Top 10 Worst Hit Songs of 1969

Hey folks. Well, I’ve now touched base in each of the decades prior to the 2010s at least once, save for one: the 1960s. And honestly, I’m kind of surprised I didn’t get here sooner because, truth be told, I was raised on a lot of the music from the ‘60s. My parents grew up during this time, so I got exposed to a lot of the music and artists they listened to back in the day: the Beatles, Elvis Presley, Simon and Garfunkel, the Who, Aretha Franklin. That, coupled with the number of positive things I’ve heard said about this particular decade, got me really stoked when I decided that, at long last, I would be delving into some of the music from it. So many artists I hadn’t really gotten much exposure to that I was anxious to get a taste of, so many old classics by bands I grew up with and loved, I was really excited to jump into this decade.

Oddly though, we won’t really be seeing a lot of that cropping up in the particular year I selected to review this time around. No, for today we’re looking at the late ‘60s, a point in time when some of the momentum of the decade was starting to die down as some of the trends of the time started to shift with the transition into the ‘70s. Folk rock and blues rock weren’t out of the public consciousness just yet, but it was certainly starting to lose steam by this point. The ‘hippie’ movement came to a close, presumably because of the violence that occurred at the Rolling Stones’ concert in Altamont, California, where the biker gang Hells Angels, who were hired as security for the event, stabbed a fan to death. Also, the Beatles would hold their last public performance fairly early on in the year, and John Lennon would leave the group and start performing with his wife Yoko Ono. Furthermore, Billboard would change its policy for charting A and B sides of singles; where they were charted separately before, the new policy would consider both sides a single chart entry. This wasn’t necessarily a bad year for music, but there was a noticeable shift.

However, there was still plenty of crap to come from this year. Yes, even the ‘60s were not immune to the stigma of bad music populating the pop charts at some point or another. That’s not even to say that the music from the ‘60s was unique in its flavors of bad; a lot of the reasons the songs on this list suck aren’t all that different from how songs on some of my previous worst lists have sucked. However, I guess there is a difference in terms of the level of intensity some of these songs prove themselves to be bad. In fact, I’m guessing that some of you reading this list will likely strongly disagree with some of the songs I place on here. And I can understand that; not everyone has the same taste in music, and people will disagree with others regarding their opinions on certain topics. I would urge people to try and keep an open mind though, and try to at least understand the opinions of others regarding why they like or dislike certain things. After all, understanding why other people don’t like something one does like, and recognizing when something one likes has flaws doesn’t mean that person can’t still like what they like.

That said, let’s dive right in and get to what songs from this year didn’t work for me, starting with our dishonorable mentions:

Mercy (Ohio Express) [--; 30; 4 weeks]

This barely missed qualification for this list. I didn’t really get to go into detail about this when I discussed Neil Sedaka’s ‘Breaking Up is Hard To Do’ back on my worst of ’76 list, but ‘60s songs that use this annoying sing-song melody really irritate me, especially when they’re talking about subject matters that aren’t supposed to be light and fluffy like the songs often come across as. It’s a serious clash of the tone between the lyrics and the music. Fortunately, this song doesn’t really suffer from that all that much, else it might’ve had more consideration for this list.

Mrs. Robinson (Booker T. and the MG’s) [--; 37; 3 weeks]

For some reason, this year had a lot of really bad cover songs, and if more of them had actually qualified, the full list would likely have just been crappy covers, and that would’ve just made for a boring list. This one was probably one of the more baffling ones I stumbled upon when listening through the music from this year. Why the hell would you take a Simon and Garfunkel song and turn it into a goddamn elevator tune?

To Susan On the West Coast Waiting (Donovan) [--; 35; 2 weeks]

I want to punch the singer of this song squarely across the jaw every time I hear it. I realize it’s trying to be an emotionally riveting song about a guy that got drafted into the Vietnam War being separated from his love, and to be fair that does sound like something that would make for an interesting subject for a song. However, the delivery here doesn’t match the tone the guy’s clearly trying to go for, and instead he just comes across as a huge creeping douche bag, what with his soft, whispered, off-key vocals and uncomfortable word choices at points. ‘I know you love me so, but I want to hear it in my ear,’ anyone?

Abraham, Martin & John (Moms Mabley) [--; 35; 2 weeks]

Okay, I feel like I’m going to get a lot of flack for this one. I don’t have anything against people writing songs about African American rights or their struggle. I actually think those kind of songs can spawn some pretty decent music, like Stevie Wonder’s ‘You Haven’t Done Nothing’. What I’m against is people covering such songs and doing so badly. This was actually a song originally recorded by American singer-songwriter Dion a year earlier. There were actually quite a few covers of this song, but this one was by far the worst, and there’s one very simple reason for that: Moms Mabley just flat out couldn’t sing. Maybe she was a decent comedian back in the day, but she did not have a singing voice. Her vocals were just too shakey and unsteady to carry a melody, and too crackly to present any kind of emotion. Whenever I hear this song, I always imagine she’s really struggling to perform it, to the point that she ends up passing out by the end of the song. There are older artists that are able to perform well, but this was not one of them.

