— Simon O'Brien
In a largely negative retrospective look at Blur's Parklife, critic Taylor Parkes mentions a quote from fellow Quietus writer Luke Turner that "you can't trust a band whose best songs are their ballads". Now, I disagree somewhat with the group he's talking about (I'd say it applies more to someone like Neil Young) but I have to say there's something to the overall point. I dig "The Universal" and "To the End" but I'd sooner listen to "There's No Other Way" or "Caramel". I'm glad The Beatles had room for the likes of "And I Love Her" and "Something" but I'd opt for "Eight Days a Week" or "I Am the Walrus" any day. Abba's mastery of romantic fallout in a glossy pop hit is much more effectively done in "Knowing Me, Knowing You" than in their supposed classic "The Winner Takes It All".
But what about the opposite, artists who are unable to do a passable romantic softy and stick to dancefloor favourites and/or rockin' anthems? (This may or may not apply to a group like New Order but at least they deserve props for not bothering with something that they either weren't capable of or not interested in doing) Should they be knocked for lacking a standout slurpsome tune?
So-called ballads have long been the refuge of those seeking acclaim and/or a potential hit single but they're not to be overdone and are best avoided if if they can't be pulled off well. I grew up in the early-nineties when all that dying breed of heavy metallers had left was a "More Than Words", a "Silent Lucidity" or a "To Be with You" just to stay afloat. They all stunk, as did power ballads, r & b smoochers and all that crap that soundtracked films at the time — but more on that later. And, yet, this stuff makes a pop star legit?
It's strange to imagine a time when Madonna wasn't taken seriously but it stands to reason that in the midst of her early run of buoyant pop hits that she'd be dismissed as a passing fad with inconsequential songs and a sexed-up image smacking of desperation. Frequently described as a most calculating songstress, it's likely that she had to feel her way around the machinations of stardom before she could begin to manipulate the industry. How to be taken seriously? Well, slow songs can do the trick - and what about a nice movie career on the side too! (But, again, more on that in a bit)
The only trouble was Madonna's voice was never able to pull off a good love song the way someone like Anita Baker did effortlessly. Simon O'Brien is impressed by her vocal chops on "Crazy for You" but I respectfully disagree. This is where her irritating habit of using that deep, almost guttural inflection begins ("...you feel it in my kiss"), a quirk which smacks of her being unable to hit a more appropriate note. Her limitations aren't as obvious on "Lucky Star" and it's something I think she even began to make a virtue out of as she really hit her stride: I'd argue that one aspect of "Cherish" that makes it so adorable is that she sounds so normal and relatable and it's easy to convince yourself that you're singing along with it just as well as she is. But the slower numbers really do expose what a mediocre singer she's always been.
The other problem here is that it all feels very generic and not from the singer's own life. Previous singles all tapped into that old disco trope of leading a depressingly ordinary life before becoming a star in the clubs at night (Madonna even expanded upon it by becoming the one disco urchin who then made something of herself by day) but "Crazy for You" is just another love song. She didn't meet this guy at The Fun House and they didn't light the place on fire with as they cut a rug; he's just some dude she's hung up on. Well, good for her but I'm not convinced that the material here matters to her.
Appearing in the eighties film Vision Quest (not a sci-fi flick, much to my surprise) starring a very mid-twenties Matthew Modine playing a high schooler and a supposedly older Linda Fiorentino in a very unflattering perm, "Crazy for You" probably does a good job of providing some pathos for the doomed lovers. (I say "probably" because I haven't actually seen it but I think the accompanying video gives away enough clues) It even got Madonna a role as a singer in a bar, perhaps enhancing her film ambitions. But it also had the effect of putting a record at the service of a film, a trend we'll see a lot more of going forward.
Madonna would quickly figure out the key to be taken seriously but she couldn't quite shake the desire to do more ill-considered love songs. "Crazy for You" is poor when held up against the likes of "Into the Groove" and "Borderline" but it's actually superior to future wheepies "Live to Tell", "Dear Jessie" and "This Used to Be My Playground". Ballads and films weren't going to do the trick and it's only right that such an unconventional pop star would have to take an unconventional route to legitimacy. Time to start thinking about being ambitious and clever, Madge.
~~~~~
Also Reviewed This Fortnight
Orchestral Manoeuveres in the Dark: "So in Love"
Long unique both for being an act not widely known for hailing from Liverpool (O'Brien doesn't seem aware of it as he praises both China Crisis and The Icicle Works due to local "bias" but is dismissive of this: is Wirral not Merseyside enough?) and being pilloried for becoming less pretentious (this is the group that had two singles in tribute to Joan of Arc), OMD were entering the mid-eighties having gone through some ups and downs but seemed to be weathering the changes in pop better than most. "So in Love" deserved better than its modest top thirty position but it could be that many agreed with O'Brien's take that they needed another "Enola Gay". On the other hand, it earned them their first American hit, setting them up for a breakthrough the following year. It's no "Souvenir" but a worthy single nonetheless.
