I know I've said this several times before, but I really wonder who it was that thought mixing cheap synthesizers with heartfelt emotional songs was a good idea. Because this song isn't so bad, but some terrible choices were made in its construction.
And it's not like you can't make interesting music with synthesizers. Expose's own earlier song "Point of No Return" is a fine song and it has the same poundy drum and synthesized tones. But because it's more upbeat and poppy, it works in a way that the same synthesizers don't work here. Also, that blaring 80s saxophone is really overbearing here.
Lyrically, it's about the sadness of a relationship that hasn't stood the test of time. I sort of like the lyrics. Lines like "It's been so long since I found you yet it seems like yesterday" have a simple poetry to them. The singing is also pretty good. The lead singing and the backing harmonies try their hardest to convey the emotions expressed by the lyrics, but they just can't penetrate the thick wall of the synthesizer.
My verdict: Don't like it. The synthesizer is just too overbearing.
Both incarnations of this song have so many problems that I'm at a bit of a loss for where to even begin. I suppose the fundamental problem is the same: it's a a cowboy-sounding ballad with way too much going on in what could otherwise be a charmingly simple song.
Lawrence's version starts out okay, sounding like he's settled on a song that should be sung by a cowboy as his horse strolls down the dusty trail. But then for some reason the sound mix throws in a second track where he harmonizes with himself. And then a string section comes in, which makes it feel less like a cowboy sing-along and more like a cowboy movie. Which wouldn't be all bad, but I don't think the song is aiming for cowboy movie chic.
Osmond's version, oddly, maintains a lot of that same cowboy western sound. The horse-hoof clopping sound has been toned down a bit, but in its place is an unwelcome backup chorus, and a much larger backing orchestra. And Osmond's vocals are unrefined. When he reaches for those upper notes, you can hear him straining. I suppose that's why they added the backup chorus, so he wouldn't have to do quite so much.
The lyrics bug me, but for different reasons. The song is about the singer feeling tempted by the "little girl," but not wanting to be unfaithful to the relationship he's in. And so he begs her to "go away." "You're much too hard to resist," he says. He's not quite blaming her for his attraction to her, but it's close enough to make me uncomfortable.
And then we have the diminutive "little girl" problem. Steve, if that girl is so "little," you probably shouldn't be tempted by her in the first place. Either she's a woman and the issue with your attraction is that you're seeing someone else, or she's underage and that's the problem with your attraction.
That's less of a problem for Osmond, who is about 14 here, but sounds like he's all of 10. "Little Girl" is a bit more appropriate when sung by a little boy. But then the rest of the lyrics start to seem inappropriate. "I know that your lips are sweet." You do? How do you know that? "When you're near me like this you're much too hard to resist." That's an understandable line coming from a grown man, but from a boy it sounds like he's repeating something he heard without knowing what it means. And I suppose that feeling is enhanced by the fact that he's doing a cover.
My verdict: Don't like it. I don't like either one, but Steve Lawrence's version is better. Donny Osmond's voice just isn't ready yet for this. He did mature into a much better performer eventually, though.
"We both are so excited 'cause we're reunited." Okay, go back and write a song that actually communicates excitement. This one communicates, at best, quiet self-satisfaction.
Once again, we have a bunch of instruments involved in creating a really quiet song, so there is neither emotional spareness nor energetic fullness. The instruments that are here seem to be really cheaply produced, possibly simulated. Take out the drums and explore the emotional sincerity of your song.
Vocally, the song's not much better to listen to. Herb is a pretty mediocre singer, and he doesn't carry his solo sections very well. Peaches does better, and I don't mind her voice at all. But together, they just don't harmonize very well. "There's one perfect fit and sugar this one is it." Your voices don't fit together at all. Your voices need to be reunited.
The lyrics feel really lazily written. There's no poetry here, just a bunch of words that rhyme. "I spent the evening with the radio. Regret the moment that I let you go." "Spent the evening with the radio" isn't an idiom, and it's kind of half a metaphor at best. And to fit the sentence structure, it should be "I regret the moment," but of course that doesn't fit the meter. Also, I don't really like the sentiment. Relationship songs are usually about angst, or contentment, but this one is just kind of smugly satisfied.
