Date: May 22, 1961
Weeks: 1
Is... is this supposed to be a novelty song? It comes across like something I'd expect to hear on a Dr. Demento collection. And the subject matter of a guy singing about his evil mother-in-law seems like it's supposed to be funny. But he sounds so sincere, and novelty songs I've heard from this era are rarely this dry and subtle. But then maybe that's part of the joke. I don't know, 1961, I'm not sure I get your sense of humor.
The song is about the singer's evil mother-in-law. And I don't mean that metaphorically. He actually uses the words "Satan should be her name. To me they're about the same." Ultimately, his problem with his mother-in-law comes down to the stress she puts on his marriage. She criticizes how much money he makes, "she thinks her advice is the Constitution." Yeah, that's a bad situation, I suppose, but I guess the joke of the evil mother-in-law has been worn out by years of situation comedies and beer commercials. And it wasn't that great a joke in the first place, so age and overused has really diminished its charm. I suppose this song manages to balance a kernel of truth (other people commenting on your marriage can make it extra stressful) with an exaggerated joke (she's the Devil), in a way that works okay. I get a bit of wry amusement from the song.
Musically, I really like it. This is basic 1950s R&B, with all the gentle dance bop beat that implies. The guitar and drums are simple and effective. The transitions between verse and chorus are accented with horns effectively. There's a nice piano bridge. Everything is very basic and simple and clean. This is one of the building blocks of rock and roll, here. Ernie K-Doe himself does a fine job singing. His voice is very appealing and he has a good rhythmic sense. His background singers are a little goofier, especially the guy singing bass, but it's not so bad.
My verdict: Like it. The music is basic classic rock and roll and I'd listen to it under any lyrics. The lyrics are kind of silly, and the joke isn't all that funny, but they're fairly inoffensive overall.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Song #59: "Hit The Road Jack" by Ray Charles and his Orchestra
Date: Oct 9, 1961
Weeks: 2
I always thought this song was older than this. It sounds like a big band song from the 1940s, and seems to be such a widely-known phrase in the culture that I thought its origin must have been older than 1961. But no, although Ray Charles didn't write it, he did make the original recording. I spent some time poking around the Internet to see if I could find an older origin for the entire phrase "Hit the road, Jack," but I couldn't find one, so I assume its origin is this song. The song has been covered, remixed, and performed live so many times that I had a hard time finding the original studio recording. I hope this one is right, because I'm not so sure. It sounds way too clean, even for a remix.
Ray Charles is the epitome of cool. His sense of how to jazz up a song is wonderful. I have always loved his rendition of "America The Beautiful" in particular. His piano is always energetic and fun, even in a slow song. Ray Charles can do no wrong in his performance, and this song is no exception to that rule.
Which isn't to say the song is arranged perfectly. The piano chords acting as the bass line are a bit repetitive. There's an elegant simplicity to them, and I think that's part of the reason the song is so well-known. But they start to wear out their welcome, even in the short amount of time that the song runs. There's not quite enough variety, and the piano dominates the song. I like the drums and the occasional interjection from the brass section, though. The brass in particular livens up the chorus in an appealing way.
The background singers are fine. I guess he had a group of background singers called the Raylettes who provided the backup singing. Their performance isn't exceptional, but it doesn't need to be. That's why they're the backup singers. There was probably room to recruit a better vocal talent to provide the female counterpoint, that could have improved the song. But they do a sufficient job.
Lyrically, the song is about a man being thrown out of his home by the woman who feels wronged. The reasons aren't really explored, beyond when the female singer says "you ain't got no money, you just ain't no good." He offers no defense. "I guess if you say so, I have to pack my things and go." He complains that she's mean, she stands her ground. It doesn't so much tell a story as it captures the emotion of a breakup that maybe wasn't seen coming. I think the lyrics are effective, although the verses aren't really what's memorable. What's memorable is the chorus, "Hit the road, Jack." Like I said, it's become part of the cultural lexicon far divorced from its origins. I bet you can find people using this phrase who have never heard of this song.
My verdict: Like it. Ray Charles can do no wrong.
Weeks: 2
I always thought this song was older than this. It sounds like a big band song from the 1940s, and seems to be such a widely-known phrase in the culture that I thought its origin must have been older than 1961. But no, although Ray Charles didn't write it, he did make the original recording. I spent some time poking around the Internet to see if I could find an older origin for the entire phrase "Hit the road, Jack," but I couldn't find one, so I assume its origin is this song. The song has been covered, remixed, and performed live so many times that I had a hard time finding the original studio recording. I hope this one is right, because I'm not so sure. It sounds way too clean, even for a remix.
Ray Charles is the epitome of cool. His sense of how to jazz up a song is wonderful. I have always loved his rendition of "America The Beautiful" in particular. His piano is always energetic and fun, even in a slow song. Ray Charles can do no wrong in his performance, and this song is no exception to that rule.
Which isn't to say the song is arranged perfectly. The piano chords acting as the bass line are a bit repetitive. There's an elegant simplicity to them, and I think that's part of the reason the song is so well-known. But they start to wear out their welcome, even in the short amount of time that the song runs. There's not quite enough variety, and the piano dominates the song. I like the drums and the occasional interjection from the brass section, though. The brass in particular livens up the chorus in an appealing way.
The background singers are fine. I guess he had a group of background singers called the Raylettes who provided the backup singing. Their performance isn't exceptional, but it doesn't need to be. That's why they're the backup singers. There was probably room to recruit a better vocal talent to provide the female counterpoint, that could have improved the song. But they do a sufficient job.
Lyrically, the song is about a man being thrown out of his home by the woman who feels wronged. The reasons aren't really explored, beyond when the female singer says "you ain't got no money, you just ain't no good." He offers no defense. "I guess if you say so, I have to pack my things and go." He complains that she's mean, she stands her ground. It doesn't so much tell a story as it captures the emotion of a breakup that maybe wasn't seen coming. I think the lyrics are effective, although the verses aren't really what's memorable. What's memorable is the chorus, "Hit the road, Jack." Like I said, it's become part of the cultural lexicon far divorced from its origins. I bet you can find people using this phrase who have never heard of this song.
My verdict: Like it. Ray Charles can do no wrong.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Not No. 1: 20/20 Reports on New Wave in 1979
Date: Dec 1979
This is a neat bit of video that I got linked to a little bit ago. It's a 20/20 news segment from 1979, featuring Hugh Downs, that talks a bit about the history of rock and roll and the lead up to the New Wave movement. It's amusing to listen to them list off the names of "classic" rock musicians, and then try to make a funny comparison to a new band who would dare to compete to become the new classics. And then they bring up a bunch of bands that went on to become classics. Blondie, The Ramones, The Clash, Elvis Costello. Whoever picked these bands to profile did a good job picking bands that turned out to last a long time.
Anyway, it's an interesting and informative trip through the history of rock and roll to that point.
This is a neat bit of video that I got linked to a little bit ago. It's a 20/20 news segment from 1979, featuring Hugh Downs, that talks a bit about the history of rock and roll and the lead up to the New Wave movement. It's amusing to listen to them list off the names of "classic" rock musicians, and then try to make a funny comparison to a new band who would dare to compete to become the new classics. And then they bring up a bunch of bands that went on to become classics. Blondie, The Ramones, The Clash, Elvis Costello. Whoever picked these bands to profile did a good job picking bands that turned out to last a long time.
