Jul 14

CHER – “Believe”

Popular42 comments • 7,069 views

#806, 31st October 1998

cher believe In an age of one-week wonders, “Believe” was a phenomenon – a massive global hit, bossing the charts for close to two months. It has a formidable legacy: as well as a triumphant capstone for Cher’s career, it sets the tone for a surge of dance-pop successes over the next couple of years, and opens the pop career of writer/producer Brian Higgins and his Xenomania team, whose idiosyncratic approach to pop will illuminate the early 00s.

Except none of that matters. “Believe”’s place in history and conversation has been all filled up by that unnatural bend in Cher’s voice in the verses, the moment the public discovered Autotune. So “Believe” stops being a rather good pop song about rubbing your ex’s face in their folly, and instead is treated as Patient Zero in an epidemic that defines or ruins modern pop. All the debate and the disdain over Autotune starts here, and all of it since lands back here. Cher, what have you done?

Before I talk about what “Believe” does specifically it’s worth recapping a couple of very obvious points. First, Autotune is not a standardised technique or a magic wand: it’s a brand – a software package designed for pitch correction. It’s something like Hoover or Google – not the first of its kind, not the last, but the one whose fame struck at the right time to define an unfamiliar category.

And second, “Believe” is not the first number one record to use it. I don’t know what is, either. The point about Autotune (and its ilk) is that when you hear it used like “Believe” uses it, you’re meant to hear it. Ordinarily, it should be invisible to the average ear. “Believe” is the sound of technology being abused, pushed to places it wasn’t designed to go. The standard debate around pitch correction – are singers deceiving the public by disguising their mistakes? – is completely irrelevant to “Believe”. It’s like criticising the bullet time sequences in The Matrix on the grounds that the actors didn’t do their own stunts.

Technology taken beyond its limits just to see what happens – that’s a pretty big part of pop history. From amplification came distortion. From drum machines came the distressed squelch of acid house. And from the discreet touch ups of pitch correction comes Cher’s wonderful cyborg bravura. Once those limits were breached – to the delight of Cher herself and the reported distress of her label, at least until the money came in – anyone could and did jump beyond them.

Let’s go back to 1998 though, and remember what “Believe” sounded like at the time. Not a revolution. For a start, I’d guess most people imagined the pitch-bending effects were Cher using a vocoder, and vocoders were a known quantity. Vocal distortion wasn’t exactly uncommon in 90s dance music, either – The Tamperer’s “Feel It” has plenty of slowing down and snapping back. At the same time, the way Cher was using vocal tricks – suddenly dropping them in to mutate words – was startling and effective. But if you’ve somehow found yourself unfamiliar with “Believe” over the last fifteen years, you might be surprised at how little there is of the Autotune extremity effect – occasional verse words, but its presence on the chorus is far more discreet: the belt-it-out defiance there is barely adulterated Cher, and just what even a technophobe fan of hers might want. Would the song have been a smash without Autotune? Maybe not, but separating the two is foolish: if the technical trickery helped make “Believe” a success, the strength of the song and sentiment is what sustained it.

Even so, it’s worth a final thought about what the pitchbending does for this singer, and this song, specifically. The distorting effect really suits Cher, whose strength as a performer is those deep, showy vowels – she’s already the kind of singer who puts thick comic-book emphasis on words, so going over the top on that is perfect for her. But it also really fits the song. “Believe” is a record in the “I Will Survive” mode of embattled romantic defiance – a song to make people who’ve lost out in love feel like they’re the winners. It’s remarkable that it took someone until 1998 to come up with “do you believe in life after love?”, and perhaps even more remarkable that it wasn’t Jim Steinman, but the genius of the song is how aggressive and righteous Cher makes it sound. There are records sung by divas, and there are records that need divas to sing them: this is the latter – without Cher’s weight of performance and life experience behind it, the dread admonition of “I really don’t think you’re strong enough” might fall flat.

So in this context – using your strength to turn a position of weakness into one of complete victory – what does the Autotune actually do? In a 90s context, without its familiar name and use cases, the vocal effect on “Believe” seems more like a kind of CGI for the voice – something obviously artificial but exciting, a kind of liquefying and reforming of Cher’s singing in the space of a single word. It feels like morphing – that classic 90s CGI trick, used on all manner of distorting alien beasts, failed clones, supernatural possessions and most germanely the gorgeous liquid silver of the T2 robot in Terminator. And that’s how it works here: Cher isn’t only bouncing back from a romantic disappointment, she’s becoming something more than human to do it. No wonder everyone else wanted an upgrade.



1 2 All
  1. 31
    davidsim on 31 Jul 2014 #

    Matrix bullet time and Jim Steinman? Perfect references.

