New Good Song: Ready Or Not by Bridgit Mendler

Here's a new good song -- "Ready Or Not" by Bridgit Mendler

Bubblegum pop, which like it or not is certainly making a resurgence, is for kids. In my mind, the target age for this music is 12-16 and, with a sense of irony, maybe ages 17 to 22. But that certainly doesn't mean it can't be good. Lots of things targeted at kids are good, like Cinnamon Toast Crunch.

As a bias, I tend to be more open to bubblegum pop from female vocalists. I can't imagine liking a song by Justin Bieber, or One Direction, although having stated this I'm sure I will one day have to back-track, because good songs can come from unlikely sources. I don't know where my bias came from. My superficial psycho-babble explanation is that flirtation and fun seem innocent and genuine coming from a young girl, and cloying, creepy and corny coming from a young boy.

All this said, even when the deliverer of bubblegum pop is a female, I am still pretty critical. For me, bubblegum is hard to sell. It has to be sincere, well-produced and at least somewhat creative and interesting. When I heard the snippit of "Ready Or Not" by Bridgit Mendler several times over the past few weeks on iTunes, I dismissed it instantly as stupid and far too Disney to even be considered.

But, as is often the case with this genre, I kept going back to it to give it another listen. Finally I decided to give the entire song a listen from front to back, remembering that often the best part of these songs are the verses, and lo and behold, I discovered that this is actually a pitch-perfect pop song from start to finish, if you're willing to go along for the ride (i.e., forgive lyrics such as "You'll be my William, I'll be your Kate").

This is a great song. It follows the cookbook of pop songs perfectly, and the result is delicious. The chord progression, though simple, is infections and evocative, and the melody in the verses is very nice and shows off Bridgit's ability to navigate notes nicely. And what really hooked me is the pre-chrous, particularly the unexpected turn of the dancing bassline on the third line. If you listen to the clip above, I'm referring to 00:33-34.

Another reason I was reluctant to give this song a chance is that the chorus so flagrantly "borrows" from "Ready Or Not" by the Fugees. Then it occurred to me that the Fugees have probably never done an original thing in their lives, and likely stole their chorus from some other song. A quick search on Wikipedia proves this to be the case. The Fugees' "Ready Or Not" chorus was taken from the Delfonics' "Ready Or Not Here I Come," which, quite honestly, I had never heard of until now. So, there's nothing new under the sun. At least the Bridgit Mendler song just winks at the chorus slightly. That's forgivable. And it's ubiquitous in pop.

Bridgit Mendler's "Ready Or Not" is a very crisp pop song that is both contemporary and classic. I may be too old to like it, and I may not want people overhearing it on my headphones, but oh well. In 2012, we take what we can get.

Enjoy!

New Good Song: Bitter by Midian

Here's a new good song -- "Bitter" by Midian

One of the most popular pop and soul chord progressions is I vi IV V7, most famously called "Heart and Soul" and familiar to all pianists, or wannabe pianists. Examples are endless. Offhand I can think of a few: "Bleeding Love" by Leona Lewis, "Lucky" by Britney Spears and even a song a few posts down on this blog, "Secondhand" by Cassadee Pope. I believe this is referred to as an earworm.

Obviously this is a winning formula, and yet not all songs that follow this chord progression are good. Examples: "Friday" by Rebecca Black "Baby" by Justin Bieber.

Anyway, here's another, "Bitter" by Midian. It's the same chord progression, and with a production and instrumental arrangement that I believe is '60s. On both counts, it's quite similar to "Forever" by Mariah Carey. And the singing style is borrowed too. But the lyrics and melody here are good enough to stand the song up on its own. Quite a nice effort, with a few surprises to keep it interesting.

Can a guilty pleasure be a new good song?

Sometimes a new song may be good, but you're not sure you are comfortable saying so aloud. Example: "Want U Back" by Cher Lloyd.

If is a song would otherwise be good, but you are embarrassed to like it, is it necessarily not good? One might wonder if such a song possesses an inherently un-good quality -- some sort of "guilty pleasure" factor -- that stems from it being juvenile, corny, too simplistic or in some way tacky.

I would say that this is indeed the case. If someone today likes anything by Justin Bieber (i.e., is under the age of 14 or is over the age of 14 but has poor taste), he or she would probably preface his or her favorable opinion by qualifying the fandom with the phrase "guilty pleasure." However, there's a reason some pleasures are guilty -- the songs aren't genuinely good.

But it isn't always clear whether something is a guilty pleasure. Some people assume that all music by or for teens is a guilty pleasure, but this surely isn't the case.  "Call Me Maybe" by Carly Rae Jepsen, I would argue, is not a guilty pleasure, and nor is "Love You Like A Love Song" by Selena Gomez & The Scene. These are just new good songs. If you think they are guilty pleasures, you're just a snob. Guilty pleasures are things like Milli Vanilli's output, which is terrible.

But some artists' output straddles the line, like Celine Dion. Is she a guilty pleasure? This is hard to answer. As I've said several times, I am song loyal, not artist loyal. So, in my opinion, "The Power Of Love" is a guilty pleasure because it's terrible, while "A New Day Has Come" is not, because it's good. "Love Can Move Mountains" is a guilty pleasure, but "My Heart Will Go On" is not.

I think if you are embarrassed by your tastes, you don't genuinely hold those tastes. There's some quality in the song that gives you pause. You may like it, but you know it's not good. There's a difference between something being good and something being liked; that's why some No. 1 songs (e.g., "Macarena,") are horrible.

In the end, I at first thought "Want U Back" by Cheryl Lloyd was a guilty pleasure, but I have decided it's not. It's a new good song.

When is a new good song not a good song?

It takes more for a new song to be a new good song than being good. Other qualities drive a purchase -- originality, appropriate maturity, a sense of sincerity. There needs to be some sort of essence of truth.

Take the clip above. "The Fighter" by Gym Class Heroes f/ Ryan Tedder is by many accounts a good song. The delivery and production are quite nice; it's catchy and has a good message. It's pleasant to the ears, for sure. Everyone involved is talented. But it feels phony. Expected. Calculated. As a result, it feels untrue and manipulative. Therefore it's terrible.

Even the mere fact of this particular collaboration seems inorganic. When I hear this song, between the lines I hear the murmur of producers, managers and record-label executives, seeking to produce a product with mass appeal. This is their job, of course. But the output should be independent of this objective, or at least disguise it better. When a song feels written, produced and performed for no genuine or artistic reason, it  cannot be good. This is what makes Justin Bieber's output particularly excruciating. He is talented, and some of his output has appealing musical qualities. But as a package, Justin Bieber's portfolio is American cheese.

This is the problem I had with "Payphone" by Maroon 5 f/ Wiz Khalifa earlier this year. It is right on the borderline of good. But there's something inauthentic about it. Listening to it does not feel like listening to music. It feels like listening to the result of meetings, not the result of feelings.

I have now presented a standard for goodness that many people will find naive, objectionable or impossible to measure. As a listener, I am sure I sometimes fail to detect authenticity. For example, is "Call Me Maybe" by Carly Rae Jepsen borne from any authentic feelings? I don't know. I was not in the room when this song was conceived, produced, recorded and released. But I feels, at the very least, as though the song was written, produced and arranged by people who were enjoying their jobs, and were talented, and cared about quality. The vocals are delivered in a way that's perfectly appropriate to the material, which indicates some sense of sincerity or performance capability on the singer's part. This exact same song by, say, Madonna, would have a very different effect indeed.

Therefore, I realize that phoniness is a hard quality to identify accurately, but I think it is sufficient to say that if a song feels phony, that's reason enough to negate its otherwise good attributes.