Oh, strummy acoustic nothing songs, how I loathe you.
The bulk of this song is 2 chords from an acoustic guitar. Both the verses and the choruses just alternate from one chord to the other before switching back. There are also some transitions that employ a couple other chords very briefly, but other than technically adding more chords to the song they don't add anything resembling variety to the music.
And there's little else going on to listen to here. There's another guitar noodling away vaguely way in the background, and a lonely maraca on percussion. And there's the vocal harmony, but this isn't exactly Boyz II Men here. The Eagles's voices here are fine, but not particularly remarkable.
And this is where the strummy acoustic guitar song fails for me. There's no interesting sound here. There's no tension building up for release, no energy. There's not even any variety to keep the song compelling. Conversely, they can't commit to the spare, heartfelt song of one person with one guitar, instead adding sound and voices all over the place. So with the music a complete failure, that must mean the lyrics are interesting, right?
I'm not going to pretend the lyrics are terrible, because they're not. But they're not exactly great, either. There aren't any clever turns of phrase or interesting things to say. The singer's had a fight with his significant other and can't quite find the right words to make it right. "We try to talk it over, but the words come out too rough." It's an apology song, an attempt to rise above the specific issues at hand and try to save the relationship because "here in my heart, I give you the best of my love." Mostly I don't have a problem with the lyrics, but I do find the chorus to be pretty generic. "Ooooh, sweet darlin'. You get the best of my love." "Sweet darlin'" isn't exactly an original affectionate, there. And gee, maybe if the relationship is in this much peril, your "sweet darlin'" might actually be getting the worst of your love.
My verdict: Don't like it. A song needs to have either interesting music or interesting lyrics, preferably both. This one has mediocre lyrics and almost no music, so it's no good.
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.
Not every song that is slow, quiet, and gentle is bad. Here's a song that is at least soothing and pleasant to listen to. Unfortunately, it's also extraordinarily low on energy, and I'm not entirely convinced the sound matches its lyrics entirely appropriately.
I could see a song that sounded like this being a sweet little love song. There are parts of it, especially in the verses, that feel like a stroll with your sweetheart on a nice day. But that's not what this song is about, because the singer turns out to be imagining the whole thing. The music doesn't really match that, because the music isn't really sad at all. It's just soft. I'm not going to go too hard on the song for the singer building this whole relationship around this woman who is walking by, because he does repeatedly acknowledge the reality of the situation, with both the song's title and the line "in reality she doesn't even know me."
The vocal harmonies in this song are, of course, excellent. But the music is too much like the rest of the 70s, with huge string sections attached to very slight and inconsequential percussion. I don't think strings are a bad match for the song, but there's too much of them here. And the horns in the bridge are really misplaced, sounding like they came from some epic stage musical, rather than the inconsequential musings of a man sitting alone with his imagination.
My verdict: Don't like it. The only thing this song seems good for is wallowing in self-pity over failed relationships. There's value in that, but it's not a great song from outside that context.
Hoo boy. If there's one good thing that could be said about Chicago in the 80s, it's that they had at least mastered the cheesy power ballad, with strong synthesizer chords that were appealing, if hollow. But this song can't even rise to that level.
The sound in this song is so hollow, so soft, so inconsequential, and so lethargic, I can't imagine how it managed to share radio space with "Rock'n Me" (#408). You have Peter Cetera's high-pitched and insincere voice, the lightest guitar I've heard in a while, a tiny maraca sound, and some low strings and soft horns. And that's it. There no energy behind this song and no emotional sincerity. I don't mind an emotional song, but I don't get the sincere vibe a song like this needs to pull off.
