Who Is The Real Demi Lovato?

Accident at the pencil factory?

It has come to my attention recently that pop star Demi Lovato, singer of hit songs such as "Heart Attack", "Give Your Heart a Break", and "Skyscraper", is not a single, real person. She is, in fact, a rotating cast of actresses performing the role of "Demi Lovato". Sound ridiculous? Well, maybe it is. But, ask yourself: is it more ridiculous than believing that all of the following photos are of the same person?

Tan and trendy Demi Lovato

  Cute half-Asian Demi Lovato

TV Actress Chyler Leigh Demi Lovato

Blonde Demi Lovato

35-year-old Demi Lovato

the Filipino version of Rebecca Black Demi Lovato

I would just like to once again reiterate that every single one of those pictures is allegedly of "Demi Lovato". What I want to know is, which one is it that we hear singing those songs? Who is the real Demi Lovato?

could it be Instagram girl Demi Lovato?

"Call Me Maybe" and the Mannheim School

 

I live in a featureless void with no chairs

Much has been written about the success of Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe".  When a song captivates the world pop music market in such a profound way, it's only natural for us to ask why.  To this end, reviewers have tirelessly and exhaustively separated and analyzed the song's salient features, from its catchy string riff to Miss Jepsen's performance to the tone of the lyrics.  However, until now, no one (to my knowledge) has discussed the song's use of classical melodic devices.

A little music education is required before I progress further with this analysis.

The term "Mannheim School" refers to the compositional style that developed in Mannheim, Germany in the mid-18th century.  The musical devices employed by Mannheim-based composer Johann Stamitz caught on with other composers in the region before eventually spreading throughout Europe, becoming hallmarks of the classical period.  The Mannheim School technique of particular interest in this analysis is the Mannheim rocket, also known simply as a rocket theme.

A rocket theme is a melody that consists of a rapidly ascending arpeggiated triad — put more simply, an upward moving broken chord.  Rocket themes create immediate excitement, and are thus generally used to begin sections, as a means of engaging the audience.

The opening of Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 1 in F minor is a textbook example of a rocket theme:

The opening of Mozart's Eine Kliene Nachtmusik, a broken, ascending G major triad, could be considered a sort of rocket theme as well:

Finally, the the first two lines of the chorus of Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe" form an ascending G major triad spanning a full octave, creating exactly the same sort of excitement as a rocket theme, beacuse, well, it is one:

Now, I doubt this exciting ascending melody was intentionally crafted as a rocket theme, but without the Mannheim School accustoming our ears to this sort of melodic motion, it's unlikely that this song would have been written the way it is.  So, next time you're rocking out to "Call Me Maybe", remember, you're listening to the end product of centuries of music history.  At least, that's what you can tell people if they catch you listening to it.

Also, Stamitz and Jepsen: long-lost cousins?

"I Feel Better" by Gotye

'Cause what's better than 8-layer blueberry cake?
 

Thanks to the success of "Somebody That I Used To Know", Gotye has gone from underground Australian indie pop genius to full-blown international star.  While it's clear that he will always retain the former title, whether or not he can hang on to the latter remains to be seen.  The chart performance of his next single "I Feel Better" will be a good indicator of whether or not Gotye has what it takes for long-term mainstream popularity here in the States.

It's tough to say how "I Feel Better" will fare.  "Somebody" was a killer tune, but its runaway success may have had more to do with its dynamic take on breakup angst (always a popular topic among the coveted youth demographic) than its raw musicality, although both certainly played a factor.  "I Feel Better" has plenty of raw musicality, but it's questionable if people will find a happy tune quite as compelling as a sad one.

 "Just change the name to 'I Feel Bitter'. Problem solved!" - Marketing

 

I think the song will do well, though, and not just because of its catchiness and brilliant sound.  To understand my line of reasoning, we'll have to take a closer look at the chorus lyrics:

I feel better

better

better than before

I feel better

much better

now I'm not down anymore

"I feel good" is a boring sentiment.  It is static, it has no motion.  "I feel better" implies movement, movement that accumulates with each additional iteration.  Add a "than before" after your "better", and suddenly the passage of time is established; a journey has been implied.

Pictured: a Journey, being more than implied

Continuing on, we have the addition of a "much" before a "better", bolstering the already accumulating intensity of the comparative adjective.  This bring us to the closing line, "now I'm not down anymore".  This line lets us know that the movement has been completed; he got better and better and now he's... good?  No!

Now he's "not down anymore".  And this is the key.  In both music and lyrics, we're not interested in "good", or even "great", all the time.  Otherwise, this would totally be just as good as this.  We're moved by the journey, the shift from mood to mood, the exposition and development of themes, both musical and lyrical.  "I Feel Better" is not compelling because it's a happy song.  It's compelling because it tells the story of somebody who feels better - better than before.

