For Your Listening Enjoyment

My daughter is gonna kill me.

I can’t remember why I uploaded these audition tracks to this site. I think somebody asked to hear them and at the time it was the easiest way to make that happen. But then I found myself listening to them today and figured, why not share them?

Yep, she’s gonna kill me.

A few months ago we arranged for a couple of hours of studio time so she could record a few songs to submit as audition pieces. We only had time for a couple of takes for each song, but dang if she doesn’t sound pretty awesome—even straight out of the microphone. So, with no apologies to her or anyone else, here they are.

“Part of Your World”
Alan Menken and Howard Ashman (1989), from “The Little Mermaid”

“Home”
Alan Menken, Howard Ashman and Tim Rice (1994) from “Beauty and the Beast”

“She Used to Be Mine”
Sara Bareilles (2015), from “Waitress”

“Second Hand White Baby Grand”
Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman (2012) from “Smash”

“Gimme Gimme”
Jeanine Tesori and Dick Scanlan (2002) from “Thoroughly Modern Millie”

Casting Complications

Please note that the opinions expressed in this post are entirely my own, and do not represent the views of my spouse, my children, my employer, my religious faith, or any one else someone might wish to complain about or to. The views are entirely mine. My own. My … precious.

When I first posted this commentary on casting, all hell broke loose. Before I say anything further, let me restate my initial point:

The crucial consideration in casting musicals is fitting the best available voice to each part.

This axiom especially applies with lead roles. I stand by this assertion, and I’m adding this epilogue to underscore that assertion.

Almost as soon as I published the post, I began receiving comments—some never published, others since removed—that speculated on specific examples I used to illustrate my point. The first comment was an off-the-handle reaction from a student at our local high school. The comment began:

“This is not okay, in my opinion. Particularly the last section….”

Based on the rambling comment, it was clear the person leaving it had jumped to a whole bunch of conclusions based on very little evidence. Here’s more:

“You all need to respect who was chosen for the parts, and, though it’s okay to be hurt, it is not okay to hate on and disrespect our cast and entire show. And I sincerely hope that your teenagers do not act the way you do when you get a part you don’t want (a ‘non-singing’ role, as you say.). I hope they don’t learn to be ungrateful and rude and turn down parts for petty reasons like, ‘it was a non-singing’ or ‘estenially [sic] an ensemble part.'”

First of all, nothing in the original post was critical of the actors actually being cast (or mis-cast) in roles. Anyone who’s ever done theater knows that it’s a crap shoot every time you audition for something. Like Forrest Gump’s chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get. But whether an actor is perfect for a specific role or just completely wrong in every way, that’s never a reflection on the actor. It’s a reflection on the person (or people) doing the casting.

Nobody blames Russell Crowe for making corned beef hash out of the role of Javert. He obviously did the best he could with his meager musical talents. Instead, we blame Tom Hooper (who directed the movie version of Les Misérables) and Nina Gold (credited for casting the show) and assorted producers for giving Crowe the role in the first place.

Believe it or not, this even happens on Broadway! My wife and I witnessed a casting disaster several years ago when we saw the Elton John/Tim Rice musical Aida on the Great White Way. Overall the actor-role fit was excellent (if somewhat racially motivated)—with a single exception. Someone had decided it would be a great idea to place aging Monkee Mickey Dolenz in the role of Zozer, father of Radames. Vocally, he was the weakest link in the cast. An unknown actor with an actual singing voice would have been far superior to a rock ‘n’ roll has-been.

Second of all, I had to chuckle at the tone this teenager takes with regard to what I “need to respect” and what I don’t. Leave it to a member of today’s “participation trophy generation” to instruct an adult about what he should and shouldn’t post on a personal blog. Does the school need to teach a refresher course in fundamental rights, perhaps? Maybe lessons in manners? Do a few in this rising generation need someone to explain that respect is earned … and not demanded?

Here’s my public response to the comment:

I mentioned no names or even names of specific shows in here. There is no hate in here, just a discussion of general principles. I have theater friends all around the country, and was curious to know whether I was alone in my belief that singing should be the primary factor in casting a musical. I take it you disagree with that, but I’m sure there are plenty who agree.

