Date: June 15, 1963
Weeks: 3
I remember in the 90s, there was an English-language cover of this song on the radio, by a Boyz II MEn clone band called 4pm. It came on once when I was in the car with my mom, and she recognized it as a cover of this Japanese-language song. She listened to the English lyrics and was surprised that they were so sad, because she said the singer of this song always sounded so happy. And the funny thing is that the lyrics to that cover song weren't even as sad the lyrics to the original, which I'll get to in a minute.
The music is really happy and pleasant. It's got a nice little beat, a basic but effective bass line, and some pleasant orchestral instrumentation accents. I like the use of strings here, and the horns are well-used, too. I don't particularly like the xylophone, though. It's a bit too bright and cartoony and out of place. The whistling is all right, although it really does contribute to the idea that this is a happy song. And it's really not.
Now, the song is enjoyable without considering the lyrics. And maybe I shouldn't criticize the lyrics for a song in a language I don't speak. But I do feel it's important to point out the general sentiment expressed in the lyrics. "I look up when I walk so the tears won't fall," says this translation. "Remembering those happy summer days, but tonight I'm all alone." There are various interpretations, of course, but all interpretations agree with the general sentiment that the singer is sad because of the end of a relationship.The 4pm version explicitly frames it as "you took your love away from me," and hopes they can get back together. However, the literal interpretations I've seen are a bit bleak on that front. "Happiness lies above the clouds... above the sky." I'm pretty sure whoever he's singing this about has passed. So it's even more sad than 4pm knew.
I suppose you could look at it as being a song that is happy "remembering those happy summer days." And maybe that's where the happy tone of the singing comes in. But most of the lyrics are sad, so the happy tone is really incongruous. I've probably spent way too much time analyzing the lyrics, and maybe I don't even have a satisfying translation. So I'll stop that now.
My verdict: Like it. It's a nice tune, it's performed well, and there's a part of me that likes songs that sound happy but are secretly sad. And this version from the 60s has aged better than the 4pm cover from the 90s.
Showing posts with label 1963. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1963. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Song #88: "He's So Fine" by The Chiffons
Date: Mar 30, 1963
Weeks: 4
This is classic doo-wop style music. Or "doo-lang," according to the backup singers. I suppose it's a representative example of the genre, but it's not one of the better examples.
The biggest problem is the singers, especially the lead. Her pitch doesn't seem to be quite right, leading to some pretty painful examples of singing out of tune, especially in the choruses. When the backup singers switch from "doo-lang" to "Oh yeah" the vocals get especially painful all around. Vocal talent isn't necessarily required for pop music, but this particular sub-genre generally relies on vocal harmonies, and the Chiffons are not as good at harmonizing as their contemporaries, such as the Supremes.
The songwriting is also kind of weak. The lyrics aren't anything special, either positively or negatively. It's typical generic teenage crush stuff. Where it's weak is the meter. The singer has to work hard to make the lyrics fit in the space she's given, especially on the line "But then I really can't shy." It feels rushed and it doesn't fit.
The backing music is probably the best part, but even then it's not really anything special. Bass, light guitar, drums, and so on. This is nothing you haven't heard in other, better doo-wop songs.
This song may be best known as the song that George Harrison supposedly plagiarized "My Sweet Lord" (#247) from. Many people have arranged intriguing comparisons. I have to say I can definitely hear the similarities. It's too bad he was sued over supposedly plagiarizing a pretty weak song.
My verdict: Don't like it. The singing and songwriting are pretty weak and the music isn't sufficiently special to make up for it.
Weeks: 4
This is classic doo-wop style music. Or "doo-lang," according to the backup singers. I suppose it's a representative example of the genre, but it's not one of the better examples.
The biggest problem is the singers, especially the lead. Her pitch doesn't seem to be quite right, leading to some pretty painful examples of singing out of tune, especially in the choruses. When the backup singers switch from "doo-lang" to "Oh yeah" the vocals get especially painful all around. Vocal talent isn't necessarily required for pop music, but this particular sub-genre generally relies on vocal harmonies, and the Chiffons are not as good at harmonizing as their contemporaries, such as the Supremes.
The songwriting is also kind of weak. The lyrics aren't anything special, either positively or negatively. It's typical generic teenage crush stuff. Where it's weak is the meter. The singer has to work hard to make the lyrics fit in the space she's given, especially on the line "But then I really can't shy." It feels rushed and it doesn't fit.
The backing music is probably the best part, but even then it's not really anything special. Bass, light guitar, drums, and so on. This is nothing you haven't heard in other, better doo-wop songs.
This song may be best known as the song that George Harrison supposedly plagiarized "My Sweet Lord" (#247) from. Many people have arranged intriguing comparisons. I have to say I can definitely hear the similarities. It's too bad he was sued over supposedly plagiarizing a pretty weak song.
My verdict: Don't like it. The singing and songwriting are pretty weak and the music isn't sufficiently special to make up for it.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Song #91: "It's My Party" by Lesley Gore
Date: June 1, 1963
Weeks: 2
A certified classic that succeeds at every level.
Oh, I guess I should say more. But it's just going to be an expansion on "A certified classic that succeeds at every level."
I think the best part of this great song is Lesley Gore's voice. It has a memorable quality to it that is perfectly matched to the song's lyrics. She shows off her range in the verses, and then shows off her power in the chorus. Anyone else might make the chorus sound screechy, but Gore pulls it off.
The backing music is uniformly excellent. Guitar and drums keep the rhythm while a brass section provides transitions, and that's all great stuff. The backup singers are perfectly used. They are the main musical accompaniment through most of the song, and they create a great harmony in the chorus that amplifies Gore's vocal power.
