Date: Feb 5, 1977
Weeks: 2
I'm a little lost on the intended interpretation of this song. The first verse sounds like this woman is sitting her significant other down and telling him she's dumping him for another man. But by the second verse she sounds like she's remembering the good times with Guy #1, and then she follows up with "With everything I feel inside, I'm asking you to stay." So possibly she's changed her mind and decided to drop Guy #2 for Guy #1. So she cheated, and now she's being wishy-washy and indecisive.
However, the other possible interpretation, and one that almost makes more sense to me, is that she's informing Guy #1 that she wants to be in an open relationship, and she wants to be with both of them. "He knows he can't possess me and he knows he never will. There's just this empty place inside of me that only he can fill." That sounds like a present-tense fact. "Loving both of you is breaking all the rules." Clearly loving both of them is exactly what she wants to do, and the only questions are whether she's willing to break the social rules and whether she can convince them to go for it. I guess a woman knowing what she wants is empowering. Unfortunately, while the open relationship idea is an interesting one to explore, I tend to think she's just wishy-washy.
Mostly I think she's wishy-washy because of the music. It's gentle music to break bad news by. It's not assertive or challenging to social norms. It's just by-the-numbers acoustic strumming, with a little light piano and super-light percussion to back it. I just noticed there are strings way in the background, too. As is all too common in the 70s, there are a lot of instruments here making very little sound.
Mary MacGregor is an okay singer, I guess. She has that very gentle vocal quality that was so common in the 70s. She doesn't express the emotional depth that Karen Carpenter does, but she also manages sincerity to a degree that Barbra Streisand can't manage. She's fine, I just wish she had better song selection.
My verdict: Don't like it. I suppose I have to give the lyrics credit for making me think about them a little. But the bland, bland music just can't carry the song, and MacGregor doesn't sufficiently elevate it.
Showing posts with label 1977. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1977. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Song #417: "Evergeen" by Barbra Streisand
Date: Mar 5, 1977
Weeks: 3
Before I started this blog, I really didn't care one way or the other about Barbra Streisand. But now I think she's awful. She puts all this emotion into her singing, and every bit of it sounds forced and fake and about as insincere as a singer can. Happily, this is the last time we'll be seeing her here as this is her last No. 1 song on the list.
The music in this song isn't bad. It's from the movie A Star is Born, and the intent is clearly to make a simple, timeless, elegant song for a movie. And on that level, it's a success. I don't usually stand for this much use of strings in pop music, but this really movie music, so it works here. The piano is nice, the light strummy guitar works, and the tropes of pop music are kept out, unlike what happened to "The Way We Were" (#317) . So kudos to whoever composed it, which was... Streisand herself, actually. Well, clearly she has a talent for something, anyway.
So it's up to her to ruin the song with her voice, and clearly she's up to that task. I just hate her voice so much. She takes huge breaths before she belts anything out, over-enunciates the "w" sound on "one," and can't handle any of the pitch-shifting that's required in the song on the word "Evergreen." And as usual, she's investing every syllable with way too much insincere emotion, making sure any genuine emotion remains unexpressed.
"Love soft as an easy chair." No. That's awful. Off to simile school with you. "One love that is shared by two." Yes, that's generally how love works. Two people, two loves doesn't usually work out that well. "Like a rose under the April snow, I was always certain love will grow." So you were like a rose under snow? Because that's what your misplaced modifier says. And when the lyrics aren't stupid, they're generic and meaningless, so I think I'll stop there, before my head explodes.
My verdict: Don't like it. This song won both an Oscar and a Grammy, providing further evidence for the irrelevance of both awards.
Weeks: 3
Before I started this blog, I really didn't care one way or the other about Barbra Streisand. But now I think she's awful. She puts all this emotion into her singing, and every bit of it sounds forced and fake and about as insincere as a singer can. Happily, this is the last time we'll be seeing her here as this is her last No. 1 song on the list.
The music in this song isn't bad. It's from the movie A Star is Born, and the intent is clearly to make a simple, timeless, elegant song for a movie. And on that level, it's a success. I don't usually stand for this much use of strings in pop music, but this really movie music, so it works here. The piano is nice, the light strummy guitar works, and the tropes of pop music are kept out, unlike what happened to "The Way We Were" (#317) . So kudos to whoever composed it, which was... Streisand herself, actually. Well, clearly she has a talent for something, anyway.
So it's up to her to ruin the song with her voice, and clearly she's up to that task. I just hate her voice so much. She takes huge breaths before she belts anything out, over-enunciates the "w" sound on "one," and can't handle any of the pitch-shifting that's required in the song on the word "Evergreen." And as usual, she's investing every syllable with way too much insincere emotion, making sure any genuine emotion remains unexpressed.
