When I Shine

• When I Shine, The Herbaliser ft. Bahamadia, 1997
• Instrumentation: Vocals (Bahamadia and backup), bass, percussion, guitar, flute (?), and electronics.
• Form: This song is loosely strophic in that it repeats "Stereophonic or mono my lingo tingle topics revolve... I see my influence still shinin'" but it is not strophic in terms of a beat. This song is not accessible because it is very hard to sing along to, slightly difficult to understand the lyrics, and hard to keep up with the pace at which the lyrics are sung.
• Origin: This song draws from various different genres including jazz and hip hop.
• Melody: There is no clear melody to this song, and after listening to it, there is no riff that sticks in my head.
• Lyrics: The lyrics remind me of a poem that someone (maybe someone reminiscent of a stereotypical beatnik) would read at a poetry slam. Unlike a rap song, they do not form a complete story, but rather make (at times coded) statements about contemporary society: "Presentin' dark sounds, cause we in some crucial time now, and I'm tryin' to leave a mark before they place me in the ground." I found the lyrics to have less of an impact because I found it hard to hear exactly what Bahamadia was saying.
• Texture: The texture was not something that my attention was drawn to. Once again, I would describe this song's texture as neither thick nor thin. There are certainly no silences and the accompaniment (instruments) sound well balanced, but they do not resonate with me as past songs such as Variations on a Theme...
• Range: practically no range is explored here. This is perhaps so as not to detract from the instrumentation and the message being sent from the lyrics (which may be clearer to other listeners).
• Tempo: A very steady tempo is maintained throughout. It is moderately slow.
• Meter: A duple beat. The rhythmic beat is very clear and sets a strong pulse for the song. I think that this uniform beat is also meant not to distract from the lyrics.
• Volume: The volume does not vary much throughout the piece at all. The piece as a whole is of a medium volume.
• Personal: I found this piece to be very interesting. It is the first of its kind that I have ever heard, so it is too soon to say whether or not I would listen to it on my own time,. The vocals reminded me of a TLC song, while the lyrics produced an image of a stereotypical beatnik (wearing a beret and black turtleneck) performing at a cafe during a poetry slam. I did appreciate the successful blend of hip hop and jazz, as I had never really heard this before, and found it to be quite creative.

Party In the Rain

• Party In the Rain, Eve, 2002
• Instrumentation: Vocals (Eve and backup), synthesizer, drums, electric guitar, a little beat-boxing
• Origin: this is a contemporary song. It combines rapping with a sung chorus.
• Lyrics: As it is with most rap songs, this one has more lyrics to it because the story told is more spoken and said more quickly, so more can be fit into the song. There are a lot of expletives, which are bleeped out, but still add to the rough-around-the-edges image that the song portrays of its narrator. A lot of rap talks of being "hated on" and just wanting to party ("I wanna party in the rain"). This song is no exception. This is not to say that rap music is not to be taken seriously. In a way, it is advocating change ("things won't be the same"). This song especially makes a name for itself, as Eve was one of the first very successful female rappers.
• Melody: the most memorable riff in this song is "I wanna party in the rain" which is the only sung part. With rap songs it is often the sung chorus that is the only memorable riff because it is the only part that is repeated and is most accessible.
• Form: this song is strophic, it does repeat the chorus. It is not that accessible, because it is hard to rap because of the amount of lyrics to remember as well as the speed at which they are rapped.
• Texture: this song is neither thick nor thin. I don't think the texture is meant to be best aspect of this song.
• Range: the range stays fairly restricted, as most rapping does, with the exception of the chorus, which sings at a higher level.
• Tempo: The tempo is mild and unchanging.
• Meter: There is definitely a clear rhythmic beat (duple beat), which sets a noticeable pulse for the whole song.
• Volume: The volume remains consistent throughout. It does not sound like the vocals or the instruments are particularly loud, however, it seem as if this song is meant to be played loudly. It's lyrics and message are both strong, so it is suiting that it be played loudly.
• Personal: I listen to Eve occasionally, but I had never heard this song before. It is not my favorite of all her songs, but I didn't dislike it. What I've found is that for me, a rap song's chorus makes or breaks the song, because that is what is going to stick in my head after the song is over. I thought the chorus of this song was ok, but not as catchy as "Who's That Girl?" or "Let Me Blow Your Mind."

