Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Top 10 Best Hit Songs of 1969


Hello again folks. I admit, I feel like 1969 was, in a lot of ways, a fairly difficult year for me to review, not because the year was bad, but because not a whole lot jumped out at me. That’s not even to say that the year was boring, it was okay. On a scale of one to ten, it landed somewhere around a six or seven, which wasn’t great, but was good enough that it got a barely passing grade. Most of the music this year was fine; it just didn’t feel like it took a lot of chances. Though, if you’ve read my worst list, you could make the argument that some of the chances that were taken were for the worse. Keep in mind though, this was still kind of a transitional year, so the trends of the ‘60s were starting to taper out, with the seeds that would form the trends of the ‘70s slowly starting to work their way in here and there.
However, much like the best list for 1986, I really didn’t need to struggle to find songs that I actually liked from this year. There were not as many good songs this year as there were from 1976, but the good songs I did find were still amazingly good. There were still works by artists I grew up with that made it onto the pop charts this year, and plenty of which I really liked, some of which I even remembered from when I was growing up. So, if you’re thinking that there will likely be some bias regarding the songs I place on this list…well, you’d be right. This is still at least partially an opinion-based list, so there are still chances that people will disagree with these picks, but I stand by them all the same.
Before we get into what actually made the list though, let’s first go through the songs that just came up short or, for one reason or another, didn’t qualify:

Build Me Up Buttercup (The Foundations) [9; 3; 13 weeks]
Ah, a classic. I admit, I mostly went with this one because of nostalgia. That said, I still think it’s a fun little song. Yeah, it’s another song that’s upbeat and happy sounding despite not really having a particularly upbeat, happy subject matter, but I honestly don’t mind it as much here. The reason is that the frantic, almost desperate tone of the singer still manages to shine through despite the music not exactly matching. I genuinely believe that the singer is in turmoil over this relationship, and that he wants to make it work. It does have some pretty cheesy lyrics at points, yes, but that’s a classic ‘60s love song for you. It’s still a lot of fun, and I still enjoy listening to it.

Goodnight My Love (Paul Anka) [--; 27; 6 weeks]
I think this song just sounds sweet. Again, it kind of delves into cheese territory, but if any of my previous lists are any indication, I like my love songs a little on the cheesy side. Maybe I’m weird for thinking this, but I feel like it makes them come across as a little more honest. If I want someone I’m romantically involved with to bid me goodnight after spending the day together, this is how I want them to do it: singing cheesy lyrics while being backed up by a goddamn choir.

First of May (The Bee Gees) [--; 37; 3 weeks]
This sadly didn’t qualify for the list, which is a shame because, on top of the disco music they would go on to release in the ‘70s, this really has me curious to hear more from the Bee Gees. It’s probably one of the few times I heard a somber song this year that actually sounded genuinely somber. It’s also nice to know that the guys didn’t always sing in their falsetto voices.

Bad Moon Rising (Creedence Clearwater Revival) [24; 2; 12 weeks]
This I actually had heard prior to sitting through the hits from this year. So I guess I let this one slide because I was already familiar with it and thought it was decent enough.

Proud Mary (Creedence Clearwater Revival) [19; 2; 12 weeks]
Huh. I guess I have a thing for roots rock and swamp rock and didn’t realize it. Go figure. I guess I’ll need to check out more music from these genres later. I’m certainly curious to check out more of Creedence Clearwater Revival’s discography at some point.

Baby, I Love You (Andy Kim) [28; 9; 12 weeks]
I’m not sure exactly what it is I like about this song. If I were to venture a guess, it might be the instrumentation, which makes up for the softer vocals by just being jubilant and energetic. Also, the background vocals don’t hurt either.

Jingle Jangle (The Archies) [--; 17; 3 weeks]
This was actually a bigger hit in 1970. It wasn’t nearly as big a hit as the Archies’ most well known song, ‘Sugar, Sugar,’ but I honestly think I like this song better. It actually feels like it has more energy, and it sounds a lot happier. I admit though, it does have kind of an unsettling line in the third verse, which goes, ‘So darlin’, don’t be weepin’/And please don’t you be sleepin’/When I come a-creepin’ down the hall.’ The line is questionable, but ultimately not something that really gets in the way of my ability to enjoy the song.

Hot Fun in the Summertime (Sly and the Family Stone) [7; 2; 13 weeks]
Much like ‘Summertime,’ I can definitely get a feeling of love for summer and all the fun that comes with it from the performers. This song though, rather than being laid back, instead seems to opt for a more jubilant, upbeat tone, with a brisk, lively tempo to match. The vocal bits at the end of each line are what really push the song over the top for me, honestly.

A Boy Named Sue (Johnny Cash) [36; 2; 11 weeks]
What’s this, a comedic song that’s actually funny? Hey Ray Stevens, start taking notes. You might learn a thing or two about actually making your audience want to laugh.

