Yes, the Fab Four are the odd ones out here. They are the only act listed who people might have guessed would have replaced themselves at number one on Canada's charts. If someone asked you who the other two might have been in the cumulative eight years of CHUM and RPM listings, I'm sure most would guess Elvis Presley. He did have back-to-back chart toppers in the US during Billboard's pre-Hot 100 era so it wouldn't have been totally unexpected for him to have pulled off something similar up north. As for the other? The Everly Brothers? The Supremes? I don't know, Elvis and The Beatles are the only people who had any business achieving such a feat.
Nevertheless, in the early part of October of 1965, Sonny Bono replaced himself at the top of the RPM Top 40 - and he did so in the unique position of being a solo artist on one and in a group on the other. Sonny and Cher would blur the lines between their work together and what they did on their own (with solo and group releases appearing on albums together) and "Baby Don't Go" is sort of an example of this. While I have no doubt that his nibs appears on it, there's little trace of his voice. Perhaps it's "I Got You Babe" being their best-known and most popular song but it sort of feels like a Sonny and Cher number ought to involve the pair singing in tandem.
Still, considering what a modest singing voice Bono had, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Unfortunately, Cher does it no favours with a very average performance on her part. Sure, she was just eighteen at the time and it wasn't like she ever had the greatest voice — though oddly enough she's always had a powerful voice — but it she's not doing her part to carry a song then there's not much to be hopeful for.
Which leads us back to Sonny for the one saving grace - and that's only up to a point. "Baby Don't Go" has a rather nifty tune. Not startling or especially original but that piano shuffle really holds it together. With its steady pace and almost reggae-like rhythm guitar, it sounds like a ramshackle take on contemporary Motown. The harmonica doesn't add a whole lot (though it doesn't detract from it either) but the brief electric guitar parts give it an exotic, Mediterranean aura. Again, it's not exactly mind-blowing or anything but the music and composition hold up while the singing falls flat.
Along with pulling off a rare back-to-back number ones parlour trick, Sonny Bono also has the distinction of being tied with both The Beatles and Herman's Hermits for having the most chart toppers in Canada in 1965. He won't be coming up again in this space though he probably will be mentioned when his ex Cher gets dealt with on her own. (Spoiler altert: she'll be coming up several times though not to an obscene extent) I haven't spoken all that highly of him but I think I've been fair in according him grudging respect. Never much suited for the spotlight — though this never stopped him from pursuing it — Sonny did well behind the scenes. He was a capable songwriter and a much stronger producer than most give him credit for. Plus, he had the winning personality of someone who'd lucked their way through life and was grateful for it. His music isn't my kind of thing but props nonetheless.
Score: 4
~~~~~
C'Mon, Be a CHUM!
In a year in which Canadians opted against brilliant and groundbreaking singles by the likes of The Byrds, The Four Tops, The Rolling Stones and The Temptations, even The Beatles weren't immune from being dismissed. This week's CHUM hit parade was topped by the Fabs with the unlikely double of "Yesterday" and "Act Naturally". I say unlikely because there's no way The Beatles would've sanctioned their cover of the Buck Owens hit had they wanted Paul McCartney's famous love song to be released as a single. My money would've been on them putting a John Lennon number like "It's Only Love" on the flip to appease his ego. (Either that or he would've composed something fresh to compete with "Yesterday") Unreleased in the UK until 1976 (it peaked at number eight), there was enough interest in it in North America for it to be put out on its own in the autumn of '65. While it topped the Hot 100 for the better part of a month, it could do no better than number four up in Canada, which was tantamount to a flop. Like a lot of the more overplayed and overhyped Beatles' tracks, it can be easy to dismiss but it's hard to argue with. I don't think it really needed to be a single but I will certainly acknowledge that the Fabs' discography would be weaker without it. And it would've been a better number one than bloody "Baby Don't Go".
No comments:
Post a Comment