Lyrically, it's similarly hollow. "A love like ours is a love that's hard to find. How could we let it slip away?" There's a lot of time spent in this song telling us that the singer thinks this is a special relationship that shouldn't be allowed to end the way it's ending, but I don't feel persuaded. "If you leave me now, you'll take away the biggest part of me." It just feels whiny, rather than persuasive. A lot of that may have to do with Cetera's vocal delivery, but the lyrics are just as much to blame.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not a great song, but it's a terrible performance. Boyz II Men did a version of it in 2009 that is what this song should have sounded like.
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.
The background music in this song is kind of that quintessential 1950s rock sound. I can already imagine it playing in the background of American Graffiti. This is classic rock and roll here. I like the sound of it, but there's not a lot of variety. It goes on and on without much variation. Fortunately, the song is brief enough that it doesn't really manage to get old.
I like Harrison's vocal performance. For the most part his performance is clean and clear, but he adds just enough variety to keep the song interesting. It's well-performed, in a tidy 1950s way.
The lyrics are pretty ordinary, I think. I've never cared for that blues trope where the first line of any verse is repeated twice, and that particular trope is all over this song. It just seems to take away the song's opportunities to say different things. As for the subject, the singer seems to think all his problems will be solved if he moves to Kansas City, because "they got some crazy little women there." It's worth noting that this version of the song changes the lyrics from "If I stay in town I know I'm gonna die" to "If I stay with that woman I know I'm gonna die." I'm not sure I can respect the guy who seems to think all his problems will be solved if he runs away from his current relationship just to pursue a new one.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's fine, really, but it doesn't move me. Also, the lyrics about running away from a relationship just to start a new one kind of bother me.
The love theme from what movie? Oh. No movie. Just Love's theme. Which seems like it's far too generic an idea to inspire a good song. And, as it turns out, that's entirely true.
Barry White wrote this song, but left out his voice and wrote an instrumental piece. I already complained about one Barry White song not having a full enough sound when he wasn't singing, so an entire song where Barry White doesn't sing is very disappointing. There is more bass here than last time, to compensate, but the song still feels like it's missing something. I don't need lyrics, but maybe some non-verbal vocal exercises could have added some interest to this song.
I also don't appreciate the mix of orchestra and 70s wah-wah guitar. I'll try not to hold the general overuse of strings in 70s pop music against this song. But I can't help feel that somebody wrote a pleasant little string orchestra piece and then ruined it with a cheap little wah-wah guitar and synthesized bass undercurrent. There's not really a well-featured instrument, either, so it just ends up feeling like somebody forgot to record the lyrics.
Oh, I take it back. The lyrics don't make this song better. Yikes.
My verdict: Don't like it. I'm not opposed to the idea of a disco instrumental, but this one didn't work out.
This song seems terribly miscalculated. I think the meaning is really supposed to be reflected by one of the later lyrics, "Get outta my mind, get into my life." That's what you say when you want to stop admiring someone from afar and pursue a real relationship with them.
Unfortunately, somewhere in the writing process the metaphor "Get outta my dreams, get into my car" came along. And the rest of the song was written around literalizing that metaphor as much as possible. Lyrics like "touch my bumper" and "lady driver" merge with car horn sounds and revving engines, and the result is a song that isn't serious enough to be meaningful, but doesn't quite reach the level of humorous novelty song, either. Also, what is meant by the line "get in the back seat, baby?" Is that still a metaphor, or have they abandoned all metaphorical pretensions and just tossed in a car reference for fun?
The overly bright horns and noisy percussion and synthesizer stings don't help much, either. This is a song locked into the sound of the late 80s, in a way that doesn't make much sense outside the context of 80s music. I don't care much for the female vocals, either. They seem unnecessary and designed to just complicate the sound. And then they can't even be consistent with their car metaphors, choosing to try something else with "Hey Cinderella, step in your shoe." You made the song about the car metaphor, you stick with it.
The whole "Touch my bumper [bumper]" moment is this song in a nutshell. I spent all my time listening to this song waiting for that line to repeat, because I just sort of dread how dumb that moment is, encapsulating everything that bugs me about this song.