The lyrics are good, although how well they work may vary by person. On the one hand, it's a bunch of teenage drama that most people over the age of 20 don't care about. But on the other hand, it's kind of a classic experience. Haven't we all dealt with inflated teenage emotions around teenage relationships? Haven't we all been sad on an occasion when we were expected to be happy, at any age? Lyrics that reflect a universal experience are a crucial part of any great pop song, and I think these lyrics are universal, whether that is specifically or more generally.
My verdict: Like it. Did I mention this is a certified classic that succeeds at every level?
Weeks: 2
A certified classic that succeeds at every level.
Oh, I guess I should say more. But it's just going to be an expansion on "A certified classic that succeeds at every level."
I think the best part of this great song is Lesley Gore's voice. It has a memorable quality to it that is perfectly matched to the song's lyrics. She shows off her range in the verses, and then shows off her power in the chorus. Anyone else might make the chorus sound screechy, but Gore pulls it off.
The backing music is uniformly excellent. Guitar and drums keep the rhythm while a brass section provides transitions, and that's all great stuff. The backup singers are perfectly used. They are the main musical accompaniment through most of the song, and they create a great harmony in the chorus that amplifies Gore's vocal power.
The lyrics are good, although how well they work may vary by person. On the one hand, it's a bunch of teenage drama that most people over the age of 20 don't care about. But on the other hand, it's kind of a classic experience. Haven't we all dealt with inflated teenage emotions around teenage relationships? Haven't we all been sad on an occasion when we were expected to be happy, at any age? Lyrics that reflect a universal experience are a crucial part of any great pop song, and I think these lyrics are universal, whether that is specifically or more generally.
My verdict: Like it. Did I mention this is a certified classic that succeeds at every level?
Monday, March 14, 2011
Song #84: "Walk Right In" by The Rooftop Singers
Date: Jan 26, 1963
Weeks: 2
As I write this, this song is the centerpiece of a Supercuts ad campaign. It's a pretty sensible choice for a place that wants you to "Walk right in, set right down" and "let your hair hang down." Presumably then they cut that hair, but despite a good fit, the song doesn't actually go that way.
Outside of being a great fit for Supercuts, the lyrics are a bit of nonsense. "Everybody's talkin' 'bout a new way of walkin'." That's fine, I have no objection to nonsense lyrics, but these lyrics get repetitive really quickly.
Repetition is the song's biggest problem. The lyrics repeat. The vocal style is constant and unchanging. And even the guitar parts repeat themselves. There are two guitar sequences, one for the verses, one for the chorus, and the bridge doesn't even add any new variety; it's just a verse without lyrics.
Everything about this song is straight-laced and unvarying, and gets boring really quickly. It feels like the kind of basic and simple song my music teacher used to play in grade school to teach rhythm. And that's fine, but as an adult, I crave something that builds on basic and becomes something more.
So once again I find myself searching the Internet for covers for ideas to express what's missing. But in this case, the answer lies in the past, in a blues jug band version by Gus Cannon and His Jug Stompers, circa 1929. It's a blues-y banjo, harmonica, and jug-bass treat. This version is filled with little touches of variety in both the vocals and the instruments. It even adds what sounds like a kazoo in the bridge just for variety. It's fun and interesting. (Research note: Kazoos had been mass-produced by the 1920s, so that's probably what it is.)
It's natural for blues lyrics music to be repetitive; that's part of the genre. The variety is supposed to come from the musical performance. Mid-20th century folk music tends to involve interesting lyrics that tell a story set to simple and repetitive music, so the singer can strum a simple tune and focus attention on telling a story. You can't combine repetitive blues lyrics with repetitive folk music and expect to produce something interesting.
My verdict: Don't like it. Blues music and 1960s folk music don't seem like a good fit for each other, and this song doesn't convince me otherwise. It feels like it was made to be the Supercuts commercial jingle that it now is.
Weeks: 2
As I write this, this song is the centerpiece of a Supercuts ad campaign. It's a pretty sensible choice for a place that wants you to "Walk right in, set right down" and "let your hair hang down." Presumably then they cut that hair, but despite a good fit, the song doesn't actually go that way.
Outside of being a great fit for Supercuts, the lyrics are a bit of nonsense. "Everybody's talkin' 'bout a new way of walkin'." That's fine, I have no objection to nonsense lyrics, but these lyrics get repetitive really quickly.
Repetition is the song's biggest problem. The lyrics repeat. The vocal style is constant and unchanging. And even the guitar parts repeat themselves. There are two guitar sequences, one for the verses, one for the chorus, and the bridge doesn't even add any new variety; it's just a verse without lyrics.
Everything about this song is straight-laced and unvarying, and gets boring really quickly. It feels like the kind of basic and simple song my music teacher used to play in grade school to teach rhythm. And that's fine, but as an adult, I crave something that builds on basic and becomes something more.
So once again I find myself searching the Internet for covers for ideas to express what's missing. But in this case, the answer lies in the past, in a blues jug band version by Gus Cannon and His Jug Stompers, circa 1929. It's a blues-y banjo, harmonica, and jug-bass treat. This version is filled with little touches of variety in both the vocals and the instruments. It even adds what sounds like a kazoo in the bridge just for variety. It's fun and interesting. (Research note: Kazoos had been mass-produced by the 1920s, so that's probably what it is.)
It's natural for blues lyrics music to be repetitive; that's part of the genre. The variety is supposed to come from the musical performance. Mid-20th century folk music tends to involve interesting lyrics that tell a story set to simple and repetitive music, so the singer can strum a simple tune and focus attention on telling a story. You can't combine repetitive blues lyrics with repetitive folk music and expect to produce something interesting.
My verdict: Don't like it. Blues music and 1960s folk music don't seem like a good fit for each other, and this song doesn't convince me otherwise. It feels like it was made to be the Supercuts commercial jingle that it now is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)