Total time: 50:54, 19 songs
Recorded October, November 1996
The Blue Lights are a young college a cappella group with a lot of drive
to do well. They are smart in their choices of songs, because their a
cappella ability on the grander scale of college a cappella falls under the
"needs improvement" category. They stick to a very simple structure for
arrangements for most of their songs (bass line, percussion, soloist, chord)
which will get better with time. The group has a lot of tuning problems
which could be fixed with more attention to dynamics, instead of simply
letting everyone sing their part how they feel it sounds. The group needs
to learn how to blend, because right now everyone sings very independently.
But, for a young group, I praise them for already having a first album done
and completed, and I hope they continue these efforts. As far as whether or
not to get this album, I would wait until their next one comes out.
Rating: 3 (3.3)
A four-year old group that cuts its first CD...what can I say? Needs work
guys. Four years along and it seems like holding pitch is a major problem.
I know the problem can't be time arranging, as half of the tracks are
bought outside of the group, and one more was an improvisation. There were
hints of possible greatness, but on the whole, it just seem to be
ill-fated. The results didn't show the effort that was hopefully put into
the CD which suggests to me the need to go back and work on the basics:
crawl before you walk, walk before you run. I can't recommend this CD to
anyone outside of close family and friends of the group.
Rating: 3 (4.0)
I don't attribute this album's problems so much to poor song execution than
to poor song choices. There are some things this group does VERY WELL...the
glee stuff was very good, as was "Flowers"...any time they ventured into
rock, though, the background had no verve, no groove, and nothing that would
make me wanna shake my ass. Stiff. That's the word that
comes to mind when I hear this. This group is one of the better glee clubs
in America out there... good tuning, nice dynamic contrast, some very strong
musicality. But it's only on certain songs...glee club standards, show
tunes...that this comes through on. On that basis, I give the album a thumb
up and a thumb middle...there's enough good stuff to make it a decent
listen, but you will need to use your skip button.
Rating: 6 (6.4)
I admire the Blue Lights for starting a new group and choosing to go old school. Not that I don't like the vocal percussion/modern repertoire style that dominates collegiate scene, but a little variety is nice. Especially since all-male groups are having trouble keeping up with the smooth blend that is helping the coed groups steal the genre.
The Blue Lights are basically a bunch of baritones who got together a few years ago and started singing. They have some resonant low guys who can sing in unison together and put together a nice bassline, and the rest of the group fills in on top. You're not going to hear any fancy arrangements here, but the ones that work use their simplicity to advantage. The ones that don't work — and they're there, with one superstinker — show that the Blue Lights made the right choice in leaving the harder stuff for the next album, once they establish some voices and some musical continuity.
I also want to applaud these guys for trying some original music. There's a cute number based on Shel Silverstein poems toward the end. Also, they go off on a full-group percussion jam. Whether or not it gets recorded, improv like that is fabulous for gaining facility in a cappella in so many ways — I hope they don't lose that spirit.
This album made me want to like the Blue Lights as a group, even
if I didn't like the execution of a lot of their music. I think they're
gonna come along.
Rating: 4 (4.8)
this is very obviously the first album from a very young group. it
doesn't look like a professional album, it doesn't sound like a
professional recording, it's basically VERY collegiate. almost high
school, it's so college. let's start with the recording itself: it
sounds like the group all stood in a room and sang through their entire
repertoire with tape rolling. they then threw on the crappiest
sounding gated reverb (read: wrong; gated reverb is for drums and other
specific things, not to be used as a general sweetener to make bad shit
sound good) they could find, set some basic levels, and laid down the
whole thing to dat, sent it off the next day without mastering and had
the album in their eager hands by the next week. the engineering is
terrible, with pops everywhere, no compression of things that needed
compression, no effects on things that needed them and too much on things
that didn't. the mixing is wrong, with soloists and other voice parts
just out of the mix all over the place. it's just totally amateur.
that aside, the performance itself is the responsibility of the group:
i can understand if they were naive when it comes to studio recording,
but you gotta get your arrangements to sound halfway decent before you
head into the studio. WORK ON YOUR PITCH! WORK WITH YOUR SOLOISTS!
GIVE YOURSELVES A CHANCE! AAAAAGGGGH! there's too much time in the
world, there's too much talent, there's too many people eager to be
better for groups like the blue lights to go into the studio unprepared
and record an album that's just not good at all.
Rating: 2 (2.3)
This is the first time I've ever heard an a cappella group use a kazoo
during a song. Maybe it's cheating since a kazoo is really an instrument.
This song is a very simple arrangement. It's a walking bass line that
repeats, a soloist, and everyone else fills in the chords on the same
rhythms and words: something like "oooh-ah-angel eyes" for example. The
chords need some tuning. The one element that really doesn't fit at all is
the techno-like beat that the percussionist is doing. It sounds like it was
taken right off of a "Dance Mix USA" CD. There's not much that you can say
about this song.
The CD starts off with his doo-wop tune that builds in a way reminiscent
of "Come Go With Me". The falsetto on this just doesn't seem comfortable
though. I did like the soloist, Jared Fine, though his arrangement seemed
a bit staid. An OK start to the album though.
Good bass section in this one...and the tuning overall is solid. This is a
fun little doo-wop tune. The kazoo solo had the potential to be really
funny...it ended up being cute. The soloist was solid as well, although he
strained a lot in the high falsetto stuff. My main complaint was the reason
I use "solid" so much in this review....the groove was solid....and
stiff....like an oak
tree. Some relaxation would have been good here....Overall, though, this
Lovely solo, with great falsetto tuning. This is a great opening track and
probably the best cut on the album. Tuning is pretty good, arrangement is
simple, basses manage their unison bits pretty well. Nice job, kazoo solo
bad pitch, kinda lazy on the falsetto in the solo line. the
arrangement is nice & bouncy in its simplicity, easy listening doowop
stuff. not covering any new ground with this one. there's also a
bunch of popping on the microphones throughout the tune. basses have
problems with the low stuff.
I've never heard this done a cappella! (insert sarcasm here) Not only is
this arrangement exactly like the classic arrangement, but there are some
chords (more than others) where notes are just missing. The soloist goes
out of tune and cuts off the ends of his notes throughout the song. They
should have done something with this and made a more creative arrangement,
but this arrangement itself needed work.
This track, overdone as it is, was unique in that it was one of the more
off-pitch tracks I've heard. Even the studio tweaking couldn't hide the
rough tuning that I heard throughout the song. The solo felt like it was
being sung from the lyric sheet rather than from the heart. It felt more
like a high-school interpretation of the song.
I have an unwritten law concerning a cappella cover songs....you either have
to do it as well as the original or do enough different things from the
original to make it cool in order to do the song justice. The tuning is VERY
good here...except for a couple very noticeable spots... and there is more of
a relaxed groove here than in "Angel Eyes". The soloist is also very
pleasant to listen to....therefore, if this was the first time I ever heard
the song, this would be very credible. However, the memory of Billy Joel's
own version cheapens their effort here, cause it's not up to that
par...especially close to the end where they let tuning suffer.
This one's also pretty nice. Opening and ending bits are hesitant and
under pitch, but the verses work pretty well. Tenors seem rather
uncomfortable with their falsetto lines, which takes away from the piece.
Indeed, they took a lot of the accents right out of the arrangements. But
better not to have them than to blow 'em. I think their decision to
simplify throughout was right for them.
i'm not sure why they opted for all the reverb on this tune. it's
originally done practically a cappella, which makes me wonder why they
didn't use similar effects to the billy joel version. really bad pitch
throughout the backgrounds, just lazy. basses are curiously left out
of the mix. solo is really wussy and off pitch all over the place,
gets bored and tired, as does the rest of the group. pitch drifts
almost one and a half steps by the end. help!
