Date: Apr 13, 1991
Weeks: 1
This is a polite little dance/pop song from the early 90s, and it's harmless enough. It's got a little bounce that you can dance to, sufficient variety to stay entertaining, and inoffensive orchestration.
I try not to rail too hard against the use of the drum kit in pop music, because honestly I think that combined with sufficient overall sound and clever editing, its sins can be overlooked. Synthesizers are harder to make work, and must be judged on a song-by-song basis. Both these elements work fine in this song. I think it's because it's a dance song, so overall it's expected to be the same throughout a lot of it, and the art is in how variety is injected. And the rest of the music works pretty well. The guitar, the synthesized bass and everything else creates a fairly full sound, with occasional breaks for impact. It never loses its intensity, and it manages to end just before its repetition might get grating.
The vocals might be the hardest part to enjoy. The singer is a weird combination of falsetto and breathy. He sounds like he's whispering most of the time, and I think that's an weird choice. It sounds like he's holding back, either because he's trying not to overpower the music or because he's not very good at singing louder. I don't like the style at all, myself. But I suppose it's not bad enough to ruin the music overall.
The lyrics are about someone starting to think about their friend in a romantic way. "I miss you baby, and I've got those feelings again." It's a decent topic for a song, but these lyrics aren't especially impressive. For one thing, what does "again" mean in that line? Has this happened before? Didn't you sort it out then? Also, the second verse confounds me. He's just confessed his feelings and then it sounds like he's also confessing that he cheated? "She was my one temptation." That sounds like he's confessing to cheating, but how did he manage to cheat in the space between the first chorus and the second verse?
My verdict: Like it. It's got its drawbacks, sure, but it's a light bit of fun dance music and it has its charm.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Song #496: "The Tide Is High" by Blondie
Date: Jan 31, 1981
Weeks: 1
I'll always associate this song with an ad I saw once for reruns of Star Trek: The Next Generation, which played off the "I want to be your Number One" lyric in this song to promote a week of shows about Commander Riker. That ad cracked me up, but unfortunately it seems the Internet failed to document it for me to share here. Too bad.
I was going to start by commenting on the song's obvious reggae influence, until I discovered it's actually a cover of a song by a reggae band, the Paragons. Blondie seem to play up the reggae style of it a bit more, adding horns and crossing over into ska territory. And I like everything about it. The bass and drum lines are compelling, the horns are appealing, and the strings are used sparingly for accents late in the song.
What I particularly like is the chaotic, mixed percussion through the background. I've often put songs on a scale of relaxing verses energetic, but I think what I really like is intensity. Here's a song that has an overall relaxing tone without losing any intensity, and a big part of it is that the percussion keeps that intensity even when everything else is indicating relaxation.
And just when the song nears the end and threatens to get repetitive, Debbie Harry injects some weird intensity into her vocals to keep the variety coming. The weird intensity of vocals near the end really stands out, but I think it makes the song memorable, and keeps you on your toes, unsure when to expect it.
The lyrics aren't quite so great. It's mostly the same chorus over and over, and the chorus lyrics don't seem to mean much. "The tide is high" is a metaphor that doesn't really get explained. The line "I'm gonna be your number one" doesn't really explain what it means. I guess its meaning is obvious, but the phrase "number one" is so unusual that I'm not surprised someone latched onto it when making a Star Trek promo. And what few verse lyrics there are don't even rhyme, but they're close enough that it doesn't seem like a deliberate choice. "Every girl wants you to be her man. But I'll wait dear until it's my turn." Doesn't rhyme. Heck, the original lyric is "Every man wants you to be his girl. But I'll wait dear until it's my turn," and that doesn't rhyme any better.
My verdict: Like it. The lyrics are easy to ignore, and the overall sound is great.
Weeks: 1
I'll always associate this song with an ad I saw once for reruns of Star Trek: The Next Generation, which played off the "I want to be your Number One" lyric in this song to promote a week of shows about Commander Riker. That ad cracked me up, but unfortunately it seems the Internet failed to document it for me to share here. Too bad.
I was going to start by commenting on the song's obvious reggae influence, until I discovered it's actually a cover of a song by a reggae band, the Paragons. Blondie seem to play up the reggae style of it a bit more, adding horns and crossing over into ska territory. And I like everything about it. The bass and drum lines are compelling, the horns are appealing, and the strings are used sparingly for accents late in the song.
What I particularly like is the chaotic, mixed percussion through the background. I've often put songs on a scale of relaxing verses energetic, but I think what I really like is intensity. Here's a song that has an overall relaxing tone without losing any intensity, and a big part of it is that the percussion keeps that intensity even when everything else is indicating relaxation.
And just when the song nears the end and threatens to get repetitive, Debbie Harry injects some weird intensity into her vocals to keep the variety coming. The weird intensity of vocals near the end really stands out, but I think it makes the song memorable, and keeps you on your toes, unsure when to expect it.
The lyrics aren't quite so great. It's mostly the same chorus over and over, and the chorus lyrics don't seem to mean much. "The tide is high" is a metaphor that doesn't really get explained. The line "I'm gonna be your number one" doesn't really explain what it means. I guess its meaning is obvious, but the phrase "number one" is so unusual that I'm not surprised someone latched onto it when making a Star Trek promo. And what few verse lyrics there are don't even rhyme, but they're close enough that it doesn't seem like a deliberate choice. "Every girl wants you to be her man. But I'll wait dear until it's my turn." Doesn't rhyme. Heck, the original lyric is "Every man wants you to be his girl. But I'll wait dear until it's my turn," and that doesn't rhyme any better.
My verdict: Like it. The lyrics are easy to ignore, and the overall sound is great.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Song #222: "Wedding Bell Blues" by The 5th Dimension
Date: Nov 8, 1969
Weeks: 3
Before Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. sang a song from the perspective of a married couple, she sang lead on this song, which really surprised me. Considering I didn't like that song, and I only sort of liked parts of the last 5th Dimension song I covered, I didn't have a lot of hope for this one. But I really like it quite a bit.
