Auditory Abominations: "Glory of Love" - Peter Cetera (80's Marathon Part 4/6)

All the way back in my third review ever, I talked about the band Chicago, and their abomination of a song "If You Leave Me Now". Is Chicago the worst thing to happen to music? Hell no, since then I have heard a bad novelty song from a character everybody hated, The blandest metal in the world, and of course the nightmare that is Limp Bizkit. However, one thing I will say is that something terrible did indeed come from Chicago, and did indeed become one of the worst things to happen to music, "Look Away" which became the number one hit of 1989, but that's not the subject today. Today is another one of the worst things to happen because of the band Chicago, Peter Cetera's solo career. Yes, the frontman of Chicago has a solo career, he hasn't released anything since 2005, but he struck it big in the 1980s, and released this song to massive success. This song entirely blows, and is one of the worst songs of the 1980s, I wouldn't say it's worse than the previous songs I looked at, but it's worse than "Funkytown" and that song really got on my nerves. So, why is this song a glorious suckfest? Well, let's have a listen. Glorious suckfest, that doesn't sound right.

This track begins with piano, or at the very least a Casio. Right off the bat we are given an introduction to how god damn bland this song is going to be. I mean, "Walking in Memphis" has some pretty basic keyboards, but that song actually has some life to it, and I just figured out the main problem with this song within six seconds didn't I? Yep, this is going to be about as emotional as the acting from the Star Wars prequels, Hell I give those credit they at least had Ewan McGregor.

Can I end this review right here? I mean, this is practically going to be the exact damn thing as Chicago right? Well, I chose this song for my 80's marathon. Instead of something like, "Agadoo" or "Dog Police", but hey, maybe this song will give me something else to talk about, like how not to go solo.

Well, here is a first rule for going solo, don't sound like auto-tune, I hate how artists use auto-tune when they don't know why they should use it. This isn't being used for effects in this song, unless the effect is to make Peter Cetera's voice sound tolerable, which good luck on that front. Seriously though, Peter's voice sounds so artificial that Siri sounds more human.

Unfortunately though, that is really all there is to say, I mean what do I say about the lyrics? They're just a cheesy love song, filled with more sap than a Canadian brunch. Although I do take a lot of joy in the idea of Peter Cetera singing "I am a man who would fight for your honor/ I'll be the hero you're dreaming of" to a crowd of people who laugh him off stage because they can't take this line seriously. But then I realize that this was a Number 1 hit, and I remember that "I Want to Know What Love Is" was also a Number 1 hit. What was with the 80s and people taking cheesy, sappy love songs like this seriously?

The Instrumentals? Bleh, I mean they do their job, albeit poorly, but they do it. The faux drums don't sound awful and the keyboard just kinds of takes a back seat to Peter Cetera's auto-tuned dog whistle vocals. So, what else do I say about this song? Do I talk about the album it came from?
Actually, where did it come from?

From an album released to coincide with the theatrical release of... KARATE KID PART II? And it was originally written to end Rocky IV? This song, this fluffier than mousse, substance free, lighter than Helium waste of time, was written for an adrenaline pumping sports movie like Rocky? Then was used for a similar movie like The Karate Kid? You know what their previous movies used for themes? Rocky III had "Eye of the Tiger" one of the best pump up anthems ever, and The Karate Kid had "You're the Best Around" similarly one of the best pump up anthems ever. This was the song they thought could follow up "You're the Best Around"? I mean, if this was a Goonies song than maybe I'd understand, but then again maybe that would have made The Goonies so unbearably boring that it wouldn't even be worth it.

Granted, I never have seen Karate Kid Part 2, but I have seen the fourth movie, or a bit of it. It was meh if you're wondering. However, I think I'll steer clear of Part 2 if this is the theme. Like what do I even say about it? The singing just sounds auto-tuned, the instrumentals are bleh, the lyrics are cheesy and it was made to be the main theme to a movie that didn't fit with it.

Oh well, I'm the Entity of Darkness and, I need some old school metal.

Auditory Abominations: "Nothing's Gonna Change My Love For You" - Glenn Mederios

And thus, we take another trip to the 1980s, the only decade that is simultaneously one of the best and one of the worst decades for music, so far the only one because the 2010s is still not over.

