Date: Oct 30, 2004
Weeks: 6
As a note, it's not totally wrong to start your music video with a clip from a different song, but they're not usually so long. I'm just saying if this if your first time hearing this song like it was for me, make sure you ignore the first 40 seconds or so of the video, because that's not the song.
I think it's fitting that Usher and Alicia Keys made a song together. They are both ridiculously talented singers whose songs are hampered by bizzare production choices of the moment, the kind of choices that already seem a bit dated, less than a decade later. Their voices are individually great, and they blend together really well. I like all the layers of overlapping voice that are arranged together. They're complex in a way that suggests the complex feelings the singers have for each other. Whatever energy this song manages to have is entirely because they sound so appealing together, and because they have been edited together well.
Where the song goes wrong is in the synthesized voice chord... chipmunk noises that punctuate the verses. They're just so cheap and fake that they draw attention away from the singing. The rest of the music is fine. The bass and drums are appealingly simple, drawing focus to the singing. I even kind of like the more rapid synthesized beats that mark transitions in this song. They successfully increase tension that gets released by the transitions to a new part of the song. Overall, the music is pretty good, especially appropriate for a song that is trying to feature two excellent singers, but a general lack of variety combined with the obnoxious synthesized voice chord noises really hamper the song's overall quality.
Lyrically, well, the elephant in the room is the title. "My Boo" seems like a piece of slang that is unlikely to last another 50 years when someone sits down to review the first 2000 No. 1 hits, and has to derive the meaning from context. I've always wondered where the word came from, so I looked it up. According to Urban Dictionary, the word "boo" as slang for boyfriend or girlfriend derives from the French word "beau," through various Caribbean communities, and finally into American English slang as "boo." So I learned something today.
The rest of the lyrics are about these two people who were each others' first loves, and even though their relationship is over and they don't specifically say they want to rekindle it, they still hold strong affection for each other. I think it's a sweet sentiment.
My verdict: Like it. I still wish the sound had been mixed differently, and that the video hadn't included that fake-out for another song that took me a while to figure out was actually another song. But overall the positives outweigh the negatives.
Showing posts with label 2000s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2000s. Show all posts
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Song #861: "It's Gonna Be Me" by 'N Sync
Date: July 29, 2000
Weeks: 2
I'm not sure I have it in me to really hate on 'N Sync's only No. 1. This certainly isn't a good song, but all things considered it's not really all that bad, either.
The core of this song really isn't so bad. It's a basic drum kit beat and bass line, with a healthy mix of decently synthesized sounds, and some musical variety. And hey, the vocal harmonies are even pretty decent. Yeah, maybe there's some Auto-tune polishing, but at least it's not used as an intentionally obvious effect. It's catchy and fairly simple in an ear-pleasing way. At its core, this song is quite listenable, if not particularly profound.
Where this song goes wrong is some of the styling around the edges. The weirdly minor-key opening chords are pretty terrible. The distorted vocal effects right at the beginning are jarring in a song that is otherwise trying to sound reasonably pleasant. The bridge breakdown is also terrible, including some odd beatboxing vocal effects that are cowardly downmixed to almost being nonexistent. Either they were good enough to put in the whole song, or they were bad enough to remove entirely. Also a problem is the how often the synthesizer comes off sounding like a harpsichord. It's a weird fit with the rest of the song.
The songs lyrics are pretty bad. Obvious rhymes and bad messages abound in lines like "Baby when you finally get to love somebody, guess what, it's gonna be me." This seems to be yet another song on the variation of the singer just waiting for the person they're singing to to notice them. And the "can't you see how romantic that it is that I'm suffering so much for you?" sort of model that just keeps on going in pop music.
My verdict: Don't like it. Not as bad as I feared it would be. Maybe this really was their best song. But still not very good.
Weeks: 2
I'm not sure I have it in me to really hate on 'N Sync's only No. 1. This certainly isn't a good song, but all things considered it's not really all that bad, either.
The core of this song really isn't so bad. It's a basic drum kit beat and bass line, with a healthy mix of decently synthesized sounds, and some musical variety. And hey, the vocal harmonies are even pretty decent. Yeah, maybe there's some Auto-tune polishing, but at least it's not used as an intentionally obvious effect. It's catchy and fairly simple in an ear-pleasing way. At its core, this song is quite listenable, if not particularly profound.
Where this song goes wrong is some of the styling around the edges. The weirdly minor-key opening chords are pretty terrible. The distorted vocal effects right at the beginning are jarring in a song that is otherwise trying to sound reasonably pleasant. The bridge breakdown is also terrible, including some odd beatboxing vocal effects that are cowardly downmixed to almost being nonexistent. Either they were good enough to put in the whole song, or they were bad enough to remove entirely. Also a problem is the how often the synthesizer comes off sounding like a harpsichord. It's a weird fit with the rest of the song.
The songs lyrics are pretty bad. Obvious rhymes and bad messages abound in lines like "Baby when you finally get to love somebody, guess what, it's gonna be me." This seems to be yet another song on the variation of the singer just waiting for the person they're singing to to notice them. And the "can't you see how romantic that it is that I'm suffering so much for you?" sort of model that just keeps on going in pop music.
My verdict: Don't like it. Not as bad as I feared it would be. Maybe this really was their best song. But still not very good.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Song #877: "Fallin'" by Alicia Keys
Date: Aug 18, 2001
Weeks: 6
I really like Alicia Keys's voice, and her songwriting is generally pretty strong. But I think a lot her songs after this one are better, because they don't include all the extraneous elements that don't quite work for me here. Let's break it down by component.
Piano: This song has a pleasant little piano backing. It's a bit simple, but it's nice. It's about right as it is.
Voice: Alicia Keys sings well. She's no all-time great vocalist, but she has a nice voice and she's emotionally expressive in a great way. This may not be her best performance ever but she acquits herself well I have no complaints about her singing here.
Drums and bass: Excellent. I enjoy the beat that carries this song along. A lot of Keys's music stands out because of her ability to combine piano with a traditional R&B bass sound in an appealing way.
Background vocals: Here's where we start getting into the parts of the song I think were intrusive. The gospel chorus backing this song just makes it seem overdone. Madonna made a gospel choir work in "Like A Prayer" (#688) by adding it to a big, loud, epic production. This is a quiet little love tune and the gospel chorus is too big for it.
Strings: This is the element I like the least. It's kind of a subtle effect, but the sounds the strings create in this song are just entirely unwelcome. I especially dislike the plucking sound around the second chorus. It feels like Bugs Bunny is sneaking up on the song.
I don't disagree that this song needed a bit more to it than the piano, voice, and drums, but I don't think the right solution to the problem was found. The song feels like it's cheating a bit, trying to be bigger than it really is supposed to be. I'm not sure what the right solution was, I just know I don't like what they came up with.
My verdict: Don't like it. I just don't think the gospel chorus is earned by this song.
Weeks: 6
I really like Alicia Keys's voice, and her songwriting is generally pretty strong. But I think a lot her songs after this one are better, because they don't include all the extraneous elements that don't quite work for me here. Let's break it down by component.
Piano: This song has a pleasant little piano backing. It's a bit simple, but it's nice. It's about right as it is.
Voice: Alicia Keys sings well. She's no all-time great vocalist, but she has a nice voice and she's emotionally expressive in a great way. This may not be her best performance ever but she acquits herself well I have no complaints about her singing here.
Drums and bass: Excellent. I enjoy the beat that carries this song along. A lot of Keys's music stands out because of her ability to combine piano with a traditional R&B bass sound in an appealing way.
Background vocals: Here's where we start getting into the parts of the song I think were intrusive. The gospel chorus backing this song just makes it seem overdone. Madonna made a gospel choir work in "Like A Prayer" (#688) by adding it to a big, loud, epic production. This is a quiet little love tune and the gospel chorus is too big for it.
Strings: This is the element I like the least. It's kind of a subtle effect, but the sounds the strings create in this song are just entirely unwelcome. I especially dislike the plucking sound around the second chorus. It feels like Bugs Bunny is sneaking up on the song.
I don't disagree that this song needed a bit more to it than the piano, voice, and drums, but I don't think the right solution to the problem was found. The song feels like it's cheating a bit, trying to be bigger than it really is supposed to be. I'm not sure what the right solution was, I just know I don't like what they came up with.
My verdict: Don't like it. I just don't think the gospel chorus is earned by this song.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Song #974: "I Gotta Feeling" by The Black Eyed Peas
Date: July 11, 2009
Weeks: 14
The Black Eyed Peas are an interesting group. Sometimes their music is sloppy, obnoxious, audio chaos. Other times it seems like they've calculated the precise resonance frequency of pop music and carefully crafted it into a focused dance delivery system. Fortunately, we're dealing the the latter today.
This song was everywhere when it was new, and it's easy to see why. It's an energetic romp that builds tension and anticipation and then releases all the pent-up energy into a huge, enthusiastic burst of energy. I know I keep using the word "energy," but I can't help it. It's really the song's most endearing feature.
There's a lot to nitpick about the music, though. There are some strings sounds early on that would have sounded better if they were real, rather than simulated. There's too much obvious Auto-Tune going on in the voices. But none of those are really problems.