I just enjoy the overall sound. There's a classic, classy sound to the music here. I think the focus on piano, with drums, bass, and some horn and string accents, creates an appealingly charming sound. It's energetic and upbeat. I often complain that so many songs in the 70s use so many instruments to create so little sound. This is my counter-example. It uses many of the same instruments that are so popular in 70s pop music, but it uses them to create a full, complete, engaging sound. This is a cover of an earlier song by the songwriter, Laura Nyro, and there was also a cover by Lesley Gore. But both those versions lack the fullness of sound that is present in this version.
Marilyn McCoo really sells this song, too. She belts this one out with enthusiasm, possibly because the song had a bit of a personal meaning to her, since she was engaged to, but not yet married to, Billy Davis at the time. They even had fun with this during TV performances of the song. I think she also captures the right spirit of the lyrics.
The lyrics surprised me a bit, because rarely in pop songs do the singers call out the name of the person the love song is about. Sure, once in a while you'll get a "Sherry" (#78) or a "Sara" (#591), but those are deliberately reflected in the title. I think this song says the name "Bill" more times than either of those, too. Regardless, the singer is trying to figure out if Bill is ready to commit to marriage. And I like the sentiment. She's getting fed up with waiting, and she doesn't want to give up on Bill, but she wants to know if he's going to make the commitment. I suppose you can have your own interpretation of what she'll do if he says no or tries to string her along further. Personally, McCoo's performance makes me think she's going to drop him and move on.
My verdict: Like it. It's charming and energetic, what's not to like?
Weeks: 3
Before Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. sang a song from the perspective of a married couple, she sang lead on this song, which really surprised me. Considering I didn't like that song, and I only sort of liked parts of the last 5th Dimension song I covered, I didn't have a lot of hope for this one. But I really like it quite a bit.
I just enjoy the overall sound. There's a classic, classy sound to the music here. I think the focus on piano, with drums, bass, and some horn and string accents, creates an appealingly charming sound. It's energetic and upbeat. I often complain that so many songs in the 70s use so many instruments to create so little sound. This is my counter-example. It uses many of the same instruments that are so popular in 70s pop music, but it uses them to create a full, complete, engaging sound. This is a cover of an earlier song by the songwriter, Laura Nyro, and there was also a cover by Lesley Gore. But both those versions lack the fullness of sound that is present in this version.
Marilyn McCoo really sells this song, too. She belts this one out with enthusiasm, possibly because the song had a bit of a personal meaning to her, since she was engaged to, but not yet married to, Billy Davis at the time. They even had fun with this during TV performances of the song. I think she also captures the right spirit of the lyrics.
The lyrics surprised me a bit, because rarely in pop songs do the singers call out the name of the person the love song is about. Sure, once in a while you'll get a "Sherry" (#78) or a "Sara" (#591), but those are deliberately reflected in the title. I think this song says the name "Bill" more times than either of those, too. Regardless, the singer is trying to figure out if Bill is ready to commit to marriage. And I like the sentiment. She's getting fed up with waiting, and she doesn't want to give up on Bill, but she wants to know if he's going to make the commitment. I suppose you can have your own interpretation of what she'll do if he says no or tries to string her along further. Personally, McCoo's performance makes me think she's going to drop him and move on.
My verdict: Like it. It's charming and energetic, what's not to like?
Friday, April 20, 2012
Song #464: "Reunited" by Peaches & Herb
Date: May 5, 1979
Weeks: 4
"We both are so excited 'cause we're reunited." Okay, go back and write a song that actually communicates excitement. This one communicates, at best, quiet self-satisfaction.
Once again, we have a bunch of instruments involved in creating a really quiet song, so there is neither emotional spareness nor energetic fullness. The instruments that are here seem to be really cheaply produced, possibly simulated. Take out the drums and explore the emotional sincerity of your song.
Vocally, the song's not much better to listen to. Herb is a pretty mediocre singer, and he doesn't carry his solo sections very well. Peaches does better, and I don't mind her voice at all. But together, they just don't harmonize very well. "There's one perfect fit and sugar this one is it." Your voices don't fit together at all. Your voices need to be reunited.
The lyrics feel really lazily written. There's no poetry here, just a bunch of words that rhyme. "I spent the evening with the radio. Regret the moment that I let you go." "Spent the evening with the radio" isn't an idiom, and it's kind of half a metaphor at best. And to fit the sentence structure, it should be "I regret the moment," but of course that doesn't fit the meter. Also, I don't really like the sentiment. Relationship songs are usually about angst, or contentment, but this one is just kind of smugly satisfied.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's just all wrong.
Weeks: 4
"We both are so excited 'cause we're reunited." Okay, go back and write a song that actually communicates excitement. This one communicates, at best, quiet self-satisfaction.
Once again, we have a bunch of instruments involved in creating a really quiet song, so there is neither emotional spareness nor energetic fullness. The instruments that are here seem to be really cheaply produced, possibly simulated. Take out the drums and explore the emotional sincerity of your song.
Vocally, the song's not much better to listen to. Herb is a pretty mediocre singer, and he doesn't carry his solo sections very well. Peaches does better, and I don't mind her voice at all. But together, they just don't harmonize very well. "There's one perfect fit and sugar this one is it." Your voices don't fit together at all. Your voices need to be reunited.
The lyrics feel really lazily written. There's no poetry here, just a bunch of words that rhyme. "I spent the evening with the radio. Regret the moment that I let you go." "Spent the evening with the radio" isn't an idiom, and it's kind of half a metaphor at best. And to fit the sentence structure, it should be "I regret the moment," but of course that doesn't fit the meter. Also, I don't really like the sentiment. Relationship songs are usually about angst, or contentment, but this one is just kind of smugly satisfied.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's just all wrong.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Song #214: "Aquarius/Let The Sunshine In" by The 5th Dimension
Date: Apr 12, 1969
Weeks: 6
So this is a medley of two songs from the musical Hair, and for some reason I don't think I'd ever heard them together before. They are two distinctive songs that, other than having a similar aesthetic, don't seem to blend together very well.
