Sugarland – Stuck Like Glue
Amazingly, we’ve never reviewed this lot before (well, not in this lifetime, anyhow)…
[Video][Website]
[6.40]
Michaelangelo Matos: Did Michael Franti write this?
[5]
Chuck Eddy: Partly Sugarland’s pop reggae move, apparently. Cute. Country could probably use more reggae in it. But I actually like the oddball ’70s AM radio novelty approximation of African skiffle shuffle (yeah, I realize there’s no such thing) at the beginning way more than the actual song or strums.
[6]
Alex Ostroff: A tossed-off trifle, light and frothy and a little bit freestyle. It starts off with some quasi-beatboxing before Jennifer Nettles’ warm country tones start to wrap around syllables, stretching and repeating them: infectious doit-n-doits and wuh-ohs and go-uh-ohs. Halfway through she switches into white-girl patois à la Vitamin C or No Doubt before bringing back the honky-tonk for the chorus. This sort of genre-hopping could easily come off as laboured or fall apart under the weight of self-proclaimed quirkiness. That it hangs together almost effortlessly, without calling attention to itself, is testament to both Sugarland’s talent and their sense of fun. A late-summer jam if there ever was one.
[7]
Anthony Easton: I am assuming sugar sticky sweet stuff is semen. Also, the reggae does not work nearly as well as Nettles thinks it does. Lastly, the video is creepy.
[6]
David Raposa: A little charmer of a tune (despite the singer’s nasal tendencies) that amounts to a pleasant shoulder shrug, but don’t mind me upping my score due to woefully parochial country music stations taking offense to the (ably executed!) reggae-ish bridge and the (somewhat tasteful!) AutoTune call-and-response that happens near the end. If y’all are giving this tune an unnecessary whitewash while Big & Rich tunes sit on your playlist, please get one (1) clue.
[7]
Martin Skidmore: I dislike most music one might describe as quirky, but I like this: maybe because it sounds like the natural outcome of an unusual personality rather than someone trying to be interesting. It also has a lively and pretty tune.
[7]
Hillary Brown: The verse is good, better than passable, but then the chorus shambles in and breaks out into a sort of fabulous tap dance and the song jumps up to a completely different level. This is what choruses are supposed to be –motivation to keep listening to the song — and this one makes you want to put the tune on repeat for the rest of the afternoon.
[7]
Renato Pagnani: This saunters casually, with playful grace and an off-the-cuff feel that really works for it. The lyrics are incorporeal, but the melody, of the easy sing-a-long variety that betrays how well-constructed the song really is, not only sticks, but burrows its way into your head and sets up camp.
[7]
Edward Okulicz: As novel as someone else affecting Gwen Stefani’s oddball affectations is, the bits that hook are diluted — the chorus should have been shorter, sharper — and overall, it’s a little bit meandering. Let’s say an adorable 2:30 novelty stretched a little too far.
[5]
Jonathan Bogart: This would be the first Sugarland song I’ve listened to on purpose, but I can’t imagine it’s representative. Which would be a pity — I like the clipped calypso swing of it (at least when she’s not attempting patois), the homemade-sample beat, and is that an accordion providing texture? More pop-country should sound more pop-island.
[7]