Now that that’s done, baby, baby don’t cry. Baby, baby here’s why: we’re counting down…

...THE TOP 10 BEST HIT SONGS OF 1969!

            #10.

            I just want to say I really hope you guys appreciate the amount of time I spend putting these lists together. Not only do I need to look up each artist’s background and history, but I also need to listen through their full discography and the discographies of every group that artist was a part of, or in the case of groups, of every member of the group at the time the song that places on one of these lists was released. The best and worst of 2001 lists were probably some of the shorter lists I had to work on just because the artists that placed on those lists were so recent and their discographies weren’t all that lengthy.
            This list, however, will likely be one of the ones I’ll have taken the most time putting together, and that can pretty much solely be attributed to this next song and the artist behind it. But, let me make it clear that this is not meant as a slander against the artist, or the song.
#10. My Way (Frank Sinatra) [--; 27; 6 weeks]
I honestly think this was a pretty appropriate song for Frank Sinatra to be releasing at this point in his life. Of course, that could just be because he would end up ‘retiring’ from music the following year, but if anything I think that only served to help add credibility to the song. Now, serious confession time, I actually don’t like that much of Frank Sinatra’s music. Don’t get me wrong; I do think the guy had talent, but his early work all tended to be very samey-sounding, and he also had the tendency to not sing within the meter of his songs. That’s a serious pet peeve for me, and it’s why I can’t get into a lot of his music unfortunately. I can’t say he’s much better about it on this song, but at the very least he follows the meter close enough that it doesn’t really get on my nerves.
Now, there’s really only one reason this song made the list: on this song, Frank Sinatra sounded like he had genuinely lived a full life and had pretty much done it all. His delivery was that of a man that had seen the world and had legitimately lived. Now, compare that to a lot of music we hear today, which is done by the likes of Taylor Swift and Wiz Khalifa and various other artists that haven’t really experienced life in any way that feels real. Or maybe they have, I don’t know, but they can most definitely not present it in their music. None of these modern artists are able to convey the idea that they’ve lived full lives or seen the world, which is understandable because a lot of our famous people are still young and pretty, as has become the primary focus of our society, to push more for people that are still young and pretty. And yet Frank Sinatra proved with this song that there are, or at least were still old folks that could match the talent and quality of the younger crowd, if not surpass them.
It really is kind of a sad commentary on the artists of today that an artist from the ‘40s and ‘50s ended up sounding more real and more genuine on a song he released around the advent of his period of pop chart success than most artists that appear on the pop charts today. However, I’m not complaining about it. If anything, I’m more bothered by the number of covers done of this song that people have attempted again and again. None of them work at all because they all suffer the same problem: they try to present it from people that are either too young or not worldly enough to really match the tone the song is going for. The appeal of the song comes from the fact that Frank Sinatra, the original singer of the song, really had lived his life to the fullest and had pretty much experienced everything there was to experience in his lifetime. And that’s not something I think any modern artists would ever be able to pull off.
Frank Sinatra: the perfect gentleman and a pinnacle of class, sophistication and worldliness.

#9.

And fresh off the heels of seeing one artist reach what he believed to be his official retirement from music, we’ll now be seeing another act making their first big breakthrough in their musical tenure.
#9. I Want You Back (The Jackson Five) [--; 7; 5 weeks]
Yeah, I know, it wasn’t a #1 hit until 1970, but it still charted in 1969, and high enough to qualify for this list. It’s kind of funny; I’ve touched on the subject of Michael Jackson in two earlier lists, but it wasn’t until now that I actually got to talk in length about a Michael Jackson song. Well, technically it’s a song belonging to him and the other four members of the Jackson 5 at the time, but Michael basically owns the song from the moment he starts singing it.
I’ve talked about child performers before, and I’ve said I try not to be too hard on them, but I don’t think I’ll need to worry too much about doing that for MJ here. He just had a natural talent and charisma that shown through in his performance here. He worked really well at presenting himself as both remorseful and yet innocent at the same time, which is what’s needed for this song. It’s a song presenting a young man’s plea for forgiveness from a girl that left him, begging her to return to him. And while the song’s upbeat musical presentation would seem to clash with the tone of the song, I actually think it works. It’s not trying to be dour or sad; it’s grasping at optimism, at the hope that the girl being addressed will find it in her to come back and grant him absolution.
Of course, this also begs the question of what the girl needs to forgive the narrator for exactly. Looking at the lyrics reveals that the narrator apparently didn’t show appreciation for the girl in question, stating that he didn’t seem to want her around when they were together. In response, she left him for someone else, and now that the narrator realizes what he’s lost. And the rest of the song is basically the narrator trying to depict exactly how sorry he is. Granted, at points it does kind of become uncomfortable with how he describes his regret, such as the line ‘Every street you walk on, I leave tear stains on the ground/Following the girl I didn’t even want around.’ That’s kind of creepy and this poor fellow should probably stop doing that else the girl ends up filing a restraining order on him. Still, I honestly can’t say I’m bothered by it that much. I mean, just based on some of the songs I put on my worst list, as far as unintentionally unsettling descriptions of one’s affection go, I maintain that you could do a whole lot worse. Besides, considering this seems to be from the perspective of a younger narrator, you can overlook one questionable line. The reason I wasn’t willing to be lenient with songs like ‘I’m Gonna Make You Mine,’ or ‘Don’t Give In To Him,’ was because they were told from the perspectives of grown men, people that should know better than to say things like what they said in those songs. This, however, is honestly harmless all things considered.
Technically this wasn’t the Jackson 5’s first single, but it was the first one to become a hit. And I honestly am glad that it did, considering it eventually led to MJ developing into the king of pop. The guy was certainly talented, despite some of his shakier musical presentations, but there’s a reason he ended up becoming the most successful act under Motown. Rest in peace, MJ; your legacy will live on.

