Billboard's Best 500 Pop Songs of All Time

I loved this list.  At its essence, this was no less than a concerted effort to assemble an entirely new canon of top songs, moving entirely away from album-oriented song selection and focusing solely on songs that made their impact on the Hot 100.  Years ago, I wrote about the Pitchfork 500 and noted that it was really a best albums list in disguise.  For the most part, they chose a favourite or representative track (or two) from each of their canonically accepted albums.  This problem has plagued far too many "best songs" lists over the past few decades.  They also limited the number of songs by any lead artist to three, ensuring greater variability in their selections and reducing the predictability.  The Beatles appear just once in the Top 100, as does Madonna.  Mariah Carey appears twice, as does Michael Jackson (once as a solo artist, once as part of the Jackson Five).  Those are the acts are 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th in all-time #1 hits, with 64 #1's between them.  They get just five spots in the all-time Top 100.  That's some rich variety.  The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin (who were never a singles band), and countless other huge rock acts don't appear in the top 100 at all.  

Unfortunately, they couldn't quite stick the landing.  Crowning Whitney Houston's "I Wanna Dance With Somebody" as the #1 pop song felt forced, an attempt to rebrand a good song into an all-time great.  The 80's were full of joyous dance pop, and many did it as good or better than Whitney.  "I Will Always Love You" appeared at #60, in its time it was completely inescapable and went on to be her most influential song, inspiring countless aspiring divas and reality show contestants.  Half of the songs in the top 20 would have been better choices for #1.  In my opinion "Dancing Queen", "My Girl", "Be My Baby", "Baby One More Time", "Hey Ya", "Crazy In Love", "Dreams", "Fantasy", "I Want To Hold Your Hand", "Billie Jean" and "Like a Prayer" all could have been justifiable, worthy #1's.  Personally, out of that group, I would have went with "Billie Jean" or "Dancing Queen".  

U2 in the "Sphere", Las Vegas

The advance hype surrounding their 1997 "Popmart" tour promoted it as an audiovisual spectacle that had never before been seen.  It would be bigger and more audacious that their already audaciously big "Zooropa" tour.  The giant, gleaming yellow arch (a half-McDonalds logo that represented a critique of bloated consumerism or a brilliant piece of cross-promotion, or both, who really knows) would be hauled from town to town and had to be seen to be believed.  Oddly enough, this was the only time I ever saw U2 in concert.  These days, even their fans see the tour as classic overreach, a creative speed bump on the way to getting back to basics with "All That You Can't Leave Behind" in 2000, and re-connecting with their fans in a more direct way without the Mephisto-like avatars and technological gadgetry.

The U2 of 2023 probably wishes that the Sphere in Las Vegas had been around in the 90's.  Instead of constructing those gaudy sets, they could have simply projected them onto all-immersive, super-IMAX-like LED board.  Finally, their wildest ambitions can be straightforwardly turned in to (virtual) reality.  The city of Las Vegas is betting a couple of billion dollars that this experience is the future of concert-going.

The video clips look absolutely spectacular.  The problem is that U2 almost feel like an afterthought at their own concert.  People flocked to see Laser Floyd because of the lasers, not because of the Floyd.  The attraction wasn't in seeing a band, it was the bombardment of the senses while the music played in the background.  Does any of that matter to U2?  No doubt they're making enough money to make it well worth their while not to care.   

Prom 62, Aurora Orchestra cond. by Nicolas Collon, "The Rite By Heart"

I have been meaning to write about this performance for a while.  For me, this was the most noteworthy and unique concert at the Proms.   Certainly there is an aspect of gimmickry here.  If the whole drawing card of a concert (classical, pop, or any genre) is to hear the music played live to the highest standards possible, then what's the point of playing by heart?  Is there really an orchestra in the world that could play this music better by heart than they could by looking at the sheet music?  Does playing by heart inevitably downgrade the quality of the music in tangible and wholly avoidable ways?  Yes, concertos are played by soloists by heart, because it makes for a stronger performance -- with nothing to obscure the view of the musician from concertgoers, the soloist can move more freely and project a more emotional connection with the music to the audience.  But the orchestra and conductor's job is to provide the accompaniment.  The soloist sets the tone and the pace, the orchestra follows along and rely on their sheet music and the instructions of the conductor in order to do it.  But in these performances by the Aurora Orchestra, everyone on stage is playing by heart, it's truly a remarkable visual sight.  How was the music?  

The piece starts out punchy and energetic at the start.  There's no question that they are impeccably rehearsed.  The intra-communication necessary to pull this off is "aided" by having smaller forces on stage, I think this task would be nearly impossible with a large orchestra.  I find that the excitement tails off by the end of the work.  As the time signatures get more diabolical toward the finish, every musician must be counting furiously to keep things together, and as a result, their playing gets stiffer and more mechanical.  The magic in the conclusion to Rite of Spring is to construct a furious, swirling, disorienting chaos upon the audience, without the orchestra falling victim to it themselves.  The safe choice is take it slow and risk losing the excitement.  So the Aurora Orchestra doesn't quite get there.  But make no mistake, Prom 62 was a brilliant piece of performance art and an exemplary achievement viewed through that lens.