"Love soft as an easy chair." No. That's awful. Off to simile school with you. "One love that is shared by two." Yes, that's generally how love works. Two people, two loves doesn't usually work out that well. "Like a rose under the April snow, I was always certain love will grow." So you were like a rose under snow? Because that's what your misplaced modifier says. And when the lyrics aren't stupid, they're generic and meaningless, so I think I'll stop there, before my head explodes.
My verdict: Don't like it. This song won both an Oscar and a Grammy, providing further evidence for the irrelevance of both awards.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Song #411: "You Make Me Feel Like Dancing" by Leo Sayer
Date: Jan 15, 1977
Weeks: 1
This song is steeped in that 70s disco sound. It includes just about every 70s trope that bugs me.
The worst part for sure is the falsetto singing. I don't understand the popularity. I went to do some research on why it was so popular in the 70s and just came away with a list of male vocalists who employed falsetto in songs I enjoyed, Prince being the most notable example. So maybe it's not the falsetto itself but its application that bugs me. Certainly, this song is at its best during the brief moments when Sayer drops the falsetto and sings in his normal range. I still don't know why it was so popular in the 70s, though. Is it merely about 70s nostalgia for the 50s (as evidenced by Grease and Happy Days)?
The music is similarly mixed. Oddly, at the exact same moments that Sayer is singing in falsetto, the music is light and uninteresting, with very slight guitar, bass, and drums. But when he drops to his normal range the bass and drums kick into gear. That part of the song is really enjoyable. Specifically, the bits just before the chorus and just at the end of the chorus are really entertaining. That part of the song really works, and I almost fool myself into thinking I like the song overall. Unfortunately, they are far too few and far between.
The bridge is where the song could have saved itself, but instead they just have Sayer sing "doot do doo" over the same dull instrumentation that is otherwise terrible throughout. Late in the song they tack on some strings, too. I think it's supposed to make the song feel grander, but really it just makes it sound like every other disco-influenced song from the 70s.
The lyrics are basically an Usher-style falling-in-love-in-a-dance-club premise, about 30 years before Usher started making them. Leo Sayer doesn't use the words "dance club," but he does say "I don't want to go home" and "I can't get off of the floor." So he's clearly dancing at a disco. And why doesn't he want to stop? "You really slipped me a potion" and, of course, the title, "You make me feel like dancing." He's in love at the dance club, although admittedly the song could just as easily be about the person he came with, rather than someone he just met. So, I suppose the meaning is clear, but the lyrics aren't particularly clever or deep or interesting.
My verdict: Don't like it. I'd like to hear the part of the song where Sayer drops the falsetto and the music picks up expanded, but the rest of the song doesn't work for me.
Weeks: 1
This song is steeped in that 70s disco sound. It includes just about every 70s trope that bugs me.
The worst part for sure is the falsetto singing. I don't understand the popularity. I went to do some research on why it was so popular in the 70s and just came away with a list of male vocalists who employed falsetto in songs I enjoyed, Prince being the most notable example. So maybe it's not the falsetto itself but its application that bugs me. Certainly, this song is at its best during the brief moments when Sayer drops the falsetto and sings in his normal range. I still don't know why it was so popular in the 70s, though. Is it merely about 70s nostalgia for the 50s (as evidenced by Grease and Happy Days)?
The music is similarly mixed. Oddly, at the exact same moments that Sayer is singing in falsetto, the music is light and uninteresting, with very slight guitar, bass, and drums. But when he drops to his normal range the bass and drums kick into gear. That part of the song is really enjoyable. Specifically, the bits just before the chorus and just at the end of the chorus are really entertaining. That part of the song really works, and I almost fool myself into thinking I like the song overall. Unfortunately, they are far too few and far between.
The bridge is where the song could have saved itself, but instead they just have Sayer sing "doot do doo" over the same dull instrumentation that is otherwise terrible throughout. Late in the song they tack on some strings, too. I think it's supposed to make the song feel grander, but really it just makes it sound like every other disco-influenced song from the 70s.
The lyrics are basically an Usher-style falling-in-love-in-a-dance-club premise, about 30 years before Usher started making them. Leo Sayer doesn't use the words "dance club," but he does say "I don't want to go home" and "I can't get off of the floor." So he's clearly dancing at a disco. And why doesn't he want to stop? "You really slipped me a potion" and, of course, the title, "You make me feel like dancing." He's in love at the dance club, although admittedly the song could just as easily be about the person he came with, rather than someone he just met. So, I suppose the meaning is clear, but the lyrics aren't particularly clever or deep or interesting.
