Date: Dec 10, 1983
Weeks: 6
Wow. I guess it's superstar collaboration week this week. Today's article may have fewer stars than yesterday's, but their greater magnitude may make this collaboration even more significant. Too bad the result of that collaboration is so mediocre.
I guess it's not really that bad. I was disappointed the first time I listened to it. I guess I expected a collaboration between these two to be bigger and more significant. But after I listened a few times, I caught on to its appeal. A lot of song is a back and forth with McCartney and Jackson alternating verses. And while McCartney's part is disappointingly basic, Jackson's part is lively. This is just after his Thriller album, so he's in his prime here. And no matter how basic and simple the rest of the song is, Jackson saves it with his verses.
The music is an interesting melange of old-fashioned, with its harmonicas and brass, and dated 80s style, with its synthesized keyboard lead and bass. Overall, it's a decent effect, with the old and the new balancing out to create something with a timeless sound that could only have come from the early 80s, if that makes any sense. The only problem I have is that the song doesn't really have a traditional verse/chorus structure, so the music rarely feels like it's building to anything.
The lyrics are the pained rantings of unrequited love. "Go go go where you want, but don't leave me here forever." I'm not sure how it exactly makes sense with two singers. If we assume there's supposed to be one person telling this story, I have a hard time respecting his backbone. "Through the years" implies that this has gone on for a while now. Dude, she's not interested. Give it up and move on.
My verdict: Like it. I didn't like it the first time through, but repeat listens won me over. Nowhere near the best either of these guys can do, but not the worst, either. It's not a bad little listen.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Remake-Off: Song #360: "Lady Marmalade" by Labelle vs. Song #874: "Lady Marmalade" by Christina Aguilera, Lil' Kim, Mya, and Pink
Date: Mar 29, 1975
Weeks: 1
vs.
Date: June 2, 2001
Weeks: 5
So once again we find the same song on the charts twice. But which version is better?
Patti Labelle is one of the true talents of popular music, to be sure, and this song is an excellent showcase for her talent as the lead singer of the group with her name. Her bold voice grabs your attention even as she sings a whole lot of nonsense. Her backing singers are also very good, keeping the song's base vocals going along while Labelle elaborates.
The music is very engaging, as well. The bass and drum lines in particular are excellent. I also like the synthesized organ all right. It's surreal sound creates a sort of heightened reality that seems appropriate for a song with this much fun lyrical nonsense. The brass section is all right, but it sounds small, and cheap. In fact, a lot of my impression of the music in this song is that it's not living up to the larger-than-life effort Patti Labelle is putting into it.
The lyrics in this version are pretty cleverly written. It's the story of a man who meets a woman, Lady Marmalade, in New Orleans. It's likely, but I guess not certain, that she's a prostitute. Anyway, she rocks his world, and he remembers their night together forever afterward. Then there's a lot of nonsense like "gitchi gitchi ya ya da da," which almost seems like it's only there to serve as cover for them to slip in the part that was the most controversial, and easily the most famous part of the song, "Voulez-vous coucher avec moi (ce soi)," which is French for "Do you want to go to bed with me (tonight)?" Such is the song's lasting cultural impact that I've heard many people claim this is the only French they know.
At any rate, the song comes off fairly feminist, at least for the 70s. A woman asserts control of her sexuality in a way that a man is totally unprepared for. Potential prostitution aside, it's practically a declaration of sexual independence.
Which is probably why it got picked up as the song to be remade to promote the 2001 movie Moulin Rouge. And it's hard for the original to compete with this remake, because it's impossible to avoid noticing that the remake has a much, much larger production budget, and it's put to good use.
For one thing, as great as Patti Labelle is, it's hard for her to compete with the sheer amount of talent present here. Christina Aguilera and Pink have several other No. 1 hits and are surely some the greatest vocal talents of the 2000s. Mya is also a very talented singer, although she may not have quite the same resume as those two. And I don't know a lot about Lil' Kim's other work, but I like how she was used here.
The remake's production is clearly guided by the philosophy that bigger is better, which is definitely true for this song. It's a bold song, and the bolder the better. What's bolder than getting three of the most talented singers of the time, adding a rap verse, updating the quality of the synthesized instrumentation, and extending the song just enough to make it bigger without wearing out its welcome?
And they managed to keep the feminist theme intact. They got a woman to do the rap verse, which includes lines like "we independent women, some mistake us for whores." That one line manages to updates the feminism by suggesting that Lady Marmalade isn't a prostitute, she's just a woman who knows what she wants and goes after it.
My verdict: Like it. I like both versions. But I have to give the edge to the 2001 remake. I just like the additional bigness, and the interesting variety of the different singers' voices.
Weeks: 1
vs.
Date: June 2, 2001
Weeks: 5
So once again we find the same song on the charts twice. But which version is better?
Patti Labelle is one of the true talents of popular music, to be sure, and this song is an excellent showcase for her talent as the lead singer of the group with her name. Her bold voice grabs your attention even as she sings a whole lot of nonsense. Her backing singers are also very good, keeping the song's base vocals going along while Labelle elaborates.
The music is very engaging, as well. The bass and drum lines in particular are excellent. I also like the synthesized organ all right. It's surreal sound creates a sort of heightened reality that seems appropriate for a song with this much fun lyrical nonsense. The brass section is all right, but it sounds small, and cheap. In fact, a lot of my impression of the music in this song is that it's not living up to the larger-than-life effort Patti Labelle is putting into it.
The lyrics in this version are pretty cleverly written. It's the story of a man who meets a woman, Lady Marmalade, in New Orleans. It's likely, but I guess not certain, that she's a prostitute. Anyway, she rocks his world, and he remembers their night together forever afterward. Then there's a lot of nonsense like "gitchi gitchi ya ya da da," which almost seems like it's only there to serve as cover for them to slip in the part that was the most controversial, and easily the most famous part of the song, "Voulez-vous coucher avec moi (ce soi)," which is French for "Do you want to go to bed with me (tonight)?" Such is the song's lasting cultural impact that I've heard many people claim this is the only French they know.
At any rate, the song comes off fairly feminist, at least for the 70s. A woman asserts control of her sexuality in a way that a man is totally unprepared for. Potential prostitution aside, it's practically a declaration of sexual independence.
Which is probably why it got picked up as the song to be remade to promote the 2001 movie Moulin Rouge. And it's hard for the original to compete with this remake, because it's impossible to avoid noticing that the remake has a much, much larger production budget, and it's put to good use.
For one thing, as great as Patti Labelle is, it's hard for her to compete with the sheer amount of talent present here. Christina Aguilera and Pink have several other No. 1 hits and are surely some the greatest vocal talents of the 2000s. Mya is also a very talented singer, although she may not have quite the same resume as those two. And I don't know a lot about Lil' Kim's other work, but I like how she was used here.
The remake's production is clearly guided by the philosophy that bigger is better, which is definitely true for this song. It's a bold song, and the bolder the better. What's bolder than getting three of the most talented singers of the time, adding a rap verse, updating the quality of the synthesized instrumentation, and extending the song just enough to make it bigger without wearing out its welcome?
And they managed to keep the feminist theme intact. They got a woman to do the rap verse, which includes lines like "we independent women, some mistake us for whores." That one line manages to updates the feminism by suggesting that Lady Marmalade isn't a prostitute, she's just a woman who knows what she wants and goes after it.
My verdict: Like it. I like both versions. But I have to give the edge to the 2001 remake. I just like the additional bigness, and the interesting variety of the different singers' voices.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Song #522: "Who Can It Be Now?" by Men At Work
Date: Oct 30, 1982
Weeks: 1
Ahhhhh. Just when I'm on the verge of declaring some trope or another to be stupid and wonder why it's even a thing in popular music, along comes a song that reminds me why people thought it was good in the first place. And so it is with this song. It's a one-song lesson on the virtues of the saxophone in popular rock music.
I love the arrangement in this song. The guitars are perfectly balanced to provide interest during the verses, but they never detract from the vocals in the verse, or the saxophone in the chorus or bridge. I love the way the song builds to the chorus. I love the way the vocals and the saxophone alternately wail the chorus. I love the way the sound feels a little thin and light early on and builds into a fairly full sound by the end. This is a well-orchestrated song, from the use of the guitars, to the featured saxophone, to the drums that provide a little extra interesting variety at surprising moments throughout.
The lyrics seem to be the paranoid worries of a shut-in. He's not sure who is at the door, and wants to be quiet until the person goes away. As far as I can tell, the song was written as just a goofy, silly idea, rather than a genuine exploration of mental breakdown. It certainly works on that level. Lines like "If he hears, he'll knock all day. I'll be trapped, and here I'll have to stay," provide a funny idea of a guy who is scared of everything.
My verdict: Like it. It's a well-put-together song that makes me remember why saxophones are cool.
Weeks: 1
Ahhhhh. Just when I'm on the verge of declaring some trope or another to be stupid and wonder why it's even a thing in popular music, along comes a song that reminds me why people thought it was good in the first place. And so it is with this song. It's a one-song lesson on the virtues of the saxophone in popular rock music.