The intro is a mess, and I couldn't even figure out the notes they were
supposed to be singing. The dynamics are too "schmoozy" (is that really a
word?). Instead of saying all of the things that I don't like about this
song, I'll give suggestions. The group really needs to move away from
everyone doing the same rhythm. It gets tedious. The director should allow
the important parts to come out instead of letting everyone sing as if their
part were the most important. If people didn't give so much weight to
notes, they wouldn't pull the song an entire step out of tune.
Opening pitch just seems off, possibly even worse than the previous track.
There are times where the Blue Lights show flashes of harmonies, blend, and
dynamics. But the continued use of echo doesn't hide the continuing
breakdown in tuning.
Decently tuned, some good stylistic use. It's got a very strong "glee club"
feel, which if this is what you're going for, this delivers in spades. It's
emphatically not like the original... it comes off more as a broadway tune
here. But it works...and IMHO, it works pretty well.
Tuning goes away here. Gets better once the verses kick in, but this
glee-clubby arrangement doesn't work for me. Neither do the random globs
of reverb that subsume the ends of many of the phrases.
this performance is incredibly weak, pitch is insane, all over the
place. there's a really weird gated reverb on the whole thing, which
gives the effect of sounding like the group's in a church and then
suddenly a tiny room within one bar. bad engineering, bad mixing, bad
listening. the pitch is just terrible on this track, i can't quite
explain. again, the group drops more than a half step on this track.
the arrangement is not exciting.
The basses' "dum dum" that everyone else manages to sing sounds like a
bunch of 12 year olds taking a stroll to a candy store. (Sorry about the
terrible analogy, but it just sounds young and unpolished.) The soloist
definitely has a unique quality to his voice, and he does put an effort into
expressing the words clearly. This is a much better arrangement, but the
same syllables return, and each verse is exactly the same.
Were it not for the fact that I had to listen to this song, I would've fast
forwarded after the opening phrase; it was jumbled, clumsy even. I will
say that despite an uninspired arrangement, the soloist at least put some
effort into it. It did feel like someone stuck a double bar and filled the
same chordal progression with four verses.
The soloist NAILS the original concepts....very well done on the solo. The
background suffers from a stiffness and clunkiness that is very distracting
to the original song. This could have used more oomph, IMHO. And the
harmonies are almost there, but not quite.
Not half bad if you're in the mood for it. Opens a little tentatively
again, but it's pretty and evokes a mood you can deal with, so I was able
to think past the pitchiness. Solo is a good imitation of The Band and for
the most part you can enjoy it in that mood. Of course, I think Aretha
Franklin did what should be the definitive version of this song. But
that's just me.
a decent arrangement, but the group again has major pitch problems.
the percussion is fine, but doesn't exactly make me feel like we're
really rockin'. it's not like the pitch problems are easily glossed
over by being hidden in one of the inner background parts, but rather
they're quite glaring in the solo and its direct harmonies, in addition
to every part in the arrangement. the soloist himself has a good sound
for this tune, but it's hard to pay attention with such a pitchy
background. (again, dropped almost a whole step by the end.)
Much better arrangement. There are, of course, repetitive
"shoop-shoo-wahs" throughout the song, but a "holy moly" sneaks its way into
the arrangement. The parts don't blend, and the chords don't settle. The
best part of the song is where the soloist is singing and everyone else
claps. One of the soloists almost 'spoke-sang' and had no phrasing whatsoever.
Why was it necessary to split the solo amongst five different people, of
which the quality of at least one if not more were questionable? The echo
effect is back which is not a good sign. You start to feel as if you are
either in a fishbowl or a karaoke studio. I thought for a moment that the
arrangement started to show promise, then I read the liner notes, and
noticed it wasn't arranged by anyone in the group. It needs to be
reworked, reedited, remixed...just redone.