The "Aquarius" segment is particularly kitschy. It's all about astrology, "mystic crystal revelation," and peace and love. Apparently the "Age of Aquarius" has to do with which zodiac constellation the sun is located in on the vernal equinox. The precession of various celestial bodies causes this to change every 2100 years or so. Depending on the interpretation of the boundary between constellations, the changeover from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius could be anywhere from the 20th century to the 27th century. If I understand right, this is the etymology of the phrase "New Age." The point, as far as this song is concerned, is that there was a belief that the change from one age to another might usher in a new age of world peace, and so this part of the song celebrates that.
I don't really care for the oddly minor-key overtones through this part of the song. I think it's aiming for a "cosmic" sound, but it just comes off echo-y and like it's trying to come across as more grand than it actually is. I actually kind of like the chaotic guitar stuff happening otherwise.
The second half, "Let The Sunshine In" works much better. I actually really enjoy this part of the song. The bass line proceeds in an intriguing way, the horns punctuate at just the right times, and the overall sound is appealing. The chorus harmonizes and the lead singer scats along in a compelling way. The weakness of this part is that there's not a lot of variety to maintain interest for the length of time it lasts. But the overall sound is too appealing to deny.
My verdict: Like it. I didn't think I would when I started it, but I liked the "Aquarius" part more on repeated listens, and I liked the "Sunshine" part from the get go.
Weeks: 6
So this is a medley of two songs from the musical Hair, and for some reason I don't think I'd ever heard them together before. They are two distinctive songs that, other than having a similar aesthetic, don't seem to blend together very well.
The "Aquarius" segment is particularly kitschy. It's all about astrology, "mystic crystal revelation," and peace and love. Apparently the "Age of Aquarius" has to do with which zodiac constellation the sun is located in on the vernal equinox. The precession of various celestial bodies causes this to change every 2100 years or so. Depending on the interpretation of the boundary between constellations, the changeover from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius could be anywhere from the 20th century to the 27th century. If I understand right, this is the etymology of the phrase "New Age." The point, as far as this song is concerned, is that there was a belief that the change from one age to another might usher in a new age of world peace, and so this part of the song celebrates that.
I don't really care for the oddly minor-key overtones through this part of the song. I think it's aiming for a "cosmic" sound, but it just comes off echo-y and like it's trying to come across as more grand than it actually is. I actually kind of like the chaotic guitar stuff happening otherwise.
The second half, "Let The Sunshine In" works much better. I actually really enjoy this part of the song. The bass line proceeds in an intriguing way, the horns punctuate at just the right times, and the overall sound is appealing. The chorus harmonizes and the lead singer scats along in a compelling way. The weakness of this part is that there's not a lot of variety to maintain interest for the length of time it lasts. But the overall sound is too appealing to deny.
My verdict: Like it. I didn't think I would when I started it, but I liked the "Aquarius" part more on repeated listens, and I liked the "Sunshine" part from the get go.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Song #356: "Best Of My Love" by Eagles
Date: Mar 1, 1975
Weeks: 1
Oh, strummy acoustic nothing songs, how I loathe you.
The bulk of this song is 2 chords from an acoustic guitar. Both the verses and the choruses just alternate from one chord to the other before switching back. There are also some transitions that employ a couple other chords very briefly, but other than technically adding more chords to the song they don't add anything resembling variety to the music.
And there's little else going on to listen to here. There's another guitar noodling away vaguely way in the background, and a lonely maraca on percussion. And there's the vocal harmony, but this isn't exactly Boyz II Men here. The Eagles's voices here are fine, but not particularly remarkable.
And this is where the strummy acoustic guitar song fails for me. There's no interesting sound here. There's no tension building up for release, no energy. There's not even any variety to keep the song compelling. Conversely, they can't commit to the spare, heartfelt song of one person with one guitar, instead adding sound and voices all over the place. So with the music a complete failure, that must mean the lyrics are interesting, right?
I'm not going to pretend the lyrics are terrible, because they're not. But they're not exactly great, either. There aren't any clever turns of phrase or interesting things to say. The singer's had a fight with his significant other and can't quite find the right words to make it right. "We try to talk it over, but the words come out too rough." It's an apology song, an attempt to rise above the specific issues at hand and try to save the relationship because "here in my heart, I give you the best of my love." Mostly I don't have a problem with the lyrics, but I do find the chorus to be pretty generic. "Ooooh, sweet darlin'. You get the best of my love." "Sweet darlin'" isn't exactly an original affectionate, there. And gee, maybe if the relationship is in this much peril, your "sweet darlin'" might actually be getting the worst of your love.
My verdict: Don't like it. A song needs to have either interesting music or interesting lyrics, preferably both. This one has mediocre lyrics and almost no music, so it's no good.
Weeks: 1
Oh, strummy acoustic nothing songs, how I loathe you.
The bulk of this song is 2 chords from an acoustic guitar. Both the verses and the choruses just alternate from one chord to the other before switching back. There are also some transitions that employ a couple other chords very briefly, but other than technically adding more chords to the song they don't add anything resembling variety to the music.
And there's little else going on to listen to here. There's another guitar noodling away vaguely way in the background, and a lonely maraca on percussion. And there's the vocal harmony, but this isn't exactly Boyz II Men here. The Eagles's voices here are fine, but not particularly remarkable.
And this is where the strummy acoustic guitar song fails for me. There's no interesting sound here. There's no tension building up for release, no energy. There's not even any variety to keep the song compelling. Conversely, they can't commit to the spare, heartfelt song of one person with one guitar, instead adding sound and voices all over the place. So with the music a complete failure, that must mean the lyrics are interesting, right?
I'm not going to pretend the lyrics are terrible, because they're not. But they're not exactly great, either. There aren't any clever turns of phrase or interesting things to say. The singer's had a fight with his significant other and can't quite find the right words to make it right. "We try to talk it over, but the words come out too rough." It's an apology song, an attempt to rise above the specific issues at hand and try to save the relationship because "here in my heart, I give you the best of my love." Mostly I don't have a problem with the lyrics, but I do find the chorus to be pretty generic. "Ooooh, sweet darlin'. You get the best of my love." "Sweet darlin'" isn't exactly an original affectionate, there. And gee, maybe if the relationship is in this much peril, your "sweet darlin'" might actually be getting the worst of your love.