I love the arrangement in this song. The guitars are perfectly balanced to provide interest during the verses, but they never detract from the vocals in the verse, or the saxophone in the chorus or bridge. I love the way the song builds to the chorus. I love the way the vocals and the saxophone alternately wail the chorus. I love the way the sound feels a little thin and light early on and builds into a fairly full sound by the end. This is a well-orchestrated song, from the use of the guitars, to the featured saxophone, to the drums that provide a little extra interesting variety at surprising moments throughout.
The lyrics seem to be the paranoid worries of a shut-in. He's not sure who is at the door, and wants to be quiet until the person goes away. As far as I can tell, the song was written as just a goofy, silly idea, rather than a genuine exploration of mental breakdown. It certainly works on that level. Lines like "If he hears, he'll knock all day. I'll be trapped, and here I'll have to stay," provide a funny idea of a guy who is scared of everything.
My verdict: Like it. It's a well-put-together song that makes me remember why saxophones are cool.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Song #873: "All For You" by Janet Jackson
Date: Apr 14, 2001
Weeks: 7
It's not your imagination, this is a disco song. At least, it's heavily based on a sample of "The Glow of Love" by Change, from 1980. Which is to say, it's practically a remake, or at least a remake of the good parts.
I like the piano. The pumped up bass and drums do their best to drown it out without contributing much of interest, but the piano part works. I wish it had more to do than its one riff that occasionally percolates to the surface of the mix, but it's a good sound. And unfortunately, that's about all the music that there is, other than random little laser sound effects sprinkled across the top. The music video includes a bizzare dance breakdown bridge. But it's not good, and it's not in the single.
The song's biggest problem is Janet Jackson. She does not fit this song. The generic, bland backing track demands someone with an interesting, powerful voice, and that is not Jackson. Her breathy, soft voice is far too delicate for this song.
The lyrics are an exploration of the problem Janet Jackson has being approached by suitors because they're a little intimidated to approach someone famous. "Something inside you grabs you says 'who am I?'. I know exactly 'cause it happens with all the guys." So I guess this song is about giving the guy permission and encouragement to approach her. I guess she really wants this one particular guy to approach her because she thinks he's hot. "Look at that body, shakin' that thing like I never did see." I don't think the line "got a nice package all right, guess I'm going to have to ride it tonight" comes across as sexy as she intends it to.
My verdict: Don't like it. There's not enough going on to keep my interest. It's not a good match of performer to material.
Weeks: 7
It's not your imagination, this is a disco song. At least, it's heavily based on a sample of "The Glow of Love" by Change, from 1980. Which is to say, it's practically a remake, or at least a remake of the good parts.
I like the piano. The pumped up bass and drums do their best to drown it out without contributing much of interest, but the piano part works. I wish it had more to do than its one riff that occasionally percolates to the surface of the mix, but it's a good sound. And unfortunately, that's about all the music that there is, other than random little laser sound effects sprinkled across the top. The music video includes a bizzare dance breakdown bridge. But it's not good, and it's not in the single.
The song's biggest problem is Janet Jackson. She does not fit this song. The generic, bland backing track demands someone with an interesting, powerful voice, and that is not Jackson. Her breathy, soft voice is far too delicate for this song.
The lyrics are an exploration of the problem Janet Jackson has being approached by suitors because they're a little intimidated to approach someone famous. "Something inside you grabs you says 'who am I?'. I know exactly 'cause it happens with all the guys." So I guess this song is about giving the guy permission and encouragement to approach her. I guess she really wants this one particular guy to approach her because she thinks he's hot. "Look at that body, shakin' that thing like I never did see." I don't think the line "got a nice package all right, guess I'm going to have to ride it tonight" comes across as sexy as she intends it to.
My verdict: Don't like it. There's not enough going on to keep my interest. It's not a good match of performer to material.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Song #23: "Why" by Frankie Avalon
Date: Dec 28, 1959
Weeks: 1
This is such a bland, transparent, nothing song that I'm having a hard time putting it into perspective. I'd love to call it worst song I've reviewed, but in a world where I've heard Snoop Dog's "Drop It Like It's Hot" (#910), I just can't say that. At least this one isn't unpleasant. But that's about the nicest thing I can say about it. It's so timidly nonthreatening, so aggressively pleasant, so tiresomely gentle, that it fails to make any kind of impression.
It's not that a gentle song can't be good, but this one seems so calculated and cynical. I mean, the primary instrument sounds like a harp to me, which is probably the most gentle instrument there is. The drums are gentle, the bass is gentle, and there's a gentle backing chorus. That's an awful lot of people assembled to create something so unsubstantial. Too much exposure to this kind of overwhelming gentleness, and all I want is for a punk rock cover to suddenly break out. This is where I would link to such a thing, but apparently no punk band has ever felt the need to try an ironic cover of this particular gem.
The lyrics are aggressively pleasant, too. "I'll always love you so. Why? Because you love me." So they love each other, and they're in love, and everything is happy. There's no conflict in this song, no pain. Even love songs about happy couples usually contain some sense of pain if they separated, or how sad they were before they found each other. Also, stop saying the word "love", for crying out loud! 24 times, I counted! And while I hesitate to proclaim that must be a record when the song is only 2-1/2 minutes long, I do wonder if it might be a record in "love"s per minute. The only song that might come close is this spoof song from Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Frankie Avalon is a talented singer, though. I have to give him that. While I was checking for covers that might be better, I found a lot of amateur singers who didn't measure up. Some of them were emulating famous singers. One guy in particular sounded like Elvis and that was a terrible choice for the song. Only someone with such a pleasantly bland voice as Frankie Avalon could make the song listenable. As for the female singer doing the backup part, my research suggests it could be Connie Francis again. If so, she's wasted here. She's usually much more interesting.
My verdict: Don't like it. I work hard to avoid using the word "boring," or relying on too many of its synonyms, but it's basically a perfect one-word summary of everything I've said above. It's not the worst thing a song can be, but it's close.
Weeks: 1
This is such a bland, transparent, nothing song that I'm having a hard time putting it into perspective. I'd love to call it worst song I've reviewed, but in a world where I've heard Snoop Dog's "Drop It Like It's Hot" (#910), I just can't say that. At least this one isn't unpleasant. But that's about the nicest thing I can say about it. It's so timidly nonthreatening, so aggressively pleasant, so tiresomely gentle, that it fails to make any kind of impression.
It's not that a gentle song can't be good, but this one seems so calculated and cynical. I mean, the primary instrument sounds like a harp to me, which is probably the most gentle instrument there is. The drums are gentle, the bass is gentle, and there's a gentle backing chorus. That's an awful lot of people assembled to create something so unsubstantial. Too much exposure to this kind of overwhelming gentleness, and all I want is for a punk rock cover to suddenly break out. This is where I would link to such a thing, but apparently no punk band has ever felt the need to try an ironic cover of this particular gem.
The lyrics are aggressively pleasant, too. "I'll always love you so. Why? Because you love me." So they love each other, and they're in love, and everything is happy. There's no conflict in this song, no pain. Even love songs about happy couples usually contain some sense of pain if they separated, or how sad they were before they found each other. Also, stop saying the word "love", for crying out loud! 24 times, I counted! And while I hesitate to proclaim that must be a record when the song is only 2-1/2 minutes long, I do wonder if it might be a record in "love"s per minute. The only song that might come close is this spoof song from Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Frankie Avalon is a talented singer, though. I have to give him that. While I was checking for covers that might be better, I found a lot of amateur singers who didn't measure up. Some of them were emulating famous singers. One guy in particular sounded like Elvis and that was a terrible choice for the song. Only someone with such a pleasantly bland voice as Frankie Avalon could make the song listenable. As for the female singer doing the backup part, my research suggests it could be Connie Francis again. If so, she's wasted here. She's usually much more interesting.
My verdict: Don't like it. I work hard to avoid using the word "boring," or relying on too many of its synonyms, but it's basically a perfect one-word summary of everything I've said above. It's not the worst thing a song can be, but it's close.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Song #611: "True Colors" by Cyndi Lauper
Date: Oct 25, 1986
Weeks: 2
I'm torn on this song. I love Cyndi Lauper's voice here, but there are some bad choices in the backing music that undermine the emotional impact of her voice.
Cyndi Lauper's voice has a particular quality to it that is just appealing. It's when she hits the top of her energy and really lets loose, as she does in the chorus here, that I enjoy her the most. And she builds it up as the song goes along, so that the last chorus is way bigger than the first chorus was. More songs needs that kind of buildup and release. I think any song would be improved by making sure the last chorus is bigger than the first chorus. Or possibly doing the opposite if there's a particular artistic reason for it. At any rate, I think this is probably the finest vocal performance of a singer with a uniquely appealing style.
