Date: May 26, 1984
Weeks: 2
All right, I think I've finally found a song in the 1980s that isn't trying to sneak a synthesizer into a song where it doesn't belong. This song is all synthesizers, and the effect is clearly deliberate. The result is a kind of charming, bright sound that is sort of appealing. Certainly music eventually figured out how to use synthesizers properly, and I'm glad to find such an early example.
Unfortunately, there's a lot to dislike here, too. The overall sound is quite thin. A little heavier bass and some more sustained tones might have helped create a more compelling overall sound. The drum machine feels robotic, too, which I think is a miscalculation. It makes it feel like a karaoke song.
Deniece Williams's voice is a bit hard to take. She's very whiny. Although, there's a part at the end where she really aims for a high note and hits it, presaging Mariah Carey's signature, that suggests to me that she really can sing. Wikipedia notes that she "has a five-octave range." That seems likely, but she's not really putting it to proper use in this song. I don't know if it's that she's outside her best range or if it's just the style of music she's doing, but her voice is pretty obnoxious throughout most of this song. I'm sure she's very talented, but she's not putting her talent to good use here.
The lyrics are fine. The sentiment is that she loves the guy she's with even though he has flaws. Nothing wrong with that. I can't really find fault with the lyrics, and really, they're pretty energizing. Hooray for love that's pleasant and happy.
This is one of those songs that bugs me by continuing on well after it's actually ended. After she sings that opera note, the song really ought to start its fade out right away, but the video I linked continues on for almost a minute more. It doesn't add anything to a song that's already pretty repetitive.
My verdict: Don't like it. This is a junk food song. It's pleasing enough the first time through, but the more I listen to it, the more it starts to bother me. Insubstantial pop songs can and should be better and not make me regret them before they're over.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Song #156: "The Ballad Of The Green Berets" by S Sgt Barry Sadler
Date: Mar 5, 1966
Weeks: 5
This song, with its oompa-based Tuba sound, seems to have missed the pop-polka era by a good five years. The song's pro-military sentiment was certainly a rallying point for some during the Vietnam war, which probably explains its presence at the top of the charts at a time when music that sounded like this was falling out of favor.
The music sounds uses a military snare drum cadence as its percussion backbone. It then adds the tuba bass line and it's clear that the song is intended to sound like an army marching song. The song accomplishes what it sets out to do, but that doesn't necessarily make it interesting. Marching songs are supposed to be steady, unvarying, and uncomplicated, so that they are easy to march to. I'm not sure that makes it an interesting pop song to listen to, though.
The song does manage to stay relatively engaging. As much as I'd like to criticize the song for sounding overproduced, with its background singers and horn riffs, I have to admit that all the elements are actually well-used and well-mixed. Sadler's charming voice stands out on top of the track. Whoever arranged this recording exercised admirable restraint with regard to adding more and more elements, and the result is a song that is very classy and compelling. It's musically simple, but sometimes simple can be refreshing.
The lyrics are sort of about glorifying those who serve in the army, and the elite Green Berets squad in particular. The meaning of the lyrics is clear, although there's a weird moment at the beginning. "Fighting soldiers from the sky, fearless men who jump and die." That makes me imagine guys jumping from a plane without parachutes, even though I know the intent was to evoke paratroopers leaping into combat. It also bothers me a little at the end how he sort of romanticizes the notion of a soldier dying in combat, and having a posthumous message delivered to his wife asking her to make sure their song grows up to become a Green Beret. A soldier dying and leaving a family behind really ought to be a tragedy, not a romanticized ideal. And pressuring your child to follow in your footsteps as your "last request" seems a bit domineering. But those are small issues, really. I'm just happy to have a song with a meaning that's straightfoward and clear.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's okay, but I'm not a big fan of the march as pop music.
Weeks: 5
This song, with its oompa-based Tuba sound, seems to have missed the pop-polka era by a good five years. The song's pro-military sentiment was certainly a rallying point for some during the Vietnam war, which probably explains its presence at the top of the charts at a time when music that sounded like this was falling out of favor.
The music sounds uses a military snare drum cadence as its percussion backbone. It then adds the tuba bass line and it's clear that the song is intended to sound like an army marching song. The song accomplishes what it sets out to do, but that doesn't necessarily make it interesting. Marching songs are supposed to be steady, unvarying, and uncomplicated, so that they are easy to march to. I'm not sure that makes it an interesting pop song to listen to, though.
The song does manage to stay relatively engaging. As much as I'd like to criticize the song for sounding overproduced, with its background singers and horn riffs, I have to admit that all the elements are actually well-used and well-mixed. Sadler's charming voice stands out on top of the track. Whoever arranged this recording exercised admirable restraint with regard to adding more and more elements, and the result is a song that is very classy and compelling. It's musically simple, but sometimes simple can be refreshing.
The lyrics are sort of about glorifying those who serve in the army, and the elite Green Berets squad in particular. The meaning of the lyrics is clear, although there's a weird moment at the beginning. "Fighting soldiers from the sky, fearless men who jump and die." That makes me imagine guys jumping from a plane without parachutes, even though I know the intent was to evoke paratroopers leaping into combat. It also bothers me a little at the end how he sort of romanticizes the notion of a soldier dying in combat, and having a posthumous message delivered to his wife asking her to make sure their song grows up to become a Green Beret. A soldier dying and leaving a family behind really ought to be a tragedy, not a romanticized ideal. And pressuring your child to follow in your footsteps as your "last request" seems a bit domineering. But those are small issues, really. I'm just happy to have a song with a meaning that's straightfoward and clear.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's okay, but I'm not a big fan of the march as pop music.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Song #798: "Waterfalls" by TLC
Date: July 8, 1995
Weeks: 7
I mentioned before that TLC's vocals can be a bit contentious, as they can come across a little bit whiny. When it works, the vocals match the music and make a good song. When it doesn't... well, the results can get a little unpleasant. Unfortunately, this song falls into the latter category.
The problem isn't that they decided to make a song with a serious message. "Unpretty" (#848) is also a song with a serious message, and I liked that one. And it's not even that the vocals are bad. It's just that the vocals and the music don't match very well. The vocals are serious and subdued. The music is serious and subdued. But it seems like both the vocals and the music are intentionally subdued so as not to overpower the other, with the result being a bit of a vacuum of sound. Just because a song contains serious subject matter doesn't mean it needs to be bland.
Even the rap verse is bland. It's monotone when it doesn't have to be, and the music isn't any different during the rap verse than it is in any other verse. It also just feels poorly integrated and tacked on and out of place when it's just tacked into the bridge. I wonder if the song might have been better if they had used the rap for the verses and then sang the choruses.
The song's lyrics are pretty well known for trying to tackle subjects that people felt were important to talk about in the mid-90s, such as gang violence and AIDS. I'm not sure those messages come across very clearly without the video to back them up. The lyrics are badly constructed. They don't reveal until the end of each verse what the verse was about, almost requiring you to listen to the song several times in a row to make the meaning clear. Also, I always thought the metaphor in the chorus was stretched really thin. "Don't go chasing waterfalls." Okay, don't pursue unattainable goals that might wind up harming you, I understand that. "Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to." What does that mean? Sure, in context I understand that they're supposed to represent safer, known goals to achieve, but metaphors generally are supposed to be intriguing when divorced from context. They're not supposed to be nonsense.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's possible that my opinion of this song was irreversibly tainted by the video, and the awful computer-generated water-dancers with their one silly arm-bob dance move that I can't help see in my mind every second this song is playing. But I stand by my opinion. And at least there's a Weird Al version to enjoy that fixes most of my issues.
Weeks: 7
I mentioned before that TLC's vocals can be a bit contentious, as they can come across a little bit whiny. When it works, the vocals match the music and make a good song. When it doesn't... well, the results can get a little unpleasant. Unfortunately, this song falls into the latter category.
The problem isn't that they decided to make a song with a serious message. "Unpretty" (#848) is also a song with a serious message, and I liked that one. And it's not even that the vocals are bad. It's just that the vocals and the music don't match very well. The vocals are serious and subdued. The music is serious and subdued. But it seems like both the vocals and the music are intentionally subdued so as not to overpower the other, with the result being a bit of a vacuum of sound. Just because a song contains serious subject matter doesn't mean it needs to be bland.
Even the rap verse is bland. It's monotone when it doesn't have to be, and the music isn't any different during the rap verse than it is in any other verse. It also just feels poorly integrated and tacked on and out of place when it's just tacked into the bridge. I wonder if the song might have been better if they had used the rap for the verses and then sang the choruses.
The song's lyrics are pretty well known for trying to tackle subjects that people felt were important to talk about in the mid-90s, such as gang violence and AIDS. I'm not sure those messages come across very clearly without the video to back them up. The lyrics are badly constructed. They don't reveal until the end of each verse what the verse was about, almost requiring you to listen to the song several times in a row to make the meaning clear. Also, I always thought the metaphor in the chorus was stretched really thin. "Don't go chasing waterfalls." Okay, don't pursue unattainable goals that might wind up harming you, I understand that. "Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to." What does that mean? Sure, in context I understand that they're supposed to represent safer, known goals to achieve, but metaphors generally are supposed to be intriguing when divorced from context. They're not supposed to be nonsense.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's possible that my opinion of this song was irreversibly tainted by the video, and the awful computer-generated water-dancers with their one silly arm-bob dance move that I can't help see in my mind every second this song is playing. But I stand by my opinion. And at least there's a Weird Al version to enjoy that fixes most of my issues.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Song #358: "Black Water" by The Doobie Brothers
Date: Mar 15, 1975
Weeks: 1
I don't like relaxed songs like this one. I have no use for them. Give me a song that's full of energy and enthusiasm, and I'm happy. Give me a song that tells me to relax and do nothing and I have no use for it. Sure, that can be good background music, but this song has some flaws that keep it from even being good at that.
I don't care for the overly gentle and strummy guitars that open the song. I don't like the singer's pinched, tense, unpleasant vocals. I don't like the overall thinness of the sound for the first minute and a half. It's really unpleasant during that first part. Eventually the bass and the fiddle join in, and the song is much more enjoyable from that point on. It's still not a great song, and the vocals aren't any better, but it's at least pleasant background music. I think if I heard that part while I was having a conversation, or driving, or eating, or had my brain engaged in some other activity, I would enjoy it well enough.
Then the music fades out for an a cappella verse, and it's weird. The fade-out is an odd choice, and doesn't feel remotely natural. The a capella section is okay, but it seems utterly out of place right after a lengthy instrumental section. And then the music fades back in, and once again it's not remotely natural. That a cappella section is so weirdly out of place that it ruins whatever pleasure I was starting to derive from the fiddle. Admittedly, most of that pleasure was because it reminded me of Firefly, but the point stands that just when I was starting enjoy it, the song took a strange and sudden turn.
The lyrics seem like a lazy excuse for the song to not be purely instrumental. "Old black water, keep on rollin'. Mississippi moon won't you keep on shining on me." It's the story of a guy with nothing better to do than float on a raft down the Mississippi and admire the scenery. Part of me wonders if he even really has a raft or if he just decided to sit by the river. The lyrics are repetitive and minimal, and seem ideally situated for a lazy sing-along while you sit in the hot weather and drink.
My verdict: Don't like it. Some people like this kind of relaxed music, but it's just not for me, and this song doesn't even seem particularly well made.
