Listening Blog #23 – “Party in the Rain” – Eve feat. Mashonda

Instrumentation: Vocals (Eve), beats (drum kit, trumpet, piano, and electric guitar riffs , and electronic beats – even “laser” sound effects)

Form: This song is presented in strophic form – Eve raps during the verse, while Mashonda sings a melodic refrain during the chorus. This is a definite departure from Bahamadi’s continuous rapping: so perhaps this shows rap’s evolution, through the incorporation of aspects of pop.

Rhythm: Once again, rhythm (and the way in which it is layered) is the primary aspect of the song. Interestingly, while the song’s beat is not that different from the previous song, the attitudes are completely different.

Lyrics: In comparison to the lyrics in “When I Shine”, these lyrics are much less cohesive. While there’s a clearer division between verses and choruses, there seems to be a weird disconnect between the two. For example, I don’t really understand why Eve is rapping typical bravado/challenge lyrics in the verses, and then about partying in the rain during the chorus. Overall, this seems to speak to the song’s nature as a “party song”, not a “message song”: it seems that this song is almost purely aesthetic, for a good groove beat and the ‘good time’ feeling it evokes.

Texture: Once again, the song’s texture seems very multifaceted, due to the many different beats. Overall, the song is very highly pitched – due to the women’s voices (especially Mashonda’s singing voice) and the trumpet, piano, and electric guitar riffs’ high ranges – which becomes grating after many listens. Eve’s vocal quality is more percussive and punchy, which comes across as sassier and happier (especially due to her added chuckles and “yeah”s). As for the chorus, Mashonda’s vocal quality I find very whiny, not always on pitch, and near unbearable to listen to.

Personal Response: While I don’t really enjoy this song that much either (although I’m not sure how much of that is due to my disinterest in rap as a genre or my extreme dislike for Mashonda’s whiny-sounding chorus), I find it to be much more accessible than Bahamadia’s song. Eve’s fiery delivery seems less detached than Bahamadia’s smooth but distanced delivery, and thus engages the listener and makes it something they’d listen to again. I also really think that the establishment of an actual chorus (as painful as it is) makes the song more accessible to listeners, as it creates a sort of ‘home’ that the song returns to that the listener can easily identify. However, I also think that lyrically this song leaves a lot to be desired. Overall, I think this song is an aesthetic song – something that people put on to simply enjoy, without necessarily having to totally engage in (and question). This is not necessarily a bad thing (aesthetics have their own unique merit) – but I think that the comparison between this and the last song demonstrate rap’s movement into mainstream music, and the changes (and even sacrifices) it made to get there. So I understand when people complain about the ‘dumbing down’ or ‘cheapening’ or rap music. I guess I also expected a little bit more out of Eve – as a woman in rap, she probably had to work pretty hard to gain respect and attention as a rap artist: but I don’t think this song really demonstrates that much talent or creativity. While she shouldn’t have to sacrifice aesthetics for seriousness, or respect for success, I think she had (or has) a ways to go in finding a successful intersection of the issues affecting women in rap.

Listening Blog # 22 – “When I Shine” – The Herbaliser feat. Bahamadia

Instrumentation: Voice (Bahamadia and Wherry/Teeba on background vocals), and an assortment of beats (distorted – probably sampled or created through recording technology). In this song, the percussive vocal line emphasizes rhythm over melody, and adds an additional layer upon the rhythmic beats created electronically.

Form: I’m not completely sure what the song’s musical form is – it seems to exhibit some strophic and through-composed characteristics. As a strophic piece, it establishes a melodic ‘line’ and sticks to it; the lyrics also show a semblance of verse/chorus organization (with her freestyle rap ‘verses’ and ‘when I shine’ chorus). However, one could also see the lyrical line as through-composed.

Rhythm: Rhythm is the song’s strongest, and primary, element. The strange instrumental interlude at the beginning creates interest – but as it fades out, the duple meter created by the sound of a (electronic) drum kit establishes itself, quickly adding multiple rhythmic textures to establish the song’s main ‘beat’. As Bahamadia begins rapping, the speaking quality of her voice emphasizes its percussive and rhythmic quality, and creates the last and ultimate beat.

Lyrics: While rhythm is a large aspect of rap, lyrics often provide just as much interest and meaning for the song. In reading the lyrics, Bahamadia’s words make little sense as prose; instead, they must be read as a form of art (like poetry). She seems to be saying advocating for herself and her music as significant work: this confirms the bravado aspect of rap’s roots, when MCs would battle each other for supremacy. However, her words also offer strong statements (“I can’t distort vision of those completely blind”) that at times explore social commentary.

Texture: Due to the complex layering of beats, the song has a varied, yet full, percussive texture. A rapper’s vocal texture is often one of their most distinguished characteristics – Bahamadia’s rap is fairly monotone, with a squished/distorted pronunciation of some words and a smooth speaking line.