The music has a lot of problems, though. The 80s are doing their best to undermine a good song here. Almost all the music is done on weak, sad synthesizers. The artificiality sucks a lot of the genuine emotion out of it. The bongo drums probably seemed like a good choice for light percussion, but they actually wind up sort of overwhelming the weak synthesizers during the verse. The bongos work better in the chorus when Lauper's voice can outpower them. I don't understand the choice to end the song by repeating the bongo beat from the beginning. Are they trying to suggest the song is going to start over again? It's a weak choice for an ending. At best, I can infer from the video that the artificial surreality of the song is intentional, but I'm just not sure it works to make the song as low-key and subtle as was intended.
The lyrics are excellent. There are lots of songs that send a message to be comfortable with who you are, no matter how much you feel like you don't fit in, but this one is a bit unique. The singer of this song is declaring that they love you for who you are, not who you pretend to be. Even if you still feel the need to pretend, it's okay, the singer just wants you to know that they love you either way. It's a really good message for anyone who has ever felt like a misfit, and it's a great song to dedicate to a friend who is having a hard time.
My verdict: Like it. The music still isn't very good, but the song is more about the vocal performance and the lyrics. It's possible to find some good live performances that replace the 80s synthesizers with more acoustic instruments, and you can see the true strength of the song.
Weeks: 2
I'm torn on this song. I love Cyndi Lauper's voice here, but there are some bad choices in the backing music that undermine the emotional impact of her voice.
Cyndi Lauper's voice has a particular quality to it that is just appealing. It's when she hits the top of her energy and really lets loose, as she does in the chorus here, that I enjoy her the most. And she builds it up as the song goes along, so that the last chorus is way bigger than the first chorus was. More songs needs that kind of buildup and release. I think any song would be improved by making sure the last chorus is bigger than the first chorus. Or possibly doing the opposite if there's a particular artistic reason for it. At any rate, I think this is probably the finest vocal performance of a singer with a uniquely appealing style.
The music has a lot of problems, though. The 80s are doing their best to undermine a good song here. Almost all the music is done on weak, sad synthesizers. The artificiality sucks a lot of the genuine emotion out of it. The bongo drums probably seemed like a good choice for light percussion, but they actually wind up sort of overwhelming the weak synthesizers during the verse. The bongos work better in the chorus when Lauper's voice can outpower them. I don't understand the choice to end the song by repeating the bongo beat from the beginning. Are they trying to suggest the song is going to start over again? It's a weak choice for an ending. At best, I can infer from the video that the artificial surreality of the song is intentional, but I'm just not sure it works to make the song as low-key and subtle as was intended.
The lyrics are excellent. There are lots of songs that send a message to be comfortable with who you are, no matter how much you feel like you don't fit in, but this one is a bit unique. The singer of this song is declaring that they love you for who you are, not who you pretend to be. Even if you still feel the need to pretend, it's okay, the singer just wants you to know that they love you either way. It's a really good message for anyone who has ever felt like a misfit, and it's a great song to dedicate to a friend who is having a hard time.
My verdict: Like it. The music still isn't very good, but the song is more about the vocal performance and the lyrics. It's possible to find some good live performances that replace the 80s synthesizers with more acoustic instruments, and you can see the true strength of the song.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Song #626: "(I Just) Died In Your Arms" by Cutting Crew
Date: May 2, 1987
Weeks: 2
This is almost a demonstration piece of some of the worst tropes of 1980s music. And they all combine in a way that isn't awful, but isn't very appealing, either.
The song opens with that ill-advised synthesizer bit. This is one of the worst ways possible to use a synthesizer. It's so quiet and weak. I think it's trying to be subtle, and that's just the worst possible way to use your synthesizer. A good synthesizer needs to be bold and obvious. This one sounds like it's trying to pass as a woodwind chorus, and it's just painful.
Then there's that 80s poundy drum. Why was this so pervasive in the 80s, and why haven't I heard it in any other era? Did it just get better-integrated into music after the 80s? It's really starting to bug me.
Next up is a blaring, rambling lead guitar. It lacks both tight musicianship and the energy that comes from improvised performance. I do like the boldness of the guitar, and it fills space nicely during some of the transitions.
Then there's the lead singer's super-gravelly, almost toneless voice. Are gravelly-voiced singers a 1980s trope, or do they transcend the era? I feel like I know more singers like that from the 80s, but perhaps they just stood out more. Gravelly voices aren't very interesting, so it's critical when they are used for the music to be interesting. And when the music is this bland, it just doesn't work right.
What are the lyrics? "Her diary sits on a bedside table. The curtains are closed, the cats in the cradle." Oh no, it's random poetry. There's really no story, and if there is any meaning I'm not going to figure it out. Thank goodness, Songfacts has tracked down an admission from the lead singer that he wrote the song about getting back together for a one-night stand with an ex, and the confusing emotions it caused. I can see that. "I keep looking for something I can't get" actually means something in that context. So I suppose some credit is due the song for successfully confusing me.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's dark, poorly orchestrated, and feels derivative of other 80s music, using the tropes but not knowing how to use them right.
Weeks: 2
This is almost a demonstration piece of some of the worst tropes of 1980s music. And they all combine in a way that isn't awful, but isn't very appealing, either.
The song opens with that ill-advised synthesizer bit. This is one of the worst ways possible to use a synthesizer. It's so quiet and weak. I think it's trying to be subtle, and that's just the worst possible way to use your synthesizer. A good synthesizer needs to be bold and obvious. This one sounds like it's trying to pass as a woodwind chorus, and it's just painful.
Then there's that 80s poundy drum. Why was this so pervasive in the 80s, and why haven't I heard it in any other era? Did it just get better-integrated into music after the 80s? It's really starting to bug me.
Next up is a blaring, rambling lead guitar. It lacks both tight musicianship and the energy that comes from improvised performance. I do like the boldness of the guitar, and it fills space nicely during some of the transitions.
Then there's the lead singer's super-gravelly, almost toneless voice. Are gravelly-voiced singers a 1980s trope, or do they transcend the era? I feel like I know more singers like that from the 80s, but perhaps they just stood out more. Gravelly voices aren't very interesting, so it's critical when they are used for the music to be interesting. And when the music is this bland, it just doesn't work right.
What are the lyrics? "Her diary sits on a bedside table. The curtains are closed, the cats in the cradle." Oh no, it's random poetry. There's really no story, and if there is any meaning I'm not going to figure it out. Thank goodness, Songfacts has tracked down an admission from the lead singer that he wrote the song about getting back together for a one-night stand with an ex, and the confusing emotions it caused. I can see that. "I keep looking for something I can't get" actually means something in that context. So I suppose some credit is due the song for successfully confusing me.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's dark, poorly orchestrated, and feels derivative of other 80s music, using the tropes but not knowing how to use them right.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Song #299: "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown" by Jim Croce
Date: Jul 21, 1973
Weeks: 2
I couldn't find any embeddable versions of the original recording, so I embedded that live performance instead. If anything, I think the song is improved by the simpler orchestration and raw energy of the live performance.
Not that there's a lot wrong with the studio recording. At its core, this is a bouncy guitar, bass, drum and piano tune, and it's a lot of fun. I like the bass breakdown near the bridge. It has a very jazz-like string bass feel to it. The jaunty piano has a bit of a ragtime feel to it. And the guitar feels like a blues song. All of that combined with the lyrics left me with the impression that the song was about a gangster in 1930s Chicago. But I guess that's not accurate.
As far as I can tell, that interpretation wasn't intentional. Leroy Brown was supposed to be a contemporary character, who was known for being the big, mean guy who pushed people around to get what he wanted. It's a well-paced story. It sets up Leroy as tough, describes how intimidating a character he is, and then tells the story of his comeuppance at the hands of someone bigger and meaner than he is. It's a good story, and I can't really find any fault with the lyrics to pick at.
I think the recording is a bit overproduced, though. There's too much unnecessary use of background singers. This should just be simply performed by a small group, like in the live performance, rather than by a massive chorus. I actually kind of like some of the background shouts that make the song feel like it's being performed in a music hall to a tough, indifferent crowd. But the chorus singing along contradicts that and makes it feel like it's being recorded in a studio.
My verdict: Like it. Overall, I think the overproduction issues are pretty minor, and don't disrupt the fun.
Weeks: 2
I couldn't find any embeddable versions of the original recording, so I embedded that live performance instead. If anything, I think the song is improved by the simpler orchestration and raw energy of the live performance.
Not that there's a lot wrong with the studio recording. At its core, this is a bouncy guitar, bass, drum and piano tune, and it's a lot of fun. I like the bass breakdown near the bridge. It has a very jazz-like string bass feel to it. The jaunty piano has a bit of a ragtime feel to it. And the guitar feels like a blues song. All of that combined with the lyrics left me with the impression that the song was about a gangster in 1930s Chicago. But I guess that's not accurate.
As far as I can tell, that interpretation wasn't intentional. Leroy Brown was supposed to be a contemporary character, who was known for being the big, mean guy who pushed people around to get what he wanted. It's a well-paced story. It sets up Leroy as tough, describes how intimidating a character he is, and then tells the story of his comeuppance at the hands of someone bigger and meaner than he is. It's a good story, and I can't really find any fault with the lyrics to pick at.