My verdict: Don't like it. A song needs to have either interesting music or interesting lyrics, preferably both. This one has mediocre lyrics and almost no music, so it's no good.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Song #219: "Sugar, Sugar" by The Archies
Date: Sept 20, 1969
Weeks: 4
I didn't expect a TV tie-in song from a cartoon band with the name "Sugar, Sugar" to be anything but a light, pleasant pop song. But this song feels insubstantial even by that standard.
I think the core of the problem is a general lack of percussion and bass. There aren't really drums here, just hand-claps. There is a strummy, limited bass guitar, and if you're lucky you might find a version of the song that ups the bass so you can hear it better, but it's not really holding the rest of the song together as well as it should.
I do like the bass line that we do have. I like the guitar part and the other miscellaneous instruments. There are good musical ideas here, particularly the pipe organ sound that plays in the chorus after every iteration of "Sugar" and "Honey, honey." And the song creates a big wall of sound near the end that has a lot going on at once that is especially appealing.
Lyrically, at least the song knows what it is. "You are my candy girl." "I knew how sweet a kiss could be." This is what happens when someone knowingly makes music to fit into the genre of "bubblegum pop" in the most literal way possible. That said, the lyrical repetition goes in a pattern that is both appealing and reliable without being predictable or boring. These are not deep insights, but the words themselves have an appeal to them.
My verdict: Like it. I wish the percussion was more fully featured, but overall this song has charm. The cover from the 90s is a big improvement on a lot of things, although it doesn't have even as good as a bass line as this original version does.
Weeks: 4
I didn't expect a TV tie-in song from a cartoon band with the name "Sugar, Sugar" to be anything but a light, pleasant pop song. But this song feels insubstantial even by that standard.
I think the core of the problem is a general lack of percussion and bass. There aren't really drums here, just hand-claps. There is a strummy, limited bass guitar, and if you're lucky you might find a version of the song that ups the bass so you can hear it better, but it's not really holding the rest of the song together as well as it should.
I do like the bass line that we do have. I like the guitar part and the other miscellaneous instruments. There are good musical ideas here, particularly the pipe organ sound that plays in the chorus after every iteration of "Sugar" and "Honey, honey." And the song creates a big wall of sound near the end that has a lot going on at once that is especially appealing.
Lyrically, at least the song knows what it is. "You are my candy girl." "I knew how sweet a kiss could be." This is what happens when someone knowingly makes music to fit into the genre of "bubblegum pop" in the most literal way possible. That said, the lyrical repetition goes in a pattern that is both appealing and reliable without being predictable or boring. These are not deep insights, but the words themselves have an appeal to them.
My verdict: Like it. I wish the percussion was more fully featured, but overall this song has charm. The cover from the 90s is a big improvement on a lot of things, although it doesn't have even as good as a bass line as this original version does.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Song #909: "My Boo" by Usher and Alicia Keys
Date: Oct 30, 2004
Weeks: 6
As a note, it's not totally wrong to start your music video with a clip from a different song, but they're not usually so long. I'm just saying if this if your first time hearing this song like it was for me, make sure you ignore the first 40 seconds or so of the video, because that's not the song.
I think it's fitting that Usher and Alicia Keys made a song together. They are both ridiculously talented singers whose songs are hampered by bizzare production choices of the moment, the kind of choices that already seem a bit dated, less than a decade later. Their voices are individually great, and they blend together really well. I like all the layers of overlapping voice that are arranged together. They're complex in a way that suggests the complex feelings the singers have for each other. Whatever energy this song manages to have is entirely because they sound so appealing together, and because they have been edited together well.
Where the song goes wrong is in the synthesized voice chord... chipmunk noises that punctuate the verses. They're just so cheap and fake that they draw attention away from the singing. The rest of the music is fine. The bass and drums are appealingly simple, drawing focus to the singing. I even kind of like the more rapid synthesized beats that mark transitions in this song. They successfully increase tension that gets released by the transitions to a new part of the song. Overall, the music is pretty good, especially appropriate for a song that is trying to feature two excellent singers, but a general lack of variety combined with the obnoxious synthesized voice chord noises really hamper the song's overall quality.
Lyrically, well, the elephant in the room is the title. "My Boo" seems like a piece of slang that is unlikely to last another 50 years when someone sits down to review the first 2000 No. 1 hits, and has to derive the meaning from context. I've always wondered where the word came from, so I looked it up. According to Urban Dictionary, the word "boo" as slang for boyfriend or girlfriend derives from the French word "beau," through various Caribbean communities, and finally into American English slang as "boo." So I learned something today.
The rest of the lyrics are about these two people who were each others' first loves, and even though their relationship is over and they don't specifically say they want to rekindle it, they still hold strong affection for each other. I think it's a sweet sentiment.
My verdict: Like it. I still wish the sound had been mixed differently, and that the video hadn't included that fake-out for another song that took me a while to figure out was actually another song. But overall the positives outweigh the negatives.
Weeks: 6
As a note, it's not totally wrong to start your music video with a clip from a different song, but they're not usually so long. I'm just saying if this if your first time hearing this song like it was for me, make sure you ignore the first 40 seconds or so of the video, because that's not the song.
I think it's fitting that Usher and Alicia Keys made a song together. They are both ridiculously talented singers whose songs are hampered by bizzare production choices of the moment, the kind of choices that already seem a bit dated, less than a decade later. Their voices are individually great, and they blend together really well. I like all the layers of overlapping voice that are arranged together. They're complex in a way that suggests the complex feelings the singers have for each other. Whatever energy this song manages to have is entirely because they sound so appealing together, and because they have been edited together well.