We saw a high school show in the Salt Lake area a few years ago that had this exact problem. One of the female leads was an amazing dancer and fine actor, but literally couldn’t sing a note. Her voice cracked and she was a quarter step flat during the entire show. You could hear an audible groan in the audience every time she opened her mouth. It was an extreme example, but one that is repeated again and again on junior high and high school stages around the country.

Speaking in general, casting someone who can’t hit the notes required for a particular part, who can’t even hear the key the song is in, is a disservice to the audience. So is casting based on who “needs” a role more. If a person can’t be found who can perform a particular role satisfactorily, then maybe the director has chosen the wrong show for the group. If better singers are passed over in favor of more popular or attractive kids (or whatever) who can’t sing as well, I see that as a problem. There is plenty of opportunity to learn and grow in a theater program. For those who have more room to learn and grow, much of that learning and growing should happen in class or workshops and not in front of an audience.

Again, I’m speaking in generalities, but theater is a giant time commitment. When I or anyone else auditions for a part, there is no guarantee that I or anyone else will get the part we wanted. We can accept the part we’re offered or we can say “Thanks, but no thanks.” Directors expect this. In fact, most put a checkbox on the audition sheet that asks, “Would you accept any part offered?” There’s no obligation to check “Yes.”

Regardless of who gets cast in a particular role, volunteer work is exactly that: volunteer. If I don’t believe a show is worth the investment of my evenings and weekends, I’m under no obligation to do it.

I should also point out that it’s not necessarily about the best voice, but about the best voice for the role. Casting an amazing alto in a part that requires a soprano range, or an amazing tenor in a part that requires low bass notes, would also be a problem. The alto may have a beautiful voice, but if she can’t hit the high soprano notes she’s not the best fit for the part.

I know that, in both school and community theater productions, it’s common to change the gender of a role (usually to allow a female actor to play a part written for a male). This sometimes works just fine, but if the female actor’s voice doesn’t fit the part as written—requiring her to jump up and down in the octaves—this can get very distracting for audiences.

The next comment was posted by the parent of an actor. Just like the student, this parent made some big assumptions and reacted to those misconceptions rather than reacting to my actual post:

“Although I see your point in some of what you have to say, you have in my opinion so inappropriately slandered many in your community.  Even though you ‘mention no names or even names of specific shows.'”

Whoa. Sensitive much?

First of all, to slander is “making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” I think the parent actually meant to falsely accuse me of libel, which is “a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.” Regardless, the accusation is utterly groundless. What specific person or persons did I slander or libel? Which example matches which show?

According to someone who actually knows the rules regarding slander and libel:

“To be successful in a defamation claim, you must show that the defamatory comment in question was unambiguous about both its meaning and the individual who was the target of the comment. In addition, truth is always a defense to a defamation claim.”

I actually went out of my way to obscure the identities of actors and the specifics of particular productions in my examples—in some cases changing details to protect those who might have delicate lilac-scented feelings. Collectively, the members of my family have been in several dozen shows, and very few of them have been in this particular community. To say I committed slander or libel is ridiculous. It wouldn’t hold up in court, and it doesn’t work in the court of public opinion either.

The comment continued:

“High School and Community Theater [sic] should be open to those who are working on developing talent. Allow growth to all Youth [sic], not just the ones who already have fully developed talent. That is what SCHOOL is all about. High School Musicals [sic] and plays are not professional productions.”

Aye, there’s the rub. This is the very mindset that all theater people need to fight against. The idea that high school and community theater should have different standards than professional theater groups is ludicrous. Sure, the budgets are different, and the actors in pro shows are paid. But the basic principles should be the same. To reiterate: when it comes to musical theater, the quality of the actor’s singing voice should be the primary consideration when casting lead singing roles. Minor roles and the chorus or ensemble are the correct place for those who are “working on developing talent.”

I replied to this parent in private and in great detail, but the parent didn’t bother to respond. I think part of my public response  is extremely relevant:

I wonder if people would say the same thing regarding high school athletics? Say you have a drama kid who decides to go out (audition?) for football. Somehow he makes the team. He’s never played football before, and he doesn’t even really know the rules, but he loves playing and spends the season learning the game and developing his skills. He has a lot of heart, but not a whole lot of natural talent. Even if the kid is super-popular or from an influential family, it’s pretty likely that this student won’t get nearly as much playing time as more talented, more experienced athletes.