What makes the 80s such a strange decade is all the one hit wonders that came and went from that time, sure there are the likes of Iron Butterfly and Barry McGuire in the 60s, and there is also groups like Jars of Clay and in some respects Aurelio Voltaire in the more modern era. The 80s on the other hand, oh boy there was, just off the top of my head, Aha, A Flock of Seagulls, Midnight Oil, Devo, Dexy's Midnight Runners, Pseudo Echo, Will to Power, The Vapors, Soft Cell, Twisted Sister, Wall of Voodoo, Bruce Willis, Eddie Murphy, The Psychedelic Furs, Living in a Box, even technically Rainbow, and almost none of their songs sound like anything else, and trust me, a lot of them were not great, but I think this may be the worst of the bunch.

Technically, this guy isn't a one hit wonder, he had one other hit, but you know I don't think a lot of people really care or know about that song so my point still stands. This guy is Glenn Mederios, a Hawaiian singer who got to record this song for winning a contest and just out of luck, someone happened to play it while in the mainland states and word of mouth spread quickly making this song a hit, the funny thing is you think I'm kidding. However, being honest that probably is the only way this song could've ever become popular.

The song is essentially the filler you would find on Karaoke Machines with very little actual songs on them. It especially starts that way with the slow synth and a saxophone. The instrumentals don't make me think of anything other than pre-set beat and karaoke night embarrassment.

Glenn himself sounds like Lionel Richie with a touch of nasal, and I'm not a big fan of Lionel Richie, so take what I say here with a grain of salt but, he is a better vocalist than Glenn Mederios.

You may notice that I have actually little to really say about either aspect of the song, and that is mostly because that is all they are, bland and dull, like what do you really expect me to say? It is not a bland like "Afternoon Delight" where there is a lot to talk about because of the time period it came out in and the lyrical content, it's more a bland like "We Built This City" except that song also was a little bit obnoxious, this is just boring.

Even the lyrics aren't interesting, about the same as "You complete me, completely vague woman that I love.", you know the type of song Bo Burnham made fun of with "Repeat Stuff", which incidentally is not only a better song, also a funny song, which I'm only writing as a way to remind myself of the next abomination I have to do.

Really, the only interesting thing about this song is the awfully boring music video that looks as though it is missing the karaoke lyrics near the bottom of the screen. Other than that though, the song is painfully boring, even when Glenn puts "power" in his vocals it does nothing except make me appreciate Lionel Richie.

So, yeah, a boring song. Which considering my next review, quite honestly may actually be necessary. I'm the Entity of Darkness and, leave it to the Brits to give a musical career to a character that nobody liked, that is what's next.

Auditory Abominations: "Afternoon Delight" - Starland Vocal Band

The 1970s, in my opinion, is the best decade for music, sure the 60s refined a lot of musical genres and the 80s was just a powerhouse of amazing music, but the 1970s was both. It was the decade that defined Heavy Metal, Progressive Rock, Soul, Funk, R&B, and also Soft Rock, and at the same time we had some pretty awesome bands from Queen to Earth Wind and Fire. What made the 70s amazing was not only that there was a lot of good stuff, but the best stuff was amazing, I could make a top 50 of the best songs of the 1970s and I would still make some very tough choices, I mean seriously, it's tough deciding between Alice Cooper and Boston now try to decide between them and at least twenty-five other amazing bands.

Now, the 70s is a lot like our modern era, the best stuff was really damn awesome, and the worst stuff is pretty mediocre at best. This decade was not immune from crap, and quite frankly, people who say that music from their generation was better, in some respects yes, but I would much rather listen to generic modern EDM than kitschy 70s soft and light rock. The thing is, the big selling genre of this decade was not only disco, in fact it might not even have been disco, it was mostly soft and light rock, and unlike disco, it never went away, it only devolved into the white guy with an acoustic guitar. We've had some bad offenders from Chicago to Foreigner. Chicago may have been the worst offender, but this group comes close, The Starland Vocal Band, because you could not think of a name that didn't scream 70s light rock.

What do you expect from the opening instrumentals? Orchestral backing? Slow guitar strum? light tapping bass drums before the lyrics? Well, you are in luck because that is exactly the opening to this song, I couldn't make a more generic song opening if I tried. The singer also sounds like a generic light rock singer, like if Bob Dylan didn't have any nasal. I really should stop picking on Dylan, but seriously, this is the kind of voice I would imagine Bob Dylan would have if there was no nasal in his singing voice.

the song was written to be enjoyable and hint at sex, and when I say hint at sex, I mean in the 70s, this is not the kind of song you could record today and not have it be shocking. Sex has become one of those things that was Taboo but no longer is because of the internet, so now songs that hint about sex are as good as songs that explicitly have sexual language in the lyrics. Also, some of these lyrics are pretty blatant, like "Rubbing sticks and stones together make the sparks ignite/ And the thought of rubbing you is getting so exciting", those are actual lyrics from the song. I can't really say that I'm to surprised that this got passed censors in the 1970s when "Pour Some Sugar on Me" got passed them in the 1980s. "Pour Some Sugar on Me" is actually a song that is better than this because of it's pseudo explicit lyrics, though both songs have lyrics less explicit than something like  "A.D.I.D.A.S.", but are more explicit than "Get Lucky" which also got rather explicit at times.

