Date: Feb 14, 2004
Weeks: 1
This song may be a case study in how to ruin a good song by stretching it and padding it out until it completely wears out its welcome and gets tiresome.
This song has a great sound. Its rap verses are energetic and clear, with a nice bass line running underneath. The music in the chorus is great, with its horns and smooth singing. This would be a great 3 minute song. Unfortunately, it lasts 4 minutes. Most of that additional runtime is filled with unvarying repetition of the chorus until the song finally fades out to a close. And that's where the song wears out its welcome, breaks down, and reveals how few musical ideas it actually has. The horns, in particular, start to work my last nerve because they only have 3 musical ideas that they repeat over and over and over.
The vocals don't fare much better. There's almost no vocal style variation between the first version of the chorus and the last version of the chorus. Heck, there aren't even varying lyrics. It's "I like the way you move" over and over and over again. I mean, even if the lyrics dropped out and they did an instrumental version of the lyrics one time, that would be an improvement. This song may be underproduced, like it needed another pass through the mixing process before it got released.
My verdict: Don't like it. Doesn't live up to its potential. It starts with good ideas, but doesn't build on them, and then repeats until it irritates.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Song #774: "I Will Always Love You" by Whitney Houston
Date: Nov 28, 1992
Weeks: 14
Here's a song that is hard to listen to on its own terms. It's mostly known as the song that plays when spoofing The Bodyguard. It's probably second-best known for being one of those songs sung by people who overestimate their talent, to painful effect. On the other hand, the song is better-remembered than the movie it's from, and it's an excellent showcase of Whitney Houston's talent.
Unlike the last Whitney Houston song I reviewed, Houston's talent is put to good use here. She makes the song seem easy, but the cadre of terrible imitators shows us that it isn't easy. The song requires incredible range and control, and she has it. Her vocals build expertly from seemingly simple and understated to elaborate and powerful. Every time she sings the title, she sings it with more power and emotional intensity than before. She adds fancy vocal flourishes, but it never feels like she's oversinging. This is probably the best showcase of her voice, and I can't find any fault with it.
Unfortunately, the backing music is substantially weaker. The synthesizer, drum machine, and wind chimes are just what was done for soft movie tie-in ballads at the time. This may actually be the same backing music as "A Whole New World" (#775) (which, by the way, was the very next No. 1 song after this), just with the guitar solo replaced with a sax solo. It's cheap and uninteresting and a serious detriment to the song. However, at least with music this small and inconsequential, Houston's voice is allowed to stand out, which is to the song's overall benefit. And for some reason, I don't think going simpler and smaller would be the right choice here. The music gives the song an appropriate amount of oomph when it needs it.
Lyrically, this song accepts the breakup as the right choice, but the singer reserves the right to be sad about it. It works a little too hard to make the singer a martyr. "Bittersweet memories, that is all I'm taking with me. So goodbye, please don't cry. We both know I'm not what you, you need." She sounds like she's giving up on the relationship for the other person's own good, but won't take any benefit from the breakup herself. She's acting like she's giving up what she wants just for the other person's benefit.
It's worth noting that this song was originally written by Dolly Parton, and according to Wikipedia she wrote it for a breakup she had. Parton does a nice version of the song as well. She's not the vocalist that Whitney Houston is, but she imbues it with heartfelt emotion. I like Parton's backing music better, just some simple country guitar. It's really too bad the early 90s had to cranky every movie ballad through that terrible backing music machine.
My verdict: Like it. I don't care for the backing music, but Houston's voice blows it away and makes it less of a problem.
Weeks: 14
Here's a song that is hard to listen to on its own terms. It's mostly known as the song that plays when spoofing The Bodyguard. It's probably second-best known for being one of those songs sung by people who overestimate their talent, to painful effect. On the other hand, the song is better-remembered than the movie it's from, and it's an excellent showcase of Whitney Houston's talent.
Unlike the last Whitney Houston song I reviewed, Houston's talent is put to good use here. She makes the song seem easy, but the cadre of terrible imitators shows us that it isn't easy. The song requires incredible range and control, and she has it. Her vocals build expertly from seemingly simple and understated to elaborate and powerful. Every time she sings the title, she sings it with more power and emotional intensity than before. She adds fancy vocal flourishes, but it never feels like she's oversinging. This is probably the best showcase of her voice, and I can't find any fault with it.