#8. 

I don’t know if I properly expressed just how much I despise ‘The Worst That Could Happen,’ by Johnny Maestro and the Brooklyn Bridge. It’s just an unpleasant song expressing unpleasant sentiments and expecting the listener to feel bad for the narrator because of it. It’s also a clear demonstration of how, just because a song tries to present itself as sympathetic, that doesn’t automatically make it listener sympathize with it.
However, while the Johnny Maestro version of the song was the one that became popular, it was not the original version of the song. That belonged to the American “Champagne Soul” act the 5th Dimension. I’m not sure if I’d be willing to forgive the 5th Dimension for allowing this song to exist, thus allowing Johnny Maestro and the Brooklyn Bridge to cover it. However, I might be a little more willing to do so after having heard this next song.
#8. Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In (The 5thDimension) [2; 1; 16 weeks]
Of the hit songs that were spawned from the musical ‘Hair,’ this is probably the one that stuck with me the most. Also of note, pretty much every song on this list, with the exception of two songs, ended up peaking in the top 10 in 1969.  We’ve already covered one of the songs that didn’t already, but we’ll be getting to the other one much later.
As for this song, it starts out speaking of the astrological belief that the world would be entering a new age, one of love, light and humanity. This is noted in the prechorus, where the lyrics speak of the moon being in the seventh house and Jupiter aligning with Mars, which would signal ‘the dawning of the Age of Aquarius,’ and the end of the Age of Pisces. I admit, I don’t really know anything about astrology, so I wouldn’t be able to confirm this for anyone, but I can definitely appreciate a good song that can create this kind of otherworldly atmosphere, which the first half of this song does splendidly. Of course, it would end up phasing out of that atmosphere for the second half of the song, which is a jaunty, upbeat number that wouldn’t sound out of place being performed by a church choir. I admit, I feel like this song mostly placed on the list based more on the strength of the first half of the song than on the second. That said, I can’t really hate on the second half all that much; I can enjoy a good gospel number now and then.
This was actually one of two number one hit songs that the Fifth Dimension would land this year, with the other being ‘Wedding Bell Blues.’ However, I feel like ‘Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In’ is the better song, since it actually has atmosphere, and the tone of the song matches the lyrics. ‘Wedding Bell Blues’ is yet another lighthearted song whose lyrics are just too sad to really match up with the song’s presentation. Despite it basically being two separate songs sewn together back to back, ‘Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In’ does a better job at making both halves of the song match the tone they were going for, even if they don’t match each others’ tones all that well.
While the Fifth Dimension would actually manage to last into the early ‘70s, they just couldn’t keep up their momentum and didn’t really see much chart success past 1972. It’s a bit of a shame, because their music is definitely a nice listen, and I’d certainly take this cluttered, Frankenstein monster-esque medley over the more complete, more awful songs that we covered on the worst list.

#7.

