Date: Jul 21, 1973
Weeks: 2
I couldn't find any embeddable versions of the original recording, so I embedded that live performance instead. If anything, I think the song is improved by the simpler orchestration and raw energy of the live performance.
Not that there's a lot wrong with the studio recording. At its core, this is a bouncy guitar, bass, drum and piano tune, and it's a lot of fun. I like the bass breakdown near the bridge. It has a very jazz-like string bass feel to it. The jaunty piano has a bit of a ragtime feel to it. And the guitar feels like a blues song. All of that combined with the lyrics left me with the impression that the song was about a gangster in 1930s Chicago. But I guess that's not accurate.
As far as I can tell, that interpretation wasn't intentional. Leroy Brown was supposed to be a contemporary character, who was known for being the big, mean guy who pushed people around to get what he wanted. It's a well-paced story. It sets up Leroy as tough, describes how intimidating a character he is, and then tells the story of his comeuppance at the hands of someone bigger and meaner than he is. It's a good story, and I can't really find any fault with the lyrics to pick at.
I think the recording is a bit overproduced, though. There's too much unnecessary use of background singers. This should just be simply performed by a small group, like in the live performance, rather than by a massive chorus. I actually kind of like some of the background shouts that make the song feel like it's being performed in a music hall to a tough, indifferent crowd. But the chorus singing along contradicts that and makes it feel like it's being recorded in a studio.
My verdict: Like it. Overall, I think the overproduction issues are pretty minor, and don't disrupt the fun.
Showing posts with label 1973. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1973. Show all posts
Monday, February 20, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Song #303: "Let's Get It On" by Marvin Gaye
Date: Sept 8, 1973
Weeks: 2
The chorus of this song is classic, to be sure. It gets played in contexts both artistic and commercial, sincere and ironic, basic and bizarre. And it's a strong chorus. But the rest of the song doesn't necessarily hold up.
The song's biggest strength is Gaye's vocals. He's a great singer, and the chorus in particular shows off his skill. He's putting on a performance, and it's great. I want to listen to him sing. I like the way his voice alternates between power and gentleness, it's ideal for the song's lyrical context.
The lyrics, I assume, don't need much explanation. It's an invitation to sex. At first glance, it seems like it's an invitation to sex between partners who are already well in love. But there are occasional lines, such as "C'mon darling, stop beatin' 'round the bush," that feel a little more like pressure. Like he's just saying these things to get sex. Ultimately, I'm going to be charitable and assume he really is in love and just wants to take the relationship to the next level, but when you're writing a song like this, it's kind of important to make the lyrics absolutely immune to misinterpretation.
Musically, the song is pretty boring. Yes, the point is to showcase his voice, but the music doesn't seem to try to do very much except create the most basic backing track. The drums don't change much, the bass line has little variation, and even the lead twangy guitar doesn't do very much beyond the chorus. Then in the middle there's a mismash of saxophones, strings, and randomness. There aren't so much verses as freeform jazz between choruses. And it goes on and on for 5 minutes. It's not bad, to be sure, but it's also a little bit boring after a while.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a well-constructed pop song. Though I can see it being appealing in its intended context, if you take my meaning.
Weeks: 2
The chorus of this song is classic, to be sure. It gets played in contexts both artistic and commercial, sincere and ironic, basic and bizarre. And it's a strong chorus. But the rest of the song doesn't necessarily hold up.
The song's biggest strength is Gaye's vocals. He's a great singer, and the chorus in particular shows off his skill. He's putting on a performance, and it's great. I want to listen to him sing. I like the way his voice alternates between power and gentleness, it's ideal for the song's lyrical context.
The lyrics, I assume, don't need much explanation. It's an invitation to sex. At first glance, it seems like it's an invitation to sex between partners who are already well in love. But there are occasional lines, such as "C'mon darling, stop beatin' 'round the bush," that feel a little more like pressure. Like he's just saying these things to get sex. Ultimately, I'm going to be charitable and assume he really is in love and just wants to take the relationship to the next level, but when you're writing a song like this, it's kind of important to make the lyrics absolutely immune to misinterpretation.
