Who Did It Better? Same Old Tears On A New Background

Who Did It Better?

Same Old Tears On A New Background

Some song resonate and haunt, serving to underscore like a soundtrack for key moments in our lives. That's the power of music. And for today's Who Did It Better?, we take a look at such a song; no, it was never a hit, in the typical sense, but it is beautiful and well-written and a worthy entry in the American songbook. 

Same Old Tears On A New Background is a song written by Stephen Bishop. 

Bishop's big break came when friend, singer Leah Kunkel (Cass Elliot's sister, guitarist Russ Kunkel's wife, and backup singer for Art Garfunkel) gave Art Garfunkel a demo tape of Bishop's. Garfunkel like what he heard, choosing two of  the songs - Looking for the Right One and The Same Old Tears on a New Background - to record.

Same Old Tears On A New Background first appeared on Art Garfunkel's Breakaway album which was released on  October 14, 1975 First release. Produced by Richard Perry (The Pointer Sisters, Carly Simon, Ringo Starr, etc.), the album spun off three Top 40 hits and peaked at #7 on Billboard's album chart. In the UK, Same Old Tears On A New Background was used as the B-side for his single I Believe (When I Fall In Love It Will Be Forever.

Due to Garfunkel's patronage, Bishop was able to secure a recording contract, signing with ABC Records in 1976. Bishop's first album, Careless, was released in October of 1976. Featuring guest appearances by Eric Clapton, Art Garfunkel and Chaka Khan, the album spun off two Top 40 hits, while peaking at #34 on Billboard's album chart.  The album included his own take on The Same Old Tears on a New Background.

Fast forward a couple of centuries...

Rumer, a Pakistan-born British singer/songwriter who has received the support of industry heavyweights such as Burt Bacharach, Elton John, Carly Simon, and Jools Holland, achieved fame in the UK upon the release of her debut album, Seasons Of My Soul. Released in 2010, the album peaked at #3 in the UK and was certified platinum, having sold over one million copies. In addition, she was nominated for two Brit awards.

The bulk of her follow-up album Boys Don't Cry was recorded before or at the same time as her debut. Unfortunately, just as they were finalizing the project in time to meet an imposed deadline, Rumer and her producer Steve Brown had a falling out. Shaken, Rumer decided to push on, enlisting the help of various musicians to complete the album 

Boys Don't Cry was released on May 28, 2012. An album consisting of songs by male artists and writers from the 70's and 80's, it included a version of Same Old Tears On A New Background and was meant to mirror the solace and anguish Rumer had experienced since achieving success and fame.

And that's the whole story.

Now? On to the competition!

The Song: Same Old Tears On A New Background

The Competitors: Garfunkel vs. Bishop vs. Rumer

 

Same Old Tears On A New Background - Art Garfunkel

Same Old Tears On A New Background - Stephen Bishop

Same Old Tears On A New Background - Rumer

Art Garfunkel

This intro reminds me of something from the 1930's or '40's. The piano is point on, the production pristine and Garfunkel handily plays with the syncopation, pushing and pulling against the beat. His work here is as intriguing as it is subtle.

We then melt into a bed of strings. This is producer Richard Perry at his finest. He's keeping everything in check, even the percussion and allowing Garfunkel to carry this melancholy journey. "...keeps me hanging on." - suspended in time. A perfect ending to a lovely phrase. Garfunkel is in great voice and exercising such careful control. 

As we go into the C-section... I think the horns are a bridge too far, but by then we are in full-cinematic mode; this is over-the-top stuff and not everyone's cup of tea. I also don't know if I agree with the multi-layering of Garfunkel's voice. Yes, it's atmospheric and keeps him on top of what is now a very tall bed of sound, but, again, it's too much. His emotional reading alone would have carried this with a single voice - I don't think we need a battalion of Garfunkel's to bring the emotional point of this, the apex of the composition, home. 

As the strings scream into what quickly succumbs to a void, it brings to mind the power of Barber's Adagio For Strings - an incredibly dramatic musical moment giving way to a very polite resolve.

And then, we find ourselves back at the beginning, with Garfunkel standing on a corner beneath a streetlight gazing at his shoes. 

A hush and then... into a familiar bed of strings, this time accompanied by a backing vocal not belonging to Garfunkel. The arrangement gets a bit treacly and the mix a little muddy as Garfunkel heads off into falsetto heaven. His voice is melded to a woodwind and then it's wave after wave of musical intricacies. A bit ham-fisted, actually. I like my arrangements much cleaner, much simpler. But Perry is going for the most romantically lush sound he can come up with which leads us back to a sort of cinematic splendor - not my cup of tea always, and, in this case, I find it almost suffocating. 

Once he pulls things back for a second time, we have the push and pull of the strings and I like it much better. I remember that when I listened to this as a child, I delighted in all the drama. My ears and tastes are much more seasoned and while I understand the modern crooner - think Nat King Cole - atmosphere which Perry and Garfunkel hoped to create and did, in fact, accomplish here, I no longer appreciate as much as I once did. 

Love the fade. 