Once again, I need to offer my sincerest apologies for a decision I made on a previous list. Specifically, I’ll need to apologize for putting an Elvis Presley song on my ‘worst of ‘76’ list. Now again, it’s partially a matter of opinion and different people have different tastes; I just personally felt like the song didn’t work and that it didn’t really accomplish the goal it set for itself. Of course, I was worried that, by putting that song on the list, I was implying that I didn’t like Elvis Presley’s music, and that’s simply not true. I like plenty of Elvis Presley songs, though from earlier in his career. For example:
#7. Suspicious Minds (Elvis Presley) [18; 1; 13 weeks]
This song was released right around the time when Elvis was preparing to relaunch his career after his disastrous eight-year film tenure. He actually had three top ten hit songs that spawned from this year: this song, ‘In the Ghetto’ and ‘Don’t Cry Daddy.’ Of the three, I feel like this one felt like it had the most impact, not only being the only single of his to reach the number one spot out of the songs he released this year, but being his last song to reach the number one spot for the remainder of his music career. Technically, this is actually a cover, though the original version of the song, recorded by American songwriter Mark James, flopped commercially. This led to producer Chips Moman handing the song off to Elvis and the rest is history.
On a musical level, there aren’t really that many differences between the original and Elvis’s cover version; they’re basically the same song. However, there are two things about the Elvis version that push it over the top for me. The first are the background singers. On the original version of the song, they’re basically a non-presence and only serve to add harmonies to certain areas of the song. The Elvis version’s background singers, however, add a little more, repeating the endings of certain lines to add emphasis, with my personal favorite part of the song being when they repeat the line ‘suspicious minds’ during the chorus. More than that though, what really wins the song for me is Elvis’s delivery. Mark James, on the original version of the song, sounded emotionally detatched from the issue being described in the song. I just don’t buy that he felt upset about his lover’s suspicion of him. Elvis, however, sounds like he’s in turmoil over this. I believe that he feels like he’s being driven to the brink of despair by his lover’s suspicion; it is bringing him to tears!
And unlike ‘Hurt,’ where he sounded so ridiculously over the top and overblown with his delivery that it bordered on self-parody, his delivery here actually feels grounded; it’s still over the top, but it feels more controlled. Yeah, I’ve gone on record as saying I have a higher tolerance for cheesy and over the top performances, but see here’s the difference: where ‘Hurt’ sounded like it was coming from a drunken bar fly screaming into a microphone while singing karaoke, ‘Suspicious Minds’ sounds like it’s from a man that’s actually trying to confront his problems rather than run from them. And not only that, but Elvis’s delivery on this song just sounds a lot easier to sympathize with, not necessarily because of the subject matter, but because he just sells the hell out of it. Nowadays, when you hear songs from people trying to win back their suspicious lovers, not only does the song fail to make their suspicion not seem justified, but the performers just tend to fail at providing any kind of signs that they genuinely feel bad about it. Elvis, however, sounds like he genuinely feels bad that he’s led his love to feel suspicious of him in the first place, not purely for his own sake, but for both of their sakes, for their love and dreams together that can’t survive if this suspicion continues. And furthermore, unlike ‘Stand By Your Man,’ which was condescending to both parties involved, this sounds like it’s trying to be supportive and reassuring in addition to being desperate.
So no, just because I didn’t like one song of his, I don’t hate Elvis Presley’s music as a whole. I honestly think he was a very talented performer, and songs like this, and the fact that he was able to revive his career at a point when most people had come to see him as little more than a joke, should be proof enough of that.

#6.

Does anyone remember when R&B used to be classy, suave, sophisticated and intelligent? I’d comment on how ‘those were the days,’ except I don’t think I was either alive or old enough to have been around when that was the case. I am part of the generation that grew up on the more modern R&B, which requires you to wade through a whole lot of stupid to find anything worth listening to. So, guys like Jason DerĂ¼lo, Chris Brown, Jeremaih, Trey Songz, these are the faces of R&B for me. And that is a real shame because these guys are complete morons, well, save for Chris Brown, who is just a deplorable, arrogant, whiny, violent jackass. The best we can expect from modern R&B nowadays are guys like Usher, and even then Usher doesn’t always stick the landing when it comes to being romantic and charming. It’s guys like these that make me lament the fact that I missed out on the era with R&B guys that actually presented class when trying to play the sweet romantic figure.
Fortunately, we have the Internet, and the massive backlog of past musicians’ works at our fingertips nowadays as well, so it’s not like the music of the past has been completely lost. And thank God for that, otherwise the acts I’m going to be listing below would likely have passed us by completely and we would’ve had nothing to show for it.
#6. I’m Gonna Make You Love Me (Diana Ross and the Supremes & the Temptations) [87; 2; 10 weeks]
This was released after a pretty rough period for the Temptations, whose primary front man, David Ruffin, had proven to be so problematic at this point that they ended up needing to replace him with Dennis Edwards. And he had a really big pair of shoes to fill, considering he was coming in right off the heels of what would go on to be the classic Temptations line up. Fortunately, the first song to feature him on lead vocals, ‘Cloud Nine,’ was fairly well received, peaking at number six on Billboard in 1968. He didn’t actually end up singing lead vocals on this song, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t still demonstrate that the Temptations were still able to carry themselves without David Ruffin.
Of course, it seems they weren’t convinced of it, since they would then do a collaboration album with their distaff counterparts, the Supremes. Not that I’m complaining, considering it resulted in this song becoming a hit. Someone I know told me that she really took issue with this song because, to paraphrase what she said, “Whenever Diana Ross performs, it’s always Diana Ross and everyone else.” And while it is somewhat true that Diana Ross does kind of dominate the song, I’d argue that Eddie Kendricks handles his part of the song fairly well also. His falsetto voice does a nice job matching Diana Ross’s upper register vocals. And honestly, I feel like they have decent balance on this song; neither one of them seems to really steal the spotlight from or overpower the other. And, of course, the spoken word portions of the song actually fit into the song without really interrupting the flow.
  Sadly, much like the 5th Dimension, neither the Supremes nor the Temptations would manage to see much success through the ‘70s, with both groups running dry in terms of hit success by 1975. The only member of either group that would manage any consistent success through the decade would be Diana Ross, who would even manage some chart success into the ‘80s. As for Eddie Kendricks, he did manage some pop success briefly in 1973 and 1974 with two top five hit songs, but aside from several songs charting on the R&B charts after that, and a live performance with Hall and Oates of ‘A Night At the Apollo’ managing to scrape the bottom of the top 20, his success wouldn’t really persist much further than that, and he sadly passed away on October 5, 1992 from lung cancer. Still, this song does a nice job showing off the strengths of both groups, and I’m happy to listen to this song and reflect on the era of R&B I missed out on, where stupidity may have still been present, but was a lot more scarce than it is today.