Ugh. They trade off solos between five people....which is about four more
people than should have been. The first guy did a good job with it, and
could have very easily made the song more pleasurable....but what was with
the other four guys? NONE of them had the necessary sound or feel to make
the song work. The song itself was decent...nothing groundbreaking,
nothing horrific...but I get the feeling this was the "lets give everyone
else something to sing" solo, and that's fine for a hometown crowd...but if
individually you haven't gotten to a level yet where you can make a solo work
on a recording, don't record it if you want to market it past family and
Say you're a group recording this song. Wouldn't you make sure the opening
chords were in tune before you went any further? Yeah, me too, but that
didn't stop the Blue Lights. Things go pretty well with our soloists, but
I couldn't get over the bass cameos. I bet it was hilarious live, because
he sounds so schmaltzy on his "zoom zoom zoom"s that either he was playing
it for all it was worth or else deadpanning enough to get the crowd
i hate it when soloists change the melody of good songs. soloists
switch around on this one, some of 'em are ok, most are really not
happenin' and certainly not rocking. when the basses attempt the
walking bass lines that are a central feature of this song, they're all
over the places. again, there's this reverb thing happening again,
it's just BAD. it's stupid. it doesn't make the group sound any
better. i do like the creative syllables in the backups. but these
guys are no queen. maybe ween.
For those of you who know this song, you can't imagine it a cappella, can
you? Don't try. The arrangement was basically the piano transcription put
into voice parts. People sang notes all over the place that were definitely
out of their range (someone actually just forced out a high Bb- didn't
matter that it was out of tune) and chords are rushed. There are still no
phrases, except for when the soloist sings "Gotta find my corner of the sky"
I heard a smooth crescendo with the soloist and accompaniment.
The first track on this album that hadn't been done to death by other
groups. The soloist seems out of his depth, or should I say his height, as
he strains on the early high notes. The tuning is a little better and the
soloist does help to drive this song, but it just isn't a great track.
Voice crack early on...why wasn't a retake made of that? From there, it
sounds pleasant enough, soloist is a good broadway style soloist. (He needs to
watch his scooping of notes, though.) Background is actually pretty
good...but again, they almost lose it towards the end. VERY frustrating to
listen to. Overall, though, one of the best songs on the album.
This is one of those songs I've always liked for no particular reason. So
I smiled and enjoyed it, and didn't pay too much attention to the pitch
problems. Think vintage men's a cappella, where the pleasant group sound
wins out over flashy tuning.
this is from pippin. having heard tracks one through five and noticed
that this group has some trouble with the rockers, i'd've expected a
little more from this, but again, the same fundamental pitch problems
persist, and the soloist is not one of those powerful broadway guys
i'd've thought maybe the blue lights had. oh no. god. the pitch
problems are just insane. these guys need to, uh, rehearse. this is
another thomas holcombe arrangement, of which there are many on this
album. the guy likes his doos. i don't.
This is a really great spiritual song, and because of the Blue Lights
style of repetitive, simple arrangements, it works very well for them. The
soloists definitely add tone and color to the song, but the same fundamental
problems exist that are heard in other songs. (I won't repeat myself.)
The soloist at the opening makes it seem worth listening as he puts some
soul into the spiritual. Then it reaches for mediocrity after that. The
claps start to deteriorate in synchronization which didn't help. The usual
little tuning problems creep in, but are tempered by the effort they make
toward the end of the track.
Glee club spiritual. Pleasant, well voiced. Not much else to say.
Track opens with a beautiful solo, sans background, then drops off when
the group comes in. This is glee club gospel, and generally well done
except for this energy thing. The soloist has so much punch, and the
ensemble is softer, the melody gets tougher to pick out and it just
dribbles away. Shows a number of lovely moments from our soloist, and the
basses, who have much of the melody.
there's that reverb again. here's another weird mix; when the group
comes in after the soloist does a little thing at the beginning, their
volume as a group is lower than the single soloist. why? i don't
know. pitch seems to be ok on this one somehow. ooh, well, not all
the time. this one has much more energy than the rest for some reason.
i do, however, have a problem with a bunch of superwhite dudes singing
a plantation work song. WHOA! the end is really abrupt, the reverb
disappears immediately, it's just weird. aaaaaaggh.
Out of tune chords break apart the structure of this song. There's a
couple of claps and snaps thrown in for percussion, and they should've given
more percussion to the basses instead. It wouldn't have sounded as
unpolished and "thrown together."