What is a problem is that the song spends too much time in its anticipation build-up phase. I don't mind the first 90 seconds is spent building to the explosion of the chorus. I think that's about perfect, actually. The problem I have is that after only 1 minute of that chorus, the song goes back to the build-up phase for another full minute-plus of building anticipation all over again. Literally half the song's running time is spent waiting for the other half to start up, and that's a balance that doesn't quite work for me. I've enjoyed songs that spent much much longer building up to a big but short payoff, but that's an interesting choice. And I don't have anything against songs that do a brief breakdown in the bridge, because that keeps the song interesting. But the build-ups in this song stop being interesting and just make me impatient for the good part.
The lyrics are a mixed bag. I'm not going to complain about their simplicity, because that's kind of point. In fact, the lyrics sort of redeem all the time spent building up. Since the primary lyric is "Tonight's gonna be a good night," it's obvious that all the anticipation is probably intentional. That doesn't entirely redeem it, but it goes a long way. Before I was really paying attention to this song, I mostly just knew it as the song where they shout "Mazel Tov" for no reason, so that's a successful lyrical choice, at least as far as getting attention. The part where they list days of the week is pretty lazy. But then you add that to lyrics like "Let's do it and do it and do it do it do it," and I just don't have the heart to tear apart this big, dumb, friendly song.
My verdict: Like it. It's big, dumb, easy fun.
Weeks: 14
The Black Eyed Peas are an interesting group. Sometimes their music is sloppy, obnoxious, audio chaos. Other times it seems like they've calculated the precise resonance frequency of pop music and carefully crafted it into a focused dance delivery system. Fortunately, we're dealing the the latter today.
This song was everywhere when it was new, and it's easy to see why. It's an energetic romp that builds tension and anticipation and then releases all the pent-up energy into a huge, enthusiastic burst of energy. I know I keep using the word "energy," but I can't help it. It's really the song's most endearing feature.
There's a lot to nitpick about the music, though. There are some strings sounds early on that would have sounded better if they were real, rather than simulated. There's too much obvious Auto-Tune going on in the voices. But none of those are really problems.
What is a problem is that the song spends too much time in its anticipation build-up phase. I don't mind the first 90 seconds is spent building to the explosion of the chorus. I think that's about perfect, actually. The problem I have is that after only 1 minute of that chorus, the song goes back to the build-up phase for another full minute-plus of building anticipation all over again. Literally half the song's running time is spent waiting for the other half to start up, and that's a balance that doesn't quite work for me. I've enjoyed songs that spent much much longer building up to a big but short payoff, but that's an interesting choice. And I don't have anything against songs that do a brief breakdown in the bridge, because that keeps the song interesting. But the build-ups in this song stop being interesting and just make me impatient for the good part.
The lyrics are a mixed bag. I'm not going to complain about their simplicity, because that's kind of point. In fact, the lyrics sort of redeem all the time spent building up. Since the primary lyric is "Tonight's gonna be a good night," it's obvious that all the anticipation is probably intentional. That doesn't entirely redeem it, but it goes a long way. Before I was really paying attention to this song, I mostly just knew it as the song where they shout "Mazel Tov" for no reason, so that's a successful lyrical choice, at least as far as getting attention. The part where they list days of the week is pretty lazy. But then you add that to lyrics like "Let's do it and do it and do it do it do it," and I just don't have the heart to tear apart this big, dumb, friendly song.
My verdict: Like it. It's big, dumb, easy fun.
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.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Song #873: "All For You" by Janet Jackson
Date: Apr 14, 2001
Weeks: 7
It's not your imagination, this is a disco song. At least, it's heavily based on a sample of "The Glow of Love" by Change, from 1980. Which is to say, it's practically a remake, or at least a remake of the good parts.
I like the piano. The pumped up bass and drums do their best to drown it out without contributing much of interest, but the piano part works. I wish it had more to do than its one riff that occasionally percolates to the surface of the mix, but it's a good sound. And unfortunately, that's about all the music that there is, other than random little laser sound effects sprinkled across the top. The music video includes a bizzare dance breakdown bridge. But it's not good, and it's not in the single.
The song's biggest problem is Janet Jackson. She does not fit this song. The generic, bland backing track demands someone with an interesting, powerful voice, and that is not Jackson. Her breathy, soft voice is far too delicate for this song.
The lyrics are an exploration of the problem Janet Jackson has being approached by suitors because they're a little intimidated to approach someone famous. "Something inside you grabs you says 'who am I?'. I know exactly 'cause it happens with all the guys." So I guess this song is about giving the guy permission and encouragement to approach her. I guess she really wants this one particular guy to approach her because she thinks he's hot. "Look at that body, shakin' that thing like I never did see." I don't think the line "got a nice package all right, guess I'm going to have to ride it tonight" comes across as sexy as she intends it to.
My verdict: Don't like it. There's not enough going on to keep my interest. It's not a good match of performer to material.
Weeks: 7
It's not your imagination, this is a disco song. At least, it's heavily based on a sample of "The Glow of Love" by Change, from 1980. Which is to say, it's practically a remake, or at least a remake of the good parts.
I like the piano. The pumped up bass and drums do their best to drown it out without contributing much of interest, but the piano part works. I wish it had more to do than its one riff that occasionally percolates to the surface of the mix, but it's a good sound. And unfortunately, that's about all the music that there is, other than random little laser sound effects sprinkled across the top. The music video includes a bizzare dance breakdown bridge. But it's not good, and it's not in the single.
The song's biggest problem is Janet Jackson. She does not fit this song. The generic, bland backing track demands someone with an interesting, powerful voice, and that is not Jackson. Her breathy, soft voice is far too delicate for this song.
The lyrics are an exploration of the problem Janet Jackson has being approached by suitors because they're a little intimidated to approach someone famous. "Something inside you grabs you says 'who am I?'. I know exactly 'cause it happens with all the guys." So I guess this song is about giving the guy permission and encouragement to approach her. I guess she really wants this one particular guy to approach her because she thinks he's hot. "Look at that body, shakin' that thing like I never did see." I don't think the line "got a nice package all right, guess I'm going to have to ride it tonight" comes across as sexy as she intends it to.
My verdict: Don't like it. There's not enough going on to keep my interest. It's not a good match of performer to material.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Song #900: "The Way You Move" by Outkast featuring Sleepy Brown
Date: Feb 14, 2004
Weeks: 1
This song may be a case study in how to ruin a good song by stretching it and padding it out until it completely wears out its welcome and gets tiresome.
This song has a great sound. Its rap verses are energetic and clear, with a nice bass line running underneath. The music in the chorus is great, with its horns and smooth singing. This would be a great 3 minute song. Unfortunately, it lasts 4 minutes. Most of that additional runtime is filled with unvarying repetition of the chorus until the song finally fades out to a close. And that's where the song wears out its welcome, breaks down, and reveals how few musical ideas it actually has. The horns, in particular, start to work my last nerve because they only have 3 musical ideas that they repeat over and over and over.
The vocals don't fare much better. There's almost no vocal style variation between the first version of the chorus and the last version of the chorus. Heck, there aren't even varying lyrics. It's "I like the way you move" over and over and over again. I mean, even if the lyrics dropped out and they did an instrumental version of the lyrics one time, that would be an improvement. This song may be underproduced, like it needed another pass through the mixing process before it got released.
My verdict: Don't like it. Doesn't live up to its potential. It starts with good ideas, but doesn't build on them, and then repeats until it irritates.
Weeks: 1
This song may be a case study in how to ruin a good song by stretching it and padding it out until it completely wears out its welcome and gets tiresome.
This song has a great sound. Its rap verses are energetic and clear, with a nice bass line running underneath. The music in the chorus is great, with its horns and smooth singing. This would be a great 3 minute song. Unfortunately, it lasts 4 minutes. Most of that additional runtime is filled with unvarying repetition of the chorus until the song finally fades out to a close. And that's where the song wears out its welcome, breaks down, and reveals how few musical ideas it actually has. The horns, in particular, start to work my last nerve because they only have 3 musical ideas that they repeat over and over and over.
The vocals don't fare much better. There's almost no vocal style variation between the first version of the chorus and the last version of the chorus. Heck, there aren't even varying lyrics. It's "I like the way you move" over and over and over again. I mean, even if the lyrics dropped out and they did an instrumental version of the lyrics one time, that would be an improvement. This song may be underproduced, like it needed another pass through the mixing process before it got released.
My verdict: Don't like it. Doesn't live up to its potential. It starts with good ideas, but doesn't build on them, and then repeats until it irritates.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Song #903: "Burn" by Usher
Date: May 22, 2004
Weeks: 8
It's kind of remarkable that Usher's "Yeah" (#902) was on top of the charts for 12 weeks, and it took another Usher song to replace it. I'm not entirely surprised. "Yeah" was a great song. This song... maybe not so much.
The problem with this song is that there's not a lot of sound to it. The music is very thin, and perfunctory. It's like they were trying to avoid obscuring Usher's voice, but couldn't commit to a soft sound that would complement the vocals. The result is some hard bass and light guitar, with a bunch of extra random noises interspersed throughout. It's also really out of place for its era. I would expect to hear a song like this in the early 90s, not in 2004. They were trying to let the vocals stand out, and I feel like they missed the mark a bit.
