Alexander Burke - Cold Dead Eyes
The UK Christmas number one this year is likely to be a version of Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah sung by Alexander Burke – the pointless insult to proper musicians that has won this year’s x-factor. You can hear it by following this link.
I know it’s difficult, but I urge you to listen to the whole thing. Why? Because it’s a wonderful example of how one should not interpret a song.
Now, I will leave aside my personal opinion of the singer’s chosen singing style (no I won’t, I’ll put it in brackets and gleefully mention that I find gospel singing and the current crop of gospel inflected pop stars utterly and unspeakably vile. They use too much vibrato, they use too many notes and they sap all passion from music. Gospel singing should simply not be allowed) and instead point out how wide of the mark she is when it comes to expressing the song’s lyrics. Here’s the second verse:
Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you
To a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah
That’s indicative of the song in general. It mixes biblical and sexual references in a way that allowed Jeff Buckley to refer to his cover as a homage to ‘the hallelujah of the orgasm‘. The first and last verses from Cohen’s version also talk about songwriting itself.
I did my best, it wasn’t much
I couldn’t feel, so I tried to touch
I’ve told the truth, I didn’t come to fool you
And even though
It all went wrong
I’ll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah
It’s a fragile song, that speaks of the moving power of song and sex. It’s a secular hymn, and through its use of simple, hymn-like chords it evokes feelings of church music while having far more to say than any religious song could.
It is not a hopeful, anthemic joyful, singalong, feel-good christmas song. Hallelujah is fragile and personal, and hearing this wailing cookie-cutter nobody wobbling her way through it is offensive. So offensive, that I can write a list of the specific crimes this version commits:
- A pointless key change – The song is a simple strophic-with-refrain folk song with a melancholy mood. What is the point of a boy band key change? To create a mood of joy and energy. The key change in this is not appropriate.
- The interpretation of the line ‘it’s a cold and it’s a broken hallelujah’ - Cold? Broken? I know how I can express that! With a loud, full throated, elaborate, powerful crescendo. Nothing says cold and broken like a display of vocal power.
- Leaving out the final verse – in common with lots of versions, including the famous Buckley one. The final verse from the original Cohen version is one of the better ones. Why wouldn’t you include it?
- The vocal delivery – I’ve already said I hate this gospel influenced style. The occasional ad-lib can be acceptable, but just sticking in extra notes for the hell of it? All that says is, I want to show off and I don’t know how to hold a long note’. It’s amateurish and displays a lack of confidence in the song and the singer’s own abilities.
- The video – this song is not a celebration. The visuals are as innapropriate as the interpretation.
- The pointless pop starlet’s cold dead eyes – A characteristic of Simon Cowell’s multi-headed, music killing monster is the emptiness you see in its eyes. Take a look at that video again. Is there a soul behind those eyes? No, no there isn’t.
Do I think the Jeff Buckley version is a work of genius? No, although it is very good. Personally, I’d listen to this one instead, after all the only silver-lining here is that Cohen will be making a nice pile of cash out of this:
Think I’m wrong? Want to defend Gospel singing? Leave me a comment!
No related posts.
I think this horrible interpretation and video shows that there is a certain element of the music industry characterized by Simon Cowell and his myriad of TV talent shows, which will reduce ANY form of art into a mere commodity to be sold, and suck out it’s soul in the process. The use of both a brilliant song by Leonard Cohen and the vocal stylings of gospel music for this crass commercial release is indeed a shame. It is fairly safe to say that the Leonard Cohen song was motivated by more than the goal of commercial gain. The genre of Gospel music also has very valid motivations completely separate from any commercial considerations.
Furthermore, Gospel singing is one of the foundations of Rock and Roll. I’m not going to attempt to defend Gospel singing any more. I’ll let gospel singing speak for itself with the voice of Mahalia Jackson: http://mahaliajackson.us
http://www.mahaliajackson.us/tracks/Downbytheriverside.mp3
http://www.mahaliajackson.us/tracks/GoingtoLivetheLifeISing.mp3
Yeah, I realise I’m not going to be able to promote my dislike of gospel singing any higher than the level of ‘personal preference’.
But you’re right, there’s something soul-destroying about what Cowell does to music!
Mind you, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being motivated by commercial interests. My objection to this is more an artistic one. It just isn’t right to sing this song in this way. Even if you intend to make money, you could at least sing the song properly!
Up till about 2:07 (the first two verses) I didn’t find anything too distasteful about the interpretation. Obviously, it doesn’t carry the weight of the original or even several of the covers, but it isn’t all that bad either.
After that mark it seems to hit on commercialism. The build up is designed to feature the voice of the singer instead of the weight of the song. To a songwriter that is probably the biggest crime. It all comes down to who is the audience. I think that this song will get a lot of attention (deservedly so) from an audience that would have never given it any attention otherwise. Is that good or bad? I don’t know.
When reading your gospel comments I figured I’d hear a Mariah Carey or Whitney Houston send up, and this is relatively restrained in comparison. To me this is a pop cover of a great song. It could have been a whole lot worse. This is no-where near as awful as you made it out to be, although you do make a very good point. Too bad they didn’t just stop after 2:07.
What really bugs me actually isn’t big gospelly Whitney Careh stuff, it’s the little crimes. The idea that you’re allowed to sing seven notes when only one is needed, that’s what gets me. or putting huge amounts of vibrato on every single note, rather than as a special effect.
And of course you’re quite wrong, even the second verse is awful. She clearly has no idea what the words mean. Its like watching Leonardo Dicaprio in that film adaptation of Romeo and Juliet- saying words without any notion of what they mean. It’s cold and ugly is what it is.
