Tim: This, from a new Swedish duo, will be the second song in two days to get a Sound of Arrows comparison, but here it’s because of what it is, rather than because we’re not sure what it is.
Tim: It’s a song where, if you weren’t careful, you could get distracted and it would all just wash over you in a wonderfully pleasing way but without you really noticing it – the first time you’d realise would be when it finished and there was a sudden void and you’d vaguely remember what you were missing.
Tom: Funny thing is, that’s pretty much exactly what happened to me. I switched back in during that odd, discordant middle eight, though – and then realised that I was supposed to be listening to the whole song. I still had trouble staying focused on it.
Tim: But you shouldn’t get distracted, because this is a song that really does deserve to be listened to properly. It’s that relaxing quality that’s one of the best things about it – It’s lovely, it’s charming, you can sit back and let it sink in to you and relax you, like some sort of aural drug. It’s delightful.
Tom: That’s true. Personally, I’d prefer something that would hold my attention a bit more, but to each their own.
Tim: Also, up until recently I’d have complained about the fade-out ending, as is my wont, but I met someone a few days ago who postulated that fade-out endings were good, because they come with a sense of “always leave them wanting more”.
Tom: How so?
Tim: He made the point that if a song just ends there’s a temptation for the listener to think “Right, that’s that,” whereas if it just fades out, there’s more of a desire to hit play all over again so it keeps going. Obviously if the song’s good enough you shouldn’t need that encouragement – here I wouldn’t – but I can at least appreciate one reason for them now, even if I do still think they’re a lazy way to finish.