#5.

Considering it’s been about a year and a half since its release in theaters, I’m guessing many of you have seen ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ by now. Wasn’t that a pretty awesome movie? I admit though, I was kind of iffy about going to see it at first. Why? Well, let’s just say that the initial trailer didn’t exactly sell me on it. One thing about it especially put me off to the prospect of seeing the film: that ridiculously stupid song that they ended up playing in the background. It just sounded so kitschy and dated and lame. I mean, it had a bunch of guys going ‘Ooga ooga ooga chaka’ all over it. How could I possibly get into a film when that was the song they were using to promote it?
Of course, if I’d bothered to do my research, I would’ve found out that said song was actually a cover. Then I likely would have discovered this next song before putting this list together rather than while I was in the midst of doing so. Figures, doesn’t it?
#5. Hooked On a Feeling (B. J. Thomas) [99; 5; 10 weeks]
This was actually one of two big hits that B. J. Thomas had this year, with the other being the song ‘Raindrops Keep Fallin’ On My Head’ from the film ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.’ By the way, that song nearly got handed over to Ray Stevens, but he turned it down, thankfully. But while that song was the bigger hit, ‘Hooked On a Feeling’ is not only the better of the two songs, it’s also the song that established that B. J. Thomas still had hit making power in him after the dry period he experienced after managing a single top 10 hit three years prior. And it’s pretty clear to see why, going back and listening to the song.
First, let’s take a look at the production for the song. An electric sitar carries the song’s music, a musical choice that definitely helps it stand out at the time, and even today. How many songs on the pop charts have you heard recently that used sitars on them? And the lighter, softer percussion also helps add to the song’s earnestness, making it seem a lot more soft-spoken and romantic. Then there’s B. J. Thomas himself, who does a splendid job at presenting himself as the innocent, love stricken narrator, and the lyrics work well to compliment that. They primarily speak of how the narrator feels about the girl being addressed in the song, with metaphors indicating that he is just so infatuated with her that she’s addictive, like candy or a fine glass of wine. And unlike a lot of modern songs that abuse the ‘love like an addiction’ metaphor, this came out at a time when it could actually get away with it. And the way it presents it isn’t overly sexual, but soft and sweet, which was what love songs were supposed to be back in the day.
I admit, that’s pretty much all I had to say about this song. I just think it’s a sweet, innocent little love song and it works a lot better than the love songs I covered on the other list. I guess I could add that the way the song is presented, in contrast to those other songs, it seems to elevate the girl in question on a pedestal, painting a very flattering picture of the girl instead of just selfishly trying to get her to give up some other guy to get with the narrator or acting all passive-aggressive and expecting that to win the girl over.
Sometimes, the simplest approach can be the best one. This was certainly the case with this song.

#4.

