Date: Jan 12, 1974
Weeks: 1
You know those certain songs that come on the radio, and people around you start cheering and freaking out and singing along at the top of their lungs, and you don't really get why people love this song this much? And you know how sometimes the quality of the people who like it don't quite cast the best light on it? This is one of those songs for me. It was Homer Simpson's favorite song in high school. That's not exactly a quality endorsement. That said, it didn't take more than sitting down and giving it my undivided attention to let it win me over and change my mind.
It's the bass line that really sells this song, and the song gives it plenty of opportunity to shine. During verses, that bass is charming and compelling. The chorus lays extra guitars over the bass line and creates a really wonderful guitar harmony. That guitar harmony in the chorus is really what makes this song worthy of being considered a rock classic. The vocals throughout are pretty charming, as well, but again it's the harmony in the chorus that really elevates the song.
On the downside, the little breakdowns after the chorus before the verse comes back seem a little thin and flimsy, which is a real shame after the rich fullness of the chorus. And yeah, I'll say it, I don't care for the little "woo-woo" sound that punctuates the verses at odd times. Yes, they are attention-getting and are arguably the song's signature, and probably directly contributed to the popularity that put it on my list in the first place. But they're silly and weird and distracting. According to Wikipedia, those noises were made with a slide guitar, but I think the fact that that needs to be explained shows just how weird and out of place those noises are. Also, the song just kind of peters out at the end, trailing off in the middle of a verse, rather than in a repetition of the chorus like every other song ever. I wonder what that's about. I tried to find the LP version of the song to see if that answered anything, but I couldn't find it.
The lyrics are a bit of weird nonsense. The song is sung from the point of view of a bit of a directionless loser, who is affirming his commitment to his relationship. "People ... say I'm doing you wrong... But don't you worry, baby... 'cause I'm right here at home." But he's really rambling. Of course, the rambling is probably the most memorable part of the lyrics, with the whole "I'm a joker, I'm a smoker, I'm a midnight toker" thing. Of course, the "toker" line is probably part of the song's popularity, too, since it's basically an overt marijuana reference slipping through in a mainstream song. Overall, I think the lyrics are less about what they mean, and are more about how they sound. The rhyme scheme and the repetition and structure. Those things all work quite well, so the words sound good, even if there's not a lot of meaning.
My verdict: Like it. It's popcorn music. Fun if you just let it wash over you and don't over-analyze it.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Song #92: "Sukiyaki" by Kyu Sakamoto
Date: June 15, 1963
Weeks: 3
I remember in the 90s, there was an English-language cover of this song on the radio, by a Boyz II MEn clone band called 4pm. It came on once when I was in the car with my mom, and she recognized it as a cover of this Japanese-language song. She listened to the English lyrics and was surprised that they were so sad, because she said the singer of this song always sounded so happy. And the funny thing is that the lyrics to that cover song weren't even as sad the lyrics to the original, which I'll get to in a minute.
The music is really happy and pleasant. It's got a nice little beat, a basic but effective bass line, and some pleasant orchestral instrumentation accents. I like the use of strings here, and the horns are well-used, too. I don't particularly like the xylophone, though. It's a bit too bright and cartoony and out of place. The whistling is all right, although it really does contribute to the idea that this is a happy song. And it's really not.
Now, the song is enjoyable without considering the lyrics. And maybe I shouldn't criticize the lyrics for a song in a language I don't speak. But I do feel it's important to point out the general sentiment expressed in the lyrics. "I look up when I walk so the tears won't fall," says this translation. "Remembering those happy summer days, but tonight I'm all alone." There are various interpretations, of course, but all interpretations agree with the general sentiment that the singer is sad because of the end of a relationship.The 4pm version explicitly frames it as "you took your love away from me," and hopes they can get back together. However, the literal interpretations I've seen are a bit bleak on that front. "Happiness lies above the clouds... above the sky." I'm pretty sure whoever he's singing this about has passed. So it's even more sad than 4pm knew.
I suppose you could look at it as being a song that is happy "remembering those happy summer days." And maybe that's where the happy tone of the singing comes in. But most of the lyrics are sad, so the happy tone is really incongruous. I've probably spent way too much time analyzing the lyrics, and maybe I don't even have a satisfying translation. So I'll stop that now.
My verdict: Like it. It's a nice tune, it's performed well, and there's a part of me that likes songs that sound happy but are secretly sad. And this version from the 60s has aged better than the 4pm cover from the 90s.
Weeks: 3
I remember in the 90s, there was an English-language cover of this song on the radio, by a Boyz II MEn clone band called 4pm. It came on once when I was in the car with my mom, and she recognized it as a cover of this Japanese-language song. She listened to the English lyrics and was surprised that they were so sad, because she said the singer of this song always sounded so happy. And the funny thing is that the lyrics to that cover song weren't even as sad the lyrics to the original, which I'll get to in a minute.
The music is really happy and pleasant. It's got a nice little beat, a basic but effective bass line, and some pleasant orchestral instrumentation accents. I like the use of strings here, and the horns are well-used, too. I don't particularly like the xylophone, though. It's a bit too bright and cartoony and out of place. The whistling is all right, although it really does contribute to the idea that this is a happy song. And it's really not.
Now, the song is enjoyable without considering the lyrics. And maybe I shouldn't criticize the lyrics for a song in a language I don't speak. But I do feel it's important to point out the general sentiment expressed in the lyrics. "I look up when I walk so the tears won't fall," says this translation. "Remembering those happy summer days, but tonight I'm all alone." There are various interpretations, of course, but all interpretations agree with the general sentiment that the singer is sad because of the end of a relationship.The 4pm version explicitly frames it as "you took your love away from me," and hopes they can get back together. However, the literal interpretations I've seen are a bit bleak on that front. "Happiness lies above the clouds... above the sky." I'm pretty sure whoever he's singing this about has passed. So it's even more sad than 4pm knew.