I think the recording is a bit overproduced, though. There's too much unnecessary use of background singers. This should just be simply performed by a small group, like in the live performance, rather than by a massive chorus. I actually kind of like some of the background shouts that make the song feel like it's being performed in a music hall to a tough, indifferent crowd. But the chorus singing along contradicts that and makes it feel like it's being recorded in a studio.
My verdict: Like it. Overall, I think the overproduction issues are pretty minor, and don't disrupt the fun.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Song #58: "Take Good Care Of My Baby" by Bobby Vee
Date: Sept 18, 1961
Weeks: 3
This is a pretty good 50s-style doo-wop song. The bass and drum lines are fun and full of energy, and keep the song's momentum from stalling. There are some string parts here and while I usually complain about those, they mostly work here. I don't care for the plunked violins that arrive like unwelcome punctuation in the middle of a flowing sentence, but the general string, piano, and backing chorus actually help the song. They make it feel bigger without making it feel clunkier or more ponderous. I really like the bridge, too, when the drum and bass stop just long enough to focus your attention and then hit you hard with some stings. That's good stuff.
Bobby Vee also has a pretty nice voice. There's a little too much vibratto in some of his longer sustained notes, but it never gets irritating. He's good at knowing when to punch up a note with some fanciness, and when to just sing it straight.
Lyrically, the song is just okay. This is a message to the singer's ex's new guy. He's imploring the new guy to treat her well. That's not so bad in itself. I kind of sympathize with the idea that he wants his ex to be happy, and that he wants this guy to treat her well. It's the relationship equivalent of the sports adage that it's better to be beaten by the eventual champion. For the most part, it's not too bad from the angle of treating the ex as some kind of property to be competed over or exchanged. Unfortunately, then comes the line "And if you should discover that you don't really love her, just send my baby back home to me." Dude, if the new guy doesn't work out, you don't automatically get to take her back. Your relationship failed for some reason. Wish her happiness and then move on. It's better for both of you.
My verdict: Like it. It's a jaunty little tune, and I approve of that.
Weeks: 3
This is a pretty good 50s-style doo-wop song. The bass and drum lines are fun and full of energy, and keep the song's momentum from stalling. There are some string parts here and while I usually complain about those, they mostly work here. I don't care for the plunked violins that arrive like unwelcome punctuation in the middle of a flowing sentence, but the general string, piano, and backing chorus actually help the song. They make it feel bigger without making it feel clunkier or more ponderous. I really like the bridge, too, when the drum and bass stop just long enough to focus your attention and then hit you hard with some stings. That's good stuff.
Bobby Vee also has a pretty nice voice. There's a little too much vibratto in some of his longer sustained notes, but it never gets irritating. He's good at knowing when to punch up a note with some fanciness, and when to just sing it straight.
Lyrically, the song is just okay. This is a message to the singer's ex's new guy. He's imploring the new guy to treat her well. That's not so bad in itself. I kind of sympathize with the idea that he wants his ex to be happy, and that he wants this guy to treat her well. It's the relationship equivalent of the sports adage that it's better to be beaten by the eventual champion. For the most part, it's not too bad from the angle of treating the ex as some kind of property to be competed over or exchanged. Unfortunately, then comes the line "And if you should discover that you don't really love her, just send my baby back home to me." Dude, if the new guy doesn't work out, you don't automatically get to take her back. Your relationship failed for some reason. Wish her happiness and then move on. It's better for both of you.
My verdict: Like it. It's a jaunty little tune, and I approve of that.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Song #672: "Groovy Kind Of Love" by Phil Collins
Date: Oct 22, 1988
Weeks: 2
I wasn't even thinking about this song when I reviewed "Separate Lives" ( #585) and said "Phil Collins does a fine job making rock music most of the time, and he's got a decent voice for that, but he's not a particularly talented singer when it comes to singing over minimal music." But that sentence may apply even more strongly to this song.
Where to even start with this thing? Well, I'll start with the title. "Groovy Kind Of Love" sounds more like a song from the 1960s, and it is. The Mindbenders took it to number 2 in the mid-60s. Their version isn't exactly mindbending (ha!), but it has its charm. It sounds like the 60s, so its concept of "a groovy kind of love" doesn't seem incongruous. But Phil Collins's version doesn't sound anything like the 60s. It's mired neck-deep in the sound of the 80s, with the overly genuine synthesizer keyboard trying to make some kind of emotional impact, and that poundy drum undermining everything. I think it's also going for a cinematic sound with its backing orchestra, since the song was recorded for a movie (called Buster, which starred Phil Collins, and for some reason I've never heard of it). This song is trying so hard to be genuine and heartfelt, but it feels so fake.
A better singer might have rescued this song, but Phil Collins isn't that better singer. I don't know if they're running his voice through a terrible filter or what, but somehow he always sounds processed and Auto-tuned, even though this was long before Auto-tune was a thing. His performance is just underwhelming and doesn't convey the emotion I think he's trying to convey. These soft love songs are not his strength as a performer, and I wish he'd stop doing them.
The thing that shocks me about the lyrics is that the song is essentially a happy, sweet song. It's about how the singer is happy to be with the person they love. And that's a fine sentiment. Other than finding the choice of "a groovy kind of love" too specific to the 1960s, I can't find many problems with the lyrics. But Phil Collins sounds so sad singing this song that I'm shocked to realize the song isn't actually sad. It's like he latched on to the first lyrics, "When I'm feeling blue, all I have to do is take a look at you, then I'm not so blue," and made the song sad. Although the interpretation isn't supported by the lyrics, the music makes me believe Phil Collins is sad because his relationship has ended, and now he no longer has any reason to be happy. It's a bummer, and it's not an emotional resonant bummer, so I don't particularly care for it.
My verdict: Don't like it. Phil Collins is good at many things, but he's bad at sad love songs.
Weeks: 2
I wasn't even thinking about this song when I reviewed "Separate Lives" ( #585) and said "Phil Collins does a fine job making rock music most of the time, and he's got a decent voice for that, but he's not a particularly talented singer when it comes to singing over minimal music." But that sentence may apply even more strongly to this song.
Where to even start with this thing? Well, I'll start with the title. "Groovy Kind Of Love" sounds more like a song from the 1960s, and it is. The Mindbenders took it to number 2 in the mid-60s. Their version isn't exactly mindbending (ha!), but it has its charm. It sounds like the 60s, so its concept of "a groovy kind of love" doesn't seem incongruous. But Phil Collins's version doesn't sound anything like the 60s. It's mired neck-deep in the sound of the 80s, with the overly genuine synthesizer keyboard trying to make some kind of emotional impact, and that poundy drum undermining everything. I think it's also going for a cinematic sound with its backing orchestra, since the song was recorded for a movie (called Buster, which starred Phil Collins, and for some reason I've never heard of it). This song is trying so hard to be genuine and heartfelt, but it feels so fake.
A better singer might have rescued this song, but Phil Collins isn't that better singer. I don't know if they're running his voice through a terrible filter or what, but somehow he always sounds processed and Auto-tuned, even though this was long before Auto-tune was a thing. His performance is just underwhelming and doesn't convey the emotion I think he's trying to convey. These soft love songs are not his strength as a performer, and I wish he'd stop doing them.
The thing that shocks me about the lyrics is that the song is essentially a happy, sweet song. It's about how the singer is happy to be with the person they love. And that's a fine sentiment. Other than finding the choice of "a groovy kind of love" too specific to the 1960s, I can't find many problems with the lyrics. But Phil Collins sounds so sad singing this song that I'm shocked to realize the song isn't actually sad. It's like he latched on to the first lyrics, "When I'm feeling blue, all I have to do is take a look at you, then I'm not so blue," and made the song sad. Although the interpretation isn't supported by the lyrics, the music makes me believe Phil Collins is sad because his relationship has ended, and now he no longer has any reason to be happy. It's a bummer, and it's not an emotional resonant bummer, so I don't particularly care for it.
My verdict: Don't like it. Phil Collins is good at many things, but he's bad at sad love songs.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Song #63: "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" by The Tokens
Date: Dec 18, 1961
Weeks: 3
I'm not sure it's even possible to dislike this song. Even if you can't appreciate it on its own merits, you can appreciate it as a funny novelty song. It works either way, depending on your mood.
The falsetto lead vocals are probably the thing that grab the attention first. This is an era when falsetto vocals worked pretty well, and this song demonstrates why. The singer really goes for it with bravado during his featured vocal solo, and I appreciate that. I'm not sure the vocals in the verses needed to be the same falsetto, but it adds to the consistency of presentation. The backing vocal harmony is also great fun, and the soprano wailing over the top is absurdly crazy, in a great way. I think this song gets a bad reputation because it's fun to sing no matter how good you are at it, and that probably leads to a lot of bad singers leaving people with a bad impression of the song. But this performance is really quite good.
