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.
Showing posts with label 1959. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1959. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
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.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Song #15: "The Battle Of New Orleans" by Johnny Horton
Date: Jun 1, 1959
Weeks: 2
Apparently this song was originally written by a high school principal who was trying to create an educational song for his students. His name was Jimmie Driftwood, and his original version is a bit longer and more informative. Clearly his intent was to educate. The Johnny Horton version distills the lyrics a bit and boils it down to the essence of the story. It's probably not as educational, but the story is stronger for its focus.
I don't understand the decision to change "really gave 'em hell" to "Really gave 'em ...well." It feels really weak, and seems too much like a joke that isn't very funny, especially when the entire song pauses to acknowledge it. If anything, I would have expected the principal's version to shy away from the language, not the hit song version. Aside from that, the lyrics are really quite good. Whatever time went into condensing the lyrics in the Horton version was well-spent, because they really are sharp and focused, and contribute to a well-told story.
The song is also sung well. Horton brings a passion to the vocals that keeps the song fun and engaging. His voice builds in intensity throughout the song, peaking in the last few iterations of the chorus. That intensity feels appropriate for the generally war-themed song, like he's singing at the climax of the battle.
The choice of instruments in the music ties in to the subject matter, too. It's a colonial drum beat like the kind soldiers marched to in the War of 1812, with a banjo over the top of it, expressing the Southernness of the setting. Add in some backing vocals, voices of marching soldiers, and a light touch of bass, and you've got the entire song. It's musically very simple, but the simpleness is effective, and rightly throws attention to the lyrics.
My verdict: Like it. It's a well-told story, and the music and vocals are effective.
Weeks: 2
Apparently this song was originally written by a high school principal who was trying to create an educational song for his students. His name was Jimmie Driftwood, and his original version is a bit longer and more informative. Clearly his intent was to educate. The Johnny Horton version distills the lyrics a bit and boils it down to the essence of the story. It's probably not as educational, but the story is stronger for its focus.
I don't understand the decision to change "really gave 'em hell" to "Really gave 'em ...well." It feels really weak, and seems too much like a joke that isn't very funny, especially when the entire song pauses to acknowledge it. If anything, I would have expected the principal's version to shy away from the language, not the hit song version. Aside from that, the lyrics are really quite good. Whatever time went into condensing the lyrics in the Horton version was well-spent, because they really are sharp and focused, and contribute to a well-told story.
The song is also sung well. Horton brings a passion to the vocals that keeps the song fun and engaging. His voice builds in intensity throughout the song, peaking in the last few iterations of the chorus. That intensity feels appropriate for the generally war-themed song, like he's singing at the climax of the battle.
The choice of instruments in the music ties in to the subject matter, too. It's a colonial drum beat like the kind soldiers marched to in the War of 1812, with a banjo over the top of it, expressing the Southernness of the setting. Add in some backing vocals, voices of marching soldiers, and a light touch of bass, and you've got the entire song. It's musically very simple, but the simpleness is effective, and rightly throws attention to the lyrics.
My verdict: Like it. It's a well-told story, and the music and vocals are effective.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Song #16: "Lonely Boy" by Paul Anka
Date: July 13, 1959
Weeks: 4
This song is a mess on every level. Paul Anka's voice is high-pitched and trembling and generally unpleasant. He was 18 years old at the time, but his voice sounds like he's about 14. These days some people will tell you that Justin Bieber is the first teenage pop star whose appeal is based more on looks than on talent, but there seem to be undertalented allegedly-attractive teenage pop stars all the way back here to the beginning of the pop charts, with Paul Anka.
The music is that uptight 50s pop sound that sort of wants to be like rock and roll but isn't. It's bland background music designed to showcase the singer's voice. A better singer could make it work, but Paul Anka can't.
The lyrics are pandering teenage tripe. "Oh, I'm just a sad and lonely teen pop idol, if only I could find a girl who was right for me." Paul Anka isn't selling a single, he's selling a fantasy to teenage girls of getting to date an attractive(?) teen idol. It's classic pandering teenage tripe, but teenage tripe nonetheless.
My verdict: Don't like it. I guess it's good to know that promoting a singer based on looks more than talent or even quality music is as old as the pop charts themselves.
Weeks: 4
This song is a mess on every level. Paul Anka's voice is high-pitched and trembling and generally unpleasant. He was 18 years old at the time, but his voice sounds like he's about 14. These days some people will tell you that Justin Bieber is the first teenage pop star whose appeal is based more on looks than on talent, but there seem to be undertalented allegedly-attractive teenage pop stars all the way back here to the beginning of the pop charts, with Paul Anka.
The music is that uptight 50s pop sound that sort of wants to be like rock and roll but isn't. It's bland background music designed to showcase the singer's voice. A better singer could make it work, but Paul Anka can't.
The lyrics are pandering teenage tripe. "Oh, I'm just a sad and lonely teen pop idol, if only I could find a girl who was right for me." Paul Anka isn't selling a single, he's selling a fantasy to teenage girls of getting to date an attractive(?) teen idol. It's classic pandering teenage tripe, but teenage tripe nonetheless.
My verdict: Don't like it. I guess it's good to know that promoting a singer based on looks more than talent or even quality music is as old as the pop charts themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)