Anyway, it's an interesting and informative trip through the history of rock and roll to that point.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Song #477: "No More Tears (Enough Is Enough)" by Barbra Streisand and Donna Summer
Date: Nov 24, 1979
Weeks: 2
Oh no. Not another 1930s-style Barbra Streisand soft song. Oh no! Suddenly it turned into a repetitive Donna Summer disco song. It's the worst of both worlds. I've disliked both of their songs separately, and now I have to endure one where they mix their styles. How am I going to get through this?
Okay, okay. Start by saying something positive. Well, in the soft part of the song, Summer's part is quite good. The 70s disco music that I'm used to hearing from her doesn't do her voice justice. Of course, that's kind of ruined by Streisand doing the same fake-sounding oversinging thing I've complained about before.
No, stay positive! The disco part of the song actually seems more compatible with Streisand's singing style. The bold music seems to actually match it. She should make this kind of music more often. Then again, she even manages to find ways to overwhelm the frantic disco music.
Okay, okay, what else. Well, the lyrics seem to be feminist. "Enough is enough is enough." Great message for women in tough relationships: get out. Of course, the song kind of undermines that when it tries to explain what's so wrong about the guy and comes up with "My love life is boring me to tears." Okay, but maybe it's a song about having the self-awareness to understand when a relationship is over. No, the song says "Pack his raincoat, show him out."
It's really two songs that have failed to properly integrate. One is a soft song that laments the sadness of a relationship that has gotten stale and just isn't exciting any more. The other is about a woman who has been wronged. They don't quite go together correctly.
Musically, each song is pretty mediocre. The first half is piano and strings, and resists the temptation to add too much additional sound to it, but is kind of plain and unexciting. The second half sounds a lot like "Hot Stuff" (#465). It's okay, but has the usual 70s problems of adding too many strings and not enough guitars.
The best part of the song is probably the bridge, when the song gets quiet except for the bongos driving the song forward. There is an extended version of the song that extends this bridge, and I think I like the extended version better for focusing on the best part of the song. Or maybe I've just taken the whole idea of staying positive too far and found the part that annoys me least.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's like they took two songs I didn't like and stuck them together with tape and glue.
Weeks: 2
Oh no. Not another 1930s-style Barbra Streisand soft song. Oh no! Suddenly it turned into a repetitive Donna Summer disco song. It's the worst of both worlds. I've disliked both of their songs separately, and now I have to endure one where they mix their styles. How am I going to get through this?
Okay, okay. Start by saying something positive. Well, in the soft part of the song, Summer's part is quite good. The 70s disco music that I'm used to hearing from her doesn't do her voice justice. Of course, that's kind of ruined by Streisand doing the same fake-sounding oversinging thing I've complained about before.
No, stay positive! The disco part of the song actually seems more compatible with Streisand's singing style. The bold music seems to actually match it. She should make this kind of music more often. Then again, she even manages to find ways to overwhelm the frantic disco music.
Okay, okay, what else. Well, the lyrics seem to be feminist. "Enough is enough is enough." Great message for women in tough relationships: get out. Of course, the song kind of undermines that when it tries to explain what's so wrong about the guy and comes up with "My love life is boring me to tears." Okay, but maybe it's a song about having the self-awareness to understand when a relationship is over. No, the song says "Pack his raincoat, show him out."
It's really two songs that have failed to properly integrate. One is a soft song that laments the sadness of a relationship that has gotten stale and just isn't exciting any more. The other is about a woman who has been wronged. They don't quite go together correctly.
Musically, each song is pretty mediocre. The first half is piano and strings, and resists the temptation to add too much additional sound to it, but is kind of plain and unexciting. The second half sounds a lot like "Hot Stuff" (#465). It's okay, but has the usual 70s problems of adding too many strings and not enough guitars.
The best part of the song is probably the bridge, when the song gets quiet except for the bongos driving the song forward. There is an extended version of the song that extends this bridge, and I think I like the extended version better for focusing on the best part of the song. Or maybe I've just taken the whole idea of staying positive too far and found the part that annoys me least.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's like they took two songs I didn't like and stuck them together with tape and glue.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Song #709: "We Didn't Start The Fire" by Billy Joel
Date: Dec 9, 1989
Weeks: 2
So this is basically a list of historical events that influenced Billy Joel when he was growing up. I've always been of two minds about this song and its lyrical content. On the one hand, it's a great tool for learning about U.S. history from the 1950s through the 1980s. The recent past often gets overlooked when trying to teach kids history, I think generally because adults consider anything that happened within their lifetimes as current events. I know there's a lot in this song I probably never would have learned about otherwise.
On the other hand, I've always been a bit bothered by the somewhat self-indulgent specificity of the era being covered. I'm not sure the sex scandal referenced by the line "British politician sex" is a major historical event that needs to be documented for future generations. It's also always bugged me that the lyrics spend 4 verses carefully documenting every event from 1949 to 1963, but then it covers 1964 to 1989 in a single verse. In that sense, it feels like the song is largely playing to people who are exactly the same age as Billy Joel. Or people who are the children of those people who at least consider this "the history that happened before I was old enough to pay attention to current events." I wonder how well this song will be regarded in 20 years.
So that's my ambivalence about the content of the lyrics. In terms of the construction of the lyrics, I'm impressed. Billy Joel plays fast and loose with the rhyme scheme and meter, but it never really feels like he's cheating. Wikipedia also insists that the events in the song are listed in chronological order, at least by year. That would seem to add an extra layer to the challenge of writing a song like this, so I'm kind of impressed that he managed to construct a song under all those constraints.
As for the chorus, I'm glad to see that Wikipedia echoes the interpretation of the song I've always held. That idea is that Billy Joel doesn't want his generation, the Baby Boomers, blamed for all the world's problems, because they inherited problems from the generation before. The song concludes with the implication that the world's problems will continue after his generation is gone. And yet it's not a bleak song, it's actually hopeful. The message is that the world has survived turmoil before, and it will survive whatever comes next.
The music is a lot of fun, but maintains a sort of frantically serious tone. The synthesizer keyboards are put to good use, creating a dramatic melody during the chorus that is probably the most memorable part of the music in this song. They are bold in a song that demands bold music. The bongos during the chorus also maintain the verses' frantic energy through the chorus. During the verses, there is an appealing guitar rhythm that sounds sort of like a 1950s classic rock rhythm. It's very basic and does a great job holding the song together. I also like the gradually accelerating feeling of chaos that is represented in both the guitars and the vocals. It symbolizes Billy Joel's increasing inability to understand and cope with the world's chaos and strife, and the universal feeling that the world's problems just keep getting worse and spinning out of control. And yet ultimately I still feel the song is about keeping those problems in perspective. The music really does a good job capturing all that frantic energy and turmoil.
I'm less certain about the use of occasional audio clips mixed throughout. There's a cheer for the line "Brooklyn has a winning team," and the music from Psycho plays when he references that movie. It seems a little silly to interject audio for those two things. On the other hand, the song is quite long, if not in runtime then in lyrical quantity, and those bits of audio do manage to inject some variety into the song at certain moments. Ultimately I think they are subtle but effective enhancements, rather than detractions.
My verdict: Like it. It's a fun, energetic song, and it's good for teaching history. If nothing else, its existence and popularity will keep the people and events referred to in the lyrics in the cultural consciousness longer than they might otherwise have been.