The music is well-chosen to enhance the vocals just enough without overpowering them, and keeps within the jungle theme. Most of the music is basic drums and light strummy guitars, but then there's also a fun sax solo in the bridge. It's just enough to be interesting without conflicting with the vocals or becoming too much.
The lyrics seem like kind of a sweet lullaby for kids. "In the jungle... the lion sleeps tonight." It's telling you not to worry about the dangers of the world outside, represented by the lion, because they're currently at rest and not going to bother you just now. There's not much more too it than that, and there doesn't need to be.
For what it's worth, I found the history of this song to be an interesting story. The original recording of the song on which it's based is also an interesting listen.
My verdict: Like it. It's charmingly corny, and you can't help but sing along. "Wimoweh, A-Wimoweh."
Weeks: 3
I'm not sure it's even possible to dislike this song. Even if you can't appreciate it on its own merits, you can appreciate it as a funny novelty song. It works either way, depending on your mood.
The falsetto lead vocals are probably the thing that grab the attention first. This is an era when falsetto vocals worked pretty well, and this song demonstrates why. The singer really goes for it with bravado during his featured vocal solo, and I appreciate that. I'm not sure the vocals in the verses needed to be the same falsetto, but it adds to the consistency of presentation. The backing vocal harmony is also great fun, and the soprano wailing over the top is absurdly crazy, in a great way. I think this song gets a bad reputation because it's fun to sing no matter how good you are at it, and that probably leads to a lot of bad singers leaving people with a bad impression of the song. But this performance is really quite good.
The music is well-chosen to enhance the vocals just enough without overpowering them, and keeps within the jungle theme. Most of the music is basic drums and light strummy guitars, but then there's also a fun sax solo in the bridge. It's just enough to be interesting without conflicting with the vocals or becoming too much.
The lyrics seem like kind of a sweet lullaby for kids. "In the jungle... the lion sleeps tonight." It's telling you not to worry about the dangers of the world outside, represented by the lion, because they're currently at rest and not going to bother you just now. There's not much more too it than that, and there doesn't need to be.
For what it's worth, I found the history of this song to be an interesting story. The original recording of the song on which it's based is also an interesting listen.
My verdict: Like it. It's charmingly corny, and you can't help but sing along. "Wimoweh, A-Wimoweh."
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Song #107: "Hello, Dolly!" by Louis Armstrong And The All Stars
Date: May 9, 1964
Weeks: 1
Louis Armstrong is always a delight. He's got a unique and appealing voice, and his jazzy musical aesthetic is a great match. This song is the title song from the musical "Hello Dolly," which was new when this song was on top of the charts. This appears to have been made as a way to promote the musical. I'm not entirely sure how to review this song.
Okay, well, the music is a pleasant little jazz backing band. You've got a strummy ukelele, a string bass, light drums, and of course a couple trumpets providing the primary musical interest. It's pleasant. I'm not sure it's really all that interesting. It's a good thing this song is only two minutes long, because I don't think it could hold my interest very much longer.
Apparently this song comes from a part of the musical where Dolly returns to a fancy restaurant where she is a regular, and this is a song sung to her by the servers at the restaurant. So the line "it's so nice to have you back where you belong" is intended to indicate affection for a popular person, rather than necessarily being an indication of romantic affection. And it's okay at that. The line "Find her an empty lap, fellas" seems like one of those lines that doesn't work very well outside the context of the musical, where we don't necessarily know anything about the character of Dolly. There aren't enough clues within the song to help me figure it out, either.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's fine, but it doesn't work for me outside the context of the musical. Louis Armstrong does a great job, but I'm just not that interested in listening to this song.
Weeks: 1
Louis Armstrong is always a delight. He's got a unique and appealing voice, and his jazzy musical aesthetic is a great match. This song is the title song from the musical "Hello Dolly," which was new when this song was on top of the charts. This appears to have been made as a way to promote the musical. I'm not entirely sure how to review this song.
Okay, well, the music is a pleasant little jazz backing band. You've got a strummy ukelele, a string bass, light drums, and of course a couple trumpets providing the primary musical interest. It's pleasant. I'm not sure it's really all that interesting. It's a good thing this song is only two minutes long, because I don't think it could hold my interest very much longer.
Apparently this song comes from a part of the musical where Dolly returns to a fancy restaurant where she is a regular, and this is a song sung to her by the servers at the restaurant. So the line "it's so nice to have you back where you belong" is intended to indicate affection for a popular person, rather than necessarily being an indication of romantic affection. And it's okay at that. The line "Find her an empty lap, fellas" seems like one of those lines that doesn't work very well outside the context of the musical, where we don't necessarily know anything about the character of Dolly. There aren't enough clues within the song to help me figure it out, either.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's fine, but it doesn't work for me outside the context of the musical. Louis Armstrong does a great job, but I'm just not that interested in listening to this song.
Monday, February 13, 2012
In Memoriam: Whitney Houston
Release Date: Aug 27, 1988
Peak Chart Position: #5
Though I don't care to spend a lot of time on this blog talking about current events or the personal lives of the artists behind these songs, I felt that I couldn't let Whitney Houston's passing go by without comment. Rather than moving one of her songs up in the cycle and reviewing it, I thought it might be better to share one of her best non-number-one songs, and I picked "One Moment In Time," a song that was written for the 1988 Summer Olympics.
Whitney Houston was truly talented, and her songs are always better when she gets to show off her talent. I don't know that this is one of her better songs (most of her better songs reached No. 1, and we'll get to them later), but it is kind of a grand song. It's positive, happy, and important.
There may be songs that do more to display her talent, but this song may more accurately capture her importance to popular culture.
Peak Chart Position: #5
Though I don't care to spend a lot of time on this blog talking about current events or the personal lives of the artists behind these songs, I felt that I couldn't let Whitney Houston's passing go by without comment. Rather than moving one of her songs up in the cycle and reviewing it, I thought it might be better to share one of her best non-number-one songs, and I picked "One Moment In Time," a song that was written for the 1988 Summer Olympics.
Whitney Houston was truly talented, and her songs are always better when she gets to show off her talent. I don't know that this is one of her better songs (most of her better songs reached No. 1, and we'll get to them later), but it is kind of a grand song. It's positive, happy, and important.
There may be songs that do more to display her talent, but this song may more accurately capture her importance to popular culture.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Song #997: "Grenade" by Bruno Mars
Date: Jan 8, 2011
Weeks: 4
This song makes me feel very, very ambivalent. Let's see if I can work out why.
I like that the music starts quiet and builds toward the chorus. The driving drum and piano through the verse is intriguing. And then we get to the chorus and it's... a little bit bigger. There's more drums, to be sure. But it feels like the song doesn't get as big as was promised. The bridge is a little bit better, but it's more at the energy and pain level that the chorus should be at. The bridge should be even bigger.
I like Mars's vocal intensity. His voice is raw and scratchy and intense, reflecting the emotion of the lyrics. He makes up for the promise made by the music to get bigger and bigger until he reaches peak intensity in the chorus, and then he fades off into sadness at the end. It's an achingly personal performance, somewhat undermined by the participation of background singers in the chorus. It's not quite so personal when you're getting that much help, Bruno.
The lyrics are the story of a man who is in pain over unrequited love. I suppose they capture the feeling pretty well, in a very intense way. The lyric "I'd catch a grenade for you" is just that old trope that self-sacrifice to save the one you love is the greatest form of love, and it's fine. But then the song gets weird. "Throw my hand on a blade for you," "Jump in front of a train for you," and "Take a bullet straight through my brain" aren't really about saving anyone else through self-sacrifice. They're just about inflicting pain to get attention. And that's where it turns kind of disturbingly self-destructive, in a very immature, teenage-poetry kind of way. And then he makes it clear that he doesn't even really respect the woman he's singing this song about. "Tell the devil I said hey when you get back to where you're from" and "You'll smile in my face then rip the brakes out my car." If that's what he thinks about the relationship, there's really no saving it.
I suppose if you view the lyrics as the pained wailing of a man who's suffering after a breakup, who has no intention of resuming this relationship but just wants to express the betrayal he's feeling, it's a little bit better. It still sounds like bad teenage poetry when he lists all the ways he intends to hurt himself, though. Still, I prefer it when songs like this go further over-the-top to indicate they are clearly satire. "Everything Is Cool" by Reel Big Fish is a great example off the top of head.
My verdict: Like it. Ultimately I think the positives outweigh the negatives. The music is compelling and catchy, and there's a genuine emotional intensity. It's pop music junk food. Not good for you, but possibly satisfying if you're in the right mood.
Weeks: 4
This song makes me feel very, very ambivalent. Let's see if I can work out why.
I like that the music starts quiet and builds toward the chorus. The driving drum and piano through the verse is intriguing. And then we get to the chorus and it's... a little bit bigger. There's more drums, to be sure. But it feels like the song doesn't get as big as was promised. The bridge is a little bit better, but it's more at the energy and pain level that the chorus should be at. The bridge should be even bigger.
