Date: Oct 23, 1976
Weeks: 2
Hoo boy. If there's one good thing that could be said about Chicago in the 80s, it's that they had at least mastered the cheesy power ballad, with strong synthesizer chords that were appealing, if hollow. But this song can't even rise to that level.
The sound in this song is so hollow, so soft, so inconsequential, and so lethargic, I can't imagine how it managed to share radio space with "Rock'n Me" (#408). You have Peter Cetera's high-pitched and insincere voice, the lightest guitar I've heard in a while, a tiny maraca sound, and some low strings and soft horns. And that's it. There no energy behind this song and no emotional sincerity. I don't mind an emotional song, but I don't get the sincere vibe a song like this needs to pull off.
Lyrically, it's similarly hollow. "A love like ours is a love that's hard to find. How could we let it slip away?" There's a lot of time spent in this song telling us that the singer thinks this is a special relationship that shouldn't be allowed to end the way it's ending, but I don't feel persuaded. "If you leave me now, you'll take away the biggest part of me." It just feels whiny, rather than persuasive. A lot of that may have to do with Cetera's vocal delivery, but the lyrics are just as much to blame.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a great song, but it's a terrible performance. Boyz II Men did a version of it in 2009 that is what this song should have sounded like.
Showing posts with label 1976. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1976. Show all posts
Friday, April 6, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Song #402: "You Should Be Dancing" by Bee Gees
Date: Sept 4, 1976
Weeks: 1
Finally, finally I've found a Bee Gees song that is pure, unmitigated disco fun. I don't know why it is, but for some reason I've really come around on disco and come to appreciate it as fun dance music. Maybe it's the misery of 70s pop music. Maybe it's the misery of 2000s dance music. Genuine 70s disco just seems fun in comparison, and this is a perfectly nice, fun dance song.
It helps that the lyrics aren't what I've come to know as the usual Bee Gees misery-wallowing. The lyrics are, primarily, "you should be dancing." The rest of the lyrics are about how he's in a relationship with a woman who likes to dance and tells him he should dance, too. Ordinarily I'd find this kind of repetition irritating, but in this case I find it refreshingly minimalist.
It helps that the song actually contains a surprising amount of variety. It has verses, choruses, and transitions between them. It has an instrumental bridge that gives an electric guitar and the horns a chance to shine. Then it has a section where most of the instruments fall away but the percussion gets to come to the front. The orchestration in this song is really quite good, and the variety of sounds and sections keep it entertaining for its entire length. An impressive feat considering the repetitive lyrics and the need for a dance song to keep a consistent sound going throughout.
My verdict: Like it. Disco may have been rejected by everyone after the 70s were over, but it was a genre of music that really did include some gems. This is surely one of them.
Weeks: 1
Finally, finally I've found a Bee Gees song that is pure, unmitigated disco fun. I don't know why it is, but for some reason I've really come around on disco and come to appreciate it as fun dance music. Maybe it's the misery of 70s pop music. Maybe it's the misery of 2000s dance music. Genuine 70s disco just seems fun in comparison, and this is a perfectly nice, fun dance song.
It helps that the lyrics aren't what I've come to know as the usual Bee Gees misery-wallowing. The lyrics are, primarily, "you should be dancing." The rest of the lyrics are about how he's in a relationship with a woman who likes to dance and tells him he should dance, too. Ordinarily I'd find this kind of repetition irritating, but in this case I find it refreshingly minimalist.
It helps that the song actually contains a surprising amount of variety. It has verses, choruses, and transitions between them. It has an instrumental bridge that gives an electric guitar and the horns a chance to shine. Then it has a section where most of the instruments fall away but the percussion gets to come to the front. The orchestration in this song is really quite good, and the variety of sounds and sections keep it entertaining for its entire length. An impressive feat considering the repetitive lyrics and the need for a dance song to keep a consistent sound going throughout.
My verdict: Like it. Disco may have been rejected by everyone after the 70s were over, but it was a genre of music that really did include some gems. This is surely one of them.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Song #408: "Rock'n Me" by Steve Miller
Date: Nov 6, 1976
Weeks: 1
It took Steve Miller a while to win me over last time. There will be no such adjustment here. This song is just plain simple fun.
What I enjoy most about this song is the guitars. Both the lead and bass guitars do a great job of shining with their own bits during the intro and again during the bridge. This song contains truly great solos for both lead guitar and bass. But the thing I love most is during the vocals, when the guitars are creating these pulses that drive the song forward. It's a small thing that isn't very showy, but it's vitally important. That pulsing guitar during the verses give this song a remarkable amount of energy and intensity. Before I leave the music, I think it's important to also note that the drums aren't just here, they're also building the energy, and adding just enough variety at key points to get your attention any time the song risks becoming repetitive.
