Apr 032009
I came across this 1974 clip by a Mickey Most-produced Glam band called Arrow. See what you think of it.
What I found fascinating in my initial viewing is how close these guys are to being good while falling just short of that mark at every turn. See if you don’t agree and can’t help me identify some of the points in this song where they drop the ball. I’ll think about this some more and try to give them my advice – 25 years too late!
If you disagree with my premise and find this an undeniably good song, feel free to give me hell. As I watched this I couldn’t help but think what Sweet, for instance, might have done to turn this bad boy into a hit song.
for me, what’s nice about this is the sound of it (that warm, early 70s british production).
what’s bad is the song writing.
The song is so generic. It’s the kind of thing you’d expect of a Spinal Tap flashback to the early 70s. The coordinated B&W outfits are pretty cool, but the names on the shirts is lame.
Actually, this song only needed one change to loft it into “good”-ness: they should’ve played it twice as fast. Seriously. Replace the plodding beat with a rockin’ groove in double-time, and this thing would’ve rocked its way into good-hood.
I’m glad you guys see what I’m getting at. I agree that playing the song faster would have helped, Hrrundi. The other thing that strikes me about the songwriting is how flat the transitions from one section to another are. For instance, that little pre-chorus, when they climb up to the IV and V chords, is like a tile lacking grout. Same goes for the chorus back to the verse. The “tiles” of the song aren’t bad, but there’s no grout, no dramatic or otherwise satisfying transitions. I’m not saying the song would have been GREAT with these elements, but it could have been good.
If you’re curious, check out some other Arrow videos and you may hear the same problem with their other songs.
I think the transitions are it. That sounds like three different mini songs. I like the song after the Bo Diddley part, with the big, fat chords quite a bit. But then the “toughen up” part jars me out of my fun zone, only to hear strains of Bo Diddley again, and it’s just Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
I’m certainly not curious to find out more, and I like that kind of crap a lot.
i think you guys are being way too gentle on the songwriting. the lyrics are lame, the melody is, as BigSteve says, generic…
and as i suggested in my first post, the sound is maybe the only seductive part of this. For example, when 2k writes that he likes the “big, fat chords” it’s not the songwriting he’s praising, it’s the sound.
i didn’t think it was possible to be more generic than status quo in their boogie era, but here we are.
Sat, we’re talking a Glam band. Let’s not expect too much from the “songwriting.” That was one of the most underwritten subgenres in rock history, no? There are holes in the songwriting on a most basic level, and I think we are touching on them. You’re right about this band managing to be more generic than Status Quo!
wow, you nailed it…JUST SHORT of being good. If Sweet or Badfinger had done this song it would have been a b-side
mod, writing glam band songs isn’t as easy as you make it sound. these guys are proof of that. and there are GREAT glam band songs we both could name. i’m not allowed to expect that level from these guys?
besides, my point is that what is GOOD about this has nothing to do with their songwriting, and their songwriting is *far from good* not *almost* good.
….no matter where we set the bar.
The chorus is really irritating–a particularly blatant example of the “truck driver’s gear change.”
http://www.gearchange.org/muso_intro.asp
I was in the middle of posting the other day and we lost power but what I was going to say seems to have been stated already:
Sat’s right – the warm production is good.
What’s wrong for me is the sort of “middling” tempo. It just seems off. And the turn-around in the chorus seems forced.
As far as look – I have to disagree and think the names on the outfits are fun. But they could be a little more animated. Again, the lazy tempo may be to blame.
Great piece, Dr. John! Thanks.