Date: Jan 27, 1962
Weeks: 3
When I started this blog, I expected to be reviewing more classic dance rock songs that sounded like this. Maybe I watched too much Happy Days or American Graffiti. Or maybe while the overall sound of pre-Beatles rock sounded like this, not a lot of it topped the charts. There are no Grunge No. 1 songs in the 90s, after all. At any rate, it's a pleasure to get a song that sounds like it should be playing in the background at the diner in American Graffiti.
In particular, the middle part of the song, the guitar solo, is an absolute blast. That guitar sound, mixed with the drums and sax, evokes Rock and Roll's R&B roots. It's a wonderfully simple, raw sound, and I enjoy the heck out of it. I even kind of like that organ sound that provides additional rhythm. There's just something about organs in rock songs that seems so appealingly contradictory.
It's hard to even criticize the lyrics. Yeah, they're aggressively just trying to create a new dance craze, and yeah, they're blatantly stealing from the Twist to do it. And yes, they don't even accurately describe the dance in the song very well. "Round and round, up and down" could describe anything. But there's no pretension here, and there aren't even very many lyrics to get in the way of a fun little dance number.
I did track down Part 2 of this song, and I think I like it even better with that extra part attached. The music turns into a bit of fun, jazzy chaos and there are minimal additional lyrics to get in the way. It's a bit unstructured and I don't think both parts put together would work particularly well from the perspective of pop music structure. The tail is too long. But, removed from the context of being one overall song, I do enjoy more of the same music in Part 2.
My verdict: Like it. Something about that classic R&B sound, in a song that has no more complicated goal that encouraging you to dance, is appealing.
Showing posts with label 1962. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1962. Show all posts
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Song #78: "Sherry" by The 4 Seasons
Date: Sept 15, 1962
Weeks: 5
Although I complained about falsetto vocals before, 50s do-wop like this is the kind of music where it has its best chance of working. It fits with the music here, in a way that it just doesn't when we move into the 70s.
I'm not sure it works all that well in this particular song, though. Lead singer Frankie Valli's seems to make it his style to test the limits of the listener's tolerance for nasally, whiny falsetto. He makes some unconventional pitch changes that border on unpleasant. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, though. Every time he seems to hit a wrong note and makes my ears want to scream, he then moves to the next pitch in the sequence and releases the tension built up by the "wrong" note. This is particularly evident when he sings and stretches out the word "Sherry" in the chorus. It's clever and stylistic and challenging for the listener. Unfortunately, he kind of ruins it when he sings "bay-ay-by," because his tone just gets whiny, and there is no tension relief from that. There's also a terrible bass part ("Why don't you...") that sounds like it's beyond the singer's natural range. It sounds fake and goofy.
The music is all right. It's basic guitar and bass chords performed over a percussion section that sounds like it consists mostly of hand claps and tambourines. I think the sound is intended to evoke street musicians using a capella percussion, and it's fairly successful at that, even if it doesn't commit to it.
The lyrics seem like basic 1950s "hey I like you so go out with me" stuff. "We'll dance the night away. I'm gonna make you mine." It seems to get a little more raunchy and like he's just admiring her body later on, though. "Why don't you come out with your red dress on. Mmm you look so fine." That's really just about how she looks. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it seems backwards. The lyrics should first talk about how great she looks, and then get into his desire to go out dancing with her. It would be nicer.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's close to likable, and I'm looking forward to trying another 4 Seasons song. But this one doesn't quite work for me.
Weeks: 5
Although I complained about falsetto vocals before, 50s do-wop like this is the kind of music where it has its best chance of working. It fits with the music here, in a way that it just doesn't when we move into the 70s.
I'm not sure it works all that well in this particular song, though. Lead singer Frankie Valli's seems to make it his style to test the limits of the listener's tolerance for nasally, whiny falsetto. He makes some unconventional pitch changes that border on unpleasant. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, though. Every time he seems to hit a wrong note and makes my ears want to scream, he then moves to the next pitch in the sequence and releases the tension built up by the "wrong" note. This is particularly evident when he sings and stretches out the word "Sherry" in the chorus. It's clever and stylistic and challenging for the listener. Unfortunately, he kind of ruins it when he sings "bay-ay-by," because his tone just gets whiny, and there is no tension relief from that. There's also a terrible bass part ("Why don't you...") that sounds like it's beyond the singer's natural range. It sounds fake and goofy.