And the vocals aren't very good, either. Don't get me wrong, Usher has a great voice. But he makes some choices in this song that don't work for me. He starts doing one of those low-register speaking parts, then he sings a very pleasing half verse in his usual range, then he jumps up to a falsetto range, I guess because he's trying to sound more emotional. But it lasts too long, and it gets unpleasant to listen to. He hits falsetto again in the chorus, and that works better because it's shorter. And then in the bridge he sings "woo-hoo" in this falsetto while the music does almost nothing, and the result is a really uninteresting bridge where nothing happens. I also want to make a comment that I think there's too much backup singing. I don't mind the thing where Usher sings the song straight while also singing a more elaborately spontaneous track on top of it. But occasionally throughout there are these stings of backup singing added that just feel overproduced. And that overproduction really harms the raw feeling the song is aiming for.
The lyrics fare a bit better. I'm not sure I've heard another song with quite this sentiment. It's about breaking up with someone, and then maybe wondering whether you've made the right choice. I think I've reviewed a couple songs where somebody breaks up with somebody else and tries to get back together, including perspectives from both the dumper and the dumpee. But what makes this song stand out is that Usher remains ambivalent about the breakup. "One side of me is telling me that I need to move on, on the other side I want to break down and cry." It's an exploration of the regret of a breakup, but it's not necessarily a "let's get back together" song. That's not something I've really heard before. "Gotta let it burn" kind of cleverly refers to the fact that this hurts, but he has to let it hurt to get better. Unfortunately, the lyrics are kind of undermined by the inclusion of some unnecessary slang that really comes off silly. "Get my shorty back" is awkward, and the especially bad is the attention given to the line "without my boo." I'm not opposed to slang in songs, but slang undermines sincerity in a heartfelt, soft, relationship song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not bad, but it's not well put together. I think maybe if there had been some different musical choices, this song could have been saved. But the music doesn't work, and the song's other flaws drag it down.
Weeks: 8
It's kind of remarkable that Usher's "Yeah" (#902) was on top of the charts for 12 weeks, and it took another Usher song to replace it. I'm not entirely surprised. "Yeah" was a great song. This song... maybe not so much.
The problem with this song is that there's not a lot of sound to it. The music is very thin, and perfunctory. It's like they were trying to avoid obscuring Usher's voice, but couldn't commit to a soft sound that would complement the vocals. The result is some hard bass and light guitar, with a bunch of extra random noises interspersed throughout. It's also really out of place for its era. I would expect to hear a song like this in the early 90s, not in 2004. They were trying to let the vocals stand out, and I feel like they missed the mark a bit.
And the vocals aren't very good, either. Don't get me wrong, Usher has a great voice. But he makes some choices in this song that don't work for me. He starts doing one of those low-register speaking parts, then he sings a very pleasing half verse in his usual range, then he jumps up to a falsetto range, I guess because he's trying to sound more emotional. But it lasts too long, and it gets unpleasant to listen to. He hits falsetto again in the chorus, and that works better because it's shorter. And then in the bridge he sings "woo-hoo" in this falsetto while the music does almost nothing, and the result is a really uninteresting bridge where nothing happens. I also want to make a comment that I think there's too much backup singing. I don't mind the thing where Usher sings the song straight while also singing a more elaborately spontaneous track on top of it. But occasionally throughout there are these stings of backup singing added that just feel overproduced. And that overproduction really harms the raw feeling the song is aiming for.
The lyrics fare a bit better. I'm not sure I've heard another song with quite this sentiment. It's about breaking up with someone, and then maybe wondering whether you've made the right choice. I think I've reviewed a couple songs where somebody breaks up with somebody else and tries to get back together, including perspectives from both the dumper and the dumpee. But what makes this song stand out is that Usher remains ambivalent about the breakup. "One side of me is telling me that I need to move on, on the other side I want to break down and cry." It's an exploration of the regret of a breakup, but it's not necessarily a "let's get back together" song. That's not something I've really heard before. "Gotta let it burn" kind of cleverly refers to the fact that this hurts, but he has to let it hurt to get better. Unfortunately, the lyrics are kind of undermined by the inclusion of some unnecessary slang that really comes off silly. "Get my shorty back" is awkward, and the especially bad is the attention given to the line "without my boo." I'm not opposed to slang in songs, but slang undermines sincerity in a heartfelt, soft, relationship song.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not bad, but it's not well put together. I think maybe if there had been some different musical choices, this song could have been saved. But the music doesn't work, and the song's other flaws drag it down.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Song #855: "Say My Name" by Destiny's Child
Date: Mar 18, 2000
Weeks: 3
Destiny's Child is probably best known today for being the group that introduced the world to Beyonce. Actually, even at the time I think it was best known as the group backing up Beyonce. Maybe some big fans of the group would find more nuance to that position, but as a general music fan whose preferred genre this wasn't, that was my awareness of the group at the time.
The vocal harmonies are the most obvious feature of this song, and they're quite good. The backing music is generally soft and fairly inconsequential, so it's up to the vocals to carry the song. And this group of singers does a great job of it. Although Beyonce stands out as the lead singer, the rest of the group provides a great foundation, as well. There is a lot going on vocally during the chorus, and it's all very appealing. The verses are a little monotonous, but there is sufficient variety to remain entertaining. There are some poor harmonic choices in the little transition section between the verse and the chorus, especially on the lyric "Cause I know how you usually do." The voices go a little high there in a way that doesn't work for me. Otherwise, I think the vocals are very good. They're light and pleasant but combine in a strong way.
The backing track to this song is generally enjoyable, but this song feels like it's been overproduced. The bass and drum line is really good, and perfectly matched to the vocals. The lead synthesizer track during the chorus is also very good. The chorus is generally very appealing all around. The verses sort of fall apart musically, though. The song feels like it has been overproduced, with synthesizer stings and weird spring sound effects for no reason. Those noises were a serious miscalculation. The song would have been stronger without them. They very nearly ruin the song for me. There are also some vocal echoes that are there to spice up the verses that initially bugged me, but after listening to it for a while, I found those vocal echoes actually spiced up the otherwise pretty monotonous verses. The bridge doesn't include much of the usual variety that one expects from a bridge, although there is an unnecessary male voice that should have been left out. Also, the "yeah yeah yeah yeah" from Beyonce is weirdly enunciated, to the point where I thought she was saying something else.
Lyrically, the song is clearly about a women who thinks her significant other is cheating on her because he's acting oddly when she's talking to him over the phone. "If no one is around you, say 'baby I love you'." She's confident, she's self-assertive, and she's not going to put up with him if he's cheating. But I like that she's also not throwing around the accusation wildly and jumping to conclusions. She just wants him to pass the simple test of talking to her like she's his girlfriend and flushing out the other woman if there is one. I like the delicate balance that is struck in these lyrics, and I especially like the self-assertion.
My verdict: Like it. It's overproduced and I think a good remix would be better. But overall it's an enjoyable song, especially in the chorus where it counts.
Weeks: 3
Destiny's Child is probably best known today for being the group that introduced the world to Beyonce. Actually, even at the time I think it was best known as the group backing up Beyonce. Maybe some big fans of the group would find more nuance to that position, but as a general music fan whose preferred genre this wasn't, that was my awareness of the group at the time.
The vocal harmonies are the most obvious feature of this song, and they're quite good. The backing music is generally soft and fairly inconsequential, so it's up to the vocals to carry the song. And this group of singers does a great job of it. Although Beyonce stands out as the lead singer, the rest of the group provides a great foundation, as well. There is a lot going on vocally during the chorus, and it's all very appealing. The verses are a little monotonous, but there is sufficient variety to remain entertaining. There are some poor harmonic choices in the little transition section between the verse and the chorus, especially on the lyric "Cause I know how you usually do." The voices go a little high there in a way that doesn't work for me. Otherwise, I think the vocals are very good. They're light and pleasant but combine in a strong way.
The backing track to this song is generally enjoyable, but this song feels like it's been overproduced. The bass and drum line is really good, and perfectly matched to the vocals. The lead synthesizer track during the chorus is also very good. The chorus is generally very appealing all around. The verses sort of fall apart musically, though. The song feels like it has been overproduced, with synthesizer stings and weird spring sound effects for no reason. Those noises were a serious miscalculation. The song would have been stronger without them. They very nearly ruin the song for me. There are also some vocal echoes that are there to spice up the verses that initially bugged me, but after listening to it for a while, I found those vocal echoes actually spiced up the otherwise pretty monotonous verses. The bridge doesn't include much of the usual variety that one expects from a bridge, although there is an unnecessary male voice that should have been left out. Also, the "yeah yeah yeah yeah" from Beyonce is weirdly enunciated, to the point where I thought she was saying something else.
Lyrically, the song is clearly about a women who thinks her significant other is cheating on her because he's acting oddly when she's talking to him over the phone. "If no one is around you, say 'baby I love you'." She's confident, she's self-assertive, and she's not going to put up with him if he's cheating. But I like that she's also not throwing around the accusation wildly and jumping to conclusions. She just wants him to pass the simple test of talking to her like she's his girlfriend and flushing out the other woman if there is one. I like the delicate balance that is struck in these lyrics, and I especially like the self-assertion.
