Natasha Bedingfield - Strip Me

Fairly important: the formatting on this post goes to hell in most feeds, and it will be best read at ericonthecharts.blogspot.com

Really, is it that hard to make sense?

Natasha Bedingfield
Strip Me
Stand Up
#99 (Low)
Nov 18, 2010
Ryan Tedder
Ryan Tedder

Artist:
Play:
Style:
Billboard:
Week of:
Writer(s):
Producer(s):

Compelling title. Is Natasha Bedingfield here to offer something to all the girls tired of stripping to Danzig's “She Rides”? Sadly, no... just a misleading name for the song. I'd probably enjoy the naughtiness implied by the name to the generic anthem we've actually got before us here, too. So far, I think these pop songs are best when they're hedonistic, silly, and over-the-top. I like music that means something, but these label-constructed songs, worked on by teams of writers, passed to a hip producer, and eventually given to a singer in attempts to expand their brand... meaning sounds pretty forced and unnatural coming from them.

From the opening “la la la”s, I knew this wasn't the song for me, but the verses are backed by odd, loping, reverbed-out beats and the vocal melody has unconventional note choi-- wait a minute! Just how badly do you want to be Bjork? Seriously, listen to the line at 1:18 “My heart is like a loudspeak-e-ar” and tell me that not was not sung by someone worships at the altar of the diminutive, Icelandic, and weird.

There are worse artists to steal from-- I'm still giddy it's not another song built from an ancient house music loop CD (“everything you need to start making dance music, now!”)-- but the song descends into a bland and generic neverwhere in its chorus. I would honestly prefer more Bjork theft; these choruses fulfill the plastic lack of inspiration promised by the “la la la”s. I doubt it would be complete without the “oh oh oh”s she layered in there between the endless refrain of “You ain't takin' that from me,” which would be a more accurate title... but I can see why they went with “Strip Me.”

Yes, my prejudice is showing: I really don't like hearing about the La La Las or the Oh Oh Ohs. I had a bad experience with a La La La once, and an Oh Oh Oh just stood there and did nothing! As a result, I'm scarred for life and tend to react badly whenever a song glamorizes either of them. I'm probably going to need a good cry as soon as I'm done with this.

Moving on... the title seems to refer to an identity stripped of ego and fame, but I can't make out if it has any kind of point, or even perspective. We know she fights every day for all of her “future somethings,” but seems against wasting her life “earning things that I don't need, but that's like chasing rainbows.” So she fights for the things but doesn't want to spend a lifetime earning the things she fights for every day and... wait, what? It seems the “things” in question are career advancement and trappings of fame (it's all a bit dodgy), because the chorus focuses on being built up, cut down, and stealing pride... but she'll still be herself. Her exact words are that she'll “just scream,” which seems like a bit of an empty threat, considering the source.

Here's the tricky part: the bridge claims that “it's what you do and what you say that makes you who you are,” which is funny, because what she's done is become a pop star, but what the song says is that she doesn't care about being a pop star. Where does this leave her fighting wars for her future somethings and earning things she doesn't need? These are the things she say she does, but I have no clue what she's saying about the things she says she does... and I don't know what she actually does, other than be famous (which she says isn't important.) After declaring that your words and actions make you what you are, the next line is “Makes you think about it, doesn't it?” Well, yeah, but only because nothing she says makes any sense. I'm so confused.

The bridge ends with “Sometimes it takes only one voice.” Er... to do what, exactly? It's the first this song's offered about anything taking anything to get any result, and there's no hint of what it takes only one voice to accomplish. What are we doing, again? Much like the refrain, where she's “only one voice in a million, but you ain't taking that from me,” and we hear over and over that we're not going to take... what? She's proud to be an anonymous voice in the crowd, and that can never be taken from her?

Except for the fact that she's a pop star on the radio. Maybe the thing we can't take from her is her ability to never make sense... or maybe the one voice in a million refers to the person who wrote the song, whose voice we never actually hear. Or that we can strip Natasha of the people who write songs for her...

I'm giving myself a headache. It must be time to stop: I've already thought about this song more than I should, probably more than anyone ever has, including the people who wrote, recorded, and sang the damned thing, and it hasn't been a terribly rewarding experience.

RUN!

Stay with the song, walk away, or run like hell: