Song #339: "I Honestly Love You" by Olivia Newton-John

Date: Oct 5, 1974
Weeks: 2

Search Link

It's nice to finally find a heartfelt song that doesn't allow its production to overwhelm its sincerity.

Listen to those acoustic instruments. And listen to how few of them there are. I hear a piano, some strings, and maybe a little light horn here and there. There aren't even drums trying to force the song into a rock-and-roll mold it doesn't actually fit into. The effect is to emphasize the emotion of Newton-John's performance. It's remarkable what you can do when you just make something classic instead of trying to update it.

And she gives a good performance here. The song is about her admitting her love for someone else and being rejected, and her resigned sadness. And everything about her voice and the music communicates that sadness.

I don't really care for the title. There's something about the words "I honestly love you" that crosses the line into over-earnestness. It's the kind of thing that only gets said in super-intimate settings, when you've already thrown out "I love you" a bunch and need to say "no, really, I'm not just saying it, I honestly love you." And that's fine in that setting, but in this context it feels more like she's throwing it around just for emphasis rather than for the word's actual meaning. Might as well say "I literally love you."

My verdict: Like it. Frankly, I'm just happy to find a song that didn't sap away its emotional meaning with poor instrumental choices. Now I have an example to point to. But also it successfully communicates a feeling, which is the mark of successful art.

Song #652: "Seasons Change" by Expose

Date: Feb 20, 1988
Weeks: 1

Search Link

I know I've said this several times before, but I really wonder who it was that thought mixing cheap synthesizers with heartfelt emotional songs was a good idea. Because this song isn't so bad, but some terrible choices were made in its construction.

And it's not like you can't make interesting music with synthesizers. Expose's own earlier song "Point of No Return" is a fine song and it has the same poundy drum and synthesized tones. But because it's more upbeat and poppy, it works in a way that the same synthesizers don't work here. Also, that blaring 80s saxophone is really overbearing here.

Lyrically, it's about the sadness of a relationship that hasn't stood the test of time. I sort of like the lyrics. Lines like "It's been so long since I found you yet it seems like yesterday" have a simple poetry to them. The singing is also pretty good. The lead singing and the backing harmonies try their hardest to convey the emotions expressed by the lyrics, but they just can't penetrate the thick wall of the synthesizer.

My verdict: Don't like it. The synthesizer is just too overbearing.

Remake-off: Song #83: "Go Away Little Girl" by Steve Lawrence vs. Song #260: "Go Away Little Girl" by Donny Osmond

Date: Jan 12, 1963
Weeks: 2

Search Link

 vs.

Date: Sept 11, 1971
Weeks: 3

Search Link

Both incarnations of this song have so many problems that I'm at a bit of a loss for where to even begin. I suppose the fundamental problem is the same: it's a a cowboy-sounding ballad with way too much going on in what could otherwise be a charmingly simple song.

Lawrence's version starts out okay, sounding like he's settled on a song that should be sung by a cowboy as his horse strolls down the dusty trail. But then for some reason the sound mix throws in a second track where he harmonizes with himself. And then a string section comes in, which makes it feel less like a cowboy sing-along and more like a cowboy movie. Which wouldn't be all bad, but I don't think the song is aiming for cowboy movie chic.

Osmond's version, oddly, maintains a lot of that same cowboy western sound. The horse-hoof clopping sound has been toned down a bit, but in its place is an unwelcome backup chorus, and a much larger backing orchestra. And Osmond's vocals are unrefined. When he reaches for those upper notes, you can hear him straining. I suppose that's why they added the backup chorus, so he wouldn't have to do quite so much.

The lyrics bug me, but for different reasons. The song is about the singer feeling tempted by the "little girl," but not wanting to be unfaithful to the relationship he's in. And so he begs her to "go away." "You're much too hard to resist," he says. He's not quite blaming her for his attraction to her, but it's close enough to make me uncomfortable.

And then we have the diminutive "little girl" problem. Steve, if that girl is so "little," you probably shouldn't be tempted by her in the first place. Either she's a woman and the issue with your attraction is that you're seeing someone else, or she's underage and that's the problem with your attraction.

That's less of a problem for Osmond, who is about 14 here, but sounds like he's all of 10. "Little Girl" is a bit more appropriate when sung by a little boy. But then the rest of the lyrics start to seem inappropriate. "I know that your lips are sweet." You do? How do you know that? "When you're near me like this you're much too hard to resist." That's an understandable line coming from a grown man, but from a boy it sounds like he's repeating something he heard without knowing what it means. And I suppose that feeling is enhanced by the fact that he's doing a cover.

My verdict: Don't like it. I don't like either one, but Steve Lawrence's version is better. Donny Osmond's voice just isn't ready yet for this. He did mature into a much better performer eventually, though.

Song #816: "MMMBop" by Hanson

Date: May 24, 1997
Weeks: 3

Search Link

Much like "Sugar, Sugar" (#219), a song with the title "MMMBop" could only be the most sugary, empty-calorie, for-teenagers-by-teenagers pop song you could imagine. And yet. While it's fairly successful on that level, there's something more to this one.

The thing this song brings to the table is sincerity, which is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. The lyrics are about how painfully brief people's relationships can be, and how it's impossible to predict which relationships will last, and that it's important to hold on to the people who really care about you because those are the relationships that will last. The notion of familial love over romantic love is an usual one for teenagers to sing songs about. And yet that's exactly why the song is so odd. Because it winds up feeling like you're listening to an 11-year-old lecturing you about things he doesn't completely understand yet. Meanwhile, the chorus is "MmmBop. Ba daba doo-wop."

The lead vocals are also painfully sincere. It's a 14-year-old, whose voice is still in the middle of changing, trying to sing as intensely as he can, in as high a pitch as he can still manage. Strained doesn't begin to describe it. This strained sound also makes the lyrics difficult to comprehend. However, you can't deny his enthusiasm, and that's where the vocals are redeemed. He's going for it, and he doesn't care.

Musically, you can't beat the overall tone. The lead and bass guitars are particularly nice all throughout. This is just a fun song. It's been filled with some really dated production hooks, though. Oh, the record scratches. What a terrible fit for this song. That was just the sort of thing that got added to songs in the 90s because that's what music producers figured "the kids" liked. I also don't really care for the breakdown in the bridge.

It turns out this is the version that was deliberately punched up a bit for the radio. There was an earlier version of the song that was a little more natural. I agree that version needs some punching-up, and a lot of the choices that were made were the right ones. But they overdid it a bit.

My verdict: Like it. It's fun, it tries to be deep, and there's no faulting their enthusiasm. I'm pleased that Hanson seems to have grown up and honed their craft.

Song #744: "I've Been Thinking About You" by Londonbeat

Date: Apr 13, 1991
Weeks: 1

Search Link

This is a polite little dance/pop song from the early 90s, and it's harmless enough. It's got a little bounce that you can dance to, sufficient variety to stay entertaining, and inoffensive orchestration.