I like Mars's vocal intensity. His voice is raw and scratchy and intense, reflecting the emotion of the lyrics. He makes up for the promise made by the music to get bigger and bigger until he reaches peak intensity in the chorus, and then he fades off into sadness at the end. It's an achingly personal performance, somewhat undermined by the participation of background singers in the chorus. It's not quite so personal when you're getting that much help, Bruno.
The lyrics are the story of a man who is in pain over unrequited love. I suppose they capture the feeling pretty well, in a very intense way. The lyric "I'd catch a grenade for you" is just that old trope that self-sacrifice to save the one you love is the greatest form of love, and it's fine. But then the song gets weird. "Throw my hand on a blade for you," "Jump in front of a train for you," and "Take a bullet straight through my brain" aren't really about saving anyone else through self-sacrifice. They're just about inflicting pain to get attention. And that's where it turns kind of disturbingly self-destructive, in a very immature, teenage-poetry kind of way. And then he makes it clear that he doesn't even really respect the woman he's singing this song about. "Tell the devil I said hey when you get back to where you're from" and "You'll smile in my face then rip the brakes out my car." If that's what he thinks about the relationship, there's really no saving it.
I suppose if you view the lyrics as the pained wailing of a man who's suffering after a breakup, who has no intention of resuming this relationship but just wants to express the betrayal he's feeling, it's a little bit better. It still sounds like bad teenage poetry when he lists all the ways he intends to hurt himself, though. Still, I prefer it when songs like this go further over-the-top to indicate they are clearly satire. "Everything Is Cool" by Reel Big Fish is a great example off the top of head.
My verdict: Like it. Ultimately I think the positives outweigh the negatives. The music is compelling and catchy, and there's a genuine emotional intensity. It's pop music junk food. Not good for you, but possibly satisfying if you're in the right mood.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Song #748: "I Like The Way (The Kissing Game) by Hi-Five
Date: May 18, 1991
Weeks: 1
If nothing else, researching the background of this song taught me about the term "new jack swing," which describes the genre of music that this song falls squarely into the middle of. Wikipedia cites some acts that I like and respect, but when this genre goes bad, the result is this odd dichotomy of heartfelt, sincere lead vocals over the most mechanical, calculated, and overproduced music you've ever heard.
There are a lot of problems with the music in this song. The ultra-fake drum-machine backing track creates almost no interest. The bass line is boring and barely present. The synthesized sax solo is quiet and bland. The whole thing sounds like the default background music that comes with a programmable keyboard.
And the bland backing track might not be so bad if the vocals were better. But the lead singer, Tony Thompson, just isn't interesting. He's whiny and high-pitched. He sounds like he's a 14-year-old whose voice is still changing. In fact, he was 16 at the time this charted. I can't help but wonder if he was a talented kid singer, but before anyone could capture that raw talent his voice started to change and they caught him at some awkward in-between age. Too young to have the vocal skill that comes with maturity, too old to have that exciting raw talent quality that defines other child singers.
The lyrics are generic and bland. Inoffensive but boring. He's in love, it makes him feel good, he knows the love is going to last forever, blah blah blah. There's neither much to complain about nor much to praise. I do object to the chorus, though. "I like the way you kiss me when we're playing the kissing game." Why "the kissing game"? If you're in love, why can't you just kiss? Does there have to be a game? Are you in Junior High and need the excuse of a game to kiss? Oh, I think I just realized why this song was chosen for someone who has the voice of a middle-schooler. This is really poorly written. It's like someone was mandated to write a song with the name "The Kissing Game," worked it in as well as they could, and then after recording someone at the record label realized it was wiser to go with "I Like The Way," because it was a better hook.
My verdict: Don't like it. I was surprised to discover that I didn't remember this song at all, but I do vaguely recall another song by this band, "She's Playing Hard To Get." That song is marginally better, largely because Thompson had gained some of the maturity he lacks here.
Weeks: 1
If nothing else, researching the background of this song taught me about the term "new jack swing," which describes the genre of music that this song falls squarely into the middle of. Wikipedia cites some acts that I like and respect, but when this genre goes bad, the result is this odd dichotomy of heartfelt, sincere lead vocals over the most mechanical, calculated, and overproduced music you've ever heard.
There are a lot of problems with the music in this song. The ultra-fake drum-machine backing track creates almost no interest. The bass line is boring and barely present. The synthesized sax solo is quiet and bland. The whole thing sounds like the default background music that comes with a programmable keyboard.
And the bland backing track might not be so bad if the vocals were better. But the lead singer, Tony Thompson, just isn't interesting. He's whiny and high-pitched. He sounds like he's a 14-year-old whose voice is still changing. In fact, he was 16 at the time this charted. I can't help but wonder if he was a talented kid singer, but before anyone could capture that raw talent his voice started to change and they caught him at some awkward in-between age. Too young to have the vocal skill that comes with maturity, too old to have that exciting raw talent quality that defines other child singers.
The lyrics are generic and bland. Inoffensive but boring. He's in love, it makes him feel good, he knows the love is going to last forever, blah blah blah. There's neither much to complain about nor much to praise. I do object to the chorus, though. "I like the way you kiss me when we're playing the kissing game." Why "the kissing game"? If you're in love, why can't you just kiss? Does there have to be a game? Are you in Junior High and need the excuse of a game to kiss? Oh, I think I just realized why this song was chosen for someone who has the voice of a middle-schooler. This is really poorly written. It's like someone was mandated to write a song with the name "The Kissing Game," worked it in as well as they could, and then after recording someone at the record label realized it was wiser to go with "I Like The Way," because it was a better hook.
My verdict: Don't like it. I was surprised to discover that I didn't remember this song at all, but I do vaguely recall another song by this band, "She's Playing Hard To Get." That song is marginally better, largely because Thompson had gained some of the maturity he lacks here.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Song #609: "Stuck With You" by Huey Lewis & The News
Date: Sept 20, 1986
Weeks: 3
Huey Lewis and the News are an underrated musical act in my opinion. There's something appealing about their style of pop/rock music. It's very fundamental and straightforward without being boring. It's also generally very bright and cheery, and fun.
This is one of the most relaxed and slow-tempo Huey Lewis songs that I know of, but somehow that just makes it more cheery and happy. That organ that accents the song really brings the mood up, but the bright drum and strummy guitar accents also help. Huey Lewis's voice sounds like he's singing through a smile. And even the backup singers sound bright and happy. The soundscape is well filled without getting crowded and full of extraneous instruments. I really enjoy the organ solo in the bridge, too. I can't really find much to criticize in the music. It's a pleasant, fun little song that is orchestrated perfectly.
"We are bound by all the rest. Like the same phone number, all the same friends, and the same address." This couple is saying they stay together because breaking up would be too much effort. And that sentiment could come across as the jaded, bitter rantings of someone whose relationship is over. But the chorus is "I'm so happy to be stuck with you." So it really comes across more as the kind of joke old married people tell when in truth, they wouldn't have it any other way. It's corny, and kind of a dumb idea for a song, but on the other hand it's not like any other song sentiment I've heard so far. Plus, Huey Lewis's voice is just happy enough to sell this concept.
My verdict: Like it. It just feels like a happy song, even if it's a little bit corny.
Weeks: 3
Huey Lewis and the News are an underrated musical act in my opinion. There's something appealing about their style of pop/rock music. It's very fundamental and straightforward without being boring. It's also generally very bright and cheery, and fun.
This is one of the most relaxed and slow-tempo Huey Lewis songs that I know of, but somehow that just makes it more cheery and happy. That organ that accents the song really brings the mood up, but the bright drum and strummy guitar accents also help. Huey Lewis's voice sounds like he's singing through a smile. And even the backup singers sound bright and happy. The soundscape is well filled without getting crowded and full of extraneous instruments. I really enjoy the organ solo in the bridge, too. I can't really find much to criticize in the music. It's a pleasant, fun little song that is orchestrated perfectly.
"We are bound by all the rest. Like the same phone number, all the same friends, and the same address." This couple is saying they stay together because breaking up would be too much effort. And that sentiment could come across as the jaded, bitter rantings of someone whose relationship is over. But the chorus is "I'm so happy to be stuck with you." So it really comes across more as the kind of joke old married people tell when in truth, they wouldn't have it any other way. It's corny, and kind of a dumb idea for a song, but on the other hand it's not like any other song sentiment I've heard so far. Plus, Huey Lewis's voice is just happy enough to sell this concept.
My verdict: Like it. It just feels like a happy song, even if it's a little bit corny.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Song #408: "Rock'n Me" by Steve Miller
Date: Nov 6, 1976
Weeks: 1
It took Steve Miller a while to win me over last time. There will be no such adjustment here. This song is just plain simple fun.
