P!nk vs. Katy Perry - "The One That Got Away"

Skin by Fondant

With Katy Perry's "The One That Got Away" climbing the charts for a potential record 6th #1 from her "Teenage Dream" album, I thought it would be fun to see how it stacks up against another pop diva's song of the same name. P!nk's "The One That Got Away" was never a chart-topper (it wasn't even a single), but it definitely holds its own against Perry's. How is that, exactly? Well, read on...

Vocals:
P!nk: Soulful, dynamic, improvisational
Perry: Direct, powerful, carefully planned

Perry's song has much less musical space than P!nk's. The consistent, driving beat and simple arrangement force the melody to occupy a very specific set of notes and rhythms. P!nk's song is more open, allowing her free reign to bust out her blues chops. While Perry's performance is strong, there's no nuance in the arrangement to support it, and it ends up bearing too much of the song's weight. There are advantages to both approaches, but here, P!nk comes out on top.

Hang on, P!nk, it's not time to celebrate yet

Key lines about different lives:
P!nk: "I'll look for you first in my next life"
Perry: "In another life, I would make you stay"

It's safe to say that both singers have given up on "The One" in their current life, but the subtle difference in how they address the way they would approach the situation, given another chance, is interesting. P!nk would take the burden on herself to find her lost love, whereas Perry would simply force the departing party to "stay".

How Katy Perry views men

Instrumentation:
P!nk: Acoustic guitar, backup vocals
Perry: Dance beats, keyboards, strings, backup vocals

While I've already mentioned the persistent beat that provides the foundation for Perry's song, I would be shirking my duties not to mention the lovely blues/rock acoustic guitar playing that anchors P!nk's. Moreover, the backing vocals in P!nk's song constantly reiterate and reinforce the title phrase, lending credence to lyrics like "you'll always be mine, in the back of my mind". In contrast, the bouncing quarter note piano line in Perry's song moves too quickly and robotically to capture the vulnerability that lines like "It's time to face the music, I'm no longer your muse" exhibit on paper.

Things often work better on paper

Fishing references:
P!nk: none
Perry: none

I cannot stress enough how much of a wasted opportunity this is.

Overall:
Katy Perry's "The One That Got Away" is undone by its attempts to fulfill the roles of both energetic dance number and melancholy ode to what might have been. P!nk's slower, stripped back approach comes much closer to capturing the longing feeling associated with lost love. P!nk's tune feels more sincere, but Katy's brings the party. In the end, it comes down to which characteristic is more important to the listener.

I'm gonna have to side with Linus on this one

Lady Gaga vs. Queen - "You and I"

"You" referring, of course, to the Surgeon General

Lady Gaga has made it quite clear that she is very influenced by Queen, which raises the question: how does her new song "You and I" compare to Queen's song of the same name? Let's find out...

Number of times the phrase "You and I" is sung:
Gaga: 15
Queen: 7

Clearly, Gaga outdoes Queen in this department, ensured by a repeated bridge consisting mostly of the phrase "You and I". If the city of Imperial, Nebraska started a school and called it "University of Nebraska at Imperial" just so they could use Gaga's bridge as their fight song, I would not fault them for it.

Your move, Imperial.

Quality of Brian May's Guitar Solo:
Gaga: Short, simple, and spastic
Queen: Short, witty, and smooth

That's right, both songs feature a Brian May guitar solo! However, there is a vast disparity in the quality of the solos. According to Brian May, his solo performance on Lady Gaga's track was cut up and rearranged after the fact. It definitely shows - his phrasing isn't nearly as fluid as on Queen's "You and I".

Another issue is the mixing. The strength of Brian May's guitar tone has always been its warmth and fatness, and on the Gaga track all of those low, meaty frequencies are taken up by the huge drums and keyboards. This robs his tone of a lot of its unique quality, which is really unfortunate. It's like getting one of the world's most famous guitarists to appear on your track, then doing everything in your power to make it sound like some unknown guy.

Yes, this situation is a metaphor for itself.

Instrumentation/arrangement:
Gaga: programming, samples, piano, backing vocals
Queen: bass, drums, backing vocals

Gaga's track goes one step further in saluting Queen by sampling the stomp-stomp-clap beat of "We Will Rock You" (a May-penned composition) and incorporating it into the song's beat. Whether you prefer the instrumentation of the Gaga tune to the Queen one comes down to whether you prefer electronic-sounding instruments to the sound of an organic, real band. Each approach has its pros and cons, but in the Queen camp sits the rather compelling pro of John Deacon and his bass playing, which is exquisite throughout the entire track.