I try not to rail too hard against the use of the drum kit in pop music, because honestly I think that combined with sufficient overall sound and clever editing, its sins can be overlooked. Synthesizers are harder to make work, and must be judged on a song-by-song basis. Both these elements work fine in this song. I think it's because it's a dance song, so overall it's expected to be the same throughout a lot of it, and the art is in how variety is injected. And the rest of the music works pretty well. The guitar, the synthesized bass and everything else creates a fairly full sound, with occasional breaks for impact. It never loses its intensity, and it manages to end just before its repetition might get grating.

The vocals might be the hardest part to enjoy. The singer is a weird combination of falsetto and breathy. He sounds like he's whispering most of the time, and I think that's an weird choice. It sounds like he's holding back, either because he's trying not to overpower the music or because he's not very good at singing louder. I don't like the style at all, myself. But I suppose it's not bad enough to ruin the music overall.

The lyrics are about someone starting to think about their friend in a romantic way. "I miss you baby, and I've got those feelings again." It's a decent topic for a song, but these lyrics aren't especially impressive. For one thing, what does "again" mean in that line? Has this happened before? Didn't you sort it out then? Also, the second verse confounds me. He's just confessed his feelings and then it sounds like he's also confessing that he cheated? "She was my one temptation." That sounds like he's confessing to cheating, but how did he manage to cheat in the space between the first chorus and the second verse?

My verdict: Like it. It's got its drawbacks, sure, but it's a light bit of fun dance music and it has its charm.

Song #496: "The Tide Is High" by Blondie

Date: Jan 31, 1981
Weeks: 1

Search Link

I'll always associate this song with an ad I saw once for reruns of Star Trek: The Next Generation, which played off the "I want to be your Number One" lyric in this song to promote a week of shows about Commander Riker. That ad cracked me up, but unfortunately it seems the Internet failed to document it for me to share here. Too bad.

I was going to start by commenting on the song's obvious reggae influence, until I discovered it's actually a cover of a song by a reggae band, the Paragons. Blondie seem to play up the reggae style of it a bit more, adding horns and crossing over into ska territory. And I like everything about it. The bass and drum lines are compelling, the horns are appealing, and the strings are used sparingly for accents late in the song.

What I particularly like is the chaotic, mixed percussion through the background. I've often put songs on a scale of relaxing verses energetic, but I think what I really like is intensity. Here's a song that has an overall relaxing tone without losing any intensity, and a big part of it is that the percussion keeps that intensity even when everything else is indicating relaxation.

And just when the song nears the end and threatens to get repetitive, Debbie Harry injects some weird intensity into her vocals to keep the variety coming. The weird intensity of vocals near the end really stands out, but I think it makes the song memorable, and keeps you on your toes, unsure when to expect it.

The lyrics aren't quite so great. It's mostly the same chorus over and over, and the chorus lyrics don't seem to mean much. "The tide is high" is a metaphor that doesn't really get explained. The line "I'm gonna be your number one" doesn't really explain what it means. I guess its meaning is obvious, but the phrase "number one" is so unusual that I'm not surprised someone latched onto it when making a Star Trek promo. And what few verse lyrics there are don't even rhyme, but they're close enough that it doesn't seem like a deliberate choice. "Every girl wants you to be her man. But I'll wait dear until it's my turn." Doesn't rhyme. Heck, the original lyric is "Every man wants you to be his girl. But I'll wait dear until it's my turn," and that doesn't rhyme any better.

My verdict: Like it. The lyrics are easy to ignore, and the overall sound is great.

Song #222: "Wedding Bell Blues" by The 5th Dimension

Date: Nov 8, 1969
Weeks: 3

Search Link

Before Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. sang a song from the perspective of a married couple, she sang lead on this song, which really surprised me. Considering I didn't like that song, and I only sort of liked parts of the last 5th Dimension song I covered, I didn't have a lot of hope for this one. But I really like it quite a bit.

I just enjoy the overall sound. There's a classic, classy sound to the music here. I think the focus on piano, with drums, bass, and some horn and string accents, creates an appealingly charming sound. It's energetic and upbeat. I often complain that so many songs in the 70s use so many instruments to create so little sound. This is my counter-example. It uses many of the same instruments that are so popular in 70s pop music, but it uses them to create a full, complete, engaging sound. This is a cover of an earlier song by the songwriter, Laura Nyro, and there was also a cover by Lesley Gore. But both those versions lack the fullness of sound that is present in this version.

Marilyn McCoo really sells this song, too. She belts this one out with enthusiasm, possibly because the song had a bit of a personal meaning to her, since she was engaged to, but not yet married to, Billy Davis at the time. They even had fun with this during TV performances of the song. I think she also captures the right spirit of the lyrics.

The lyrics surprised me a bit, because rarely in pop songs do the singers call out the name of the person the love song is about. Sure, once in a while you'll get a "Sherry" (#78) or a "Sara" (#591), but those are deliberately reflected in the title. I think this song says the name "Bill" more times than either of those, too. Regardless, the singer is trying to figure out if Bill is ready to commit to marriage. And I like the sentiment. She's getting fed up with waiting, and she doesn't want to give up on Bill, but she wants to know if he's going to make the commitment. I suppose you can have your own interpretation of what she'll do if he says no or tries to string her along further. Personally, McCoo's performance makes me think she's going to drop him and move on.

My verdict: Like it. It's charming and energetic, what's not to like?

Song #464: "Reunited" by Peaches & Herb

Date: May 5, 1979
Weeks: 4

Search Link

"We both are so excited 'cause we're reunited." Okay, go back and write a song that actually communicates excitement. This one communicates, at best, quiet self-satisfaction.

Once again, we have a bunch of instruments involved in creating a really quiet song, so there is neither emotional spareness nor energetic fullness. The instruments that are here seem to be really cheaply produced, possibly simulated. Take out the drums and explore the emotional sincerity of your song.

Vocally, the song's not much better to listen to. Herb is a pretty mediocre singer, and he doesn't carry his solo sections very well. Peaches does better, and I don't mind her voice at all. But together, they just don't harmonize very well. "There's one perfect fit and sugar this one is it." Your voices don't fit together at all. Your voices need to be reunited.

The lyrics feel really lazily written. There's no poetry here, just a bunch of words that rhyme. "I spent the evening with the radio. Regret the moment that I let you go." "Spent the evening with the radio" isn't an idiom, and it's kind of half a metaphor at best. And to fit the sentence structure, it should be "I regret the moment," but of course that doesn't fit the meter. Also, I don't really like the sentiment. Relationship songs are usually about angst, or contentment, but this one is just kind of smugly satisfied.

My verdict: Don't like it. It's just all wrong.

Song #214: "Aquarius/Let The Sunshine In" by The 5th Dimension

Date: Apr 12, 1969
Weeks: 6

Search Link

So this is a medley of two songs from the musical Hair, and for some reason I don't think I'd ever heard them together before. They are two distinctive songs that, other than having a similar aesthetic, don't seem to blend together very well.

The "Aquarius" segment is particularly kitschy. It's all about astrology, "mystic crystal revelation," and peace and love. Apparently the "Age of Aquarius" has to do with which zodiac constellation the sun is located in on the vernal equinox. The precession of various celestial bodies causes this to change every 2100 years or so. Depending on the interpretation of the boundary between constellations, the changeover from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius could be anywhere from the 20th century to the 27th century. If I understand right, this is the etymology of the phrase "New Age."  The point, as far as this song is concerned, is that there was a belief that the change from one age to another might usher in a new age of world peace, and so this part of the song celebrates that.