Musically, the song is pretty boring. Yes, the point is to showcase his voice, but the music doesn't seem to try to do very much except create the most basic backing track. The drums don't change much, the bass line has little variation, and even the lead twangy guitar doesn't do very much beyond the chorus. Then in the middle there's a mismash of saxophones, strings, and randomness. There aren't so much verses as freeform jazz between choruses. And it goes on and on for 5 minutes. It's not bad, to be sure, but it's also a little bit boring after a while.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a well-constructed pop song. Though I can see it being appealing in its intended context, if you take my meaning.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Song #295: "Frankenstein" by Edgar Winter Group
Date: May 26, 1973
Weeks: 1
I've really only heard of Edgar Winter in that recent TV ad. I had no idea what kind of music he made, even though this very song is played at the end of that commercial. So I was kind of dreading another trip into the early 70s, anticipating one of the many light, insubstantial pop songs that topped the charts in that half-decade. But instead I got some genuine 70s experimental rock and roll, a genre which is woefully underrepresented on the charts. So I'm glad for that.
This song is a really weird instrumental piece. Oh, it starts off with an excellent guitar riff, and it's about two minutes of some really good guitar-and-drums rock and roll. Whenever that guitar is playing, this song is a blast. I even like the synthesized keyboards because the unique sound of them is being exploited to create something interesting and new. There's a saxophone that's less successful, but it doesn't wreck the song.
Then, about two minutes in, all that successful mixture of sounds collapses, and it turns into a weird extended drum solo, which lasts long past the point where it's still interesting. Then there are laser sound effects mixed in for no reason other than that they were capable of producing laser sound effects. The song finishes with a reprise of its excellent guitar riff, at least, but by then the song's momentum is gone.
Although I evaluate the single version of these songs, I'll try to check out the extended versions if there are any. And this one has a doozy. In this case, the extended version is just weirder, filled with more aural chaos. Although the extended version at least does a better job living up to the title, "Frankenstein." The extended version has a segment that actually sounds like lightning crashing and evokes the imagery of Dr. Frankenstein's lab. The basic song doesn't include any of that, so it leaves you wondering why it's titled that.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's got some nice guitar riffs, but the breakdown in the middle is too weird and completely interrupts a song that otherwise is kind of on the right course.
Weeks: 1
I've really only heard of Edgar Winter in that recent TV ad. I had no idea what kind of music he made, even though this very song is played at the end of that commercial. So I was kind of dreading another trip into the early 70s, anticipating one of the many light, insubstantial pop songs that topped the charts in that half-decade. But instead I got some genuine 70s experimental rock and roll, a genre which is woefully underrepresented on the charts. So I'm glad for that.
This song is a really weird instrumental piece. Oh, it starts off with an excellent guitar riff, and it's about two minutes of some really good guitar-and-drums rock and roll. Whenever that guitar is playing, this song is a blast. I even like the synthesized keyboards because the unique sound of them is being exploited to create something interesting and new. There's a saxophone that's less successful, but it doesn't wreck the song.
Then, about two minutes in, all that successful mixture of sounds collapses, and it turns into a weird extended drum solo, which lasts long past the point where it's still interesting. Then there are laser sound effects mixed in for no reason other than that they were capable of producing laser sound effects. The song finishes with a reprise of its excellent guitar riff, at least, but by then the song's momentum is gone.
Although I evaluate the single version of these songs, I'll try to check out the extended versions if there are any. And this one has a doozy. In this case, the extended version is just weirder, filled with more aural chaos. Although the extended version at least does a better job living up to the title, "Frankenstein." The extended version has a segment that actually sounds like lightning crashing and evokes the imagery of Dr. Frankenstein's lab. The basic song doesn't include any of that, so it leaves you wondering why it's titled that.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's got some nice guitar riffs, but the breakdown in the middle is too weird and completely interrupts a song that otherwise is kind of on the right course.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Song #288: "Superstition" by Stevie Wonder
Date: Jan 27, 1973
Weeks: 1
This is a rare ray of light from the 70s. Stevie Wonder is a genuine talent, and this is a great funky rock song of the type that somehow rarely rose to the top of the charts in the 70s. I almost picked an excellent studio performance video of this song, but the quality of its bass wasn't great and it wasn't quite as tightly edited.