Weeks: 2
So this is basically a list of historical events that influenced Billy Joel when he was growing up. I've always been of two minds about this song and its lyrical content. On the one hand, it's a great tool for learning about U.S. history from the 1950s through the 1980s. The recent past often gets overlooked when trying to teach kids history, I think generally because adults consider anything that happened within their lifetimes as current events. I know there's a lot in this song I probably never would have learned about otherwise.
On the other hand, I've always been a bit bothered by the somewhat self-indulgent specificity of the era being covered. I'm not sure the sex scandal referenced by the line "British politician sex" is a major historical event that needs to be documented for future generations. It's also always bugged me that the lyrics spend 4 verses carefully documenting every event from 1949 to 1963, but then it covers 1964 to 1989 in a single verse. In that sense, it feels like the song is largely playing to people who are exactly the same age as Billy Joel. Or people who are the children of those people who at least consider this "the history that happened before I was old enough to pay attention to current events." I wonder how well this song will be regarded in 20 years.
So that's my ambivalence about the content of the lyrics. In terms of the construction of the lyrics, I'm impressed. Billy Joel plays fast and loose with the rhyme scheme and meter, but it never really feels like he's cheating. Wikipedia also insists that the events in the song are listed in chronological order, at least by year. That would seem to add an extra layer to the challenge of writing a song like this, so I'm kind of impressed that he managed to construct a song under all those constraints.
As for the chorus, I'm glad to see that Wikipedia echoes the interpretation of the song I've always held. That idea is that Billy Joel doesn't want his generation, the Baby Boomers, blamed for all the world's problems, because they inherited problems from the generation before. The song concludes with the implication that the world's problems will continue after his generation is gone. And yet it's not a bleak song, it's actually hopeful. The message is that the world has survived turmoil before, and it will survive whatever comes next.
The music is a lot of fun, but maintains a sort of frantically serious tone. The synthesizer keyboards are put to good use, creating a dramatic melody during the chorus that is probably the most memorable part of the music in this song. They are bold in a song that demands bold music. The bongos during the chorus also maintain the verses' frantic energy through the chorus. During the verses, there is an appealing guitar rhythm that sounds sort of like a 1950s classic rock rhythm. It's very basic and does a great job holding the song together. I also like the gradually accelerating feeling of chaos that is represented in both the guitars and the vocals. It symbolizes Billy Joel's increasing inability to understand and cope with the world's chaos and strife, and the universal feeling that the world's problems just keep getting worse and spinning out of control. And yet ultimately I still feel the song is about keeping those problems in perspective. The music really does a good job capturing all that frantic energy and turmoil.
I'm less certain about the use of occasional audio clips mixed throughout. There's a cheer for the line "Brooklyn has a winning team," and the music from Psycho plays when he references that movie. It seems a little silly to interject audio for those two things. On the other hand, the song is quite long, if not in runtime then in lyrical quantity, and those bits of audio do manage to inject some variety into the song at certain moments. Ultimately I think they are subtle but effective enhancements, rather than detractions.
My verdict: Like it. It's a fun, energetic song, and it's good for teaching history. If nothing else, its existence and popularity will keep the people and events referred to in the lyrics in the cultural consciousness longer than they might otherwise have been.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Song #855: "Say My Name" by Destiny's Child
Date: Mar 18, 2000
Weeks: 3
Destiny's Child is probably best known today for being the group that introduced the world to Beyonce. Actually, even at the time I think it was best known as the group backing up Beyonce. Maybe some big fans of the group would find more nuance to that position, but as a general music fan whose preferred genre this wasn't, that was my awareness of the group at the time.
The vocal harmonies are the most obvious feature of this song, and they're quite good. The backing music is generally soft and fairly inconsequential, so it's up to the vocals to carry the song. And this group of singers does a great job of it. Although Beyonce stands out as the lead singer, the rest of the group provides a great foundation, as well. There is a lot going on vocally during the chorus, and it's all very appealing. The verses are a little monotonous, but there is sufficient variety to remain entertaining. There are some poor harmonic choices in the little transition section between the verse and the chorus, especially on the lyric "Cause I know how you usually do." The voices go a little high there in a way that doesn't work for me. Otherwise, I think the vocals are very good. They're light and pleasant but combine in a strong way.
The backing track to this song is generally enjoyable, but this song feels like it's been overproduced. The bass and drum line is really good, and perfectly matched to the vocals. The lead synthesizer track during the chorus is also very good. The chorus is generally very appealing all around. The verses sort of fall apart musically, though. The song feels like it has been overproduced, with synthesizer stings and weird spring sound effects for no reason. Those noises were a serious miscalculation. The song would have been stronger without them. They very nearly ruin the song for me. There are also some vocal echoes that are there to spice up the verses that initially bugged me, but after listening to it for a while, I found those vocal echoes actually spiced up the otherwise pretty monotonous verses. The bridge doesn't include much of the usual variety that one expects from a bridge, although there is an unnecessary male voice that should have been left out. Also, the "yeah yeah yeah yeah" from Beyonce is weirdly enunciated, to the point where I thought she was saying something else.
Lyrically, the song is clearly about a women who thinks her significant other is cheating on her because he's acting oddly when she's talking to him over the phone. "If no one is around you, say 'baby I love you'." She's confident, she's self-assertive, and she's not going to put up with him if he's cheating. But I like that she's also not throwing around the accusation wildly and jumping to conclusions. She just wants him to pass the simple test of talking to her like she's his girlfriend and flushing out the other woman if there is one. I like the delicate balance that is struck in these lyrics, and I especially like the self-assertion.
My verdict: Like it. It's overproduced and I think a good remix would be better. But overall it's an enjoyable song, especially in the chorus where it counts.
Weeks: 3
Destiny's Child is probably best known today for being the group that introduced the world to Beyonce. Actually, even at the time I think it was best known as the group backing up Beyonce. Maybe some big fans of the group would find more nuance to that position, but as a general music fan whose preferred genre this wasn't, that was my awareness of the group at the time.
The vocal harmonies are the most obvious feature of this song, and they're quite good. The backing music is generally soft and fairly inconsequential, so it's up to the vocals to carry the song. And this group of singers does a great job of it. Although Beyonce stands out as the lead singer, the rest of the group provides a great foundation, as well. There is a lot going on vocally during the chorus, and it's all very appealing. The verses are a little monotonous, but there is sufficient variety to remain entertaining. There are some poor harmonic choices in the little transition section between the verse and the chorus, especially on the lyric "Cause I know how you usually do." The voices go a little high there in a way that doesn't work for me. Otherwise, I think the vocals are very good. They're light and pleasant but combine in a strong way.
The backing track to this song is generally enjoyable, but this song feels like it's been overproduced. The bass and drum line is really good, and perfectly matched to the vocals. The lead synthesizer track during the chorus is also very good. The chorus is generally very appealing all around. The verses sort of fall apart musically, though. The song feels like it has been overproduced, with synthesizer stings and weird spring sound effects for no reason. Those noises were a serious miscalculation. The song would have been stronger without them. They very nearly ruin the song for me. There are also some vocal echoes that are there to spice up the verses that initially bugged me, but after listening to it for a while, I found those vocal echoes actually spiced up the otherwise pretty monotonous verses. The bridge doesn't include much of the usual variety that one expects from a bridge, although there is an unnecessary male voice that should have been left out. Also, the "yeah yeah yeah yeah" from Beyonce is weirdly enunciated, to the point where I thought she was saying something else.