I don't really care for the oddly minor-key overtones through this part of the song. I think it's aiming for a "cosmic" sound, but it just comes off echo-y and like it's trying to come across as more grand than it actually is. I actually kind of like the chaotic guitar stuff happening otherwise.

The second half, "Let The Sunshine In" works much better. I actually really enjoy this part of the song. The bass line proceeds in an intriguing way, the horns punctuate at just the right times, and the overall sound is appealing. The chorus harmonizes and the lead singer scats along in a compelling way. The weakness of this part is that there's not a lot of variety to maintain interest for the length of time it lasts. But the overall sound is too appealing to deny.

My verdict: Like it. I didn't think I would when I started it, but I liked the "Aquarius" part more on repeated listens, and I liked the "Sunshine" part from the get go.

Song #356: "Best Of My Love" by Eagles

Date: Mar 1, 1975
Weeks: 1

Search Link

Oh, strummy acoustic nothing songs, how I loathe you.

The bulk of this song is 2 chords from an acoustic guitar. Both the verses and the choruses just alternate from one chord to the other before switching back. There are also some transitions that employ a couple other chords very briefly, but other than technically adding more chords to the song they don't add anything resembling variety to the music.

And there's little else going on to listen to here. There's another guitar noodling away vaguely way in the background, and a lonely maraca on percussion. And there's the vocal harmony, but this isn't exactly Boyz II Men here. The Eagles's voices here are fine, but not particularly remarkable.

And this is where the strummy acoustic guitar song fails for me. There's no interesting sound here. There's no tension building up for release, no energy. There's not even any variety to keep the song compelling. Conversely, they can't commit to the spare, heartfelt song of one person with one guitar, instead adding sound and voices all over the place. So with the music a complete failure, that must mean the lyrics are interesting, right?

I'm not going to pretend the lyrics are terrible, because they're not. But they're not exactly great, either. There aren't any clever turns of phrase or interesting things to say. The singer's had a fight with his significant other and can't quite find the right words to make it right. "We try to talk it over, but the words come out too rough." It's an apology song, an attempt to rise above the specific issues at hand and try to save the relationship because "here in my heart, I give you the best of my love." Mostly I don't have a problem with the lyrics, but I do find the chorus to be pretty generic. "Ooooh, sweet darlin'. You get the best of my love." "Sweet darlin'" isn't exactly an original affectionate, there. And gee, maybe if the relationship is in this much peril, your "sweet darlin'" might actually be getting the worst of your love.

My verdict: Don't like it. A song needs to have either interesting music or interesting lyrics, preferably both. This one has mediocre lyrics and almost no music, so it's no good.

Song #219: "Sugar, Sugar" by The Archies

Date: Sept 20, 1969
Weeks: 4

Search Link

I didn't expect a TV tie-in song from a cartoon band with the name "Sugar, Sugar" to be anything but a light, pleasant pop song. But this song feels insubstantial even by that standard.

I think the core of the problem is a general lack of percussion and bass. There aren't really drums here, just hand-claps. There is a strummy, limited bass guitar, and if you're lucky you might find a version of the song that ups the bass so you can hear it better, but it's not really holding the rest of the song together as well as it should.

I do like the bass line that we do have. I like the guitar part and the other miscellaneous instruments. There are good musical ideas here, particularly the pipe organ sound that plays in the chorus after every iteration of "Sugar" and "Honey, honey." And the song creates a big wall of sound near the end that has a lot going on at once that is especially appealing.

Lyrically, at least the song knows what it is. "You are my candy girl." "I knew how sweet a kiss could be." This is what happens when someone knowingly makes music to fit into the genre of "bubblegum pop" in the most literal way possible. That said, the lyrical repetition goes in a pattern that is both appealing and reliable without being predictable or boring. These are not deep insights, but the words themselves have an appeal to them.

My verdict: Like it. I wish the percussion was more fully featured, but overall this song has charm. The cover from the 90s is a big improvement on a lot of things, although it doesn't have even as good as a bass line as this original version does.

Song #909: "My Boo" by Usher and Alicia Keys

Date: Oct 30, 2004
Weeks: 6

Search Link

As a note, it's not totally wrong to start your music video with a clip from a different song, but they're not usually so long. I'm just saying if this if your first time hearing this song like it was for me, make sure you ignore the first 40 seconds or so of the video, because that's not the song.

I think it's fitting that Usher and Alicia Keys made a song together. They are both ridiculously talented singers whose songs are hampered by bizzare production choices of the moment, the kind of choices that already seem a bit dated, less than a decade later. Their voices are individually great, and they blend together really well. I like all the layers of overlapping voice that are arranged together. They're complex in a way that suggests the complex feelings the singers have for each other. Whatever energy this song manages to have is entirely because they sound so appealing together, and because they have been edited together well.

Where the song goes wrong is in the synthesized voice chord... chipmunk noises that punctuate the verses. They're just so cheap and fake that they draw attention away from the singing. The rest of the music is fine. The bass and drums are appealingly simple, drawing focus to the singing. I even kind of like the more rapid synthesized beats that mark transitions in this song. They successfully increase tension that gets released by the transitions to a new part of the song. Overall, the music is pretty good, especially appropriate for a song that is trying to feature two excellent singers, but a general lack of variety combined with the obnoxious synthesized voice chord noises really hamper the song's overall quality.

Lyrically, well, the elephant in the room is the title. "My Boo" seems like a piece of slang that is unlikely to last another 50 years when someone sits down to review the first 2000 No. 1 hits, and has to derive the meaning from context. I've always wondered where the word came from, so I looked it up. According to Urban Dictionary, the word "boo" as slang for boyfriend or girlfriend derives from the French word "beau," through various Caribbean communities, and finally into American English slang as "boo." So I learned something today.

The rest of the lyrics are about these two people who were each others' first loves, and even though their relationship is over and they don't specifically say they want to rekindle it, they still hold strong affection for each other. I think it's a sweet sentiment.

My verdict: Like it. I still wish the sound had been mixed differently, and that the video hadn't included that fake-out for another song that took me a while to figure out was actually another song. But overall the positives outweigh the negatives.

Song #861: "It's Gonna Be Me" by 'N Sync

Date: July 29, 2000
Weeks: 2

Search Link

I'm not sure I have it in me to really hate on 'N Sync's only No. 1. This certainly isn't a good song, but all things considered it's not really all that bad, either.

The core of this song really isn't so bad. It's a basic drum kit beat and bass line, with a healthy mix of decently synthesized sounds, and some musical variety. And hey, the vocal harmonies are even pretty decent. Yeah, maybe there's some Auto-tune polishing, but at least it's not used as an intentionally obvious effect. It's catchy and fairly simple in an ear-pleasing way. At its core, this song is quite listenable, if not particularly profound.

Where this song goes wrong is some of the styling around the edges. The weirdly minor-key opening chords are pretty terrible. The distorted vocal effects right at the beginning are jarring in a song that is otherwise trying to sound reasonably pleasant. The bridge breakdown is also terrible, including some odd beatboxing vocal effects that are cowardly downmixed to almost being nonexistent. Either they were good enough to put in the whole song, or they were bad enough to remove entirely. Also a problem is the how often the synthesizer comes off sounding like a harpsichord. It's a weird fit with the rest of the song.