I’m not really wild about sports, so I don’t really pick up on most of the traditions that are associated with various sporting events or teams or anything else relating to them. Back when I was in high school, the closest I got to participating in a sport was performing in a marching band. And I will tell you right now that it was incredibly unpleasant. I would occasionally have to perform with other band members at football games, we’d have to march around on a field while carrying these giant, heavy, unwieldy metal things that weren’t properly balanced for us to be able to do so without hurting ourselves in the process, and they would even have us practice our marching routines when it was freezing and raining outside. If you enjoyed the experience of performing in a marching band, fine; maybe you were able to find something fun in the activity that I just didn’t see. However, there is no way I will ever be caught wearing a marching uniform and walking around carrying a marching fucking baritone again as long as I live.
Steering the topic back to sports though, while I’m not wild about sports, I am still interested in music. And this next song has become so strongly associated with various sports and activities that it’s practically written in the cultural identity of Americans everywhere, at least those that actually watch or participate in sports.
#4. Sweet Caroline (Neil Diamond) [22; 4; 12 weeks]
Neil Diamond is one of the top three most successful adult contemporary artists, behind only Elton John and Barbra Streisand, and has had three number one hit singles. This wasn’t one of them, but it’s still seen its share of success, being played at a number of sporting events, both in America and even a few countries in Europe, serving as the victory theme for the Carolina Panthers and club anthem for the Castleford Tigers and selling over two million digital downloads in the United States alone. I find this incredibly interesting because, thematically, this song doesn’t actually have anything to do with sporting events or sports teams or anything; it’s just a simple song about how great the person the singer is singing about makes them feel. In one interview, Neil Diamond revealed that the inspiration for the song came from a magazine cover photo of John F. Kennedy’s daughter, Caroline, as a young child on a horse with her parents, with the song itself coming together five years later, being released when Caroline was eleven years old. However, in a completely different interview, he stated that the titular ‘Caroline’ in the song wasn’t referring to her. The song was originally going to be named after his wife Marsha, however he ultimately decided to go with a three-syllable name for the song, with ‘Caroline’ being the name he settled on.
Much like with ‘Hooked On a Feeling,’ there really isn’t a lot to this song. However, it’s the simplicity of the song that makes it work for me. The imagery and descriptions of the narrator’s affection for the girl in question doesn’t really delve into questionable territory, and it’s not trying to. The narrator is just expressing how great it feels to be in love with this girl specifically, and I completely buy it. I’m not trying to say I don’t buy it in ‘Hooked On a Feeling,’ but I feel like this song delivers it a bit better just because, where ‘Hooked On a Feeling,’ was expressing how great it is to be in love, ‘Sweet Caroline’ sounds like how I would imagine it feels to be in love. And all that can be attributed to the chorus. I just love every part of the chorus to this song; from the big, dramatic way Neil Diamond says the line ‘Sweet Caroline,’ to the horns that accentuate that line, to the backup vocals. Much like with ‘Kyrie,’ the chorus is the main reason this song made it on this list. Though that’s not to say that the rest of the song isn’t good also. It’s a fun, jaunty tune that creates the impression of clouds parting and blue skies as far as the eye can see. And that’s what I think of when I think of a song about being in love.
It really is a shame that, despite how successful and fondly remembered this song is, it didn’t end up being a number one hit. Diamond would manage other number one hit songs over the course of his career, sure, but I don’t think any of them managed to capture the pure, raw emotion that’s present in this song. They’re not bad songs, don’t get me wrong, but they just don’t leave the same kind of impact as ‘Sweet Caroline.’ Still not sure what it has to do with sports though. Ah well, next!

#3.

1969 was not a good year for the Beatles. They seriously struggled getting through the albums they worked on, they ended up performing their final live show really early on in the year, tensions ran high between the members of the band and by the end of the year John Lennon would ultimately split off from the group to write and produce his own music. And if you’ve read the worst list, you should already know what I think about his initial attempts at that particular stint.
However, that doesn’t mean that the Beatles weren’t still able to make good music this year. I wouldn’t say their work from this year was their best by any stretch, but it was still the Beatles performing it, and if nothing else, their musical chops were still enough for them to be able to elevate even songs that weren’t all that great into something bigger and more impressive.
#3. Come Together (The Beatles) [85; 1; 12 weeks]
This song is actually kind of curious, since it, along with the Beatles song ‘Something’ was the first case where an ‘A’ side and ‘B’ side song were counted together on Billboard, albeit after both songs had become hits separately. This is also kind of a significant song because it would be among one of the last songs the Beatles would release that had John Lennon in their line up. It’s also a clear sign of just how high tensions were with the Beatles at the time, since John Lennon did pretty much all the work on the song, to the point that he ended up watching Paul McCartney compose the electric piano part so he could learn it himself. Speaking of how the song was put together, this was apparently inspired by Timothy Leary’s campaign against Ronald Reagan for the position of governor of California. The title was based on an expression Leary came up with for his campaign. John attempted to write a campaign song, and it ended up with him creating this song. Of course, considering most of the lyrics seem to be nonsensical, Lennon claimed that he couldn’t imagine anyone being able to build a campaign out of a song like this. Honestly though, if someone were to build a campaign out of this song…well, that still wouldn’t guarantee I’d vote for them, but it would certainly catch my attention.
As I said, Lennon handled most of the instrumentation on this song, contributing both lead and backing vocals, with McCartney’s backing vocals only being overdubbed in later, as well as the electric piano, which McCartney had composed the part for. However, what really makes this song…well, for lack of a better phrase, ‘come together’ for me is the bass line, which hilariously enough is one of the few parts in the song not played by Lennon. That bass line is the glue that keeps the rest of the song grounded, with Ringo Starr’s drumming serving to compliment it. In fact, despite the fact that Lennon does most of the work in terms of playing the instruments on the song, it’s actually the parts played by the rest of the group that make the song work. That’s not to say that Lennon doesn’t do a good job on the song, but it just feels like, if he’d actually tried to play the whole thing by himself, it wouldn’t have turned out as well. Although, compared to the lead off single of his solo career, ‘Give Peace a Chance,’ I’d call this song a goddamn masterpiece.
More than anything, though, to me this song comes across as a massive ego trip on the part of Lennon. Yet, at the same time, it’s also a demonstration of just how much better the Beatles were when they were together. It really is sad that he would end up leaving the band by the end of the year because this song is clear indication that, even at their lowest of lows the Beatles were still able to put together awesome music.