Raaaaah!
… I may need to go and lie down in a quiet room somewhere.
Oh, dear. She has quite a voice and can sing powerfully. But I have to agree that she has no sense (neither does the arranger) of the song itself.
I do think that we can blame the arranger on this as I have to doubt that she had any role in that, yeah? If they did, it’s stop time. It’s generally bad to let singers mess with the creative process. They tend to screw it up.
The key change. I don’t understand. And the crescendo is antithetical. None of it makes sense. I don’t see how anybody, having read the lyrics and having heard Buckley’s incredible cover–which I do think is brilliant, personally–could interpret this song as big or powerful. The lyrics are about the breaking down of some individual. David the king falling for Bath-Sheba, killing her husband, screwing himself over. Samson falling for Delilah, letting him cut his hair, take away his strength. It’s about how love and sex are the death of us. Not how we are WOMEN! And we should UNITE! We are WORTH SOMETHING! Nothing like that.
The British should know better.
Oh I’m sure Burke had very little input – her only personal crime would be to have entered the TV talent show in the first place. We can blame whoever arranged it for how the song turned out.
You should hear what’s been done to the commercial end of music over here. It’s shameful – that insidious blandness is being replicated over and over again. Muzak rules the airwaves.
And yet there’s no rule anywhere that says music can’t be interesting and commercial. The two ideas needn’t be mutually exclusive, in fact its usually the original music that has the biggest commercial impact in the long run.
Why anyone would be happy with this is beyond me, except unfortunately it will sell a few copies.
Who really cares about analysing the song? The “general public” don’t. That includes my wife and two daughters who enjoy the song as-it-is without any reference to previous versions. I find it very pleasant to listen to, as a song, and it’s sung by quite an attractive lady. It’s selling in millions, so why are you “grumpy old men” tearing it to bits. In many “songs” the words are inaudible anyway, so the meaning and the feeling of the original words don’t really matter “that much”. As long as people enjoy it (and buy it) that’s all that really matters in the great realm of things.
Thanks for the comment Mike. You’re absolutely right, all that matters is whether you like it or not, and there’s no need to account for taste.
I wouldn’t accept that the general public like it. Singles don’t sell enough to these days to be a measure of the general taste (if they ever did). The best we can say is that the sort of people who watch the X Factor like it, and obviously I’m not one of those people.
I’ve given reasons for why I think its a bad rendition of a good song, and yes I’ve exaggerated my stance for rhetorical purposes. But all my reasons for disliking it could of course be someone else’s reasons for liking it. While you find it pleasant, I find it thoroughly unpleasant. It’s as if someone has taken all the things about music that annoy me and tried to stuff them into one song.
Can I ask what it is specifically you like about the song?
I enjoy watching the X factor for what it is…a piece of Saturday night entertainment. I know what the criticisms are and I think that enhances the viewing in some way. After all that is what the Producers want not the panelists. Why so much fuss about Simon Cowell not to mention Louis Walsh. It pretty obvious that Simon and Louis (at one point, Sharon Osbourne) are in it to promote their own organisations and I guess that much of the music industry has some interest in the X factor. It does provide a vehicle especially in the auditon stages for those audtionees (who do not get a chance to appear on TV) as a way to get one step into the music industry. The big grip that I have is the sound itself. Either there is something wrong with my tv, but I can hardly hear the singing sometimes. The other is the noise of the audience. Do they actually hear the panel’s comments?
As fo the song, Hallelujah. what exactly is it about and whose version is right. I enjoyed listening to the tune and the words ‘Hallelujah. It took me a while to realise (and my kids had to inform me) that it was sung in Shrek but in what context I don’t know. Is it a Gospel song? Because of the sound ‘problems’ it was difficult to hear the lyrics. That was until, I read the lyrics on the internet and some of the latter lyrics are somewhat disturbing depending on which version you listen to.
You’re all right. I hate the soul sapping Simon Cowell machine. This was a terrible choice for the X – Factor winner, and thanks to Cowell it has been used very inaproppriately. I have never thought that this was a suitable song for a woman to sing, even with the sexual innuendo left out. It’s song to be sung be a frail male voice. Blake didn’t do it justice either in their pop opera style. Leave this song a folk song, and it works. I guess I’ll get students who will want to sing it in the wannabe Whitney style, but I will advise then to listen to Cohen or Buckley, then let them make up their minds.
[...] Songwright » Blog Archive » Hallelujah – How not to Interpret a Song. [...]
Wouldn’t you describe the backing vocals on the Leonard Cohen version you linked to as gospel?
You didn’t mention church bells in your list of crimes, which seem obligatory in most ‘Christmas’ songs (read: songs released just before Christmas as to stand a chance of becoming a Christmas #1). I don’t think there are any sleigh bells but they might be back in the mix and the YouTube version is rather over-compressed, so maybe I’m just not hearing them.
Thanks for commenting, James. You’re right, the B-vox on the Cohen version are Gospel, as are the chord changes. Cohen was deliberately using Gospel music to make a personal, rather than religious, confessional mood.
The gospel singing I specifically object to is the pop-with-a-gospel-tinge of singers like Beyonce and Aguilera – wobbling about and shouting rather than singing. It turns everything into a show and de-personalises the music. Gospel music itself is just about acceptable… well, except for the Christianity.
I absolutely cannot stand Alexander Burke’s version of the song. What made it even worse was that it was played at office Christmas parties everywhere around Christmas time. The state of society is dire. I can’t believe that there are numpties out there who buy records like this, who play them as a form of entertainment. I hope they choke on their Christmas dinners this year if yet another X-Factor contestant gets to number one because of them departing with their hard earned!