Personal Response: I tend to gravitate to the melodic aspects of a song above all else, which I think might be one of the reasons that I don’t usually like rap all that much. I respect the genre, but stylistically I find it repetitive and boring. This song reminds me of more classic, throw-back rap – I think because of the way the beats sound (maybe they’re a little dated?) and Bahamadia’s delivery. I like the way that she’s able to smoothly deliver her lines in a way that seems seamless – but when I looked at the lyrics, I had a difficulty understanding what it was that she was trying to convey. Also, the DJ scratch effects kind of annoyed me and detracted from my listening. Overall, the song was interesting to listen to once, but it’s not something I would actively seek out for myself (now or previously).

Listening Blog #21 – “Back In Your Head” – Tegan and Sara

Instrumentation: Vocals (the Quin sisters), Piano, Percussion (drums, possibly tambourine), Electric Guitar, Electric Bass

Form: Like most modern non-art music, this song is strophic – alternating between verses and the chorus of “I just want back in your head.”

Origins: This is an original song written by Sara. Interestingly enough, I read somewhere that she originally wrote it as a slower song, but sped it up because she knew it would sound more appealing.

Melody: Melodically, this song seems very simple: most of the melody line runs stepwise (only a step away within the scale), and the rhythm is also fairly simple. Yet there’s also a certain beauty in the song’s simplicity that makes it catchy and memorable.

Lyrics: The lyrics seem to refer to the complicated romantic relationship dynamics between two people. The speaker feels a sorrowful sense of detachment from their lover (“I just want back in your head”), yet also fears the dangers of intimacy “(I’m not unfaithful but I’ll stray / When I get a little scared”). These lyrics have a universal appeal to listeners: despite age, race, sexual orientation, or any other factor, everyone can feel love or confusion over it.

Timbre: The Quin sisters possess a unique, distinctive vocal quality that I would say is the defining mark of all their music. I find their voices to be simultaneously charming and gratingly shrill. I do think that they have a somewhat childish tone to their voice, which meshes ironically with their mature, introspective lyrics.

Personal Response: Tegan and Sara are one of my favorite groups, and “Back In Your Head” is probably their most accessible song to date (it’s definitely one of my favorites). I completely respect their talent as singer-songwriters: actually, they come to my mind as one of the (seemingly few) examples of good women role-models today in the music industry. I actually didn’t know until 6 months ago that they were both lesbians, although they are open about it. They have even written a few songs about it, such as “I Was Married”, which talks about the world’s perception of gays, and how it affects the way one sees oneself. In the interview I was reading, they expressed their disappointment with how people continue to perceive LGBTQs, especially in the media: apparently a man once asked them if they made out with each other, just because “they’re lesbians and all.” That comment made me feel pretty disgusted: but I continue to view Tegan and Sara Quin as strong, honest, and powerful women in the music industry that have inspired (and continue to inspire) many women and others alike.

Listening Blog #20 – “Hallelujah” – k.d. lang (2004)

Instrumentation: Vocals (lang), Guitar (Electric), Piano, Strings (violins, violas, cellos?), and occasional soft percussion (brushes).

Form: Strophic – the song shifts between verses and the chorus, which consists of repeated “Hallelujah”s.

Origin: This song was originally written by singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen, and has since been covered and interpreted by a wide range of artists, from Jeff Buckley to Bon Jovi, and Brandi Carlisle to Allison Crow. Here, lang provides her own cover, which she has performed at various events such as the Canadian Juno Awards and her induction into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame.

Lyrics: On one level, the song seems very much rooted in religion, as the lyrics provide specific references to biblical passages about King David, Samson, and the Holy Dove. Yet on another level, the lyrics seem to use these references to illuminate a turbulent relationship between two people. The song’s exact meaning is extremely ambiguous, which makes the song inscrutable on some level. Yet I also think the lyrical complexity is what has allowed each performer to sing exactly the same song, yet present it in a completely new light.

Timbre: lang has a very rich, textured, almost sultry quality to her voice, which makes it very pleasant and easy to listen to. Stylistically, she likes to “scoop”, or start from a lower pitch and slide to the right note: while this can create an interesting sound quality when used occasionally, in this song lang uses it excessively, creating a weirdly undulating melody line that takes away from the song’s simplicity and emotion.

Personal Response: I have known (and loved) this song for a long time – that said, lang’s version simply does not do it for me. While I think she sounds good on the song, the question I ask for each cover of this song is, “what new aspect, emotion, or interpretation do they bring to the song?” For lang’s version, I didn’t feel much of anything. In my opinion, in comparison to the Jeff Buckley version, this version was somewhat bland. In addition, her habit of ‘scooping’ the sound constantly really annoyed me. I did listen to a few samples of lang’s original songs, and I do appreciate her talent both as a singer and a songwriter, but just not in regards to this song.