My verdict: Don't like it. I'd like to hear the part of the song where Sayer drops the falsetto and the music picks up expanded, but the rest of the song doesn't work for me.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Song #433: "I Just Want To Be Your Everything" by Andy Gibb
Date: July 30, 1977
Weeks: 4
Oh no, not Andy Gibb again already, randomizer! But I've been good. Why are you doing this to me? Ugh. Well, maybe this one won't be so completely bad.
Phew. Good news. This one's not bad. It's not good, but it's not unpleasant.
The overall sound is that really gentle 70s soft-pop-with-disco-undertones sound. It's the disco dancer's interpretation of a sensitive love song, but one that can still be disco danced to. The falsetto vocals, the drums, the overall chords, it's all very generically disco. "(Love Is) Thicker Than Water" (#440) was a bit experimental and odd, and unfortunately that experimental oddness wasn't good. This song is playing it safe and trying to sound like every other soft 70s song. It's not ambitious, but it seems the 70s were an experimental time for music, and songs that tried to be different sometimes ended up really weird. Maybe this song is better for not trying too hard.
The synthesized backing track is the part of the song that stands out most, and its success is mixed. The song is at its least interesting when the synthesizer track is missing. But when it's playing, it sort of sounds like it's the music playing on a merry-go-round, especially during the synthesizer solo after the first chorus. It makes me feel like I'm at the state fair. Admittedly, I enjoy the state fair, but I'm not sure that's the emotion the song is going for.
Andy Gibb's falsetto vocals may be fine by the standards of the genre, but I don't like them. You should have a good reason to do falsetto vocals, and I just don't think they're necessary here. The song could have been just as good sung in a normal range.
The lyrics are typical overwrought love song stuff. "If I stay here without you, darling, I would die." Because according to the rules of teenage love, it's only real love if you literally could not live without the other person. I think there was a story about that once. Next up is "I'd do anything to be your everything." So if you don't feel the same dire sentiment about being unable to live without me, what can I do to make you feel that way? Obviously a lot of love songs contain similar sentiments, so I can't judge this one too harshly for it, but it's not to the song's credit to include it here.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a bad song, but it's striving too hard to be average.
Weeks: 4
Oh no, not Andy Gibb again already, randomizer! But I've been good. Why are you doing this to me? Ugh. Well, maybe this one won't be so completely bad.
Phew. Good news. This one's not bad. It's not good, but it's not unpleasant.
The overall sound is that really gentle 70s soft-pop-with-disco-undertones sound. It's the disco dancer's interpretation of a sensitive love song, but one that can still be disco danced to. The falsetto vocals, the drums, the overall chords, it's all very generically disco. "(Love Is) Thicker Than Water" (#440) was a bit experimental and odd, and unfortunately that experimental oddness wasn't good. This song is playing it safe and trying to sound like every other soft 70s song. It's not ambitious, but it seems the 70s were an experimental time for music, and songs that tried to be different sometimes ended up really weird. Maybe this song is better for not trying too hard.
The synthesized backing track is the part of the song that stands out most, and its success is mixed. The song is at its least interesting when the synthesizer track is missing. But when it's playing, it sort of sounds like it's the music playing on a merry-go-round, especially during the synthesizer solo after the first chorus. It makes me feel like I'm at the state fair. Admittedly, I enjoy the state fair, but I'm not sure that's the emotion the song is going for.
Andy Gibb's falsetto vocals may be fine by the standards of the genre, but I don't like them. You should have a good reason to do falsetto vocals, and I just don't think they're necessary here. The song could have been just as good sung in a normal range.
The lyrics are typical overwrought love song stuff. "If I stay here without you, darling, I would die." Because according to the rules of teenage love, it's only real love if you literally could not live without the other person. I think there was a story about that once. Next up is "I'd do anything to be your everything." So if you don't feel the same dire sentiment about being unable to live without me, what can I do to make you feel that way? Obviously a lot of love songs contain similar sentiments, so I can't judge this one too harshly for it, but it's not to the song's credit to include it here.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a bad song, but it's striving too hard to be average.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Song #418: "Rich Girl" by Darryl Hall and John Oates
Date: Mar 26, 1977
Weeks: 2
I'm not sure if this song is properly credited to "Hall & Oates" or "Darryl Hall & John Oates." The Billboard list says "Darryl Hall John Oates," which seems like they just threw up their hands in confusion and went with nonsense. Anyway, it's the same two guys.