Back in Your Head

• Back in Your Head, Tegan and Sara, 2007
• Instrumentation: piano, vocals, percussion, guitar, bass.
• Form: strophic, comes back to the chorus "I just want back in you head." This song is easy to sing along to, the words are clear, it does not explore a challenging range, and it is a very straightforward beat.
• Origin: this is a contemporary song.
• Lyrics: the sisters are singing of a romance, to which they are clearly afraid to commit to: "Built a wall... between us in our bed... I'm not unfaithful but I'll stray."
• Melody: there are two riffs that stick in my mind after hearing this song: "I just want back in your head" and "I'm not unfaithful but I'll stray."
• Texture: this song is neither thick nor thin.
• Range: there is not a great range explored in this piece, it pretty much remains consistently neither high nor low throughout in both the vocals and the instruments.
• Tempo: the tempo remains consistent throughout and I would describe it as quick.
• Meter: this is a duple beat. It is very pronounced throughout the song by the percussion and the guitar, as well as the choppy manner the girls have of singing with the beat.
• Volume: The volume is fairly consistent throughout and is neither very high nor very low.
• Personal: I personally do not love Tegan and Sara. I don't strongly dislike them, but I would not choose to listen to them in my free time. I cannot hear them without thinking of the show Grey's Anatomy, which I believe has used a number of their songs on their soundtracks. I used to watch this show, but grew to dislike it, so the connotation is poor, which I do realize is not Tegan nor Sara's fault, but nonetheless, it's there. I would also say that they sound like "shouters" to me, which is not a style that I always appreciate.

Hallelujah

• Hallelujah, k.d. Lang, 2004
• Form: this song is strophic, it comes back to the chorus "Hallelujah" and it is also very accessible, it easy to sing along to- the words are annunciated clearly. It may be harder to reach the pitches that k.d. sings, however.
• Origin: this is a contemporary work, although it is a cover of a song written in the 80s.
• Instrumentation: vocals (one singer), piano, and string accompaniment (guitar, violins).
• Melody: after listening to this song, what sticks in my head is "hallelujah" repeated over and over.
• Texture: I would not describe this song as rich. This is not to say that it is lacking something, but rather that what is most attractive about this song is something other than the texture.
• Range: k.d. explores quite a range in this song, and the instruments flow with her.
• Tempo: this is a fairly slow paced song, which speeds up with the swell of the song at the climaxes.
• Meter: it seems to be in a duple beat the entire time.
• Volume: the volume plays a large role in bringing this piece to life. It is used to emphasize the climaxes of the song, and increases throughout the phrasing. I thought the use of volume change in this song really made it more dynamic.
• Lyrics: This song is exclaiming, "Hallelujah" which is typically a hopeful, cheerful thing to exclaim, but in this case, the song does not seem to be cheery. "Love is not a victory march, it's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah" does not imply that she is singing hallelujah out of sheer joy. It seems that she is reminiscing about a lost love, bringing new, melancholic, meaning to the word, "Hallelujah."
• Personal: I found this song to be very beautiful. I really enjoy k.d.'s voice, and the crescendos and swelling of the song through the phrasing made it very pleasing to listen to.