The songs lyrics are pretty bad. Obvious rhymes and bad messages abound in lines like "Baby when you finally get to love somebody, guess what, it's gonna be me." This seems to be yet another song on the variation of the singer just waiting for the person they're singing to to notice them. And the "can't you see how romantic that it is that I'm suffering so much for you?" sort of model that just keeps on going in pop music.

My verdict: Don't like it. Not as bad as I feared it would be. Maybe this really was their best song. But still not very good.

Song #535: "Every Breath You Take" by The Police

Date: July 9, 1983
Weeks: 8

Search Link

Of course this song is famous for its misinterpretation as a love song. The conventional wisdom suggests it's a song about a stalker, but I don't really read that in the lyrics, either.  I think it's more of a tormented break-up song. "Every move you make, and every vow you break, every smile you fake, every claim you stake, I'll be watching you." He's anguishing about how he wasn't ready to break up, and the complex feelings of both wanting to get back together while also lingering over all the bad times.

Musically, the song is very simple, with a really basic guitar and snare drum progression. There's not a lot of variation in the chorus, either, with just a little extra synthesized string coming in to the song. Sting's vocals are also pretty tame throughout most of the song. It's pretty tedious, actually. The good thing is that right in the middle of the song there's an excellent bridge that brings in a stronger guitar and a piano while Sting's vocals get very intense. It lasts less than 30 seconds, but it single-handedly injects just enough life into the song to keep it interesting. This section also includes the best, most turned-inward and self-aware lyrics in the song. "I look around but it's you I can't replace." Regardless of the fault he's casting at his ex through most of the rest of the song, this section admits his pwn failings, and it's wonderful to get that admission in the middle of the song.

My verdict: Like it. It's catchy, touching, and while it may be a little too subtle overall, it has a nice explosion of sound that saves it.

Song #251: "Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me)" by The Temptations

Date: Apr 3, 1971
Weeks: 2

Search Link

Not every song that is slow, quiet, and gentle is bad. Here's a song that is at least soothing and pleasant to listen to. Unfortunately, it's also extraordinarily low on energy, and I'm not entirely convinced the sound matches its lyrics entirely appropriately.

I could see a song that sounded like this being a sweet little love song. There are parts of it, especially in the verses, that feel like a stroll with your sweetheart on a nice day. But that's not what this song is about, because the singer turns out to be imagining the whole thing. The music doesn't really match that, because the music isn't really sad at all. It's just soft. I'm not going to go too hard on the song for the singer building this whole relationship around this woman who is walking by, because he does repeatedly acknowledge the reality of the situation, with both the song's title and the line "in reality she doesn't even know me."

The vocal harmonies in this song are, of course, excellent. But the music is too much like the rest of the 70s, with huge string sections attached to very slight and inconsequential percussion. I don't think strings are a bad match for the song, but there's too much of them here. And the horns in the bridge are really misplaced, sounding like they came from some epic stage musical, rather than the  inconsequential musings of a man sitting alone with his imagination.

My verdict: Don't like it. The only thing this song seems good for is wallowing in self-pity over failed relationships. There's value in that, but it's not a great song from outside that context.

Song #407: "If You Leave Me Now" by Chicago

Date: Oct 23, 1976
Weeks: 2

Search Link

Hoo boy. If there's one good thing that could be said about Chicago in the 80s, it's that they had at least mastered the cheesy power ballad, with strong synthesizer chords that were appealing, if hollow. But this song can't even rise to that level.

The sound in this song is so hollow, so soft, so inconsequential, and so lethargic, I can't imagine how it managed to share radio space with "Rock'n Me" (#408). You have Peter Cetera's high-pitched and insincere voice, the lightest guitar I've heard in a while, a tiny maraca sound, and some low strings and soft horns. And that's it. There no energy behind this song and no emotional sincerity. I don't mind an emotional song, but I don't get the sincere vibe a song like this needs to pull off.

Lyrically, it's similarly hollow. "A love like ours is a love that's hard to find. How could we let it slip away?" There's a lot of time spent in this song telling us that the singer thinks this is a special relationship that shouldn't be allowed to end the way it's ending, but I don't feel persuaded. "If you leave me now, you'll take away the biggest part of me." It just feels whiny, rather than persuasive. A lot of that may have to do with Cetera's vocal delivery, but the lyrics are just as much to blame.

My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a great song, but it's a terrible performance. Boyz II Men did a version of it in 2009 that is what this song should have sounded like.

Song #877: "Fallin'" by Alicia Keys

Date: Aug 18, 2001
Weeks: 6

Search Link

I really like Alicia Keys's voice, and her songwriting is generally pretty strong. But I think a lot her songs after this one are better, because they don't include all the extraneous elements that don't quite work for me here. Let's break it down by component.

Piano: This song has a pleasant little piano backing. It's a bit simple, but it's nice. It's about right as it is.

Voice: Alicia Keys sings well. She's no all-time great vocalist, but she has a nice voice and she's emotionally expressive in a great way. This may not be her best performance ever but she acquits herself well I have no complaints about her singing here.

Drums and bass: Excellent. I enjoy the beat that carries this song along. A lot of Keys's music stands out because of her ability to combine piano with a traditional R&B bass sound in an appealing way.

Background vocals: Here's where we start getting into the parts of the song I think were intrusive. The gospel chorus backing this song just makes it seem overdone. Madonna made a gospel choir work in "Like A Prayer" (#688) by adding it to a big, loud, epic production. This is a quiet little love tune and the gospel chorus is too big for it.

Strings: This is the element I like the least. It's kind of a subtle effect, but the sounds the strings create in this song are just entirely unwelcome. I especially dislike the plucking sound around the second chorus. It feels like Bugs Bunny is sneaking up on the song.

I don't disagree that this song needed a bit more to it than the piano, voice, and drums, but I don't think the right solution to the problem was found. The song feels like it's cheating a bit, trying to be bigger than it really is supposed to be. I'm not sure what the right solution was, I just know I don't like what they came up with.

My verdict: Don't like it. I just don't think the gospel chorus is earned by this song.

Song #14: "Kansas City" by Wilbert Harrison

Date: May 18, 1959
Weeks: 2

Search Link

The background music in this song is kind of that quintessential 1950s rock sound. I can already imagine it playing in the background of American Graffiti. This is classic rock and roll here. I like the sound of it, but there's not a lot of variety. It goes on and on without much variation. Fortunately, the song is brief enough that it doesn't really manage to get old.

I like Harrison's vocal performance. For the most part his performance is clean and clear, but he adds just enough variety to keep the song interesting. It's well-performed, in a tidy 1950s way.

The lyrics are pretty ordinary, I think. I've never cared for that blues trope where the first line of any verse is repeated twice, and that particular trope is all over this song. It just seems to take away the song's opportunities to say different things. As for the subject, the singer seems to think all his problems will be solved if he moves to Kansas City, because "they got some crazy little women there." It's worth noting that this version of the song changes the lyrics from "If I stay in town I know I'm gonna die" to "If I stay with that woman I know I'm gonna die." I'm not sure I can respect the guy who seems to think all his problems will be solved if he runs away from his current relationship just to pursue a new one.