Where the song goes wrong is in the synthesized voice chord... chipmunk noises that punctuate the verses. They're just so cheap and fake that they draw attention away from the singing. The rest of the music is fine. The bass and drums are appealingly simple, drawing focus to the singing. I even kind of like the more rapid synthesized beats that mark transitions in this song. They successfully increase tension that gets released by the transitions to a new part of the song. Overall, the music is pretty good, especially appropriate for a song that is trying to feature two excellent singers, but a general lack of variety combined with the obnoxious synthesized voice chord noises really hamper the song's overall quality.
Lyrically, well, the elephant in the room is the title. "My Boo" seems like a piece of slang that is unlikely to last another 50 years when someone sits down to review the first 2000 No. 1 hits, and has to derive the meaning from context. I've always wondered where the word came from, so I looked it up. According to Urban Dictionary, the word "boo" as slang for boyfriend or girlfriend derives from the French word "beau," through various Caribbean communities, and finally into American English slang as "boo." So I learned something today.
The rest of the lyrics are about these two people who were each others' first loves, and even though their relationship is over and they don't specifically say they want to rekindle it, they still hold strong affection for each other. I think it's a sweet sentiment.
My verdict: Like it. I still wish the sound had been mixed differently, and that the video hadn't included that fake-out for another song that took me a while to figure out was actually another song. But overall the positives outweigh the negatives.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Song #861: "It's Gonna Be Me" by 'N Sync
Date: July 29, 2000
Weeks: 2
I'm not sure I have it in me to really hate on 'N Sync's only No. 1. This certainly isn't a good song, but all things considered it's not really all that bad, either.
The core of this song really isn't so bad. It's a basic drum kit beat and bass line, with a healthy mix of decently synthesized sounds, and some musical variety. And hey, the vocal harmonies are even pretty decent. Yeah, maybe there's some Auto-tune polishing, but at least it's not used as an intentionally obvious effect. It's catchy and fairly simple in an ear-pleasing way. At its core, this song is quite listenable, if not particularly profound.
Where this song goes wrong is some of the styling around the edges. The weirdly minor-key opening chords are pretty terrible. The distorted vocal effects right at the beginning are jarring in a song that is otherwise trying to sound reasonably pleasant. The bridge breakdown is also terrible, including some odd beatboxing vocal effects that are cowardly downmixed to almost being nonexistent. Either they were good enough to put in the whole song, or they were bad enough to remove entirely. Also a problem is the how often the synthesizer comes off sounding like a harpsichord. It's a weird fit with the rest of the song.
The songs lyrics are pretty bad. Obvious rhymes and bad messages abound in lines like "Baby when you finally get to love somebody, guess what, it's gonna be me." This seems to be yet another song on the variation of the singer just waiting for the person they're singing to to notice them. And the "can't you see how romantic that it is that I'm suffering so much for you?" sort of model that just keeps on going in pop music.
My verdict: Don't like it. Not as bad as I feared it would be. Maybe this really was their best song. But still not very good.
Weeks: 2
I'm not sure I have it in me to really hate on 'N Sync's only No. 1. This certainly isn't a good song, but all things considered it's not really all that bad, either.
The core of this song really isn't so bad. It's a basic drum kit beat and bass line, with a healthy mix of decently synthesized sounds, and some musical variety. And hey, the vocal harmonies are even pretty decent. Yeah, maybe there's some Auto-tune polishing, but at least it's not used as an intentionally obvious effect. It's catchy and fairly simple in an ear-pleasing way. At its core, this song is quite listenable, if not particularly profound.
Where this song goes wrong is some of the styling around the edges. The weirdly minor-key opening chords are pretty terrible. The distorted vocal effects right at the beginning are jarring in a song that is otherwise trying to sound reasonably pleasant. The bridge breakdown is also terrible, including some odd beatboxing vocal effects that are cowardly downmixed to almost being nonexistent. Either they were good enough to put in the whole song, or they were bad enough to remove entirely. Also a problem is the how often the synthesizer comes off sounding like a harpsichord. It's a weird fit with the rest of the song.
The songs lyrics are pretty bad. Obvious rhymes and bad messages abound in lines like "Baby when you finally get to love somebody, guess what, it's gonna be me." This seems to be yet another song on the variation of the singer just waiting for the person they're singing to to notice them. And the "can't you see how romantic that it is that I'm suffering so much for you?" sort of model that just keeps on going in pop music.
My verdict: Don't like it. Not as bad as I feared it would be. Maybe this really was their best song. But still not very good.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Song #535: "Every Breath You Take" by The Police
Date: July 9, 1983
Weeks: 8
Of course this song is famous for its misinterpretation as a love song. The conventional wisdom suggests it's a song about a stalker, but I don't really read that in the lyrics, either. I think it's more of a tormented break-up song. "Every move you make, and every vow you break, every smile you fake, every claim you stake, I'll be watching you." He's anguishing about how he wasn't ready to break up, and the complex feelings of both wanting to get back together while also lingering over all the bad times.
Musically, the song is very simple, with a really basic guitar and snare drum progression. There's not a lot of variation in the chorus, either, with just a little extra synthesized string coming in to the song. Sting's vocals are also pretty tame throughout most of the song. It's pretty tedious, actually. The good thing is that right in the middle of the song there's an excellent bridge that brings in a stronger guitar and a piano while Sting's vocals get very intense. It lasts less than 30 seconds, but it single-handedly injects just enough life into the song to keep it interesting. This section also includes the best, most turned-inward and self-aware lyrics in the song. "I look around but it's you I can't replace." Regardless of the fault he's casting at his ex through most of the rest of the song, this section admits his pwn failings, and it's wonderful to get that admission in the middle of the song.
My verdict: Like it. It's catchy, touching, and while it may be a little too subtle overall, it has a nice explosion of sound that saves it.
Weeks: 8
Of course this song is famous for its misinterpretation as a love song. The conventional wisdom suggests it's a song about a stalker, but I don't really read that in the lyrics, either. I think it's more of a tormented break-up song. "Every move you make, and every vow you break, every smile you fake, every claim you stake, I'll be watching you." He's anguishing about how he wasn't ready to break up, and the complex feelings of both wanting to get back together while also lingering over all the bad times.