In a largely negative retrospective look at Blur's Parklife, critic Taylor Parkes mentions a quote from fellow Quietus writer Luke Turner that "you can't trust a band whose best songs are their ballads". Now, I disagree somewhat with the group he's talking about (I'd say it applies more to someone like Neil Young) but I have to say there's something to the overall point. I dig "The Universal" and "To the End" but I'd sooner listen to "There's No Other Way" or "Caramel". I'm glad The Beatles had room for the likes of "And I Love Her" and "Something" but I'd opt for "Eight Days a Week" or "I Am the Walrus" any day. Abba's mastery of romantic fallout in a glossy pop hit is much more effectively done in "Knowing Me, Knowing You" than in their supposed classic "The Winner Takes It All".
But what about the opposite, artists who are unable to do a passable romantic softy and stick to dancefloor favourites and/or rockin' anthems? (This may or may not apply to a group like New Order but at least they deserve props for not bothering with something that they either weren't capable of or not interested in doing) Should they be knocked for lacking a standout slurpsome tune?
So-called ballads have long been the refuge of those seeking acclaim and/or a potential hit single but they're not to be overdone and are best avoided if if they can't be pulled off well. I grew up in the early-nineties when all that dying breed of heavy metallers had left was a "More Than Words", a "Silent Lucidity" or a "To Be with You" just to stay afloat. They all stunk, as did power ballads, r & b smoochers and all that crap that soundtracked films at the time — but more on that later. And, yet, this stuff makes a pop star legit?
It's strange to imagine a time when Madonna wasn't taken seriously but it stands to reason that in the midst of her early run of buoyant pop hits that she'd be dismissed as a passing fad with inconsequential songs and a sexed-up image smacking of desperation. Frequently described as a most calculating songstress, it's likely that she had to feel her way around the machinations of stardom before she could begin to manipulate the industry. How to be taken seriously? Well, slow songs can do the trick - and what about a nice movie career on the side too! (But, again, more on that in a bit)
The only trouble was Madonna's voice was never able to pull off a good love song the way someone like Anita Baker did effortlessly. Simon O'Brien is impressed by her vocal chops on "Crazy for You" but I respectfully disagree. This is where her irritating habit of using that deep, almost guttural inflection begins ("...you feel it in my kiss"), a quirk which smacks of her being unable to hit a more appropriate note. Her limitations aren't as obvious on "Lucky Star" and it's something I think she even began to make a virtue out of as she really hit her stride: I'd argue that one aspect of "Cherish" that makes it so adorable is that she sounds so normal and relatable and it's easy to convince yourself that you're singing along with it just as well as she is. But the slower numbers really do expose what a mediocre singer she's always been.
The other problem here is that it all feels very generic and not from the singer's own life. Previous singles all tapped into that old disco trope of leading a depressingly ordinary life before becoming a star in the clubs at night (Madonna even expanded upon it by becoming the one disco urchin who then made something of herself by day) but "Crazy for You" is just another love song. She didn't meet this guy at The Fun House and they didn't light the place on fire with as they cut a rug; he's just some dude she's hung up on. Well, good for her but I'm not convinced that the material here matters to her.
Appearing in the eighties film Vision Quest (not a sci-fi flick, much to my surprise) starring a very mid-twenties Matthew Modine playing a high schooler and a supposedly older Linda Fiorentino in a very unflattering perm, "Crazy for You" probably does a good job of providing some pathos for the doomed lovers. (I say "probably" because I haven't actually seen it but I think the accompanying video gives away enough clues) It even got Madonna a role as a singer in a bar, perhaps enhancing her film ambitions. But it also had the effect of putting a record at the service of a film, a trend we'll see a lot more of going forward.
Madonna would quickly figure out the key to be taken seriously but she couldn't quite shake the desire to do more ill-considered love songs. "Crazy for You" is poor when held up against the likes of "Into the Groove" and "Borderline" but it's actually superior to future wheepies "Live to Tell", "Dear Jessie" and "This Used to Be My Playground". Ballads and films weren't going to do the trick and it's only right that such an unconventional pop star would have to take an unconventional route to legitimacy. Time to start thinking about being ambitious and clever, Madge.
~~~~~
Also Reviewed This Fortnight
Orchestral Manoeuveres in the Dark: "So in Love"
Long unique both for being an act not widely known for hailing from Liverpool (O'Brien doesn't seem aware of it as he praises both China Crisis and The Icicle Works due to local "bias" but is dismissive of this: is Wirral not Merseyside enough?) and being pilloried for becoming less pretentious (this is the group that had two singles in tribute to Joan of Arc), OMD were entering the mid-eighties having gone through some ups and downs but seemed to be weathering the changes in pop better than most. "So in Love" deserved better than its modest top thirty position but it could be that many agreed with O'Brien's take that they needed another "Enola Gay". On the other hand, it earned them their first American hit, setting them up for a breakthrough the following year. It's no "Souvenir" but a worthy single nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment