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

Date: Oct 5, 1974
Weeks: 2

Search Link

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

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

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

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

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

Song #652: "Seasons Change" by Expose

Date: Feb 20, 1988
Weeks: 1

Search Link

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

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

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

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

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

Date: Jan 12, 1963
Weeks: 2

Search Link

 vs.

Date: Sept 11, 1971
Weeks: 3

Search Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Song #816: "MMMBop" by Hanson

Date: May 24, 1997
Weeks: 3

Search Link

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

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

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

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

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

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