Beast of Burden

• Beast of Burden, Bette Midler, 1983
• Form: This is strophic. It repeats "I'll never be your beast of burden." It is very accessible, and easy to sing along to.
• Origin: This is a remake of a Rolling Stones song (Bette pays tribute to them by including Mick Jagger in the music video). Some of the lyrics are altered slightly ("pretty pretty girls" becomes "my little sister is a pretty, pretty girl"). This remake keeps it within the same genre as The Stones did: rock. In both cases, percussion and guitar are featured, and the vocalist has a rough sound to their voice.
• Lyrics: With a female vocalist, the lyrics suddenly seem to have a slightly new meaning. For a long time men have sung such lyrics as "all I want is for you to make love to me" but this was not always so commonplace with women. With Bette singing, the song suddenly becomes a feminist statement; women can express their intimate desire in songs too. Although, still today, when women sing about their sexual exploits (Britney Spears Tweet), it is assumed that they are loose women with few morals while men can sing about it and it will get them a "cool" reputation. Still, the song presents the image of a strong woman. She starts out with a demanding "Now, write this down! I'll never be your beast of burden." A beast of burden is an animal that labors for the benefit of man (such as an ox), so by saying she'll never be a beast of burden, Bette could be saying that she will not just work in a male-dominated industry.
• Melody: The hook that stays in my mind is the chorus, "I'll never be your beast of burden." It is quite catchy.
• Instrumentation: percussion, guitars, solo vocalist.
• Texture: This song is not particularly rich as there is not great variance in the instrumentation, but it is certainly not thin either.
• Range: There is a fair great range explored by the vocalist, but the instruments stay within a fairly limited range.
• Tempo: This tempo is slightly faster than the one The Stones use. It is moderately fast.
• Meter: A simple 4 beat meter, kept very consistently by the drums and guitars.
• Volume: The volume is not varied greatly. The vocals seem to remain fairly loud throughout.
• Personal: Beast of Burden by the Rolling Stones is my absolute favorite song of all time. I had never heard the Bette Midler cover, and was not expecting to like anything short of my favorite song ever recorded, but surprisingly I really enjoyed this version. Bette has a the right kind of voice to pull this rock song off; it sounds a little rough, it's powerful, and she can sing with volume (perhaps a little Pat Benetar/ Joan Jett-esque?). The intro is very catchy as well.

When You Were Mine

• When You Were Mine, Cyndi Lauper, 1985
• Form: this song is definitely strophic, it does come back to a chorus. You could sing along to it, although some of the notes that she hits are not realistic for a pedestrian music-goer. The lyrics and beat are not too demanding to sing along to.
• Origin: this is a more contemporary piece. It is a cover of Prince song from the early 80's. It has a contemporary sound, as a synthesizer(?) is fairly prominent throughout.
• Lyrics: Cyndi reminisces of the time when she was with her love, and says that now that they're apart, she loves him even more. The lyrics help give the song a contemporary feel: "you were kinda, sorta...", "I know you're going with another girl" these phrases incorporate modern phrases and slang as well as capture the informal way of colloquial talk.
• Instrumentation: Percussion, synthesizer, electric guitar, vocals (lead and backup).
• Melody: What sticks in my head after listening to this song is "I love you more, I love you more, I love you more than when you were mine." The song is very repetitive, so it is not hard to get stuck in your head.
• Texture: This song is not particularly rich. It does not have many different instruments, and the ones it does have serve the purpose of setting the beat and backing up the vocals. The vocals are certainly not rich either. The back up singers do at a layer to the texture, but I wouldn't call it rich.
• Range: Aside from the one, sudden high note sung by Cyndi, the range explored in this song is very limited both in the instruments and in the vocalists.
• Tempo: The tempo is moderate, and very steady. The percussion helps to keep the beat very neat and consistent.
• Volume: The biggest distinction in volume seems to be Cyndi's voice over the instruments and back up singers. At times it sounds like she is shouting out.
• Meter: It seems to be a 4 beat meter.
• Personal: Personally, I am not a huge Cyndi Lauper fan. I do enjoy "Girls just wanna have fun" from time to time, but overall I don't find her style enjoyable, especially the way it is showcased in this song. She almost sounds like she is whining more than she is singing. I was impressed with the sudden high note she belts, however.
• Other: In the song, Cyndi seems to be addressing a bisexual relationship. However, the song does not speak strictly to bisexual relationships. The feelings the singer expresses are easily related to a heterosexual relationship as well. In this way, the song presents the idea that relations that aren't heterosexual are not so foreign.