#2.

Back on my best of 2001 list, I talked about how there was a time when I primarily listened to folk music, and how that was predominantly because of my older sister. However, going back through this year has had me reintroduced to a very specific act that may have gotten me hooked on folk music even before that: Simon and Gafunkel. I first heard of them through a medley of songs of theirs I ended up singing in a choir I was in back in the day. After hearing that, my mom bought a CD of their greatest hits, and when I was in middle school, this album was pretty much all I would listen to. There were a number of songs of theirs off of that album that I really enjoyed, ‘Scarborough Fair,’ ‘Feelin’ Groovy,’ ‘The Sounds of Silence,’ ‘Bridge Over Troubled Water,’ just to name a few. This next song was also on the CD, but when I first heard it, I admit I didn’t really think much of it. However, now that time has passed and I’ve taken several years off of having heard the song and returned to it now, I’ve come to realize I really like it, like really, truly like it.
#2. The Boxer (Simon and Garfunkel) [--; 7; 9 weeks]
Much like was the case with the Beatles and ‘Come Together,’ ‘The Boxer’ came out around the time when things were starting to deteriorate between Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel. This was the first single off of their ‘Bridge Over Troubled Water’ album, the last album the two would release as a duo before splitting in 1970, at least before their numerous attempts at reuniting that would follow. However, that’s a story for another day.
In contrast to ‘Come Together’ though, this song isn’t an ego trip as it is a narrative from the perspective of a man struggling to overcome loneliness and poverty in New York City. The lyrics tell of a man that left his home as a boy, tried to make a life for himself but didn’t really make much success in terms of finding a job. The narrator lives his life in the poor men’s quarters and would stifle his sorrow by seeking comfort from the whores on Seventh Avenue, and by the end of the song is wishing to return home. The final verse, while seeming to be disconnected, I think kind of ties in with the narrative, with its description of the boxer in question serving as kind of a parallel to the struggle the narrator faces. The man is covered in scars that reflect every blow he’s ever received, to the point that he was pushed to swallow his pride and surrender, yet he continues his struggle despite all of this, knowing that he has already lost. Normally when a song tells of a character going through a struggle such as this, the easy way to end it would be for the protagonist to ultimately overcome said struggle and emerge victorious over his adversities. This song, however, is quite painfully the opposite of that, an indication that not every challenge can be overcome and not everyone succeeds at accomplishing their dreams. It’s an agonizing wake up slap from the fantasies of optimism and dreams and an indication that reality is a cruel place where, for the most part, people can’t always win.
I admit, with a narrative like this, it’s kind of hard to understand why I would like a song like this. However, what makes up for the bleak image painted by the lyrics are how they’re delivered through the music. The song’s folk rock sound and Simon and Garfunkel’s always-lovely harmonies makes it sound pretty; it paints a pretty picture of the story being told. It’s like a musical tragedy; you may find the story depressing as hell, but you can get into it because the songs make it sound beautiful. And part of that comes from how the chorus is presented. It really shouldn’t work as well as it does because the chorus is actually just nonsense words, just the phrase ‘lie-la-lie’ repeated over and over again over a thundering drum section. Paul Simon explained that the phrase was meant as a placeholder, but it ultimately ended up part of the finished song. However, despite the nonsense of the lyrics themselves, I think they carry more with them. Some artists are able to take nonsense words like these and imbue them with depth and meaning, and the phrase here can be interpreted as all the tangled emotion ravaging the narrator through the struggle he fights against but probably realizes he can’t overcome.
I can understand why a lot of people wouldn’t like a song like this. I mean, why listen to a song that’s about something so bleak and depressing? Honestly though, I feel like it’s a nice refresher from sugary, upbeat music that we hear a lot nowadays. Not to say I don’t like a good bubblegum pop song now and then; ‘I Want You Back’ is clear evidence that I do. However, I guess I would recommend this song for the same reason someone might recommend one of Shakespeare’s tragedies; it’s a depressing sit through, but it’s well written and, on some level, still grounded in reality. It may have come around the time when Simon and Garfunkel’s partnership was coming to a close, but like the Beatles, even when they were at odds with each other, these two were still able to make really good music.