My verdict: Like it. It's overproduced and I think a good remix would be better. But overall it's an enjoyable song, especially in the chorus where it counts.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Song #948: "Beautiful Girls" by Sean Kingston
Date: Aug 11, 2007
Weeks: 4
I'm not opposed to sampling in general, but this song samples so much of "Stand By Me" by Ben E. King that it's practically a remake. The bass line is the song's backbone, and this song just plain reuses it. So it's impossible to avoid comparing this song directly to that classic, and this song suffers in comparison.
"Stand By Me" is all about having someone to stand by you, and how that makes you able to withstand whatever the world might throw at you. It's a positive song, and the music supports that positivity with quiet cheeriness. "Beautiful Girls" turns the lyrics right around and is lyrically one of the most depressing pop songs I've encountered. It's hard to claim it's a feel-good song when the chorus features the line "They'll have you suicidal, suicidal." The repetition just emphasizes how depressing it is. And that stands in direct contrast to the cheery "Stand By Me" music. I see that the line "suicidal" was controversial and got the song edited a lot. Changing "suicidal" to "in denial" kind of obscures the meaning, though.
It could be clever irony, I suppose. Put depressing lyrics over a happy tune. But the lyrics don't seem to support that. The lyrics aren't about trying to maintain a happy attitude despite being sad. They're just about the misery of being dumped, and the pessimism of despairing of finding anyone else ever again. "You're way too beautiful girl, that's why it'll never work. You'll have me suicidal, suicidal." These lyrics need a sad tune, or an angry tune. They don't need this gentle, happy tune. I suppose overall I just find this teenage notion of suicidal despair because you were dumped at age 16 to be terribly overwrought. This isn't reminding me of how I felt in my own teenage years, it's just making me feel like teenagers are overdramatic and dumb.
It's also just kind of vaguely insulting to the "beautiful girls." "Damn all these beautiful girls." That makes me think of the Weezer song "El Scorcho," and its opening line that is often misinterpreted as "Goddamn you half-Japanese girls!" when in fact the line is "Goddamn! You half-Japanese girls do it to me every time." But "Beautiful Girls" doesn't have that. It really is just "Damn all these beautiful girls. They only want to do your dirt." I'm not sure what "do your dirt" means, but it's clearly not complimentary.
I could nitpick these lyrics for several more paragraphs, but I won't. Suffice to say I think the lyrics are bad and contrast sharply with the music, but not in a cleverly ironic way.
Kingston's slight Jamaican accent is just thin enough that I thought he was putting it on, but Wikipedia claims he was raised in Jamaica and therefore comes by it honestly. I suppose the Jamaican style in which he sings the song is okay. I guess I get too distracted by the words he's singing to really evaluate his singing. I think I'd rather hear him perform a straight cover of "Stand By Me."
Musically, this song isn't bad. The bass line, ripped straight out of "Stand By Me," is excellent, of course. But I like a lot of the style enhancements that have been made. There are a lot, but they are tastefully applied. There's a xylophone, a few soft synth stings, a string section that may be an imitation of strings used in the original. All good things. I even like the a capella bridge with the background singers. There's a timpani near the end that borders on overly-dramatic, but I don't mind that so much. If anything, I'd like a dramatic, orchestral take on "Stand By Me."
My verdict: Don't like it. I almost gave it a pass on the idea that if the same talent had been used to cover "Stand By Me" I would be happy. Unfortunately, the lyrics are really distracting, and they don't show off Kingston's vocals in a positive way.
Weeks: 4
I'm not opposed to sampling in general, but this song samples so much of "Stand By Me" by Ben E. King that it's practically a remake. The bass line is the song's backbone, and this song just plain reuses it. So it's impossible to avoid comparing this song directly to that classic, and this song suffers in comparison.
"Stand By Me" is all about having someone to stand by you, and how that makes you able to withstand whatever the world might throw at you. It's a positive song, and the music supports that positivity with quiet cheeriness. "Beautiful Girls" turns the lyrics right around and is lyrically one of the most depressing pop songs I've encountered. It's hard to claim it's a feel-good song when the chorus features the line "They'll have you suicidal, suicidal." The repetition just emphasizes how depressing it is. And that stands in direct contrast to the cheery "Stand By Me" music. I see that the line "suicidal" was controversial and got the song edited a lot. Changing "suicidal" to "in denial" kind of obscures the meaning, though.
It could be clever irony, I suppose. Put depressing lyrics over a happy tune. But the lyrics don't seem to support that. The lyrics aren't about trying to maintain a happy attitude despite being sad. They're just about the misery of being dumped, and the pessimism of despairing of finding anyone else ever again. "You're way too beautiful girl, that's why it'll never work. You'll have me suicidal, suicidal." These lyrics need a sad tune, or an angry tune. They don't need this gentle, happy tune. I suppose overall I just find this teenage notion of suicidal despair because you were dumped at age 16 to be terribly overwrought. This isn't reminding me of how I felt in my own teenage years, it's just making me feel like teenagers are overdramatic and dumb.
It's also just kind of vaguely insulting to the "beautiful girls." "Damn all these beautiful girls." That makes me think of the Weezer song "El Scorcho," and its opening line that is often misinterpreted as "Goddamn you half-Japanese girls!" when in fact the line is "Goddamn! You half-Japanese girls do it to me every time." But "Beautiful Girls" doesn't have that. It really is just "Damn all these beautiful girls. They only want to do your dirt." I'm not sure what "do your dirt" means, but it's clearly not complimentary.
I could nitpick these lyrics for several more paragraphs, but I won't. Suffice to say I think the lyrics are bad and contrast sharply with the music, but not in a cleverly ironic way.
Kingston's slight Jamaican accent is just thin enough that I thought he was putting it on, but Wikipedia claims he was raised in Jamaica and therefore comes by it honestly. I suppose the Jamaican style in which he sings the song is okay. I guess I get too distracted by the words he's singing to really evaluate his singing. I think I'd rather hear him perform a straight cover of "Stand By Me."
Musically, this song isn't bad. The bass line, ripped straight out of "Stand By Me," is excellent, of course. But I like a lot of the style enhancements that have been made. There are a lot, but they are tastefully applied. There's a xylophone, a few soft synth stings, a string section that may be an imitation of strings used in the original. All good things. I even like the a capella bridge with the background singers. There's a timpani near the end that borders on overly-dramatic, but I don't mind that so much. If anything, I'd like a dramatic, orchestral take on "Stand By Me."
My verdict: Don't like it. I almost gave it a pass on the idea that if the same talent had been used to cover "Stand By Me" I would be happy. Unfortunately, the lyrics are really distracting, and they don't show off Kingston's vocals in a positive way.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Song #969: "My Life Would Suck Without You" by Kelly Clarkson
Date: Feb 7, 2009
Weeks: 2
I don't like American Idol. It's bad enough that music companies manufacture pop stars and rob music of its organic roots. But then they turn the process of manufacturing those pop stars into televised entertainment, and we're supposed to enjoy it? I just can't support that. Yet somehow their crazy process managed to pick Kelly Clarkson the first time out. While I tried to dismiss her for a long time, I wasn't able to resist the appeal of "Since U Been Gone." That song was nothing like anything I would have expected to come out of American Idol, and I have to say the show succeeded in spite of itself when it picked Kelly Clarkson. Thankfully I can read from Wikipedia that she had split from her American Idol management when she made that song, so my world can continue to make sense.
Happily, this song continues the high-energy pop/rock tradition from "Since U Been Gone." With driving bass, a chorus that practically explodes in your ear, a sound that fills a room, and an appealing chord progression throughout, there's no denying this song's energy. Overall, it's fun and easy to dance to.
Actually, it might be a little too high-energy. That's not a criticism I make often, but something about this song feels like it goes beyond high-energy, passes frantic, and gets into the realm of hyperactive. I think it's the fact that the fast beat never goes away. There's never a break from it. The fat synthesizer bass is appealing for a while, but it keeps carrying it, even when it might be better to calm down and give the listener a break from it. And even during the bridge, when everything else breaks down, the percussion keeps that driving beat alive. Hyperactive songs can work, but they're best if they are short or if they stop every now and then.
I like the vocals here. Clarkson gives a high-energy, loud performance without veering into being screechy. It gives the song energy. This was what impressed me so much in "Since U Been Gone," that she wasn't just showing off her voice but was giving the song what it needed to be good. And that continues here.
The lyrics are about two people who have tried breaking up, but find that they don't like being apart. They both seem pretty damaged and a bit codependent. "I know that I've got issues, but you're pretty messed up, too. Either way I found out I'm nothing without you." This probably isn't the best foundation to build a relationship on. Yet they have tried being apart and it doesn't work, either. "My life would suck without you." I think the message is intentional, and watching the video confirms that. This isn't a good relationship, but these people are stuck together until they realize it's not good. That's the story that they're trying to tell, and I think they do a good job of that. I'm glad I'm not in a relationship like this, but I've known people who were and I think I can understand the sentiment.
My verdict: Like it. It has its flaws, but overall it's good stuff.
