Post by lemex on Sept 15, 2012 21:21:28 GMT 2
[This review is for criticism and entertainment purposes, the use of lyrics fall under fair use]
The last time I tried this – me farting on a keyboard for some derisible criticism (in both senses of the word ‘derisible’) and since it got a pretty good reaction here is another go. The reaction to the last was something I found really amazing since it was written in about ten minutes and inspired by a few bottles of larger, and then recent developments. Even though now I really have the pressure on; I’ve got to be funny, or at least entertaining. Well, goddamn.
Let me just get it out right now, before we start. I hate Cheryl Cole’s music. I find it always overproduced, poorly written, and to be honest, it never sounds very good. The songs always have a range of song ideas (some of them, by themselves, are even good) but they never seem to fit together properly. I have had a strong dislike of Mrs Cole’s music since the early days when she was in the band ‘Girls Allowed’, and whenever I think about this band I have to stifle a laugh. Does anyone remember when they tried to make themselves out to be the ‘bad girls’ of pop? Yeah, didn’t that last. This ‘edgy’ facade has never been more apparent than with Cole’s recent release ‘Call my Name’.
This song is about a stock-pop as you can get. All the clichés are here. In fact, the song almost comes across as a step-by-step ‘How not to write a song’; yet this is what sells, and attracts 18,000,000 YouTube views. I don't get it.
The video itself is quite ... poor. We see Mrs Cole walking through a sewer, walking in a style no one actually walks in - looking both uncomfortable and stupid, and the song builds up with sudden blasts of high-key sounds before the actual song starts. What does the bit in the sewer have to do with the song? Not a damn thing.
The video also has text flashing on the screen which in full reads ‘The only way to a woman’s heart is along the path of torment’ which was said by the Libertine revolutionary and philosopher Marquis de Sade. That sound you just heard flouting on the wind was me laughing hysterically. Does Cheryl Cole not know that you use quotes at the start of a work to put the reader in the right frame of mind? And is a way to connect a body of work with another heavily related body of work? To see what this song has to do with Libertine philosophy let’s dig into those juicy lyrics. The first line being:
My initial reaction to this was: I didn't. I thought this because we have no context. This is the problem with songs that start with the freaking chorus. Also, here I have to give Nickeback (from last time) a little credit, at least they didn't jump right in to the worst part of the song, they built up the bad over introductory lines. Also, calling someone's name in a pop song is the most tired, meaningless cliches in all pop; so much so I'm amazed it's not actually enough to discredit an artist for the rest of time. I remember first hearing this line as a child with the band Bewitched, and now I feel really old. Also, who actually does this? And is this really romantic? Shouting someone's name in the middle of the street? If I went to LA for a few days, and spent them wondering around shouting 'CHERYL! CHERYL!' in a way even Silent Hill's Harry Mason would find a bit much, would I instantly get a date with Cheryl Cole? Is that how it works?
Not only is this a terribly written line (there is something in the rhythm of this line that is really off) this line is saying that Mrs Cole is becoming 'confused' by someone listing the ways she has changed over the years, which means that Cheryl Cole is an idiot.
'How'd you think I feel' is usually something you say when you are upset and angry. So it must be asked, is this a threat? It doesn't sound like it in the actual song, but when I look at the words on paper they take on another, really more sinister aspect. Imagine it said like this:
Yipes. Scary
... what. The fuck?
Also, what does this have to do with Marquis de Sade and his philosophy of violence and free sexuality? Nothing? Oh good, next line!
Having abandoned the idea of this song having anything to do with Libertine philosophy, it's painfully obvious Cheryl Cole was just quote-mining, not even bothering to understand what the quote meant, I can only look at this line in one way: as it is. And as a line it's poorly constructed because the music she's trying to put it to does not fit with the words she has doodled for the song, which is why you get repetition here. Because she has too many beats in the song to work with, and since this song is in Trochaic meter of stressed syllable, then unstressed, she's had to repeat words, to add a stress that isn't there, just to make it fit. This is lazy writing! For example
Sayin’ I, I love what you do to me, need you to stay with me
/ - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
The alternative would be:
Sayin’ I love what you do to me, need you to stay with me
/ - / - / - / - / - / - / - /
This stressed last syllable just would not have introduced the listener to the next line, as it would be two stressed syllables next to each other, and so the easy flow of the song would be disrupted. This is one of the little unconscious ways in which they keep you listening to the song, this ease and natural 'stepping overs' (for lack of a better phrase) is psychologically pleasing.
