass and drums kick into gear. That part of the song is really enjoyable. Specifically, the bits just before the chorus and just at the end of the chorus are really entertaining. That part of the song really works, and I almost fool myself into thinking I like the song overall. Unfortunately, they are far too few and far between.
The bridge is where the song could have saved itself, but instead they just have Sayer sing "doot do doo" over the same dull instrumentation that is otherwise terrible throughout. Late in the song they tack on some strings, too. I think it's supposed to make the song feel grander, but really it just makes it sound like every other disco-influenced song from the 70s.
The lyrics are basically an Usher-style falling-in-love-in-a-dance-club premise, about 30 years before Usher started making them. Leo Sayer doesn't use the words "dance club," but he does say "I don't want to go home" and "I can't get off of the floor." So he's clearly dancing at a disco. And why doesn't he want to stop? "You really slipped me a potion" and, of course, the title, "You make me feel like dancing." He's in love at the dance club, although admittedly the song could just as easily be about the person he came with, rather than someone he just met. So, I suppose the meaning is clear, but the lyrics aren't particularly clever or deep or interesting.
My verdict: Don't like it. I'd like to hear the part of the song where Sayer drops the falsetto and the music picks up expanded, but the rest of the song doesn't work for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)