Weeks at number one: 4 (27th May – 24th June 1955) / Length: 2m24s / Label: Columbia
Notable for…The previous version of these hit was a Cuban band doing a song written by a Frenchman soundtracking an American film), so here’s Englishman Eddie Calvert to mustard it right up…
MELODY & HARMONY ~ 4 : It really is the same as the previous one, down to the last uninspired trill
WORDS ~ 2 : see previous
VOICE ~ 5 : I struggle to find much difference in technique or ability, except Calvert has a habit of stopping notes a little more bluntly than Prado, which breaks up the fluidity a bit. Basically to Calvert’s I can imagine a brylcreemed man kissing a woman on the cheek of the face, whereas to Prado’s I envision a rolling ocean of naked flesh, cavorting and carressing until the word ‘sex’ loses all meaning, because its the only state of existence. But that’s what I imagine most of the time anyway
STRUCTURE ~ 4 : Sensibly shortened
PRODUCTION & ARRANGEMENT ~ 2 : Less reverb than Prado’s = less underwater sounding, which I thought was the whole point. And much less dense. And less dynamic variation
COOLNESS/STYLE ~ 3 : One thing to its credit – there is a bit more percussion in this one. And percussion is cool
ORIGINALITY/NEWNESS ~ 3 : Are you taking the piss, reader? Nah, actually it is quite original still because mambo is so fresh. At least he had the guts to rip off a kinda cool song, and its not completely ruined….just sort of robbed of all its joy
CATCHYNESS ~ 2 : see previous
CONNECTION/EMOTIONAL HOLD ~ 2 : mild dance
MORALITY/INTENT ~ 2 : I don’t understand the point of it, and I don’t see why you’d buy it unless you were a massive racist, or hated fun, or both
OVERALL ~ 29/100
or 
NUMBER ONE MUSIC DIGEST 