Unfortunately, the backing music is substantially weaker. The synthesizer, drum machine, and wind chimes are just what was done for soft movie tie-in ballads at the time. This may actually be the same backing music as "A Whole New World" (#775) (which, by the way, was the very next No. 1 song after this), just with the guitar solo replaced with a sax solo. It's cheap and uninteresting and a serious detriment to the song. However, at least with music this small and inconsequential, Houston's voice is allowed to stand out, which is to the song's overall benefit. And for some reason, I don't think going simpler and smaller would be the right choice here. The music gives the song an appropriate amount of oomph when it needs it.
Lyrically, this song accepts the breakup as the right choice, but the singer reserves the right to be sad about it. It works a little too hard to make the singer a martyr. "Bittersweet memories, that is all I'm taking with me. So goodbye, please don't cry. We both know I'm not what you, you need." She sounds like she's giving up on the relationship for the other person's own good, but won't take any benefit from the breakup herself. She's acting like she's giving up what she wants just for the other person's benefit.
It's worth noting that this song was originally written by Dolly Parton, and according to Wikipedia she wrote it for a breakup she had. Parton does a nice version of the song as well. She's not the vocalist that Whitney Houston is, but she imbues it with heartfelt emotion. I like Parton's backing music better, just some simple country guitar. It's really too bad the early 90s had to cranky every movie ballad through that terrible backing music machine.
My verdict: Like it. I don't care for the backing music, but Houston's voice blows it away and makes it less of a problem.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Song #394: "Let Your Love Flow" by Bellamy Brothers
Date: May 1, 1976
Weeks: 1
Ew. Country music trying to sound vaguely disco? I'm not even sure how to cope with that. This is two bad tastes that taste bad together. Once this is over, I'm going to need to listen to so much Johnny Cash.
I think this song deserves an angry list of things about it I hate:
My verdict: Don't like it. Save me, Johnny.
Weeks: 1
Ew. Country music trying to sound vaguely disco? I'm not even sure how to cope with that. This is two bad tastes that taste bad together. Once this is over, I'm going to need to listen to so much Johnny Cash.
I think this song deserves an angry list of things about it I hate:
- The twangy, soft rhythm guitars
- The anemic drums
- The passionless vocals
- The obvious metaphors ("let your love flow like a mountain stream" and "let your love fly like a bird on the wing)
- The weak metaphors ("let your love grow with the smallest of dreams"
- The whiny synthesizer track in the background
- The structure of verse, chorus, verse, chorus, fadeout. There's supposed to be a bridge, or another verse and chorus pair at least. That's how pop music works, and if you're going to break the pattern, you need to do so in an interesting way, not a lazy way. Or at least in a short way, but somehow this song manages the unique achievement of both being too long and ending too early.
My verdict: Don't like it. Save me, Johnny.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Song #171: "96 Tears" by ? And The Mysterians
Date: Oct 29, 1966
Weeks: 1
For the record, the band's name is pronounced "Question Mark and the Mysterians," they just decided to be cute and use the punctuation. Kind of annoying, but since I've seen the word "proto-punk" attached to this band, I suppose the intent was to thumb their nose at convention, albeit in this tiny, tiny way.
I was kind of shocked to hear this song start with that organ riff. I know that riff from the Smash Mouth version of "Can't Get Enough Of You Baby." I always knew that was a cover, but I never got around to figuring out whose song they were covering. Turns out the most popular previous version was by Question Mark, here. Once I found that out, I went looking for the original version, to see if Smash Mouth had been deliberately making reference to more than one song by the Mysterians. But no, it turns out that, for some reason, both songs start with the same exact organ riff. Huh. Well, whatever, It's a cool riff and at least this song used it first.
To be sure, the organ is the best thing happening in "96 Tears". I wish it had more changes and variety to it, but its use is clever and attention-getting. As far as I can tell, it's fairly unique for the era. It's good stuff. And better still, the song has more to offer. The bass is particularly compelling, especially during the part when the organ falls out. The lead guitar is a bit more subtle, but it fills the gaps well, and the drums are fine, too. There's plenty of sound and energy in this song, and I really appreciate that.