Now imagine: how do you think the spectators would react if the coach benches his star quarterback and subs in the newbie during the fourth quarter of the championship game? Let’s say the kid has had limited playing time on special teams, but has never taken a snap in his life. Would it be appropriate to allow this kid to “develop his talent” during a critical game? This isn’t professional football, after all. It’s SCHOOL football. Shouldn’t ALL players have the same opportunities that the star quarterback and running backs have?

If a high school football coach did something like that, the spectators would boo him off the field. They would complain to the administration, loudly and in public. Yet somehow, when a high school drama teacher does the same thing, it’s mean and unfair to point it out.

Coaches are expected to play the best athletes they have–especially during important games and clutch plays. And they don’t play someone in a position that doesn’t make sense. What coach in his right mind would sub in a talented but undersized kicker to play on the defensive line? Nobody would do that.

Why should the performing arts be any different? Why are directors so willing to place actors into roles that are outside of their physical abilities? It does a disservice to the audience, as well as to the other actors.

The final bit of feedback I received came via email from a high school principal. Now, why a high school principal would feel the need to respond to a post on my personal blog is beyond me. You’d think a school administrator would have lots of more pressing issues to deal with. However, he voiced his concern that I was “railing on the students” who had been cast in a particular show, even though I hadn’t (of course) mentioned any specific students or specific shows. After I explained my position in detail, he wrote:

“Thanks for sharing the comments from your blog. The only one that concerns me or is relevant to the school is the comment from the student. Regardless of how many readers do not know that you are referencing [a specific show], the readers that do and connect the blog to your children and our students are a concern.

“The students, and parents, that read the blog and perceive that you are referencing them are my concern. Perception is their reality, particularly in the world of a high school student.”

He was referring, of course, to the comment from Little Miss Entitlement, excerpted above. My response to the principal, in brief:

Sadly, I have no control over the perceptions of others.

This whole episode is baffling to me. My goal in writing the original piece was to call attention to the curious phenomenon whereby directors (or casting committees) put other factors above vocal quality in making casting decisions for musicals. The whole show suffers—that’s obvious. Even worse, I’ve seen directors try to make up for their bad casting decisions by cutting out songs or sections of songs that turned out to be (surprise! surprise!) way out of the range of the actors they’ve miscast in various roles.

This isn’t just a terrible cop-out (not to mention an admission of poor casting decisions). It’s also a breach of contract and a violation of copyright. This is no joke. Note the following, from MTI’s performance license:

When you are granted a performance license, by law the show you license must be performed “as is.” You have no right to make any changes at all unless you have obtained prior written permission from us to do so. Otherwise, any changes violate the authors’ rights under federal copyright law. Without prior permission from MTI, your actions may subject you to liability – not only to the authors, but also to us – for breaching the terms of your license agreement, which clearly forbids you to make any changes or deletions.

So if a director in a high school or community theater program decides to alter a show to account for his or her bad choices, that decision can actually lead to the director, the program or the school being sued by Music Theatre International and/or by the author of the show. An even more likely outcome would be that MTI or some other licensing company might decline to license the next show at the school or theater.

Again … casting has consequences.

I have to emphasize again that the blame is not on the actor, but entirely on the person directing the show. If a director has more female than male actors, for example, and casts a girl in a role written for a boy, nobody blames the girl if she can’t (a) sing the notes in the written register, or (b) sing them up an octave. The only possible ways to deal with this curious result of bad casting would be to (1) transpose the entire song, including all vocal and orchestra parts, (2) assign someone else to sing part or all of the song, (3) cut all or parts of the song, or (4) force the actor to sing out of register. Options 1, 2 and 3 are all license/copyright violations. And option 4 is audience (and actor) abuse.

The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the director who refused to consider vocal range and quality when casting the show.

So let’s recap. What exactly happens when directors commit this casting offense?