My verdict: Don't like it. It's fine, really, but it doesn't move me. Also, the lyrics about running away from a relationship just to start a new one kind of bother me.

Song #974: "I Gotta Feeling" by The Black Eyed Peas

Date: July 11, 2009
Weeks: 14

Search Link

The Black Eyed Peas are an interesting group. Sometimes their music is sloppy, obnoxious, audio chaos. Other times it seems like they've calculated the precise resonance frequency of pop music and carefully crafted it into a focused dance delivery system. Fortunately, we're dealing the the latter today.

This song was everywhere when it was new, and it's easy to see why. It's an energetic romp that builds tension and anticipation and then releases all the pent-up energy into a huge, enthusiastic burst of energy. I know I keep using the word "energy," but I can't help it. It's really the song's most endearing feature.

There's a lot to nitpick about the music, though. There are some strings sounds early on that would have sounded better if they were real, rather than simulated. There's too much obvious Auto-Tune going on in the voices. But none of those are really problems.

What is a problem is that the song spends too much time in its anticipation build-up phase. I don't mind the first 90 seconds is spent building to the explosion of the chorus. I think that's about perfect, actually. The problem I have is that after only 1 minute of that chorus, the song goes back to the build-up phase for another full minute-plus of building anticipation all over again. Literally half the song's running time is spent waiting for the other half to start up, and that's a balance that doesn't quite work for me. I've enjoyed songs that spent much much longer building up to a big but short payoff, but that's an interesting choice. And I don't have anything against songs that do a brief breakdown in the bridge, because that keeps the song interesting. But the build-ups in this song stop being interesting and just make me impatient for the good part.

The lyrics are a mixed bag. I'm not going to complain about their simplicity, because that's kind of point. In fact, the lyrics sort of redeem all the time spent building up. Since the primary lyric is "Tonight's gonna be a good night," it's obvious that all the anticipation is probably intentional. That doesn't entirely redeem it, but it goes a long way. Before I was really paying attention to this song, I mostly just knew it as the song where they shout "Mazel Tov" for no reason, so that's a successful lyrical choice, at least as far as getting attention. The part where they list days of the week is pretty lazy. But then you add that to lyrics like "Let's do it and do it and do it do it do it," and I just don't have the heart to tear apart this big, dumb, friendly song.

My verdict: Like it. It's big, dumb, easy fun.

Song #318: "Love's Theme" by Love's Unlimted Orchestra

Date: Feb 9, 1974
Weeks: 1

Search Link

The love theme from what movie? Oh. No movie. Just Love's theme. Which seems like it's far too generic an idea to inspire a good song. And, as it turns out, that's entirely true.

Barry White wrote this song, but left out his voice and wrote an instrumental piece. I already complained about one Barry White song not having a full enough sound when he wasn't singing, so an entire song where Barry White doesn't sing is very disappointing. There is more bass here than last time, to compensate, but the song still feels like it's missing something. I don't need lyrics, but maybe some non-verbal vocal exercises could have added some interest to this song.

I also don't appreciate the mix of orchestra and 70s wah-wah guitar. I'll try not to hold the general overuse of strings in 70s pop music against this song. But I can't help feel that somebody wrote a pleasant little string orchestra piece and then ruined it with a cheap little wah-wah guitar and synthesized bass undercurrent. There's not really a well-featured instrument, either, so it just ends up feeling like somebody forgot to record the lyrics.

Oh, I take it back. The lyrics don't make this song better. Yikes.

My verdict: Don't like it. I'm not opposed to the idea of a disco instrumental, but this one didn't work out.

Song #246: "The Tears Of A Clown" by Smokey Robinson & The Miracles

Date: Dec 12, 1970
Weeks: 2

Search Link

Pop music history is riddled with songs that took a distinctive, attention-grabbing introduction, and used it to lead into a bland, ordinary, unexciting song. I'm happy to say this is not one of them, because this song manages to live up to the promise of that unique calliope opening.

The bass and sax throughline in this song is wonderfully distinctive and remarkable on its own, and when put together with the calliope make for an unmistakable and appealing song. I also enjoy how the chorus builds into a bit of choas before gathering itself together and pushing back to the calliope. It's hard to believe any pop music sound could be cohesive with an opening that sounds like it came from the circus, but this song pulls it off. I'm not surprised to learn the music was written by Stevie Wonder, because I'm starting to realize he's one of the great music writers of the 70s.

And Smokey Robinson deserves no small credit for writing lyrics that match the music's tone so well. He took that circus theme and ran with it, writing a song about a person who has a happy face metaphorically painted on, even though he's sad about a breakup. "Smiling in the public eye, but in my lonely room I cry." The sad tone of the lyrics contrast with the happy way Robinson sings them, in a way that is perfectly paired with the whole "Tears of a Clown" concept. Like the words suggest, the song isn't as happy as it might seem at first.

My verdict: Like it. This is a well-crafted and well-performed song. I just wish I could have found a cleaner mix to share, because the only thing that could improve it is a fuller bass line.

Song #656: "Get Outta My Dreams, Get Into My Car" by Billy Ocean

Date: Apr 9, 1988
Weeks: 2

Search Link

This song seems terribly miscalculated. I think the meaning is really supposed to be reflected by one of the later lyrics, "Get outta my mind, get into my life." That's what you say when you want to stop admiring someone from afar and pursue a real relationship with them.

Unfortunately, somewhere in the writing process the metaphor "Get outta my dreams, get into my car" came along. And the rest of the song was written around literalizing that metaphor as much as possible. Lyrics like "touch my bumper" and "lady driver" merge with car horn sounds and revving engines, and the result is a song that isn't serious enough to be meaningful, but doesn't quite reach the level of humorous novelty song, either. Also, what is meant by the line "get in the back seat, baby?" Is that still a metaphor, or have they abandoned all metaphorical pretensions and just tossed in a car reference for fun?

The overly bright horns and noisy percussion and synthesizer stings don't help much, either. This is a song locked into the sound of the late 80s, in a way that doesn't make much sense outside the context of 80s music. I don't care much for the female vocals, either. They seem unnecessary and designed to just complicate the sound. And then they can't even be consistent with their car metaphors, choosing to try something else with "Hey Cinderella, step in your shoe." You made the song about the car metaphor, you stick with it.

The whole "Touch my bumper [bumper]" moment is this song in a nutshell. I spent all my time listening to this song waiting for that line to repeat, because I just sort of dread how dumb that moment is, encapsulating everything that bugs me about this song.

My verdict: Don't like it. I really hope this song was written specifically for License To Drive, and that the car metaphor was written first. At least that's a commercial enterprise I can understand. Because if someone just thought the car metaphor was a good idea on an artistic level, that person was sorely mistaken.

Song #367: "Thank God I'm A Country Boy" by John Denver

Date: June 7, 1975
Weeks: 1

Search Link

I'm not a country boy, but I find myself charmed by this song anyway. There's a plain and simple joy present in both the writing and performance of this song that can't be denied. I think the live recording energizes it, so it was a good choice to release this recording as the single.