Lyrically, the song is clearly about a women who thinks her significant other is cheating on her because he's acting oddly when she's talking to him over the phone. "If no one is around you, say 'baby I love you'." She's confident, she's self-assertive, and she's not going to put up with him if he's cheating. But I like that she's also not throwing around the accusation wildly and jumping to conclusions. She just wants him to pass the simple test of talking to her like she's his girlfriend and flushing out the other woman if there is one. I like the delicate balance that is struck in these lyrics, and I especially like the self-assertion.
My verdict: Like it. It's overproduced and I think a good remix would be better. But overall it's an enjoyable song, especially in the chorus where it counts.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Song #948: "Beautiful Girls" by Sean Kingston
Date: Aug 11, 2007
Weeks: 4
I'm not opposed to sampling in general, but this song samples so much of "Stand By Me" by Ben E. King that it's practically a remake. The bass line is the song's backbone, and this song just plain reuses it. So it's impossible to avoid comparing this song directly to that classic, and this song suffers in comparison.
"Stand By Me" is all about having someone to stand by you, and how that makes you able to withstand whatever the world might throw at you. It's a positive song, and the music supports that positivity with quiet cheeriness. "Beautiful Girls" turns the lyrics right around and is lyrically one of the most depressing pop songs I've encountered. It's hard to claim it's a feel-good song when the chorus features the line "They'll have you suicidal, suicidal." The repetition just emphasizes how depressing it is. And that stands in direct contrast to the cheery "Stand By Me" music. I see that the line "suicidal" was controversial and got the song edited a lot. Changing "suicidal" to "in denial" kind of obscures the meaning, though.
It could be clever irony, I suppose. Put depressing lyrics over a happy tune. But the lyrics don't seem to support that. The lyrics aren't about trying to maintain a happy attitude despite being sad. They're just about the misery of being dumped, and the pessimism of despairing of finding anyone else ever again. "You're way too beautiful girl, that's why it'll never work. You'll have me suicidal, suicidal." These lyrics need a sad tune, or an angry tune. They don't need this gentle, happy tune. I suppose overall I just find this teenage notion of suicidal despair because you were dumped at age 16 to be terribly overwrought. This isn't reminding me of how I felt in my own teenage years, it's just making me feel like teenagers are overdramatic and dumb.
It's also just kind of vaguely insulting to the "beautiful girls." "Damn all these beautiful girls." That makes me think of the Weezer song "El Scorcho," and its opening line that is often misinterpreted as "Goddamn you half-Japanese girls!" when in fact the line is "Goddamn! You half-Japanese girls do it to me every time." But "Beautiful Girls" doesn't have that. It really is just "Damn all these beautiful girls. They only want to do your dirt." I'm not sure what "do your dirt" means, but it's clearly not complimentary.
I could nitpick these lyrics for several more paragraphs, but I won't. Suffice to say I think the lyrics are bad and contrast sharply with the music, but not in a cleverly ironic way.
Kingston's slight Jamaican accent is just thin enough that I thought he was putting it on, but Wikipedia claims he was raised in Jamaica and therefore comes by it honestly. I suppose the Jamaican style in which he sings the song is okay. I guess I get too distracted by the words he's singing to really evaluate his singing. I think I'd rather hear him perform a straight cover of "Stand By Me."
Musically, this song isn't bad. The bass line, ripped straight out of "Stand By Me," is excellent, of course. But I like a lot of the style enhancements that have been made. There are a lot, but they are tastefully applied. There's a xylophone, a few soft synth stings, a string section that may be an imitation of strings used in the original. All good things. I even like the a capella bridge with the background singers. There's a timpani near the end that borders on overly-dramatic, but I don't mind that so much. If anything, I'd like a dramatic, orchestral take on "Stand By Me."
My verdict: Don't like it. I almost gave it a pass on the idea that if the same talent had been used to cover "Stand By Me" I would be happy. Unfortunately, the lyrics are really distracting, and they don't show off Kingston's vocals in a positive way.
Weeks: 4
I'm not opposed to sampling in general, but this song samples so much of "Stand By Me" by Ben E. King that it's practically a remake. The bass line is the song's backbone, and this song just plain reuses it. So it's impossible to avoid comparing this song directly to that classic, and this song suffers in comparison.
"Stand By Me" is all about having someone to stand by you, and how that makes you able to withstand whatever the world might throw at you. It's a positive song, and the music supports that positivity with quiet cheeriness. "Beautiful Girls" turns the lyrics right around and is lyrically one of the most depressing pop songs I've encountered. It's hard to claim it's a feel-good song when the chorus features the line "They'll have you suicidal, suicidal." The repetition just emphasizes how depressing it is. And that stands in direct contrast to the cheery "Stand By Me" music. I see that the line "suicidal" was controversial and got the song edited a lot. Changing "suicidal" to "in denial" kind of obscures the meaning, though.
It could be clever irony, I suppose. Put depressing lyrics over a happy tune. But the lyrics don't seem to support that. The lyrics aren't about trying to maintain a happy attitude despite being sad. They're just about the misery of being dumped, and the pessimism of despairing of finding anyone else ever again. "You're way too beautiful girl, that's why it'll never work. You'll have me suicidal, suicidal." These lyrics need a sad tune, or an angry tune. They don't need this gentle, happy tune. I suppose overall I just find this teenage notion of suicidal despair because you were dumped at age 16 to be terribly overwrought. This isn't reminding me of how I felt in my own teenage years, it's just making me feel like teenagers are overdramatic and dumb.
It's also just kind of vaguely insulting to the "beautiful girls." "Damn all these beautiful girls." That makes me think of the Weezer song "El Scorcho," and its opening line that is often misinterpreted as "Goddamn you half-Japanese girls!" when in fact the line is "Goddamn! You half-Japanese girls do it to me every time." But "Beautiful Girls" doesn't have that. It really is just "Damn all these beautiful girls. They only want to do your dirt." I'm not sure what "do your dirt" means, but it's clearly not complimentary.
I could nitpick these lyrics for several more paragraphs, but I won't. Suffice to say I think the lyrics are bad and contrast sharply with the music, but not in a cleverly ironic way.
Kingston's slight Jamaican accent is just thin enough that I thought he was putting it on, but Wikipedia claims he was raised in Jamaica and therefore comes by it honestly. I suppose the Jamaican style in which he sings the song is okay. I guess I get too distracted by the words he's singing to really evaluate his singing. I think I'd rather hear him perform a straight cover of "Stand By Me."
Musically, this song isn't bad. The bass line, ripped straight out of "Stand By Me," is excellent, of course. But I like a lot of the style enhancements that have been made. There are a lot, but they are tastefully applied. There's a xylophone, a few soft synth stings, a string section that may be an imitation of strings used in the original. All good things. I even like the a capella bridge with the background singers. There's a timpani near the end that borders on overly-dramatic, but I don't mind that so much. If anything, I'd like a dramatic, orchestral take on "Stand By Me."
My verdict: Don't like it. I almost gave it a pass on the idea that if the same talent had been used to cover "Stand By Me" I would be happy. Unfortunately, the lyrics are really distracting, and they don't show off Kingston's vocals in a positive way.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Song #157: "(You're My) Soul And Inspiration" by The Righteous Brothers
Date: Apr 9, 1966
Weeks: 3
While the Righteous Brothers have persisted in the consciousness of popular music, their songs haven't necessarily. Sure, "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" (#127) is a well-regarded classic. And "Unchained Melody" has also endured the test of time, thanks partially to the movie Ghost resurrecting it in the 1990s. But their other songs haven't really been remembered by the culture, and so I haven't really heard any others that I can think of. And so that brings us here, to a song that I know I've never heard before.