Black Pearl (Sonny Charles and the Checkmates, Ltd.) [66; 13; 10 weeks]

This would’ve qualified for the list, but ultimately I didn’t think it was all that bad. It’s a nice enough love song that doesn’t really do anything offensive. That said, I still don’t feel like it’s really all that good. The singer’s voice just kind of grates against my nerves, and the music’s too dull and soft to really carry the melody. Though, I will admit, this may just be a matter of personal taste and ultimately I thought it was harmless enough.

Scarborough Fair (Sergio Mendes and Brasil ’66) [--; 27; 3 weeks]

This is yet another crappy cover of a Simon and Garfunkel song. I guess people were really desperate to cash in on the hit making power of their music. Now look, I’m not against covers that try to take a song and do something new and experimental with it. The problem comes from the fact that these guys didn’t put forth any effort to maintain the tone of the original version of the song. Also, they were incredibly lazy about learning the lyrics too apparently, since through the entire song they just repeat the first verse of the original version over and over again, and at no point does it feel like they actually understand the meaning that the original was trying to present. The whole thing just feels like a transparent cash grab that had nothing interesting or original to bring to the table when they decided to cover this song. If this had charted higher, or for longer than it did, it definitely would’ve made the list.

You Gave Me a Mountain (Frankie Laine) [--; 24; 7 weeks]

This song bothers me for one main reason: the singer’s absolute refusal to sing within the meter of the song. It’s a pet peeve, I know, but it a trait that makes it impossible for me to enjoy Michael Bublé’s music, and it also means I can’t enjoy this song either. Also, I know that the singer’s trying to convey all the emotional weight of all this crap that’s happened to him in this song, but…I don’t know, something about the tone in his voice or the way he’s singing just makes it come across as petulant whining. I just can’t say I feel all that sympathetic for the guy when he wails like a little kid more and more on each successive repetition of the chorus. It sounds less like a man shouting at God for putting a hardship in front of him that he can’t overcome and more like a guy throwing a fit because he can’t have things the way he wants them nice and easy, without having to put forth any effort whatsoever. By the way, is it just me, or did he completely fail to convey any reason why his wife left him after bringing it up in the second verse? Whatever, next!

I’ve Been Hurt (Bill Del and the Rhondells) [--; 35; 3 weeks]

Ugh…Yeah, remember how earlier I was talking about upbeat, light and fluffy ‘60s songs that were about not-so-light-and-fluffy subject matters? Yeah, that’s exactly what we have here. This is supposed to be a song about a guy that’s so heartbroken about finding out that his woman cheated on him and lied to him about the ordeal. Instead, it feels like I’m listening to a jaunty tune by a marching band celebrating a national holiday in the middle of a city square. For people that complain about how music in the ‘60s was so much better than it is today, take a moment to listen to this song and try to tell me if you still believe that.

Along Came Jones (Ray Stevens) [--; 27; 4 weeks]

I do not understand Ray Stevens’s sense of humor. And chances are I never will.

And with that, time to say these things I’d like to say: we’re counting down…

…THE TOP 10 WORST HIT SONGS OF 1969!

#10.

Let’s talk about boy bands. Yes, believe it or not there actually were groups one could consider ‘boy bands’ back in this period of time, such as the Beatles, the Beach Boys and the Monkees. Now, most people probably don’t really think of these groups as ‘boy bands’ since that phrase usually referred to acts like NSYNC and the Backstreet Boys who generally made stuff like bubblegum pop. However, I personally am counting them since, while these groups were definitely more from a rock ‘n’ roll background, their music did still have the tendency to be pretty disposable and pandered to the demographic of young teenage girls. However, I’m not going to be discussing any of the groups I just named. In fact, chances are you likely don’t even know of the group I’m going to be naming, and for good reason since they only really had one song anyone remembers. And it’s not the one I’m about to list below.

#10. You Showed Me (The Turtles) [80; 6; 9 weeks]

These guys are the Turtles, an American rock band that originated in Westchester, a suburban area of Los Angeles. They had a number of hits, though their biggest and most iconic was ‘Happy Together,’ from 1967. I admit, these guys aren’t really my thing, but I guess I can kind of see some level of talent and skill in their music. However, I can’t see any of that present in this song. There’s not even anything interesting about how bad it is, it’s just kind of ‘meh’.