  • The audience suffers. Listening to someone sing outside his or her range can be painful—not to mention awkward, uncomfortable and depressing.
  • The cast suffers. When a lead part is poorly cast, everyone else still has to do their best, and often make accommodations for the leads who can’t cut it.
  • Ticket sales suffer. High school or community theater that consistently put on amazing shows draw huge crowds. The ones that put on shows with poorly cast leads … not so much.
  • The program suffers. If you’re a talented “triple threat” (singer/dancer/actor) and your local high school or community theater often puts on shows with obviously miscast leads, are you going to want to participate? No—you’ll find shows somewhere else that are worth your time.
  • The program is liable. When changes are made to a show and MTI finds out, who is responsible for the resulting sanctions or lawsuit? (And by the way, this is not theoretical.)

My high school alma mater is nationally known as a football powerhouse—so much so that it’s not unheard of for a family to move into the district from out of state specifically so their boys can play football for the program. The players get recruited by the big universities, and lots of players receive scholarship offers and all the rest. Many of them go on to the NFL. That’s the power of a strong program with good coaching.

The arts are no different. If a school has a great theater program, parents will move heaven and earth to get their kids into the program. On the other hand, if a school has a theater department with a teacher (or teachers) who tragically miscast show after show after show, is that school going to attract great singers and actors, or is it going to hemorrhage talent and get worse and worse as its program goes down the tubes?

Again … casting has consequences.

Casting Has Consequences

My wife and I have been involved in theater for much of our lives. We have directed shows, served as assistant and musical directors as well as stage managers. I’m actually a published, award-winning playwright (though that happened long ago). Both of us have theater degrees. Offstage, we’ve built sets, fabricated props, painted backdrops, sewn costumes, played in pit orchestras, and designed programs and publicity. It’s safe to say there’s not a job in theater that at least one of us hasn’t done.

I wanted to say something about casting, which is probably the most baffling aspect of theater: casting. Let me state right up front that this is my opinion. Others may have different thoughts. Feel free to present your own perspective in the comments below.

Primary Casting Considerations

Straight plays: When it comes to non-musical theater, a role should always go to the person who can most convincingly portray the character as envisioned by the director. Physical characteristics (whether the actor is male or female, tall or short, thin or fat, attractive or not) are often a consideration, but they usually shouldn’t be primary. The play’s the thing, as the Bard says, and casting should involve putting the best available actor to play the part.

Musicals: For musical theater, priority should almost always be given to the person with the most appropriate singing voice for the role. Especially for lead parts with a lot of solo singing, it’s critical that the actor’s vocal range, quality, and singing ability be matched to the part he or she will be playing. For certain roles, dancing ability could possibly edge out singing ability, but from that, though everything else—including looks and body type and so on—is secondary to the voice. Audiences attend musicals to hear the music, and nothing does more to spoil a musical than a substandard voice in a leading part.

(And yes, Russell Crowe, we’re all looking at you.)

School Productions

For school-sponsored shows, the people doing the casting have a few other things to think about. Is the student struggling academically? Is the student in sports or other activities that could conflict with rehearsals? How is the student’s attitude and work ethic? Has the student been flaky in the past, dropping out of or under-performing in other roles?

While these considerations can impact a director’s casting decisions, the primary ones—acting ability for straight plays and singing ability for musicals—should still receive the heaviest considerations.

Not everybody agrees with this. Last year Melanie co-directed a junior high school musical. Her co-director insisted on giving the biggest lead part to a kid who was (I’m allowed to say this because I’m not an educator) a total douchebag. “Giving so-and-so the lead would be good for him,” her co-director whined. “I just know he will rise to the occasion!” Other things being equal, Melanie believed in giving choice roles to students who earned them through hard work and positive behavior. The co-director overruled her, and the entire production (and the entire cast) suffered because of that decision.

SeussicalPanorama

More recently, one of our teenagers was cast in a role that was very much against type. At the same time, a major lead role was given to a person with an incredibly limited vocal range. During each show, we sat and cringed as this actor tried and mostly failed to hit the high notes required by the part. When we asked the director about her decision to match that actor to that role, she said, “He just really needed it.”

I’m sorry. Theater is about personal growth, but casting an inadequate singer in a lead role (whether the actor needs it or not) is simply audience abuse.