The first thing I notice about this song is that its composition seems very familiar. Every time the song builds up to the chorus, I fully expect to hear the chorus of "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin." And when that's not what I hear, I can't help but feel disappointed. And yet the more I listen to this song, the more I like this chorus. The sound is very big, with a backing chorus, and what sounds like an orchestra of generous size swelling to fill out the sound. It's actually bigger than the sound in the chorus of that other song. The vocal harmony of the two lead singers and the backing chorus is well-combined and pleasing. The great thing about the Righteous Brothers is that they sound like they are giving everything they've got during the chorus. It gives their songs passion and energy.
I'm not sure the verses match up to the chorus, though. The backup singers and orchestra aren't quite living up to their potential here. There's a wandering background string that just seems like it's there because they had an orchestra around and didn't know enough to say that less was more. The lead singers also aren't fulfilling their potential here. That low voice they sing in during the verses isn't very pleasant. It sounds so affected and fake. The bridge part with the talking is also one of those song features that just never works for me. I complained about that when Boyz II Men did it, but it's not really any better coming from the Righteous Brothers. At least I know where Boyz II Men got it from.
This is one of those breakup songs that's all about sadness and depression. The lyrics are a bit pathetic. "Without you, baby, what good am I?" He's begging not to be dumped, and yet all he's doing is trying to lay a down a guilt trip while making it all about himself. He even kind of suggests that he might kill himself if he's left alone, with lyrics like "How can I live through this" and "If you go it will kill me I swear" and, during the spoken part, "You're my reason... for living, for dying." Maybe he's just hinting at withering away to nothing, but he's not really making that clear. He's trying to guilt his way into being undumped. This is a terrible lyrical sentiment.
My verdict: Don't like it. The chorus has its moments, but the verse is hard to take and the lyrics aren't very admirable.
Weeks: 3
While the Righteous Brothers have persisted in the consciousness of popular music, their songs haven't necessarily. Sure, "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" (#127) is a well-regarded classic. And "Unchained Melody" has also endured the test of time, thanks partially to the movie Ghost resurrecting it in the 1990s. But their other songs haven't really been remembered by the culture, and so I haven't really heard any others that I can think of. And so that brings us here, to a song that I know I've never heard before.
The first thing I notice about this song is that its composition seems very familiar. Every time the song builds up to the chorus, I fully expect to hear the chorus of "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin." And when that's not what I hear, I can't help but feel disappointed. And yet the more I listen to this song, the more I like this chorus. The sound is very big, with a backing chorus, and what sounds like an orchestra of generous size swelling to fill out the sound. It's actually bigger than the sound in the chorus of that other song. The vocal harmony of the two lead singers and the backing chorus is well-combined and pleasing. The great thing about the Righteous Brothers is that they sound like they are giving everything they've got during the chorus. It gives their songs passion and energy.
I'm not sure the verses match up to the chorus, though. The backup singers and orchestra aren't quite living up to their potential here. There's a wandering background string that just seems like it's there because they had an orchestra around and didn't know enough to say that less was more. The lead singers also aren't fulfilling their potential here. That low voice they sing in during the verses isn't very pleasant. It sounds so affected and fake. The bridge part with the talking is also one of those song features that just never works for me. I complained about that when Boyz II Men did it, but it's not really any better coming from the Righteous Brothers. At least I know where Boyz II Men got it from.
This is one of those breakup songs that's all about sadness and depression. The lyrics are a bit pathetic. "Without you, baby, what good am I?" He's begging not to be dumped, and yet all he's doing is trying to lay a down a guilt trip while making it all about himself. He even kind of suggests that he might kill himself if he's left alone, with lyrics like "How can I live through this" and "If you go it will kill me I swear" and, during the spoken part, "You're my reason... for living, for dying." Maybe he's just hinting at withering away to nothing, but he's not really making that clear. He's trying to guilt his way into being undumped. This is a terrible lyrical sentiment.
My verdict: Don't like it. The chorus has its moments, but the verse is hard to take and the lyrics aren't very admirable.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Song #460: "Tragedy" by Bee Gees
Date: Mar 24, 1979
Weeks: 2
I was recently defending disco, and the Bee Gees in particular. Compared to a lot of the other popular songs of the 70s, disco is at least bold and interesting. The problem is that boldness is occasionally obnoxious, and that's certainly the case here.
This song is sung entirely falsetto. I suppose I should admire their commitment to maintaining that falsetto, but it feels like an assault on my ears. This song could have been done in a normal register and been interesting.
The overly synthesized soundtrack isn't helping, either. Combined with the falsetto vocals, it feels a bit like I'm being attacked by a low-flying spaceship. The verses are kind of okay, but their minimalism contrasts sharply with the rather overbearing and unpleasant chorus.
Lyrically, this is a breakup song. I think the word "tragedy" may be a bit misapplied to describe a breakup. "When the feeling's gone and you can't go on." Yes, a breakup can be depressing, but it's not exactly a tragedy. The Bee Gees sure do love their overdramatic breakup songs, don't they? Hmm. I guess it's possible that it's not a breakup, but the tragedy is that someone did die and they are missed. But the music is nowhere near sad enough to communicate it if that was their intent.
My verdict: Don't like it. The music and subject matter are poorly combined, and neither one is particularly good on its own.
Weeks: 2
I was recently defending disco, and the Bee Gees in particular. Compared to a lot of the other popular songs of the 70s, disco is at least bold and interesting. The problem is that boldness is occasionally obnoxious, and that's certainly the case here.
This song is sung entirely falsetto. I suppose I should admire their commitment to maintaining that falsetto, but it feels like an assault on my ears. This song could have been done in a normal register and been interesting.
The overly synthesized soundtrack isn't helping, either. Combined with the falsetto vocals, it feels a bit like I'm being attacked by a low-flying spaceship. The verses are kind of okay, but their minimalism contrasts sharply with the rather overbearing and unpleasant chorus.
Lyrically, this is a breakup song. I think the word "tragedy" may be a bit misapplied to describe a breakup. "When the feeling's gone and you can't go on." Yes, a breakup can be depressing, but it's not exactly a tragedy. The Bee Gees sure do love their overdramatic breakup songs, don't they? Hmm. I guess it's possible that it's not a breakup, but the tragedy is that someone did die and they are missed. But the music is nowhere near sad enough to communicate it if that was their intent.
My verdict: Don't like it. The music and subject matter are poorly combined, and neither one is particularly good on its own.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Song #154: "Lightnin' Strikes" by Lou Christie
Date: Feb 19, 1966
Weeks: 1
Wikipedia claims this song was often mistaken for a Frankie Valli song. There is a stylistic similarity, to be sure, although the singing in the verse is so different from Frankie Valli that I'm not sure anyone could make that mistake.
The instrumentation on this song is interesting. The style almost sounds like it's halfway between the doo-wop songs of the 50s and the overly orchestral pop songs of the 70s. Yet it doesn't quite sound like much of what is normally associated with the 60s. The saxophone and piano are particularly unusual sounds for the era, in my experience. There are plenty of 60s guitar sounds and drums to go along with it, though, and I think the whole thing is fairly well arranged. I particularly like the way the sound builds up from the verse to get into the chorus.