I really like the music here. It's basic guitar, violin, and string bass country music. Most of the percussion sounds like it comes from hand claps and foot stomps. The vocal harmonies are well-done. I enjoy the simplicity of this. That's unusual for most of the 70s music I've reviewed, where music simplicity seems to not be allowed.

The lyrics are about a country boy who is happy about his life, and his joy is infectious. "I got me a fine wife, I got my old fiddle. When the sun's coming up, I got cakes on the griddle." Sounds like a great morning to me. I like that he loves all the things that make his life good. I really like that he doesn't feel too much need to compare his life to other people and claim his way is superior. Yeah, there are a couple lines that get close to that, but for the most part it's all about how happy he is to have a family, a farm, a fiddle, and his life in general. It's not a list of things he wants or doesn't want. He aspires to nothing more than to be happy with his life the way it is, and that's appealing.

My verdict: Like it. It's catchy and fun and positive. What's not to like?

Song #805: "Because You Loved Me" by Celine Dion

Date: Mar 23, 1996
Weeks: 6

Search Link

So remember when I complained about the overproduction in the single version of "My Heart Will Go On" (#825)? Well, if you ever wondered what it would sound like if you removed the classy orchestral undercurrent from that song and left nothing but the shallow overproduction, here's your answer. Unsurprisingly, we once again have Diane Warren to thank for this.

This has all those usual cheesy power ballad hallmarks. The "tick..boom" drum, the gospel-sounding background chorus attempting to inflate the song's importance. The unnecessary strings doing the same thing. The cheesy emotionlessly emotional synth bass line. This song contains a bonus sound that really grates my brain, too. During the second verse, some instrument or another just keeps droning these monotone quarter notes. Whatever that is, it doesn't return again, so I'm not sure what the point was. I guess they wanted the song to build from start to finish and this was the only way they could think to accomplish that. I will give credit that the song does successfully build and get bigger from start to finish, so while I don't enjoy listening to it, at least the variety keeps it from being boring.

Celine Dion gives a good performance here. She's well-matched to the song, and her level of performance and showing off near the end works quite well.

The lyrics are fine, I guess. They're about how the support of someone who loves you gives you strength, especially when you need it most. I always thought the song was a little asymmetrical, with one person able being supported by another but not offering support back. But Warren supposedly wrote this song about her father, and that kind of one-directional supportive love makes more sense when it's about a parent than a romantic partner. While I don't object to the sentiment, I do think the song makes its point early and then repeats itself for the rest of its running time, and it doesn't manage to be poetic or original about it.

My verdict: Don't like it. The lyrics are okay, if bland. The singing is actually pretty good. But nothing can overcome the cheesy music.

Song #636: "La Bamba" by Los Lobos

Date: Aug 29, 1987
Weeks: 3

Search Link

This is a cover from the soundtrack to a movie about a singer who recorded a rock and roll version of a traditional dance song from Mexico. Is everybody clear on that?

The original rock and roll song was recorded by Ritchie Valens. I'm not sure whether I like his version more or not. It's more organic than this remake, so it has a bit more feeling, but it's also not nearly as tidy. Personally, I think I like the Los Lobos singer better, but I like most of the instruments in the Valens version better. Well, maybe not the wood block percussion. Mostly I just want to get rid of the irritating guitar solo from the Los Lobos version. Regardless of all of that, the bottom line is that this song has a catchy tune. It will get stuck in your head. I don't understand why they added an acoustic lead-out from the song, though. Was that to tie it back to its traditional roots? Maybe, but it feels like a whole different song.

I've always wondered what the lyrics to this song meant. I've always been a little irritated by how often this song loops back to "Baila la la la bamba." Although I didn't understand the lyrics, I got the sense that they were very repetitive. And now that I've found a translation, I see that I was pretty much right. But it's really not so bad, because the lyrics are basically "dance the bamba," where the bamba is a type of dance. Then it says "a little bit of grace is needed" and "and higher and higher." Basically the lyrics are just telling you to dance. I can't really complain that a dance song lacks meaningful lyrics. The meaning is in the dancing.

My verdict: Don't like it. I'm not sure I can offer a particularly eloquent explanation beyond that its style just doesn't connect with me. And I'm not quite willing to grant latitude to a song that's been made primarily to promote a movie. I might be more charitable with Ritchie Valens version, but that song didn't reach No. 1.

Song #337: "Can't Get Enough Of Your Love, Babe" by Barry White

Date: Sept 21, 1974
Weeks: 1

Search Link

Here's a great example of a talented singer elevating a song far beyond what the music deserves. This song is full of many of the terrible hallmarks of 70s pop music, but I don't mind because Barry White is awesome.

I'm sure I don't have to extoll the virtues of White's voice. It's what he's famous for. He's universally admired for his bass voice. His voice was a plot point in an episode of The Simpsons. The talking parts are very well done, and their duration is about perfect because just as you feel you're about to get tired of them, the singing part of the song starts, and honestly I think that's the part I like more.

Musically, the song has that 70s problem where even though there are plenty of instruments, the overall sound doesn't manage to be very full. I understand that White's voice is taking up most of the bass range, but when he stops to breathe the bottom sort of falls out of the song. Without him, the music feels light and weightless. I don't care for the use of horns at all, as usual, although I suppose I do like the strings. There's something about the smoothness of the sound they provide, as compared to, say, a guitar, that works here.

The lyrics are a passionate love song, full of an emotion that is intense, but never regrettable. "Your love for me is all I need and more than I can stand." He's actually made uncomfortable by his desire for this woman, but he's not upset by it, because he knows exactly what he needs. Even the title implies this passionate intensity. "Can't get enough of your love." No matter how much love he gets, he wants more and more. There's a place in any romance for this kind of intensity once in a while.

My verdict: Like it. It's nice to see an artist whose only No. 1 is also their signature song.

Song #414: "Torn Between Two Lovers" by Mary Macgregor

Date: Feb 5, 1977
Weeks: 2

Search Link

I'm a little lost on the intended interpretation of this song. The first verse sounds like this woman is sitting her significant other down and telling him she's dumping him for another man. But by the second verse she sounds like she's remembering the good times with Guy #1, and then she follows up with "With everything I feel inside, I'm asking you to stay." So possibly she's changed her mind and decided to drop Guy #2 for Guy #1. So she cheated, and now she's being wishy-washy and indecisive.

However, the other possible interpretation, and one that almost makes more sense to me, is that she's informing Guy #1 that she wants to be in an open relationship, and she wants to be with both of them. "He knows he can't possess me and he knows he never will. There's just this empty place inside of me that only he can fill." That sounds like a present-tense fact. "Loving both of you is breaking all the rules." Clearly loving both of them is exactly what she wants to do, and the only questions are whether she's willing to break the social rules and whether she can convince them to go for it. I guess a woman knowing what she wants is empowering. Unfortunately, while the open relationship idea is an interesting one to explore, I tend to think she's just wishy-washy.

Mostly I think she's wishy-washy because of the music. It's gentle music to break bad news by. It's not assertive or challenging to social norms. It's just by-the-numbers acoustic strumming, with a little light piano and super-light percussion to back it. I just noticed there are strings way in the background, too. As is all too common in the 70s, there are a lot of instruments here making very little sound.