I'm not entirely sure about the meaning of the lyrics, other than that he's traveling around and wants to be with his lady. I kind of enjoy the poetry of the words more than their meaning. When he says he traveled to "Philadelphia, Atlanta, L.A." I enjoy the way those words all sound together, even if there's no particular lyrical significance to those three cities. I do think it's a little weird that he goes from L.A. to "Northern California where the girls are warm." From what I understand, the weather in Northern California is a bit more like Tacoma than L.A. I'm not sure folks in Northern California are known for being particularly warm. But I still like the poetry and clever near-rhyme of that line.
My verdict: Like it. What's left to say. This is a song that is pretty much just that visceral kind of fun that defies description, and it's pretty easy to sing along to, which is important in a song like that.
Weeks: 1
It took Steve Miller a while to win me over last time. There will be no such adjustment here. This song is just plain simple fun.
What I enjoy most about this song is the guitars. Both the lead and bass guitars do a great job of shining with their own bits during the intro and again during the bridge. This song contains truly great solos for both lead guitar and bass. But the thing I love most is during the vocals, when the guitars are creating these pulses that drive the song forward. It's a small thing that isn't very showy, but it's vitally important. That pulsing guitar during the verses give this song a remarkable amount of energy and intensity. Before I leave the music, I think it's important to also note that the drums aren't just here, they're also building the energy, and adding just enough variety at key points to get your attention any time the song risks becoming repetitive.
I'm not entirely sure about the meaning of the lyrics, other than that he's traveling around and wants to be with his lady. I kind of enjoy the poetry of the words more than their meaning. When he says he traveled to "Philadelphia, Atlanta, L.A." I enjoy the way those words all sound together, even if there's no particular lyrical significance to those three cities. I do think it's a little weird that he goes from L.A. to "Northern California where the girls are warm." From what I understand, the weather in Northern California is a bit more like Tacoma than L.A. I'm not sure folks in Northern California are known for being particularly warm. But I still like the poetry and clever near-rhyme of that line.
My verdict: Like it. What's left to say. This is a song that is pretty much just that visceral kind of fun that defies description, and it's pretty easy to sing along to, which is important in a song like that.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Song #394: "Let Your Love Flow" by Bellamy Brothers
Date: May 1, 1976
Weeks: 1
Ew. Country music trying to sound vaguely disco? I'm not even sure how to cope with that. This is two bad tastes that taste bad together. Once this is over, I'm going to need to listen to so much Johnny Cash.
I think this song deserves an angry list of things about it I hate:
My verdict: Don't like it. Save me, Johnny.
Weeks: 1
Ew. Country music trying to sound vaguely disco? I'm not even sure how to cope with that. This is two bad tastes that taste bad together. Once this is over, I'm going to need to listen to so much Johnny Cash.
I think this song deserves an angry list of things about it I hate:
- The twangy, soft rhythm guitars
- The anemic drums
- The passionless vocals
- The obvious metaphors ("let your love flow like a mountain stream" and "let your love fly like a bird on the wing)
- The weak metaphors ("let your love grow with the smallest of dreams"
- The whiny synthesizer track in the background
- The structure of verse, chorus, verse, chorus, fadeout. There's supposed to be a bridge, or another verse and chorus pair at least. That's how pop music works, and if you're going to break the pattern, you need to do so in an interesting way, not a lazy way. Or at least in a short way, but somehow this song manages the unique achievement of both being too long and ending too early.
My verdict: Don't like it. Save me, Johnny.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Song #405: "A Fifth of Beethoven" by Walter Murphy & The Big Apple Band
Date: Oct 9, 1976
Weeks: 1
I don't like this song, and yet I can't quite explain why. Let me see if I can solve the mystery.
I don't object to it on the conceptual grounds of updating a piece of classical music to a modern style. It's not Christmas to me until I've heard the Vandals' version of "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies." I can enjoy the rock version of Pachelbel's "Canon in D". So it's not the concept I object to.
I don't dislike it because it's disco. I've spent enough time mucking around in the popular music of the 70s to realize that disco was actually one of the better musical ideas happening in the decade. Not better than 70s rock, which is woefully underrepresented in this list, but certainly better than a lot of the wimpy soft rock of the time.
It's not because it's specifically a disco remix of classical music. Not to trample an upcoming review, but the disco "Star Wars Theme" is pretty fun. Heck, even this song's fellow Saturday Night Fever soundtrack song "Night on Disco Mountain" tickles me.
And it's not because I think the specific source material shouldn't be messed with. I don't think of Beethoven any more highly than any other classical composer. The portion of Beethoven's 5th Symphony being referenced here is arguably the most well-known piece of classical music that there is, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to remix it.
