I’ve always considered Bruno Mars a real talent, but now I’m beginning to find myself agreeing with those who believe he’s a good deal more than that. “Marry You”, one of the most charming songs anyone has released in years, has something to do with that, but the clincher may be the first couple of minutes of the clip below (Travie McCoy haters are advised not to watch beyond that). This is from the Z100 Jingle Ball at Madison Square Garden last month. It’s one of those old fashioned package shows, full of big stars who get 20 minutes or so to play their hits and make their fans (in this case almost all teenage girls) happy. So what does Mars open with? “Money”, a fifty year-old song whose most recent minor hit version, by The Flying Lizards, was released long before most of his audience was born. Since he started his career as a child Elvis impersonator, I’m not surprised Mars knows the song, though it sounds as if he’s more familiar with The Beatles version than Barrett Strong’s original, but it’s amazing to me that he would play it, even if it was the inspiration for “Billionaire”, and especially on an occasion like this. He doesn’t approach it like it’s an educational moment, either, just “Here’s a cool song I love”. Mind you, it could be a piece of demographic triangulation: he’s already won over the teenagers, so now it’s time to work on their parents. That seems too cynical, though, and cynical is the one thing Mars doesn’t appear to be. He just loves this stuff, and he wants to share it. All I could think while I was watching this is that he may be the most natural pop performer since Michael Jackson, even if his music isn’t yet up to that level; and he obviously enjoys performing in the same way The Beatles did in their early days. Those are outrageous comparisons, I know, but I suspect we’ve only gotten a taste of what Mars is capable of.
Posts Tagged ‘The Beatles’
Two of the Beatles are dead
Thursday, September 9th, 2010A little treat at Eddie Argos’s site. Sweet, sad, and very funny. “Don’t count Stuart Sutcliffe or the original Paul.”
New this week—4/25/10
Monday, April 26th, 2010B.o.B. featuring Hayley Williams—”Airplanes”
#12
The airplanes as shooting stars image is old, but it’s a good one, conjuring up a specifically urban sensibility, and as a somewhat self-pitying description of the travails of the rap life, B.o.B’s verses aren’t bad (I especially like the image of him holding his cell phone in his lap, hoping it doesn’t ring). But make no mistake: Hayley Williams owns this record, elevating both the imagery and the rap far above any level they could reach on their own. To have a voice with the strength to stand up to punk/metal and still have that vulnerable ache in it is a gift, and Williams knows exactly what to do with it. The official artist credit, by the way, reads “B.o.B. featuring Hayley Williams of Paramore“, in case anybody should get the ridiculous idea that this is her first move toward a solo career. Uh-huh.
Christina Aguilera—”Not Myself Tonight”
#23
Reportedly a lot of people think Aguilera is pulling a GaGa on this generally excellent but frustrating record, but that’s nonsense—she started down this road long before GaGa appeared on the scene. The more obvious influence is Britney Spears’s Blackout, which “Not Myself Tonight” copies in overall sound and feel, even if its rhythm track is more straightforward. That doesn’t mean GaGa isn’t an influence, though, or, for that matter, Beyonce. Which leaves Aguilera with the same problem she’s always had, that of a talented and intelligent performer who tries too hard and has yet to establish any definite personality on her records. The title begs the question: when was she ever herself?
Glee Cast
“Gives You Hell”, #32
“Hello”, #35
“Hello Goodbye”, #49
“Hello, I Love You”, #66
At their best the Glee Cast records are a mix of overmiked Broadway and sober karaoke, fun sometimes but negligible, and that’s all they’ll ever be. At their worst, which is most of the time—this week they turn The Beatles’s lamest single into something indescribably awful—they’re the absolute worst; I can’t think of a single record to appear on the Hot 100 last year that wasn’t better than all 26 of the Glee tracks that made the chart. But that’s not why I hate these records. I hate these records because they clog up the Hot 100 with tracks everybody knows are nothing but souvenirs, and keep more worthwhile records from making an impact. As Glee proves, this is the latest era of instant hits, and a week or two difference may well destroy the chances of a much better record getting on the charts. On TV it’s fine, and if they want to release a soundtrack album at the end of each season, like Hannah Montana, that would be OK, too. But putting this crap out every week and preventing worthier artists from gaining exposure isn’t just crass commercial exploitation, it’s a kind of decadence.
Jason Aldean—”Crazy Town”
#92
Though it’s nice to hear a fun country rocker that isn’t just about how great it is to be A: country, and B: a rocker, this is too loud and shrill to be C: fun. I don’t buy the idea that Nashville is Hollywood with twang, either. Vegas is more likely, if only because it’s where a lot of these good ol’ boys are probably going to end up. The big names, anyway—the rest will grind out their days on the smaller casino circuit. I mean, you don’t expect to find anything like this in Branson, do you?
Brad Paisley—”Water”
#100
This isn’t Paisley at his best, but it isn’t his worst, either, which means that it’s better than most of the country singles out right now, even if it isn’t anything new. As usual, there are both brilliant touches—the opening line about his father inflating the wading pool is perfect—and tasteless ones (a wet t-shirt contest? C’mon, Brad). Plus tons of guitar, of course, which I could listen to for hours, even if he is just showing off.