Okay, that’s not really fair to the song. To its credit, it doesn’t do anything really offensively bad. Its melody is nice enough, and the vocals are tolerable. Given the choice between listening to this and some of the terrible music we have to listen to nowadays, I’d certainly feel a lot more inclined to sit through this. However, there are still problems with the song. The song’s meant to be a smooth, romantic love song. That kind of song calls for something much richer and more uplifting. What we get instead is a dull, melancholic drone. The tone of the song completely misses what it’s trying to accomplish, not just in the music, but in the vocals as well. They don’t sound like they’re in love; they sound forlorn, they sound depressed. I can’t say I feel any semblance of romance coming from this. Let’s just take a point of comparison for a second. In the song ‘Happy Together,’ the tone also kind of came across as depressed and unhappy at first, but it made up for it when it got to the chorus, which was this big, jubilant declaration of affection. I genuinely felt like the narrator in that song was so happy to be in love with the person he was singing to. ‘You Showed Me’ doesn’t have that though; it remains just as flat and dreary from beginning to end. And the lyrics don’t fair much better either. They walk the line between being incredibly vague and incredibly emotionally detached. The first line of the song is ‘You showed me how you do/Exactly what you do/How I fell in love with you’. What did she show you exactly? How did you fall in love with her?

As I mentioned earlier, there were a number of cover songs that were done this year, and as it happens this is one of them, being a cover of a song by the Byrds from 1964. In all fairness to the Turtles, the original song wasn’t exactly all that good either. It had pretty much the same problems that the Turtles’ version had. The issues I have with the lyrics are basically identical for both versions, for example. However, I do note that the Turtles actually slowed the song down even more and took away some of the musical texture that was present in the original version of the song. These didn’t make the original version of the song good by any stretch, but at least they gave it some semblance of flavor, which is more than can be said of this cover version.

Do I think this song is horrifically terrible? No, not particularly. However, all this song does is bring up the question of why the general public of 1969 would have chosen to listen to this over the Beatles, the Beach Boys, the Monkees or any other boy band act of the time. In a time period when these things were available for people to listen to, I just don’t get why it was ‘You Showed Me’ by the Turtles that seized the public’s interest. Sorry guys; slow and steady was not enough to win this race.

#9.

And on the topic of boy bands, let’s talk about the Beatles for a second. When I was growing up, my parents, particularly my mother, introduced me to the group, and I’ve had a fondness for their music since a young age. The boys were definitely talented, and have written some of the most influential and innovative music of our time. I realize anything I could possibly say about the Beatles has likely been said already, and worded much better, by hundreds, if not thousands of other critics the world over. Suffice to say; I think the Beatles were awesome.

So, with that in mind, I hope you will understand how upsetting it is for me to have to put a song that’s even tangentially associated with the Beatles on this list. In fact, as it happens, the next two songs on this list are Beatles-related in one way or another. I don’t mean to slander the band that gave the world such iconic albums as ‘Revolver’ and ‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,’ but honestly the blame needs to fall somewhere for these stinkers.

#9. Give Peace a Chance (Plastic Ono Band) [--; 14; 6 weeks]

1969 was not exactly a great year for the Beatles. Tensions within the group were running high and their recording sessions for their ‘Let It Be’ album were considered the lowest point for the group. Hell, even ‘Abbey Road’ saw the group not exactly in the most cooperative state, with John Lennon in particular causing problems by inviting then girlfriend, avant-garde artist Yoko Ono to join the group for recording sessions, despite the group’s well-established understanding not to bring girlfriends to the studio. However, this eventually led to him releasing the first solo hit single by any member of the Beatles: this thoughtless pile of uninspired tripe! What a milestone, am I right?

Okay, that’s not entirely fair. After all, anti-war sentimentality is not inherently a bad thing. As I’ve said previously, some songs I can still get behind the message of even if the song itself is bad. And considering the time this song was released, and what it was arguing against, I can definitely understand where John and Yoko were coming from. The Vietnam War was a terrible, terrible time frame that I’m sure everyone, particularly America, would like nothing more than to let go of and move on from. Or, you know, obsess over it and shove the horribleness of the event down the throats of the next several generations to come, whatever floats your boat. My issues with the American education system aside, I don’t think that wanting to seek peace when the alternative was one of the dirtiest, emptiest wars in history that had the least to be won from it was necessarily a bad sentiment to emphasize.

Honestly though, even taking into consideration the one-line chorus’s protest, what does this song actually have to do with the Vietnam War specifically, or for that matter, anything at all? The rest of lyrics to this song are absolute nonsense, just John Lennon shooting out strings of disconnected words seemingly only because they rhymed with each other. Seriously, ‘Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism?’ I actually looked up all those words, and half of them don’t even mean anything! And even in the verses that actually bring things up that tangentially relate to the Vietnam War, he basically just lists them off like items on a grocery list! He doesn’t expand on any of them or connect them with each other at all! And when you’re left pondering what the point of it all is building up to, all there is to be delivered is a single, repeated statement over and over until your gray matter leaks out of your ears! This was John Lennon, one of the two main lyricists and songwriters of the Beatles, and this was the best he could come up with?

Not really helping matters much is the incredibly cheap production. It basically just consists of a single guitar line while people in the background stomping and clapping in time serve as the percussion for the song. I realize this was the ‘60s, when they didn’t have the more sophisticated production that was present in pop music today, or even by the mid-‘70s, but even taking that into account, this song just sounds lazy and lacking any semblance of effort. And the thing is, John Lennon is not a lazy artist; he’s written plenty of songs that provoke thought and inspire deep analysis; his time in the Beatles is plenty proof of that. In his time with the Beatles, he had a hand in other protest songs, which were all much better than this. Hell, even his follow-up single to this, ‘Cold Turkey,’ exercised more effort and thought than ‘Give Peace a Chance’ did!