I think the problem comes in how the remix is handled. What I just realized while listening to all those videos I linked is this: This song includes far too much new material that doesn't seem to be based on Beethoven at all. The generic electric organ track that plays throughout is particular evidence of this. I admit I don't know all parts of Beethoven's 5th, but I just listened to both this remix and the original back-to-back and I don't hear that organ part reflected in the original at all. The new material in this song isn't good enough on its own, but its too prominent to just be filler that connects one Beethoven part to another.
The song also feels really thinly instrumented. It sounds like the song was remixed from a string quartet's recording of Beethoven, rather than from an orchestra's recording.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a bad concept, but it needed to be bigger. Use an entire orchestra, make the song longer, and when you have gaps use remixed parts of the original to fill them.
Weeks: 1
I don't like this song, and yet I can't quite explain why. Let me see if I can solve the mystery.
I don't object to it on the conceptual grounds of updating a piece of classical music to a modern style. It's not Christmas to me until I've heard the Vandals' version of "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies." I can enjoy the rock version of Pachelbel's "Canon in D". So it's not the concept I object to.
I don't dislike it because it's disco. I've spent enough time mucking around in the popular music of the 70s to realize that disco was actually one of the better musical ideas happening in the decade. Not better than 70s rock, which is woefully underrepresented in this list, but certainly better than a lot of the wimpy soft rock of the time.
It's not because it's specifically a disco remix of classical music. Not to trample an upcoming review, but the disco "Star Wars Theme" is pretty fun. Heck, even this song's fellow Saturday Night Fever soundtrack song "Night on Disco Mountain" tickles me.
And it's not because I think the specific source material shouldn't be messed with. I don't think of Beethoven any more highly than any other classical composer. The portion of Beethoven's 5th Symphony being referenced here is arguably the most well-known piece of classical music that there is, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to remix it.
I think the problem comes in how the remix is handled. What I just realized while listening to all those videos I linked is this: This song includes far too much new material that doesn't seem to be based on Beethoven at all. The generic electric organ track that plays throughout is particular evidence of this. I admit I don't know all parts of Beethoven's 5th, but I just listened to both this remix and the original back-to-back and I don't hear that organ part reflected in the original at all. The new material in this song isn't good enough on its own, but its too prominent to just be filler that connects one Beethoven part to another.
The song also feels really thinly instrumented. It sounds like the song was remixed from a string quartet's recording of Beethoven, rather than from an orchestra's recording.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a bad concept, but it needed to be bigger. Use an entire orchestra, make the song longer, and when you have gaps use remixed parts of the original to fill them.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Song #399: "Afternoon Delight" by Starland Vocal Band
Date: July 10, 1976
Weeks: 2
I think everyone but the most ardent fan of 70s music would agree that this is a pretty lousy song from all angles.
The lyrics are a coded reference to having sex in the afternoon. Except it's really not that coded. I appreciate that I have the benefit of 35 years of lyrical analysis behind me, but how was anyone fooled into thinking this song was about anything else? "Gonna find my baby, gonna hold her tight, gonna grab some afternoon delight." I guess that's kind of vague, but then there's "We could make a lot of lovin' 'fore the sun goes down." And it's not that I object to the obvious sex reference, but I feel like that's all there is to this song. It's about cleverly getting away with something, except it's not that clever. Once the meaning is know to you, the song doesn't have anything else clever to say.
The music is bland and boring. Strummy acoustic guitars, the lightest drum I've ever heard, and the ever-present 70s string section. I don't know if that chirping bird on the version I linked is actually on the original single, but if so this may be the most aggressively pleasant song I've ever heard. And I'm not a fan of aggressively pleasant.
The vocals are similarly aggressively pleasant, but they're not even that pleasant. Doing vocal harmonies well is hard, and the Starland Vocal Band isn't good at it. Most of this song is really jarring and unpleasant because I just don't enjoy the voices.
I will say that there is a good moment in the chorus of this song. When they sing "Skyrockets in flight. Afternoon delight," the song clicks. There's a nice guitar tone in there that I wish the song made more use of. And the vocal harmonies right there even work well. It's a nice moment, and it's rightly the centerpiece of the song, since it features the title. It makes me think I like the song more than I do, that the rest of the song has been building to a good moment. But unfortunately, it's not good enough to make up for the rest of the music.
My verdict: Don't like it. Maybe if it was less 70s in its sound, maybe if the lyrics were about something more than getting away with saying something naughty on the radio, or maybe if the singing was just better, this could be a good song. But it's not.
Weeks: 2
I think everyone but the most ardent fan of 70s music would agree that this is a pretty lousy song from all angles.
The lyrics are a coded reference to having sex in the afternoon. Except it's really not that coded. I appreciate that I have the benefit of 35 years of lyrical analysis behind me, but how was anyone fooled into thinking this song was about anything else? "Gonna find my baby, gonna hold her tight, gonna grab some afternoon delight." I guess that's kind of vague, but then there's "We could make a lot of lovin' 'fore the sun goes down." And it's not that I object to the obvious sex reference, but I feel like that's all there is to this song. It's about cleverly getting away with something, except it's not that clever. Once the meaning is know to you, the song doesn't have anything else clever to say.