Community Theater Productions

AuditionPleaAnother special case is community theater. These are usually small, under-funded, under-staffed groups who do theater as a labor of love. The better groups often attract top talent, while other groups actually have to beg people to audition. Casting decisions sometimes actually come down to who is available and willing to put in the time. Also, since much of the offstage work is done by those involved in the production, offstage skills are likely to be a factor in casting decisions.

Community theater groups are notoriously cliquish. Many are run by a group of cronies who take turns either starring in or directing show after show after show. Once a group like this becomes entrenched, it can be nearly impossible for outsiders to get roles.

I’ve seen theater groups that cast essentially the same group of people in every show, sometimes out of necessity but often just because that’s what they do. It’s common practice for directors to cast spouses and friends and children, regardless of the availability of more talented actors.

Sometimes casting decisions come down to expediency. I’ve known groups to cast spouses in leads simply because they knew it would be a way to guarantee both would be at all rehearsals. I knew one group that always cast the same non-singer in a small role in every production … because he had his own power tools and was willing to construct sets. I once saw a director decide between two equally matched players because one of them had a pickup truck for hauling stuff.

Participation Points

With both community theater and school productions, finding people who are willing to do additional work is crucial. I can’t think of a single production I’ve been involved in that hasn’t involved extra volunteer work. In The Music Man, I helped with makeup and a few set pieces. For Shrek, The Musical, I painted the “Freak Flag.” For The King and I, I painted the two schoolroom maps, fabricated an easel to hold them, and also built a last-minute sailing ship. When my wife and kids are in productions, we always try to pitch in as well. I generally build sets and Melanie helps with costumes and props.

KingOldMap   KingNewMap

KingShip   ShrekFreakFlag

In our recent experience with Aladdin Jr., for which my wife was the musical director and all three of our kids had lead parts, I designed the set, designed and built the “royal box,” fabricated props (including swords and foam-rubber bread loaves). I did design and layout on the program (a 20-hour job) and built and sculpted the “Cave of Wonders” set piece (an 18-hour job). I did specialty makeup for dress rehearsals and all performances.

AladdinCaveOfWonders

We have helped with every single school production that any of our kids have ever been in. Should offstage participation have an impact on a director’s decision about who to pick for a particular role? I think the answer should probably be: sometimes.

Casting Consequences

A while ago, I auditioned for a second show with a new theater group. After callbacks, I discovered that—for only the second time in my musical theater career—I had been offered a non-singing role. (The first time was the first show with the same group … a trend I would prefer not to perpetuate.) After I turned down the role (which I considered a slap in the face), the assistant director said, “We’d still really like you to help with the sets.”

Um, no.

If I’m involved in a show with a community theater group, I’m happy to contribute wherever and whenever I can. But I don’t do musical theater to take non-singing roles. This particular show was chock full of great parts for “grownup male” singers. If you want me involved, make sure I’m involved. But don’t give the leads and even the secondary characters to all your friends and associates and then expect me to put in hours on your set.

Not too long ago, two of our children were being considered for major roles in a school musical. Since I’d pitched in on previous shows, the director asked me to take charge of a major scene-shop project—one that would require almost 100 hours to do right. The callback list suggested that both of my children were being considered for major roles. When the cast list came out, however, it turned out that both children were passed over in favor of actors who (in both my and my wife’s opinion) were just plain wrong for those parts.

Both of my kids were assigned to what were essentially “ensemble” roles—in spite of the fact that they had voices (and other talents) better suited for roles that were given to other actors. With just one exception (in my opinion and the opinion of my wife), every main lead in the show had been dreadfully miscast. And yet I was apparently still expected to dedicate my nights and weekends for the next three months to a show that can only turn out to be another round of audience abuse.

Um, no.

A helpful hint to both school and community theater groups: when you make casting decisions, you’re determining how successful (or unsuccessful) your production will be. If you cast your friends and family and favorites over more talented actors, you’d better be certain that they have the talent to carry the show. If you award parts based on who needs the part—regardless of who is the best possible choice—you shouldn’t be surprised when others lose faith in the productions you put on the stage.

Also, unless you have an unlimited supply of skillful volunteers, it’s probably best if you make sure that the people you cast (or their family members) are willing and able to put in the work so that all the critical pieces of the production fall in place in time for opening night.

