Date: Feb 12, 1972
Weeks: 1
I've probably declared a great many songs overproduced. "Make it simpler." Fewer instruments, fewer unnecessary background elements. It might give people the impression that I'd rather see every singer backed by a simple guitar, or piano, or jazz band. And yet here's a song that could benefit from just a little bit more production.
Al Green is a very talented singer, and I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that anything be done that would obscure his voice. I like some of the very delicate touches in his voice. It makes the song feel intimate. Given the subject matter, that's certainly the intent.
But an intimate song is better if it's more intense, and intensity is what this song lacks. There's not enough energy, especially in the first half of the song. The first verse is so quiet and slow that my mind wanders. It's only around the time the song gets to the verse that the energy and intensity reaches what I think is an appropriate level. The bass gets more pronounced, the brass fanfares kick in, the backup singers join in, and the song finally generates some of the emotional energy that I want it to have. But then, just when I think the song is about to reach a good level, it's over. It's like one long buildup that never got around to the payoff.
I actually really like the lyrics. It's a song about commitment to a relationship. "Loving you whether times are good or bad, happy or sad." There's no drama or despair or pain, just happy people in a happy relationship realizing how lucky they are and wanting to stay that way. On top of that, it has some of that poetry of words that just sound good together.
My verdict: Don't like it. There's certainly nothing wrong with this song, but I'm just frustrated by its lack of intensity. It seems like it just needs a little proper mixing, or a good live performance, but I can't quite find one that gets what I'm looking for.
Showing posts with label 1972. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1972. Show all posts
Friday, March 9, 2012
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Song #277: "Alone Again (Naturally)" by Gilbert O'Sullivan
Date: July 29, 1972
Weeks: 6
Well, there's a depressing song. And it's also light and not at all catchy. Why is this song on the top of the charts? Knocking off the genuine classic "Lean On Me" (#276)? And staying on top for six weeks?
To start with, the lyrics are just plain depressing. The guy plans a suicide attempt, remembers being left at the altar, takes a brief moment to lament the suffering of people besides himself, recalls the death of his parents, and ends every verse on the cheery thought that not only is he alone, but he deserves to be alone. There is no hope for the future and no sense that things can get better for him. Cheerful.
The lyrics also contain plenty of bad writing. My favorite example is early in the song. "I promise myself to treat myself." You can't repeat words like that! The rhyme scheme seems to be pretty limerick-y, which I guess is why the writer felt the need to write that line. But you can't rhyme a word with itself to introduce the limerick rhyme scheme. And then he can't even stick to the limerick pattern very well, and he sticks those sorts of short rhyming couplets next to each other in several odd places. The rhyme scheme is a big mess.
Now, there are plenty of pop songs out there that have depressing lyrics, but most of them try to mask depressing lyrics with a happy tune. That is not what's happening here. Piano, drums, and a very sad flute add up to a really hollow, light, and sad tune. It's appropriate for the lyrics, I suppose, but that doesn't make it a good pop song. And this music isn't good by any standard.
Then the singer, Gillbert O'Sullivan, whose name I am happy to learn is a stage name that is an intentional play on Gilbert and Sullivan, has a whiny, sad voice. He's not some super-talented singer making me feel an emotion via his artistry. He's just a whiny sad sack.
All of this adds up to possibly the most depressing song on this list. I hope I'm not wrong about that. I would hate to think there's another No. 1 song out there more depressing than this.
My verdict: Don't like it. I don't understand how a depressing song that is musically unimpressive could not only reach the top of the list, but stay there for so long.
Weeks: 6
Well, there's a depressing song. And it's also light and not at all catchy. Why is this song on the top of the charts? Knocking off the genuine classic "Lean On Me" (#276)? And staying on top for six weeks?
To start with, the lyrics are just plain depressing. The guy plans a suicide attempt, remembers being left at the altar, takes a brief moment to lament the suffering of people besides himself, recalls the death of his parents, and ends every verse on the cheery thought that not only is he alone, but he deserves to be alone. There is no hope for the future and no sense that things can get better for him. Cheerful.