The music is all right. It's basic guitar and bass chords performed over a percussion section that sounds like it consists mostly of hand claps and tambourines. I think the sound is intended to evoke street musicians using a capella percussion, and it's fairly successful at that, even if it doesn't commit to it.
The lyrics seem like basic 1950s "hey I like you so go out with me" stuff. "We'll dance the night away. I'm gonna make you mine." It seems to get a little more raunchy and like he's just admiring her body later on, though. "Why don't you come out with your red dress on. Mmm you look so fine." That's really just about how she looks. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it seems backwards. The lyrics should first talk about how great she looks, and then get into his desire to go out dancing with her. It would be nicer.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's close to likable, and I'm looking forward to trying another 4 Seasons song. But this one doesn't quite work for me.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Song #75: "Breaking Up Is Hard To Do" by Neil Sedaka
Date: Aug 11, 1962
Weeks: 2
This song opens with the catchy and memorably weird hook "Down doobie doo down down, comma comma down doobie doo down down." That hook has probably outlived the rest of the song in popular consciousness. When I listened to it, I initially thought, "Oh, this is that song, I know this song." And then I realized I didn't know anything past that.
Past that part, the song starts out well enough. Sedaka and his backup singers create a pleasant harmony in the first verse. That part of the song is representative of the early 60s era, and I like it. Unfortunately, the song then gives way to the weird chorus. Is it the chorus? It seems to occur less often than the verse, yet it's the only part of the lyrics that repeats. Maybe it's the bridge? I'm not sure. This song seems to defy conventional pop song structure. Not that that's a bad thing, it just makes me work harder to find the right words to describe it.
Anyway, the part that starts "They say that breaking up is hard to do" is the part I want to complain about. It sounds like a completely different song. The tune changes, the instrumentation changes, and the chord progression changes. I don't like the music in that part at all. Truthfully, this section almost single-handedly ruins the song for me.
I say "almost" because I'm also not a fan of the lyrics. I have no objection to the oddly specific "down doobie doo" stuff. I object more to the song's general sentiment. Basically, the guy is begging not to get dumped and the best argument he can seem to make is that breaking up is harder than staying together. Just because staying together is easier doesn't mean it's the best thing for anyone, Neil.
I thought that maybe a good cover version could change the music just enough to make me like the song, if not this performance of it, but I can't find a good one. The Carpenters made one, but other than nicer vocals, it doesn't fix any of the problems. The Partridge Family version adds new problems without fixing anything. Apparently Neil Sedaka himself re-recorded it as a slow lounge song, but that's almost a completely different song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It starts off with a great hook, but doesn't live up to that initial promise.
Weeks: 2
This song opens with the catchy and memorably weird hook "Down doobie doo down down, comma comma down doobie doo down down." That hook has probably outlived the rest of the song in popular consciousness. When I listened to it, I initially thought, "Oh, this is that song, I know this song." And then I realized I didn't know anything past that.
Past that part, the song starts out well enough. Sedaka and his backup singers create a pleasant harmony in the first verse. That part of the song is representative of the early 60s era, and I like it. Unfortunately, the song then gives way to the weird chorus. Is it the chorus? It seems to occur less often than the verse, yet it's the only part of the lyrics that repeats. Maybe it's the bridge? I'm not sure. This song seems to defy conventional pop song structure. Not that that's a bad thing, it just makes me work harder to find the right words to describe it.
Anyway, the part that starts "They say that breaking up is hard to do" is the part I want to complain about. It sounds like a completely different song. The tune changes, the instrumentation changes, and the chord progression changes. I don't like the music in that part at all. Truthfully, this section almost single-handedly ruins the song for me.
I say "almost" because I'm also not a fan of the lyrics. I have no objection to the oddly specific "down doobie doo" stuff. I object more to the song's general sentiment. Basically, the guy is begging not to get dumped and the best argument he can seem to make is that breaking up is harder than staying together. Just because staying together is easier doesn't mean it's the best thing for anyone, Neil.
I thought that maybe a good cover version could change the music just enough to make me like the song, if not this performance of it, but I can't find a good one. The Carpenters made one, but other than nicer vocals, it doesn't fix any of the problems. The Partridge Family version adds new problems without fixing anything. Apparently Neil Sedaka himself re-recorded it as a slow lounge song, but that's almost a completely different song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It starts off with a great hook, but doesn't live up to that initial promise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)