My verdict: Don't like it. I really hope this song was written specifically for License To Drive, and that the car metaphor was written first. At least that's a commercial enterprise I can understand. Because if someone just thought the car metaphor was a good idea on an artistic level, that person was sorely mistaken.
So remember when I complained about the overproduction in the single version of "My Heart Will Go On" (#825)? Well, if you ever wondered what it would sound like if you removed the classy orchestral undercurrent from that song and left nothing but the shallow overproduction, here's your answer. Unsurprisingly, we once again have Diane Warren to thank for this.
This has all those usual cheesy power ballad hallmarks. The "tick..boom" drum, the gospel-sounding background chorus attempting to inflate the song's importance. The unnecessary strings doing the same thing. The cheesy emotionlessly emotional synth bass line. This song contains a bonus sound that really grates my brain, too. During the second verse, some instrument or another just keeps droning these monotone quarter notes. Whatever that is, it doesn't return again, so I'm not sure what the point was. I guess they wanted the song to build from start to finish and this was the only way they could think to accomplish that. I will give credit that the song does successfully build and get bigger from start to finish, so while I don't enjoy listening to it, at least the variety keeps it from being boring.
Celine Dion gives a good performance here. She's well-matched to the song, and her level of performance and showing off near the end works quite well.
The lyrics are fine, I guess. They're about how the support of someone who loves you gives you strength, especially when you need it most. I always thought the song was a little asymmetrical, with one person able being supported by another but not offering support back. But Warren supposedly wrote this song about her father, and that kind of one-directional supportive love makes more sense when it's about a parent than a romantic partner. While I don't object to the sentiment, I do think the song makes its point early and then repeats itself for the rest of its running time, and it doesn't manage to be poetic or original about it.
My verdict: Don't like it. The lyrics are okay, if bland. The singing is actually pretty good. But nothing can overcome the cheesy music.
This is a cover from the soundtrack to a movie about a singer who recorded a rock and roll version of a traditional dance song from Mexico. Is everybody clear on that?
The original rock and roll song was recorded by Ritchie Valens. I'm not sure whether I like his version more or not. It's more organic than this remake, so it has a bit more feeling, but it's also not nearly as tidy. Personally, I think I like the Los Lobos singer better, but I like most of the instruments in the Valens version better. Well, maybe not the wood block percussion. Mostly I just want to get rid of the irritating guitar solo from the Los Lobos version. Regardless of all of that, the bottom line is that this song has a catchy tune. It will get stuck in your head. I don't understand why they added an acoustic lead-out from the song, though. Was that to tie it back to its traditional roots? Maybe, but it feels like a whole different song.
I've always wondered what the lyrics to this song meant. I've always been a little irritated by how often this song loops back to "Baila la la la bamba." Although I didn't understand the lyrics, I got the sense that they were very repetitive. And now that I've found a translation, I see that I was pretty much right. But it's really not so bad, because the lyrics are basically "dance the bamba," where the bamba is a type of dance. Then it says "a little bit of grace is needed" and "and higher and higher." Basically the lyrics are just telling you to dance. I can't really complain that a dance song lacks meaningful lyrics. The meaning is in the dancing.
My verdict: Don't like it. I'm not sure I can offer a particularly eloquent explanation beyond that its style just doesn't connect with me. And I'm not quite willing to grant latitude to a song that's been made primarily to promote a movie. I might be more charitable with Ritchie Valens version, but that song didn't reach No. 1.
I'm a little lost on the intended interpretation of this song. The first verse sounds like this woman is sitting her significant other down and telling him she's dumping him for another man. But by the second verse she sounds like she's remembering the good times with Guy #1, and then she follows up with "With everything I feel inside, I'm asking you to stay." So possibly she's changed her mind and decided to drop Guy #2 for Guy #1. So she cheated, and now she's being wishy-washy and indecisive.