I just don’t see why I should be settling for listening to this when John Lennon has done similar songs and done them a billion times better. “All we are saying is give peace a chance,” huh Lennon? Well, all I’m saying is this song sucks.

#8.

According to WatchMojo.com, rule #1 of covering the Beatles is as follows: Don’t cover the Beatles. I don’t know who it was that established that rule, but whoever it was, I wish they’d done so sooner!

#8. Eleanor Rigby (Aretha Franklin) [--; 17; 7 weeks]

Okay, I just want to make it clear, I don’t hate Aretha Franklin. I think she’s a very talented performer, a talented singer; she has very powerful pipes and she should be proud of them. However, as far as covering songs goes, there are just certain songs that do not work well for certain artists. Aretha Franklin isn’t exactly the right performer for a song like this; it doesn’t lend itself to the more gospel sound that has become integral to her music.

The thing is, ‘Eleanor Rigby’ isn’t even exactly a complicated song to grasp the premise of; it’s a song about depression and loneliness told through a narrative describing two people, one being the titular character, and the other being Father McKenzie. The former is an old, lonely woman that lives in a fantasy world, while the latter is a man that writes church sermons that no one listens to, and the song closes with Eleanor Rigby dying, with her death signifying the end of her family line, while Father McKenzie was the man that buried her. The idea is that these two lonely people might have been able to find someone if they’d met, with the tragedy being that they only really ‘met’ one another at the time of Eleanor’s burial. As far as Beatles songs go, it’s a fairly simple narrative to follow.

So, if it’s so simple, how does Aretha Franklin taking the helm of the song make it not work? Well, to begin with, the original song had a very somber, morose tone to it, as it should because it fits the themes of the song. However, the Aretha Franklin cover instead uses a musical style more in line with what she usually performs, leaning more towards a bombastic, gospel sound. That kind of music isn’t good for presenting subtle emotional tones, like what are needed for this song. And not really helping matters is the fact that Aretha Franklin is not a subtle performer. She’s really good at presenting loud, forward emotions. You can clearly tell listening to this cover version that she’s not in her element performing a song like this.

Then there’s what she does to the lyrics. The original had specifically chosen lyrics pieced together to form the narrative and theme and tie them together seamlessly. Her next big misstep with handling this song was to cut out lyrics, particularly the refrain. Taking away even one lyrical element of the song ruins the story it’s trying to convey. However, there’s one very specific point in the song that placed it on this list: in the first verse, she frames it so that she is the titular character. Seriously, the song opens with her saying ‘I’m Eleanor Rigby’. That moment alone indicates that she completely missed the point that the original version of the song was trying to get across. Way to take a morose song about depression and loneliness and make it all about yourself, you egotistical jerk!

And it’s not even like Aretha Franklin can’t do a cover song and improve on the original in ways. Hell, her 1967 hit song ‘Respect,’ one of her most iconic songs of her career, is actually a cover of an Otis Redding song, and her style and personality definitely fit the theme of that song. This, however, just feels clumsy and awkward. I don’t buy that she understood the theme of the original song. Or, to put it another way, this does not make her feel like a natural woman.

#7.

The early ‘60s were a really successful period for the Four Seasons. Even with the switch in record company, they still managed to land a decent number of hits. And I don’t think it’s that hard to understand why they managed to accomplish such a feat. I mean, I’m not a fan of their early work, but I can definitely tell they had something of a star quality to them. Yeah, Frankie Valli’s voice was like the cries of a banshee, but that didn’t mean the group didn’t have some level of talent that managed to shine through despite that. So, I guess it makes sense that, soon after their success, the imitators would come crawling out of the woodwork to try and pass off having that same star quality that the Seasons possessed. And that brings us to our next entrant: Lou Christie.

#7. I’m Gonna Make You Mine (Lou Christie) [60; 10; 9 weeks]

Born Lugee Alfredo Giovanni Sacco, Christie is an American singer-songwriter that originated from Pennsylvania, having been born in Glenwillard and raised in Pittsburgh, though he worked as a session vocalist in New York after graduating high school. He was encouraged to pursue classical music, but wanted to cut a record to get on American Bandstand, eventually leading to him approaching Nick Cenci. Cenci liked his falsetto voice and encouraged him to listen to the Four Seasons hit song ‘Sherry,’ which would go on to inspire his own first hit single, ‘The Gypsy Cried.’ It didn’t crack the top 20, but it still managed fairly well for itself, as did his follow up single ‘Two Faces Have I,’ which actually managed to place in the top 10.