The lyrics also contain plenty of bad writing. My favorite example is early in the song. "I promise myself to treat myself." You can't repeat words like that! The rhyme scheme seems to be pretty limerick-y, which I guess is why the writer felt the need to write that line. But you can't rhyme a word with itself to introduce the limerick rhyme scheme. And then he can't even stick to the limerick pattern very well, and he sticks those sorts of short rhyming couplets next to each other in several odd places. The rhyme scheme is a big mess.
Now, there are plenty of pop songs out there that have depressing lyrics, but most of them try to mask depressing lyrics with a happy tune. That is not what's happening here. Piano, drums, and a very sad flute add up to a really hollow, light, and sad tune. It's appropriate for the lyrics, I suppose, but that doesn't make it a good pop song. And this music isn't good by any standard.
Then the singer, Gillbert O'Sullivan, whose name I am happy to learn is a stage name that is an intentional play on Gilbert and Sullivan, has a whiny, sad voice. He's not some super-talented singer making me feel an emotion via his artistry. He's just a whiny sad sack.
All of this adds up to possibly the most depressing song on this list. I hope I'm not wrong about that. I would hate to think there's another No. 1 song out there more depressing than this.
My verdict: Don't like it. I don't understand how a depressing song that is musically unimpressive could not only reach the top of the list, but stay there for so long.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Song #276: "Lean On Me" by Bill Withers
Date: July 8, 1972
Weeks: 3
This is a classic song that has been covered several times over the years. I remember it was big on the radio again in the late 80s around the time of the release of the film Lean On Me. Or rather, a very 80s cover of it was on the radio. But this version is the original, performed by the songwriter.
Happily, this song eschews the 70s audio habits of its era, and as a result feels classic and timeless. It's basically a piano piece, but it also adds just enough tasteful light drum, bass, strings, and background singers to make it more interesting without ever seeming overdone. The rather simple piano chord scales that dominate the music make the song feel very satisfying.
Bill Withers has a nice voice for this, as well. He's not showing off an incredible vocal talent, but the low-key music does bring his vocals to the front, and his voice is pleasant enough to make the song that much better.
The lyrics are really good. "Lean on me when you're not strong and I'll be your friend...For it won't be long 'til I'm going to need somebody to lean on." Not only is that a great sentiment, but the verbal and conceptual symmetry is poetic. There's a positive message about friendship all throughout. These are some good lyrics. I can see why the song has been covered so many times.
My verdict: Like it. A timeless classic with a positive message. Good stuff.
Weeks: 3
This is a classic song that has been covered several times over the years. I remember it was big on the radio again in the late 80s around the time of the release of the film Lean On Me. Or rather, a very 80s cover of it was on the radio. But this version is the original, performed by the songwriter.
Happily, this song eschews the 70s audio habits of its era, and as a result feels classic and timeless. It's basically a piano piece, but it also adds just enough tasteful light drum, bass, strings, and background singers to make it more interesting without ever seeming overdone. The rather simple piano chord scales that dominate the music make the song feel very satisfying.
Bill Withers has a nice voice for this, as well. He's not showing off an incredible vocal talent, but the low-key music does bring his vocals to the front, and his voice is pleasant enough to make the song that much better.
The lyrics are really good. "Lean on me when you're not strong and I'll be your friend...For it won't be long 'til I'm going to need somebody to lean on." Not only is that a great sentiment, but the verbal and conceptual symmetry is poetic. There's a positive message about friendship all throughout. These are some good lyrics. I can see why the song has been covered so many times.
My verdict: Like it. A timeless classic with a positive message. Good stuff.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Song# 285: "I Am Woman" by Helen Reddy
Date: Dec 9, 1972
Weeks: 1
This is an often-quoted feminist anthem. Women in 1975 must have been desperate to have an anthem, because this song isn't as good as what they deserved.
The music starts with a basic, dull, country base, then piles some of the worst hallmarks of 70s music on top of it. Too much brass, too many soft strings, too much backup singing. On top of that, Helen Reddy's voice isn't nearly strong enough to sing lyrics like "I am strong, I am invincible, I am woman." The whole song is too soft for its message.