Weeks: 1
I don't like relaxed songs like this one. I have no use for them. Give me a song that's full of energy and enthusiasm, and I'm happy. Give me a song that tells me to relax and do nothing and I have no use for it. Sure, that can be good background music, but this song has some flaws that keep it from even being good at that.
I don't care for the overly gentle and strummy guitars that open the song. I don't like the singer's pinched, tense, unpleasant vocals. I don't like the overall thinness of the sound for the first minute and a half. It's really unpleasant during that first part. Eventually the bass and the fiddle join in, and the song is much more enjoyable from that point on. It's still not a great song, and the vocals aren't any better, but it's at least pleasant background music. I think if I heard that part while I was having a conversation, or driving, or eating, or had my brain engaged in some other activity, I would enjoy it well enough.
Then the music fades out for an a cappella verse, and it's weird. The fade-out is an odd choice, and doesn't feel remotely natural. The a capella section is okay, but it seems utterly out of place right after a lengthy instrumental section. And then the music fades back in, and once again it's not remotely natural. That a cappella section is so weirdly out of place that it ruins whatever pleasure I was starting to derive from the fiddle. Admittedly, most of that pleasure was because it reminded me of Firefly, but the point stands that just when I was starting enjoy it, the song took a strange and sudden turn.
The lyrics seem like a lazy excuse for the song to not be purely instrumental. "Old black water, keep on rollin'. Mississippi moon won't you keep on shining on me." It's the story of a guy with nothing better to do than float on a raft down the Mississippi and admire the scenery. Part of me wonders if he even really has a raft or if he just decided to sit by the river. The lyrics are repetitive and minimal, and seem ideally situated for a lazy sing-along while you sit in the hot weather and drink.
My verdict: Don't like it. Some people like this kind of relaxed music, but it's just not for me, and this song doesn't even seem particularly well made.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Song #677: "Look Away" by Chicago
Date: Dec 10, 1988
Weeks: 2
I sort of liked Chicago in the 80s. I thought their music was emotional and appealing. But now I find their music just kind of emotionally manipulative. It's like it's been carefully calculated to be as heart-wrenching as possible, without necessarily earning it via any genuine sentiment.
I think the lyrics of this song illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. "If you see me walking by, and the tears are in my eyes, look away." It's supposed to be a sad image, of a man crying over lost love. But the lyric itself seems to suggest that he's just going to be walking around bawling, possibly for years afterward. It's kind of paints a funny image.
The verses of this song aren't so bad. It's the story of your ex moving on and how that kind of put a finality to the relationship that you had sort of held out a glimmer of hope for. The lyrics in the verses are at least clear about the story they're telling, and the sentiments expressed feel genuine enough. "I tell you I'm fine, but sometimes I just pretend." It's the chorus where things get absurd and overdramatic. "Don't look at me. I don't want you to see me this way." Here I am, singing a sad song about how I don't want you to see me feeling sad. Aren't guys who don't want attention all cool and sexy? Pay attention to me saying that I don't want you to pay attention to me!
Musically, this is a pretty egregious example of the excesses of the late 80s. There are a lot of synthesizers put to bad use here. Synthesizers are not good at gentle music, 80s. Then on top of that is that blaring guitar that always gets used in Diane Warren songs. Yes, this is another song from Diane Warren. Cheesy schmaltz with blaring guitars. I'm not even sure if the drums here are real or a drum machine.
With all the fake instruments, the emotional heavy lifting has to be done by the guitars, which do an okay job in that 80s power ballad kind of way, and the vocals. This after Peter Cetera left the band, so at least we don't have to confront the question of his quality just now. This lead singer is Bill Champlin. He does an okay job, his voice is pleasant enough. But he does have that kind of trite, gravelly intonation that was so popular in the era. He also kind of overdoes it in the last chorus, reaching back and coming up with some really growly vocals. He also sounds really, overly, kind of cartoonishly sad in the last lyrics "I'm really happy for you." It sounds like he's about to turn away from the microphone and start bawling, and it's kind of unintentionally funny.