That studio performance does a great job of showing each instrument and calling out its addition to the performance. I hadn't even detected the bongos in the song, but once I saw them, I certainly heard them and appreciated their value. And that's a great resource to have, because otherwise the tight integration of the music makes it difficult to pick out each instrument's integration. And yet I still find myself unable to say much more than this: This is an awesome wall of sound.
Obviously the organ/synthesizer part is the featured component and the backbone of this song. It makes this song stand out within the first 20 seconds, and is certainly the most-recognized part of the song. The trumpet line is probably less appreciated, but is just as important and just as effective. The trumpet line is superb, and the song is almost defined as the parts where the trumpets are playing and the parts where you're waiting for the trumpets to come back. The bass line complements the trumpet line, and would be great in any song, but here it's merely providing an excellent foundation. The drum line is also great.
Steve Wonder's vocals are also wonderful. He knows when to sing it straight, and when to embellish it. And he knows when to scream in an effective way. Like all the other instruments, his voice blends in to create an excellent whole.
The lyrics are a seemingly simple assertion that living your life by superstition is no way to live. "When you believe in things that you don't understand then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way." If there's a deeper meaning, I'm not sure I can extract it. I suppose there isn't a lot of clever phrasing to the lyrics or anything, but it doesn't really matter. When the music is as great as this, as long as the lyrics don't seem to contradict each other, the lyrics are fairly irrelevant.
My verdict: Like it. It's a funky classic, and a standout song from a decade I don't usually care for.
Weeks: 1
This is a rare ray of light from the 70s. Stevie Wonder is a genuine talent, and this is a great funky rock song of the type that somehow rarely rose to the top of the charts in the 70s. I almost picked an excellent studio performance video of this song, but the quality of its bass wasn't great and it wasn't quite as tightly edited.
That studio performance does a great job of showing each instrument and calling out its addition to the performance. I hadn't even detected the bongos in the song, but once I saw them, I certainly heard them and appreciated their value. And that's a great resource to have, because otherwise the tight integration of the music makes it difficult to pick out each instrument's integration. And yet I still find myself unable to say much more than this: This is an awesome wall of sound.
Obviously the organ/synthesizer part is the featured component and the backbone of this song. It makes this song stand out within the first 20 seconds, and is certainly the most-recognized part of the song. The trumpet line is probably less appreciated, but is just as important and just as effective. The trumpet line is superb, and the song is almost defined as the parts where the trumpets are playing and the parts where you're waiting for the trumpets to come back. The bass line complements the trumpet line, and would be great in any song, but here it's merely providing an excellent foundation. The drum line is also great.
Steve Wonder's vocals are also wonderful. He knows when to sing it straight, and when to embellish it. And he knows when to scream in an effective way. Like all the other instruments, his voice blends in to create an excellent whole.
The lyrics are a seemingly simple assertion that living your life by superstition is no way to live. "When you believe in things that you don't understand then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way." If there's a deeper meaning, I'm not sure I can extract it. I suppose there isn't a lot of clever phrasing to the lyrics or anything, but it doesn't really matter. When the music is as great as this, as long as the lyrics don't seem to contradict each other, the lyrics are fairly irrelevant.
My verdict: Like it. It's a funky classic, and a standout song from a decade I don't usually care for.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Song #289: "Crocodile Rock" by Elton John
Date: Feb 3, 1973
Weeks: 3
Just yesterday I was talking about a throwback song, and I was going through some examples in my mind. But somehow I completely ignored "Crocodile Rock." It's done in a very 50s, Jerry Lee Lewis, rocking-piano style, and it's excellent. This is Elton John's first No. 1, and it's one of his best. I'm sure my first exposure to him was his episode of The Muppet Show, and among the songs he performed was this one, with Crocodiles performing the "la la la" chorus.
The music is mostly a healthy mix of synthesized keyboards and genuine piano, with a great bass track at the foundation. The song is trying to emulate that Jerry Lee Lewis sound, but update it with some early 70s instrumentation, and it does so very successfully. The song is built around nostalgia for that type of 50s music, and it recreates it excellently. If anything, I think "Crocodile Rock" is a better song than "Great Balls of Fire."
