The song with the most to answer for?

nightb4

Having just heard Whitney Houston’s “I will always love you” on the radio I was wondering.
Considering the toxic effect this song has had on a generation of singers, and their belief that holding a note of as long as their lungs can manage constitutes good singing, is this the worst pop song ever?
I’m sure there have been worse songs, but none with such a huge influence as this one.

Irish Aris

I don't really understand the point you're making.

I find Whitney's version of I Will Always Love You very good.
And I'd say that there is little doubt that she had an amazing voice.
It's true that all the young female singers follow this type of singing (some of them successfully I might say), but is that only the Whitney Houston effect? Or the Celine Dion effect? Or, long before that, the Barbra Streisand effect? (who I consider one of the best female vocalists of all time, yet I don't generally like her songs).

Da Shins Kelly

Whitney Houston was a great singer. Unlike most of her imitators, she actually had a very lovely tone to her voice and its strength was seemingly effortless. She barely had to try to sound the way she did, it just came out. A very talented singer, much more so than the likes of Mariah Carey or Celine Dion, in my opinion. Even more so than her pop songs, she was an amazing gospel singer.

I find her version of I Will Always Love You a bit cheesy, but I don't know if that's due to over-playing or what. It's not the worst song I've ever heard.

Declan A Walsh

I think the OP is posing the question - what song was most responsible for causing or leading on to dreadful music? I know the OP maintains that "I Wil Always Love You" by Whitney Houston is the "worst pop song", but maybe what they really means is that it is the worst for what it lead on to.

I don't think objectively it is the worst song ever (not that I was mad keen on her music to start with), but it could be argued it has the "most to answer for". I'm not sure if it is true, but it certainly could be argued. The basis would be that many wannabe singers came along after, affecting the same style of singing in a much more banal and tedious fashion - refer to The X Factor!

Maybe, Mariah Carey could hold some responsibility for subsequent and similar-sounding crimes against music! The problem with that is that, in my opinion, she was already inferior to Whitney as a singer to start with and I would be hard put to pick a specific song as THE ONE!

Let's broaden this subject a bit. It could be argued that Dire Straits' The Walk of Life is a song with a lot to answer for (most??). Why? That's simple: because we are subjected ad nauseum to banal renditions of this song at events such as Weddings (and it wasn't a great song initially anyway!). In fact, if you think about it, there are a number of songs which are regularly inflicted upon us on special occasions such as Weddings. There are a few Neil Diamond songs which could be nominated!

On a somewhat related note, there are those songs which lead on to embarassing dance routines on special occasions, such as "Agadoo" by Paper Lace, "Rock the Boat" by the Hues Corporation, "Saturday Night" by Whigfield, "The Ketchup Song", "Macarena" and so on. Off the top of my head, the song with the most to answer for in embarassing dance routines is "Bird Song" by Tweety!

TAlderson

I love Bob Dylan. He's one of my favorite songwriters/musicians ever. But his popularity means that tons of people associate "rough/hoarse/off-pitch/mumbled singing" with "authenticity." I've actually heard people who I know can sing strong and clear change their voice to give it more rasp and less power to sound "better." This is bad for the vocal chords, and (at least to me) doesn't sound good at all. Bob Dylan sings like that because that is his voice. That's really the point of his singing, so it's ridiculous to try to change yours to sound more like his.

-Tyler

Da Shins Kelly

TAlderson wrote: »

I love Bob Dylan. He's one of my favorite songwriters/musicians ever. But his popularity means that tons of people associate "rough/hoarse/off-pitch/mumbled singing" with "authenticity." I've actually heard people who I know can sing strong and clear change their voice to give it more rasp and less power to sound "better." This is bad for the vocal chords, and (at least to me) doesn't sound good at all. Bob Dylan sings like that because that is his voice. That's really the point of his singing, so it's ridiculous to try to change yours to sound more like his.

-Tyler

He's definitely responsible for a whole host of singer/songwriter man-with-guitar imitators.

Martyn1989

TAlderson wrote: »

I love Bob Dylan. He's one of my favorite songwriters/musicians ever. But his popularity means that tons of people associate "rough/hoarse/off-pitch/mumbled singing" with "authenticity." I've actually heard people who I know can sing strong and clear change their voice to give it more rasp and less power to sound "better." This is bad for the vocal chords, and (at least to me) doesn't sound good at all. Bob Dylan sings like that because that is his voice. That's really the point of his singing, so it's ridiculous to try to change yours to sound more like his.

-Tyler

Young Bob Dylan reportedly would do anything to get a rasp in his voice, including going through a long case of bronchitus in the hope he would sound more like Woodie Guthrie.

rcaz

I wouldn't pick any particular songs, but any of the big rawk 'anthems' that put lead guitar on such a pedestal... Sweet Child Of Mine, Stairway To Heaven, Black Betty, Enter Sandman, Cowboys From Hell... Something like that, for making generations of guitar players think systematic, uninspired heavy bluesy rock is the perfect kind of music to make, and making so many people think about music in terms of The Solo. **** all of that.

I'm not against solos, and I like a bit of Led Zeppelin and Pantera and things, but it seems to me that so many songs are written for the solo. When a solo fits in right, and is well put together, play that ****in' thing, but how many bands can you think of that sound like their songs are written knowing that there'll be a solo after the second chorus, from the very start?

karaokeman

rcaz wrote: »

I wouldn't pick any particular songs, but any of the big rawk 'anthems' that put lead guitar on such a pedestal... Sweet Child Of Mine, Stairway To Heaven, Black Betty, Enter Sandman, Cowboys From Hell... Something like that, for making generations of guitar players think systematic, uninspired heavy bluesy rock is the perfect kind of music to make, and making so many people think about music in terms of The Solo. **** all of that.

I'm not against solos, and I like a bit of Led Zeppelin and Pantera and things, but it seems to me that so many songs are written for the solo. When a solo fits in right, and is well put together, play that ****in' thing, but how many bands can you think of that sound like their songs are written knowing that there'll be a solo after the second chorus, from the very start?

Was that not a phase?

When a lot of people think of classic rock "anthems" they think of the 70s and the 80s, which is when you had bands like Led Zepp, Pantera, Van Halen, Gilmour, and Eagles.

The 90s saw the rise and fall of Britpop, you had bands like Blur, Pulp, and Suede who incorporated different styles into their music despite being set up like rock bands. The last ten years has seen a lot more bands like Arcade Fire, Radiohead, Broken Social Scene and Death Cab For Cutie make music with untraditional rock instrumentation.

I know what you're saying and there are still guitarists who play with those old styles and techniques. Slash's recent album was very Guns n Roses-like, and he hasn't really evolved as a musician, perhaps its just that some artists feel comfortable with recording the traditional guitar solo song, but it is still interesting for them to try something new.

SubBusted

nightb4 wrote: »

Having just heard Whitney Houston’s “I will always love you”

It's a Dolly Parton song.