My verdict: Don't like it. Even back when I liked Chicago, I didn't care much about this song. These days it seems kind of typical of many fake-emotional songs of the time.
Weeks: 2
I sort of liked Chicago in the 80s. I thought their music was emotional and appealing. But now I find their music just kind of emotionally manipulative. It's like it's been carefully calculated to be as heart-wrenching as possible, without necessarily earning it via any genuine sentiment.
I think the lyrics of this song illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. "If you see me walking by, and the tears are in my eyes, look away." It's supposed to be a sad image, of a man crying over lost love. But the lyric itself seems to suggest that he's just going to be walking around bawling, possibly for years afterward. It's kind of paints a funny image.
The verses of this song aren't so bad. It's the story of your ex moving on and how that kind of put a finality to the relationship that you had sort of held out a glimmer of hope for. The lyrics in the verses are at least clear about the story they're telling, and the sentiments expressed feel genuine enough. "I tell you I'm fine, but sometimes I just pretend." It's the chorus where things get absurd and overdramatic. "Don't look at me. I don't want you to see me this way." Here I am, singing a sad song about how I don't want you to see me feeling sad. Aren't guys who don't want attention all cool and sexy? Pay attention to me saying that I don't want you to pay attention to me!
Musically, this is a pretty egregious example of the excesses of the late 80s. There are a lot of synthesizers put to bad use here. Synthesizers are not good at gentle music, 80s. Then on top of that is that blaring guitar that always gets used in Diane Warren songs. Yes, this is another song from Diane Warren. Cheesy schmaltz with blaring guitars. I'm not even sure if the drums here are real or a drum machine.
With all the fake instruments, the emotional heavy lifting has to be done by the guitars, which do an okay job in that 80s power ballad kind of way, and the vocals. This after Peter Cetera left the band, so at least we don't have to confront the question of his quality just now. This lead singer is Bill Champlin. He does an okay job, his voice is pleasant enough. But he does have that kind of trite, gravelly intonation that was so popular in the era. He also kind of overdoes it in the last chorus, reaching back and coming up with some really growly vocals. He also sounds really, overly, kind of cartoonishly sad in the last lyrics "I'm really happy for you." It sounds like he's about to turn away from the microphone and start bawling, and it's kind of unintentionally funny.
My verdict: Don't like it. Even back when I liked Chicago, I didn't care much about this song. These days it seems kind of typical of many fake-emotional songs of the time.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Song #903: "Burn" by Usher
Date: May 22, 2004
Weeks: 8
It's kind of remarkable that Usher's "Yeah" (#902) was on top of the charts for 12 weeks, and it took another Usher song to replace it. I'm not entirely surprised. "Yeah" was a great song. This song... maybe not so much.
The problem with this song is that there's not a lot of sound to it. The music is very thin, and perfunctory. It's like they were trying to avoid obscuring Usher's voice, but couldn't commit to a soft sound that would complement the vocals. The result is some hard bass and light guitar, with a bunch of extra random noises interspersed throughout. It's also really out of place for its era. I would expect to hear a song like this in the early 90s, not in 2004. They were trying to let the vocals stand out, and I feel like they missed the mark a bit.
And the vocals aren't very good, either. Don't get me wrong, Usher has a great voice. But he makes some choices in this song that don't work for me. He starts doing one of those low-register speaking parts, then he sings a very pleasing half verse in his usual range, then he jumps up to a falsetto range, I guess because he's trying to sound more emotional. But it lasts too long, and it gets unpleasant to listen to. He hits falsetto again in the chorus, and that works better because it's shorter. And then in the bridge he sings "woo-hoo" in this falsetto while the music does almost nothing, and the result is a really uninteresting bridge where nothing happens. I also want to make a comment that I think there's too much backup singing. I don't mind the thing where Usher sings the song straight while also singing a more elaborately spontaneous track on top of it. But occasionally throughout there are these stings of backup singing added that just feel overproduced. And that overproduction really harms the raw feeling the song is aiming for.
