Collabs for all!
[Video]
[4.29]
Alfred Soto: After releasing a much-anticipated stiff last spring, Maren Morris joins Sheryl ‘n’ Stevie for this acoustic amble, their minds made up and high heels on, whatever that means. Everybody credited has written a song more lived in and less zealously mixed than “Prove You Wrong”; certainly they have the esprit and several decades of craft to sell a piece of crap too. The rictus grins here suggest the memories of coke-fueled sessions — the false cheer and compulsory camaraderie that that they think is contagious.
[3]
Thomas Inskeep: The combo of these three powerhouse vocalists is a great idea, and they sound great together. But the song lets them all down thoroughly.
[4]
Katherine St Asaph: Crunchy and vaguely folksy and vaguely Southern-rock, and like most such teamups musically conservative, but at least it has energy. (Lyrically conservative, too — the best Sheryl Crow songs have so much great weird shit, I don’t even need to mention Stevie’s penchant for great weird shit, and Maren, well, she’s probably capable of it too.) But the bonhomie comes at the expense of any hook, and the assignment of parts is so haphazard that “assignment” is way too formal; it’s more like three people grabbing at one karaoke mic.
[5]
Michael Hong: Did you know that last year marked twenty-five years since Tuesday Night Music Club? That means that Sheryl Crow is now eligible for induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, something I’ve been pushing for since indie-rock started collaborating to cover some of her classic hits. In the twenty-six years since her debut, Sheryl Crow might not have gone anywhere, but despite featuring both Stevie Nicks and Maren Morris, “Prove You Wrong” manages to dull the style of both its collaborators and land on the more mediocre side of Sheryl Crow’s discography. As much of an earworm as it is, it ends up sounding almost identical to any other ’90s rollicking pop-country tune that came before it. A new version of an old hit probably would have been more inventive and a more convincing statement that Sheryl Crow deserves to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
[5]
Will Rivitz: Lyrically, at least, there’s some meat here: the constant repetition of hypothetical after hypothetical undergirds what is otherwise a standard-issue kiss-off with a foreboding cloud of emotional complexity, the singers proclaiming to the nth degree their ability to get over a man not worth their time without ever being able to commit to that moving on. It’s an interesting basis for a story; it’s also torpedoed by an instrumental arrangement so rote that calling it something a D-list Nashville songwriter would write in their sleep is an insult to the songwriter.
[4]
Ian Mathers: Lyrically there isn’t exactly a lot of meat on the bone; it’s an audible “well, why not” shrug of a song. Wouldn’t be mad if it came on the radio, but I can’t imagine seeking it out. All involved have done enough good work if they want this kind of low impact victory lap, who’s to begrudge them?
[5]
Joshua Minsoo Kim: Thought this was gonna be good. I guess the title didn’t lie.
[4]