The song's biggest weakness is the vocals. A song like this doesn't require very much in the way of raw vocal talent to be good, but Question Mark doesn't really manage to meet that low bar. That first verse is really hard to take, because it's just a monotone with a tiny little pitch shift at the end of each line. He does have a good sense of rhythm, though, so that makes the vocals a little easier to take.
The lyrics don't really matter much in this one, because all my ear wants to listen to is the music. But for the sake of thoroughness, I'll cover them quickly. The lyrics are kind of depressingly cynical about a relationship that has ended, and the singer feels like he lost the breakup, and he's crying "too many teardrops for one heart to be cryin'." But he has a plan to get back together, gain the upper hand, "and then I'm gonna put you way down here and you'll start cryin'." So it's kind of exploring that nasty desire to get the upper hand in a breakup, even if you have coldly calculate a way to do it. Pretty unpleasant. At least the song ends with the singer speculating that the tables could be turned again so he winds up being the one left crying, so there's a self-awareness to the lyrics. Why he determined that 96 was the correct number of tears he wants to see cried, I couldn't say. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because that word fit the meter the best.
My verdict: Like it. The organ and bass alone make this song too catchy to resist, and the small problems with the other elements don't detract very much from that.
Weeks: 1
For the record, the band's name is pronounced "Question Mark and the Mysterians," they just decided to be cute and use the punctuation. Kind of annoying, but since I've seen the word "proto-punk" attached to this band, I suppose the intent was to thumb their nose at convention, albeit in this tiny, tiny way.
I was kind of shocked to hear this song start with that organ riff. I know that riff from the Smash Mouth version of "Can't Get Enough Of You Baby." I always knew that was a cover, but I never got around to figuring out whose song they were covering. Turns out the most popular previous version was by Question Mark, here. Once I found that out, I went looking for the original version, to see if Smash Mouth had been deliberately making reference to more than one song by the Mysterians. But no, it turns out that, for some reason, both songs start with the same exact organ riff. Huh. Well, whatever, It's a cool riff and at least this song used it first.
To be sure, the organ is the best thing happening in "96 Tears". I wish it had more changes and variety to it, but its use is clever and attention-getting. As far as I can tell, it's fairly unique for the era. It's good stuff. And better still, the song has more to offer. The bass is particularly compelling, especially during the part when the organ falls out. The lead guitar is a bit more subtle, but it fills the gaps well, and the drums are fine, too. There's plenty of sound and energy in this song, and I really appreciate that.
The song's biggest weakness is the vocals. A song like this doesn't require very much in the way of raw vocal talent to be good, but Question Mark doesn't really manage to meet that low bar. That first verse is really hard to take, because it's just a monotone with a tiny little pitch shift at the end of each line. He does have a good sense of rhythm, though, so that makes the vocals a little easier to take.
The lyrics don't really matter much in this one, because all my ear wants to listen to is the music. But for the sake of thoroughness, I'll cover them quickly. The lyrics are kind of depressingly cynical about a relationship that has ended, and the singer feels like he lost the breakup, and he's crying "too many teardrops for one heart to be cryin'." But he has a plan to get back together, gain the upper hand, "and then I'm gonna put you way down here and you'll start cryin'." So it's kind of exploring that nasty desire to get the upper hand in a breakup, even if you have coldly calculate a way to do it. Pretty unpleasant. At least the song ends with the singer speculating that the tables could be turned again so he winds up being the one left crying, so there's a self-awareness to the lyrics. Why he determined that 96 was the correct number of tears he wants to see cried, I couldn't say. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because that word fit the meter the best.
My verdict: Like it. The organ and bass alone make this song too catchy to resist, and the small problems with the other elements don't detract very much from that.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Song #555: "Missing You" by John Waite
Date: Sept 22, 1984
Weeks: 1
This is easily one of the greatest breakup songs there is. It expertly captures most of the complicated emotions that swirl around after a breakup and delivers them in a highly appealing package. This is good stuff, and if you have never listened to this song while wistfully thinking about that certain someone, then congratulations on having been in a continuous happy relationship since 1984.