I've always associated Hall & Oates with the 80s. I've heard this song before and I didn't realize their career extended so far back into the 70s. This doesn't quite sound like a 70s song to me. Other than the strings, that is. The strings are a dead giveaway that it's the 70s. The beat and bass line feel like they're from the 80s, and the vocals sound more 80s to me. I guess it's possible I'm just associating this with other Hall & Oates's songs I know, which generally abandoned the 70s strings for 80s synths, and the similar song makes it feel more 80s to me. It's kind of ridiculous to nitpick the decade of a band that straddles the decade line, but it's always fascinating to me to hear one type of music evolving into the next.
Anyway, I like the music generally, although I wish the strings were replaced with a different sound. The overuse of strings were not the best feature of 70s music.
Darryl Hall's vocals are very good. They're impassioned and very rock.. funk... ish. I can't be entirely sure, but I think this song may be something of a turning point in pop music vocals. Before this point, so many singers on this list are Bobby Goldsboro. After this, the singers get a little more Robert Palmer. Probably Michael Jackson had more to do with that than anyone, but Hall & Oates provide a great example of the transition of vocal styles among singers known for singing.
The lyrics are about a rich girl who fails to understand how the world works because she doesn't have to care how to works. She can rely on her father's money to solve all her problems. It comes across a little patronizing on Hall's part. Especially with the use of the word "girl," it diminishes her to someone whose opinion can be easily dismissed as unimportant because she's too sheltered to understand. It's kind of interesting that, according to Wikipedia, the song was originally written about a rich young man. It's kind of a different song about a random crazy spoiled rich kid in that light, and doesn't take on the gender politics tone it does when it's called "Rich Girl," but it lacks the sexual tension tone that "Rich Girl" generates. It certainly wouldn't have done as well if it had been "Rich Boy" instead.
My verdict: Like it. Hall & Oates made some good 80s songs. Apparently before the 80s even began.
Weeks: 2
I'm not sure if this song is properly credited to "Hall & Oates" or "Darryl Hall & John Oates." The Billboard list says "Darryl Hall John Oates," which seems like they just threw up their hands in confusion and went with nonsense. Anyway, it's the same two guys.
I've always associated Hall & Oates with the 80s. I've heard this song before and I didn't realize their career extended so far back into the 70s. This doesn't quite sound like a 70s song to me. Other than the strings, that is. The strings are a dead giveaway that it's the 70s. The beat and bass line feel like they're from the 80s, and the vocals sound more 80s to me. I guess it's possible I'm just associating this with other Hall & Oates's songs I know, which generally abandoned the 70s strings for 80s synths, and the similar song makes it feel more 80s to me. It's kind of ridiculous to nitpick the decade of a band that straddles the decade line, but it's always fascinating to me to hear one type of music evolving into the next.
Anyway, I like the music generally, although I wish the strings were replaced with a different sound. The overuse of strings were not the best feature of 70s music.
Darryl Hall's vocals are very good. They're impassioned and very rock.. funk... ish. I can't be entirely sure, but I think this song may be something of a turning point in pop music vocals. Before this point, so many singers on this list are Bobby Goldsboro. After this, the singers get a little more Robert Palmer. Probably Michael Jackson had more to do with that than anyone, but Hall & Oates provide a great example of the transition of vocal styles among singers known for singing.
The lyrics are about a rich girl who fails to understand how the world works because she doesn't have to care how to works. She can rely on her father's money to solve all her problems. It comes across a little patronizing on Hall's part. Especially with the use of the word "girl," it diminishes her to someone whose opinion can be easily dismissed as unimportant because she's too sheltered to understand. It's kind of interesting that, according to Wikipedia, the song was originally written about a rich young man. It's kind of a different song about a random crazy spoiled rich kid in that light, and doesn't take on the gender politics tone it does when it's called "Rich Girl," but it lacks the sexual tension tone that "Rich Girl" generates. It certainly wouldn't have done as well if it had been "Rich Boy" instead.
My verdict: Like it. Hall & Oates made some good 80s songs. Apparently before the 80s even began.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Song #423: "Hotel California" by The Eagles
Date: May 7, 1977
Weeks: 1
This is a nice little 4-minute song that somebody decided needed to be padded out with 2 and a half minutes of additional guitars. Fans of this song always want to make it out to be more important and meaningful than I think it really is, but it just keeps going and going well past its finish.
Other than its length, there's a lot to like here. The music is quality guitar and drum rock, with plenty of rising action and quiet moments of reflection. While I still think the length is arbitrary, at least the guitars are pleasant to listen to after the lyrics are done.