Part of that buildup is done vocally, too. I'm ambivalent about the singing in this song. Lou Christie swings from pretty pop song singing to 60s rock chanting to Frankie Valli wailing. I'm not sure I like any one style, but I appreciate the diversity. The female background singers come on strongest during the chorus, and they sound a bit like a cheerleading squad. Overall, I think I appreciate their contribution to the overall energy, even if they don't sound great on their own.
The lyrics are a piece of work. The guy is stringing along some poor girl who wants to be in an exclusive relationship with him. He says, "Believe it or not you're in my heart all the time," but he also says when he sees another attractive woman, "I can't stop myself." So basically he's trying to make an excuse for a wandering eye and, possibly, outright cheating, because he's just a guy who's naturally inclined to be unfaithful. But he wants to have his cake and eat it too, because he's trying to string her along with promises that some day he can settled down and be faithful. This guy is a piece of work.
However, it does seem like the song is intentionally written this way. I think the intent is semi-satirical. "When I settle down I want one baby on my mind." That's kind of a giveaway. So, although the character singing the song isn't admirable, the song is at least aware of it.
My verdict: Like it. It's decent satire, and a healthy mix of good 60s rock sounds.
Weeks: 1
Wikipedia claims this song was often mistaken for a Frankie Valli song. There is a stylistic similarity, to be sure, although the singing in the verse is so different from Frankie Valli that I'm not sure anyone could make that mistake.
The instrumentation on this song is interesting. The style almost sounds like it's halfway between the doo-wop songs of the 50s and the overly orchestral pop songs of the 70s. Yet it doesn't quite sound like much of what is normally associated with the 60s. The saxophone and piano are particularly unusual sounds for the era, in my experience. There are plenty of 60s guitar sounds and drums to go along with it, though, and I think the whole thing is fairly well arranged. I particularly like the way the sound builds up from the verse to get into the chorus.
Part of that buildup is done vocally, too. I'm ambivalent about the singing in this song. Lou Christie swings from pretty pop song singing to 60s rock chanting to Frankie Valli wailing. I'm not sure I like any one style, but I appreciate the diversity. The female background singers come on strongest during the chorus, and they sound a bit like a cheerleading squad. Overall, I think I appreciate their contribution to the overall energy, even if they don't sound great on their own.
The lyrics are a piece of work. The guy is stringing along some poor girl who wants to be in an exclusive relationship with him. He says, "Believe it or not you're in my heart all the time," but he also says when he sees another attractive woman, "I can't stop myself." So basically he's trying to make an excuse for a wandering eye and, possibly, outright cheating, because he's just a guy who's naturally inclined to be unfaithful. But he wants to have his cake and eat it too, because he's trying to string her along with promises that some day he can settled down and be faithful. This guy is a piece of work.
However, it does seem like the song is intentionally written this way. I think the intent is semi-satirical. "When I settle down I want one baby on my mind." That's kind of a giveaway. So, although the character singing the song isn't admirable, the song is at least aware of it.
My verdict: Like it. It's decent satire, and a healthy mix of good 60s rock sounds.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Song #969: "My Life Would Suck Without You" by Kelly Clarkson
Date: Feb 7, 2009
Weeks: 2
I don't like American Idol. It's bad enough that music companies manufacture pop stars and rob music of its organic roots. But then they turn the process of manufacturing those pop stars into televised entertainment, and we're supposed to enjoy it? I just can't support that. Yet somehow their crazy process managed to pick Kelly Clarkson the first time out. While I tried to dismiss her for a long time, I wasn't able to resist the appeal of "Since U Been Gone." That song was nothing like anything I would have expected to come out of American Idol, and I have to say the show succeeded in spite of itself when it picked Kelly Clarkson. Thankfully I can read from Wikipedia that she had split from her American Idol management when she made that song, so my world can continue to make sense.
Happily, this song continues the high-energy pop/rock tradition from "Since U Been Gone." With driving bass, a chorus that practically explodes in your ear, a sound that fills a room, and an appealing chord progression throughout, there's no denying this song's energy. Overall, it's fun and easy to dance to.
Actually, it might be a little too high-energy. That's not a criticism I make often, but something about this song feels like it goes beyond high-energy, passes frantic, and gets into the realm of hyperactive. I think it's the fact that the fast beat never goes away. There's never a break from it. The fat synthesizer bass is appealing for a while, but it keeps carrying it, even when it might be better to calm down and give the listener a break from it. And even during the bridge, when everything else breaks down, the percussion keeps that driving beat alive. Hyperactive songs can work, but they're best if they are short or if they stop every now and then.
I like the vocals here. Clarkson gives a high-energy, loud performance without veering into being screechy. It gives the song energy. This was what impressed me so much in "Since U Been Gone," that she wasn't just showing off her voice but was giving the song what it needed to be good. And that continues here.
The lyrics are about two people who have tried breaking up, but find that they don't like being apart. They both seem pretty damaged and a bit codependent. "I know that I've got issues, but you're pretty messed up, too. Either way I found out I'm nothing without you." This probably isn't the best foundation to build a relationship on. Yet they have tried being apart and it doesn't work, either. "My life would suck without you." I think the message is intentional, and watching the video confirms that. This isn't a good relationship, but these people are stuck together until they realize it's not good. That's the story that they're trying to tell, and I think they do a good job of that. I'm glad I'm not in a relationship like this, but I've known people who were and I think I can understand the sentiment.
My verdict: Like it. It has its flaws, but overall it's good stuff.
Weeks: 2
I don't like American Idol. It's bad enough that music companies manufacture pop stars and rob music of its organic roots. But then they turn the process of manufacturing those pop stars into televised entertainment, and we're supposed to enjoy it? I just can't support that. Yet somehow their crazy process managed to pick Kelly Clarkson the first time out. While I tried to dismiss her for a long time, I wasn't able to resist the appeal of "Since U Been Gone." That song was nothing like anything I would have expected to come out of American Idol, and I have to say the show succeeded in spite of itself when it picked Kelly Clarkson. Thankfully I can read from Wikipedia that she had split from her American Idol management when she made that song, so my world can continue to make sense.
Happily, this song continues the high-energy pop/rock tradition from "Since U Been Gone." With driving bass, a chorus that practically explodes in your ear, a sound that fills a room, and an appealing chord progression throughout, there's no denying this song's energy. Overall, it's fun and easy to dance to.
Actually, it might be a little too high-energy. That's not a criticism I make often, but something about this song feels like it goes beyond high-energy, passes frantic, and gets into the realm of hyperactive. I think it's the fact that the fast beat never goes away. There's never a break from it. The fat synthesizer bass is appealing for a while, but it keeps carrying it, even when it might be better to calm down and give the listener a break from it. And even during the bridge, when everything else breaks down, the percussion keeps that driving beat alive. Hyperactive songs can work, but they're best if they are short or if they stop every now and then.
I like the vocals here. Clarkson gives a high-energy, loud performance without veering into being screechy. It gives the song energy. This was what impressed me so much in "Since U Been Gone," that she wasn't just showing off her voice but was giving the song what it needed to be good. And that continues here.
The lyrics are about two people who have tried breaking up, but find that they don't like being apart. They both seem pretty damaged and a bit codependent. "I know that I've got issues, but you're pretty messed up, too. Either way I found out I'm nothing without you." This probably isn't the best foundation to build a relationship on. Yet they have tried being apart and it doesn't work, either. "My life would suck without you." I think the message is intentional, and watching the video confirms that. This isn't a good relationship, but these people are stuck together until they realize it's not good. That's the story that they're trying to tell, and I think they do a good job of that. I'm glad I'm not in a relationship like this, but I've known people who were and I think I can understand the sentiment.