However, the other possible interpretation, and one that almost makes more sense to me, is that she's informing Guy #1 that she wants to be in an open relationship, and she wants to be with both of them. "He knows he can't possess me and he knows he never will. There's just this empty place inside of me that only he can fill." That sounds like a present-tense fact. "Loving both of you is breaking all the rules." Clearly loving both of them is exactly what she wants to do, and the only questions are whether she's willing to break the social rules and whether she can convince them to go for it. I guess a woman knowing what she wants is empowering. Unfortunately, while the open relationship idea is an interesting one to explore, I tend to think she's just wishy-washy.
Mostly I think she's wishy-washy because of the music. It's gentle music to break bad news by. It's not assertive or challenging to social norms. It's just by-the-numbers acoustic strumming, with a little light piano and super-light percussion to back it. I just noticed there are strings way in the background, too. As is all too common in the 70s, there are a lot of instruments here making very little sound.
Mary MacGregor is an okay singer, I guess. She has that very gentle vocal quality that was so common in the 70s. She doesn't express the emotional depth that Karen Carpenter does, but she also manages sincerity to a degree that Barbra Streisand can't manage. She's fine, I just wish she had better song selection.
My verdict: Don't like it. I suppose I have to give the lyrics credit for making me think about them a little. But the bland, bland music just can't carry the song, and MacGregor doesn't sufficiently elevate it.
I've said before that I prefer high-intensity songs, and that I have no use for relaxing and low-key songs. Sometimes low-key songs can work for me, but they have to include some kind of emotional intensity, a meaning that impresses me. And in order to attain that emotional intensity, such a song would need to avoid the following:
- Pitch-shifting the lead singer's voice in an obnoxiously artificial way to repetitively state the song's title over and over again. If you want to achieve this sound, hire some other singers of various ranges. And in particular, avoid making this silly choice even more intense toward the end of the song.
- An overly trite hook repeated a thousand times. "Like a moth to a flame, burned by desire." Heard it! Before I even came here. Sing something else, please.
- A musical track badly in conflict between its deep, bass-y, earthy verse and a major-chord, piano-sounding transition that never resolves into anything actually different. This entire song is like the verse build-up to a song that's actually interesting.
- Unclear pronouns in the chorus that don't even hold up on inspection of the lyrics. What's the way love goes? I suppose there's possibly an over-literal interpretation that the song just tells the story of an entire relationship, from the phase of nervous affection, to the phase of asking the other person out, to the first sexual encounter. That's the way love goes, from common point A to common point B. But then at the end the lyrics about "a moth to a flame, burned by desire" repeat, and it's not like we'd been told the relationship ended, so I don't think that interpretation actually works.
- A semi-ironic self-aware music video that spends half the time taking the song seriously, and half the time laughing about how silly it is. You can't express emotional vulnerability if you're just going to protect yourself from that vulnerability.
My verdict: Don't like it. It's not badly made overall, and Jackson sings it well, but there are a lot of weird choices that completely undermine this song.
Before I started this blog, I really didn't care one way or the other about Barbra Streisand. But now I think she's awful. She puts all this emotion into her singing, and every bit of it sounds forced and fake and about as insincere as a singer can. Happily, this is the last time we'll be seeing her here as this is her last No. 1 song on the list.
The music in this song isn't bad. It's from the movie A Star is Born, and the intent is clearly to make a simple, timeless, elegant song for a movie. And on that level, it's a success. I don't usually stand for this much use of strings in pop music, but this really movie music, so it works here. The piano is nice, the light strummy guitar works, and the tropes of pop music are kept out, unlike what happened to "The Way We Were" (#317) . So kudos to whoever composed it, which was... Streisand herself, actually. Well, clearly she has a talent for something, anyway.
So it's up to her to ruin the song with her voice, and clearly she's up to that task. I just hate her voice so much. She takes huge breaths before she belts anything out, over-enunciates the "w" sound on "one," and can't handle any of the pitch-shifting that's required in the song on the word "Evergreen." And as usual, she's investing every syllable with way too much insincere emotion, making sure any genuine emotion remains unexpressed.