There are also times that the songs tempo just drops and all the band members sing together. I really have no idea why, but they are pretty dull, even when compared to the rest of the song. There are also times the song repeats the song title again, I guess in place of an actual chorus, some trends never die I guess.

I really can't recommend this song on any merits. I can't think of any reason you would play this song un-ironically, when there are other, better songs for the exact same occasions. It's dull, not very interesting, not explicit enough by todays standards, and quite frankly a bit to explicit for the time, at least until the 1980s when "Physical" came out, but that is for a different review. there is no reason for this song to exist either, because not three years prior, we got "Let's Get it On" by master of being smooth Marvin Gaye which let's face it, is a song that sets the mood better than any other song.

I'm the Entity of Darkness, and listen to "Pour Some Sugar On Me" instead of this.

Auditory Abominations: "Everything I do (I Do it For You)" - Bryan Adams

Continuing on the theme of love songs that are not romantic in the very least, this song also allows me to explain why something being popular does not give it any form of quality. This was not just a number one of 1991, it was the number one of 1991, and this was the year that gave us Nevermind, Metallica, Blood Sugar Sex Magik, and Out of Time. 1991 was not a horrible year for music, in fact it may have been one of the best, but every year has its shovel ware.

Before I get into the big problem with this song, I want to discuss some of the minor issues with the song. Such as the horrible combination of the slow melody and Bryan Adam's voice which sounds as though he ate a sandpaper and staple salad with battery acid dressing. At the very least when other musicians that don't have the greatest voices sing, they sing in genres that compliment their vocals, Bob Dylan sang folk, Bruce Springsteen sang rock and Peter Cetera sang soft rock. When I compliment Peter Cetera, you know you've made an abomination.

Really the song at its core is a slow, dull song that tries to have dreamlike instrumentals and romantic lyrics, nothing I can fault the song over, except for one thing. Much like the previously reviewed "I Want to Know What Love is" by Foreigner, it is the fact that this was as successful as it was that makes it an abomination.

To put it into a perspective that I think some of you may understand, the fact that the song reached number one shows that people found this romantic, and those people have clearly never seen Casablanca.

"Everything I do I do it for you" is a meaningless statement, because the majority of people's life is doing something mundane, eating breakfast, reading a book, taking a walk, and they do all that mundane stuff that everybody does for you. I want people to remember that words like "Everything" and "All" are broad reaching terms, if I was to drink all the water on the planet, that would also mean that I would drink the polar ice caps, the clouds, the water in plants, the water in animals and the contaminated water in hazardous areas.

"Everything" does not mean the important stuff, or the noteworthy stuff, it means "Everything", meaning sneezing, being sick, calling his mother, watching TV, crying, doing his job, sitting in the dark, driving and all of that stuff is done for you. That is not romantic, that is obsession and an unhealthy one at that.

If somebody says they do everything for you and mean it, get them help because that is not a healthy thing. Somethings it is okay to do for other people, fighting, getting help, going to higher education you know things that can benefit other people. Saying you'll do everything for another person is almost as creepy and admitting to being a stalker.

This was the number one song of 1991, meaning that this proved empty, shallow, meaningless love songs had a place on the pop charts. It isn't the fact that the song is dull that makes it an abomination, but the fact that people thought it was romantic that makes it an abomination.

I'm the Entity of Darkness, and don't forget, "Everything" is a broad-reaching word.

Auditory Abominations: "I Want to Know What Love Is" - Foreigner

You know, I want to take this series out of the modern age, not because I think music from the previous generation is worse, but mostly because it is giving me nothing to talk about. I mean what can I really say about a song like "All About That Bass" that I can't say about any other over-produced, substance lacking, obnoxious trite? Granted there are still plenty of songs that I want to cover, and there will be a time I'll talk about those songs in the future, but when looking at the worst of things, you can't stick with one generation, because that is a form of conformation bias. Even though I stated that the 2010s, as a whole are a great decade for music, I can't deny that I am kind of confirming to myself that the decade has no chances of improving by just looking at the crap of this decade.