Stephen Bishop

Strangely untuneful acoustic guitar intro, brief. I don't fine Bishop's vocals to be all that different than Garfunkel's - but it's the execution which differentiates. Bishop has no interest in creating dramatic phrases; his breath control is a matter of 'why no grab a breath.' This actually ends up giving the song an interesting texture, a sort of halting syncopation. His breathiness overall brings an immediacy to the proceedings. If Garfunkel was wrapped up in a cinematic swirl, Bishop is telling a tale of heartache as simply as possible. It's a sincere read.

Vocally, they biggest difference between the two is the ability to open a note. That's Garfunkel's bread and butter, and Bishop cant seem to be bothered, at least not on this number. He's keeping things very close to his chest and in the process creating a bit of a hood on his sound. 

His C-section is as straightforward as everything he's delivered previously, with the exception of that marvelous falsetto ending. Thing is, as we return the next verse, this could come off as a bit plodding, if it weren't for the finesse of the interplay between the sparse guitar and his vocals. It's a lovely marriage which keeps things light and airy enough for this to float.

At the 2:17 mark things get... well, let's put it this way, if I was producing this, we'd be doing another take starting right there. Oh, and the vocals simply tank. His falsetto is sketchy and pitchy. Well, that's too bad, because there really isn't any more to his version. He brings his version in at 2:40 because it's all meat and potatoes, no fluffy side stuff. Garfunkel and Perry, it should be noted, managed to inflate this to 3:52, over a minute longer!

This is something that has never changed for me, really: I have always been a fan of efficient music. 

Rumer

Moody, with a bit of dissonance, setting the stage for a bit of dramatic tension. 

Huh. I like her overall tone. But she doesn't seem interested in reaching for much. What do I mean by that? Well, listen to "a fading photograph." It feels a bit leaden. She has a lovely, rich natural tone. Why cheat us? And then... and - if it's for dramatic effect it fails, she cuts up the phrase "it hurts to much to laugh these days" - breaking on "these days"? No. Doesn't make musical sense. 

Then again, her 'all rights' are lovely. Very comforting. I keep thinking of Diana Krall for some reason. The difference there... Krall would never chop up phrases this way. Phrasing is an art form - it makes or breaks a singer. Now... here's the rub; I might be too old-fashioned to appreciate this. Modern pop singers? They don't play by the same musical rules. Rules are made to be broken, sure... but for a reason - not out of disregard or *gasp* laziness. Or ignorance.

Still. She has a lovely tone... the kind that haunts. She's been compared to Karen Carpenter - but I don't hear it, much. Richard Carpenter actually wrote her a lovely note after hearing Rumer's debut album and it would be interesting having her work with someone as disciplined as Carpenter. I think he'd call her out on some of her slovenly ways. That said - she has worked with Burt Bacharach, so - who knows. Maybe I'm being a bit of a fuddy-duddy. 

I don't think a great deal of the arrangement. It's fine. Supportive. Doesn't get in the way. Has an interesting tone to it, sort of a 1970's sepia tint to it. 

"Remembering..." - weirdly pitched. And I don't care for the harmony. Oh, dear. This goes off the rails a bit in the C-section. A bit too plodding for my taste and overly-mournful. 

"Still in love with you..." - such a lovely, thrown-away ache to that. 

"I'm all right..." - sorry, dear, but I don't believe you. 

I bet if I heard this in the context of the rest of the album I would just be enthralled, melting into a pile of mush. I'm such an old cow when it comes to sentimentality. 

As Noel Coward once wrote: "It's extraordinary how potent cheap music is."

The Verdict

I think this is a well-written song. Very moving. 

And I have issues with all three versions. 

I'm a firm believer in less is more. Garfunkel's version is... simply too much.

Garfunkel and Perry shoot for the moon with their version, gussying this up like the big screen production it was never meant to be. My pre-adolescent self still loves it, especially when listened to in the context of the rest of the album, which is Garfunkel's apex as an interpreter of song. His voice is magic and he wields it so wisely. I wish producer Perry had allowed that to be his guiding principal, rather than trying to create a modern crooner album, for the mistakes here are all Perry's doing. It's an overly ambitious arrangement which pumps up the drama more than necessary.

Bishop, as the song's writer, trusts the song enough to keep things barebone simple. Although, I also suppose he didn't want to even try to compete with the bombast of Garfunkel's version. And Bishop had me... right up until the 2:17 mark, when he commits some rather unforgivable vocal sins. His was a sincere reading up until then. I wish he'd gone out erring on the side of simplicity and merely allowed that to resonate. 

And Rumer. Oh, dear. She has a lovely tone. She's horribly undisciplined. Her musical instincts are as incredibly and effectively sharp as they are unformed. Her voice haunts. It's unique and also warm and round. Not much of a vocal range on display here, though. And her phrasing or disregard of such is puzzling. 

Both Rumer's and Bishop's versions sound almost like demos, rather than finished pieces of work. 

In the end I must choose, and so it will be... Bishop. I don't like that hood on his voice. I despise what he does with the ending, but... for two minutes and seventeen seconds... he had it. He held it. It was as small and precious as the first lesion discovered on the surface of a newly broken heart. 

The song is his, his tale to tell. So, this is his win.

--- ---

And that's enough of me.

Okay, your turn. You know what to do: leave your thought and choice in comments section.

That's all for now. Until next time...

Thanks for reading... and listening!

Same Old Tears On A New Background - Stephen Bishop