The lyrics do a wonderful job capturing all those feelings. There's regret: "And I'm still standing here and you're miles away, and I'm wondering why you left." There's the memory of happiness: "I hear your name in certain circles and it always makes me smile." Self pity: "You don't know how desperate I've become." Raw pain: "It's my heart that's breaking down this long-distance line tonight." And then my favorite part, the weak declaration of being over it that is easily confused for the real thing: "I ain't missing you, I can lie to myself." On top of that, there's some nice poetic imagery I enjoy, especially "There's a message that I'm sending out like a telegraph to your soul." Sometimes in this situation, all you can do is beam out psychic thoughts and weakly hope that solves the problem. I like the way that captures the powerlessness of the situation.
The music plays right on the hairy edge of being a cheesy synth-heavy 80s song. There is certainly ample synthesizer use. There is also that poundy 80s drum. The song could easily have been a really weak, wimpy, sad song like so many other sad 80s songs. However, there is an admirable restraint in the use of such elements, and an admirable use of genuine guitars. The bass guitar throughout is a good thing to be sure. But the song's strongest moments come from the chorus, when the lead guitar picks up and blares. It's just retrained enough to not conflict with the sad theme, but within that limitation it's an ear-catching guitar tone. Whoever mixed this song did so very, very carefully and got it exactly right. I spent some time looking for a punk or rock cover that might amp up the guitar a bit to see how well that worked, but I guess no one out there thought it would work very well, because I couldn't find one. At any rate, the music here manages to capture that 80s sound without feeling dated and regrettable the way other 80s songs can be.
My verdict: Like it. One of the best of the decade, and a great song to have around to get through a rough patch.
Weeks: 1
This is easily one of the greatest breakup songs there is. It expertly captures most of the complicated emotions that swirl around after a breakup and delivers them in a highly appealing package. This is good stuff, and if you have never listened to this song while wistfully thinking about that certain someone, then congratulations on having been in a continuous happy relationship since 1984.
The lyrics do a wonderful job capturing all those feelings. There's regret: "And I'm still standing here and you're miles away, and I'm wondering why you left." There's the memory of happiness: "I hear your name in certain circles and it always makes me smile." Self pity: "You don't know how desperate I've become." Raw pain: "It's my heart that's breaking down this long-distance line tonight." And then my favorite part, the weak declaration of being over it that is easily confused for the real thing: "I ain't missing you, I can lie to myself." On top of that, there's some nice poetic imagery I enjoy, especially "There's a message that I'm sending out like a telegraph to your soul." Sometimes in this situation, all you can do is beam out psychic thoughts and weakly hope that solves the problem. I like the way that captures the powerlessness of the situation.
The music plays right on the hairy edge of being a cheesy synth-heavy 80s song. There is certainly ample synthesizer use. There is also that poundy 80s drum. The song could easily have been a really weak, wimpy, sad song like so many other sad 80s songs. However, there is an admirable restraint in the use of such elements, and an admirable use of genuine guitars. The bass guitar throughout is a good thing to be sure. But the song's strongest moments come from the chorus, when the lead guitar picks up and blares. It's just retrained enough to not conflict with the sad theme, but within that limitation it's an ear-catching guitar tone. Whoever mixed this song did so very, very carefully and got it exactly right. I spent some time looking for a punk or rock cover that might amp up the guitar a bit to see how well that worked, but I guess no one out there thought it would work very well, because I couldn't find one. At any rate, the music here manages to capture that 80s sound without feeling dated and regrettable the way other 80s songs can be.
My verdict: Like it. One of the best of the decade, and a great song to have around to get through a rough patch.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Song #113: "Rag Doll" by The 4 Seasons featuring the "Sound of Frankie Valli"
Date: July 18, 1964
Weeks: 2
I didn't care for the last 4 Seasons song I did, largely because it felt like an assault on my ears. This one is more restrained and more pleasant, although I can't help feel like maybe they overshot the mark and made a song that was too bland and gentle. I suppose it's kind of unfair of me to demand that these guys hit some kind of mysterious, narrow sweet spot, but I can't help it, that's just how the song catches me.
I think Franke Valli's falsetto is better contained and better used here than in "Sherry." It's not constantly oppressive, but it is still featured. I enjoy some of the embellishments he does late in the song. Maybe that's his strength, carrying random, melodic tones as part of the overall song, rather than trying to belt out the lyrics and grab your attention away from everything else in the song. The vocal harmonies throughout the rest of the song are pretty appealing, as well. It's not just Frankie Valli belting out a tune, it's a vocal group that works well together.
The backing music is a little lazy and simple. The bass, guitar, and drums are all right, but then there's a xylophone, a tambourine, and a hand-clap section that just feels like they were trying to pad out the soundscape with whatever instruments were handy in a studio in the 60s. It's not bad, and it doesn't conflict with the vocals, and in a relatively complex vocal song like this that's probably for the best, but it doesn't elevate the material.
There aren't a lot of lyrics, but the general gist is that this guy is in love with a girl who is poor. A pretty girl who is poor. "Rag" for her clothes, "doll" for her looks. So that leads to lines like "such a pretty face should be dressed in lace." Part of me wants to be bothered by the fact that he only wants to rescue this young woman from poverty because she's pretty, but I suppose I can let the line "my folks won't let me 'cause they say that she's no good" persuade me that he's really just lamenting the difficulty of romantic relationships when there's a severe economic disparity. It could feel too much like charity for one side or the other. So I guess my initial reaction was negative, but I'll give the lyrics the benefit of the doubt and credit them for observing a regrettable aspect of modern society.
My verdict: Like it. It's not that deep, and it's not that spectacular, but it's pleasant enough to listen to.
Weeks: 2
I didn't care for the last 4 Seasons song I did, largely because it felt like an assault on my ears. This one is more restrained and more pleasant, although I can't help feel like maybe they overshot the mark and made a song that was too bland and gentle. I suppose it's kind of unfair of me to demand that these guys hit some kind of mysterious, narrow sweet spot, but I can't help it, that's just how the song catches me.
I think Franke Valli's falsetto is better contained and better used here than in "Sherry." It's not constantly oppressive, but it is still featured. I enjoy some of the embellishments he does late in the song. Maybe that's his strength, carrying random, melodic tones as part of the overall song, rather than trying to belt out the lyrics and grab your attention away from everything else in the song. The vocal harmonies throughout the rest of the song are pretty appealing, as well. It's not just Frankie Valli belting out a tune, it's a vocal group that works well together.
The backing music is a little lazy and simple. The bass, guitar, and drums are all right, but then there's a xylophone, a tambourine, and a hand-clap section that just feels like they were trying to pad out the soundscape with whatever instruments were handy in a studio in the 60s. It's not bad, and it doesn't conflict with the vocals, and in a relatively complex vocal song like this that's probably for the best, but it doesn't elevate the material.
There aren't a lot of lyrics, but the general gist is that this guy is in love with a girl who is poor. A pretty girl who is poor. "Rag" for her clothes, "doll" for her looks. So that leads to lines like "such a pretty face should be dressed in lace." Part of me wants to be bothered by the fact that he only wants to rescue this young woman from poverty because she's pretty, but I suppose I can let the line "my folks won't let me 'cause they say that she's no good" persuade me that he's really just lamenting the difficulty of romantic relationships when there's a severe economic disparity. It could feel too much like charity for one side or the other. So I guess my initial reaction was negative, but I'll give the lyrics the benefit of the doubt and credit them for observing a regrettable aspect of modern society.
My verdict: Like it. It's not that deep, and it's not that spectacular, but it's pleasant enough to listen to.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Song #64: "Peppermint Twist - Part 1" by Joey Dee and The Starlighters
Date: Jan 27, 1962
Weeks: 3
When I started this blog, I expected to be reviewing more classic dance rock songs that sounded like this. Maybe I watched too much Happy Days or American Graffiti. Or maybe while the overall sound of pre-Beatles rock sounded like this, not a lot of it topped the charts. There are no Grunge No. 1 songs in the 90s, after all. At any rate, it's a pleasure to get a song that sounds like it should be playing in the background at the diner in American Graffiti.
In particular, the middle part of the song, the guitar solo, is an absolute blast. That guitar sound, mixed with the drums and sax, evokes Rock and Roll's R&B roots. It's a wonderfully simple, raw sound, and I enjoy the heck out of it. I even kind of like that organ sound that provides additional rhythm. There's just something about organs in rock songs that seems so appealingly contradictory.