Elton John's voice is great at any time. He can really belt out a tune, and he always has a good performance to match the music he's playing. This song is certainly no exception to that. His falsetto also successfully references the music of the 50s. As I've encountered already, there was a lot of that falsetto singing in the early rock music he's trying to reference.
Lyrically, the song is about nostalgia for the singer's youth. Specifically lost love, lost youth, and lost music. Pretty universal concept. What's a more effective way to sing about your nostalgia for a type of music than to make a song in that style? Admittedly, after listening to this song for years without really taking in the lyrics, I expected there to be a bit more of a reference to crocodiles, or being in a place known for crocodiles. But no, there's really not. Crocodile Rock is a fictional concept from the past, and the origins of it are never explained. That's fine.
My verdict: Like it. This is a great song. I think it's Elton John's best, although there are a few others on this list that might be close.
Weeks: 3
Just yesterday I was talking about a throwback song, and I was going through some examples in my mind. But somehow I completely ignored "Crocodile Rock." It's done in a very 50s, Jerry Lee Lewis, rocking-piano style, and it's excellent. This is Elton John's first No. 1, and it's one of his best. I'm sure my first exposure to him was his episode of The Muppet Show, and among the songs he performed was this one, with Crocodiles performing the "la la la" chorus.
The music is mostly a healthy mix of synthesized keyboards and genuine piano, with a great bass track at the foundation. The song is trying to emulate that Jerry Lee Lewis sound, but update it with some early 70s instrumentation, and it does so very successfully. The song is built around nostalgia for that type of 50s music, and it recreates it excellently. If anything, I think "Crocodile Rock" is a better song than "Great Balls of Fire."
Elton John's voice is great at any time. He can really belt out a tune, and he always has a good performance to match the music he's playing. This song is certainly no exception to that. His falsetto also successfully references the music of the 50s. As I've encountered already, there was a lot of that falsetto singing in the early rock music he's trying to reference.
Lyrically, the song is about nostalgia for the singer's youth. Specifically lost love, lost youth, and lost music. Pretty universal concept. What's a more effective way to sing about your nostalgia for a type of music than to make a song in that style? Admittedly, after listening to this song for years without really taking in the lyrics, I expected there to be a bit more of a reference to crocodiles, or being in a place known for crocodiles. But no, there's really not. Crocodile Rock is a fictional concept from the past, and the origins of it are never explained. That's fine.
My verdict: Like it. This is a great song. I think it's Elton John's best, although there are a few others on this list that might be close.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Song #311: "Top Of The World" by Carpenters
Date: Dec 1, 1973
Weeks: 2
My randomizer seems to have hit the early 1970s a lot already, and I'm starting to dread it. How can music that is so excessively orchestrated manage to also be so weak and minimal? How does music like this dominate the pop charts in a post-Beatles world?
I understand that some of the point, especially with folk songs, is that it's easy for people to pick up a guitar, sing along, and make a campfire song out of it. And that's all well and good for a campfire song in theory, but it doesn't make for a particularly compelling musical performance here.
On the other hand, Karen Carpenter has a really great and strong voice, and this song does a good job showing it off with some impressive pitch changes from one note to the next. Her voice is doing the most interesting musical thing in the song, and it's really quite good. And yet it's not so complex that you can't try to sing along.
I suppose that's why the music is so minimal. It's trying to stay out of her way.
The lyrics she's singing match the song well, too. "Your love's put me at the top of the world." That's the lyrical content in a nutshell and the rest of the lyrics don't mix the message: I'm in love and that makes me happy. Most pop songs are about exactly that, but few are so direct about it.
My verdict: Like it. Karen Carpenter does enough to make up for the lacking backing music. Also, I have a generally positive association with this song because it's associated with this hilarious gag from Friends.
Weeks: 2
My randomizer seems to have hit the early 1970s a lot already, and I'm starting to dread it. How can music that is so excessively orchestrated manage to also be so weak and minimal? How does music like this dominate the pop charts in a post-Beatles world?