Weeks: 2
I don't like American Idol. It's bad enough that music companies manufacture pop stars and rob music of its organic roots. But then they turn the process of manufacturing those pop stars into televised entertainment, and we're supposed to enjoy it? I just can't support that. Yet somehow their crazy process managed to pick Kelly Clarkson the first time out. While I tried to dismiss her for a long time, I wasn't able to resist the appeal of "Since U Been Gone." That song was nothing like anything I would have expected to come out of American Idol, and I have to say the show succeeded in spite of itself when it picked Kelly Clarkson. Thankfully I can read from Wikipedia that she had split from her American Idol management when she made that song, so my world can continue to make sense.
Happily, this song continues the high-energy pop/rock tradition from "Since U Been Gone." With driving bass, a chorus that practically explodes in your ear, a sound that fills a room, and an appealing chord progression throughout, there's no denying this song's energy. Overall, it's fun and easy to dance to.
Actually, it might be a little too high-energy. That's not a criticism I make often, but something about this song feels like it goes beyond high-energy, passes frantic, and gets into the realm of hyperactive. I think it's the fact that the fast beat never goes away. There's never a break from it. The fat synthesizer bass is appealing for a while, but it keeps carrying it, even when it might be better to calm down and give the listener a break from it. And even during the bridge, when everything else breaks down, the percussion keeps that driving beat alive. Hyperactive songs can work, but they're best if they are short or if they stop every now and then.
I like the vocals here. Clarkson gives a high-energy, loud performance without veering into being screechy. It gives the song energy. This was what impressed me so much in "Since U Been Gone," that she wasn't just showing off her voice but was giving the song what it needed to be good. And that continues here.
The lyrics are about two people who have tried breaking up, but find that they don't like being apart. They both seem pretty damaged and a bit codependent. "I know that I've got issues, but you're pretty messed up, too. Either way I found out I'm nothing without you." This probably isn't the best foundation to build a relationship on. Yet they have tried being apart and it doesn't work, either. "My life would suck without you." I think the message is intentional, and watching the video confirms that. This isn't a good relationship, but these people are stuck together until they realize it's not good. That's the story that they're trying to tell, and I think they do a good job of that. I'm glad I'm not in a relationship like this, but I've known people who were and I think I can understand the sentiment.
My verdict: Like it. It has its flaws, but overall it's good stuff.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Song #964: "So What" by Pink
Date: Sept 27, 2008
Weeks: 1
Pink is one of those singers that crept up on me. When she first came along, she seemed to be a fairly generic R&B singer and I dismissed her as not being terribly interesting. "Get The Party Started" seemed vaguely catchy but vapid. I liked "Don't Let Me Get Me" a little, but it seemed to be atypical of her work to that point. It wasn't until I heard this song in the Rock Band video game that
I discovered Pink had been making rock music with judicious traces of both Punk and R&B, and that her songs were catchy and fun.
The music is this song is excellent. It's a tightly performed, tightly produced rock song with a big wall of sound, and every part contributes to the whole in an excellent way. The lead guitar riff is excellent and attention-grabbing, and quits during the chorus so that it doesn't get annoying. The drum line is driving and is an absolute blast to clap along to. The chorus uses a synthesizer bass that I enjoy. I sometimes complain about synthesizers in the 80s, but by the late 90s and 2000s pop musicians had figured out how to use the particular timbre of synthesizers to their advantage. There's a higher-pitched, warbling snyth sound in the chorus that risks being superfluous, but it contributes to the intentional chaos of the overall sound
That chaos really seems to be the intent, because the lyrics are all about the anger of getting over an ended relationship. She's declaring that she's going to be fine for all kinds of reasons. "I don't need you." "I'm having more fun." And now she can see that the relationship wasn't that great anyway. "You weren't there. You never were." As many whiny, weepy, denial-based breakup songs as I've reviewed, I'm glad to find one that is the perfect song for the moment you realize that you're actually glad to be out of that relationship.
The vocals in the chorus are the part of the song that is probably the most fun. Rather than singing, Pink practically shouts. I bet this song is an absolute blast to see performed live, with the audience participating in a shout-along at the top of their lungs. In a clever touch, Pink gets to show off her actual vocal abilities by doing her own backup singing in the last chorus. In those backup flourishes, she actually opens up and sings in a way that feels raw and exposed and a bit painful. And I think it's that pain in her voice that gives me the interpretation that despite her brave front, she is a bit hurt by the breakup. I had that idea after listening to the song the first time and when I went back to review the lyrics I couldn't find any support for it. But then I realized it's not in the lyrics, it's in the vocals. Even though she's sure she's better off now, she's still a little hurt over it. And that depth is communicated in the performance rather than the music or the lyrics. And that's an excellent performance that can communicate that.
My verdict: Like it. It was just plain fun the first time I listened to it, and revealed hidden emotional depths after several listens. This song is everything pop music should aspire to be.
Weeks: 1
Pink is one of those singers that crept up on me. When she first came along, she seemed to be a fairly generic R&B singer and I dismissed her as not being terribly interesting. "Get The Party Started" seemed vaguely catchy but vapid. I liked "Don't Let Me Get Me" a little, but it seemed to be atypical of her work to that point. It wasn't until I heard this song in the Rock Band video game that
I discovered Pink had been making rock music with judicious traces of both Punk and R&B, and that her songs were catchy and fun.
The music is this song is excellent. It's a tightly performed, tightly produced rock song with a big wall of sound, and every part contributes to the whole in an excellent way. The lead guitar riff is excellent and attention-grabbing, and quits during the chorus so that it doesn't get annoying. The drum line is driving and is an absolute blast to clap along to. The chorus uses a synthesizer bass that I enjoy. I sometimes complain about synthesizers in the 80s, but by the late 90s and 2000s pop musicians had figured out how to use the particular timbre of synthesizers to their advantage. There's a higher-pitched, warbling snyth sound in the chorus that risks being superfluous, but it contributes to the intentional chaos of the overall sound
That chaos really seems to be the intent, because the lyrics are all about the anger of getting over an ended relationship. She's declaring that she's going to be fine for all kinds of reasons. "I don't need you." "I'm having more fun." And now she can see that the relationship wasn't that great anyway. "You weren't there. You never were." As many whiny, weepy, denial-based breakup songs as I've reviewed, I'm glad to find one that is the perfect song for the moment you realize that you're actually glad to be out of that relationship.
The vocals in the chorus are the part of the song that is probably the most fun. Rather than singing, Pink practically shouts. I bet this song is an absolute blast to see performed live, with the audience participating in a shout-along at the top of their lungs. In a clever touch, Pink gets to show off her actual vocal abilities by doing her own backup singing in the last chorus. In those backup flourishes, she actually opens up and sings in a way that feels raw and exposed and a bit painful. And I think it's that pain in her voice that gives me the interpretation that despite her brave front, she is a bit hurt by the breakup. I had that idea after listening to the song the first time and when I went back to review the lyrics I couldn't find any support for it. But then I realized it's not in the lyrics, it's in the vocals. Even though she's sure she's better off now, she's still a little hurt over it. And that depth is communicated in the performance rather than the music or the lyrics. And that's an excellent performance that can communicate that.
My verdict: Like it. It was just plain fun the first time I listened to it, and revealed hidden emotional depths after several listens. This song is everything pop music should aspire to be.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Song #851: "What A Girl Wants" by Christina Aguilera
Date: Jan 15, 2000
Weeks: 2
I've spent too much time with this list. When I saw the number come up, I literally said to myself, "Oh, that'll be on the cusp of the 2000s. I didn't know it would literally be the first new No. 1 in January of the year 2000.
Christina Aguilera can clearly sing. She doesn't have quite the abnormal talent of Mariah Carey, but she does have Carey's knack for showing off her voice without ruining the song by deviating too far. So it seems a shame that her early work matched her with such terrible music as this.
The part of the song I hate most is the title lyric. "What a girl wants, what a girl needs." There's something about the rhythm of that specific lyric that drives me up a wall. It's just so basic and quarter-note-y. It feels like it's from a a song that a 5-year-old would write. The song also falls apart in a lot of the interstitial moments that come between the chorus and the verses. The squeaky bass-synth going on in the background rises to the top of the mix and irritates.
Then you have the breakdown section in the bridge where they pull out the world's cheapest Casio keyboard and play its pre-programmed chords. What were they thinking with that? It's obviously fake, but they're not trying to exaggerate the fakeness to any particular artistic effect. It just seems cheap. They couldn't have hired an actual string section for that?
The verse and chorus are pretty decent, anyway. The verse has a fairly generic late-90s pop sound to it. The chorus is a little more distinctive. Neither is especially interesting or complex, but they're also not bad. The bulk of the song is not bad. It's just those little moments I already mentioned that bug me.
Oh, wait, the lyrics bug me too. With a title like "What a Girl Wants," you would think the song would tell you what she thinks a girl wants. But no. Instead "it's lucky for me you understand what a girl wants." The lyrics walk a fine line between making the guy seem patronizing and making him seem understanding and intuitive. I guess you can read it either way, although the latter interpretation is clearly what's intended. The song does eventually get around to answering the question implied by the title, in the bridge, with "A girl needs somebody sensitive and tough, somebody there when the going gets rough." It's generic, and doesn't even flow naturally from the rest of the lyrics. It's like someone midway through the songwriting process pointed out what I did earlier, so they tacked a little something onto the bridge.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not awful, but it's not good, either.