What Is Great Art?

In my daily life, I listen to a lot of music. I do this primarily because I love – have always loved – listening to music. However, that is not the only reason I listen. I also listen in order to understand the ways in which various artists employ the five basic elements of music – melody, rhythm, tone color, harmony, and form – to further their artistic goals.

As I broaden my musical horizons, I begin to see patterns - commonalities - in the way people combine these elements, whether the composition in question is 200 years or 2 days old. There are certain things expected of a composer regarding how musical ideas are presented and developed, stated and repeated that remain constant in almost all music. Music for which these expectations are not met is either intentionally contrarian or the product of a lack of skill in dealing with musical subjects.

You may be thinking that I am referring to atonal music, noise music and the like in that last statement, but I am not. These musics, like any others, obey the rules of form and treat their subjects with the same reverence as any other sort of music. I made this mistake once - I remember hearing snippets of Penderecki's famous "Threnody" and dismissing it as formless noise music. It was only when I heard the piece in its full, ten minute form that I understood it as I understood any other piece of music.

It is a curious thing then, given this universality of form among compositions, that certain compositions can still strike me as transcendent. When I examine these compositions further, I am always amazed by how consistently it is precisely the way in which they alternately fulfill and subvert the rules of form and composition that excites me. A purely theoretical example: when a return to the first theme of a piece is expected, a quick flourish introducing a short melodic variation on the second theme surprises and delights, but would be disorienting if it were not followed by the expected return to the first theme. This is what I think of as Great Art.

I have had conversations with people who believe that Great Art should be understandable and recognizable by all people. I disagree. The fact is that people are not able to understand a piece of art in the fullest sense until they understand, through experience, the ways in which the expectations of the craft have been fulfilled and/or subverted.

I will give an example. Suppose I had never seen a movie, or any sort of video narrative. Given that fact, wouldn't I be quick to proclaim any sort of half-decent film as truly transcendent art upon first viewing? The problem is that I am not acquainted with the history of film, and therefore do not recognize any of the various cinematic and storytelling devices used or not used in the film. What makes Great Art great is how it exists within its lexicon, as outside of a particular lexicon there are no standards by which it can be objectively judged.

While I don't believe in truly universal art, I understand where the perspective comes from. Most of you reading this are well acquainted with American culture, and therefore many of us have experienced a good portion of the same art. This gives us similar perceptions of what expectations said art should fulfill. Therefore, we end up heaping acclaim upon many similar things. This might lead us to believe that our collectively favorite pieces of art have complete universal appeal, when in fact our mutual admiration of it is more of a comment on our own similarities than any universality inherent in the art.

Universal art would need to mean the same thing to anyone, from any place, from any period of time since the invention of art. When the requirements of universal art are stated this way, we clearly see the impossibility. Language barriers are the most obvious obstacle. As lovely a piece of prose as this article is, only a select group of humans throughout history could make any sense of it. Even perceptions of human beauty, one of the things we would most expect to tie us all together, have changed over time.

Since Great Art is not universal, how much more should we strive to learn the tenets of our respective cultures' art forms, that we might become more cognizant of the nuance and beauty contained within the minds of our fellow human beings? That, my friends, is truly the purpose of Great Art.

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.

"The Time (Dirty Bit)" by The Black Eyed Peas

Ironically, the Black Eyed Peas were late to the cover shoot

"The Time (Dirty Bit)" is based around the chorus hook from "(I've Had) The Time of My Life", the theme song of 1987 film Dirty Dancing. The track gets a club-ready treatment with a four-on-the-floor beat and handful of rap verses.

While the hook is well-chosen, the synth-enhanced rap verses don't line up quite right with its sentiments. The Black Eyed Peas are known for re-contextualizing samples and making them work in new songs, but in this case the difference is too severe: the chorus is a nostalgic, melodic love song, the verses a braggadocio-laden rap-style club stomper.

That said, my main problem with this song is that it lacks the dynamic journey found in previous singles "Imma Be", "I Gotta Feelin" and "Boom Boom Pow". After the second chorus, you've pretty much heard every trick the song has to offer, save for some yawn-inducing beat-slicing that occurs in the final chorus. The Black Eyed Peas can do and have done better.

All in all, this song is much less game-changing than any of the singles from their previous album, The E.N.D. . It's not terrible, but it's disappointing to see such a great hook get such lackluster treatment.

Patrick Swayze is displeased

"Right Thru Me" by Nicki Minaj

When headlice dream

The hype surrounding Nicki Minaj is incredible. She's released 4 singles, had a top 20 hit, contributed guest rap verses to 10 different other artists' singles and performed at the VMA awards, all without releasing a major label album. In the past year, she's gone from acclaimed underground rapper to A-list star.