Pictured: Lady Gaga's bass player.

Vocals:
Gaga: Lady Gaga
Queen: Freddie Mercury

Gaga's voice has been compared to Mercury by a fair number of people, but I just don't hear it. Not to say that they're not both great singers - they are - but I don't really hear much similarity in their vocal styles. Gaga gives a powerful, straightforward performance on her song, while Mercury has a more understated way of going about things. While nothing Gaga does is quite as wondrous as the melismatic phrase Mercury sings going into the fade-out on his track, she brings more excitement throughout. Looking at only the tracks in question, I'd say this is a toss-up.

When mustaches are factored in, however...

Overall:
Both songs are well-written and well-performed, but there are some major differences in the manner of their appeal. Gaga's "You and I" has much more of a mega-hit feel to it; its goal is to assault the listener with hook after hook, constantly maintaining fever-pitch intensity. Queen's "You and I", being more or less an album track, is content to move between subtler sections, allowing every layer of the song to be developed to its fullest. Personally, I'll be listening to Queen's version long after Gaga's has left the charts, but I wouldn't look down on anyone who prefers the Gaga version - especially if they attended the prestigious University of Northern Iowa.

Actually a real place

Carpenters vs. All American Rejects - "Top of the World"

Introducing a new Sounds Like Japan feature, "Same Name, Different Song"!

"Reviewers, your work here is done"

Rarely are two songs with the same title so different in tone. Carpenters' "Top of the World" is ostensibly about being as happy as one can possibly be. The All American Rejects' version is a hard, angry rocker about the perils of greed. How do they stack up? Well, let's see...

Key lyrics:
Carpenters: "You're the nearest thing to heaven that I've seen"
Rejects: "Don't be so greedy, a dollar's a penny to you"

Both bands seem interested in characterizing the individual being addressed. Carpenters are primarily interested in this person's proximity to a location that, depending on one's beliefs, may or may not exist. Of course, this brings up the question of how one would determine the distance between a person and said location. Meanwhile, the All-American Rejects have determined that the object of their song has had their perception of currency altered such that all values are perceived with an implied 1/100 multiplier.

Don't be so greedy, a year is like 7 to you.

Who wins this round? I'd say the All-American Rejects - there's a certain amount of respect I have to give them for including such mathematical precision in their lyrics.

Vocals:
Carpenters: Karen Carpenter
Rejects: Tyson Ritter

Karen Carpenter, more or less a musical legend, brings practically limitless sincerity and warmth to her tune. Tyson Ritter uses extreme quantities of charisma and attitude to sell his song, but remains genuine in his delivery. I'd have to say the advantage goes to Karen Carpenter, but I'd like to point out that neither singer could really do the other's song any degree of justice. Tyson Ritter also loses points because his name is an anagram of OTTER TRY SIN, which sounds like a bad internet photo caption.

I can't believe this picture already existed. Wait, yes I can.

Featured Instruments/Arrangement:
Carpenters: electric piano, slide guitars, backing vocals
Rejects: acoustic and electric guitars, backing vocals

While the Carpenters shuffle along with soft colors and slide guitars, the Rejects surge forward with a straightforward power pop arrangement. The Carpenters get points for having a more nuanced arrangement; the Rejects use simpler tricks like a flamenco-style intro to grab listeners. I'd have to give the advantage to the Carpenters here for the layers built into the song, especially the harmonies in the chorus.

Pictured: a similar concept, applied to cake

Overall:
I think Carpenters win this round, but I suppose that's what happens when you stack up a #1 hit against a promotional single. Either way, "Top of the World" is a worthwhile listen.

"Who's Laughing Now" by Jessie J

The J stands for Jaws

"Who's Laughing Now" is Jessie J's take on the "told you so" song, a stab at all of the people who have attempted to realign themselves with her since her big break. Musically, it has some good moments and serves as a step towards establishing a style for Jessie J that is uniquely her own. There is, however, one big problem with the track: it's called "Who's Laughing Now", and there's nothing funny about it.

How about now?