Weeks: 2
I've spent too much time with this list. When I saw the number come up, I literally said to myself, "Oh, that'll be on the cusp of the 2000s. I didn't know it would literally be the first new No. 1 in January of the year 2000.
Christina Aguilera can clearly sing. She doesn't have quite the abnormal talent of Mariah Carey, but she does have Carey's knack for showing off her voice without ruining the song by deviating too far. So it seems a shame that her early work matched her with such terrible music as this.
The part of the song I hate most is the title lyric. "What a girl wants, what a girl needs." There's something about the rhythm of that specific lyric that drives me up a wall. It's just so basic and quarter-note-y. It feels like it's from a a song that a 5-year-old would write. The song also falls apart in a lot of the interstitial moments that come between the chorus and the verses. The squeaky bass-synth going on in the background rises to the top of the mix and irritates.
Then you have the breakdown section in the bridge where they pull out the world's cheapest Casio keyboard and play its pre-programmed chords. What were they thinking with that? It's obviously fake, but they're not trying to exaggerate the fakeness to any particular artistic effect. It just seems cheap. They couldn't have hired an actual string section for that?
The verse and chorus are pretty decent, anyway. The verse has a fairly generic late-90s pop sound to it. The chorus is a little more distinctive. Neither is especially interesting or complex, but they're also not bad. The bulk of the song is not bad. It's just those little moments I already mentioned that bug me.
Oh, wait, the lyrics bug me too. With a title like "What a Girl Wants," you would think the song would tell you what she thinks a girl wants. But no. Instead "it's lucky for me you understand what a girl wants." The lyrics walk a fine line between making the guy seem patronizing and making him seem understanding and intuitive. I guess you can read it either way, although the latter interpretation is clearly what's intended. The song does eventually get around to answering the question implied by the title, in the bridge, with "A girl needs somebody sensitive and tough, somebody there when the going gets rough." It's generic, and doesn't even flow naturally from the rest of the lyrics. It's like someone midway through the songwriting process pointed out what I did earlier, so they tacked a little something onto the bridge.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not awful, but it's not good, either.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Song #896: "Shake Ya Tailfeather" by Nelly, P. Diddy, & Murphy Lee
Date: Sept 6, 2003
Weeks: 4
Any song that contains both the Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop cheer and a recurring sample of a police siren is vying for the title of Most Annoying Song I've Ever Heard. And the worst thing is that that tomahawk cheer seems to be the closest this song comes to a melody.
The drum and bass line are actually very enjoyable. I like what's happening there. That is a solid base on which to build a fun song. Also a plus is P. Diddy's rapping. I like his voice and style. I can't say I've heard this Murphy Lee before, but his voice and style are okay. And that's about the end of the list of things I like about this song.
As for things I don't like, there's the tomahawk chop standing in for the melody, like I said before, and the police siren sample. Listening to this song in the car would irritate me. I'd constantly be checking my mirrors before I realized the siren was in the song, not coming up behind me on the freeway. I still don't like Nelly's voice, although this song helps explain why he spelled the title of that other song "Herre," because that's how he actually pronounces that word in this song.
Overall, though, I guess the general sound is kind of all right. If I ignore the things that irritate me, it's a decent enough song to dance to during some of the middle parts. It's from the movie Bad Boys 2, and I bet it fits in with the movie. But the lyrics... oh, the lyrics.
First we have the obnoxious branding. They make sure to insert the rappers' names into the beginning of the song. Not like they're singing about themselves, but like they're making sure if you hear the song on the radio or in the movie, you'll know exactly who sings it without having to ask or read the credits. Then they add "Bad Boys 2, the Soundtrack, let's go." So now you know exactly where you can buy this song. I guess I'm surprised this sort of thing doesn't happen more, but it sure removes any chance that a song could be mistaken for art.
I feel like some of these lyrics in the Murphy Lee part need special individual commentary:
"They be like he the man, but I'm really a Thundercat." That's a really clumsy He-Man reference. No one would ever connect "he the man" to "He-Man" without the Thundercats reference. Also, would you rather be a Thundercat than He-Man? Especially when you're trying to reference your virility with regard to sex with women?
"Connect like Voltron." Murphy Lee was a nerd like me when he was a kid, wasn't he?
"Collect so much grass popo thinking we mow lawns." The police wouldn't think you're mowing lawns if you're "collecting" grass. Even I know that slang. Plus it makes little sense from a lawnmowing perspective. Maybe they should have said they collect so much grass, the police think they compost. No, that's stupid, too.
Otherwise, it's just your typical rap "I like to sleep with many women, and I get to because I am just that awesome" song. Nothing new to see here, lyrically.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a terrible overall sound, but there are too many obnoxious details that ruin it.
Weeks: 4
Any song that contains both the Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop cheer and a recurring sample of a police siren is vying for the title of Most Annoying Song I've Ever Heard. And the worst thing is that that tomahawk cheer seems to be the closest this song comes to a melody.
The drum and bass line are actually very enjoyable. I like what's happening there. That is a solid base on which to build a fun song. Also a plus is P. Diddy's rapping. I like his voice and style. I can't say I've heard this Murphy Lee before, but his voice and style are okay. And that's about the end of the list of things I like about this song.
As for things I don't like, there's the tomahawk chop standing in for the melody, like I said before, and the police siren sample. Listening to this song in the car would irritate me. I'd constantly be checking my mirrors before I realized the siren was in the song, not coming up behind me on the freeway. I still don't like Nelly's voice, although this song helps explain why he spelled the title of that other song "Herre," because that's how he actually pronounces that word in this song.
Overall, though, I guess the general sound is kind of all right. If I ignore the things that irritate me, it's a decent enough song to dance to during some of the middle parts. It's from the movie Bad Boys 2, and I bet it fits in with the movie. But the lyrics... oh, the lyrics.
First we have the obnoxious branding. They make sure to insert the rappers' names into the beginning of the song. Not like they're singing about themselves, but like they're making sure if you hear the song on the radio or in the movie, you'll know exactly who sings it without having to ask or read the credits. Then they add "Bad Boys 2, the Soundtrack, let's go." So now you know exactly where you can buy this song. I guess I'm surprised this sort of thing doesn't happen more, but it sure removes any chance that a song could be mistaken for art.
I feel like some of these lyrics in the Murphy Lee part need special individual commentary:
"They be like he the man, but I'm really a Thundercat." That's a really clumsy He-Man reference. No one would ever connect "he the man" to "He-Man" without the Thundercats reference. Also, would you rather be a Thundercat than He-Man? Especially when you're trying to reference your virility with regard to sex with women?
"Connect like Voltron." Murphy Lee was a nerd like me when he was a kid, wasn't he?
"Collect so much grass popo thinking we mow lawns." The police wouldn't think you're mowing lawns if you're "collecting" grass. Even I know that slang. Plus it makes little sense from a lawnmowing perspective. Maybe they should have said they collect so much grass, the police think they compost. No, that's stupid, too.
Otherwise, it's just your typical rap "I like to sleep with many women, and I get to because I am just that awesome" song. Nothing new to see here, lyrically.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a terrible overall sound, but there are too many obnoxious details that ruin it.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Song #902: "Yeah!" by Usher featuring Lil John and Ludacris
Date: Feb 28, 2004
Weeks: 12
This song's overall sound is great. While the synthesizer was horribly abused in the 70s and 80s, somewhere in the 90s someone figured out how to properly use it as part of the musical palette. And this song shows how the synthesizer can be used to wonderful effect. The synthesizer sting that dominates this song is pure gold. As long as the rest of the song can stay out of its way, that sting will carry the song. And the rest of the song generally does that. Other than some minimal percussion and bass, there's not a lot of other music here to interfere.
As for the vocals, I think I've said before that Usher has a good voice. I enjoy listening to him sing. The relatively stark soundscape shows off his voice, and it's great. Ludacris raps for a verse here, too. And I was right before, Ludacris raps well and doesn't need his voice to be manipulated weirdly to be entertaining. Ludacris's rap verse sounds really good. Ludacris and Usher have made two decent songs here and successfully fused them together in a way that works. Lil John has a really obnoxious voice and he's pretty terrible, but the song uses him in the best way possible: minimally. If Lil John had even a whole verse I'd probably be pointing to it as the point where the song broke down, but that doesn't happen.
Now, the lyrics are where the song starts to come apart. It seems Usher has a favorite theme for his songs: seeing an attractive woman at a dance club. I seem to be moving backwards through Usher's career, so maybe he's just copying the formula that worked for him here, but I kind of want to hear him sing about something else. Anyway, like the other songs I've reviewed, this one reduces the woman he's singing about to her attractiveness, and Usher implies he has no willpower to resist her, even though he has a girlfriend and totally should. Ludacris's lyrics are possibly even worse, including the line "if you hold the head steady, I'ma milk the cow." I'm not sure I've fully deciphered the metaphor, but I'm pretty sure he's just compared women to cows, or at least to milk. This song at least avoids using pre-teen words like "Boobies," and isn't about having sex in public, so I suppose of all the Usher songs I've done, it's the least offensive lyrically.
My verdict: Like it. I don't care about the lyrics. That synthesizer hook is a winner, and the quality of the vocals are a good thing. I can mostly overlook the lyrics.