And above all, please don’t abuse your audiences by staffing your lead roles with people who can’t sing. That’s a perfect way to ensure that fewer and fewer people buy tickets the next time around.

Why I’m No Longer a Barbershopper

This is THE week, if you’re a barbershopper. Every July, thousands (though fewer every year) of men and the women who tolerate them flock to some unsuspecting city for the international barbershop convention, which also features the international quartet and chorus contests. This year, the big event is in Toronto, Canada.

For almost a dozen years, much of my personal identity was tied to a rather arcane form of music called barbershop harmony. Earlier this year, I left “the hobby,” as many barbershoppers call it. I actually watched part of the collegiate quartet contest last night, and found myself both missing and not missing the yearly event. I wish I was there, but at the same time, I’m happy as a “recovering barbershopper.”

Continue reading

Worst Christmas Songs Ever?

Christmas: Not Listening, la la laIt’s always dangerous to create a Letterman-esque “Top Ten” list that includes the word “ever” in the title. There may well be some even worse songs than the ones I picked for this list, but if there are, I haven’t heard them lately. (Thank the Lord!)

During Christmas time (which begins the day after Thanksgiving and stretches until New Year’s Eve, thank you very much) our family used to listen to the local radio station that switches to an all-holiday format sometime around Labor Day. But it got so we just couldn’t do this any more. Too many of the songs they play (over and over and over and over) are just pure dreck. They’re either just really bad songs, or they’re good songs butchered by so-called “artists” who have no business singing outside of their chosen genre.

So, without further ado, here is my list of songs I would gladly opt to never hear again as long as I live.


10. “Happy Xmas (War is Over)” by John Lennon and Yoko (1971)

Have you ever sat and watched helpless as somebody walked up to a chalkboard, doggedly preparing to scrape his or her fingers down it just to make you squirm? That’s what this song is like to me. After the oh-so-artsy whispered intro, “Happy Xmas” starts out with John singing the first refrains. And it’s not too bad. You to yourself, “Hey, I could survive this thing. This song isn’t so terrible.” Then he sings “The near and the dear ones, the old and the young,” and you just think to yourself, “Crap, here it comes.”

At this point Yoko enters the song with her paint-peeling, flower-wilting warble and you think, Holy hell, that woman has an awful voice. It’s a testament to how much John loved her that he allowed himself to be a laughingstock of the recording industry by making an album with her. Of course, the two hippies were so inseparable he basically wore her as a hat, so she would have been in the studio anyway, whether he wanted her there or not.

Then John and Yoko go off on their anti-war rant. All I can say is these two were OWS before OWS was cool … or something. Big “down twinkles” for this awful song (that somehow still gets plenty of air time every Christmas season).


9. “Christmastime” by The Smashing Pumpkins (1997)

It wouldn’t be Christmastime without a healthy dose of poser emo angst. If it weren’t for the singing, this really wouldn’t be a bad song. The product that results from Billy Corgan attempting a serious Christmas carol is about the same as what you’d get if Richard Simmons attempted to dance The Nutcracker. (There’s a joke in there, but I’ll leave it alone.)

Some performers should stick to more comfortable topics such as sex, drugs and neurotic self-mutilation instead of trying to tackle serious holiday nostalgia music.


8. “Please, Daddy (Don’t Get Drunk This Christmas)” by John Denver (1975)

When Christmas rolls around, I’m sure our minds all turn to substance abuse and spousal battery. I know I do. I don’t know what Mr. Rocky Mountain High was high on when he recorded this one. Poking fun at alcoholics and dysfunctional families around the country … that seems like an odd choice for the clean-cut guy who based his career on being a nice-guy friend to muppets everywhere.

To make matters worse, I understand that Alan Jackson has recorded a cover version of this awful song. The circle is unbroken. Somebody … break it please!


7. “Millennium Prayer” by Cliff Richard (1999)

Set to the tune of “Auld Lang Syne,” this song is a stilted recasting of the Lord’s Prayer that (according to Wikipedia) Cliff Richards’ long-time label just didn’t want to release. Unfortunately, he managed to find someone else who would give it the green light. The song is big, it’s bold, and it’s awful. In my opinion, of course.