The music is bland and boring. Strummy acoustic guitars, the lightest drum I've ever heard, and the ever-present 70s string section. I don't know if that chirping bird on the version I linked is actually on the original single, but if so this may be the most aggressively pleasant song I've ever heard. And I'm not a fan of aggressively pleasant.
The vocals are similarly aggressively pleasant, but they're not even that pleasant. Doing vocal harmonies well is hard, and the Starland Vocal Band isn't good at it. Most of this song is really jarring and unpleasant because I just don't enjoy the voices.
I will say that there is a good moment in the chorus of this song. When they sing "Skyrockets in flight. Afternoon delight," the song clicks. There's a nice guitar tone in there that I wish the song made more use of. And the vocal harmonies right there even work well. It's a nice moment, and it's rightly the centerpiece of the song, since it features the title. It makes me think I like the song more than I do, that the rest of the song has been building to a good moment. But unfortunately, it's not good enough to make up for the rest of the music.
My verdict: Don't like it. Maybe if it was less 70s in its sound, maybe if the lyrics were about something more than getting away with saying something naughty on the radio, or maybe if the singing was just better, this could be a good song. But it's not.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Song #385: "Convoy" by C.W. McCall
Date: Jan 10, 1976
Weeks: 1
I feel like I need annotated lyrics to even understand what's going on here. I can interpret a lot of the trucker lingo by context, but I'm confused on a few points. First, I don't understand why the convoy of truckers is so hostile to the police. I understand a little resentment of speeding tickets, but the singer is describing driving through roadblocks. Second, I've deciphered most of the trucker lingo, but I'm confused about what they mean by "hogs." I'm guessing they don't mean motorcycles.
I can only find a few loose explanations gathered around the Internet. Wikipedia seems to be the gathering point for a lot of them. Apparently the truckers are mostly upset about the recently enacted 55-mph national speed limit and other trucking regulations. Oh! And "hogs" are a truckload of pigs. I guess I was analyzing too hard there.
I really like C.W. McCall's voice in this song. He's got a good, deep Johnny Cash country music voice. Mix that with the trucker-speak lyrics, and that's a fun time.
So it's a shame about that chorus.
It's not the lyrics I take issue with, it's the high-pitched chorus singing it that I don't like. It stands in contrast with McCall's deep, rich voice, and this is not a case where the complementary vocal styles create an enjoyable contrast. The chorus is something I have to endure to get back to another verse that I can enjoy.
And that extends to the music, too. The background music is a good country rock song through the verses, with a great mix of guitar, banjo, and drums. But then there's a string line that feels really out of place, and it takes over the sound during the chorus. It's like they started with a decent country song and weren't confident it could hold anyone's interest in the mid-70s, so they added a really wimpy 70s pop chorus to it.
My verdict: Don't like it. The overly 70s pop sound of the chorus completely undermines what is otherwise a decent enough country rock song.
Weeks: 1
I feel like I need annotated lyrics to even understand what's going on here. I can interpret a lot of the trucker lingo by context, but I'm confused on a few points. First, I don't understand why the convoy of truckers is so hostile to the police. I understand a little resentment of speeding tickets, but the singer is describing driving through roadblocks. Second, I've deciphered most of the trucker lingo, but I'm confused about what they mean by "hogs." I'm guessing they don't mean motorcycles.
I can only find a few loose explanations gathered around the Internet. Wikipedia seems to be the gathering point for a lot of them. Apparently the truckers are mostly upset about the recently enacted 55-mph national speed limit and other trucking regulations. Oh! And "hogs" are a truckload of pigs. I guess I was analyzing too hard there.
I really like C.W. McCall's voice in this song. He's got a good, deep Johnny Cash country music voice. Mix that with the trucker-speak lyrics, and that's a fun time.
So it's a shame about that chorus.
It's not the lyrics I take issue with, it's the high-pitched chorus singing it that I don't like. It stands in contrast with McCall's deep, rich voice, and this is not a case where the complementary vocal styles create an enjoyable contrast. The chorus is something I have to endure to get back to another verse that I can enjoy.
And that extends to the music, too. The background music is a good country rock song through the verses, with a great mix of guitar, banjo, and drums. But then there's a string line that feels really out of place, and it takes over the sound during the chorus. It's like they started with a decent country song and weren't confident it could hold anyone's interest in the mid-70s, so they added a really wimpy 70s pop chorus to it.
My verdict: Don't like it. The overly 70s pop sound of the chorus completely undermines what is otherwise a decent enough country rock song.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)