The song echoes the sentiment of songs like the All-American Rejects' "Gives You Hell" or Taylor Swift's "Mean", but without the slightest hint of the sense of humor that those songs display. Jessie J comes across as a bitter success story unable to let go of or, ironically, laugh at the problems she had "fitting in" as a kid.

Musically, there are some good things going on here. Jessie J is on her way to combining hip-hop, pop, and her own fondness for excessively melismatic singing into her own signature style. Additionally, Jessie J scores points for the reharmonization during the final prechorus, which is tasteful.

On the whole, the song is very aggressive, and very poppy. It would be nice to see Jessie J try to write a more thoughtful and/or reflective song in the future, but, based on this song, that doesn't seem to be the way she's headed.

This is your future, Jessie J!

"Party Rock Anthem" by LMFAO

Attack of the hipster goombas!

"Party Rock Anthem" (ft. Lauren Bennett, Goonrock) has been a wildly successful single for party rock duo LMFAO, which should come as no surprise - it's one of the most unapologetically formulaic pop songs to come around since Taio Cruz's "Dynamite". Like "Dynamite", and, indeed, most of LMFAO's catalog, "Party Rock Anthem" features a syncopated minor key chord progression and a straight ahead dance beat. Similar to many pop hits, it covers topics like partying, good times, and putting one's hands in the air.

While the song is generally catchy, danceable, and fun, it has its weaknesses, most notably its bridge and, well, its bridge. Exhorting listeners to "get up, get down, put [their] hands up to the sound" repeatedly, it fails to maintain the subtle illusion of not listening to unreasonably repetitive music that the rest of the song manages to uphold.

The bridge, like any part of a good song, should introduce compelling new lyrical and/or musical themes. Since there is scarcely any fresh lyrical content, and since the singer is, in fact, a "featured artist" on the song, it would actually make a lot of sense for this section to focus on introducing new melodic material. Instead, we get two - count 'em - two notes for a good 30 seconds of song time.

Like a reverse Yngwie Malmsteen

Disappointing bridge aside, "Party Rock Anthem" brings enough party, rock and anthem to the table to live up to its name. Hopefully, the LMFAO boys will put a little more effort into crafting their next mega-hit.

Right, not like that.

Don't Let The Medium Kill The Meaning

Good one, Tim.

Not so long ago, listening to music, or experiencing any kind of art, required an investment - some kind of effort on the part of the audience that connected them more deeply to the artist. These days, much less of an investment is required. Do we value art less as a result? It's tough to say exactly how much less, but I believe that this is definitely the case.

Let me put it this way. After driving 20 minutes to go see a play, you've invested something, and therefore will make more effort to process and get value out of the art you witness. However, when you can instantly access a particular piece of art, there's no initial investment, so you're not going to really try to get inside the head of the artist and figure out what they are trying to say. Your subconscious is going to assume that what is easy to access should also be quickly accessible.

The effort of going out and buying a CD, dropping $40 on a rare record, learning the piano so you can play that one song by your favorite band - every effort you make to seek out a particular song or type of music makes you more a part of it. It's against our nature to walk away from something we've already invested some kind of time, energy or money in; we're more inclined to try to salvage it, to mine it more deeply for value.

Just be careful you don't mine too deep.

For instance, if you spend $15 buying an album at the store, and upon your first listen find that you profoundly dislike it, you are going to spend a lot more time trying to prove to yourself that you aren't an idiot who got duped into buying a bad album. You're going to listen to it until you either start to actually enjoy it or decide that it really is beyond all hope. However, an album you download for free, you're going to delete and, for the most part, forget about.

Artists are keenly aware of the culture into which they are releasing their art, and I think what we've seen over the last couple years in response to the lack of audience investment is an increase in accessibility and a drop in depth. However, the lack of audience investment is largely a result of the nature of the technology with which they access music.

Well, if all of this is true, what should we do? Should we shun the promise of portable music players and online streaming? I don't think so. Really, my main purpose in writing this article was simply to bring attention to the way the medium with which we access music changes the way we perceive it. I recommend a solid four hours of uninterrupted reflective meditation on the themes presented in this article. But why should you listen to me? It's not like you paid anything to read this.