I suppose you could look at it as being a song that is happy "remembering those happy summer days." And maybe that's where the happy tone of the singing comes in. But most of the lyrics are sad, so the happy tone is really incongruous. I've probably spent way too much time analyzing the lyrics, and maybe I don't even have a satisfying translation. So I'll stop that now.
My verdict: Like it. It's a nice tune, it's performed well, and there's a part of me that likes songs that sound happy but are secretly sad. And this version from the 60s has aged better than the 4pm cover from the 90s.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Song #998: "Hold It Against Me" by Britney Spears
Date: Jan 29, 2011
Weeks: 1
This song at least puts its best foot forward, with that exaggeratedly synthetic bass track. I know that when it's 80s time around here, I often complain about how fake the synthetic instruments sound. But sometime during the 90s, somebody figured out that synthesizers worked if you didn't hide, but actually emphasized that fat, artificial quality of their sound, and worked especially well as a bass line. And this is a song that uses that idea to its advantage. The song lets it fall away too often and uses it to weird effect in the bridge, but otherwise I really enjoy the synthesized bass line in the majority of this song. Sure is a pity about everything else.
I've always found Britney Spears' voice whiny and unpleasant. And this song exaggerates that whininess to obnoxious effect. And because I started in liking the bass, I guess it disappointed me that much more to discover that nothing had been done about her whiny voice. Her voice actually clashes with the rest of the music. I also really hate the obnoxious affect put on the word "hazy." Why did they do that? It seems like desperate grab for attention, the aural equivalent of a blinky light. I do like the moment after that when the bass gets extra sawtooth-y and sloppy, so at least the song follows up its worst moment with its best.
The chorus, where the bass falls away, is way too thin. It doesn't maintain interest, and Spears's voice can't keep my attention. The bridge is such a random collection of sounds that it's barely even music any more. And I checked, the video version does add some random sounds, but the audio-only version of the song is just as random and chaotic.
Lyrically... look, Weird Al has a song that is just a series of goofy pick-up lines. Before that, MxPx had a similar idea of centering a song around a couple goofy pickup lines. This is well-trod ground. And this song brings no new ideas. This is simply a dance club song about picking someone up at the dance club using a cheesy pickup line. A cheesy pickup line that is played straight, that is the center of the song, that is the central lyric of the chorus. These lyrics are dumb, and not in a knowing, winking way.
My verdict: Don't like it. The bass line is interesting and fun, but nothing else in this song is.
Weeks: 1
This song at least puts its best foot forward, with that exaggeratedly synthetic bass track. I know that when it's 80s time around here, I often complain about how fake the synthetic instruments sound. But sometime during the 90s, somebody figured out that synthesizers worked if you didn't hide, but actually emphasized that fat, artificial quality of their sound, and worked especially well as a bass line. And this is a song that uses that idea to its advantage. The song lets it fall away too often and uses it to weird effect in the bridge, but otherwise I really enjoy the synthesized bass line in the majority of this song. Sure is a pity about everything else.
I've always found Britney Spears' voice whiny and unpleasant. And this song exaggerates that whininess to obnoxious effect. And because I started in liking the bass, I guess it disappointed me that much more to discover that nothing had been done about her whiny voice. Her voice actually clashes with the rest of the music. I also really hate the obnoxious affect put on the word "hazy." Why did they do that? It seems like desperate grab for attention, the aural equivalent of a blinky light. I do like the moment after that when the bass gets extra sawtooth-y and sloppy, so at least the song follows up its worst moment with its best.
The chorus, where the bass falls away, is way too thin. It doesn't maintain interest, and Spears's voice can't keep my attention. The bridge is such a random collection of sounds that it's barely even music any more. And I checked, the video version does add some random sounds, but the audio-only version of the song is just as random and chaotic.
Lyrically... look, Weird Al has a song that is just a series of goofy pick-up lines. Before that, MxPx had a similar idea of centering a song around a couple goofy pickup lines. This is well-trod ground. And this song brings no new ideas. This is simply a dance club song about picking someone up at the dance club using a cheesy pickup line. A cheesy pickup line that is played straight, that is the center of the song, that is the central lyric of the chorus. These lyrics are dumb, and not in a knowing, winking way.
My verdict: Don't like it. The bass line is interesting and fun, but nothing else in this song is.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Song #538: "Tell Her About It" by Billy Joel
Date: Sept 24, 1983
Weeks: 1
Billy Joel made a few of these throwback songs in the early 80s, including this song and "Uptown Girl." In this case, I think he did a pretty good job mimicking that early 60s sound. But since I'm also reviewing songs originally from that era, I don't think I can give it credit for the accuracy of of its mimicry, only the song's own quality.
Now, these Billy Joel throwback songs aren't my favorite Billy Joel songs, but I can't deny that this song is really catchy. The brass and sax and drums and bass all combine for a really compelling sound. The percussion, dominated by tambourine, is carefully mixed to sound like a crowd clapping along to the beat, and that helps gives the song that compelling crowd energy that makes it feel like a fun time. I feel like I've been down on saxophones in rock music lately, but this song is an example of how to do it right. The saxophone and brass aren't allowed to dominate, or featured in an awkward, out of place solo. Ultimately, this song's success may be a success of mixing, using every instrument appropriately.