Mary MacGregor is an okay singer, I guess. She has that very gentle vocal quality that was so common in the 70s. She doesn't express the emotional depth that Karen Carpenter does, but she also manages sincerity to a degree that Barbra Streisand can't manage. She's fine, I just wish she had better song selection.

My verdict: Don't like it. I suppose I have to give the lyrics credit for making me think about them a little. But the bland, bland music just can't carry the song, and MacGregor doesn't sufficiently elevate it.

Song #778: "That's The Way Love Goes" by Janet Jackson

Date: May 15, 1993
Weeks: 8

Search Link

I've said before that I prefer high-intensity songs, and that I have no use for relaxing and low-key songs. Sometimes low-key songs can work for me, but they have to include some kind of emotional intensity, a meaning that impresses me. And in order to attain that emotional intensity, such a song would need to avoid the following:

- Pitch-shifting the lead singer's voice in an obnoxiously artificial way to repetitively state the song's title over and over again. If you want to achieve this sound, hire some other singers of various ranges. And in particular, avoid making this silly choice even more intense toward the end of the song.

- An overly trite hook repeated a thousand times. "Like a moth to a flame, burned by desire." Heard it! Before I even came here. Sing something else, please.

- A musical track badly in conflict between its deep, bass-y, earthy verse and a major-chord, piano-sounding transition that never resolves into anything actually different. This entire song is like the verse build-up to a song that's actually interesting.


- Unclear pronouns in the chorus that don't even hold up on inspection of the lyrics. What's the way love goes? I suppose there's possibly an over-literal interpretation that the song just tells the story of an entire relationship, from the phase of nervous affection, to the phase of asking the other person out, to the first sexual encounter. That's the way love goes, from common point A to common point B. But then at the end the lyrics about "a moth to a flame, burned by desire" repeat, and it's not like we'd been told the relationship ended, so I don't think that interpretation actually works.

- A semi-ironic self-aware music video that spends half the time taking the song seriously, and half the time laughing about how silly it is. You can't express emotional vulnerability if you're just going to protect yourself from that vulnerability.

My verdict: Don't like it. It's not badly made overall, and Jackson sings it well, but there are a lot of weird choices that completely undermine this song.

Song #344: "Whatever Gets You Through The Night" by John Lennon with The Plastic Ono Nuclear Band

Date: Nov 16, 1974
Weeks: 1

Search Link

I think it's really odd that this song is credited to John Lennon "with the Plastic Ono Band," when it's clearly a duet with Elton John. I spent a bit of time trying to find the correct version of this song, convinced I'd stumbled onto a later collaborative cover. But no, this really is the song that charted. And it's not like this was before Elton John was famous. Both "Benny and the Jets" (#323) and "Crocodile Rock" (#289) had topped the charts already.

Well, whatever the reason for it, I'm glad this collaboration exists. The track opens with Lennon and John laughing, and not only does it sound natural and spontaneous, like the mixer captured a spare take and threw it in to the recording, but it also sets the mood. This is a light and fun song.

I really like the instrument choices. The jazz piano and handclap percussion propel the song forward with a compelling momentum. The guitar fills out the sound and gives the song an intense energy. And of course the saxophone in the lead is spectacular. The saxophone player is long-time session musician Bobby Keys, and even though I'm not sure I can say I know his work, I'm already a fan based on his intense, wild, but clean performance here.

There aren't a lot of lyrics. I guess Lennon liked the phrase "Whatever gets you through the night" and wrote a bit of a stream-of-consciousness song around it. I can't say I really get the meaning, but that's fine.

If there's one drawback to the song it's that it's just a little bit repetitive. It's mitigated by a lot of things, like the variety of performance in both the singing and the saxophone. And the occasional halts work great to break up the song and keep it from feeling like a constant droning train ride to nowhere. But it can get a little droning at times.

My verdict: Like it. I think the flaws are more than made up for by the splendid use of all the talent involved and the careful steps taken to mitigate the repetition.

Song #402: "You Should Be Dancing" by Bee Gees

Date: Sept 4, 1976
Weeks: 1

Search Link

Finally, finally I've found a Bee Gees song that is pure, unmitigated disco fun. I don't know why it is, but for some reason I've really come around on disco and come to appreciate it as fun dance music. Maybe it's the misery of 70s pop music. Maybe it's the misery of 2000s dance music. Genuine 70s disco just seems fun in comparison, and this is a perfectly nice, fun dance song.

It helps that the lyrics aren't what I've come to know as the usual Bee Gees misery-wallowing. The lyrics are, primarily, "you should be dancing." The rest of the lyrics are about how he's in a relationship with a woman who likes to dance and tells him he should dance, too. Ordinarily I'd find this kind of repetition irritating, but in this case I find it refreshingly minimalist.

It helps that the song actually contains a surprising amount of variety. It has verses, choruses, and transitions between them. It has an instrumental bridge that gives an electric guitar and the horns a chance to shine. Then it has a section where most of the instruments fall away but the percussion gets to come to the front. The orchestration in this song is really quite good, and the variety of sounds and sections keep it entertaining for its entire length. An impressive feat considering the repetitive lyrics and the need for a dance song to keep a consistent sound going throughout.

My verdict: Like it. Disco may have been rejected by everyone after the 70s were over, but it was a genre of music that really did include some gems. This is surely one of them.

Song #245: "I Think I Love You" by The Partridge Family

Date: Nov 21, 1970
Weeks: 3

Search Link

Technically the artist for this song is credited as "The Partridge Family Starring Shirley Jones Featuring David Cassidy." Wikipedia says it's because they were the only actual people from the Partridge Family who recorded the song.

The thing about this song that is the most striking is the minor chords used in its verses. It's kind of an unsettling and odd thing to hear in a pop song. But it is well done. The tension that they create is resolved in the chorus, and it gives the song a unique sound. It's attention-getting.

The orchestration seems a bit mired in a very safe interpretation of the music of the late 60s. By which I mostly mean that maddening tambourine. The harpsichord-sounding keyboards are also kind of bland, and I don't care for the keyboard solo in the middle at all. I do really like the bass line, though. The bass line and Cassidy's lead vocals are probably the most appealing parts of this song.

Cassidy's performance conveys a pained intensity, which is very appropriate for the lyrics. The lyrics have the singer proclaiming that he's in love with someone, and he's not entirely happy about it. "Screaming out the words I dread, 'I think I love you'." And the rest of the song helpfully attempts to explain why he's unhappy about it. "So what am I so afraid of? I'm afraid that I'm not sure of a love there is no cure for." It's an interesting take on the process of falling love, being afraid that it's not reciprocated, being afraid that you can't undo it without a lot of pain. And by the end, he's sort of come to terms with it, saying "I only want to make you happy," and "I ought to stay around and love you." It's a neat exploration of an idea, and both the vocal performance and the music are appropriate to convey the complexity of the feelings involved.

My verdict: Like it. It's surprisingly deep and complex for a song that was made primarily to promote a TV series about a singing family.