I think the lyrics are cleverly written. They tell an intriguing fantasy story about a traveler who winds up at a mysterious hotel filled with characters and odd events, and then he finds he can't leave. There's obviously a deeper meaning hinted at here. You can probably find far more detailed discussion about the song's lyrics elsewhere, as I know this song has fans who have discussed and interpreted the lyrics for years. Personally, I connect it to a theory I heard once about how nobody makes their home in Los Angeles, they all just stay there because that's where they work. All of Los Angeles is the Hotel California. Granted, that only covers the famous "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" line, but since it's how the song ends it's the line that sticks with me. Anyway, I think that interpretation works well with most of the rest of the song, too.
My verdict: Like it. I don't think this song is as deep as some of its more intense fans do, but it's certainly a nice enough song, and the lyrics are cleverly written.
Weeks: 1
This is a nice little 4-minute song that somebody decided needed to be padded out with 2 and a half minutes of additional guitars. Fans of this song always want to make it out to be more important and meaningful than I think it really is, but it just keeps going and going well past its finish.
Other than its length, there's a lot to like here. The music is quality guitar and drum rock, with plenty of rising action and quiet moments of reflection. While I still think the length is arbitrary, at least the guitars are pleasant to listen to after the lyrics are done.
I think the lyrics are cleverly written. They tell an intriguing fantasy story about a traveler who winds up at a mysterious hotel filled with characters and odd events, and then he finds he can't leave. There's obviously a deeper meaning hinted at here. You can probably find far more detailed discussion about the song's lyrics elsewhere, as I know this song has fans who have discussed and interpreted the lyrics for years. Personally, I connect it to a theory I heard once about how nobody makes their home in Los Angeles, they all just stay there because that's where they work. All of Los Angeles is the Hotel California. Granted, that only covers the famous "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" line, but since it's how the song ends it's the line that sticks with me. Anyway, I think that interpretation works well with most of the rest of the song, too.
My verdict: Like it. I don't think this song is as deep as some of its more intense fans do, but it's certainly a nice enough song, and the lyrics are cleverly written.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Song #410: "You Don't Have To Be A Star (To Be In My Show)" by Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr.
Date: Jan 8, 1977
Weeks: 1
Ugh, another soft, 70s, disco-sounding, slow love song. This one sounds particularly generic, too. It's filled with all the same string and horn sounds you've heard in every other song of the era, and includes twee little flute accents on top of it. The music doesn't progress very much throughout the song.
The singers have nice enough voices. They're not setting a new standard for impressive vocals, but they're all right.
The lyrics are... Wait a minute... The lyrics are actually really good! In an otherwise forgettable soft 70s love song. Who would have guessed?
The general gist of the lyrics is that the singers love each other for who they are. Not who they think the other person could become, or anything the least bit superficial, but who they are currently. "To me you're worth what you have within." "I don't need no superstar, 'cause I'll accept you as you are." These are two people who love and respect each other without reservation.
It turns out Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. are married. Are still married, and have been for over 40 years. I found this video of them giving tips on how to have a successful marriage. Their central thesis is that people need to make sure they actually like the person they love. That's one of those things that seems obvious but not enough people seem to actually understand. And that exact message comes through in this song.
I've complained before about generic love songs. But this one is universal. That's an important distinction, and one that I hope is obvious because I'm not sure I can explain it.
My verdict: Don't like it. While I'm impressed by the lyrics, that 70s soft disco sound is too much to make me want to listen to it a lot.
Weeks: 1
Ugh, another soft, 70s, disco-sounding, slow love song. This one sounds particularly generic, too. It's filled with all the same string and horn sounds you've heard in every other song of the era, and includes twee little flute accents on top of it. The music doesn't progress very much throughout the song.
The singers have nice enough voices. They're not setting a new standard for impressive vocals, but they're all right.
The lyrics are... Wait a minute... The lyrics are actually really good! In an otherwise forgettable soft 70s love song. Who would have guessed?
The general gist of the lyrics is that the singers love each other for who they are. Not who they think the other person could become, or anything the least bit superficial, but who they are currently. "To me you're worth what you have within." "I don't need no superstar, 'cause I'll accept you as you are." These are two people who love and respect each other without reservation.
It turns out Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. are married. Are still married, and have been for over 40 years. I found this video of them giving tips on how to have a successful marriage. Their central thesis is that people need to make sure they actually like the person they love. That's one of those things that seems obvious but not enough people seem to actually understand. And that exact message comes through in this song.
I've complained before about generic love songs. But this one is universal. That's an important distinction, and one that I hope is obvious because I'm not sure I can explain it.
My verdict: Don't like it. While I'm impressed by the lyrics, that 70s soft disco sound is too much to make me want to listen to it a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)