"Love soft as an easy chair." No. That's awful. Off to simile school with you. "One love that is shared by two." Yes, that's generally how love works. Two people, two loves doesn't usually work out that well. "Like a rose under the April snow, I was always certain love will grow." So you were like a rose under snow? Because that's what your misplaced modifier says. And when the lyrics aren't stupid, they're generic and meaningless, so I think I'll stop there, before my head explodes.
My verdict: Don't like it. This song won both an Oscar and a Grammy, providing further evidence for the irrelevance of both awards.
I've probably declared a great many songs overproduced. "Make it simpler." Fewer instruments, fewer unnecessary background elements. It might give people the impression that I'd rather see every singer backed by a simple guitar, or piano, or jazz band. And yet here's a song that could benefit from just a little bit more production.
Al Green is a very talented singer, and I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that anything be done that would obscure his voice. I like some of the very delicate touches in his voice. It makes the song feel intimate. Given the subject matter, that's certainly the intent.
But an intimate song is better if it's more intense, and intensity is what this song lacks. There's not enough energy, especially in the first half of the song. The first verse is so quiet and slow that my mind wanders. It's only around the time the song gets to the verse that the energy and intensity reaches what I think is an appropriate level. The bass gets more pronounced, the brass fanfares kick in, the backup singers join in, and the song finally generates some of the emotional energy that I want it to have. But then, just when I think the song is about to reach a good level, it's over. It's like one long buildup that never got around to the payoff.
I actually really like the lyrics. It's a song about commitment to a relationship. "Loving you whether times are good or bad, happy or sad." There's no drama or despair or pain, just happy people in a happy relationship realizing how lucky they are and wanting to stay that way. On top of that, it has some of that poetry of words that just sound good together.
My verdict: Don't like it. There's certainly nothing wrong with this song, but I'm just frustrated by its lack of intensity. It seems like it just needs a little proper mixing, or a good live performance, but I can't quite find one that gets what I'm looking for.
I mentioned before that Paula Abdul's album Forever Your Girl was a great album filled with winning songs. But her second album, Spellbound, was a huge letdown. I don't know if there was a major change in production staff or writing staff, or if the success of the first album caused Abdul to think she needed to make music that was more "important." But for whatever reason, songs from her second album just don't feel as natural as songs from her first. I'll have more to say about "Rush Rush" (#751) at a later date. But "Blowing Kisses In The Wind" feels like it was forced to be a slower song than it should have been, as if that would amplify its importance. "Will You Marry Me?" seems like it was carefully calculated to be a royalty-earning perennial for wedding DJs. And "Vibeology" feels like it was performed by an artist trying to do a pale imitation of Paula Abdul's first album.
All of that is the long way of emphasizing the point that at the time, I really liked "The Promise Of A New Day." It was hands down the best single from the second album of an artist whose first album I really liked. Even so, it's heavily, heavily flawed.
I mentioned before that Paula Abdul's voice is whiny, and she's really stretching herself beyond her talents here. I appreciate the passion that is communicated when she stretches herself too far, but it still grates on the ears more than a little. She's not quite the singer this song needs for some of the upper range vocals. She spends a lot of this song singing duet with herself anyway. I'd love to hear her duet with Janet Jackson instead. That would be a great fit for both of them.
The next obvious problem you'll notice is that there's not a lot of material here. The song doesn't have very many lyrics. You'll get "Pro- Promise. Promise of a new day" stuck in your head just from hearing the song one time. And I listen to these songs several times while writing these reviews. I'm going to have this in my head for a week. Backing lyrics aside, the song repeats everything it has over and over, just to fill out the running time. After 3 minutes, the song feels like it has reached a natural conclusion, but then it repeats every lyric in the song just to extend itself out to another minute. This song wears out its welcome very quickly.
The music has a little bit more variety than the lyrics. I actually like a lot about the music. Somehow all that fake synthesizer, drum-kit sound works together to create a whole sound that works. I think it's the upbeat sound and high energy that makes it work. I really like a lot of the transitions. The song constantly feels like it's transitioning to something bigger and more energetic. But ultimately the music has the same problem as the lyrics, going on well after the song has reached a natural end.