Listening Blog #19 – “When You Were Mine” – Cyndi Lauper (1985)

Instrumentation: Vocals (Lauper), Synthesized instrumentation – drumbeats, “piano”, guitar/s, bass

Form: Strophic – as a popular song, the verses repeat both musically (the same melodic line) and lyrically (the verses beginning with “When you were mine”, and the chorus beginning with “I know”).

Origin: This song was originally recorded by Prince, and was covered by Cyndi Lauper in 1985. The lyrics were originally written from the point of view of a man talking about his female lover cheating on him with another man. However, Lauper decided not to change the song’s lyrics in her version, creating the suggestion of the song being from a woman’s perspective of being in love with another woman. The two songs actually sound surprisingly similar: Prince’s falsetto creates a more delicate sound, while Lauper’s ‘girlish’ sound lies within the same range.

Lyrics: Even though Lauper does not change Prince’s original pronouns, she nevertheless makes a strong statement with them, much like Midler’s cover of “Beast of Burden.” By shifting the song’s focus from a heterosexual man-woman relationship to a homo/bisexual woman-woman-man relationship, Lauper challenges her listener’s conceptions of sexuality and sexual identity, especially as it relates to women. Lauper possesses close ties to the gay community: Lauper’s sister, whom she considered to be her role model, ‘came out’ as a lesbian in the 1990s, and Lauper has performed at many gay-pride events around the world. This close connection to the LGBTQ community undoubtedly influenced Lauper’s views and her approach to this song.

Timbre: As discussed earlier, Lauper sings in her trademark unique, distinctly ‘girlish’ tone: this adds a sense of hyper-femininity to her music. On the one hand, one could argue that this ‘girly’ sound acts as a cop-out marketing device, by portraying Lauper as a “harmless” girl instead of a woman, and therefore stereotyping and minimalizing her as a person and musician. Yet at the same time, one could also read her ‘girlishness’ as a celebration of girlhood, and a chance to provide a positive role model to adolescent girls, facilitating the difficult transition from girlhood to womanhood.

Personal Response: Lauper’s music has always straddled the border of ‘fun’ and ‘annoying’ in my book – I think because of her propensity to squeak and sound slightly whiny. I found this song slightly enjoyable musically, if not exceptional, but I found her loyalty to the original lyrics to be really interesting. I’m amazed at how, by staying true to the original lyrics, Lauper is able to communicate more than if she had changed them to include the typical pronouns.

Listening Blog #18 – “Beast of Burden” – Bette Midler (1983)

Instrumentation: Vocals (Midler), Electric Guitar, Electric Bass, Drums - typical ‘rock’ instrumentation

Form: Strophic form – established chorus and verses, with the repetition of ‘Beast of Burden’.

Origin: The song was originally written and recorded by The Rolling Stones, and was covered by Midler in 1983. Midler makes a few fairly significant changes (changing the lyrics to be from the female perspective instead of the male), but overall remains surprisingly faithful to the original. Ironically, by remaining faithful to the original, Midler changes the perspective of the song from the typical ‘male rock star’ to an empowered female comfortable enough with her sexuality to sing about it, which was somewhat shocking for the time (and to an extent remains so today).

Melody: The song’s melody is fairly simple: as a contemporary rock song, it is easily singable and repetitive, making it accessible to the audience so that they can identify. Midler adds a little bit of vocal improvisation to the recording, which lends a spontaneous and vivacious feeling to the song.

Timbre: In comparison to Mick Jagger’s original version, Midler’s voice brings a richer and more expressive tone to the song. Whether she is belting out low notes, wailing on the held high notes, growling, or squeaking, she never seems strained, but always presents an attitude of confidence. In fact, Midler’s version of the song suggests that her confidence as a woman is more ‘sexy’ than any other contrived version.

Lyrics: The lyrics undoubtedly originally meant something quite different to The Rolling Stones, who wrote this song from a man’s perspective, singing to a woman. Yet Midler’s rendition changes this meaning considerably. Midler constantly returns to the refrain “I’ll never be your beast of burden / All I want is for you to make love to me.” According to Wikipedia, “A beast of burden is a semi-domesticated animal that labors for the benefit of man.” While the Stones probably meant this in terms of the general phrase, here it seems to invoke Midler singing to her man that she won’t ‘carry his burden’, or accept his dominance over her, any longer. In addition, Midler deliberately changed the masculine lyric “Pretty, pretty, girls” to “my little sister is a pretty, pretty girl”, and then goes on to sing about how this girl is constantly being used as a disposable object for sex by men. It seems here that Midler is disparaging the horrific way in which young girls let themselves be objectified and used by men just to feel admired and fake confidence. By constantly repeating the phrase “What’s the matter with me / Ain’t I hot/rich/rought enough”, and following it with “I’m not too blind to see”, Midler challenges the unrealistic expectations of beauty and behavior that men have developed for women. Perhaps Midler didn’t necessarily take on this song with these feminist stances, but at the very least she must have realized and embraced the controversy of a female singer covering a ‘masculine’ rock song written by a male rock group.