Billy Joel's voice is compelling here, with a good mix of intensity and suave coolness. I do think there are some weird, sudden shifts in the tone of his voice from casual to shout-y, especially toward the end of the song when he shifts into the last iteration of the chorus. It feels like a weird edit. Maybe it's edited down from the full-length song, or maybe this is the complete song and this is just it was edited from the source tracks. It's a weird production glitch, but it doesn't ruin the song or anything.
The lyrics come across as relationship advice from "a man who's made mistakes." It's about communicating with your significant other, telling them they are important to you, and not letting them think you take them for granted. "You'll never let her go, but that's just the kind of thing she ought to know." Overall, it's pretty good advice, and I like the perspective of relationship advice from someone who has a failed relationship, but has learned from the experience and hasn't grown bitter about it.
The one lyrical oddity that has often obscured the meaning of this song for me is "But a nice girl wouldn't tell you what you should do." After examining the lyrics, I think this is supposed to be the listener's thought. He's objecting to the girl he dating telling him what he should do. And Billy Joel is advising him to communicate that with her, rather than letting resentment ruin the relationship. I don't think this part is contextualized appropriately to make the meaning clear, but if it's supposed to be Billy Joel expressing that opinion, it seems to run counter to everything else he's saying in the song.
My verdict: Like it. It's not of my favorite Billy Joel songs, but I do like the overall lyrical sentiment, and the music is too catchy to be resisted.
Weeks: 1
Billy Joel made a few of these throwback songs in the early 80s, including this song and "Uptown Girl." In this case, I think he did a pretty good job mimicking that early 60s sound. But since I'm also reviewing songs originally from that era, I don't think I can give it credit for the accuracy of of its mimicry, only the song's own quality.
Now, these Billy Joel throwback songs aren't my favorite Billy Joel songs, but I can't deny that this song is really catchy. The brass and sax and drums and bass all combine for a really compelling sound. The percussion, dominated by tambourine, is carefully mixed to sound like a crowd clapping along to the beat, and that helps gives the song that compelling crowd energy that makes it feel like a fun time. I feel like I've been down on saxophones in rock music lately, but this song is an example of how to do it right. The saxophone and brass aren't allowed to dominate, or featured in an awkward, out of place solo. Ultimately, this song's success may be a success of mixing, using every instrument appropriately.
Billy Joel's voice is compelling here, with a good mix of intensity and suave coolness. I do think there are some weird, sudden shifts in the tone of his voice from casual to shout-y, especially toward the end of the song when he shifts into the last iteration of the chorus. It feels like a weird edit. Maybe it's edited down from the full-length song, or maybe this is the complete song and this is just it was edited from the source tracks. It's a weird production glitch, but it doesn't ruin the song or anything.
The lyrics come across as relationship advice from "a man who's made mistakes." It's about communicating with your significant other, telling them they are important to you, and not letting them think you take them for granted. "You'll never let her go, but that's just the kind of thing she ought to know." Overall, it's pretty good advice, and I like the perspective of relationship advice from someone who has a failed relationship, but has learned from the experience and hasn't grown bitter about it.
The one lyrical oddity that has often obscured the meaning of this song for me is "But a nice girl wouldn't tell you what you should do." After examining the lyrics, I think this is supposed to be the listener's thought. He's objecting to the girl he dating telling him what he should do. And Billy Joel is advising him to communicate that with her, rather than letting resentment ruin the relationship. I don't think this part is contextualized appropriately to make the meaning clear, but if it's supposed to be Billy Joel expressing that opinion, it seems to run counter to everything else he's saying in the song.
My verdict: Like it. It's not of my favorite Billy Joel songs, but I do like the overall lyrical sentiment, and the music is too catchy to be resisted.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Song #492: "Another One Bites The Dust" by Queen
Date: Oct 4, 1980
Weeks: 3
I think it's interesting to have this song follow right after "Frankenstein" (#295), because they're actually pretty similar in a lot of ways. Both songs have somewhat traditional components, but then there's a percussion-only intermission in the middle followed by some experimental, weird sounds. And yet this song makes it work.
I think the primary reason it works so well is that there's a stronger through-line in this song. The percussion breakdown maintains a similar beat from earlier in the song. The vocals continue sporadically, and connect the song's beginning to its end. The percussion intermission doesn't feel like it lasts nearly as long. It's not that the intermission in this song is any less experimental and odd, it just doesn't seem quite so out of place, nor so aggressive and unpleasant.
This song has two points to recommend it most strongly: the excellent bass line, which stands out and uniquely identifies the song within the first three seconds, and Freddie Mercury's vocals. Mercury is, in my opinion, the best male vocalist who ever worked in rock and roll music. He had a big range and no fear. He sang boldly and highly and intensely, and this song is one of the finer examples of what he could do. The only bad Freddie Mercury song is one where he fails to explore his range, and this is not one of those songs.
One thing that makes this song unique is its restraint with the lead guitar. It comes in and provides occasional accents, but generally it lets the bass guitar carry the song. The odd sound effects scattered throughout are somewhat less successful, and keep the song from getting my unreserved recommendation. It's possible the song might be too repetitive without them, but the lead guitar could have carried that on its own, I think. I'm not sure if the simulated gunfire sound during the lyric "out of the doorway the bullets rip" is clever or silly, but it's certainly attention-getting.