History is hard
Thursday, November 26th, 2009As anyone who cares already knows, today is the day Billboard changes the rules for its album charts and allows releases older than 18 months to appear on the Top 200. Considering the season, it’s no surprise that a large number of those older LPs are Christmas records. There seem to be some problems with the historical numbers, though. Michael Jackson’s Thriller is correctly shown with a peak position of 1. Oddly enough, though, The Beatle’s remasters, all of which also went to number one in their original release, show totally different peak postions. The White Album, for instance, shows a peak position of 152, it’s current position on the chart, despite being number 1 for nine weeks in 1968. The listing for Abbey Road is even more confusing. It was number 1 for 11 weeks, but Billboard shows its peak as 69, a number that makes no sense since its current position is 118 and it wasn’t on the chart last week. The remaster also made top ten on the old Comprehensive chart, so they can’t be referring to that, either. Perhaps not coincidentally, however, 69 does match up with the year of Abbey Road’s original release. It’s enough to make you wonder if they’re still doing these things by hand.
Update (11/30/09): The numbers are correct in the print edition, but are still wrong in both online versions of the chart. Guess nobody proofs the web sites.
Michael Jackson continues to fiddle with the music business
Tuesday, November 10th, 2009Billboard has announced changes in some of their album charts for the coming year. Aside from a rearrangement of how the R&B album chart is counted and the addition of a Folk Music chart (how that will be defined seems open to question), the biggest change is in the Top 200 Albums chart, which will now be based solely on sales, regardless of release date. Since 1991, Billboard has taken albums that were over two years old (later amended to 18 months) off the chart. In the last year, however, especially after the death of Michael Jackson (now the biggest selling artist of the year) and the release of the Beatles Remasters, that formula has been called into question (the change only affects the Top 200; all the other album charts will still drop LPs over 18 months old).
It’s not a surprise decision. People have been murmuring about the chart not being an honest reflection of popularity for a while now, and since the record labels are probably making more money off of re-issues these days than new releases, it will provide a more accurate reflection of commercial realities, as well. We’ll be seeing a lot more MJ and Beatles (not to mention Bob Marley, Creedence, and The Eagles), which isn’t necessarily a good thing, but we’ll also be seeing a lot fewer albums that have barely scraped 20,000 sold in the top ten.
It may not be what the record labels want (they were the biggest supporters of the exclusionary rule, since it put more focus on new releases), but at least it will give everyone a better idea of what the public wants, and it also seems to play into Billboard’s own business development plan. I can’t help but wonder if Billboard’s decision isn’t partly driven by the fact that they now make the entire Top 200 available on their website, with links to purchase charted albums. Not only will it be less confusing to the layman audience that comes by their site, but it also ensures that only the most popular records are available for sale. I’m sure the editorial/commercial divide at Billboard is fairly strict, but the company has been slowly moving toward becoming not just an information provider, but a player in the music business itself (a move that’s even more direct outside the US, where Billboard stages awards shows and owns concert venues). I still trust their numbers, but more and more I’m beginning to doubt their motives.
New this week
Saturday, August 29th, 2009Kenny Chesney with Dave Matthews—”I’m Alive”
#92
It’s anyone’s guess as to who came up with the Beatlesish feel of this record—it sounds like a mash-up of “Dear Prudence” and “Mother Nature’s Son”—but whether it was Chesney or Matthews, it’s the only thing that’s interesting about it. Since it’s technically Chesney’s record, though, he gets to stick Matthews with the biggest cliche: “Today is the first day of the rest of my life”. Not that the song isn’t one long cliche already.
3OH!3—”Starstrukk”
#95
There’s a hint—just a hint mind you—that this is intended as satire, that these guys aren’t really the sexist assholes they present themselves as, but are actually making fun of such people. They’re often described as a comedy act, after all. But like Lady GaGa’s The Fame, it’s hard to make a distinction between the act and the actor, and even if you could it wouldn’t make the music, which in its blaring boorishness is even more insulting than the lyrics, any better. Whether this is a sign of something new or the final gasp of the old is hard to say. To me, though, it sounds like an exhausted culture slapping itself to stay awake.
Iyaz—”Replay”
#96
This isn’t bad, but from the emphasis on the singer’s Jamaican accent to the hints of romantic naivete in the lyrics it’s so obviously producer J.R. Rotem’s attempt to create another Sean Kingston that the whole record starts to sound forced. Not as forced as Kingston’s own attempts to keep his career alive, but close.
Owl City—”Fireflies”
#97
With it’s affected simplicity and dreamy lyric that buzzes in endless circles around itself and goes nowhere, this is like a musical version of a children’s book intended to lull the little tykes to sleep. Except it appears to be a love song, since there’s more than one person in the bed. Do bands that send confusing mixed signals like this think they’re being profound somehow? Or are they just too lazy, or too dumb, or too full of themselves, to make sense? I suspect it’s all of the above.
Sugarland—”Joey”
#98
I generally like Sugarland’s lower-key sound—they don’t blast you the way so many country bands do, even on their uptempo songs—but this is bland and lifeless. So much so that it’s impossible to figure out exactly what’s going on. Is Joey dead? Dying? Late back from a trip to the grocery store? The lyrics don’t fill in the details, and the music doesn’t provide a clue. The inspiration seems to have stopped after providing the missing Joey a not very musical name. Is this about a real person? That would make the blandness even less explicable. Am I overthinking this song? Probably. But that’s better than barely thinking about it at all but releasing it anyway, which seems to be what Sugarland has done.