It's hard to even criticize the lyrics. Yeah, they're aggressively just trying to create a new dance craze, and yeah, they're blatantly stealing from the Twist to do it. And yes, they don't even accurately describe the dance in the song very well. "Round and round, up and down" could describe anything. But there's no pretension here, and there aren't even very many lyrics to get in the way of a fun little dance number.
I did track down Part 2 of this song, and I think I like it even better with that extra part attached. The music turns into a bit of fun, jazzy chaos and there are minimal additional lyrics to get in the way. It's a bit unstructured and I don't think both parts put together would work particularly well from the perspective of pop music structure. The tail is too long. But, removed from the context of being one overall song, I do enjoy more of the same music in Part 2.
My verdict: Like it. Something about that classic R&B sound, in a song that has no more complicated goal that encouraging you to dance, is appealing.
Weeks: 3
When I started this blog, I expected to be reviewing more classic dance rock songs that sounded like this. Maybe I watched too much Happy Days or American Graffiti. Or maybe while the overall sound of pre-Beatles rock sounded like this, not a lot of it topped the charts. There are no Grunge No. 1 songs in the 90s, after all. At any rate, it's a pleasure to get a song that sounds like it should be playing in the background at the diner in American Graffiti.
In particular, the middle part of the song, the guitar solo, is an absolute blast. That guitar sound, mixed with the drums and sax, evokes Rock and Roll's R&B roots. It's a wonderfully simple, raw sound, and I enjoy the heck out of it. I even kind of like that organ sound that provides additional rhythm. There's just something about organs in rock songs that seems so appealingly contradictory.
It's hard to even criticize the lyrics. Yeah, they're aggressively just trying to create a new dance craze, and yeah, they're blatantly stealing from the Twist to do it. And yes, they don't even accurately describe the dance in the song very well. "Round and round, up and down" could describe anything. But there's no pretension here, and there aren't even very many lyrics to get in the way of a fun little dance number.
I did track down Part 2 of this song, and I think I like it even better with that extra part attached. The music turns into a bit of fun, jazzy chaos and there are minimal additional lyrics to get in the way. It's a bit unstructured and I don't think both parts put together would work particularly well from the perspective of pop music structure. The tail is too long. But, removed from the context of being one overall song, I do enjoy more of the same music in Part 2.
My verdict: Like it. Something about that classic R&B sound, in a song that has no more complicated goal that encouraging you to dance, is appealing.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Song #189: "All You Need Is Love" by The Beatles
Date: Aug 19, 1967
Weeks: 1
I don't get this song. I've heard it referenced as one of the Beatles' great songs, but I don't see it. I wonder if people may have just connected with the poetic sentiment of chorus's lyrics, and ignored the fact that everything built around that is kind of dumb.
One of the big problems is the giant production. There's a string section, a brass section, and a chorus. And I'm not sure if the problem is that there's too much orchestra, or not enough. The song can't decide whether to be big and operatic, or a little strummy guitar song. Either choice could have worked. A little strummy guitar song can be emotionally intimate, which seems like it would work with the "All you need is love" lyrics. Conversely, an operatic song can be big, and can elevate a seemingly small message like "All you need is love" into an important statement of philosophy. Unfortunately, this mixed presentation can't quite decide what to be, and the result is that it feels like the song is trying to tell me this message is more important and more deep than it really is. "All you need is love" can be a deep message, but this song makes it feel like a shallow one.
And the orchestration might not be so big a problem if the lyrics had more to say. Apart from "all you need is love" over and over and over again, the lyrics include some basic contradictions that seem like they are trying to sound more deep than they actually are. "There's nothing you can do that can't be done. Nothing you can sing that can't be sung." So if I can do it, then it means it's possible to do? That seems kind of depressing. So if there's something everyone thinks is impossible, but I manage to do it, then the end result is only that people expand their definition of what is possible? And what does that have to do with love anyway?
So the message of this song seems to be that you don't need to try to accomplish anything in life, because the only thing that matters is sitting around blissed out on mutual affection. So don't move away from the people you love to try to do anything you enjoy or are good at, like become an international rock star. What a weird message.