This song needs a bolder and better singer, and a better musical arrangement. On that note, check out this version by Dusty Springfield. That version injects some more rock and has a stronger singer. It still has brass and strings, but they don't dominate the sound, and the song works much better overall for it.
The lyrics are successfully pro-feminism and I'm happy to say there are no unfortunate choices that undermine the song's intended meaning. But I can't help noticing one thing: if you subtracted the word "woman," would you really know this song was about feminism? This is the second verse:
That's an admirable sentiment, but it's not really unique to women, is it? Much of this song could be applied to any oppressed group. That makes the song kind of generic and somewhat undermines its value as a song specifically for women. That point aside, the meaning of the lyrics is unmistakable and the message is quite clear, so at least it succeeds on that front.
My verdict: Don't like it. I'm willing to accept that there was nothing else quite like it in 1972, but I've heard better feminist music than this in the years since then.
Weeks: 1
This is an often-quoted feminist anthem. Women in 1975 must have been desperate to have an anthem, because this song isn't as good as what they deserved.
The music starts with a basic, dull, country base, then piles some of the worst hallmarks of 70s music on top of it. Too much brass, too many soft strings, too much backup singing. On top of that, Helen Reddy's voice isn't nearly strong enough to sing lyrics like "I am strong, I am invincible, I am woman." The whole song is too soft for its message.
This song needs a bolder and better singer, and a better musical arrangement. On that note, check out this version by Dusty Springfield. That version injects some more rock and has a stronger singer. It still has brass and strings, but they don't dominate the sound, and the song works much better overall for it.
The lyrics are successfully pro-feminism and I'm happy to say there are no unfortunate choices that undermine the song's intended meaning. But I can't help noticing one thing: if you subtracted the word "woman," would you really know this song was about feminism? This is the second verse:
- You can bend but never break me, 'Cause it only serves to make me More determined to achieve my final goal. And I come back even stronger Not a novice any longer 'Cause you've deepened the conviction in my soul.
That's an admirable sentiment, but it's not really unique to women, is it? Much of this song could be applied to any oppressed group. That makes the song kind of generic and somewhat undermines its value as a song specifically for women. That point aside, the meaning of the lyrics is unmistakable and the message is quite clear, so at least it succeeds on that front.
My verdict: Don't like it. I'm willing to accept that there was nothing else quite like it in 1972, but I've heard better feminist music than this in the years since then.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Song #284: "Papa Was a Rollin' Stone" by The Temptations
Date: Dec 2, 1972
Weeks: 1
The actual single of this song was apparently 7 minutes long. I listened to the whole thing, and I was tired of it before I'd even finished it the first time. So I linked this shorter performance to save time. All they've cut is a 3-minute musical intro that was basically that bass line over and over again.
In fact, the bass line over and over again seems to be the entire basis for this song. It gets old fast, and I can't believe anyone thought extending it to 7 minutes made the song better than the 4-minute version with lyrics. There are some other string, guitar, and horn accents throughout, but they're just jazzing-up the bass line, not contributing any musical ideas.
The lyrics are okay, I guess. The guy learns the father he never knew has died, and starts asking about him. And it turns out his father was a bit of a disreputable scoundrel. Then, like everything else about this song, it goes on well past the time when we've gotten the point.
My verdict: Don't like it. Unlike the song, I won't drag this review out beyond the point where it's interesting.
Weeks: 1
The actual single of this song was apparently 7 minutes long. I listened to the whole thing, and I was tired of it before I'd even finished it the first time. So I linked this shorter performance to save time. All they've cut is a 3-minute musical intro that was basically that bass line over and over again.
In fact, the bass line over and over again seems to be the entire basis for this song. It gets old fast, and I can't believe anyone thought extending it to 7 minutes made the song better than the 4-minute version with lyrics. There are some other string, guitar, and horn accents throughout, but they're just jazzing-up the bass line, not contributing any musical ideas.
The lyrics are okay, I guess. The guy learns the father he never knew has died, and starts asking about him. And it turns out his father was a bit of a disreputable scoundrel. Then, like everything else about this song, it goes on well past the time when we've gotten the point.
My verdict: Don't like it. Unlike the song, I won't drag this review out beyond the point where it's interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)