My verdict: Like it. It has its flaws, but overall it's good stuff.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Song #151: "The Sound of Silence" by Simon & Garfunkel
Date: Jan 1, 1966
Weeks: 2
I confess that I've never much liked Simon and Garfunkel. I just find their music so slow and quiet and gentle and I've never found a situation in which I've wanted to listen to the type of music they're making. However, this is a case where sitting down and giving a song my undivided attention has paid off, because now that I'm actually paying attention, I find that I like this song far more than I expected to.
I wasn't helped by the opening of this song, which threatens to lull me to sleep. The vocals aren't exactly harmonious. They're kind of a counterpoint, working against each other. And in the opening 40 seconds, with nothing but a light strumming guitar behind them, I find the song to be grating and unpleasant. When the drums and bass join in, though, the song is complete and the voices are successfully separated in a pleasant and appealing way. The counterpoint works. And it makes the opening work in retrospect. The opening was building tension, and there is a satisfying release of that tension when the drums and bass join in.
I like the basic instrumentation of this song. Bass, guitar, drums, and voice. All of these parts contain a sufficient amount of variety to stay compelling. The bass line and the vocals create some particularly appealing sounds.
I think I'm completely unqualified to judge the lyrics. It's poetry, and the metaphors run deep. I will say that in terms of poetry, I do like the sound of the words. The beat and rhyme scheme is clever and diverse without feeling like they're cheating. The sound of the words is appealing, is my point, without having a need to understand what they mean.
From what I can distill from songfacts and Wikipedia, Paul Simon's lyrics are about people not communicating with each other. I can see that. "People talking without speaking. People talking without listening." It's a lament about people talking at cross-purposes without really trying to listen to and understand each other. It's a good sentiment that more people in our world could stand to take to heart, for sure.
My verdict: Like it. I'm not saying I'm going to suddenly add it to my driving-around playlist, but I certainly respect what they were going for and I think the song worked when I finally actually listened to it.
Weeks: 2
I confess that I've never much liked Simon and Garfunkel. I just find their music so slow and quiet and gentle and I've never found a situation in which I've wanted to listen to the type of music they're making. However, this is a case where sitting down and giving a song my undivided attention has paid off, because now that I'm actually paying attention, I find that I like this song far more than I expected to.
I wasn't helped by the opening of this song, which threatens to lull me to sleep. The vocals aren't exactly harmonious. They're kind of a counterpoint, working against each other. And in the opening 40 seconds, with nothing but a light strumming guitar behind them, I find the song to be grating and unpleasant. When the drums and bass join in, though, the song is complete and the voices are successfully separated in a pleasant and appealing way. The counterpoint works. And it makes the opening work in retrospect. The opening was building tension, and there is a satisfying release of that tension when the drums and bass join in.
I like the basic instrumentation of this song. Bass, guitar, drums, and voice. All of these parts contain a sufficient amount of variety to stay compelling. The bass line and the vocals create some particularly appealing sounds.
I think I'm completely unqualified to judge the lyrics. It's poetry, and the metaphors run deep. I will say that in terms of poetry, I do like the sound of the words. The beat and rhyme scheme is clever and diverse without feeling like they're cheating. The sound of the words is appealing, is my point, without having a need to understand what they mean.
From what I can distill from songfacts and Wikipedia, Paul Simon's lyrics are about people not communicating with each other. I can see that. "People talking without speaking. People talking without listening." It's a lament about people talking at cross-purposes without really trying to listen to and understand each other. It's a good sentiment that more people in our world could stand to take to heart, for sure.
My verdict: Like it. I'm not saying I'm going to suddenly add it to my driving-around playlist, but I certainly respect what they were going for and I think the song worked when I finally actually listened to it.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Song #443: "With A Little Luck" by Wings
Date: May 20, 1978
Weeks: 2
Time seems to have largely forgotten Wings. It will most likely be remembered as a historical footnote in Paul McCartney's musical career, overshadowed by both the Beatles and his solo work. I'm not sure I've really heard a lot of Wings songs before. And if they're all like this, I hope I won't hear any again.
When I saw in the video that they had two synthesizers back to back, I braced myself. In this era, synthesizers just weren't ready technology yet, and most people didn't seem to know how to put them to good use. Fortunately, somebody here was canny enough to understand that synthesizers are not good replacements for any instrument, but that they can create a unique and interesting sound on their own. That's a synthesizer used correctly. Too bad the lesson was subsequently lost for most of the 80s.
Despite using their synthesizers correctly, this song fails to provide enough additional instrumentation to create an interesting song. There's no lead guitar, just a bass. The drums are minimal. And there's not really anything else happening. The song feels sleepy and unenergetic. The video includes an audience doing a pretty tepid dance. There's also something about the chord progression in the chorus that makes the song feel a bit like a TV theme song. Actually, I can pinpoint exactly which TV theme song. It's this one. Which is, of course, Billy Joel's "My Life," a better song because it features a piano instead of a synthesizer. So it's got a weird mixture of low-energy verses with a bit of a bright, upbeat chorus.
Paul McCartney does what he can with the vocals. I actually like near the end of the song when he opens up and lets his voice get a bit raw and gravelly. It's the only part of the song that seems to include any emotion. The backing vocals and even McCartney's own performance in the verses seems to lack that emotion, though. It's kind of like he tried desperately to save it at the end, but it's definitely too little, too late.
The lyrics do little to discourage my interpretation of this song as a generic TV show theme. "With a little luck, we can help it out. We can make this whole damn thing work out." Which thing? Well, whatever the TV show or movie is about. The common interpretation seems to be that Paul and Linda McCartney's lives were a bit chaotic at the time this song was written. They were in a band together, on your traveling the world, raising 3 children, and a 4th was on the way. So this was Paul's way of telling Linda they could make it all work, as long as they had a little luck. With all that extra knowledge about what was going on in their lives, it makes it a little easier to appreciate the sentiment as something that really did apply to them specifically, instead of being the generic song it appears on the surface.
My research also indicates that a longer album cut of the song had a fair amount of radio airplay, so I gave it a listen as well, just in case the longer song included more interesting content. The bulk of the extra content seems to be some additional freestyling on the synthesizer. I actually kind of like that section, because the synthesizers are free to be more wild and interesting. There's more interesting music happening when the constraints of a song are removed, if that makes sense.
I also have to comment on the video. I realize that music video was in its infancy, and even something as simple as this performance video was pretty novel at the time. But the dancing is just so tepid and bored that it doesn't exactly sell me on the song. McCartney's lip-synching is pretty terrible, too. At the end of the song, he's not able to visually recreate the emotion in his voice. I don't want to pick on the video too much, but it's not giving me any additional enthusiasm for the song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not terrible, but the synthesizers just aren't as fascinating as they may have seemed at the time.
Weeks: 2
Time seems to have largely forgotten Wings. It will most likely be remembered as a historical footnote in Paul McCartney's musical career, overshadowed by both the Beatles and his solo work. I'm not sure I've really heard a lot of Wings songs before. And if they're all like this, I hope I won't hear any again.