Musically, the song is very simple, with a really basic guitar and snare drum progression. There's not a lot of variation in the chorus, either, with just a little extra synthesized string coming in to the song. Sting's vocals are also pretty tame throughout most of the song. It's pretty tedious, actually. The good thing is that right in the middle of the song there's an excellent bridge that brings in a stronger guitar and a piano while Sting's vocals get very intense. It lasts less than 30 seconds, but it single-handedly injects just enough life into the song to keep it interesting. This section also includes the best, most turned-inward and self-aware lyrics in the song. "I look around but it's you I can't replace." Regardless of the fault he's casting at his ex through most of the rest of the song, this section admits his pwn failings, and it's wonderful to get that admission in the middle of the song.
My verdict: Like it. It's catchy, touching, and while it may be a little too subtle overall, it has a nice explosion of sound that saves it.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Song #251: "Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me)" by The Temptations
Date: Apr 3, 1971
Weeks: 2
Not every song that is slow, quiet, and gentle is bad. Here's a song that is at least soothing and pleasant to listen to. Unfortunately, it's also extraordinarily low on energy, and I'm not entirely convinced the sound matches its lyrics entirely appropriately.
I could see a song that sounded like this being a sweet little love song. There are parts of it, especially in the verses, that feel like a stroll with your sweetheart on a nice day. But that's not what this song is about, because the singer turns out to be imagining the whole thing. The music doesn't really match that, because the music isn't really sad at all. It's just soft. I'm not going to go too hard on the song for the singer building this whole relationship around this woman who is walking by, because he does repeatedly acknowledge the reality of the situation, with both the song's title and the line "in reality she doesn't even know me."
The vocal harmonies in this song are, of course, excellent. But the music is too much like the rest of the 70s, with huge string sections attached to very slight and inconsequential percussion. I don't think strings are a bad match for the song, but there's too much of them here. And the horns in the bridge are really misplaced, sounding like they came from some epic stage musical, rather than the inconsequential musings of a man sitting alone with his imagination.
My verdict: Don't like it. The only thing this song seems good for is wallowing in self-pity over failed relationships. There's value in that, but it's not a great song from outside that context.
Weeks: 2
Not every song that is slow, quiet, and gentle is bad. Here's a song that is at least soothing and pleasant to listen to. Unfortunately, it's also extraordinarily low on energy, and I'm not entirely convinced the sound matches its lyrics entirely appropriately.
I could see a song that sounded like this being a sweet little love song. There are parts of it, especially in the verses, that feel like a stroll with your sweetheart on a nice day. But that's not what this song is about, because the singer turns out to be imagining the whole thing. The music doesn't really match that, because the music isn't really sad at all. It's just soft. I'm not going to go too hard on the song for the singer building this whole relationship around this woman who is walking by, because he does repeatedly acknowledge the reality of the situation, with both the song's title and the line "in reality she doesn't even know me."
The vocal harmonies in this song are, of course, excellent. But the music is too much like the rest of the 70s, with huge string sections attached to very slight and inconsequential percussion. I don't think strings are a bad match for the song, but there's too much of them here. And the horns in the bridge are really misplaced, sounding like they came from some epic stage musical, rather than the inconsequential musings of a man sitting alone with his imagination.
My verdict: Don't like it. The only thing this song seems good for is wallowing in self-pity over failed relationships. There's value in that, but it's not a great song from outside that context.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Song #407: "If You Leave Me Now" by Chicago
Date: Oct 23, 1976
Weeks: 2
Hoo boy. If there's one good thing that could be said about Chicago in the 80s, it's that they had at least mastered the cheesy power ballad, with strong synthesizer chords that were appealing, if hollow. But this song can't even rise to that level.
The sound in this song is so hollow, so soft, so inconsequential, and so lethargic, I can't imagine how it managed to share radio space with "Rock'n Me" (#408). You have Peter Cetera's high-pitched and insincere voice, the lightest guitar I've heard in a while, a tiny maraca sound, and some low strings and soft horns. And that's it. There no energy behind this song and no emotional sincerity. I don't mind an emotional song, but I don't get the sincere vibe a song like this needs to pull off.
Lyrically, it's similarly hollow. "A love like ours is a love that's hard to find. How could we let it slip away?" There's a lot of time spent in this song telling us that the singer thinks this is a special relationship that shouldn't be allowed to end the way it's ending, but I don't feel persuaded. "If you leave me now, you'll take away the biggest part of me." It just feels whiny, rather than persuasive. A lot of that may have to do with Cetera's vocal delivery, but the lyrics are just as much to blame.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a great song, but it's a terrible performance. Boyz II Men did a version of it in 2009 that is what this song should have sounded like.
Weeks: 2
Hoo boy. If there's one good thing that could be said about Chicago in the 80s, it's that they had at least mastered the cheesy power ballad, with strong synthesizer chords that were appealing, if hollow. But this song can't even rise to that level.
The sound in this song is so hollow, so soft, so inconsequential, and so lethargic, I can't imagine how it managed to share radio space with "Rock'n Me" (#408). You have Peter Cetera's high-pitched and insincere voice, the lightest guitar I've heard in a while, a tiny maraca sound, and some low strings and soft horns. And that's it. There no energy behind this song and no emotional sincerity. I don't mind an emotional song, but I don't get the sincere vibe a song like this needs to pull off.
Lyrically, it's similarly hollow. "A love like ours is a love that's hard to find. How could we let it slip away?" There's a lot of time spent in this song telling us that the singer thinks this is a special relationship that shouldn't be allowed to end the way it's ending, but I don't feel persuaded. "If you leave me now, you'll take away the biggest part of me." It just feels whiny, rather than persuasive. A lot of that may have to do with Cetera's vocal delivery, but the lyrics are just as much to blame.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a great song, but it's a terrible performance. Boyz II Men did a version of it in 2009 that is what this song should have sounded like.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Song #877: "Fallin'" by Alicia Keys
Date: Aug 18, 2001
Weeks: 6
I really like Alicia Keys's voice, and her songwriting is generally pretty strong. But I think a lot her songs after this one are better, because they don't include all the extraneous elements that don't quite work for me here. Let's break it down by component.