There are two other points about this song that are particularly odd. The first is that it opens with the opening bars of the French national anthem. Why? Well, as I listened to the song more and more, I started to realize that the chord progression in this song sounds a lot like those opening notes of the French anthem. My best guess is that partway through the writing process, somebody in the band noticed that they had accidentally copied a song they'd heard before, recognized it, and solved the problem by just lampshading it. Tack the song onto the front and call it an intentional reference. Leave future music reviewers wondering why.
The second odd point is the unusual time signature. The song doesn't stick to a strict 4/4 time, jumping back and forth between odd signatures so that the beat isn't entirely predictable. It's disorienting, but honestly I think it's necessary to keep the listener's interest up. If this song was done is just straight 4/4 time, it would get boring quickly. Credit to this song on that point, at least. It's not boring.
My verdict: Don't like it. The Beatles had the freedom to experiment and not just make the same kinds of songs over and over again, but not every experiment was a success.
(Edit: I see from Songfacts that this song was written for the first worldwide TV special, and the Beatles chose to write a song with simple lyrics deliberately so as to communicate clearly to people who didn't speak English. I'm not sure that the somewhat complex tense parsing of "nothing you can do that can't be done" accomplishes that goal, but at least the heavy repetition of every lyric helps. Maybe in that context I would have enjoyed seeing that performance, but I don't think it stands up well as its own pop song 40+ years down the road).
Weeks: 1
I don't get this song. I've heard it referenced as one of the Beatles' great songs, but I don't see it. I wonder if people may have just connected with the poetic sentiment of chorus's lyrics, and ignored the fact that everything built around that is kind of dumb.
One of the big problems is the giant production. There's a string section, a brass section, and a chorus. And I'm not sure if the problem is that there's too much orchestra, or not enough. The song can't decide whether to be big and operatic, or a little strummy guitar song. Either choice could have worked. A little strummy guitar song can be emotionally intimate, which seems like it would work with the "All you need is love" lyrics. Conversely, an operatic song can be big, and can elevate a seemingly small message like "All you need is love" into an important statement of philosophy. Unfortunately, this mixed presentation can't quite decide what to be, and the result is that it feels like the song is trying to tell me this message is more important and more deep than it really is. "All you need is love" can be a deep message, but this song makes it feel like a shallow one.
And the orchestration might not be so big a problem if the lyrics had more to say. Apart from "all you need is love" over and over and over again, the lyrics include some basic contradictions that seem like they are trying to sound more deep than they actually are. "There's nothing you can do that can't be done. Nothing you can sing that can't be sung." So if I can do it, then it means it's possible to do? That seems kind of depressing. So if there's something everyone thinks is impossible, but I manage to do it, then the end result is only that people expand their definition of what is possible? And what does that have to do with love anyway?
So the message of this song seems to be that you don't need to try to accomplish anything in life, because the only thing that matters is sitting around blissed out on mutual affection. So don't move away from the people you love to try to do anything you enjoy or are good at, like become an international rock star. What a weird message.
There are two other points about this song that are particularly odd. The first is that it opens with the opening bars of the French national anthem. Why? Well, as I listened to the song more and more, I started to realize that the chord progression in this song sounds a lot like those opening notes of the French anthem. My best guess is that partway through the writing process, somebody in the band noticed that they had accidentally copied a song they'd heard before, recognized it, and solved the problem by just lampshading it. Tack the song onto the front and call it an intentional reference. Leave future music reviewers wondering why.
The second odd point is the unusual time signature. The song doesn't stick to a strict 4/4 time, jumping back and forth between odd signatures so that the beat isn't entirely predictable. It's disorienting, but honestly I think it's necessary to keep the listener's interest up. If this song was done is just straight 4/4 time, it would get boring quickly. Credit to this song on that point, at least. It's not boring.
My verdict: Don't like it. The Beatles had the freedom to experiment and not just make the same kinds of songs over and over again, but not every experiment was a success.
(Edit: I see from Songfacts that this song was written for the first worldwide TV special, and the Beatles chose to write a song with simple lyrics deliberately so as to communicate clearly to people who didn't speak English. I'm not sure that the somewhat complex tense parsing of "nothing you can do that can't be done" accomplishes that goal, but at least the heavy repetition of every lyric helps. Maybe in that context I would have enjoyed seeing that performance, but I don't think it stands up well as its own pop song 40+ years down the road).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)