Who Did It Better? Can We Still Be Friends

Who Did It Better? 

Can We Still Be Friends

When a song is of high quality, it has a tendency to catch the ear of those in the know!

For today's edition of Who Did It Better?, we have four legendary, rock 'n roll vocalists with proven track records going head-to-head, singing the same song. 

So, the question remains... who did it best?

 
Can We Still Be Friends is a song written and originally performed by Todd Rundgren. It first appeared on his 1978 album Hermit of Mink Hollow, which represented a return to form for the experimental star. Since his breakthrough album, Something/Anything in 1972, Rundgren, always a musical adventurer had been playing with song structure, electronic instrumentation, and working with a prog-rock band he'd formed called Utopia. Hermit of Mink Hollow was a return to the more traditional pop song structures which had produced such hits as I Saw The Light and Hello, It's Me. His record company, Bearsville Records, also hoped it would mark a reversal in the decline of sales Rundgren had experienced since launching into his experimental phase. 

The album did very well, both commercially and critically. The album peaked at #36 in the US, #42 in the UK, #27 in Canada and #11 in Australia, while Can We Still Be Friends, the only single released from the collection, hit #29 on Billboard's Hot 100, #37 in Canada, and #8 in Australia.

The song is generally believed to be about Rundgren's breakup with long-time companion, model Bebe Buell in 1977. Rundgren played all the instruments and performed all the vocals on the track, as he did with the rest of the album. Bebe would go on to become the paramour of The Cars lead singer, Rick Ocasek. But Rundgren got a bit of revenge. Later, after The Cars had dissolved, the band members, minus Ocasek, formed a new group called The New Cars with... Todd Rundgren as the lead singer!

In 1979, Can We Still Be Friends returned to Billboard's Hot 100 when Robert Palmer released as the second single from his album Secrets. His version peaked at #52 in the US and # 32 in the Netherlands. 

Also in 1979, Colin Blunstone, lead singer of The Zombies (She's Not There), recorded a version of the song for his solo album, Late Nights In Soho.

Rod Stewart also recorded a version for his 1984 album Camouflage, which featured cover versions of various classic rock songs performed with arrangements primarily featuring synthesizers.

And that's the whole story. 

Now, on to the competition!

The Song: Can We Still Be Friends

The Competitors: Rundgren vs. Palmer vs. Blunstone vs. Stewart

Can We Still Be Friends - Todd Rundgren

Can We Still Be Friends - Robert Palmer

Can We Still Be Friends - Colin Bunstone

Can We Still Be Friends - Rod Stewart

Todd Rundgren

I adore this song. I think it's incredibly unique, and very true to its creator. He actually begins with what we would have to consider the chorus, placing what is essentially the verse in the b-section.

I will never know the answer to this, but there is something very distinctive about the recorded sound of a basic acoustic piano on any Todd Rundgren recording. It's warm, but a tad mournful. Bittersweet, like his voice?

And I know Rundgren is not for everyone... he's an acquired taste.

Here, he's in great form. Though that synth that comes in underneath on the b-section has not aged well. It's a little heavy. 

But something that never gets old?

His multi-tracked backing vocals where he plays his own back-up singers. They simply swell up behind him and radiates warmth. It's really rather magical. 

For chorus two, the synths double the piano line to less effect, I think. It adds a weird buzzy-ness that's not needed. I prefer the cleanliness of just the acoustic piano.

With those backing vocals? Isn't it easy to picture him surrounded by The Muppets?

And I adore the instrumental bridge. Yes, that icy synth is damn ham-fisted, but so effective and, at the time of its release, rather groundbreaking. Coupled with those ghostly backing vocals, it brings an additional dimension to the song.

And keep in mind... everything you're hearing is Rundgren. Producer, writer, arranger, singer, musician...

He was a bedroom recording artist long before the invention of laptops and Pro-Tools.

And the clever way he flips the 'Lah-lah-lah-lah' portion into the chorus... so much fun. 

This is a study in contradictions. There is so much icy syncopation to be found in this purposely musically-stilted piece. It's both mournful and celebratory. 

And the backing vocals, the pragmatists of this mini-opera, try to drown out the lead, who is still begging for something that can never be. They then reach a point where they start throwing his own words in his face in order to get him to accept the reality of this heartbreak situation.

And we return that icy synth... 

Oh, I almost wish he would have flipped that ending and gone into the stronger 'Lah-lah-lah-lah' portion one more time. 

Gee... it is not often that I wish a song were just a little longer!

Okay... putting you on notice. This? 

This is a tough act to follow.

Robert Palmer

Interesting percussive opening. A bit like a toy mallet hitting alphabet blocks. Oh, and he's got the bass and the lead guitar in there, plucking away at the top of their frets. And some kind of weird little programmed synth. 

Gee... this has pluck. That's not bad. I like the approach. He's not mired down, though his vocals are so treated with reverb he sounds like a space ghost. Sadly, it's pitched in such a key, that when he gets to the b-section, he's rather buried himself. This doesn't soar. It sort of rests in the gravel of his voice. It robs the song of a certain quality. 