Piano: This song has a pleasant little piano backing. It's a bit simple, but it's nice. It's about right as it is.
Voice: Alicia Keys sings well. She's no all-time great vocalist, but she has a nice voice and she's emotionally expressive in a great way. This may not be her best performance ever but she acquits herself well I have no complaints about her singing here.
Drums and bass: Excellent. I enjoy the beat that carries this song along. A lot of Keys's music stands out because of her ability to combine piano with a traditional R&B bass sound in an appealing way.
Background vocals: Here's where we start getting into the parts of the song I think were intrusive. The gospel chorus backing this song just makes it seem overdone. Madonna made a gospel choir work in "Like A Prayer" (#688) by adding it to a big, loud, epic production. This is a quiet little love tune and the gospel chorus is too big for it.
Strings: This is the element I like the least. It's kind of a subtle effect, but the sounds the strings create in this song are just entirely unwelcome. I especially dislike the plucking sound around the second chorus. It feels like Bugs Bunny is sneaking up on the song.
I don't disagree that this song needed a bit more to it than the piano, voice, and drums, but I don't think the right solution to the problem was found. The song feels like it's cheating a bit, trying to be bigger than it really is supposed to be. I'm not sure what the right solution was, I just know I don't like what they came up with.
My verdict: Don't like it. I just don't think the gospel chorus is earned by this song.
Weeks: 6
I really like Alicia Keys's voice, and her songwriting is generally pretty strong. But I think a lot her songs after this one are better, because they don't include all the extraneous elements that don't quite work for me here. Let's break it down by component.
Piano: This song has a pleasant little piano backing. It's a bit simple, but it's nice. It's about right as it is.
Voice: Alicia Keys sings well. She's no all-time great vocalist, but she has a nice voice and she's emotionally expressive in a great way. This may not be her best performance ever but she acquits herself well I have no complaints about her singing here.
Drums and bass: Excellent. I enjoy the beat that carries this song along. A lot of Keys's music stands out because of her ability to combine piano with a traditional R&B bass sound in an appealing way.
Background vocals: Here's where we start getting into the parts of the song I think were intrusive. The gospel chorus backing this song just makes it seem overdone. Madonna made a gospel choir work in "Like A Prayer" (#688) by adding it to a big, loud, epic production. This is a quiet little love tune and the gospel chorus is too big for it.
Strings: This is the element I like the least. It's kind of a subtle effect, but the sounds the strings create in this song are just entirely unwelcome. I especially dislike the plucking sound around the second chorus. It feels like Bugs Bunny is sneaking up on the song.
I don't disagree that this song needed a bit more to it than the piano, voice, and drums, but I don't think the right solution to the problem was found. The song feels like it's cheating a bit, trying to be bigger than it really is supposed to be. I'm not sure what the right solution was, I just know I don't like what they came up with.
My verdict: Don't like it. I just don't think the gospel chorus is earned by this song.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Song #14: "Kansas City" by Wilbert Harrison
Date: May 18, 1959
Weeks: 2
The background music in this song is kind of that quintessential 1950s rock sound. I can already imagine it playing in the background of American Graffiti. This is classic rock and roll here. I like the sound of it, but there's not a lot of variety. It goes on and on without much variation. Fortunately, the song is brief enough that it doesn't really manage to get old.
I like Harrison's vocal performance. For the most part his performance is clean and clear, but he adds just enough variety to keep the song interesting. It's well-performed, in a tidy 1950s way.
The lyrics are pretty ordinary, I think. I've never cared for that blues trope where the first line of any verse is repeated twice, and that particular trope is all over this song. It just seems to take away the song's opportunities to say different things. As for the subject, the singer seems to think all his problems will be solved if he moves to Kansas City, because "they got some crazy little women there." It's worth noting that this version of the song changes the lyrics from "If I stay in town I know I'm gonna die" to "If I stay with that woman I know I'm gonna die." I'm not sure I can respect the guy who seems to think all his problems will be solved if he runs away from his current relationship just to pursue a new one.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's fine, really, but it doesn't move me. Also, the lyrics about running away from a relationship just to start a new one kind of bother me.
Weeks: 2
The background music in this song is kind of that quintessential 1950s rock sound. I can already imagine it playing in the background of American Graffiti. This is classic rock and roll here. I like the sound of it, but there's not a lot of variety. It goes on and on without much variation. Fortunately, the song is brief enough that it doesn't really manage to get old.
I like Harrison's vocal performance. For the most part his performance is clean and clear, but he adds just enough variety to keep the song interesting. It's well-performed, in a tidy 1950s way.
The lyrics are pretty ordinary, I think. I've never cared for that blues trope where the first line of any verse is repeated twice, and that particular trope is all over this song. It just seems to take away the song's opportunities to say different things. As for the subject, the singer seems to think all his problems will be solved if he moves to Kansas City, because "they got some crazy little women there." It's worth noting that this version of the song changes the lyrics from "If I stay in town I know I'm gonna die" to "If I stay with that woman I know I'm gonna die." I'm not sure I can respect the guy who seems to think all his problems will be solved if he runs away from his current relationship just to pursue a new one.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's fine, really, but it doesn't move me. Also, the lyrics about running away from a relationship just to start a new one kind of bother me.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Song #974: "I Gotta Feeling" by The Black Eyed Peas
Date: July 11, 2009
Weeks: 14
The Black Eyed Peas are an interesting group. Sometimes their music is sloppy, obnoxious, audio chaos. Other times it seems like they've calculated the precise resonance frequency of pop music and carefully crafted it into a focused dance delivery system. Fortunately, we're dealing the the latter today.
This song was everywhere when it was new, and it's easy to see why. It's an energetic romp that builds tension and anticipation and then releases all the pent-up energy into a huge, enthusiastic burst of energy. I know I keep using the word "energy," but I can't help it. It's really the song's most endearing feature.
