One critic’s view: “The age gap is bad enough, but making it the entire focus of the song is just disgusting.” – Matthew Trzcinski @ Showbiz CheatSheet, “Why Ringo Starr’s ‘You’re Sixteen’ Is a Complete Failure”
The public’s view: 2.80 / 5.00, in the bottom 25% of #1 hits from 1974
It’s hard to find any positive retrospective critical reviews of “You’re Sixteen”. The best anyone says about it is that the record is perfectly round and doesn’t have any jagged edges that might injure listeners or damage stereo equipment. Everything else is condemned: the singing, the musical arrangement, and the lyrics. As such, “You’re Sixteen” ranks highly on many lists of the worst number #1 hits of all time.
Let’s consider each of the complaints in turn, starting with the singing. It has long been alleged that Ringo Starr has a limited range as a singer, or even that he simply “cannot sing.” However, he had not just one, but two #1 hits as a lead singer. Paula Abdul has had six #1 hits yet there are still those who claim that she can’t sing. At what point do you accept that success is more than just luck? No one ever says, “Phil Mickelson has won six major golf tournaments, but he can’t golf.” With this in mind, I’ve decided to hold off on any substantial criticism of Ringo’s performance until I’ve had a couple of chart-toppers of my own. Check back with me in a year or two.
Then again, “You’re Sixteen” is a tune that a below-average karaoke singer could handle with ease. It doesn’t demand superb lead vocals, so maybe it wasn’t just the powerful waves of sound emanating from Ringo’s larynx that sent this song to #1. Maybe it was Paul McCartney’s contribution to the track, which consists of a kazoo-like noise that may or may not have been made with an actual kazoo. This wasn’t exactly the type of Beatles reunion that critics were yearning for, however, and it gives them a second reason to hate the record.
Of course, the biggest gripe with “You’re Sixteen” is that nobody wants to hear a 33-year-old man reveling in his illicit relationship with a 16-year-old girl. However, Paul’s silly kazoo and Ringo’s Ringo-like vocals give the whole thing an air of levity that makes the lyrics almost acceptable. It sounds like a group of musician friends got together, drank some beers, and goofed around in the studio for a few minutes without realizing that someone had hit the “Record” button. They chose “You’re Sixteen”, a song whose original version came out in 1960, because it’s the only one that all of them were able to perform in their inebriated state without rehearsing. See, no one was really serious about any of this! So please don’t put Ringo on a registry or ban him from going within 1,000 feet of a park.
The various faults of “You’re Sixteen” help to cancel each other out. It may not be among the best #1 songs of all time, but in my view it isn’t among the very worst either. Some have deemed 1974 the most horrific year ever for pop music in both the U.S. and the U.K., and in that context “You’re Sixteen” seems almost like a genuine achievement.
No comments:
Post a Comment