Date: Mar 1, 1975
Weeks: 1
Oh, strummy acoustic nothing songs, how I loathe you.
The bulk of this song is 2 chords from an acoustic guitar. Both the verses and the choruses just alternate from one chord to the other before switching back. There are also some transitions that employ a couple other chords very briefly, but other than technically adding more chords to the song they don't add anything resembling variety to the music.
And there's little else going on to listen to here. There's another guitar noodling away vaguely way in the background, and a lonely maraca on percussion. And there's the vocal harmony, but this isn't exactly Boyz II Men here. The Eagles's voices here are fine, but not particularly remarkable.
And this is where the strummy acoustic guitar song fails for me. There's no interesting sound here. There's no tension building up for release, no energy. There's not even any variety to keep the song compelling. Conversely, they can't commit to the spare, heartfelt song of one person with one guitar, instead adding sound and voices all over the place. So with the music a complete failure, that must mean the lyrics are interesting, right?
I'm not going to pretend the lyrics are terrible, because they're not. But they're not exactly great, either. There aren't any clever turns of phrase or interesting things to say. The singer's had a fight with his significant other and can't quite find the right words to make it right. "We try to talk it over, but the words come out too rough." It's an apology song, an attempt to rise above the specific issues at hand and try to save the relationship because "here in my heart, I give you the best of my love." Mostly I don't have a problem with the lyrics, but I do find the chorus to be pretty generic. "Ooooh, sweet darlin'. You get the best of my love." "Sweet darlin'" isn't exactly an original affectionate, there. And gee, maybe if the relationship is in this much peril, your "sweet darlin'" might actually be getting the worst of your love.
My verdict: Don't like it. A song needs to have either interesting music or interesting lyrics, preferably both. This one has mediocre lyrics and almost no music, so it's no good.
Showing posts with label 1975. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1975. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Song #367: "Thank God I'm A Country Boy" by John Denver
Date: June 7, 1975
Weeks: 1
I'm not a country boy, but I find myself charmed by this song anyway. There's a plain and simple joy present in both the writing and performance of this song that can't be denied. I think the live recording energizes it, so it was a good choice to release this recording as the single.
I really like the music here. It's basic guitar, violin, and string bass country music. Most of the percussion sounds like it comes from hand claps and foot stomps. The vocal harmonies are well-done. I enjoy the simplicity of this. That's unusual for most of the 70s music I've reviewed, where music simplicity seems to not be allowed.
The lyrics are about a country boy who is happy about his life, and his joy is infectious. "I got me a fine wife, I got my old fiddle. When the sun's coming up, I got cakes on the griddle." Sounds like a great morning to me. I like that he loves all the things that make his life good. I really like that he doesn't feel too much need to compare his life to other people and claim his way is superior. Yeah, there are a couple lines that get close to that, but for the most part it's all about how happy he is to have a family, a farm, a fiddle, and his life in general. It's not a list of things he wants or doesn't want. He aspires to nothing more than to be happy with his life the way it is, and that's appealing.
My verdict: Like it. It's catchy and fun and positive. What's not to like?
Weeks: 1
I'm not a country boy, but I find myself charmed by this song anyway. There's a plain and simple joy present in both the writing and performance of this song that can't be denied. I think the live recording energizes it, so it was a good choice to release this recording as the single.
I really like the music here. It's basic guitar, violin, and string bass country music. Most of the percussion sounds like it comes from hand claps and foot stomps. The vocal harmonies are well-done. I enjoy the simplicity of this. That's unusual for most of the 70s music I've reviewed, where music simplicity seems to not be allowed.
The lyrics are about a country boy who is happy about his life, and his joy is infectious. "I got me a fine wife, I got my old fiddle. When the sun's coming up, I got cakes on the griddle." Sounds like a great morning to me. I like that he loves all the things that make his life good. I really like that he doesn't feel too much need to compare his life to other people and claim his way is superior. Yeah, there are a couple lines that get close to that, but for the most part it's all about how happy he is to have a family, a farm, a fiddle, and his life in general. It's not a list of things he wants or doesn't want. He aspires to nothing more than to be happy with his life the way it is, and that's appealing.