However, most of his songs suffered from a very serious problem: pretty much all of them sounded like they came from the Four Seasons. And most of that can be attributed to Christie’s falsetto being just too similar to Frankie Valli’s. For the record, that also means it’s just as unbearable to sit through. Though, it’s not like his songs that didn’t rely on his falsetto were much better, since his normal singing voice wasn’t very distinguished. I guess that explains why he just didn’t manage very many hit songs; he just didn’t have enough of a distinct identity of his own that didn’t blatantly copy the style of the Four Seasons. Not really helping matters is that he had the same issue that Neil Sedaka had back in the early ‘60s: his attempts at writing sad, downtrodden songs always sounded too jubilant and upbeat to really pass off the tone the song was trying to go for. In fact, one of his songs blatantly lifts a line from a Sedaka song. To the people one generation prior to my own, I must ask, why did you give this guy a career exactly?

And that brings us to his fifth and final top 40 hit song, ‘I’m Gonna Make You Mine’. To be fair, he doesn’t use his falsetto voice here, for the most part, and his singing definitely sounds better on this song than it does on his earlier songs. Unfortunately, he makes up for that with the lyrics, which paint him as a really creepy, desperate stalker. He uses such lines as ‘I’ll try to get to your soul, I’ll try to get to your mind,’ ‘I’ll try every trick in the book/With every step that you take, everywhere that you look,’ and ‘I’ll be a hard-lovin’, pushin’ kind of individual/Knockin’ night and day at your door/You’ll have to turn me away like an indestructible force’. Dude, if this is your approach, I highly doubt you’re going to make this woman ‘yours’. Also, nice work implying possessiveness and treating the woman as if she were an object, you idiot. This has all the uncomfortable undertones of ‘Every Breath You Take,’ but without the self-awareness to justify it.

I just don’t understand what the appeal of this is supposed to be. It’s just a crappy song made by a terrible singer that is completely ignorant of its own undertones and tries to play itself off as being romantic. That said, I guess if there is one nice thing I can say about this song, it’s that it almost managed to establish Lou Christie’s personality beyond just being a rip-off of the Four Seasons…almost.

#6.

When an artist or band chooses to change their direction or style of music, it can be kind of a mixed bag. On the one hand, you can get some really great work out of such a dynamic shift in a group’s direction. The Beatles are a classic example of a group changing their musical style and having great music come out of it. Of course, while some acts manage to handle such a transition well, others are not so fortunate.

#6. Crimson and Clover (Tommy James and the Shondells) [10; 1; 14 weeks]

This is probably the most successful song that will be appearing on this list. It peaked at number one in the US, and six other countries, and also charted in ten others, though not in the UK. It’s also had over five and a half million record sales, making it the best selling single by Tommy James, even taking his solo work into account. And honestly, I just don’t get it. Don’t get the wrong idea, I don’t think that Tommy James and the Shondells were a bad group; I actually like plenty of their songs. As far as ‘60s boy bands go, I’d take Tommy James and the Shondells over, say, the Turtles. So then what’s the big issue I have with this song? Well, as I said, this was meant to represent a change in the group’s direction, from bubblegum rock to more psychedelic rock. And I’m not sure if this was the right fit for the group. I get that the group needed to change their style up if they wanted to survive the shift in focus from singles acts to album acts, but I can’t really see how this song would hold up anymore as part of an album than it does by itself.

There are two main reasons this song placed on this list. The first is the lyrics, which honestly, I can’t make heads or tails of. The title for the song was pieced together from James’s favorite color, crimson, and his favorite flower, clover. And yet there’s nothing to indicate what that phrase is supposed to represent within the context of the song. Now, I get the feeling a lot of people are going to make the argument that the lyrics don’t have to make sense; that the lyrics are up for the listener to interpret in their own way. After all, I’ve let plenty of other songs with bizarre, confusing, or even nonsensical lyrics slide previously. But…I don’t know, just something about the way these two words are used feels like the writer thought he had something poetic and interesting to say, but couldn’t actually find anything to connect it to. To support this theory, I would also like to note that the song has very few lyrics in it; it basically consists of three verses, and then concludes with the phrase ‘Crimson and clover, over and over’ repeated several times at the end of the song. The first, second and third verse are only three, four and six lines long respectively. Not only that, but all three of these are presented within the first two minutes of the song, and the song is five minutes long. But surely there’s some way they can take up the rest of the space in the song, right?

Well, this brings us to the second problem with this song: the song progression is incredibly sloppy. The verses are broken up by musical interludes that really break the flow of the song, with the one right after the third verse being especially jarring. The song swells and then suddenly drops out several times. Also, near the end of the song, when it reaches the point where it just repeats the phrase, ‘Crimson and clover, over and over’ again and again, the vocals become broken and choppy, sounding like they’re coming out of a broken phonograph. It doesn’t sound like it’s coming from someone that’s in love; it sounds like the music a serial killer would hear in his head as he’s about to commit a murder. I can’t be the only one that thinks this, can I?

Their follow up hit singles did at least sound like marginal improvements compared to this, so I guess one could at least say some good came out of the group’s change in direction. Still, this song is a stain on the tenure of what was otherwise a decent ‘60s rock band.