There's a lot to nitpick about the music, though. There are some strings sounds early on that would have sounded better if they were real, rather than simulated. There's too much obvious Auto-Tune going on in the voices. But none of those are really problems.
What is a problem is that the song spends too much time in its anticipation build-up phase. I don't mind the first 90 seconds is spent building to the explosion of the chorus. I think that's about perfect, actually. The problem I have is that after only 1 minute of that chorus, the song goes back to the build-up phase for another full minute-plus of building anticipation all over again. Literally half the song's running time is spent waiting for the other half to start up, and that's a balance that doesn't quite work for me. I've enjoyed songs that spent much much longer building up to a big but short payoff, but that's an interesting choice. And I don't have anything against songs that do a brief breakdown in the bridge, because that keeps the song interesting. But the build-ups in this song stop being interesting and just make me impatient for the good part.
The lyrics are a mixed bag. I'm not going to complain about their simplicity, because that's kind of point. In fact, the lyrics sort of redeem all the time spent building up. Since the primary lyric is "Tonight's gonna be a good night," it's obvious that all the anticipation is probably intentional. That doesn't entirely redeem it, but it goes a long way. Before I was really paying attention to this song, I mostly just knew it as the song where they shout "Mazel Tov" for no reason, so that's a successful lyrical choice, at least as far as getting attention. The part where they list days of the week is pretty lazy. But then you add that to lyrics like "Let's do it and do it and do it do it do it," and I just don't have the heart to tear apart this big, dumb, friendly song.
My verdict: Like it. It's big, dumb, easy fun.
Weeks: 14
The Black Eyed Peas are an interesting group. Sometimes their music is sloppy, obnoxious, audio chaos. Other times it seems like they've calculated the precise resonance frequency of pop music and carefully crafted it into a focused dance delivery system. Fortunately, we're dealing the the latter today.
This song was everywhere when it was new, and it's easy to see why. It's an energetic romp that builds tension and anticipation and then releases all the pent-up energy into a huge, enthusiastic burst of energy. I know I keep using the word "energy," but I can't help it. It's really the song's most endearing feature.
There's a lot to nitpick about the music, though. There are some strings sounds early on that would have sounded better if they were real, rather than simulated. There's too much obvious Auto-Tune going on in the voices. But none of those are really problems.
What is a problem is that the song spends too much time in its anticipation build-up phase. I don't mind the first 90 seconds is spent building to the explosion of the chorus. I think that's about perfect, actually. The problem I have is that after only 1 minute of that chorus, the song goes back to the build-up phase for another full minute-plus of building anticipation all over again. Literally half the song's running time is spent waiting for the other half to start up, and that's a balance that doesn't quite work for me. I've enjoyed songs that spent much much longer building up to a big but short payoff, but that's an interesting choice. And I don't have anything against songs that do a brief breakdown in the bridge, because that keeps the song interesting. But the build-ups in this song stop being interesting and just make me impatient for the good part.
The lyrics are a mixed bag. I'm not going to complain about their simplicity, because that's kind of point. In fact, the lyrics sort of redeem all the time spent building up. Since the primary lyric is "Tonight's gonna be a good night," it's obvious that all the anticipation is probably intentional. That doesn't entirely redeem it, but it goes a long way. Before I was really paying attention to this song, I mostly just knew it as the song where they shout "Mazel Tov" for no reason, so that's a successful lyrical choice, at least as far as getting attention. The part where they list days of the week is pretty lazy. But then you add that to lyrics like "Let's do it and do it and do it do it do it," and I just don't have the heart to tear apart this big, dumb, friendly song.
My verdict: Like it. It's big, dumb, easy fun.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Song #318: "Love's Theme" by Love's Unlimted Orchestra
Date: Feb 9, 1974
Weeks: 1
The love theme from what movie? Oh. No movie. Just Love's theme. Which seems like it's far too generic an idea to inspire a good song. And, as it turns out, that's entirely true.
Barry White wrote this song, but left out his voice and wrote an instrumental piece. I already complained about one Barry White song not having a full enough sound when he wasn't singing, so an entire song where Barry White doesn't sing is very disappointing. There is more bass here than last time, to compensate, but the song still feels like it's missing something. I don't need lyrics, but maybe some non-verbal vocal exercises could have added some interest to this song.
I also don't appreciate the mix of orchestra and 70s wah-wah guitar. I'll try not to hold the general overuse of strings in 70s pop music against this song. But I can't help feel that somebody wrote a pleasant little string orchestra piece and then ruined it with a cheap little wah-wah guitar and synthesized bass undercurrent. There's not really a well-featured instrument, either, so it just ends up feeling like somebody forgot to record the lyrics.
Oh, I take it back. The lyrics don't make this song better. Yikes.
My verdict: Don't like it. I'm not opposed to the idea of a disco instrumental, but this one didn't work out.
Weeks: 1
The love theme from what movie? Oh. No movie. Just Love's theme. Which seems like it's far too generic an idea to inspire a good song. And, as it turns out, that's entirely true.
Barry White wrote this song, but left out his voice and wrote an instrumental piece. I already complained about one Barry White song not having a full enough sound when he wasn't singing, so an entire song where Barry White doesn't sing is very disappointing. There is more bass here than last time, to compensate, but the song still feels like it's missing something. I don't need lyrics, but maybe some non-verbal vocal exercises could have added some interest to this song.
I also don't appreciate the mix of orchestra and 70s wah-wah guitar. I'll try not to hold the general overuse of strings in 70s pop music against this song. But I can't help feel that somebody wrote a pleasant little string orchestra piece and then ruined it with a cheap little wah-wah guitar and synthesized bass undercurrent. There's not really a well-featured instrument, either, so it just ends up feeling like somebody forgot to record the lyrics.
Oh, I take it back. The lyrics don't make this song better. Yikes.
My verdict: Don't like it. I'm not opposed to the idea of a disco instrumental, but this one didn't work out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)