Weeks: 12
This song's overall sound is great. While the synthesizer was horribly abused in the 70s and 80s, somewhere in the 90s someone figured out how to properly use it as part of the musical palette. And this song shows how the synthesizer can be used to wonderful effect. The synthesizer sting that dominates this song is pure gold. As long as the rest of the song can stay out of its way, that sting will carry the song. And the rest of the song generally does that. Other than some minimal percussion and bass, there's not a lot of other music here to interfere.
As for the vocals, I think I've said before that Usher has a good voice. I enjoy listening to him sing. The relatively stark soundscape shows off his voice, and it's great. Ludacris raps for a verse here, too. And I was right before, Ludacris raps well and doesn't need his voice to be manipulated weirdly to be entertaining. Ludacris's rap verse sounds really good. Ludacris and Usher have made two decent songs here and successfully fused them together in a way that works. Lil John has a really obnoxious voice and he's pretty terrible, but the song uses him in the best way possible: minimally. If Lil John had even a whole verse I'd probably be pointing to it as the point where the song broke down, but that doesn't happen.
Now, the lyrics are where the song starts to come apart. It seems Usher has a favorite theme for his songs: seeing an attractive woman at a dance club. I seem to be moving backwards through Usher's career, so maybe he's just copying the formula that worked for him here, but I kind of want to hear him sing about something else. Anyway, like the other songs I've reviewed, this one reduces the woman he's singing about to her attractiveness, and Usher implies he has no willpower to resist her, even though he has a girlfriend and totally should. Ludacris's lyrics are possibly even worse, including the line "if you hold the head steady, I'ma milk the cow." I'm not sure I've fully deciphered the metaphor, but I'm pretty sure he's just compared women to cows, or at least to milk. This song at least avoids using pre-teen words like "Boobies," and isn't about having sex in public, so I suppose of all the Usher songs I've done, it's the least offensive lyrically.
My verdict: Like it. I don't care about the lyrics. That synthesizer hook is a winner, and the quality of the vocals are a good thing. I can mostly overlook the lyrics.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Song #932: "SexyBack" by Justin Timberlake
Date: Sept 9, 2006
Weeks: 7
This song starts out promisingly enough. The sound it creates is appealing. The synth chords and percussion line create a nice little dance beat. It sounds like a great start to an intriguing song.
But then the song goes nowhere. The song doesn't evolve or change. It's content to just park on that sound for 4 minutes, and hopes you like that sound enough to endure 4 minutes of it. There's barely even a difference between the verse and the chorus. The synth chords change a bit, but it certainly doesn't create sufficient variety to be entertaining.
The sound is so shallow. That's a fine sound to create at the beginning of a song, when you're building to something. But this song builds to nothing. It needs more layers of sound. I don't even know what it needs. Maybe replace the bass-sting chords with more constant bass? Add an orchestra? I don't even know. Add anything, especially in the chorus, and this would be a better song.
I'm not sure the lyrics even deserve analysis. It's basically an excuse to say the word "sexy" as much as possible, while saying things that sound sexy but aren't. "I think it's special what's behind your back. So turn around and I'll pick up the slack." I don't think it's sexy to say that you'll pick up somebody's slacking butt. "Girl let me make up for the things you lack." That's the worst pick-up line I've ever heard.
My verdict: Don't like it. Dance music is trying to accomplish a very different goal from other music, which is to create one sound that can be stretched for as long as a dance club DJ wants. It may work in that context, but it rarely works as an arranged pop song in any other context.
Weeks: 7
This song starts out promisingly enough. The sound it creates is appealing. The synth chords and percussion line create a nice little dance beat. It sounds like a great start to an intriguing song.
But then the song goes nowhere. The song doesn't evolve or change. It's content to just park on that sound for 4 minutes, and hopes you like that sound enough to endure 4 minutes of it. There's barely even a difference between the verse and the chorus. The synth chords change a bit, but it certainly doesn't create sufficient variety to be entertaining.
The sound is so shallow. That's a fine sound to create at the beginning of a song, when you're building to something. But this song builds to nothing. It needs more layers of sound. I don't even know what it needs. Maybe replace the bass-sting chords with more constant bass? Add an orchestra? I don't even know. Add anything, especially in the chorus, and this would be a better song.
I'm not sure the lyrics even deserve analysis. It's basically an excuse to say the word "sexy" as much as possible, while saying things that sound sexy but aren't. "I think it's special what's behind your back. So turn around and I'll pick up the slack." I don't think it's sexy to say that you'll pick up somebody's slacking butt. "Girl let me make up for the things you lack." That's the worst pick-up line I've ever heard.
My verdict: Don't like it. Dance music is trying to accomplish a very different goal from other music, which is to create one sound that can be stretched for as long as a dance club DJ wants. It may work in that context, but it rarely works as an arranged pop song in any other context.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Song #859: "Everything You Want" by Vertical Horizon
Date: July 15, 2000
Weeks: 1
As long as there has been rock music, there has also been gentle rock music. This is a great example of that genre from the early 2000s. It's not soft, exactly, but it's also not the least bit hard. It's a pleasant enough little piece of ear candy that is largely designed to be as inoffensive as possible. And yet, despite being notably bland, it's not bad.
The traditional guitar-and-drums rock sound is full and the bridge is fairly compelling. But I think it's the synthesized beat that keeps the song interesting. It's fairly unique where the rest of the song is not. The traditional rock part of the song isn't particularly original or deep, but it serves its purpose well enough. It stays listenable throughout.
The vocals are pretty terrible. The lead singer has a really weak and light voice. He sounds like a doormat, which at least matches the lyrics.
As for the lyrics, it's basically that universal "I'm in love with someone who doesn't know I'm alive." thing. The singer laments that the object of his affections is in and out of relationships and wondering why they aren't working out. "He means nothing to you and you don't know why." Meanwhile he's saying "I mean nothing to you and I don't know why." It's pretty unremarkable subject matter, and the lyrics aren't particularly clever, not even the twist of pronouns to make a point in the lines I quoted. It's not as clever as the songwriter thinks it is. Plus it causes this lyric: "I say all the right things at exactly the right time." When you've just used that lyric to express that the other guy isn't as great as he seems to be, you can't turn it around on yourself and expect it to have a different meaning.
My verdict: Like it. This is just barely a pass for me, and it's because the synth is unique and the overall tone of the music is pleasant. Not a great song, but a decent enough one.
Weeks: 1
As long as there has been rock music, there has also been gentle rock music. This is a great example of that genre from the early 2000s. It's not soft, exactly, but it's also not the least bit hard. It's a pleasant enough little piece of ear candy that is largely designed to be as inoffensive as possible. And yet, despite being notably bland, it's not bad.
The traditional guitar-and-drums rock sound is full and the bridge is fairly compelling. But I think it's the synthesized beat that keeps the song interesting. It's fairly unique where the rest of the song is not. The traditional rock part of the song isn't particularly original or deep, but it serves its purpose well enough. It stays listenable throughout.
The vocals are pretty terrible. The lead singer has a really weak and light voice. He sounds like a doormat, which at least matches the lyrics.
As for the lyrics, it's basically that universal "I'm in love with someone who doesn't know I'm alive." thing. The singer laments that the object of his affections is in and out of relationships and wondering why they aren't working out. "He means nothing to you and you don't know why." Meanwhile he's saying "I mean nothing to you and I don't know why." It's pretty unremarkable subject matter, and the lyrics aren't particularly clever, not even the twist of pronouns to make a point in the lines I quoted. It's not as clever as the songwriter thinks it is. Plus it causes this lyric: "I say all the right things at exactly the right time." When you've just used that lyric to express that the other guy isn't as great as he seems to be, you can't turn it around on yourself and expect it to have a different meaning.
My verdict: Like it. This is just barely a pass for me, and it's because the synth is unique and the overall tone of the music is pleasant. Not a great song, but a decent enough one.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Song #913: "Hollaback Girl" by Gwen Stefani
Date: May 7, 2005
Weeks: 4
I liked No Doubt when they were a ska band. "Just a Girl" is a great piece of feminist commentary and a solid song. Their later stuff like "Hey Baby" took me a while to warm up to, but I eventually came to like it. I'm not trying to hold Gwen Stefani's previous work up as some kind of standard she needs to live up to, I'm just trying to say that I wanted to like this song, but I couldn't.
For one thing, it strikes me as a song that was coldly calculated to appeal to high schoolers. There are lyrics referring to principals and bleachers, most of the music seems to be marching band-style brass and drums, and the "singing" is more like cheerleader-style shouting. And all of that imagery is in the video, so I don't think I'm far off the mark here. It's kind of pandering.
And the shouting is downright unpleasant. It's whiny. Gwen Stefani's never been a great singer, and I suppose she's always been whiny, but usually her voice matches the music and lyrics. With very little music in this song, there's not a lot to mask the whininess, and then she gets shouty and amps it up.
The music is just brass and drums. The song could be performed by a marching band, except they'd have to leave about half the band off the field to match the rather small amount of sound this song generates.
So that leaves the lyrics. I guess she hears somebody talking bad about her and threatens to beat them up behind the bleachers. Because she's going to stand up for herself. I gather (from the Internet, not from the context of the song) that a hollaback girl is a girl who doesn't stand up for herself. I suppose this is Gwen Stefani trying to be a good role model for teenage girls. But then there's a call-and-answer section about spelling the word "Bananas," and it's just kind of weird.