The video is equally awful, by the way. Think Greg Kinnear in his As Good As It Gets mode emulating a televangelist and you’ll get the general idea. Notice his self-righteous preening when he sings about “forgive our sins” while the screen behind him shows video of a nuclear explosion and World War II concentration camps. Apparently Richards missed the same memo that skipped John and Yoko and the “Band Aid” do-gooders. It’s just bad form to portray yourself in a Christmas song as some kind of “Santa Cause.”


6. “Jingle Bell Rock” by Billy Idol (2006)

There’s nothing more sad (or more common) than a washed-up 80’s “artist” trying to cash in on his or her name with a lousy Christmas album. In spite of copious makeup, Mr. Idol looks downright cadaverous in the video for this song. Since it was recorded in 2006, it’s important to note that AutoTune was available when this was recorded. Unfortunately (and you won’t hear me say this very often) it went sadly unused. It’s as if Billy told his producer, “No time for any engineering or any of that lot, mate. Wrap it up and release the bloody record–Daddy needs a few pounds for whiskey and cigarettes!”

I was an Idol fan as a kid, and he used to have a pretty good voice for a pop singer. Nowadays? Not so much.


5. “Christmas Conga” by Cyndi Lauper (2004)

Speaking of washed-up 80’s artists, here’s the Material Girl herself. No, wait, that was Madonna, wasn’t it? So this is the “So Unusual” Girl, I guess, doing what she always did best: making absolutely no sense at all.

I’m sure William Wordsworth and Dylan Thomas would be heartbroken to find that they both missed out on the monumental opportunity to tackle this important subject in verse. How can you argue with the aesthetic excellence of lyrics such as, “Bonga bonga bonga, do the Christmas conga”? Pure poetry.


4. “Do They Know It’s Christmas” by Band Aid (1984)

Show this to the kids and you’ll find out the longevity of most pop singers. They’ll watch it all the way through and won’t recognize a single person in there. The scary thing is, you’ll probably know most of them. “Man, Sting looks young! And there’s Boy George! Hey, it’s Simon Le Bon! Look–it’s that pervert from Wham!” Unfortunately , unlike Billy Idol’s masterpiece above, this song was recorded well before AutoTune was available in any recording studio. Missed it by a couple of decades.

The one good thing I can say about the video is that at least Bob Geldoff isn’t shaving off his nipples during this one. It’s a Festivus miracle!


3. “It Must Be Santa” by Bob Dylan (2009)

Now we’re getting down into the really rotten ones. It’s entirely possible that you’ve never heard this one before. If so, count your blessings and move on. If you’re a real masochist, through the magic of YouTube you too can marvel in its craptistic awesomeness. This song must be actually experienced to appreciate the true depth of its awfulicity. I won’t say anything more, because it’s already been thoroughly (and expertly) panned by the good folks at Hate By Numbers.


2. “Santa Claus Is Comin’ to Town” by Bruce Springsteen (1981)

Nothing quite says “Christmas” like testosterone-fueled vocal abuse. Springsteen’s brand of scream-singing might work just fine for “Born in the USA” or “Glory Days,” but there is no joy in the world or peace on earth when he’s shouting out this awful rendition.

I truly believe that the world would be a better place without Springsteen’s version of this song. All copies should be burned, all pirated audio files deleted. And that, my friends, is not a matter of opinion. It’s a fact.


1. “Wonderful Christmastime” by Paul McCartney (1979)

This song has the dubious honor of being both the worst Paul McCartney and the worst Christmas song of all time. From its sappy, sophomoric intro to the most annoying refrain in recording history, this song is pure and unadulterated crap. (Actually, it might be adulterated crap, but you’d never be able to hear the truly adulterated parts over that awful synthesizer background.)

I just don’t get what happened to Paul McCartney after he left The Beatles. Maybe, like John, he can be excused because he was under the influence of a domineering, talentless woman. Whatever the reason, Western Civilization as we know it took a huge hit when Paul and Company recorded this song. For some reason, Christmas radio stations continue to play it — assumedly because it has the name of an ex-Beatle attached to it.

Follow the link and listen at your own peril. Once this song gets in your head, the only way to get it out is with a bullet.