The chorus repeats here and then leads to this couplet:
Who is the target of this couplet? Actually that's a good question, who is the target of this song? This song has no details to justify it's own existence. Again, unlike 'How You Remind Me' like last time, yeah it wasn't a 'good' justification, which made Chad Kroger look like a complete arsehole, but at least there was a justification.
That last couplet shows us some facts about the narrator's situation though, whoever she is (I'm assuming it is a she anyway). The narrator has pictures of this guy, a guy who spends his time shouting her name for some reason, in her head, but she's being distracted by thoughts of her 'baby'. Am I to assume this is an actual baby? If it is someone please take that baby off her! If her boyfriend is as mentally unstable as he's reported to be that baby is in serious danger!
Or I could just be being silly and it's a 'cute' and cliche meaning the two lines refer to same person. In that case; why are they written to suggest there is more than one person being addressed?
Here the lyrics essentally end, but the song doesn't. Everything after this word-wise is just copy and pastes from earlier on in the song. There is however these last lines, a cut-down version of the chorus:
Again. Read this with some exclamation marks and the meaning totally changes.
The sad thing is, I can't even interpret lines from this song because of the lack of context, and vague details of the writing. Who are these people? What is going on? Who cares.
Can I seriously say that the last reviewed song, Nickeback's 'How You Remind Me', is better than this? No, not really. The difference between this and 'How you Remind Me' is that 'How You Remind Me' was a song written to have a meaning, though that meaning was lost by the fact that it was written by Chad 'Im a song ritter' Kroger. Despite the song video starting with a quotation by Marquis de Sade (giving genuine merit to the possible accusation that this song is pretentious) this song was just supposed to be mindless pop, and the backing music is clearly more important than the words. If that is all what you want then go nuts - but I feel this song deserves to be criticized most of all because it's just so thin and insubstantial. Isn't saying that this song is just 'mindless pop' an excuse for poor writing?
I think so.
The last time I tried this – me farting on a keyboard for some derisible criticism (in both senses of the word ‘derisible’) and since it got a pretty good reaction here is another go. The reaction to the last was something I found really amazing since it was written in about ten minutes and inspired by a few bottles of larger, and then recent developments. Even though now I really have the pressure on; I’ve got to be funny, or at least entertaining. Well, goddamn.
Let me just get it out right now, before we start. I hate Cheryl Cole’s music. I find it always overproduced, poorly written, and to be honest, it never sounds very good. The songs always have a range of song ideas (some of them, by themselves, are even good) but they never seem to fit together properly. I have had a strong dislike of Mrs Cole’s music since the early days when she was in the band ‘Girls Allowed’, and whenever I think about this band I have to stifle a laugh. Does anyone remember when they tried to make themselves out to be the ‘bad girls’ of pop? Yeah, didn’t that last. This ‘edgy’ facade has never been more apparent than with Cole’s recent release ‘Call my Name’.
This song is about a stock-pop as you can get. All the clichés are here. In fact, the song almost comes across as a step-by-step ‘How not to write a song’; yet this is what sells, and attracts 18,000,000 YouTube views. I don't get it.
The video itself is quite ... poor. We see Mrs Cole walking through a sewer, walking in a style no one actually walks in - looking both uncomfortable and stupid, and the song builds up with sudden blasts of high-key sounds before the actual song starts. What does the bit in the sewer have to do with the song? Not a damn thing.
The video also has text flashing on the screen which in full reads ‘The only way to a woman’s heart is along the path of torment’ which was said by the Libertine revolutionary and philosopher Marquis de Sade. That sound you just heard flouting on the wind was me laughing hysterically. Does Cheryl Cole not know that you use quotes at the start of a work to put the reader in the right frame of mind? And is a way to connect a body of work with another heavily related body of work? To see what this song has to do with Libertine philosophy let’s dig into those juicy lyrics. The first line being:
How'd you think I feel when you call my name
My initial reaction to this was: I didn't. I thought this because we have no context. This is the problem with songs that start with the freaking chorus. Also, here I have to give Nickeback (from last time) a little credit, at least they didn't jump right in to the worst part of the song, they built up the bad over introductory lines. Also, calling someone's name in a pop song is the most tired, meaningless cliches in all pop; so much so I'm amazed it's not actually enough to discredit an artist for the rest of time. I remember first hearing this line as a child with the band Bewitched, and now I feel really old. Also, who actually does this? And is this really romantic? Shouting someone's name in the middle of the street? If I went to LA for a few days, and spent them wondering around shouting 'CHERYL! CHERYL!' in a way even Silent Hill's Harry Mason would find a bit much, would I instantly get a date with Cheryl Cole? Is that how it works?