That percussive element has grown on me. I do like it. It's going wear out it's welcome, though... just a prediction.

I don't get the lead vocals on the second chorus. Clipped. Forced. It's an odd reading... but then this was a time when Palmer was prone to going a bit avant garde. 

And, again, on the b-section... even though there's more separation, it's still mired and mucky. There really is no room for air in this arrangement. And I don't think the production choices are helping matters.

He subs 'duh' - for 'lah.' I'm not opposed. I do like his vocals on the bridge, but it's sort of lacking something, too. Love his vocal run on "can we still go on and on and on..."

There's something so sexy about Robert Palmer's vocals. I can see why he went on to become such a huge attraction. 

But this arrangement seem so muddled and over-grounded. I can't imagine it working in a live setting. I think it would sound under-baked and a tad boring.

I do appreciate that rhythm section on the play out. That's some fun, subtle stuff. The interplay between the bass, the lead guitar and that rhythm track? Stellar.

But, Palmer was just breaking the surface for the second time, here. He would come out of his experimental phase knowing every trick in the book. This? 

This feels under-cooked.

Colin Blunstone

The arrangement opens exactly like Rundgren's. But that voice is very British and not very warm at all. He seems to be scooping up to the notes. And I rather despise the emphasis he puts on 'but.' 

It's weird. His vocals sound like he's singing from inside a bottle. There's a very coppery ting to them.

So far, this is Rundgren's version, but with different vocalists and different production choices. I do like the backing vocals. They sound warmer, more Beach Boy real than Rundgren's one-man wall of sound. 

Huh. Blunstone's breaking the words in such a manner that it's far to deliberate. When Rundgren sang it, it seemed a matter of syncopation. Here, it simply sounds stilted and forced.

I have to say, I do like the vocal arrangement. Perhaps not the execution of it, but the chart itself is well laid out. It's obvious that Blunstone is leading the backing vocals, and that's a bit of a mistake, since his lead vocals remain my number one problem with this note-by-note remake.

Hmm. His take on the bridge is interesting. I like the swells and swipes of the various synths and vocals. It's very three-dimensional. But there's not enough separation, so it also comes off as a bit of a tangle.

I do love that giant guitar cord that brings us into the 'Lah-lah-lah-lah' portion of the bridge.

Oh, that "can we still get together some time" in a falsetto is interesting. A unique choice, anyway. 

Wow... this gets all carnival-ghosty by the 2:23 mark. I do love how the piano reasserts it's ownership. It's just that it all comes from too far down the tunnel. 

And still, I continue to admire the vocal arrangement.

Sadly, there's nothing very human about this recording. 

Interesting, though.

Rod Stewart

I remember this album, which yielded two huge hits (Infatuation, Some Guys Have All The Luck) was savaged by the critics, primarily because he chose to cover the Free classic Alright Now and do so using cheesy synthesizers. A very Rod Stewart moment, I'm afraid. 

The man has the kind of voice where, he could sing the phonebook. Unfortunately, he never developed a sense of musical quality, so he'd sing anything and everything put in front of him.

Oh, my...

Let's not jump to conclusions, but... that is not the sort of environment I ever imagined this song fitting into.

And yet, he does... shoehorn it all in. Wow, it's like Yaz-lite? I don't know what would possess him to do this to this song. Heaven Seventeen, perhaps? 

That rhythm track is just too much. Did I mention that critics found this album a bit cheesy? 

By the second chorus it sounds like Rod is trying to keep up. The tempo is just outrageous. This is mindless. Very trashy. It sounds so cheap. And a tad lazy.

He still sounds like he's shoehorning in all the lyrics. Well, good for him. It is a rather distinctive and original approach. 

Does it work?

Well... let's put it this way. I adore cheesy music. Guilty musical pleasures are my thing, It may lay there like road kill, but that won't  prevent me from finding something charming about it. I have a feeling that if I listened to this over and over I would fall in love.

But I'm a grown ass man with limited time.

So? That ain't never gonna happen.

The Verdict

It's Rundgren for me.

As if you couldn't tell. His is the first I heard, and so everything else pales by comparison.

Palmer is too removed emotionally to make contact with the song. It's a shame, because he's such a talent. And so sexy.

Blunstone really sticks to Rundgren's game plan, but his vocal tics and the odd production choices prevent his version from connecting on a human level. 

And Stewart? One has to wonder what was going through his mind. Oh, let's get this one over? Need another track, do we? Shove this one on there. It's so cringe-inducing the less said the better. 

So, Rundgren for me. I think he's in great form and his reading of the song is so genuine and heartfelt. I also adore all his artistic flourishes - they were rather groundbreaking at the time. His voice? Well... you either are a big fan or you're not. He is an acquired taste, for sure.

--- ---

And that's enough of me.

Your turn. Leave your choice and thoughts in the comments section. Today, there's a very good chance that my choice won't necessarily be your choice and I love to hear what you have to say.

Until next time...

Thanks for reading... and listening!

--- ---

Can We Still Be Friends - Todd Rundgren