Again, the soloist starts in alone at the opening. Soon after the rest of
the group joins in and the dischord starts. Even when the whole group is
singing unison, it seems like they're singing off the page, rather robotic.
See #7....except it's not a spiritual. Cute song...
Tentatively sung, with iffy tuning to match. They keep it very short, use
a very simple, glee-club arrangement with little solo work, little oomph.
Basses keep the song from sinking to the bottom of the Caribbean.
belafonte. such a good song. such bad pitch. holcombe's arrangement
combined with the blue lights lackluster performance takes all the wind
out of this spunky tune's sails.
A solid percussion line gives this song a great start. The chords that
are sung all in the same rhythm pull the pitch down. The soloist can't
reach all of the notes. Parts still don't blend. But, when the chorus of
this memorable 80s tune comes in, the group solidifies and does what they do
best: sing together on the same words and rhythms.
It seems to start OK, but the soloist just doesn't seem to be up for it,
especially when he reaches for the top notes. On top of that his voice
seems a little weak for the solo. The rest of the group doesn't seem to
support him at all as well, sleepwalking through the arrangement. This
track just seemed to continue a cringe trend.
TOO STIFF!!!!! Everything is so clipped and forced. The soloist is good on
this song (a very difficult solo to sing by yourself...take it from one who's
tried) and brings out a lot of the emotion behind the song. The background,
unfortunately does not work, and none of the
people tune the harmony to the level that it needs to be at.
Where is the cutting room floor when you need it? There are times when a
track shouldn't make the album for any reason, and this song is why. I
wish it had some redeeming quality so I could give it a two, but the
background seems trying hard to be as out of tune as the soloist, who
takes the phrase to new heights, and who should under no circumstances
ever try to sing a tenor or falsetto solo again.
bad percussion opens this one, and the requisite terrible pitch is a
constant. i really dislike the soloist, not because of his tone, but
because of his total inaccuracy. also, these dudes are in dire need of
a compressor, although i'm sure their engineer had no clue what one was
when they recorded this thing. the group is just weak on this one.
The soloist and accompaniment actually sounds like they are in two
different keys at one point. I wonder if they all recorded at the same
time. Another thing not yet mentioned is that the recording quality is poor
and sounds brassy, but this song has the best recorded quality to it.
The blend was definitely off, since I couldn't hear the progression in the
basses that kept the track moving in the beginning. Between the snail's
pace tempo and the lack of any dynamic change, I fought off the desire to
go to sleep with heavy doses of coffee and the occasional "Jolt" cola. The
bridge just made it that much worse.
Two Beatles songs on the same album? *shrug* Very sedate version of the
song...tuning is OK, style is OK. Solo and harmonies are in tune and are
somewhat felt. Pleasant to listen to.
Oh boy, a whiny Beatles song. It doesn't sound too terrible, but I'm just
not gonna get excited. (That applies to the Beatles, too.)
i'm not sure why these guys got the majority of their arrangements from
outside sources, since the stuff they do is just as good if not better.
that aside, this performance has little more to offer than any of the
other tracks. oh, and one thing that's kinda weird: where the beatles
have a guitar solo, these guys just have a bare arrangement with no
lead of any sort, no musically interesting thing that happens. this is
a problem, as is the harmony that comes in after this section.
terrible last chord.
This sounds like something they did on the spot. It's a percussion
improv with everyone doing their own thing. Almost like a "theater"
game, if anyone out there knows what that is. But it definitely
displays their creativity that they have; they're just not developed
enough as a group to display this on their other songs.
A percussion improvisation that started off interesting, then just turned
into a mishmash of vocal percussion and sounds that just became annoying.