I'm not sure if I've ever really understood the lyrics. On the surface, it seems to be about a street thug gunning down his opponents. He's lamenting the life that brought him here, including the unspecified person who kicked him out of his home, and the song seems to end with him being shot himself due to his dangerous lifestyle. On that level, I guess it works an interesting story, but it's quite dark for a pop song. Some quick research doesn't seem to advocate any alternate interpretations. That really is what it's about. I think it's interesting to learn that Queen supposedly released this as a single because Michael Jackson suggested it to them, because I was thinking the lyrics reminded me most of "Beat It" (#532). Similar songs about street thugs that don't necessarily advocate street thuggery. I saw hints that maybe this song was describing a cowboy, and I can see that interpretation, although to my mind, the music suggests wet streets and back alleys in a 20th-century city.
My verdict: Like it. The bass line and Freddie Mercury's voice are both too great to let any of the small problems I have with the song take over.
Weeks: 3
I think it's interesting to have this song follow right after "Frankenstein" (#295), because they're actually pretty similar in a lot of ways. Both songs have somewhat traditional components, but then there's a percussion-only intermission in the middle followed by some experimental, weird sounds. And yet this song makes it work.
I think the primary reason it works so well is that there's a stronger through-line in this song. The percussion breakdown maintains a similar beat from earlier in the song. The vocals continue sporadically, and connect the song's beginning to its end. The percussion intermission doesn't feel like it lasts nearly as long. It's not that the intermission in this song is any less experimental and odd, it just doesn't seem quite so out of place, nor so aggressive and unpleasant.
This song has two points to recommend it most strongly: the excellent bass line, which stands out and uniquely identifies the song within the first three seconds, and Freddie Mercury's vocals. Mercury is, in my opinion, the best male vocalist who ever worked in rock and roll music. He had a big range and no fear. He sang boldly and highly and intensely, and this song is one of the finer examples of what he could do. The only bad Freddie Mercury song is one where he fails to explore his range, and this is not one of those songs.
One thing that makes this song unique is its restraint with the lead guitar. It comes in and provides occasional accents, but generally it lets the bass guitar carry the song. The odd sound effects scattered throughout are somewhat less successful, and keep the song from getting my unreserved recommendation. It's possible the song might be too repetitive without them, but the lead guitar could have carried that on its own, I think. I'm not sure if the simulated gunfire sound during the lyric "out of the doorway the bullets rip" is clever or silly, but it's certainly attention-getting.
I'm not sure if I've ever really understood the lyrics. On the surface, it seems to be about a street thug gunning down his opponents. He's lamenting the life that brought him here, including the unspecified person who kicked him out of his home, and the song seems to end with him being shot himself due to his dangerous lifestyle. On that level, I guess it works an interesting story, but it's quite dark for a pop song. Some quick research doesn't seem to advocate any alternate interpretations. That really is what it's about. I think it's interesting to learn that Queen supposedly released this as a single because Michael Jackson suggested it to them, because I was thinking the lyrics reminded me most of "Beat It" (#532). Similar songs about street thugs that don't necessarily advocate street thuggery. I saw hints that maybe this song was describing a cowboy, and I can see that interpretation, although to my mind, the music suggests wet streets and back alleys in a 20th-century city.
My verdict: Like it. The bass line and Freddie Mercury's voice are both too great to let any of the small problems I have with the song take over.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Song #295: "Frankenstein" by Edgar Winter Group
Date: May 26, 1973
Weeks: 1
I've really only heard of Edgar Winter in that recent TV ad. I had no idea what kind of music he made, even though this very song is played at the end of that commercial. So I was kind of dreading another trip into the early 70s, anticipating one of the many light, insubstantial pop songs that topped the charts in that half-decade. But instead I got some genuine 70s experimental rock and roll, a genre which is woefully underrepresented on the charts. So I'm glad for that.
This song is a really weird instrumental piece. Oh, it starts off with an excellent guitar riff, and it's about two minutes of some really good guitar-and-drums rock and roll. Whenever that guitar is playing, this song is a blast. I even like the synthesized keyboards because the unique sound of them is being exploited to create something interesting and new. There's a saxophone that's less successful, but it doesn't wreck the song.
Then, about two minutes in, all that successful mixture of sounds collapses, and it turns into a weird extended drum solo, which lasts long past the point where it's still interesting. Then there are laser sound effects mixed in for no reason other than that they were capable of producing laser sound effects. The song finishes with a reprise of its excellent guitar riff, at least, but by then the song's momentum is gone.
Although I evaluate the single version of these songs, I'll try to check out the extended versions if there are any. And this one has a doozy. In this case, the extended version is just weirder, filled with more aural chaos. Although the extended version at least does a better job living up to the title, "Frankenstein." The extended version has a segment that actually sounds like lightning crashing and evokes the imagery of Dr. Frankenstein's lab. The basic song doesn't include any of that, so it leaves you wondering why it's titled that.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's got some nice guitar riffs, but the breakdown in the middle is too weird and completely interrupts a song that otherwise is kind of on the right course.
Weeks: 1
I've really only heard of Edgar Winter in that recent TV ad. I had no idea what kind of music he made, even though this very song is played at the end of that commercial. So I was kind of dreading another trip into the early 70s, anticipating one of the many light, insubstantial pop songs that topped the charts in that half-decade. But instead I got some genuine 70s experimental rock and roll, a genre which is woefully underrepresented on the charts. So I'm glad for that.
This song is a really weird instrumental piece. Oh, it starts off with an excellent guitar riff, and it's about two minutes of some really good guitar-and-drums rock and roll. Whenever that guitar is playing, this song is a blast. I even like the synthesized keyboards because the unique sound of them is being exploited to create something interesting and new. There's a saxophone that's less successful, but it doesn't wreck the song.