Song #417: "Evergeen" by Barbra Streisand

Date: Mar 5, 1977
Weeks: 3

Search Link

Before I started this blog, I really didn't care one way or the other about Barbra Streisand. But now I think she's awful. She puts all this emotion into her singing, and every bit of it sounds forced and fake and about as insincere as a singer can. Happily, this is the last time we'll be seeing her here as this is her last No. 1 song on the list.

The music in this song isn't bad. It's from the movie A Star is Born, and the intent is clearly to make a simple, timeless, elegant song for a movie. And on that level, it's a success. I don't usually stand for this much use of strings in pop music, but this really movie music, so it works here. The piano is nice, the light strummy guitar works, and the tropes of pop music are kept out, unlike what happened to "The Way We Were" (#317) . So kudos to whoever composed it, which was... Streisand herself, actually. Well, clearly she has a talent for something, anyway.

So it's up to her to ruin the song with her voice, and clearly she's up to that task. I just hate her voice so much. She takes huge breaths before she belts anything out, over-enunciates the "w" sound on "one," and can't handle any of the pitch-shifting that's required in the song on the word "Evergreen." And as usual, she's investing every syllable with way too much insincere emotion, making sure any genuine emotion remains unexpressed.

"Love soft as an easy chair." No. That's awful. Off to simile school with you. "One love that is shared by two." Yes, that's generally how love works. Two people, two loves doesn't usually work out that well. "Like a rose under the April snow, I was always certain love will grow." So you were like a rose under snow? Because that's what your misplaced modifier says. And when the lyrics aren't stupid, they're generic and meaningless, so I think I'll stop there, before my head explodes.

My verdict: Don't like it. This song won both an Oscar and a Grammy, providing further evidence for the irrelevance of both awards.

Song #152: "We Can Work It Out" by The Beatles

Date: Jan 8, 1966
Weeks: 3

Search Link

This song has always bugged me a little. I really enjoy the verse and chorus. The overall sound of everything clicks together in a way that is just ideal. McCartney's voice, the drums, the guitar, and the organ all work together and it's a thing of beauty.

But then the bridge happens, twice, and it's like it's an entirely different song. The pretty, straightforward vocals are gone and replaced with an off-putting, dissonant vocal harmony. I'm sure that sound is intentional, and I don't usually have a problem with dissonance, but it doesn't quite work for me here. I think the problem is that it doesn't really resolve. The song's tempo shuffles through an awkward transition to waltz time, grinds to a halt, and then the verse picks up again suddenly as if the entire bridge was a dream. It's odd. And I'm not sure if it's supposed to have some kind of meaning within the song, or if the Beatles just did it to spice up the song. I will admit it's unique, and ear-catching, and interesting, but I'm not sure it's appealing.

The lyrics are about a couple having an argument and the singer is basically saying they need to stop fighting or their entire relationship will be at risk. "Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting, my friend." It's a valuable sentiment, but I can't help noticing that he's using it as a tactic to win the argument. He's not expressing a desire to compromise. He says "Try to see it my way. Do I have to keep on talking 'til I can't go on? While you see it your way, run the risk of knowing that out love may soon be gone." That's the kind of argument style you rarely see outside of politics. We're going to ruin everything if we keep arguing, so everybody should agree with me.

My verdict: Like it. Reservations about the lyrics aside, the sound can't be beat. I'm still not sure I like the unusual bridge, but I can't deny that it's unique and attention-getting. And the verse and chorus pair just can't be beat.

Song #833: "One Week" by Barenaked Ladies

Date: Oct 17, 1998
Weeks: 1

Search Link

It's kind of surprising to me that there is so little representation of anything from the 90s "alternative" movement on the list. I guess it wasn't as popular as all the "you can't call it 'alternative' when it's so popular" people led me to believe. This song is about as close as this list comes to a 90s alternative song. I'm sure lots of people would argue that this was the moment when Barenaked Ladies crossed over from alternative to pop, but just the fact that they were alternative before is enough to qualify. Heck, this is probably also the closest thing to a grunge song on the list, and that's pretty appalling.

At any rate, I really like this song. I think Barenaked Ladies are a fun band who walk a very fine line between They Might Be Giants-style goofy novelty songs and conventional pop music, and they wind up being good at both. I'm really impressed that their one No. 1 hit is a bit on the goofy side, too, with lines like "Watching X-Files with no lights on... I hope the Smoking Man's in this one." I love the goofy, light rap verses in this song. They're charmingly nerdy. I also respect the variety of lyrics in the chorus, and the silly construction. "You just did just what I thought you were gonna do" is a line that would feel clunky in any other song, but it fits perfectly in here. The overall meaning is kind of fun, too. It seems to be about a couple that had a fight and are on the path to making up, and the singer is telling us that they might and make up often enough that he knows how long it will take to go through their pattern and reconcile. There's no sense of tragedy to it, it's just about two people who know each other well.

The music is nicely straightforward guitar and drum 90s rock. There's some occasional punctuation by what sounds like a trumpet, but I don't detect any synthesizer here. In particular, the chords in the chorus are strong. They give the song a decent power that grabs your attention and makes you notice when the song is on. I like the contrast between the light verse and the heavy chorus. It helps the chorus feel bigger and better.

My verdict: Like it. It's just plan fun, and I think it's a great introduction to a really good band. Although I think my favorite song by them is "Falling For The First Time."

Song #787: "The Sign" by Ace of Base

Date: Mar 12, 1994
Weeks: 6

Search Link

I'll be the first to admit that these 1000 No. 1 songs aren't necessarily the best 1000 songs of the last 50 years. These are just a snapshot of the most popular song each week, and there are just so many factors that determine that. It seems pretty easy for a new artist's first song to fail to reach the top just because it takes people a while to discover it, but then their second song gets more attention because people know them now, and it's the second song that reaches the top, even if everyone agrees the first song was better. So even for a single artist, their top-ranked songs might not be their best. But sometimes the charts pull a surprise, and that's certainly the case here, because this one they got right. "The Sign" is the only No. 1 song for Ace of Base, but it's also easily their best song.

"The Sign" manages to strike just the right balance between light pop music and the bass-heavy dance music this group came to be known for. It has a catchy drum and bass beat. That synth-whistle solo that opens the song is a signature, unique hook. Put these elements together with some voice and you have a really good sound. Then there's a nicely modulated bridge section on top of that. It's catchy, varied, interesting, and over before it wears out its welcome or repeats itself too much.

I like a lot of what's going on in the lyrics. It's the story of someone who realized their relationship was going nowhere, dumped them, and how happy she is that she did. "I am happy now living without you." It's not about blame, or even the faults and failings of the other person. It's about her figuring out who she is and what she wants. "How could a person like you bring me joy?" She's taken the whole relationship as an experience to help herself figure out who she is, and good for her.

The one thing I never quite got about this song is the whole thing about "the sign." What is it? I think the video really corrupted my interpretation, because the video includes an actual symbol floating in the sky. An ankh, for some reason. But I think the sign the lyrics are referring to is just a metaphorical sign, something that happened in the relationship that clued her in that she needed to end the relationship.

My verdict: Like it. I'm not putting it in my pantheon of favorite songs I've reviewed on this blog, but it's catchy, well-crafted, and has a clear meaning. More pop songs should try to be like this one.