"All My Potential" by In Bloom

All my shoes

"All My Potential" is an apt title for Portland-based pop-punk band In Bloom's debut EP. The 6-song collection runs a total of 16 minutes and presents a well-rounded picture of the group's sound. It's certainly an enticing, if brief, listen - the songs are all energetic, uptempo rockers with well-thought-out lyrics and arrangements.

However, "All My Potential" feels more like a hint of things to come than a self-contained, finished work. The dynamic arc that usually gives albums their shape is noticeably missing, replaced with a balls-to-the-wall approach that finds In Bloom giving 110% on every track. A single acoustic song would have gone a long way in giving the EP more of album feel, but instead we have to settle for a couple of tacked-on acoustic outros.

Quick! Before someone notices!

Front and center is vocalist/guitarist Tim Reed's voice, which fits right in with the band's pop-punk sound. Overdubbed harmonies fill out the songs nicely, though in some places additional guitar counterlines could have accomplished the same purpose.

The best track on the album is "Wear & Tear", which, through intelligent use of dynamics, builds to an inevitable-seeming climax that satisfyingly sums up the song. This is in contrast to tracks like "You Sew Me Up", which, while well-written, never quite hit the same sort of climax.

"Don't Let Me Go" is something of the oddball track on the EP, with unusual chord changes and some strange structural choices. It's a positive sign that In Bloom is willing to experiment with such things so early in their career. I hope that their next effort takes inspiration from this track as well as the more straightforward ones.

All in all, In Bloom's first effort is a positive, upbeat collection of well-written songs. It's certainly worth checking out, but I'm even more excited for what's coming next.

On Singing Live

It's funny how much credit we give to artists nowadays who can sing live. Before the invention and proliferation of recording technology, all singing, in fact, all music, was live. A singer who couldn't sing live wasn't a singer.

However, there are definitely singers today who can't sing their studio-recorded songs live. Some can't even come close. So, what happened?

The first and most obvious explanation is that actual vocal talent is currently being ignored in favor of aspects such as image and marketability. While this may be somewhat true, it is hard to believe that there are not individuals who possess adequate amounts of both vocal talent and marketability; these people would logically be chosen before those with good image and less talent.

When complaining about the consistency of a singer, we often forget that inconsistent methods of singing can result in interesting and novel sounds. Popular culture has largely rejected "classical" methods of singing, preferring timbres that startle and surprise them. While someone with a run-of-the-mill good voice is pleasant to listen to, it's not enough to convince the public to buy their albums. There has to be some special quality to it, something that we've never heard before.

So, where are all of the good singers? Well, there are still plenty around, but the sound of a well-supported, balanced vocal tone is old news to the world of pop music. We prefer novelty: harsh, undisciplined screaming run through massive amounts of compression or exuberant, amateurish vocalizations made consistent through the use of pitch correction software. Even singers today who can achieve some level of consistency employ questionable techniques, often tightening up to hit certain pitches rather than shifting registers.

So, next time you complain about a particular artist's lack of ability in live performance, remember what the recording sounded like - that's the timbre that their inconsistent technique makes possible.

WARNING: may also lead to gratuitous "you sing it!" moments in live performances.

"What The Hell" by Avril Lavigne

...did you put in my HAIR?!?!

Avril Lavigne has gone pure pop. Not the guitar-driven, punk-pop of "Sk8ter Boi", or even the half-pop half-rock of "Girlfriend", but pure, electronic dance pop. It's not a terribly surprising move for Lavigne, who hasn't had a major mainstream hit since the aforementioned "Girlfriend" (2007); she needs a real chart-topper to put her back in the public eye.

Plan B: whale costume.

So, when you need a hit, who do you call? That's right: Max Martin. Lavigne brings her fair share of singing and songwriting talent to the table, but Martin's contributions are what set this track apart from the pack. From the catchy opening organ riff to the massively hooky pre-chorus, his nuanced arrangement is what gives this song its momentum.

Lyrically, "What The Hell" is well summarized by its chorus, in which Lavigne states plainly, "all I want is to mess around". With this in mind, the remainder of the lyrics explore tried and true pop music subjects such as infidelity in relationships and not caring about what other people think. While this approach could have come across as formulaic and clichéd, Lavigne sells the song's premise with her exuberant vocal delivery.

Overall, "What The Hell" is a solid comeback single. If this doesn't get Avril Lavigne back to the top of the pop world, I don't know what would.

Actually, never mind.