My verdict: Like it. It's catchy and fun and positive. What's not to like?
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Remake-Off: Song #360: "Lady Marmalade" by Labelle vs. Song #874: "Lady Marmalade" by Christina Aguilera, Lil' Kim, Mya, and Pink
Date: Mar 29, 1975
Weeks: 1
vs.
Date: June 2, 2001
Weeks: 5
So once again we find the same song on the charts twice. But which version is better?
Patti Labelle is one of the true talents of popular music, to be sure, and this song is an excellent showcase for her talent as the lead singer of the group with her name. Her bold voice grabs your attention even as she sings a whole lot of nonsense. Her backing singers are also very good, keeping the song's base vocals going along while Labelle elaborates.
The music is very engaging, as well. The bass and drum lines in particular are excellent. I also like the synthesized organ all right. It's surreal sound creates a sort of heightened reality that seems appropriate for a song with this much fun lyrical nonsense. The brass section is all right, but it sounds small, and cheap. In fact, a lot of my impression of the music in this song is that it's not living up to the larger-than-life effort Patti Labelle is putting into it.
The lyrics in this version are pretty cleverly written. It's the story of a man who meets a woman, Lady Marmalade, in New Orleans. It's likely, but I guess not certain, that she's a prostitute. Anyway, she rocks his world, and he remembers their night together forever afterward. Then there's a lot of nonsense like "gitchi gitchi ya ya da da," which almost seems like it's only there to serve as cover for them to slip in the part that was the most controversial, and easily the most famous part of the song, "Voulez-vous coucher avec moi (ce soi)," which is French for "Do you want to go to bed with me (tonight)?" Such is the song's lasting cultural impact that I've heard many people claim this is the only French they know.
At any rate, the song comes off fairly feminist, at least for the 70s. A woman asserts control of her sexuality in a way that a man is totally unprepared for. Potential prostitution aside, it's practically a declaration of sexual independence.
Which is probably why it got picked up as the song to be remade to promote the 2001 movie Moulin Rouge. And it's hard for the original to compete with this remake, because it's impossible to avoid noticing that the remake has a much, much larger production budget, and it's put to good use.
For one thing, as great as Patti Labelle is, it's hard for her to compete with the sheer amount of talent present here. Christina Aguilera and Pink have several other No. 1 hits and are surely some the greatest vocal talents of the 2000s. Mya is also a very talented singer, although she may not have quite the same resume as those two. And I don't know a lot about Lil' Kim's other work, but I like how she was used here.
The remake's production is clearly guided by the philosophy that bigger is better, which is definitely true for this song. It's a bold song, and the bolder the better. What's bolder than getting three of the most talented singers of the time, adding a rap verse, updating the quality of the synthesized instrumentation, and extending the song just enough to make it bigger without wearing out its welcome?
And they managed to keep the feminist theme intact. They got a woman to do the rap verse, which includes lines like "we independent women, some mistake us for whores." That one line manages to updates the feminism by suggesting that Lady Marmalade isn't a prostitute, she's just a woman who knows what she wants and goes after it.
My verdict: Like it. I like both versions. But I have to give the edge to the 2001 remake. I just like the additional bigness, and the interesting variety of the different singers' voices.
Weeks: 1
vs.
Date: June 2, 2001
Weeks: 5
So once again we find the same song on the charts twice. But which version is better?
Patti Labelle is one of the true talents of popular music, to be sure, and this song is an excellent showcase for her talent as the lead singer of the group with her name. Her bold voice grabs your attention even as she sings a whole lot of nonsense. Her backing singers are also very good, keeping the song's base vocals going along while Labelle elaborates.
The music is very engaging, as well. The bass and drum lines in particular are excellent. I also like the synthesized organ all right. It's surreal sound creates a sort of heightened reality that seems appropriate for a song with this much fun lyrical nonsense. The brass section is all right, but it sounds small, and cheap. In fact, a lot of my impression of the music in this song is that it's not living up to the larger-than-life effort Patti Labelle is putting into it.