When I saw in the video that they had two synthesizers back to back, I braced myself. In this era, synthesizers just weren't ready technology yet, and most people didn't seem to know how to put them to good use. Fortunately, somebody here was canny enough to understand that synthesizers are not good replacements for any instrument, but that they can create a unique and interesting sound on their own. That's a synthesizer used correctly. Too bad the lesson was subsequently lost for most of the 80s.
Despite using their synthesizers correctly, this song fails to provide enough additional instrumentation to create an interesting song. There's no lead guitar, just a bass. The drums are minimal. And there's not really anything else happening. The song feels sleepy and unenergetic. The video includes an audience doing a pretty tepid dance. There's also something about the chord progression in the chorus that makes the song feel a bit like a TV theme song. Actually, I can pinpoint exactly which TV theme song. It's this one. Which is, of course, Billy Joel's "My Life," a better song because it features a piano instead of a synthesizer. So it's got a weird mixture of low-energy verses with a bit of a bright, upbeat chorus.
Paul McCartney does what he can with the vocals. I actually like near the end of the song when he opens up and lets his voice get a bit raw and gravelly. It's the only part of the song that seems to include any emotion. The backing vocals and even McCartney's own performance in the verses seems to lack that emotion, though. It's kind of like he tried desperately to save it at the end, but it's definitely too little, too late.
The lyrics do little to discourage my interpretation of this song as a generic TV show theme. "With a little luck, we can help it out. We can make this whole damn thing work out." Which thing? Well, whatever the TV show or movie is about. The common interpretation seems to be that Paul and Linda McCartney's lives were a bit chaotic at the time this song was written. They were in a band together, on your traveling the world, raising 3 children, and a 4th was on the way. So this was Paul's way of telling Linda they could make it all work, as long as they had a little luck. With all that extra knowledge about what was going on in their lives, it makes it a little easier to appreciate the sentiment as something that really did apply to them specifically, instead of being the generic song it appears on the surface.
My research also indicates that a longer album cut of the song had a fair amount of radio airplay, so I gave it a listen as well, just in case the longer song included more interesting content. The bulk of the extra content seems to be some additional freestyling on the synthesizer. I actually kind of like that section, because the synthesizers are free to be more wild and interesting. There's more interesting music happening when the constraints of a song are removed, if that makes sense.
I also have to comment on the video. I realize that music video was in its infancy, and even something as simple as this performance video was pretty novel at the time. But the dancing is just so tepid and bored that it doesn't exactly sell me on the song. McCartney's lip-synching is pretty terrible, too. At the end of the song, he's not able to visually recreate the emotion in his voice. I don't want to pick on the video too much, but it's not giving me any additional enthusiasm for the song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not terrible, but the synthesizers just aren't as fascinating as they may have seemed at the time.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Song #593: "Rock Me Amadeus" by Falco
Date: Mar 29, 1986
Weeks: 3
I always knew this blog would poke into the past, but I didn't expect to be discussing Henry VIII, Beethoven, and Mozart all in one week. That's a bit further into the past than I expected.
For some reason I'd always thought this song from from the 1984 movie Amadeus, but it turns out it was only inspired by it. It wasn't released until 1985. And I guess I never listened to it closely enough to realize the lyrics were in German. There were a lot of international remixes, and the music video used the original version. I had to hunt a bit to find the version that played on the radio in the U.S., but I think I've got the right one.
The additions for the US version of this song are superfluous and pointless. Credit to the record studio for cleverness, because the addition of an English chorus to the beginning and end of the song helps keep the casual listener from even noticing the song is in German. I understand why they did it, but it doesn't match the song very well. When the second English chorus comes in, it feels like a whole new song has started. The song would be better without it.
Fortunately, the US edit doesn't detract much from the quality of the original song. That 80s poundy drum that I usually complain about? This is the type of song where it works. The song is loud, it's brash, and the drum makes it a bit like a slow march. This is also the type of song that makes synthesized keyboards work. They aren't trying to be soft, or tender, or delicate, they're just trying to create a tune you can dance to. The bass sits comfortably in the background offering support. And there's plenty of variety in the percussion to keep it interesting. And I think variety is what makes the song successful. There's sufficient variety to stay interesting, but the song keeps wandering back to the theme. And that's why a song that is primarily remembered for saying "Rock me Amadeus" over and over manages to stay interesting the whole time.
The vocals are almost uncomfortably staccato and choked. I suppose that's partly because they are in German, but I think they're also stylized that way, although I'm not sure I entirely understand why.
The lyrics, translated, suggest that Mozart was the first punk rock star. He had groupies, he threw his money around, he lived the lifestyle of a rich and famous rock star. I admit that I don't know much about Mozart's life and I haven't seen Amadeus (which is known for not being very historically accurate anyway). So I don't know if Falco's interpretation of Mozart as a rock star is based on his life or the movie, and I don't know how accurate it is. But I can certainly see the point he's making. I think it was a relatively original idea at the time, as well. Since this song, it seems like a favorite pasttime of movie-makers to make movies that compares historical figures to modern-day celebrities.
My verdict: Like it. It's catchy and bouncy. The lyrics are clever, even if they're not exactly easy for an English-speaker to sing along with. It's the sound of the 80s presented in a fresh and interesting way.
Weeks: 3
I always knew this blog would poke into the past, but I didn't expect to be discussing Henry VIII, Beethoven, and Mozart all in one week. That's a bit further into the past than I expected.
For some reason I'd always thought this song from from the 1984 movie Amadeus, but it turns out it was only inspired by it. It wasn't released until 1985. And I guess I never listened to it closely enough to realize the lyrics were in German. There were a lot of international remixes, and the music video used the original version. I had to hunt a bit to find the version that played on the radio in the U.S., but I think I've got the right one.
The additions for the US version of this song are superfluous and pointless. Credit to the record studio for cleverness, because the addition of an English chorus to the beginning and end of the song helps keep the casual listener from even noticing the song is in German. I understand why they did it, but it doesn't match the song very well. When the second English chorus comes in, it feels like a whole new song has started. The song would be better without it.
Fortunately, the US edit doesn't detract much from the quality of the original song. That 80s poundy drum that I usually complain about? This is the type of song where it works. The song is loud, it's brash, and the drum makes it a bit like a slow march. This is also the type of song that makes synthesized keyboards work. They aren't trying to be soft, or tender, or delicate, they're just trying to create a tune you can dance to. The bass sits comfortably in the background offering support. And there's plenty of variety in the percussion to keep it interesting. And I think variety is what makes the song successful. There's sufficient variety to stay interesting, but the song keeps wandering back to the theme. And that's why a song that is primarily remembered for saying "Rock me Amadeus" over and over manages to stay interesting the whole time.
The vocals are almost uncomfortably staccato and choked. I suppose that's partly because they are in German, but I think they're also stylized that way, although I'm not sure I entirely understand why.
The lyrics, translated, suggest that Mozart was the first punk rock star. He had groupies, he threw his money around, he lived the lifestyle of a rich and famous rock star. I admit that I don't know much about Mozart's life and I haven't seen Amadeus (which is known for not being very historically accurate anyway). So I don't know if Falco's interpretation of Mozart as a rock star is based on his life or the movie, and I don't know how accurate it is. But I can certainly see the point he's making. I think it was a relatively original idea at the time, as well. Since this song, it seems like a favorite pasttime of movie-makers to make movies that compares historical figures to modern-day celebrities.
My verdict: Like it. It's catchy and bouncy. The lyrics are clever, even if they're not exactly easy for an English-speaker to sing along with. It's the sound of the 80s presented in a fresh and interesting way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)