#5.

When putting this list together, I really had a lot of trouble with finding songs from the year-end hot 100 for 1969 that I genuinely disliked. As a result, half of the songs on this list came from me looking outside of the year-end chart. We’ve covered two of them already, and now we’ll be looking at the third.

#5. Don’t Give In To Him (Gary Puckett and the Union Gap) [--; 15; 8 weeks]

You’ll likely start to notice another recurring theme with some of the following songs on this list as well: most of them carry either really terrible or highly questionable messages. Since I didn’t really get much of a reaction from most of the music from this year, I mainly ended up disliking a song more based on its message. And hoo boy, do we have a pretty bad few to sort through on the upper half of this list. To start with, let’s look at this song. It starts out fairly reasonable enough, a warning song to a girl in a relationship with a guy that sounds like kind of a demanding asshole. It seems like the guy in question might possibly have the girl’s best interests at heart when he says ‘Don’t give in to him.’

And then it gets to the last chorus of the song, and it closes with the line ‘’Cause I’m the one who loves you more.’ Yeah, way to take whatever likeable qualities you might have set up for yourself only to expose yourself as the selfish jerk you are, Puckett. I know it’s just one line, but tell me that doesn’t ruin the entire rest of the song for anyone else. “Oh, you shouldn’t give yourself up to that guy because he’s such a demanding asshole and brags about having never lost before! Oh, and also once you dump him, you should hook up with me.” Yich. This has got to be one of the sleaziest songs to come from this year.

Might I suggest some friendly advice, ladies? Don’t hook up with someone if they come onto you like this. Chances are you’d just be disappointed. And for the love of God, don’t try to hook up with me just because I said that. That would only end in disappointment for the both of us.

#4.

Remember what I said earlier about covering the Beatles? Guess what, it still applies here too!

#4. Hey Jude (Wilson Pickett) [--; 23; 6 weeks]

Yes, I realize that Wilson Pickett was a really important figure in the development of American soul music. No, that doesn’t make this cover any better. In my defense, I don’t blame Pickett for this song’s problems. Like with Aretha Franklin and ‘Eleanor Rigby,’ he just wasn’t the right fit for this song. Not to mention, ‘Hey Jude’ is already not exactly one of the Beatles’ better songs. I’m not trying to say the song is inherently bad, but it’s certainly not perfect. Rhyming wise, it predominantly rhymes the word ‘better’ and the phrase ‘get her’. Also, the song in general is just kind of a generic, feel-good song that’s only really elevated by the fact that the Beatles are the ones performing it. 

So, if the Beatles’ star power was enough to make the song more than what it was, why wasn’t Wilson Pickett able to do the same when he was also a fairly influential figure around this time? Well, I guess part of it has to do with the style and genre that the guy usually leaned towards. He was mostly a performer of soul music, and was generally at his best when pouring his guts out. When he was singing pained, emotional songs that seemed focused on his own pain and heartache, it worked because you really felt all the torture and agony he was emoting. ‘Hey Jude’ is too lightweight of a song to really match up with something like that. In fact, I think this song actually has the opposite problem of Neil Sedaka’s ‘Breaking Up is Hard To Do:’ the song’s supposed to be upbeat and happy sounding, but instead the tone that it conveys is heavy, dour and joyless.

Also, the instrumentation doesn’t exactly help matters either. This version uses a brass section and organ that seem to be trying to add heft and power to the song, but instead they just make it sound even more like a funeral dirge. Let’s compare it to the original for a moment: that version had pretty bare bones instrumentation, being performed almost entirely by just the Beatles themselves. And honestly, the less expansive instrumentation actually works a lot more in the song’s favor because it makes it sound a lot more earnest. It especially helps near the end of the song, which is primarily carried by the group’s vocals. The background vocals used in the Wilson Pickett version just sound phoned in; the performers don’t sound like they’re putting their all into the performance, and they come across as bored.

As I said, I don’t think it was Wilson Pickett’s fault that his version of the song sucks so much, not entirely anyway. If he had to cover a Beatles song though, there were other songs he could’ve tried his hand at that would probably have worked a bit more to his strengths, like ‘Yesterday,’ or ‘She’s Leaving Home’ perhaps. This, however, just doesn’t work at all. The song may tell the titular character Jude to ‘take a sad song and make it better,’ but this version took a happy song and made it worse. Next! 

#3.

I swear, I didn’t know this song was a cover when putting this list together. This will be the final cover song to be appearing on this list. You have my word.

#3. The Worst That Could Happen (Johnny Maestro and the Brooklyn Bridge) [74; 3; 10 weeks]

I admit, it was kind of a toss up between this song and the next song for the #3 and #2 slots, but ultimately I decided to place them in this order. We’ll be getting to the song that could possibly be worse in a bit, but for now, let’s take a look at this one, the first, biggest and only hit single of the group Johnny Maestro and the Brooklyn Bridge. This actually wasn’t the first hit song Johnny Maestro himself had managed to obtain, since prior to working with the Brooklyn Bridge, he was originally part of a group called the Crests, who actually had a handful of hits. This was his biggest hit song after leaving the group though, managing to peak at #3 on Billboard, but much like with ‘Crimson and Clover,’ I honestly don’t get it.