Personal Response: I’d never heard the original Rolling stones version of this song, so Midler’s version was the first contact I’d had with the song. That being said, I was completely surprised by this song – by Midler’s attitude and ability to rock out vocally, by the over-the-top sexuality of the lyrics, and the Midler’s nerve in taking on this song (I assume there was probably some dissension from the Stones fans). I definitely enjoy Midler’s version better: the background instrumentation sounds much more processed (maybe due to having been a product of the 80s?), but I really like the fact that Midler was able to take this ‘masculine’ song written by a ‘masculine’ band, and make it her own.

In addition, I found this Youtube video of the music video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4R9FiKE0Tk) - it’s pretty cheesy, but I enjoyed the way they portrayed Midler and Jagger’s characters, and found it interesting to see how she dominates him performance-wise in the video. This song seems to be largely forgotten in Midler’s career, however: her top-selling song, “Wind Beneath My Wings”, is a delicate (if not sappy) love song about how her (presumedly male lover’s) love allows her to do anything. I have to wonder what happened with Midler’s music, and why she allowed this to happen.

EXTRA CREDIT LISTENING BLOG #2 – “Bi Furu” – Oumou Sangaré (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXmA_MasLMk)

Instrumentation: Voice (Sangaré and chorus), percussion (shakers and a hand-clapping interlude, a guitar (or a similar instrument), and a high-pitched stringed instrument (maybe a violin?)

Rhythm: Rhythm is an essential aspect of this song: although each instrumental part differs slightly in rhythm from the other (the guitar part acts as the base that ties all the instruments, especially the vocal line, together), they all interact to form a nice textured layering of rhythm.

Timbre: The timbre of the song largely revolved around Sangaré’s voice and her chorus of women. Their singing was pitched much higher, and had an unusual-sounding (to me, as a listener of Western music) timbre to it. It sounded slightly throaty and plaintive, which gave it a somewhat conversational feel; it seemed as if Sangaré was trying to speak to the listener personally, making them sit up and pay attention to what she has to say.

Range: In general, I found this song to be pitched a higher range than I am used to hearing: this was noticeable not only in Sangaré, but also the women chorus and male voice that she interacts with.

Vocal-Instrumental Interaction: The song frequently includes musical interludes, allowing the guitar and violin instruments to take control of the song. The emphatic and powerful, masterful sound they produce acts as an echo of Sangaré’s powerfully independent statements. This interaction represents repetition in a unique way, by presenting the same idea in several mediums.

Solo-Chorus Dialogue: An interesting conversation exists between the two distinct entities: the chorus begins the song by presenting the main musical statement of the song, after which Sangaré begins to sing. As the song continues, they provide the same refrain, providing the main melody of the song, while Sangaré expands, providing interesting riffs and ornamentations.

Rhythmic Gestures (hand claps): During the middle instrumental interlude, Sangaré contributes to the musical conversation by percussive hand-claps. This seems to be an invitation for the audience to join in, creating an intimacy and interaction between Sangaré and the listener. I thought that Sangaré depicted the handclaps interestingly in the video, by juxtaposing the sound with images of women rhythmically doing household work. In her lyrics, Sangaré displays a sort of disaparagement of women being forced into domesticity, especially by a cruel, demanding husband and his family. However, the video presents another aspect of women’s work by presenting it as a rhythm vital to the “song” of life.

Lyrics: Sangaré is Malian and sings in a foreign language (Bambara?): however, through a brief description of the lyrics, we can derive the bare essentials of her words. Sangaré sings about how, in the act of bartering and negotiation (especially financial) involved in the marriage process, a woman is treated without dignity or respect. She also warns wives of the dangers a harsh husband and his family can hold; she might be forced to work to the bone for them. At the time, these were incredibly progressive (and dangerous) things for a woman to be singing about to other women, especially in criticizing men and marriage.

Interpretation: In the video, Sangaré plays a clear dissenter forced to watch the wedding preparations for a young girl. She portrays her opposition to the marriage by holding her head, shaking her finger while looking at the camera, and generally looking frustrated and disappointed. At one point, she even holds an argument with a man, who seems to be have authority in the community. Throughout this main storyline, Sangaré intersperses shots of everyday Mali life, especially women’s lives and their daily chores.

Personal Response: Although I’m still not sure how much I “like” listening to it, I think this song holds a lot of value. It has complex, involved instrumentation (I was really surprised to hear the similarity between their instruments and Western instruments), and a powerful, empowering message that pushed the boundaries of Malian convention.