You got me confused by the way I've changed
Not only is this a terribly written line (there is something in the rhythm of this line that is really off) this line is saying that Mrs Cole is becoming 'confused' by someone listing the ways she has changed over the years, which means that Cheryl Cole is an idiot.
How'd you think I feel when you call my name
My name, say my name baby
My name, say my name baby
'How'd you think I feel' is usually something you say when you are upset and angry. So it must be asked, is this a threat? It doesn't sound like it in the actual song, but when I look at the words on paper they take on another, really more sinister aspect. Imagine it said like this:
How'd you think I feel when you call my name?
My name! Say my name, baby!
My name! Say my name, baby!
Yipes. Scary
It's the love you save for the way I know we’ve been apart
It's an endless circle of poison arrow to my heart
It's an endless circle of poison arrow to my heart
... what. The fuck?
Also, what does this have to do with Marquis de Sade and his philosophy of violence and free sexuality? Nothing? Oh good, next line!
Sayin’ I, I love what you do to me, need you to stay with me
I, I love you too much to let go
I, I love you too much to let go
Having abandoned the idea of this song having anything to do with Libertine philosophy, it's painfully obvious Cheryl Cole was just quote-mining, not even bothering to understand what the quote meant, I can only look at this line in one way: as it is. And as a line it's poorly constructed because the music she's trying to put it to does not fit with the words she has doodled for the song, which is why you get repetition here. Because she has too many beats in the song to work with, and since this song is in Trochaic meter of stressed syllable, then unstressed, she's had to repeat words, to add a stress that isn't there, just to make it fit. This is lazy writing! For example
Sayin’ I, I love what you do to me, need you to stay with me
/ - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
The alternative would be:
Sayin’ I love what you do to me, need you to stay with me
/ - / - / - / - / - / - / - /
This stressed last syllable just would not have introduced the listener to the next line, as it would be two stressed syllables next to each other, and so the easy flow of the song would be disrupted. This is one of the little unconscious ways in which they keep you listening to the song, this ease and natural 'stepping overs' (for lack of a better phrase) is psychologically pleasing.
The chorus repeats here and then leads to this couplet:
It's a constant thought of my baby taking up my time
It's a non-stop vision of you that's playing on my mind
It's a non-stop vision of you that's playing on my mind
Who is the target of this couplet? Actually that's a good question, who is the target of this song? This song has no details to justify it's own existence. Again, unlike 'How You Remind Me' like last time, yeah it wasn't a 'good' justification, which made Chad Kroger look like a complete arsehole, but at least there was a justification.
That last couplet shows us some facts about the narrator's situation though, whoever she is (I'm assuming it is a she anyway). The narrator has pictures of this guy, a guy who spends his time shouting her name for some reason, in her head, but she's being distracted by thoughts of her 'baby'. Am I to assume this is an actual baby? If it is someone please take that baby off her! If her boyfriend is as mentally unstable as he's reported to be that baby is in serious danger!
Or I could just be being silly and it's a 'cute' and cliche meaning the two lines refer to same person. In that case; why are they written to suggest there is more than one person being addressed?
Here the lyrics essentally end, but the song doesn't. Everything after this word-wise is just copy and pastes from earlier on in the song. There is however these last lines, a cut-down version of the chorus:
When you call my name [x2]
Say my name baby
When you call my name [x2]
Say my name baby
Say my name baby
When you call my name [x2]
Say my name baby
Again. Read this with some exclamation marks and the meaning totally changes.
The sad thing is, I can't even interpret lines from this song because of the lack of context, and vague details of the writing. Who are these people? What is going on? Who cares.
Can I seriously say that the last reviewed song, Nickeback's 'How You Remind Me', is better than this? No, not really. The difference between this and 'How you Remind Me' is that 'How You Remind Me' was a song written to have a meaning, though that meaning was lost by the fact that it was written by Chad 'Im a song ritter' Kroger. Despite the song video starting with a quotation by Marquis de Sade (giving genuine merit to the possible accusation that this song is pretentious) this song was just supposed to be mindless pop, and the backing music is clearly more important than the words. If that is all what you want then go nuts - but I feel this song deserves to be criticized most of all because it's just so thin and insubstantial. Isn't saying that this song is just 'mindless pop' an excuse for poor writing?
I think so.