What are my problems with this song? Well, for starters it’s a song from the perspective of a guy whose love is getting married to another man. Not necessarily a bad thing by itself, and possibly even an interesting subject matter for a song, but let’s take a look at the chorus. It seems at first like he’s genuinely okay with the idea of letting her go, since it opens, ‘And baby if he loves you more than me…Maybe it’s the best thing for you.’ However, it then closes with the line, ‘But it’s the worst that could happen to me.’ That line alone paints this guy as just being petulant and whiny about the whole thing. So it doesn’t matter what else he says through the rest of the song to try and come across as caring and willing to let go and move on; that one line completely undoes all of it.

To be fair the rest of the song does try its best to make the guy come across as understanding. The guy talks about how things wouldn’t work out between him and the girl, since he never plans to marry and she needs to be married, and that’s all fine and good. But I’m sorry, with that line, it’s hard to buy that the guy actually means any of it. In fact, it feels like the guy’s overcompensating for how childish he was sounding by trying to come across as caring, and it just feels like he’s being passive aggressive about the whole thing. “Oh, I understand that you need a house and a home, and that you need to be married, my love. I understand that to you, your marriage is the happiest day of your life…but for me it’s THE! WORST! POSSIBLE! THING!” That’s seriously what I hear whenever I listen to this song. The guy sounds like he’s being melodramatic, and not in a good way.

In all fairness, Johnny Maestro has performed better songs, both with the Crests and with the Brooklyn Bridge; so most of the problems with this song are inherent in the song itself rather than the performers. Still though, of all the songs the group could have chosen to perform as their lead single as a group, why this one? Surely there must’ve been other songs they could have chosen. This though, this is just a disappointment, and I’m just depressed knowing that they ended up going with it, as well as how successful it was. This song being as successful as it was may have been the best thing for Johnny Maestro, but it’s the worst that could happen to me.

#2.

Something I noticed about 1969 was that there really weren’t a lot of white, female performers that saw a lot of success on the pop charts. There were still black, female performers that saw success like Aretha Franklin or Diana Ross and the Supremes, but there really didn’t seem to be that many white women that had hits this year. Hell, female performers in general just didn’t seem to be very common on the pop charts in 1969. And that’s honestly a shame, especially given that there were still talented female acts back in the ‘60s. So, I hope you can understand how disappointing it is to have to put a song on this list that’s not just by a female act, but a female act that was a big name within her genre of music. In fact, I honestly feel like this is probably going to be one of my more controversial choices for this list, given the controversy the song itself was surrounded by back in the day. However, as I’ve stated, I’m delivering these with my honest opinion, and even good artists can release crap once in a while. It’s just depressing that this song was not only this artist’s biggest hit, but also their only song to chart in the top 20 on the hot 100. Figures, doesn’t it?

#2. Stand By Your Man (Tammy Wynette) [--; 19; 9 weeks]

Considering how traditional country music tended to be, well prior to the rise of bro country a few years ago anyway, I guess I should be less surprised than I am that there ended up being a song like this back in 1969. Even so, I don’t think I could possibly accept any excuse for this song. I realize it was the ‘60s and women were probably not in a position where they could afford to stand up for themselves and there was the emphasis on being the supportive housewives for their husbands. That said, I don’t feel like this song presented a very good message for women to be taking to heart.

See, the idea behind the song is that the women being addressed should remain loyal and faithful to their husbands, no matter what. On the surface, that’s not necessarily a harmful message, but if you read deeper into the lyrics, they end up presenting a much more questionable suggestion. The first stanza of the song concludes with the lines, ‘You’ll have bad times/And he’ll have good times,/Doin’ things that you don’t understand,’ and then follows that up with the lines, ‘But if you love him you’ll forgive him,/Even though he’s hard to understand.’ What exactly does that mean? What good times would the man in question be having, and why wouldn’t his wife understand? And for that matter, why would she need to forgive him for it later? Well, I probably shouldn’t jump to conclusions, but what I get from this is that the man’s ‘good time’ involves him and another woman that isn’t his wife. So, the message I’m getting is that women need to be willing to forgive and overlook their husbands cheating on them and continuing to be supportive of them even when they’re not doing anything to offer the same in return. That sounds like an incredibly thoughtless message to be presenting. So, women need to let their husbands continue to walk all over them and be their doormats and not be willing to confront them when they’ve done stuff like this? That just sounds incredibly degrading to me. I mean, I’m not saying I want women to act like Meghan Trainor and force them to kowtow to their every whim, but this song goes wrong in the opposite direction, reinforcing the stereotype and pushing women’s rights back several decades.