#1.

I seriously struggled with choosing between ‘The Boxer’ and this next song as my choice for my #1 for this list. I absolutely love both songs, and both of them have impressive merits that work in their favor. On top of that, they’re both technically impressive songs in their own way. I spent quite a bit of time tossing the songs back and forth in my mind trying to decide which of the two I wanted to be the #1.
However, ultimately, there was one question that I asked myself that decided the placement of these two songs on this list: which song would I be willing to listen to again and again without getting sick of it after repeated listens? Don’t get me wrong, I adore ‘The Boxer,’ and I think it’s a fantastic song. However, I feel like the very somber tone of the song would wear out on me eventually after hearing it multiple times. This next song, however, I feel like I would be more than willing to listen to for days on end without getting sick of it. Don’t think for a second, though, that this means I like ‘The Boxer’ any less because of this. This really came down to the wire, and I love both of these songs just as much. In the end, however, this was where I decided to place them. So, without further ado ladies and gentlemen, I present to you my favorite hit song from 1969:
#1. Suite: Judy Blue Eyes (Crosby, Stills and Nash) [--; 21; 9 weeks]
I originally heard this song by listening to a cover of it done by a friend as part of an audio drama he was putting together. Much like with ‘The Boxer,’ I didn’t really pay the song much mind when I first heard it. However, after going through the list of hits from 1969 and stumbling across this song again, it just hit me right in the gut just how much I loved this song. Where ‘The Boxer’ was all doom and gloom, ‘Suite: Judy Blue Eyes’ is optimism and hope. Stephen Stills wrote the song in regards to his imminent break up with singer/songwriter Judy Collins, and while the two did end up breaking up, I feel like a song like this was a fairly good note to end the relationship on.
But let’s start out by looking at the lyrics and structure of the song. It’s a suite consisting of four song concepts that tie together seamlessly. A suite, in the musical sense, is an ordered set of instrumental, orchestral or concert band pieces, originating in the late 14th century in the form of dance tunes and by the early 17th century grew to comprise of five dances, sometimes with a prelude. Stephen Stills performs the lead vocals and sings most of the major melodies throughout the song, with Crosby and Nash singing harmonies.
The first section consists of four verses, each concluded with a chorus of ‘I am yours, you are mine, you are what you are/You make it hard.’ It seems to be addressing Collins directly, talking about how he feels sorry about how things aren’t working out, reflecting on the past, and seeming to accept that she is leaving, but stating that he still loves her and always will. The second section consists of four verses, each consisting of two lines followed by the line ‘What have you got to lose?’ or in the case of the third verse, ‘What have I got to lose?’ Between the second and third verse, there is a brief solo by Stephen Stills, expressing that he still feels pain over the fact that things aren’t working out. This eventually leads into the third section of the song, which consists of three four bar verses that speak in poetic imagery, ultimately concluding with the line, “Be my lady,” seeming to indicate that Stephen Stills hasn’t fully let go of Collins and that he still believes they can make things work between them. And that is followed by the final section, which, much like the chorus to ‘The Boxer,’ basically consists of nonsense lyrics. However, also like ‘The Boxer,’ the nonsense lyrics seem to carry some level of meaning to them, in this case, a sense of joy and positivity that seem to be Stills’s attempt at winning over Collins and possibly repairing their strained relationship. There’s also a portion in Spanish, which, according to what I’ve read, is meant to be ‘honeymoon music’. Again, this ties back to the ‘Be my lady’ line from the end of the previous section, presenting an image of a possible honeymoon preceding the wedding that Stills seems to picture in his mind and wants to share with Collins.
What this song reminds me of more than anything else is ‘Bohemian Rhapsody,’ just a collection of song concepts connected to one another through the themes present in the lyrics and creating a splendid whole that works as a complete song. And much like how that song took its cues from opera and tropes present therein, ‘Suite: Judy Blue Eyes’ takes its cues from classical suites. While not as grandiose as ‘Bohemian Rhapsody,’ this song isn’t trying to be anything overblown or theatrical; it’s message can basically be boiled down to this: “I’m sad that our relationship isn’t working out. I hope that we can make things work despite this, and I love you.” The simplicity of the song’s theme helps tie together the rest of the song and the complexity inherent therein, in the structure anyway.
Despite the fact that folk rock was basically fading out by the end of the decade, I’m glad that it lasted long enough for us to get a hit song out of this. We don’t hear songs like this on the radio anymore nowadays. Well okay, thematically speaking we do still hear a lot of music like this, but on a structural level no, we don’t hear songs that are this ‘out there’ in terms of how they’re put together. Crosby, Stills and Nash, ‘Suite: Judy Blue Eyes:’ my pick for the best hit song of 1969.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

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 BublĂ©’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.