Then, about two minutes in, all that successful mixture of sounds collapses, and it turns into a weird extended drum solo, which lasts long past the point where it's still interesting. Then there are laser sound effects mixed in for no reason other than that they were capable of producing laser sound effects. The song finishes with a reprise of its excellent guitar riff, at least, but by then the song's momentum is gone.
Although I evaluate the single version of these songs, I'll try to check out the extended versions if there are any. And this one has a doozy. In this case, the extended version is just weirder, filled with more aural chaos. Although the extended version at least does a better job living up to the title, "Frankenstein." The extended version has a segment that actually sounds like lightning crashing and evokes the imagery of Dr. Frankenstein's lab. The basic song doesn't include any of that, so it leaves you wondering why it's titled that.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's got some nice guitar riffs, but the breakdown in the middle is too weird and completely interrupts a song that otherwise is kind of on the right course.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Song #588: "That's What Friends Are For" by Dionne & Friends
Date: Jan 18, 1986
Weeks: 4
I'm not why this song is credited to "Dionne & Friends," other than that perhaps the 1980s wasn't quite ready to handle "Dionne Warwick featuring Elton John, Gladys Knight, and Stevie Wonder." I really loathe this song. It's like a blander version of "We Are The World" (#566). I was originally going to say "but without being for a cause," but a quick glance at Wikipedia reveals this song's proceeds benefited AIDS research. Even so, everyone involved deserved a better song than this. With 3 very talented singers, plus Dionne Warwick, you would think the results would have been better.
Something about Dionne Warwick's voice bugs me. She sounds insincere and unspontaneous and overly practiced. I admit that if you put her in the right song, the problems I have with her voice are minimized somewhat. But this song is not the right song.
The song's biggest problem is that it's so gentle, so synthesized, and so light that it sounds like a karaoke song. It sounds like the 8-bit adaptation of itself. There's almost nothing organic and natural about the music. I'm sure there's real sax, piano, drums, and even light guitar involved here, but they are so slight that they might as well me synthesized. Oh, but I do like the harmonica okay.
The next biggest problem is that while the music is too gentle, Stevie Wonder, Elton John, and Gladys Knight are overdoing it. These are three very talented singers, but they are completely overpowering the music. It's a terrible match. Part of me wonders if they thought they were going to be performing this song over another, much better instrumental accompaniment. To be fair, Dionne Warwick's performance does match the music. And the song does seem a bit warmer whenever she is singing.
The lyrics are so padded out I almost expect to find styrofoam peanuts in them. They're just a little too warm and cheesy and full of casual use of the word "love" for me. "Keep smiling, keep shining." The smiling part is fine, but the "shining" part is filler, with no context to explain it. I suppose I must concede that the lyrics make a bit more sense with the AIDS context, if you imagine this is a conversation between two friends, one of whom is dying from disease. Still, that meaning isn't exactly explained within the song. Overall, the lyrics are fine, I guess, but they are so bland and generally devoid of meaning that I don't care for them.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's obviously trying to imitate "We Are The World," which wasn't a very good song itself, but it can't even live up to that standard.
Weeks: 4
I'm not why this song is credited to "Dionne & Friends," other than that perhaps the 1980s wasn't quite ready to handle "Dionne Warwick featuring Elton John, Gladys Knight, and Stevie Wonder." I really loathe this song. It's like a blander version of "We Are The World" (#566). I was originally going to say "but without being for a cause," but a quick glance at Wikipedia reveals this song's proceeds benefited AIDS research. Even so, everyone involved deserved a better song than this. With 3 very talented singers, plus Dionne Warwick, you would think the results would have been better.
Something about Dionne Warwick's voice bugs me. She sounds insincere and unspontaneous and overly practiced. I admit that if you put her in the right song, the problems I have with her voice are minimized somewhat. But this song is not the right song.
The song's biggest problem is that it's so gentle, so synthesized, and so light that it sounds like a karaoke song. It sounds like the 8-bit adaptation of itself. There's almost nothing organic and natural about the music. I'm sure there's real sax, piano, drums, and even light guitar involved here, but they are so slight that they might as well me synthesized. Oh, but I do like the harmonica okay.
The next biggest problem is that while the music is too gentle, Stevie Wonder, Elton John, and Gladys Knight are overdoing it. These are three very talented singers, but they are completely overpowering the music. It's a terrible match. Part of me wonders if they thought they were going to be performing this song over another, much better instrumental accompaniment. To be fair, Dionne Warwick's performance does match the music. And the song does seem a bit warmer whenever she is singing.
The lyrics are so padded out I almost expect to find styrofoam peanuts in them. They're just a little too warm and cheesy and full of casual use of the word "love" for me. "Keep smiling, keep shining." The smiling part is fine, but the "shining" part is filler, with no context to explain it. I suppose I must concede that the lyrics make a bit more sense with the AIDS context, if you imagine this is a conversation between two friends, one of whom is dying from disease. Still, that meaning isn't exactly explained within the song. Overall, the lyrics are fine, I guess, but they are so bland and generally devoid of meaning that I don't care for them.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's obviously trying to imitate "We Are The World," which wasn't a very good song itself, but it can't even live up to that standard.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Song #507: "Jessie's Girl" by Rick Springfield
Date: Aug 1, 1981
Weeks: 2
This song is probably best known for its lyrics, but the music is the big selling point for me. This sort of guitar-driven rock is just what was needed to sweep away the lingering remnants of disco and usher in the era of New Wave.