The lyrics in this version are pretty cleverly written. It's the story of a man who meets a woman, Lady Marmalade, in New Orleans. It's likely, but I guess not certain, that she's a prostitute. Anyway, she rocks his world, and he remembers their night together forever afterward. Then there's a lot of nonsense like "gitchi gitchi ya ya da da," which almost seems like it's only there to serve as cover for them to slip in the part that was the most controversial, and easily the most famous part of the song, "Voulez-vous coucher avec moi (ce soi)," which is French for "Do you want to go to bed with me (tonight)?" Such is the song's lasting cultural impact that I've heard many people claim this is the only French they know.
At any rate, the song comes off fairly feminist, at least for the 70s. A woman asserts control of her sexuality in a way that a man is totally unprepared for. Potential prostitution aside, it's practically a declaration of sexual independence.
Which is probably why it got picked up as the song to be remade to promote the 2001 movie Moulin Rouge. And it's hard for the original to compete with this remake, because it's impossible to avoid noticing that the remake has a much, much larger production budget, and it's put to good use.
For one thing, as great as Patti Labelle is, it's hard for her to compete with the sheer amount of talent present here. Christina Aguilera and Pink have several other No. 1 hits and are surely some the greatest vocal talents of the 2000s. Mya is also a very talented singer, although she may not have quite the same resume as those two. And I don't know a lot about Lil' Kim's other work, but I like how she was used here.
The remake's production is clearly guided by the philosophy that bigger is better, which is definitely true for this song. It's a bold song, and the bolder the better. What's bolder than getting three of the most talented singers of the time, adding a rap verse, updating the quality of the synthesized instrumentation, and extending the song just enough to make it bigger without wearing out its welcome?
And they managed to keep the feminist theme intact. They got a woman to do the rap verse, which includes lines like "we independent women, some mistake us for whores." That one line manages to updates the feminism by suggesting that Lady Marmalade isn't a prostitute, she's just a woman who knows what she wants and goes after it.
My verdict: Like it. I like both versions. But I have to give the edge to the 2001 remake. I just like the additional bigness, and the interesting variety of the different singers' voices.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Song #358: "Black Water" by The Doobie Brothers
Date: Mar 15, 1975
Weeks: 1
I don't like relaxed songs like this one. I have no use for them. Give me a song that's full of energy and enthusiasm, and I'm happy. Give me a song that tells me to relax and do nothing and I have no use for it. Sure, that can be good background music, but this song has some flaws that keep it from even being good at that.
I don't care for the overly gentle and strummy guitars that open the song. I don't like the singer's pinched, tense, unpleasant vocals. I don't like the overall thinness of the sound for the first minute and a half. It's really unpleasant during that first part. Eventually the bass and the fiddle join in, and the song is much more enjoyable from that point on. It's still not a great song, and the vocals aren't any better, but it's at least pleasant background music. I think if I heard that part while I was having a conversation, or driving, or eating, or had my brain engaged in some other activity, I would enjoy it well enough.
Then the music fades out for an a cappella verse, and it's weird. The fade-out is an odd choice, and doesn't feel remotely natural. The a capella section is okay, but it seems utterly out of place right after a lengthy instrumental section. And then the music fades back in, and once again it's not remotely natural. That a cappella section is so weirdly out of place that it ruins whatever pleasure I was starting to derive from the fiddle. Admittedly, most of that pleasure was because it reminded me of Firefly, but the point stands that just when I was starting enjoy it, the song took a strange and sudden turn.
The lyrics seem like a lazy excuse for the song to not be purely instrumental. "Old black water, keep on rollin'. Mississippi moon won't you keep on shining on me." It's the story of a guy with nothing better to do than float on a raft down the Mississippi and admire the scenery. Part of me wonders if he even really has a raft or if he just decided to sit by the river. The lyrics are repetitive and minimal, and seem ideally situated for a lazy sing-along while you sit in the hot weather and drink.
My verdict: Don't like it. Some people like this kind of relaxed music, but it's just not for me, and this song doesn't even seem particularly well made.
Weeks: 1
I don't like relaxed songs like this one. I have no use for them. Give me a song that's full of energy and enthusiasm, and I'm happy. Give me a song that tells me to relax and do nothing and I have no use for it. Sure, that can be good background music, but this song has some flaws that keep it from even being good at that.