What I enjoy most about this song is the guitars. Both the lead and bass guitars do a great job of shining with their own bits during the intro and again during the bridge. This song contains truly great solos for both lead guitar and bass. But the thing I love most is during the vocals, when the guitars are creating these pulses that drive the song forward. It's a small thing that isn't very showy, but it's vitally important. That pulsing guitar during the verses give this song a remarkable amount of energy and intensity. Before I leave the music, I think it's important to also note that the drums aren't just here, they're also building the energy, and adding just enough variety at key points to get your attention any time the song risks becoming repetitive.
I'm not entirely sure about the meaning of the lyrics, other than that he's traveling around and wants to be with his lady. I kind of enjoy the poetry of the words more than their meaning. When he says he traveled to "Philadelphia, Atlanta, L.A." I enjoy the way those words all sound together, even if there's no particular lyrical significance to those three cities. I do think it's a little weird that he goes from L.A. to "Northern California where the girls are warm." From what I understand, the weather in Northern California is a bit more like Tacoma than L.A. I'm not sure folks in Northern California are known for being particularly warm. But I still like the poetry and clever near-rhyme of that line.
My verdict: Like it. What's left to say. This is a song that is pretty much just that visceral kind of fun that defies description, and it's pretty easy to sing along to, which is important in a song like that.
Weeks: 1
It took Steve Miller a while to win me over last time. There will be no such adjustment here. This song is just plain simple fun.
What I enjoy most about this song is the guitars. Both the lead and bass guitars do a great job of shining with their own bits during the intro and again during the bridge. This song contains truly great solos for both lead guitar and bass. But the thing I love most is during the vocals, when the guitars are creating these pulses that drive the song forward. It's a small thing that isn't very showy, but it's vitally important. That pulsing guitar during the verses give this song a remarkable amount of energy and intensity. Before I leave the music, I think it's important to also note that the drums aren't just here, they're also building the energy, and adding just enough variety at key points to get your attention any time the song risks becoming repetitive.
I'm not entirely sure about the meaning of the lyrics, other than that he's traveling around and wants to be with his lady. I kind of enjoy the poetry of the words more than their meaning. When he says he traveled to "Philadelphia, Atlanta, L.A." I enjoy the way those words all sound together, even if there's no particular lyrical significance to those three cities. I do think it's a little weird that he goes from L.A. to "Northern California where the girls are warm." From what I understand, the weather in Northern California is a bit more like Tacoma than L.A. I'm not sure folks in Northern California are known for being particularly warm. But I still like the poetry and clever near-rhyme of that line.
My verdict: Like it. What's left to say. This is a song that is pretty much just that visceral kind of fun that defies description, and it's pretty easy to sing along to, which is important in a song like that.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Song #610: "When I Think Of You" by Janet Jackson
Date: Oct 11, 1986
Weeks: 2
I'm a little torn on this song. On the one hand, it's fun and energetic enough. On the other hand, it has a lot of little moments I don't care for, and Janet Jackson has a lot of better songs, even if the charts don't necessarily reflect my opinion of their quality. I mean, this is from the same album as "Control," "Nasty," and "What Have You Done For Me Lately," but out of all those this is the only one that reached No. 1, even though it's easily the most forgettable of the set.
The song is perfectly enjoyable and through the first and second verses and both of those choruses. This song does a lot to justify many of the tropes of the 80s that I've complained about before. That 80s poundy drum correctly captures the intended bold energy. That matches the synthesized horn stings, which sound different enough from real horns to create an intriguing sound. The bass is simple but appealing enough. Janet Jackson's light voice is appealing and floats pleasantly in a layer of sound above the appealing background. The song gets off to a good start and seems to be building to a big musical payoff in the bridge.
Unfortunately, the bridge is where the song falls apart. Rather than getting bigger and more impressive, the bridge is full of studio tricks and very little sound. The section of bongo drums and weird grunts just isn't that appealing. The part where they add an echo to "when I think of you [you you you you]" is one of those things that just comes off insincere. And that conflicts with Jackson's spoken "when I think of you," which sounds very sincere, except in the context in which it's presented.
The lyrics are simple, and they're fine, but they're not very deep. When she feels bad, she thinks about her love, and she feels better. There's no odd phrases to mock, but there's not really anything all that clever to praise. The lyrics are ultimately pretty neutral. Except for the part in the bridge where she says "Bass" just before there's a small bass solo. That's one of those things that only works in a band where the singer calls attention to the guitar player who is also a member of the band, and even then it only really works live. A solo artist calling attention to the anonymous studio musician who did her bass line is just odd.
Also, the background singers doing the "So in love" lyric sing it in an overly staccato way that makes it sound like they're singing something else. For years I thought the lyric was something like "Sovinfur," and I wondered what that word meant.
My verdict: Don't like it. It starts off strong, but gets weird at the halfway point. And Janet Jackson has way better songs than this, even if some of her best aren't represented on this list.
Weeks: 2
I'm a little torn on this song. On the one hand, it's fun and energetic enough. On the other hand, it has a lot of little moments I don't care for, and Janet Jackson has a lot of better songs, even if the charts don't necessarily reflect my opinion of their quality. I mean, this is from the same album as "Control," "Nasty," and "What Have You Done For Me Lately," but out of all those this is the only one that reached No. 1, even though it's easily the most forgettable of the set.
The song is perfectly enjoyable and through the first and second verses and both of those choruses. This song does a lot to justify many of the tropes of the 80s that I've complained about before. That 80s poundy drum correctly captures the intended bold energy. That matches the synthesized horn stings, which sound different enough from real horns to create an intriguing sound. The bass is simple but appealing enough. Janet Jackson's light voice is appealing and floats pleasantly in a layer of sound above the appealing background. The song gets off to a good start and seems to be building to a big musical payoff in the bridge.
Unfortunately, the bridge is where the song falls apart. Rather than getting bigger and more impressive, the bridge is full of studio tricks and very little sound. The section of bongo drums and weird grunts just isn't that appealing. The part where they add an echo to "when I think of you [you you you you]" is one of those things that just comes off insincere. And that conflicts with Jackson's spoken "when I think of you," which sounds very sincere, except in the context in which it's presented.
The lyrics are simple, and they're fine, but they're not very deep. When she feels bad, she thinks about her love, and she feels better. There's no odd phrases to mock, but there's not really anything all that clever to praise. The lyrics are ultimately pretty neutral. Except for the part in the bridge where she says "Bass" just before there's a small bass solo. That's one of those things that only works in a band where the singer calls attention to the guitar player who is also a member of the band, and even then it only really works live. A solo artist calling attention to the anonymous studio musician who did her bass line is just odd.
Also, the background singers doing the "So in love" lyric sing it in an overly staccato way that makes it sound like they're singing something else. For years I thought the lyric was something like "Sovinfur," and I wondered what that word meant.
My verdict: Don't like it. It starts off strong, but gets weird at the halfway point. And Janet Jackson has way better songs than this, even if some of her best aren't represented on this list.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Song #303: "Let's Get It On" by Marvin Gaye
Date: Sept 8, 1973
Weeks: 2
The chorus of this song is classic, to be sure. It gets played in contexts both artistic and commercial, sincere and ironic, basic and bizarre. And it's a strong chorus. But the rest of the song doesn't necessarily hold up.
The song's biggest strength is Gaye's vocals. He's a great singer, and the chorus in particular shows off his skill. He's putting on a performance, and it's great. I want to listen to him sing. I like the way his voice alternates between power and gentleness, it's ideal for the song's lyrical context.
The lyrics, I assume, don't need much explanation. It's an invitation to sex. At first glance, it seems like it's an invitation to sex between partners who are already well in love. But there are occasional lines, such as "C'mon darling, stop beatin' 'round the bush," that feel a little more like pressure. Like he's just saying these things to get sex. Ultimately, I'm going to be charitable and assume he really is in love and just wants to take the relationship to the next level, but when you're writing a song like this, it's kind of important to make the lyrics absolutely immune to misinterpretation.
Musically, the song is pretty boring. Yes, the point is to showcase his voice, but the music doesn't seem to try to do very much except create the most basic backing track. The drums don't change much, the bass line has little variation, and even the lead twangy guitar doesn't do very much beyond the chorus. Then in the middle there's a mismash of saxophones, strings, and randomness. There aren't so much verses as freeform jazz between choruses. And it goes on and on for 5 minutes. It's not bad, to be sure, but it's also a little bit boring after a while.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a well-constructed pop song. Though I can see it being appealing in its intended context, if you take my meaning.
Weeks: 2
The chorus of this song is classic, to be sure. It gets played in contexts both artistic and commercial, sincere and ironic, basic and bizarre. And it's a strong chorus. But the rest of the song doesn't necessarily hold up.
The song's biggest strength is Gaye's vocals. He's a great singer, and the chorus in particular shows off his skill. He's putting on a performance, and it's great. I want to listen to him sing. I like the way his voice alternates between power and gentleness, it's ideal for the song's lyrical context.