Is the hype legitimate? Well, Minaj is a talented rapper, and it's been a while since the rap scene has seen such a promising female star. This alone allows her to stand out in an industry full of male rappers and female pop singers. However, only the quality of her upcoming album and future singles will determine conclusively whether or not all of this excitement was worth it.

The future, however, is difficult to predict.

"Right Thru Me" is based on a sample from Joe Satriani's 80's cornball guitar ballad "Always With Me, Always With You". Minaj tries to bring her tough attitude to what is clearly intended to be a happy, cheesy song, with mixed results. For the most part, the verses allow Minaj to display her skillful lyricism, and feature effective wordplay. The choruses, on the other hand, feel cliched and mismatched.

Overall, this song feels like an inferior version of Minaj's previous single "Your Love". It has its positive moments, and Minaj has talent as a rapper, but her songs haven't given her ample opportunity to show it yet. Hopefully, this will change in the near future.

"We R Who We R" by Ke$ha

And she is who she is.

When Ke$ha burst onto the scene last year, her "sing-talk" gimmick and annoyingly catchy party songs catapulted her straight to the top of the charts. The question now is whether this same gimmick will continue to impress the general public. Apparently, the answer is yes ("We R Who We R" debuted at number 1).

What about what's underneath the gimmick, though? Personally, I can put up with Ke$ha's bizarre style if the underlying song is well-written and interesting. Previous hits "Tik Tok" and "Your Love Is My Drug" had some muscle as songs, not just as Ke$ha-delivery vehicles.

Sadly, "We R Who We R" is no match for such company, instead falling more towards the "generic party song" category. The worst part of it is the bridge, which consists entirely of the words "DJ, turn it up" repeated multiple times.

"WHAT DID YOU SAY? I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

All in all, "We R Who We R" is a step backwards, not only for the English language but also for Ke$ha's artistic credibility. She really needs to figure out a new gimmick, or at least write some better songs.

"Just A Dream" by Nelly

Half-jackets are all the rage in dreamland

Instead of my usual review, I'm just going to comment on a few select quotes from this song.

"I was thinkin' 'bout her, thinkin' about me.
Thinkin' about us, what we gonna be?
Open my eyes, yeah; it was only just a dream."

Summary: Nelly thought he was was thinking about a lady, but it turned out to be a dream. Apparently he doesn't think about relationships while awake, or maybe he does, but he just doesn't care to mention it.

"If you ever loved somebody put your hands up."

This is the new thing for cops to say when busting any kind of crime operation. It's like a preamble to the Miranda rights.

"Now I'm in the club thinkin' all about my baby."

This is a little bit confusing. Could Nelly actually be pondering the details of a relationship while awake? There's not enough evidence to say either way.

"I was at the top and I was like I’m in the basement."

Nelly excels at hide-and-seek because of this kind of clever treachery.

"And now you ain't around, baby I can't think.
Shoulda put it down. Shoulda got that ring."

Wait, what? I have searched the rest of the lyrics for the song, and there's no indication of what the "it" Nelly "shoulda put down" is.

We can only speculate

"Raise Your Glass" by P!nk

You better do what she says

P!nk has been very careful in crafting her image. She's mainstream, but not that mainstream. She's cool, but edgy cool. She's rough, tough and in-your-face, wasting no energy on sweetness or diplomacy. She may have sold 30 million albums, but P!nk is not like the other pop divas; she's a rebel.

"Raise Your Glass" is the quintessential P!nk song. It's a party anthem for those who are "wrong in all the right ways", those who will "never be anything but loud", or, as P!nk so eloquently puts it, "nitty gritty dirty little freaks".

People outside of the "nitty gritty dirty little freak" target demographic would probably still enjoy the song, though, since it was co-written by Max Martin and is therefore engineered to be a hit. This is not to say that the song doesn't have its creative moments, because it does have quite a few of them, most notably the third-chorus fake-out, which is tremendously effective.

Sound-wise, Martin's signature over-processed guitars feel right at home, giving P!nk the rock edge that so many pop stars seem to be without these days. P!nk's voice sounds great, as always.

Lyrically, I should also mention that P!nk chooses to use the line "why so serious?" twice in the song, preceding both of the first two choruses. Is she hinting at something?

Suddenly the "dirty little freak" line makes a lot more sense

"Raise Your Glass" walks a tight rope between a fun, silly party song and something that's trying to make a deeper and more artistic statement about acceptance. P!nk's spoken "aside" comments sprinkled throughout the song make me think it's intended to be more of the former, but whether it's about existentialist criminals or just a fun party tune, "Raise Your Glass" is a winner.