The guitars really are the big draw here. They repeat in just the right way to make the song stick in your head, but also have enough variety to keep the song from stagnating. The bridge is particularly compelling, when the key changes and the bass takes the show. Then there's a guitar solo, which is just what the song needs there. I suppose the 80s synth keyboards are a bit dated here, but honestly, they kind of work. They're kept in the background, accenting the song, and not calling attention to themselves. They're well-selected to produce a sound that no other instrument would make quite the same way. The drums are pretty basic, but weave into the tapestry of the song perfectly well. Ultimately, this is just a well-composed, simple rock song.
Rick Springfield's vocals aren't really the center of the song, and maybe someone else could sing better, but he matches his voice to the music pretty well. He's also really good at matching his voice to the lyrics. He's whiny during the verse, which is a bit annoying, but that just makes the lyrics feel heartfelt. It's a good performance. I know he was an actor as well, and he's using that to his advantage by imbuing the vocals with the emotions called for by the lyrics.
The lyrics are the star of this particular show, of course. They are the part of the song that is best-remembered, even though I think the lyrics wouldn't have carried as much attention without the great music. The song is about a guy who has a crush on his friend's girlfriend, and how he tortures himself thinking about them being together when he wants to be with her. The song contains several clever turns of phrase. The one that always sticks in my head is "I want to tell her that I love her but the point is probably moot." I particularly like how that demonstrates the narrator's self-awareness that Jessie's girl is in love with Jessie, and the narrator doesn't figure into her picture at all. "I've been funny, I've been cool with the lines. Ain't that the way love's supposed to be?" He doesn't know what else he can do, but he's got enough self-awareness to know that he can't do much. The song is all frustration, with no hope, and I think that's a great emotional story to tell. It's an effective song for anyone who has ever been infatuated with someone who was in love with someone else, and knew it probably wasn't going to work out for them, but found it therapeutic to wallow in their misery for a bit.
My verdict: Like it. It's got a great tune, and tells a great story with its lyrics and performance. A true classic.
Weeks: 2
This song is probably best known for its lyrics, but the music is the big selling point for me. This sort of guitar-driven rock is just what was needed to sweep away the lingering remnants of disco and usher in the era of New Wave.
The guitars really are the big draw here. They repeat in just the right way to make the song stick in your head, but also have enough variety to keep the song from stagnating. The bridge is particularly compelling, when the key changes and the bass takes the show. Then there's a guitar solo, which is just what the song needs there. I suppose the 80s synth keyboards are a bit dated here, but honestly, they kind of work. They're kept in the background, accenting the song, and not calling attention to themselves. They're well-selected to produce a sound that no other instrument would make quite the same way. The drums are pretty basic, but weave into the tapestry of the song perfectly well. Ultimately, this is just a well-composed, simple rock song.
Rick Springfield's vocals aren't really the center of the song, and maybe someone else could sing better, but he matches his voice to the music pretty well. He's also really good at matching his voice to the lyrics. He's whiny during the verse, which is a bit annoying, but that just makes the lyrics feel heartfelt. It's a good performance. I know he was an actor as well, and he's using that to his advantage by imbuing the vocals with the emotions called for by the lyrics.
The lyrics are the star of this particular show, of course. They are the part of the song that is best-remembered, even though I think the lyrics wouldn't have carried as much attention without the great music. The song is about a guy who has a crush on his friend's girlfriend, and how he tortures himself thinking about them being together when he wants to be with her. The song contains several clever turns of phrase. The one that always sticks in my head is "I want to tell her that I love her but the point is probably moot." I particularly like how that demonstrates the narrator's self-awareness that Jessie's girl is in love with Jessie, and the narrator doesn't figure into her picture at all. "I've been funny, I've been cool with the lines. Ain't that the way love's supposed to be?" He doesn't know what else he can do, but he's got enough self-awareness to know that he can't do much. The song is all frustration, with no hope, and I think that's a great emotional story to tell. It's an effective song for anyone who has ever been infatuated with someone who was in love with someone else, and knew it probably wasn't going to work out for them, but found it therapeutic to wallow in their misery for a bit.
My verdict: Like it. It's got a great tune, and tells a great story with its lyrics and performance. A true classic.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Song #380: "Island Girl" by Elton John
Date: Nov 1, 1975
Weeks: 3
This is one of those songs that threatens to make me spend the entire entry wondering why the list of No. 1 songs is never quite the same as the list of all-time classic songs, even for a single artist. "Island Girl" somehow is among Elton John's No. 1 songs, but "Rocket Man" is not. And yet I don't think I've ever heard "Island Girl" before. I guess it just goes to show that popularity, and especially this type of instantaneous snapshot of popularity, is not necessarily an indicator of quality.
I suppose I should start with the lyrics, because they really bugged me. They strike me as racist. The song is about an "island" girl, who is described as "black as coal," from Jamaica. She's working as a prostitute in New York. The song describes a "black boy" who is trying save her and, I presume, take her back to Jamaica. The specific descriptions of race bug me a little, but what really bugs me is the line "what you wanting with the white man's world?" Essentially he's saying that this woman would be happier living someplace less developed because that's where she belongs, for no reason other than the color of her skin. It's a bit clever in its use of "island" to refer to both Jamaica and Manhattan, but I can't really get over the racism of the lyrics.
The music is pretty good, actually. As with other Elton John songs, the rock piano dominates in an appealing. The Caribbean theme is explored by including steel drums and bongos. I particularly like the energy of the verses, and the occasional staccato piano and drum hits in the chorus. As always, Elton John's voice is great and exciting, especially in a fast song like this. The weakest part of the song is the guitar riff intro, which gets repeated. The bridge filled with xylophones and weird high-pitched synthesizer noises is also in the negative column. Both of these parts lose track of the song's energy, and the song actually closes on the guitar riff with xylophones. So the song starts off bad and finishes bad, with a lot of good in between.