When Will I Be Loved

• When Will I Be Loved, Linda Ronstadt, 1974
• Instrumentation: Guitar, percussion, vocals (lead and backup), bass (guitar?). Linda sings lead vocals the whole time, and her male backup singers harmonize with her the whole time.
• Texture: This song feels neither thick nor thin. There are certainly no silences and each instrument can be heard, but it does not feel rich. The vocal line is certainly enriched, however, by the backup harmonization. The main line of music is sung, while the instruments seem to play back up to the singer. They do get a little solo about three quarters of the way through the song.
• Form: The song is very repetitive. It always come back to the chorus, "when will I be loved?" You could absolutely sing along to this song. The lyrics are simple, the vocals are not particularly demanding, and it is easy to understand what they are saying.
• Origin: I would classify this song as early rock.
• Range: The range of this song is wide because at any given time, one vocalist is exploring a higher range (usually Linda), while the others are exploring a lower one (usually backup). However, for each individual line of music, the range is not particularly wide. Linda mostly sings the same few notes.
• Tempo: The tempo is fairly quick, and stays consistent throughout the whole song.
• Meter: There is a clear rhythmic beat, which is kept primarily by the percussion (as is traditional in rock songs).
• Volume: The volume of this song is not particularly emphasized, and stays fairly consistent throughout the song. Linda does, however, get lightly louder at the end of each verse.
• Melody: There is definitely a memorable "hook" that stays in mind: "when will i be loved?" This is in part because it is repeated so much throughout the song.
• Personal: I definitely like this song better than Los Laureles, as this genre of music is typically what I enjoy most. I also like songs that leave you with a chorus or part of the song that sticks in your head and is catchy. I also really enjoy the way the backup singers harmonize with Linda.

Los Laureles

• Los Laureles, Linda Ronstadt, 1987
• Instrumentation: Vocals (Linda with backup) and traditional mariachi ensemble (trumpets, guitars, violins). The song starts out with the violins leading the melody as the trumpets back them up and the backup singers, male, sing. Then Linda enters with force and she immediately becomes the focus of the song.
• Texture: The texture of this song is thick. Linda's voice is rich, big, and powerful, and the band is filled out so they only add to the richness of the sound. The main line of music is Linda's voice. The band primarily serves to back her up, but occasionally they will play their own little melody or tune while she is singing a long drawn out note, giving the music two lines.
• Range: The range of this song is certainly large. Linda sings with a large range, and the band follows suit, but to a less dramatic degree.
• Tempo: The tempo is consistent and steady throughout, and it stays at a fairly slow pace.
• Meter: There is a clear rhythmic beat, which can be followed by one of the string instruments, which keeps the pulse throughout.
• Volume: Keeping with tradition, Linda sings loudly throughout the entire piece. The band plays loudly when she is not singing, but backs off when she enters to let her be the main focus.
• Lyrics: As it is with most traditional mariachi songs, the song speaks of love.
• Form: This song is fairly accessible. I could definitely sing along, but I could not sing along accurately. That is to say that I could not hit the notes or sing with as much vigor as Linda, but the pace of the song makes it easy to annunciate the words and understand what she is saying (granted, it is in Spanish).
• Origin: This song is a traditional mariachi song. The ensemble is comprised of the traditional instruments, and the singer sings in a style that is typical of the style (loud, and with force).
• Personal Response: I am personally not a huge fan of mariachi bands. I certainly respect their talent, and I actually found myself slightly enjoying the tribute to Selena, but this song does not really do it for me. I think that it is because of the singing. I find it to be almost harsh. I realize that her voice is extremely accurate to the genre, but it is the main reason that I am not completely fond of this song.