I don't care for the overly gentle and strummy guitars that open the song. I don't like the singer's pinched, tense, unpleasant vocals. I don't like the overall thinness of the sound for the first minute and a half. It's really unpleasant during that first part. Eventually the bass and the fiddle join in, and the song is much more enjoyable from that point on. It's still not a great song, and the vocals aren't any better, but it's at least pleasant background music. I think if I heard that part while I was having a conversation, or driving, or eating, or had my brain engaged in some other activity, I would enjoy it well enough.
Then the music fades out for an a cappella verse, and it's weird. The fade-out is an odd choice, and doesn't feel remotely natural. The a capella section is okay, but it seems utterly out of place right after a lengthy instrumental section. And then the music fades back in, and once again it's not remotely natural. That a cappella section is so weirdly out of place that it ruins whatever pleasure I was starting to derive from the fiddle. Admittedly, most of that pleasure was because it reminded me of Firefly, but the point stands that just when I was starting enjoy it, the song took a strange and sudden turn.
The lyrics seem like a lazy excuse for the song to not be purely instrumental. "Old black water, keep on rollin'. Mississippi moon won't you keep on shining on me." It's the story of a guy with nothing better to do than float on a raft down the Mississippi and admire the scenery. Part of me wonders if he even really has a raft or if he just decided to sit by the river. The lyrics are repetitive and minimal, and seem ideally situated for a lazy sing-along while you sit in the hot weather and drink.
My verdict: Don't like it. Some people like this kind of relaxed music, but it's just not for me, and this song doesn't even seem particularly well made.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Song #380: "Island Girl" by Elton John
Date: Nov 1, 1975
Weeks: 3
This is one of those songs that threatens to make me spend the entire entry wondering why the list of No. 1 songs is never quite the same as the list of all-time classic songs, even for a single artist. "Island Girl" somehow is among Elton John's No. 1 songs, but "Rocket Man" is not. And yet I don't think I've ever heard "Island Girl" before. I guess it just goes to show that popularity, and especially this type of instantaneous snapshot of popularity, is not necessarily an indicator of quality.
I suppose I should start with the lyrics, because they really bugged me. They strike me as racist. The song is about an "island" girl, who is described as "black as coal," from Jamaica. She's working as a prostitute in New York. The song describes a "black boy" who is trying save her and, I presume, take her back to Jamaica. The specific descriptions of race bug me a little, but what really bugs me is the line "what you wanting with the white man's world?" Essentially he's saying that this woman would be happier living someplace less developed because that's where she belongs, for no reason other than the color of her skin. It's a bit clever in its use of "island" to refer to both Jamaica and Manhattan, but I can't really get over the racism of the lyrics.
The music is pretty good, actually. As with other Elton John songs, the rock piano dominates in an appealing. The Caribbean theme is explored by including steel drums and bongos. I particularly like the energy of the verses, and the occasional staccato piano and drum hits in the chorus. As always, Elton John's voice is great and exciting, especially in a fast song like this. The weakest part of the song is the guitar riff intro, which gets repeated. The bridge filled with xylophones and weird high-pitched synthesizer noises is also in the negative column. Both of these parts lose track of the song's energy, and the song actually closes on the guitar riff with xylophones. So the song starts off bad and finishes bad, with a lot of good in between.
My verdict: Like it. The lyrics are bad, and the music has its bad moments. But Elton John is so good at what he does, he brings so much energy during the bulk of the song, that I'm still having fun listening to it, despite my reservations.
Weeks: 3
This is one of those songs that threatens to make me spend the entire entry wondering why the list of No. 1 songs is never quite the same as the list of all-time classic songs, even for a single artist. "Island Girl" somehow is among Elton John's No. 1 songs, but "Rocket Man" is not. And yet I don't think I've ever heard "Island Girl" before. I guess it just goes to show that popularity, and especially this type of instantaneous snapshot of popularity, is not necessarily an indicator of quality.