My verdict: Don't like it. This song is catchy, to be sure, and it might be perfectly enjoyable background music. But pop music needs to work when you actually give it your attention, too, and this song just doesn't.
I spent a year imagining what review I would do for the first anniversary of my blog. I finally decided to just note the occasion and let the random number generator carry on. But apparently the random number generator felt the need to mark the milestone, too. So for review number 201, I randomly got tasked to review my second song by the very first artist I reviewed, Lionel Richie. I couldn't have found a better review topic if I'd come up with one intentionally.
On the other hand, I don't care for this song. It's just so slow and painfully earnest that I can't quite take it seriously. I think it's mostly the combination of the really soft and gentle piano and Richie's loudly-whispered vocals that really gets me. Then factor in the synthesized flute that plays throughout and I just avoid getting a creepy vibe from this song.
Not helping the creepy vibe is the lyrics. "I've been alone with you inside my mind. And in my dreams I've kissed your lips a thousand times." This isn't about love as much as it's about obsession. And it just goes on from there. There's something about the line "I long to see the sunlight in your hair" that gets me. It sounds like something a troll or vampire or other mythical creature that literally can't go out in sunlight would say to the object of their obsession. And then, even if I ignore all that, I'm left with the chorus "I want to tell you so much, I love you." Okay, so... why don't you? Seriously, what's stopping the singer of this song from telling the other person how he feels? The song doesn't even attempt an explanation. My best guess is plain old fear of rejection. So he writes a song that explores that fear of rejection without even the self-awareness to name it. He doesn't write a song explaining why he's in love with this person specifically. He clearly doesn't even know them very well: "I wonder where you are, and I wonder what you do." I suppose exploring this kind of obsession and a crippling fear of rejection is valid material for a song, but the fact that this seems to be intended as a love song makes it comes off creepy.
Which brings me back to the music, because the minor chords and synthesized, soft instruments just amplify the creepiness. This live rendition isn't nearly as creepy, because of increased use of natural instruments. The piano isn't as quiet, and Richie's voice isn't as whispery. It feels a bit more authentic and genuine.
My verdict: Don't like it. Even if I decided to ignore the intended message and tried to enjoy it as a song about obsession, the instrumentation just makes this song a chore to listen to, rather than fun.
Apparently we're continuing with superstar collaboration week, although the amplitude of the stars has been sharply turned down. Bobby Brown is at least pretty well known, but Glenn Medeiros is probably best known as the guy from the cheesy and soft "Nothing's Gonna Change My Love For You."
Medeiros is a decent singer, but you wouldn't know it from this song. All he does is rasp and strain his voice in a fairly flat way. A lot of this song is sung in a sort of monotone. And when he does get to the chorus and try to sing a little bit more, he sounds out of his range.
Musically, the song sounds a lot like any other Bobby Brown song. It's a bunch of synth chords and drum machine drums. There isn't a lot of variety in Bobby Brown's music from this time. In fact, this song sounds a lot like "Every Little Step" to me. It's not that the music in this song is bad, it's just that it sounds just like every other song in this genre. Bobby Brown has an energy that can make these songs work, but since he only contributes one rap verse to the song, I find it lacking.
The lyrics are the singer complaining that he's had his feelings hurt by a woman who doesn't love him back. Not all that different from yesterday, come to think of it. I guess the difference here is that he's able to be a little more honest because he's just complaining to his friends, rather than to her directly. Also, he's really tearing her down just because she doesn't like him back. Blaming the woman because he likes her. Bobby Brown's rap verse probably has the lyric that bugs me most. "One thing I hate is when a girl plays fake and tries to make me late for another date." I guess there's nothing wrong with dating around, but if you're scheduling two dates so close together, you take your chances and make your choices.
My verdict: Don't like it. Bobby Brown has better songs. Glenn Medeiros may not be the greatest singer in the world, but the talent he has is wasted here.