  2. 32
    Tommy Mack on 1 Aug 2014 #

    Mark M @ 29: the music industry is built on that though, isn’t it: “THIS IS A NEW AND RADICAL THING!” standing for “this is the next step in a thing that we know you already like”. Or rather, that’s what the music industry was built on until about 10 years ago. There seems to be much less BRAND NEW THING-ism and more ‘if you like X, try Y’, even in the way performers present themselves. Even those who are innovative enough to get away with it don’t seem to present themselves as being at the vanguard of something new and unique. (Unless – sobering though – this is because I am 33 and simply don’t get to hear the music that’s sold on newness because I am no longer new myself hence not in the marketing demographic for NEW any more. Although I don’t think this is entirely the case – I am talking about stuff I’ve heard on 1xtra, Noisey etc, not just indie bands)

  3. 33
    Kinitawowi on 6 Aug 2014 #

    The roll call of runners up:

    George Michael – Outside
    E17 – Each Time
    5ive – Until The Time Is Through
    Boyzone – I Love The Way You Love Me
    Jay-Z – Hard Knock Life

    Three pretty good, two utterly forgettable, five better than Cher. Believe offended me as soon as I heard it; Autotune, vocoder, call it what you will, it’s ghastly and it kicks you in the face to make sure you notice it – I distinctly remember the video where it sort of fuzzes out her face in the Autotuned parts to emphasise it. Ugh. It pains me that I live in a world where utter arse like this can spend two fucking months at the top while Saint Etienne need Paul Van Dyk’s help to barely scrape a week in the top ten.

    1. Usually songs that I consider actively detrimental to the state of humanity score a zero (there’s only been one number one fitting the bill so far – the Teletubbies – although there’s a runner up much later that would have been a total nailed on zero); but while this song may have sparked the Autotune craze, I can’t hate it for that; Autotune eventually resulted in T-Pain, and Thug Story makes me laugh like a loon every time I hear it.

  4. 34
    Andrew Farrell on 6 Aug 2014 #

    #3 watch includes When You’re Gone, the best solo* Spice single.

    *in the sense that ‘I want you back’ is, anyway.

  5. 35
    Weej on 6 Aug 2014 #

    The autotune annoyed me at the time, of course, but while it sounds perfectly fine now I’m afraid I still can’t appreciate the song behind it – probably because I find it impossible to connect with “records that need divas to sing them”, especially with such an anodyne backing track. There’s just nothing for me here at all. Bit selfish, but that’s about as far as it gets.

  6. 36
    Billy Hicks on 11 Aug 2014 #

    I didn’t notice Cher’s voice *at all* at the time – for years I just saw this as a fairly standard pop track, it was only by the mid-2000s and reading internet articles mentioning it I had a re-listen and thought, oh yeah, bit weird innit. I noticed it much more on the stupidly unbunnied One More Time a couple years later.

  7. 37
    ciaran on 17 Aug 2014 #

    I think I despised this at the time.Something that just wouldnt go away. In the year of everything being modern and up to the minute popular wise to see this ancient mutton dressed as lamb diva taking over was maybe too much! There was even a stage when it got to Number 1 in Ireland for as long as the UK and just as it was announced on Irish Radio one week it had stayed at the top and was due to be played after a DJ just said no enough already and refused to play it.

    16 years on I can now fully acknowledge what a total berk I was here. I would even argue it’s brilliance now to doubters.Still wouldnt be a spotify/ipod staple by any means but I really have little objections to it.Aged much better than almost every chart topper from the time.

    At least a 9.A 10 wouldnt have been out of place.

  8. 38
    Peter on 11 Oct 2014 #

    I recall seeing Cher in concert in Sydney in the late 90s (?), and Believe me, the song works on stage, (with or without the autotune) which is ultimately the only thing that matters. The throngs of flamboyant young gentlemen at the front went apeshit. (Mind you, they had only just recovered their composure from the unbilled Village People who opened the show).

  9. 39
    wichitalineman on 23 Jul 2015 #

    The house that Believe built is up for sale. Xenomaniac bunny stops me from saying much more, but it’s the end of a golden ’00s era: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-35272140.html

  10. 40
    Roberta Brown on 17 Apr 2021 #

    One of those records that probably shouldn’t work, but just does in my opinion. I find it hard to explain why I find it so endearing; a 7/10 from me.

  11. 41
    Gareth Parker on 3 Jun 2021 #

    I would go with a 7/10 for Cher. A worthy #1 in my opinion.

  12. 42
    Mr Tinkertrain on 4 May 2022 #

    Comment #4 – a top 5 featuring new entries from Cher, George Michael, U2 and Culture Club? In 1998? Had the pop world gone back in time by a decade suddenly?

    I jest a little – Outside is a great song, The Sweetest Thing is a good back-to-basics single from U2 ahead of their revival in 2000 and Alanis’s Thank U is unjustly forgotten (despite being her last big hit here). But the 80s revival must have started early.

    Anyway, Believe: I disliked this when it came out, then I started to like it, then eventually I got sick of it as the bastard thing was number 1 for ages. The use of autotune didn’t register with me at all at the time and fortunately, by the time it became a major force in the charts in the late 00s, I’d stopped paying attention to contemporary pop music. But the song itself… it’s fine, sure, but not anything special, although props to Cher for having her biggest hit when into her 50s. I’d take Strong Enough or One By One (both mentioned above) over this though. 5/10 from me.

1 2 All

Add your comment

(Register to guarantee your comments don't get marked as spam.)

If this was number 1 when you were born paste [stork-boy] or [stork-girl] into the start of your comment :)


Required (Your email address will not be published)

Top of page