I'm glad they had fun in the studio, it didn't translate into listening
Improv percussion jam — y'all go guys. This is a start-up, old school
group, that uses vocal percussion on maybe three songs, so going for a
full-group blast takes guts. They don't do anything original, the rhythms
are very simple, but I appreciate their guts. Certainly they keep it
tasteful and don't try to be anything other than themselves. The bass "I
like to move it" riff went over well with me — it's a lot like the Five
Live techno version of that song.
an attempt at a hip hop percussion jam which features white people
making fun of black people. i found this not amusing and badly
This song was done by another group. It had to be. The reason I say
this is that it sounds nothing like the rest of their songs. The parts
blend, the soloist (and duet) create phrases within the music, and the
percussion is subtle in the background. Creative "bing bings" are heard,
and even a horse whinny sneaks in. It's still not polished, but a terrific
This was by far the most interesting track on the CD — mainly because this
seemed like they actually spent a lot of time working on the problems that
plagued the other tracks, namely blend and tuning. The arrangement, taken
from a Statler Brothers tune, even turns it into a faux-chant type song.
It's not Beelzebub material, but it sure as heck beats anything else on
Ballsy song choice for a college campus.....but this is actually one of their
best songs! Good background, good harmonies...I actually hear the original
quartet in this!!! VERY good execution.
I rather like this — a li'l country number from old time group the Statler
Bros. It's a funny little song, it moves along well, and does fine with
the available tuning. (For those of you trying to picture the song, it's a
less cliched way of getting to the same musical mood as the Everly
Brothers' "Wake Up Little Susie".)
country music. maybe this will save them... maybe not. decent pitch
on this one (relatively speaking). i do like the motet-esque
breakdown. nice solo.
The background is the same (walking bass line and everyone else singing
the same patterns, just on different notes). They stay in tune much more
than other songs, but that is something that shouldn't be credited. It
should be expected, for the most part, in a recording. The duet sounds
great, but there isn't much to do with the simple arrangement of the song.
Lightning apparently does strike twice, as the Blue Lights show that can
put effort into more than one track with this tune. Not necessarily a tune
I'd race to put on the CD player, it isn't one that I'd shut off in the
middle of the track either. I would've liked to have heard this track
without the echo effect put on it, as it seemed most of the fundamentals
were handled pretty well. Instead, it comes off a bit choral.
Pet Peeve: Groups that don't research the proper lyrics. It's pronounced
pa-pa-kay-tay, not pa-pa-hey-tay. And the techno treatment is a form of
bringing something different to the song that just does not work. They
treat the song very irreverently, and it doesn't work here. In addition,
everything is too clipped and choppy for a song that flows in this manner.
A bit fast, but nothing too egregious. The percussion on the chorus seems
a little misplaced, but it and the faster tempo do keep the bridge from
sinking to the poor tuning. And the last verses go pretty well. This is a
nice song that people want to like, and I think their rendition fits right
in with that.
whaddya know! doo! bad pitch! silly percussion! badly recorded
solo! weird gated reverb! all right already.
The song was out of the soloists range, and he sounded nervous. The
style of the song is characteristic of the group. Clever song to choose,
but when the "believe it or not hai'm (instead of I'm)" gets thrown away
with pitch, it displays that the song wasn't a good choice for their vocal
First off, I didn't like the arrangement, and it wasn't even done by anyone
in the group. On top of that, it was quite narrowly performed, as there
was no flair. I'm looking for hope, for dreams to be reached, for the
Olympic Flame to be lit...instead I felt like someone doused the flame.
Add to that a solo that should have been done by someone else in the group
as it wasn't convincing at all. Again, it should've been taken off the
album or at least reworked.
This is also one of the better songs on the album. The soloist needs to use
his air more in order to not sound like a soloist in eighth-grade choir, but
the background is solid, and the choppy vocal style of the group works here.
There's a certain cute earnestness about this one, kind of like the
muppets. They were always more about feeling than musicality, and this
wistful version is in the same vein.
terrible rhythm. just terrible. really weak soloist. really bad
pitch. some chords are just incorrect. nothing bothers me more than
This very choral piece is very out of tune. I don't know why they didn't
use the whole group, because obviously the smaller numbers hurt them. This,
being much like a madrigal, doesn't fit on their CD because all the group
really does is sing chords in the same rhythm, so this song just reinforces
An attempt at classical music that should've joined the previous track in
the practice room. Four members attempt a track as a classical quartet,
that really shouldn't have. The tuning, the lack of note support, must've
been painful to record. I know it was painful to listen to...MEDIC!!