So I'm going to take a break from my usual 2010s crap and take a look at a band that I hate more than I really should. Foreigner is one of my most hated bands ever, up there with Chicago, and for pretty much the same reasons. Of course this one has an even bigger issue than "If You Leave Me Now" which was mostly just ungodly dull.

The opening instrumentals set the mood perfectly that this is going to be one of the most generic and dullest songs in the world. It sounds like that preset Casio beat that accompanies every soap opera and nature documentary. It's that slow kind of droning keyboard sound that never really changes tone, and holds on itself while it is accompanied by that synthetic sounding drum beat that sounds right at home in the worlds slowest disco dance song rather than any love song as it never keeps rhythm and is mostly there because it compliments the droning keyboard. It's what sound designers use when they can't afford proper scene music.

The song itself sounds right at home introducing a cheap soap opera to the few TV screens turned on at four in the morning to unamused people. The lyrics are even more generic break-up song than "If You Leave Me Now" which I thought was the king of generic break-up song lyrics. It's made worse with the singer forcing an impression of Bruce Springsteen eating the frontman of Whitesnake.

And while I'm on the subject, what is with these break-up songs with generic lyrics? I mean, where are the lyrics like "You'll never find gold on a sandy beach"? Just a thought.

But what really irks me about this song is only partly the song's fault, another part of it has a little bit to do with the success of the song. The song topped not only the Hot 100, but also the Mainstream Rock Charts, which means that people were wanting to hear this song on not only Pop stations or Soft Rock stations, but regular Rock Stations too. However, that isn't what irks me the most, it's the fact that the people think that "I want to know what love is" is a romantic set of lyrics. That is the kind of whiny stuff a band like Simple Plan would sing, something that drunks are to ashamed to use at the lowest end of low-end bars.

What is so romantic about "I want to know what love is"? that is like textbook "I just want to get in your pants" douche bad right there, and people bought it up. Sure, it was the 80s but that excuse does not hold up, because I've heard love songs from the 1950s that put this one to shame, seriously "Blueberry Hill" is a great song and "Ring of Fire" puts every love song to shame.

The takeaway from this blog is that, love songs are not the easiest songs to make properly, as we can see the next time I do an abomination. Love songs deserve respect and when it isn't respected, we get garbage like this.

I'm the Entity of Darkness, and next time, a song that also proves my point further, and that popularity does not mean quality.

P.S. I have made a Facebook page if you want to keep up to date with everything.

Auditory Abominations: "If You Leave Me Now" - Chicago

So, with my previous review being one of my most hated songs of all time, I thought for a follow up I'd take a look at the song that almost gives it a run for its money.

Whereas "Call Me Maybe" was obnoxious and repetitious, "If You Leave Me Now" is Boring and repetitious. The song seriously sounds like the most half-assed lullaby you will ever hear, and considering Peter Cetera's vocals, that is an accomplishment.

The song is supposed to be a break-up song, which fails miserably, because a break-up song should sound emotional, you know something like Adele's "Someone Like You" or something like Meat Loaf's "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad" which are both looking at the sad aspects of a break-up, or you could have something like Cee-Lo Green's "F**K You" which focuses on more of the angry and confused parts of a break-up. This song feels like it wants to be a sad break-up song, but it fails by being so emotionless and soulless. "Jar of Hearts" is a sadder break-up song than this, and that is another song that qualifies to be an Auditory Abomination.

The instrumentals also don't do this song any favours. You know those slow songs that were everywhere in the 70s and early 80s? Well, times the blandness of the worst of them all by about ten and you have the dull and uninteresting instrumentals this song has, although they perfectly match Peter Cetera's high pitched squeal of a singing voice.

Yeah, there is a reason I called Peter Cetera a Pop Princess in my last review, and it isn't even that it's high pitched, it's that it's bland. The Bee Gees sound manlier than Peter Cetera, and they were known for their voices.

This is a dull song that is a product of its times in the worst ways. Just like how "Eve of Destruction" is a product of the 60s and how "Eye of the Tiger" is a product of the 80s, this song is such a product of the 70s although where as both "Eve of Destruction" and "Eye of the Tiger" are awesome songs, this belongs on the list of Auditory Abominations. It's like if you mixed a Bee Gees song with a 50s Doo-wop song.

But which song is worst, this or "Call Me Maybe"? Well, to me it is like comparing Apples to Freight Trains, there are entirely different things, but really it depends what you think is worse, a song that is obnoxious and repetitive, or a song that is boring and represents all the worst music of that respective decade, I think "Call Me Maybe" is worse because I can't even sit through a minute and a half of it, but I think a boring song is always worse, because a boring song has no reason to exist.

I'm the Entity of Darkness, and I'm done.