Thursday, February 12, 2009

The Record And The Song

With the Grammys less than a week old, it seems like an appropriate time to address the "Record Of The Year/Song Of The Year" flummoxing. Many just don't get it.

Here is my half-assed explanation:

A "song" is measured by its music and lyrics. Think, "Yesterday" by The Beatles. Pretty much a classic and I am pretty sure the single most covered song ever. Great lyrics and great melody, this "Yesterday." BUT, what if the arrangement of this "song" was played on a kazoo to a polka beat? That would be a pretty bad "record."

NOW, take the 60's classic "Da Doo Ron Ron."

Met him on a Monday and my heart stood still
Da doo ron ron ron, da doo ron ron
Somebody told me that his name was Bill
Da doo ron ron ron. da doo ron ron

Yeah, whatever.

BUT, add all that percussion and great background vocals and strings and The Crystals and Phil Spector and that "Wall Of Sound" and you've got one of the best "records" ever made.


That said, here is Ruby & The Romantics' "Our Day Will Come." Not a bad song at all, but DAMN, what a record! NO song prior or since, sounds like this.

My point? None, really. I just love this record.

1 comment:

itsok2beright said...

Ok, so I think I get it. The song is for the writer and the record is for the performer??? If so, then where does Joe Satriani go to pick up his song of the year award?

I guess I am working at less than 74%!