Another glee club song. Another strong, credible performance.
Classic glee-club song, and these guys just aren't there. I know they like
doing the old-style material, but this is a little too ambitious for their
musicality. It's a pretty song, and nowhere close to being in tune.
some glee club thing. terrible pitch. quartet. yipparoo.
They wrote this, and it's clever, original, and witty. It's really cute
if you know lyrics from Shel Silverstein, because that's what they did.
They took words from some of his poetry and set it to music. For example,
"Hickle me pickle me tickle me too" becomes a sad song about what happened
to the character who never returned. I think that if they polished the
unsettled chords, this song would be great.
I have to give credit to the birth of a dream here, or at least the fact
that they tried original music on their first CD. Using the poems of Shel
Silverstein, the Blue Lights try to present a musical interpretation of
what I remember fondly as childhood happiness. I just didn't realize my
childhood was quite that long. It really could have stood to be a few
minutes shorter. The transitions were abrupt and the whole feeling was
rather melancholy. The track also fell prey to the trappings found in most
of the other songs: pitch and weak solos.
A setting of Shel Silverstein lyrics backed with original music. VERY nicely
done...I could hear this done by glee clubs across America. Good solid
harmonies, good flow, good tuning. All around a solid performance.
Original music — cool! And this is actually sort of cute and engaging. As
usual, the bass has some energy, the background has coherence problems and
iffy tuning. Also, the solo put a little more rasp in it than I would have
chosen. But I still think this is pretty neat. (And yes, I do like Shel
Silverstein poems, whence come the lyrics.)
this is an original thing. they took shel siverstein's words and did
a little medley for which one of the members wrote the music.
unfortunately the pitch is terrible, as usual. points for
(see comments for "The Longest Time")
Despite the fact that this is such an overdone song, I forgave them that,
because it actually was accomplished with a minimum of errors. Nothing
special, but don't kick this one to the curb.
Too stiff. Soloist is OK, but there's virtually no swing here. Very
distracting to the rest of the piece
This is another one of those songs people want to like, and the Blue
Lights do not disappoint. Pleasant solo, some energy and decent tuning
(except for one short bit, right after a nice breakdown by the bass and
percussion). I'm not sure why they felt the need to change the sha-la-la
rhythm, but aside from being a bit distracting, solo handles the ending
of course. fine. soloist is pretty much on it. the arrangement, or
the group, or both, destroy the chorus of "la la la la la la la la la
ti da" stuff rhythmically by putting shit on the downbeats instead of
the ups. oh well.
They chose to end on this song because of the title and the words, and it's
like any college choosing a traditional college song. I can't believe that
they snapped during the song and someone pounded on their chest right after
the lyrics "lay your head down upon your savior's breast." The group did
steer away from all singing in the same rhythm, so they end the album with a
"light" at the end of the tunnel.
Ably sung, not much more than that. It just seemed to come as too little,
too late. It also seemed too long as it was one verse repeated at a faster
speed the second time around with a couple of minor flourishes.
Solid harmony in the beginning....goes into serviceable doo wop in the middle.
Cute way to end the album, although I MUCH preferred the slow harmony part
in the beginning....
This is a pretty ending tune. Slow, but a little upbeat, pleasant and
cute. Feels like it should have glee-club words, not gospel ones, but
thats okay. It's a nice ending song anyway.
a grateful dead tune, very nice little ending to the album.
Competent whistling, with an in-character (for the Blue Lights) voice
over. I didn't mind it, and it comes through okay on the cute-or-cloying
test. Nice job, guys. You made it, and the next album will be even better.
To have your album (2 or more tracks) reviewed by RARB, please email us with your name, group name and album title. You will receive a response with information on how to register your album in our system.
To have your digital single reviewed by RARB, please fill out our online singles registration form.×