Also, while this song isn’t exactly presenting much support for women, it doesn’t exactly say nice things about men either. After all, the second stanza concludes with the lines, ‘And if you love him oh be proud of him,/’Cause after all he’s just a man.’ That’s right, ladies; be proud of your man for cheating on you and demonstrating no sign of loyalty to you. After all, boys will be boys; it’s in their nature to do stuff like that! I realize it’s kind of a mean spirited interpretation of the song, but I’m not sure what else it’s supposed to be giving me here. It’s a song about loyalty and support of one’s husband that comes across as demeaning to women and condescending towards men.

To be fair, I don’t think the song was trying to come across that way. It’s just a thoughtlessly written song that says stupid things and isn’t trying to offend anyone or anything. But honestly, I think that actually makes it worse than ‘The Worst That Could Happen’ because it flopped even harder at what it was trying to accomplish. ‘The Worst That Could Happen’ could at least make the defense that its goal was rather petty all things considered, but this? This is asking the listener to do something pretty hefty, and instead it just paints the narrator as being incredibly stupid. I don’t know Tammy Wynette, so who knows? Maybe she was actually a fairly intelligent woman, but I do not get that impression from listening to this. Ladies, if your man cheats on you, don’t just forgive him for it; if you’re going to do so, do it on your terms and make him earn it. Don’t go along with what this bimbo says you should do. After all, you can’t really stand by your man if he refuses to stand by you also.

#1.

Now, up until this point, I would be willing to hear any kind of defense for any of the songs I’ve listed. In fact, I get the impression that there will be plenty of people that will disagree with my opinions on the songs I’ve selected so far. And there’s nothing wrong with that. If you like any of the songs I’ve named up until this point, fine, keep liking them. I don’t want to put anyone down for liking any of these songs. I personally don’t like them, but that doesn’t mean you can’t like them either. However, I must say, I have no idea what kind of person you would have to be to actually like this next song. While the songs I’ve listed so far have been questionable at worst, ultimately all of them have been fairly tolerable and don’t leave me feeling embarrassed about the music to come out around this time. That can most definitely not be said of this next song. The first time I heard this song when going through the hits from this year, I knew right off the bat that it was going on this list, it’s that bad. I don’t just mean in terms of the quality of the song itself, I’m also talking about the goal the song set for itself. The previous songs have given us happy songs that came across as sad or attempts at emotional gut punches that have just come across as petulant whining, or songs that have tried to come across as saying more than they actually are. However, if there’s anything more embarrassing than any of those things, it’s a comedic song that isn’t funny.

#1. Guitarzan (Ray Stevens) [61; 8; 10 weeks]

Hey guys! He took the word ‘guitar’ and combined it with the name ‘Tarzan!’ That qualifies as a joke now because it’s stupid, so that automatically makes it funny, right? Yeah, no, Ray Stevens. No it doesn’t. I know I’ve exercised distaste for stupid humor in the past, with ‘Because I Got High’ topping my ‘worst of 2001’ list and ‘Disco Duck’ topping my ‘worst of ‘76’ list. I realize that humor is meant to be subjective, and not everyone will find the same things funny. However, I cannot understand who would laugh at something like this unironically. Hell, I can’t say I could possibly understand how anyone could get into Ray Stevens’s sense of humor in general. The most extensive his comedy tended to get was that he’d make a slightly different, equally embarrassing vocal sound. And boy howdy, do we see him really bust out the stupid vocal noises here.

But okay, let’s try to look at the ‘premise’ of this song, if you’re feeling generous enough to call it that. It’s basically playing around with the idea of Tarzan taking up the guitar and trying to form a band. Studio executives, when will you learn that taking a popular thing that has nothing to do with music and trying to incorporate some kind of musical theme to it isn’t a good idea? I mean, yes, the Ninja Turtles wouldn’t even exist or try to attempt this until decades later, but still, what possible sense does it make to put Tarzan, the king of the jungle, into a fucking rock band? He was raised in the wild, and would have no understanding of the technology he’d need to be able to perform! This is such a flimsy premise for a song that it becomes invisible if you look at it from the side!

Then we get to the production, which consists of a single piano line, which just keeps slamming out a single chord endlessly, a drum section that never changes, some incredibly cheap surf guitar that only kicks in a few times in the song and which even the Beach Boys would say sounds phoned in, and a brass section that also feels like the performers didn’t care. And, of course, there are the stupid ‘comedic’ vocal sections where Stevens attempts to emulate Tarzan, Jane and a random monkey. Combined it makes for a disappointing, obnoxious castration to your ears that undoubtedly will leave you feeling like you lost several IQ points. And I do not even have the energy to discuss the incredibly shitty video, which looks about as cheap as the song sounds.

The only good thing I can think of to say about this song is that it is not the worst song in Ray Stevens’s discography. That doesn’t make the song any better unfortunately, but there is at least some comfort in knowing that the repercussions of Ray Stevens’s contributions to the pop music of 1969 were relatively limited. And of course, he hasn’t seen chart success of any kind since 2002, and let’s hope it stays that way. So there you have it, ‘Guitarzan’ by Ray Stevens, a fitting choice for the worst hit song of 1969.