The lyrics, I assume, don't need much explanation. It's an invitation to sex. At first glance, it seems like it's an invitation to sex between partners who are already well in love. But there are occasional lines, such as "C'mon darling, stop beatin' 'round the bush," that feel a little more like pressure. Like he's just saying these things to get sex. Ultimately, I'm going to be charitable and assume he really is in love and just wants to take the relationship to the next level, but when you're writing a song like this, it's kind of important to make the lyrics absolutely immune to misinterpretation.
Musically, the song is pretty boring. Yes, the point is to showcase his voice, but the music doesn't seem to try to do very much except create the most basic backing track. The drums don't change much, the bass line has little variation, and even the lead twangy guitar doesn't do very much beyond the chorus. Then in the middle there's a mismash of saxophones, strings, and randomness. There aren't so much verses as freeform jazz between choruses. And it goes on and on for 5 minutes. It's not bad, to be sure, but it's also a little bit boring after a while.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a well-constructed pop song. Though I can see it being appealing in its intended context, if you take my meaning.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Song #33: "Itsy Bisty Teenie Weenie Yellow Polkadot Bikini" by Brian Hyland
Date: Aug 8, 1960
Weeks: 1
For some reason, I always thought this song was originally performed by a woman. I guess Connie Francis recorded a version of this song, but my research indicates Brian Hyland had the first recording, and he's the one who reached No. 1 with it.
I guess in 1960 the bikini was still a relatively new thing, and this song is indirectly about its social acceptance, by portraying a young woman who is suddenly less sure of her bold swimsuit choice now that she's actually at the beach and wearing it. And the singer of the song seems kind of wryly amused at her predicament and lack of self-assuredness. And that's one way where the song being sung by a man kind of ruins it for me. He comes off like he's just kind of laughing at her situation. Whereas Connie Francis sounds a little more sympathetic. I don't know. The gender politics of people talking about a woman wearing a bikini in 1960 are so far beyond my area of expertise, I'm not sure I can discuss it intelligently.
Most of the music here is fine. Pretty basic 50s-style rock and roll, with a bit of a beach vibe to it. Clearly it's supposed to be a song to play at a beach dance party. And it's fine for that. But what I don't care for is the background singers. There are too many of them. It's like there's an entire chorus back there. And their contributions are pretty dumb. "2, 3, 4, tell the people what she wore." That's just a space-filler. There's also a "ba-ba-dum" they do in the background during the verses that would have been better done by an instrument. A guitar, a drum, or even a xylophone would have been a better way to handle the need for that sound.
My verdict: Don't like it. It sounds like it was recorded for a children's record. There's a better way to record this song. This is not that better way. But you know, theoretically.
Weeks: 1
For some reason, I always thought this song was originally performed by a woman. I guess Connie Francis recorded a version of this song, but my research indicates Brian Hyland had the first recording, and he's the one who reached No. 1 with it.
I guess in 1960 the bikini was still a relatively new thing, and this song is indirectly about its social acceptance, by portraying a young woman who is suddenly less sure of her bold swimsuit choice now that she's actually at the beach and wearing it. And the singer of the song seems kind of wryly amused at her predicament and lack of self-assuredness. And that's one way where the song being sung by a man kind of ruins it for me. He comes off like he's just kind of laughing at her situation. Whereas Connie Francis sounds a little more sympathetic. I don't know. The gender politics of people talking about a woman wearing a bikini in 1960 are so far beyond my area of expertise, I'm not sure I can discuss it intelligently.
Most of the music here is fine. Pretty basic 50s-style rock and roll, with a bit of a beach vibe to it. Clearly it's supposed to be a song to play at a beach dance party. And it's fine for that. But what I don't care for is the background singers. There are too many of them. It's like there's an entire chorus back there. And their contributions are pretty dumb. "2, 3, 4, tell the people what she wore." That's just a space-filler. There's also a "ba-ba-dum" they do in the background during the verses that would have been better done by an instrument. A guitar, a drum, or even a xylophone would have been a better way to handle the need for that sound.
My verdict: Don't like it. It sounds like it was recorded for a children's record. There's a better way to record this song. This is not that better way. But you know, theoretically.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Song #452: "Hot Child In The City" by Nick Gilder
Date: Oct 28, 1978
Weeks: 1
Now here's a nice, solid, pleasant pop/rock song. For some reason, I'm still surprised when a nice rock song rises to the top in the 70s. I really shouldn't be, because I know there was some excellent rock and roll being made in the 70s, and the music of the 80s had to evolve from somewhere. But stuff like this seems to rise to the top so rarely when I get to the 70s, that I often wind up surprised to discover it.
At any rate, this song benefits from a refreshing simplicity. It's a nice guitar line, quality drums, restrained and clever use of synth, and one of the best bass lines I've heard. The sound mix is just stark enough in the verses to show off the bass, but it builds into a full sound in the chorus that features all the parts working together to create a wonderful whole. This is great stuff here, especially in the bridge where the lead guitar really opens up and shows off.
The vocals don't work quite as well for me. Gilder's voice is quite high-pitched that the listener can't help spending at least some energy trying to figure out the gender of the singer. It's not a huge issue, and his vocal range fits fine with the music, but it's honestly a little distracting. I'm also not sure if I like the chorus singing the verse. It sounds like a lot more voices than one would get in a typical 4-5 piece band, and as a result the track feels just a little bit overproduced, like someone was trying desperately to make that chorus sound bigger than it needed to be. This song derives a lot of its appeal from its relatively raw sound, the sense that the song could conceivably be performed live by a small band without any alterations, and the idea that somebody organized a chorus just to make it sound bigger contradicts that. I appreciate the desire to make the chorus sound bigger by getting additional vocals to pitch in, I just think it would be better to keep it to the rest of the band pitching in a few backing vocals. Or possibly that's all that's happening and I'm not hearing it right.
As for the lyrics, the song seems to be about a pretty young woman that is admired by the boys in town. She may be a runaway teenager. The song isn't entirely clear about that, except for the fact that even the title calls her "child." But then comes "Come on down to my place, woman, we'll make love." Is she a child or a young woman? That lyric sure suggests that she better be a young woman.
Well, according to Wikipedia, Gilder claims the song is intentionally written about teenage girls getting into prostitution, and the song is written from the perspective of a "lecher," as he puts it. So at least the contradiction I pointed out earlier makes sense within that context. I'm not sure it really comes across in the lyrics that this is intentional, but at least I was able to pick up on it. Maybe I've just been used to dealing with too many songs like "Honey" to realize that somebody was being patronizing to a young woman as intentional satire.
My verdict: Like it. The music is too compelling for any nitpicks about the lyrics or the vocals to matter. It's a great bass line and a very well orchestrated song.
Weeks: 1
Now here's a nice, solid, pleasant pop/rock song. For some reason, I'm still surprised when a nice rock song rises to the top in the 70s. I really shouldn't be, because I know there was some excellent rock and roll being made in the 70s, and the music of the 80s had to evolve from somewhere. But stuff like this seems to rise to the top so rarely when I get to the 70s, that I often wind up surprised to discover it.
At any rate, this song benefits from a refreshing simplicity. It's a nice guitar line, quality drums, restrained and clever use of synth, and one of the best bass lines I've heard. The sound mix is just stark enough in the verses to show off the bass, but it builds into a full sound in the chorus that features all the parts working together to create a wonderful whole. This is great stuff here, especially in the bridge where the lead guitar really opens up and shows off.
The vocals don't work quite as well for me. Gilder's voice is quite high-pitched that the listener can't help spending at least some energy trying to figure out the gender of the singer. It's not a huge issue, and his vocal range fits fine with the music, but it's honestly a little distracting. I'm also not sure if I like the chorus singing the verse. It sounds like a lot more voices than one would get in a typical 4-5 piece band, and as a result the track feels just a little bit overproduced, like someone was trying desperately to make that chorus sound bigger than it needed to be. This song derives a lot of its appeal from its relatively raw sound, the sense that the song could conceivably be performed live by a small band without any alterations, and the idea that somebody organized a chorus just to make it sound bigger contradicts that. I appreciate the desire to make the chorus sound bigger by getting additional vocals to pitch in, I just think it would be better to keep it to the rest of the band pitching in a few backing vocals. Or possibly that's all that's happening and I'm not hearing it right.
As for the lyrics, the song seems to be about a pretty young woman that is admired by the boys in town. She may be a runaway teenager. The song isn't entirely clear about that, except for the fact that even the title calls her "child." But then comes "Come on down to my place, woman, we'll make love." Is she a child or a young woman? That lyric sure suggests that she better be a young woman.
Well, according to Wikipedia, Gilder claims the song is intentionally written about teenage girls getting into prostitution, and the song is written from the perspective of a "lecher," as he puts it. So at least the contradiction I pointed out earlier makes sense within that context. I'm not sure it really comes across in the lyrics that this is intentional, but at least I was able to pick up on it. Maybe I've just been used to dealing with too many songs like "Honey" to realize that somebody was being patronizing to a young woman as intentional satire.
My verdict: Like it. The music is too compelling for any nitpicks about the lyrics or the vocals to matter. It's a great bass line and a very well orchestrated song.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)