The lyrics fare a bit better. I'm not sure I've heard another song with quite this sentiment. It's about breaking up with someone, and then maybe wondering whether you've made the right choice. I think I've reviewed a couple songs where somebody breaks up with somebody else and tries to get back together, including perspectives from both the dumper and the dumpee. But what makes this song stand out is that Usher remains ambivalent about the breakup. "One side of me is telling me that I need to move on, on the other side I want to break down and cry." It's an exploration of the regret of a breakup, but it's not necessarily a "let's get back together" song. That's not something I've really heard before. "Gotta let it burn" kind of cleverly refers to the fact that this hurts, but he has to let it hurt to get better. Unfortunately, the lyrics are kind of undermined by the inclusion of some unnecessary slang that really comes off silly. "Get my shorty back" is awkward, and the especially bad is the attention given to the line "without my boo." I'm not opposed to slang in songs, but slang undermines sincerity in a heartfelt, soft, relationship song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not bad, but it's not well put together. I think maybe if there had been some different musical choices, this song could have been saved. But the music doesn't work, and the song's other flaws drag it down.
Weeks: 8
It's kind of remarkable that Usher's "Yeah" (#902) was on top of the charts for 12 weeks, and it took another Usher song to replace it. I'm not entirely surprised. "Yeah" was a great song. This song... maybe not so much.
The problem with this song is that there's not a lot of sound to it. The music is very thin, and perfunctory. It's like they were trying to avoid obscuring Usher's voice, but couldn't commit to a soft sound that would complement the vocals. The result is some hard bass and light guitar, with a bunch of extra random noises interspersed throughout. It's also really out of place for its era. I would expect to hear a song like this in the early 90s, not in 2004. They were trying to let the vocals stand out, and I feel like they missed the mark a bit.
And the vocals aren't very good, either. Don't get me wrong, Usher has a great voice. But he makes some choices in this song that don't work for me. He starts doing one of those low-register speaking parts, then he sings a very pleasing half verse in his usual range, then he jumps up to a falsetto range, I guess because he's trying to sound more emotional. But it lasts too long, and it gets unpleasant to listen to. He hits falsetto again in the chorus, and that works better because it's shorter. And then in the bridge he sings "woo-hoo" in this falsetto while the music does almost nothing, and the result is a really uninteresting bridge where nothing happens. I also want to make a comment that I think there's too much backup singing. I don't mind the thing where Usher sings the song straight while also singing a more elaborately spontaneous track on top of it. But occasionally throughout there are these stings of backup singing added that just feel overproduced. And that overproduction really harms the raw feeling the song is aiming for.
The lyrics fare a bit better. I'm not sure I've heard another song with quite this sentiment. It's about breaking up with someone, and then maybe wondering whether you've made the right choice. I think I've reviewed a couple songs where somebody breaks up with somebody else and tries to get back together, including perspectives from both the dumper and the dumpee. But what makes this song stand out is that Usher remains ambivalent about the breakup. "One side of me is telling me that I need to move on, on the other side I want to break down and cry." It's an exploration of the regret of a breakup, but it's not necessarily a "let's get back together" song. That's not something I've really heard before. "Gotta let it burn" kind of cleverly refers to the fact that this hurts, but he has to let it hurt to get better. Unfortunately, the lyrics are kind of undermined by the inclusion of some unnecessary slang that really comes off silly. "Get my shorty back" is awkward, and the especially bad is the attention given to the line "without my boo." I'm not opposed to slang in songs, but slang undermines sincerity in a heartfelt, soft, relationship song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not bad, but it's not well put together. I think maybe if there had been some different musical choices, this song could have been saved. But the music doesn't work, and the song's other flaws drag it down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)