I suppose I should start with the lyrics, because they really bugged me. They strike me as racist. The song is about an "island" girl, who is described as "black as coal," from Jamaica. She's working as a prostitute in New York. The song describes a "black boy" who is trying save her and, I presume, take her back to Jamaica. The specific descriptions of race bug me a little, but what really bugs me is the line "what you wanting with the white man's world?" Essentially he's saying that this woman would be happier living someplace less developed because that's where she belongs, for no reason other than the color of her skin. It's a bit clever in its use of "island" to refer to both Jamaica and Manhattan, but I can't really get over the racism of the lyrics.
The music is pretty good, actually. As with other Elton John songs, the rock piano dominates in an appealing. The Caribbean theme is explored by including steel drums and bongos. I particularly like the energy of the verses, and the occasional staccato piano and drum hits in the chorus. As always, Elton John's voice is great and exciting, especially in a fast song like this. The weakest part of the song is the guitar riff intro, which gets repeated. The bridge filled with xylophones and weird high-pitched synthesizer noises is also in the negative column. Both of these parts lose track of the song's energy, and the song actually closes on the guitar riff with xylophones. So the song starts off bad and finishes bad, with a lot of good in between.
My verdict: Like it. The lyrics are bad, and the music has its bad moments. But Elton John is so good at what he does, he brings so much energy during the bulk of the song, that I'm still having fun listening to it, despite my reservations.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Song #352: "Laughter in the Rain" by Neil Sedaka
Date: Feb 1, 1975
Weeks: 1
This is the hardest type of song for me to do. It's definitely not my style, but it's not badly made, and it has moments that work. Of the genre of 70s soft pop, I suppose this is one of the least unpleasant examples.
I like the piano as the backbone of this song. It's a good base on which to build the rest of the song. Neil Sedaka's voice is also good. His voice is high, but he's not doing falsetto. He matches the music well and his voice sounds natural and effortless, even as he's exploring the high and low limits of his range. I don't even mind the background vocals here, because they are well-used for emphasis and color and to increase the scope of the chorus. The percussion line is also pleasant. It's subtle and has just enough variety to support this light song.
The strings are a definite negative, though. They over-dramatize and overwhelm what should be a pleasant little song and try to make it more grand, in a way that the song doesn't necessarily support. The saxophone bridge is cheesy. Really, pop music, saxophones need to be applied sparingly. Use them wrong and they can turn a decent song bad really quickly. There's also something just off about the chord progression leading into the chorus that I can't quite explain. It doesn't feel like the chorus follows naturally from the verse for some reason. Possibly it's just the unnecessary strings overwhelming the actual song.
The lyrics are about a couple that is so happy together that when they're caught out in the rain they just laugh. As long as they're together, nothing can spoil their mood. That's a fine sentiment, even if it's a bit cliche. The lyrics, like the rest of the song, are fine. They flow, they make sense, they communicate a feeling and do it well. I was going to nitpick the title lyric, wonder why he "hears" laughter in the rain, when supposedly he and his significant other are the ones doing the laughing. But then I realized that he's kind of talking about how the sound of rain makes him recall this moment, and he remembers the sound of their laughter whenever it rains. The lyrics are all in the present tense, which is why I think I had a hard time working that out at first, but other songs I've reviewed have certainly committed worse crimes against grammar and storytelling.
My verdict: Don't like it. I do respect it, it's a well-made but it doesn't quite click for me.
Weeks: 1
This is the hardest type of song for me to do. It's definitely not my style, but it's not badly made, and it has moments that work. Of the genre of 70s soft pop, I suppose this is one of the least unpleasant examples.
I like the piano as the backbone of this song. It's a good base on which to build the rest of the song. Neil Sedaka's voice is also good. His voice is high, but he's not doing falsetto. He matches the music well and his voice sounds natural and effortless, even as he's exploring the high and low limits of his range. I don't even mind the background vocals here, because they are well-used for emphasis and color and to increase the scope of the chorus. The percussion line is also pleasant. It's subtle and has just enough variety to support this light song.