My verdict: Like it. The lyrics are bad, and the music has its bad moments. But Elton John is so good at what he does, he brings so much energy during the bulk of the song, that I'm still having fun listening to it, despite my reservations.
Weeks: 3
This is one of those songs that threatens to make me spend the entire entry wondering why the list of No. 1 songs is never quite the same as the list of all-time classic songs, even for a single artist. "Island Girl" somehow is among Elton John's No. 1 songs, but "Rocket Man" is not. And yet I don't think I've ever heard "Island Girl" before. I guess it just goes to show that popularity, and especially this type of instantaneous snapshot of popularity, is not necessarily an indicator of quality.
I suppose I should start with the lyrics, because they really bugged me. They strike me as racist. The song is about an "island" girl, who is described as "black as coal," from Jamaica. She's working as a prostitute in New York. The song describes a "black boy" who is trying save her and, I presume, take her back to Jamaica. The specific descriptions of race bug me a little, but what really bugs me is the line "what you wanting with the white man's world?" Essentially he's saying that this woman would be happier living someplace less developed because that's where she belongs, for no reason other than the color of her skin. It's a bit clever in its use of "island" to refer to both Jamaica and Manhattan, but I can't really get over the racism of the lyrics.
The music is pretty good, actually. As with other Elton John songs, the rock piano dominates in an appealing. The Caribbean theme is explored by including steel drums and bongos. I particularly like the energy of the verses, and the occasional staccato piano and drum hits in the chorus. As always, Elton John's voice is great and exciting, especially in a fast song like this. The weakest part of the song is the guitar riff intro, which gets repeated. The bridge filled with xylophones and weird high-pitched synthesizer noises is also in the negative column. Both of these parts lose track of the song's energy, and the song actually closes on the guitar riff with xylophones. So the song starts off bad and finishes bad, with a lot of good in between.
My verdict: Like it. The lyrics are bad, and the music has its bad moments. But Elton John is so good at what he does, he brings so much energy during the bulk of the song, that I'm still having fun listening to it, despite my reservations.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Song #352: "Laughter in the Rain" by Neil Sedaka
Date: Feb 1, 1975
Weeks: 1
This is the hardest type of song for me to do. It's definitely not my style, but it's not badly made, and it has moments that work. Of the genre of 70s soft pop, I suppose this is one of the least unpleasant examples.
I like the piano as the backbone of this song. It's a good base on which to build the rest of the song. Neil Sedaka's voice is also good. His voice is high, but he's not doing falsetto. He matches the music well and his voice sounds natural and effortless, even as he's exploring the high and low limits of his range. I don't even mind the background vocals here, because they are well-used for emphasis and color and to increase the scope of the chorus. The percussion line is also pleasant. It's subtle and has just enough variety to support this light song.
The strings are a definite negative, though. They over-dramatize and overwhelm what should be a pleasant little song and try to make it more grand, in a way that the song doesn't necessarily support. The saxophone bridge is cheesy. Really, pop music, saxophones need to be applied sparingly. Use them wrong and they can turn a decent song bad really quickly. There's also something just off about the chord progression leading into the chorus that I can't quite explain. It doesn't feel like the chorus follows naturally from the verse for some reason. Possibly it's just the unnecessary strings overwhelming the actual song.
The lyrics are about a couple that is so happy together that when they're caught out in the rain they just laugh. As long as they're together, nothing can spoil their mood. That's a fine sentiment, even if it's a bit cliche. The lyrics, like the rest of the song, are fine. They flow, they make sense, they communicate a feeling and do it well. I was going to nitpick the title lyric, wonder why he "hears" laughter in the rain, when supposedly he and his significant other are the ones doing the laughing. But then I realized that he's kind of talking about how the sound of rain makes him recall this moment, and he remembers the sound of their laughter whenever it rains. The lyrics are all in the present tense, which is why I think I had a hard time working that out at first, but other songs I've reviewed have certainly committed worse crimes against grammar and storytelling.
My verdict: Don't like it. I do respect it, it's a well-made but it doesn't quite click for me.
Weeks: 1
This is the hardest type of song for me to do. It's definitely not my style, but it's not badly made, and it has moments that work. Of the genre of 70s soft pop, I suppose this is one of the least unpleasant examples.
I like the piano as the backbone of this song. It's a good base on which to build the rest of the song. Neil Sedaka's voice is also good. His voice is high, but he's not doing falsetto. He matches the music well and his voice sounds natural and effortless, even as he's exploring the high and low limits of his range. I don't even mind the background vocals here, because they are well-used for emphasis and color and to increase the scope of the chorus. The percussion line is also pleasant. It's subtle and has just enough variety to support this light song.
The strings are a definite negative, though. They over-dramatize and overwhelm what should be a pleasant little song and try to make it more grand, in a way that the song doesn't necessarily support. The saxophone bridge is cheesy. Really, pop music, saxophones need to be applied sparingly. Use them wrong and they can turn a decent song bad really quickly. There's also something just off about the chord progression leading into the chorus that I can't quite explain. It doesn't feel like the chorus follows naturally from the verse for some reason. Possibly it's just the unnecessary strings overwhelming the actual song.
The lyrics are about a couple that is so happy together that when they're caught out in the rain they just laugh. As long as they're together, nothing can spoil their mood. That's a fine sentiment, even if it's a bit cliche. The lyrics, like the rest of the song, are fine. They flow, they make sense, they communicate a feeling and do it well. I was going to nitpick the title lyric, wonder why he "hears" laughter in the rain, when supposedly he and his significant other are the ones doing the laughing. But then I realized that he's kind of talking about how the sound of rain makes him recall this moment, and he remembers the sound of their laughter whenever it rains. The lyrics are all in the present tense, which is why I think I had a hard time working that out at first, but other songs I've reviewed have certainly committed worse crimes against grammar and storytelling.