My verdict: Don't like it. I guess it's not awful, but it's not pleasant to listen to.
Weeks: 4
I liked No Doubt when they were a ska band. "Just a Girl" is a great piece of feminist commentary and a solid song. Their later stuff like "Hey Baby" took me a while to warm up to, but I eventually came to like it. I'm not trying to hold Gwen Stefani's previous work up as some kind of standard she needs to live up to, I'm just trying to say that I wanted to like this song, but I couldn't.
For one thing, it strikes me as a song that was coldly calculated to appeal to high schoolers. There are lyrics referring to principals and bleachers, most of the music seems to be marching band-style brass and drums, and the "singing" is more like cheerleader-style shouting. And all of that imagery is in the video, so I don't think I'm far off the mark here. It's kind of pandering.
And the shouting is downright unpleasant. It's whiny. Gwen Stefani's never been a great singer, and I suppose she's always been whiny, but usually her voice matches the music and lyrics. With very little music in this song, there's not a lot to mask the whininess, and then she gets shouty and amps it up.
The music is just brass and drums. The song could be performed by a marching band, except they'd have to leave about half the band off the field to match the rather small amount of sound this song generates.
So that leaves the lyrics. I guess she hears somebody talking bad about her and threatens to beat them up behind the bleachers. Because she's going to stand up for herself. I gather (from the Internet, not from the context of the song) that a hollaback girl is a girl who doesn't stand up for herself. I suppose this is Gwen Stefani trying to be a good role model for teenage girls. But then there's a call-and-answer section about spelling the word "Bananas," and it's just kind of weird.
My verdict: Don't like it. I guess it's not awful, but it's not pleasant to listen to.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Song #919: "Laffy Taffy" by D4L
Date: Jan 14, 2006
Weeks: 1
This song has a pleasant enough sound to it. I really like the super-synthesizer that plugs away through the song. Beep beep boop! It sounds like a video game music remix, and I thoroughly enjoy those. The rapping is decent enough, and the chorus is like a chant, so they neatly sidestep the question of how well rappers can sing.
I like the overall sound, for about a minute. But it goes on too long with too little variety, and gets old really fast. Okay, beep beep boop, we get it. Add some variety. Build to something musically. But that doesn't happen.
Anyway, it's a rap song, so the music is besides the point and the lyrics are what matters, right? The chorus is "Girl shake that laffy taffy." Wait don't tell me, let me guess. "Laffy Taffy" means her butt, right? Oh. Oh no. It's something... else. Similar region, but... Sigh. They just had to be as crude as possible, didn't they? (Here's a link to it on Urban Dictionary, if you haven't figured it out and really want to know).
And then the rest of the song isn't any less crude. The first verse is filled with this kind of candy-as-sex metaphor. "Girls call me Jolly Rancher 'cause I stay so hard." It's sort of clever. It's like a dirtier version of "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies (#219). And I think that reference is intentional, considering the occasional interjections of "candy girl," a specific lyric in "Sugar, Sugar."
Unfortunately, this concept disappears in subsequent verses. I guess one guy in this group was interested in the candy-as-sex metaphor idea, but the rappers on the other two verses wanted no part of it. They both just rap about being at a strip club, and each of them raps about how he's just so special that he plans to win over the best-looking stripper and take her back to his place. Psst, guys, every stripper tries to make every guy feel like he is the only guy in the room and she's about to go home with him. A stripper who makes customers feel that way gets better pay and better tips. You're falling for the strip club's trick, and you're about one minute away from being escorted out by security, despite your assertion that "security guard don't scare nobody."
I suppose I don't even have to say that the song is totally sexist. Would it be so sexist if they left out the strip club stuff, leaving just the candy metaphor? And if "laffy taffy" didn't mean what it does? I guess it doesn't matter, because both those things are in this song.
My verdict: Don't like it. For about the first minute, I thought this song had potential to be good. But it wasn't.
Weeks: 1
This song has a pleasant enough sound to it. I really like the super-synthesizer that plugs away through the song. Beep beep boop! It sounds like a video game music remix, and I thoroughly enjoy those. The rapping is decent enough, and the chorus is like a chant, so they neatly sidestep the question of how well rappers can sing.
I like the overall sound, for about a minute. But it goes on too long with too little variety, and gets old really fast. Okay, beep beep boop, we get it. Add some variety. Build to something musically. But that doesn't happen.
Anyway, it's a rap song, so the music is besides the point and the lyrics are what matters, right? The chorus is "Girl shake that laffy taffy." Wait don't tell me, let me guess. "Laffy Taffy" means her butt, right? Oh. Oh no. It's something... else. Similar region, but... Sigh. They just had to be as crude as possible, didn't they? (Here's a link to it on Urban Dictionary, if you haven't figured it out and really want to know).
And then the rest of the song isn't any less crude. The first verse is filled with this kind of candy-as-sex metaphor. "Girls call me Jolly Rancher 'cause I stay so hard." It's sort of clever. It's like a dirtier version of "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies (#219). And I think that reference is intentional, considering the occasional interjections of "candy girl," a specific lyric in "Sugar, Sugar."
Unfortunately, this concept disappears in subsequent verses. I guess one guy in this group was interested in the candy-as-sex metaphor idea, but the rappers on the other two verses wanted no part of it. They both just rap about being at a strip club, and each of them raps about how he's just so special that he plans to win over the best-looking stripper and take her back to his place. Psst, guys, every stripper tries to make every guy feel like he is the only guy in the room and she's about to go home with him. A stripper who makes customers feel that way gets better pay and better tips. You're falling for the strip club's trick, and you're about one minute away from being escorted out by security, despite your assertion that "security guard don't scare nobody."
I suppose I don't even have to say that the song is totally sexist. Would it be so sexist if they left out the strip club stuff, leaving just the candy metaphor? And if "laffy taffy" didn't mean what it does? I guess it doesn't matter, because both those things are in this song.
My verdict: Don't like it. For about the first minute, I thought this song had potential to be good. But it wasn't.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Song #910: "Drop It Like It's Hot" by Snoop Dogg featuring Pharrell
Date: Dec 11, 2004
Weeks: 3
This is awful. It's not even music. It's just noise. And I don't just mean that in a "wow, the crap kids listen to these days, it just sounds like noise" kind of way. I mean this is literally a series of random noises loosely strung together by some rap lyrics.
Here's a list of sounds in this song that irritate me:
- The tongue-clicking. It's like listening to somebody chew.
- The opening "Snooooooooop" vocal. It's so high-pitched and shrill.
- Everytime Snoop Dogg says "hot", there's a second "Hot?" layered on top of it. Why is it a question, why is it there constantly?
- The bass line. It's not a terrible bass line, but it's begging for some other music.
So what does that leave? The little snare drum beat that happens from time to time? That doesn't bother me very much. Oh, and I suppose that's not a bad keyboard sting that happens from time to time. In a better song, I might not hate it.
And I think that's a list of literally every sound in the song, other than Snoop Dogg and Pharrell's rapping. And neither of their rap styles appeals to me. Pharrell sounds like he's one step above being completely asleep. Snoop Dogg sounds like he barely understands the difference between rapping and just talking.
Do I even need to get into the lyrics? It's the usual terrible gansta rap stuff: I'm rich, I'm a gang member, I'm a badass, I get lots of women. Drug references, violence references, offensive to women, product placement for opulent clothing and alcohol.
And yet I could look past a lot of that if the overall sound weren't so hollow and empty. Add more music! Thankfully, Youtube mashups exist to provide an example of what I'm talking about.
My verdict: Don't like it. Terrible. The worst song I've reviewed so far.
Weeks: 3
This is awful. It's not even music. It's just noise. And I don't just mean that in a "wow, the crap kids listen to these days, it just sounds like noise" kind of way. I mean this is literally a series of random noises loosely strung together by some rap lyrics.
Here's a list of sounds in this song that irritate me:
- The tongue-clicking. It's like listening to somebody chew.
- The opening "Snooooooooop" vocal. It's so high-pitched and shrill.
- Everytime Snoop Dogg says "hot", there's a second "Hot?" layered on top of it. Why is it a question, why is it there constantly?
- The bass line. It's not a terrible bass line, but it's begging for some other music.
So what does that leave? The little snare drum beat that happens from time to time? That doesn't bother me very much. Oh, and I suppose that's not a bad keyboard sting that happens from time to time. In a better song, I might not hate it.
And I think that's a list of literally every sound in the song, other than Snoop Dogg and Pharrell's rapping. And neither of their rap styles appeals to me. Pharrell sounds like he's one step above being completely asleep. Snoop Dogg sounds like he barely understands the difference between rapping and just talking.
Do I even need to get into the lyrics? It's the usual terrible gansta rap stuff: I'm rich, I'm a gang member, I'm a badass, I get lots of women. Drug references, violence references, offensive to women, product placement for opulent clothing and alcohol.
And yet I could look past a lot of that if the overall sound weren't so hollow and empty. Add more music! Thankfully, Youtube mashups exist to provide an example of what I'm talking about.
My verdict: Don't like it. Terrible. The worst song I've reviewed so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)