The strings are a definite negative, though. They over-dramatize and overwhelm what should be a pleasant little song and try to make it more grand, in a way that the song doesn't necessarily support. The saxophone bridge is cheesy. Really, pop music, saxophones need to be applied sparingly. Use them wrong and they can turn a decent song bad really quickly. There's also something just off about the chord progression leading into the chorus that I can't quite explain. It doesn't feel like the chorus follows naturally from the verse for some reason. Possibly it's just the unnecessary strings overwhelming the actual song.
The lyrics are about a couple that is so happy together that when they're caught out in the rain they just laugh. As long as they're together, nothing can spoil their mood. That's a fine sentiment, even if it's a bit cliche. The lyrics, like the rest of the song, are fine. They flow, they make sense, they communicate a feeling and do it well. I was going to nitpick the title lyric, wonder why he "hears" laughter in the rain, when supposedly he and his significant other are the ones doing the laughing. But then I realized that he's kind of talking about how the sound of rain makes him recall this moment, and he remembers the sound of their laughter whenever it rains. The lyrics are all in the present tense, which is why I think I had a hard time working that out at first, but other songs I've reviewed have certainly committed worse crimes against grammar and storytelling.
My verdict: Don't like it. I do respect it, it's a well-made but it doesn't quite click for me.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Song #365: "Shining Star" by Earth, Wind, & Fire
Date: May 24, 1975
Weeks: 1
This song has recently been used in a series of TV commercials, and it's a testament to how poor the ads are that I can't remember what company they're for. I want to say FedEx? But I can't find it by searching that, so... I guess not. It's also a testament to the song's quality that its impact isn't diminished by that.
I think the reason for that is the fact that the song's chorus is what gets overused and overexposed, but it's not the chorus that draws me in. The more interesting and entertaining part of the song is the verses. The format of the verses, with the strong bass line and loose vocal style, is the part of the song that's really fun. That's the part of the song that makes me want to get up and dance. That bass line, with occasional brass interjections, is classic and I really enjoy it. It's really a shame that when the chorus comes along, it turns into a different song. The bass falls away, the vocals get less loose, and I'm left waiting for the chorus to end so the good part of the song can come back.
The vocal harmonies in this song are good. I already mentioned the loose vocal style in the verses, which I really enjoy. It's only during the chorus, again, where the life seems to go out of the vocals. What is it that inspires that chorus to be so bland?
There's not a lot to nitpick in the lyrics. It's a generally positive song that tells the listener they're special, a shining star. It sounds a lot like the Mr. Rogers message of "everybody's special," which isn't a bad message for kids to get. It's also pretty clear that the line that a shining star will "shine its watchful light on you" is intended to be a religious message. It's a decently-crafted metaphor. I can't object to it.
My verdict: Like it. I wish they would crank up the bass in the chorus, as that would vastly improve the song. But that's a fairly small nitpick against a really good song.
Weeks: 1
This song has recently been used in a series of TV commercials, and it's a testament to how poor the ads are that I can't remember what company they're for. I want to say FedEx? But I can't find it by searching that, so... I guess not. It's also a testament to the song's quality that its impact isn't diminished by that.
I think the reason for that is the fact that the song's chorus is what gets overused and overexposed, but it's not the chorus that draws me in. The more interesting and entertaining part of the song is the verses. The format of the verses, with the strong bass line and loose vocal style, is the part of the song that's really fun. That's the part of the song that makes me want to get up and dance. That bass line, with occasional brass interjections, is classic and I really enjoy it. It's really a shame that when the chorus comes along, it turns into a different song. The bass falls away, the vocals get less loose, and I'm left waiting for the chorus to end so the good part of the song can come back.
The vocal harmonies in this song are good. I already mentioned the loose vocal style in the verses, which I really enjoy. It's only during the chorus, again, where the life seems to go out of the vocals. What is it that inspires that chorus to be so bland?
There's not a lot to nitpick in the lyrics. It's a generally positive song that tells the listener they're special, a shining star. It sounds a lot like the Mr. Rogers message of "everybody's special," which isn't a bad message for kids to get. It's also pretty clear that the line that a shining star will "shine its watchful light on you" is intended to be a religious message. It's a decently-crafted metaphor. I can't object to it.
My verdict: Like it. I wish they would crank up the bass in the chorus, as that would vastly improve the song. But that's a fairly small nitpick against a really good song.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)