My verdict: Don't like it. I do respect it, it's a well-made but it doesn't quite click for me.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Song #825: "My Heart Will Go On" by Celine Dion
Date: Feb 28, 1998
Weeks: 2
I've always liked the movie Titanic. I never bought into it as some classic romance story, I just thought it was an effective disaster movie, where the romance story was crucial to giving the disaster story emotional weight. This song, on the other hand, has some significant problems.
The biggest issue is that the version of the song that charted, the version embedded above, is overproduced in just the right way to drain away most of the emotional charm. The soundtrack version is a more effective, simpler piece of music that matches the movie score pretty well. It fits, and carries a genuine, if soft, emotion. The single version just adds more to the mix. There are extra windchimes and little plucky harp noises. The drums start up much sooner and get much bigger. There are unnecessary background singers. There's that 90s power ballad electric guitar for no reason except that's how you make a cheesy power ballad in the 90s. And the effect I hate the most is the vocal echo that is applied to Celine Dion's voice, especially in her very last "My heart will go on and ooon (on on on on)." It doesn't sound like she's singing it in an echo-y concert hall or stadium. It just sounds like a fake effect applied for emphasis, and it doesn't need to be there.
The music that works is the flute and the strings, which exactly what the soundtrack version of the song consists of. I even like how the soundtrack version builds in intensity and adds in some light drums when they are appropriate. The soundtrack song isn't the greatest thing ever, being kind of slow and plodding and overdramatic even for a song about the Titanic, but it is an effective song to match the movie's score. The overproduction in the single version ruins the parts of the original song that work. At least the version with movie sounds didn't gain too much traction, because it's dreadful.
Celine Dion is a good singer. She gained a reputation for oversinging later in her career, but here I think she gives the song the drama that is necessary. She matches the music, she's quiet and subtle when she needs to be, and she sings big when the song gets big. I like her performance here.
The lyrics are decent. They're a lost love. Obviously in the movie, that lost love is lost to death, but there's room to interpret the lyrics as referring to an old relationship that is over but still remembered fondly. "Far across the distance and spaces between us" can have either meaning. These lyrics walk that fine line between being generic and being universal, so I generally give them a pass. Except for one passage. "Love was when I loved you." Generally pop songs get mocked for using the word "love" that much in such a short space. It's immediately followed up with "One true time I hold to." That's a pretty generic lyric, too. It's not that it's badly written, exactly, but it just doesn't sound right. It doesn't flow, with all those "t" and "o" sounds so awkwardly placed. Coming so soon after the word "love" twice, it just doesn't sound good. It's an awkward part of a set of lyrics that's okay at best.
My verdict: Don't like it. I might have a harder time making this decision if I was judging the soundtrack version. But the annoying overproduction in the single version makes it easy.
Weeks: 2
I've always liked the movie Titanic. I never bought into it as some classic romance story, I just thought it was an effective disaster movie, where the romance story was crucial to giving the disaster story emotional weight. This song, on the other hand, has some significant problems.
The biggest issue is that the version of the song that charted, the version embedded above, is overproduced in just the right way to drain away most of the emotional charm. The soundtrack version is a more effective, simpler piece of music that matches the movie score pretty well. It fits, and carries a genuine, if soft, emotion. The single version just adds more to the mix. There are extra windchimes and little plucky harp noises. The drums start up much sooner and get much bigger. There are unnecessary background singers. There's that 90s power ballad electric guitar for no reason except that's how you make a cheesy power ballad in the 90s. And the effect I hate the most is the vocal echo that is applied to Celine Dion's voice, especially in her very last "My heart will go on and ooon (on on on on)." It doesn't sound like she's singing it in an echo-y concert hall or stadium. It just sounds like a fake effect applied for emphasis, and it doesn't need to be there.
The music that works is the flute and the strings, which exactly what the soundtrack version of the song consists of. I even like how the soundtrack version builds in intensity and adds in some light drums when they are appropriate. The soundtrack song isn't the greatest thing ever, being kind of slow and plodding and overdramatic even for a song about the Titanic, but it is an effective song to match the movie's score. The overproduction in the single version ruins the parts of the original song that work. At least the version with movie sounds didn't gain too much traction, because it's dreadful.
Celine Dion is a good singer. She gained a reputation for oversinging later in her career, but here I think she gives the song the drama that is necessary. She matches the music, she's quiet and subtle when she needs to be, and she sings big when the song gets big. I like her performance here.
The lyrics are decent. They're a lost love. Obviously in the movie, that lost love is lost to death, but there's room to interpret the lyrics as referring to an old relationship that is over but still remembered fondly. "Far across the distance and spaces between us" can have either meaning. These lyrics walk that fine line between being generic and being universal, so I generally give them a pass. Except for one passage. "Love was when I loved you." Generally pop songs get mocked for using the word "love" that much in such a short space. It's immediately followed up with "One true time I hold to." That's a pretty generic lyric, too. It's not that it's badly written, exactly, but it just doesn't sound right. It doesn't flow, with all those "t" and "o" sounds so awkwardly placed. Coming so soon after the word "love" twice, it just doesn't sound good. It's an awkward part of a set of lyrics that's okay at best.
My verdict: Don't like it. I might have a harder time making this decision if I was judging the soundtrack version. But the annoying overproduction in the single version makes it easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)