I understand that some of the point, especially with folk songs, is that it's easy for people to pick up a guitar, sing along, and make a campfire song out of it. And that's all well and good for a campfire song in theory, but it doesn't make for a particularly compelling musical performance here.
On the other hand, Karen Carpenter has a really great and strong voice, and this song does a good job showing it off with some impressive pitch changes from one note to the next. Her voice is doing the most interesting musical thing in the song, and it's really quite good. And yet it's not so complex that you can't try to sing along.
I suppose that's why the music is so minimal. It's trying to stay out of her way.
The lyrics she's singing match the song well, too. "Your love's put me at the top of the world." That's the lyrical content in a nutshell and the rest of the lyrics don't mix the message: I'm in love and that makes me happy. Most pop songs are about exactly that, but few are so direct about it.
My verdict: Like it. Karen Carpenter does enough to make up for the lacking backing music. Also, I have a generally positive association with this song because it's associated with this hilarious gag from Friends.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Song #301: "Touch Me In The Morning" by Diana Ross
Date: Aug 18, 1973
Weeks: 1
I never saw what people liked about Diana Ross. I listened to some of her work from the 80s, and I'd heard some of her recordings with the Supremes. I thought she was okay but I didn't really understand the regard she seemed to be held in by some music fans. Now that I'm hearing some of her solo songs from the 1970s, I'm starting to realize what I was missing. The 1970s were the peak of her vocal talent and this song shows off her range and vocal power. She also manages to make an emotional connection with the listener.
The orchestral music does a great job matching her performance. It begins quietly and lulls you into the impression that this is just a slight song that is little more than backup to a voice performance. But after a bit both the music and the vocals crank up the power and you discover that the chorus of the song is far more compelling than that first verse.
While the music may be well-matched to the vocal performance, I'm not sure it's all that satisfying by any other measure. This song feels dated, and not in a "classic of the era" way, but in more of a "well, it was the 70s, and that's what we thought people liked" way.
Hmm. It occurs to me I need to develop my 1970s music vocabulary. I'm not even sure how to describe the type of sound this music is. The best I can do is 1970s soft rock. I'm not even sure if that's right. It doesn't sound very much like 1980s soft rock.
The lyrics seem to be a request for one last night together before a breakup. So it's sad, wistful, and firmly parked in the Denial phase of the Breakup Song Stages of Grief. The lyrics are also well-written and match the tone of the music well. I won't be nitpicking them.
My verdict: Don't like it. This is a well-made song and I won't think less of anyone who likes it. This is the hardest call I've had to make yet. But I can't get over how dated, yet not classic, the music is and I know Diana Ross will return to praise again.
Weeks: 1
I never saw what people liked about Diana Ross. I listened to some of her work from the 80s, and I'd heard some of her recordings with the Supremes. I thought she was okay but I didn't really understand the regard she seemed to be held in by some music fans. Now that I'm hearing some of her solo songs from the 1970s, I'm starting to realize what I was missing. The 1970s were the peak of her vocal talent and this song shows off her range and vocal power. She also manages to make an emotional connection with the listener.
The orchestral music does a great job matching her performance. It begins quietly and lulls you into the impression that this is just a slight song that is little more than backup to a voice performance. But after a bit both the music and the vocals crank up the power and you discover that the chorus of the song is far more compelling than that first verse.
While the music may be well-matched to the vocal performance, I'm not sure it's all that satisfying by any other measure. This song feels dated, and not in a "classic of the era" way, but in more of a "well, it was the 70s, and that's what we thought people liked" way.
Hmm. It occurs to me I need to develop my 1970s music vocabulary. I'm not even sure how to describe the type of sound this music is. The best I can do is 1970s soft rock. I'm not even sure if that's right. It doesn't sound very much like 1980s soft rock.
The lyrics seem to be a request for one last night together before a breakup. So it's sad, wistful, and firmly parked in the Denial phase of the Breakup Song Stages of Grief. The lyrics are also well-written and match the tone of the music well. I won't be nitpicking them.
My verdict: Don't like it. This is a well-made song and I won't think less of anyone who likes it. This is the hardest call I've had to make yet. But I can't get over how dated, yet not classic, the music is and I know Diana Ross will return to praise again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)