Tim: Melodi Grand Prix Junior is a Norwegian singing competition for kiddies, which in the past has been used to choose finalists for Junor Eurovision and MGP Nordic (sort of a Scandinavians-only Junior Eurovision), but nowadays is held just for the fun of it. Sval here won it in 2011 at the age of 12, and now, two and half years later she’s making a proper commercial debut.
Tim: And that’ll do me nicely.
Tom: I wasn’t sold on it until that chorus arrived – but then, I’m a sucker for a well-placed “heeey” sample.
Tim: It’s a good enough debut, and certainly an indicator of future potential. I like a good loud female pop singer, and while this isn’t truly massive or ground-breaking, or enough to get me properly excited to write lots of words about it, it’s certainly perfectly listenable.
Tom: Agreed. What’s it all about, then?
Tim: The lyrics, coming as they do with a perfectly acceptable lyric video, are all about her leaving it too late to tell someone she fancies him.
Tom: How breathtakingly original.
Tim: Indeed – just the tragedies of youth. Next, please.
Tim: Well spotted. Remember how yesterday I said I was in the market for something big and bold? Turns out, American country rock is pretty much just what I was after.
Tom: Oh good grief, that’s every modern pop-country stereotype rolled into one. It doesn’t help that one of them looks like Trevor Moore.
Tim: Motorbikes, stunts, explosions, gratuitous shots of women leaning seductively against HGVs, I think the video gets it just right – very much a WE ARE MANLY message.
Tom: But the song! It’s awful! It’s all about how they’re young and successful; he’s sort-of rapping in a Southern accent; the hook is as simple as something can get. This is basically stereotypical 90s rap, filtered at high pressure through Nashville. Yes, it’s all HERE WE ARE and WE ARE MEN, but bloody hell, this ain’t a good song.
Tim: Well, possibly. Again back to the manly message, why it’s an important message for this band to get across is not a matter I’m qualified to speculate on, so all I’ll finish up by saying is that this is a nice loud track that I can and do enjoy right now. OK?
Tom: The worst part is, I’m probably going to be singing it for ages.
“It aims for Coldplay’s lighters-in-the-air style”
Tim: The nice thing about SoundCloud embedding things having waveforms is that they provide hope. I did, for example, choose not to give up after the chorus on this one, safe in the knowledge that there was more to come. And it was worth it.
Tim: Sure, it’s a nice gentle ballad right from the off, but right now I want something big and bold, and this Swedish pair were nice to provide it, eventually at least.
Tom: It took a while, though — it’s a strange mix of two genres, really, although they gel together better than I thought they would.
Tim: Yes, there was a sense of “oh, do hurry up”, but those big beats that came in for the first chorus were a nice temporary stopgap. What I’m really saying is that the opening minute or so is nice if you like a quiet ballad, and the last minute and a half or so is great whatever you want. It’s all good.
Tom: I feel like it aims for Coldplay’s lighters-in-the-air style and doesn’t quite make it: that said, Coldplay are a pretty high bar to meet and they get as far as I’d expect any indie group to get.
“That feels like I’m watching someone’s terrible holiday video.”
Tim: This here by Swede Jasmine is a video intended to delight all; it will in fact annoy and delight in roughly equal measure, and I’m roughly 80% annoyed by it. Tom, you probably don’t want to watch this.
Tom: That feels like I’m watching someone’s terrible holiday video.
Tim: This is, I suppose, meant to be a happy song about making the world better, but my word is that an annoying video (filmed, would you believe it, entirely on Jasmine’s phone).
Tom: Oh. I am watching someone’s terrible holiday video.
Tim: There’s a whole load of bullshit in the YouTube description, about how everybody she asked how to make the world a better place answered “we need love”. Now, unless New York has changed enormously since I’ve been there, she’s telling massive lies about the number of people who told her to piss off, but never mind.
I’d like to stop focussing on the negative points of the video, like the OH SO ORIGINAL AND FUNNY ‘Free Hugs’ sign and the several times that John Lennon’s assassination crops up, because it’s a nice track, it really is. But, God, what an awful failure of a video, with the clip of the guy about to propose that cuts off as he gets to being on one knee, or the out of focus shots of people two feet in front of the camera.
Tom: And hey, if you’re going to stop people downloading it off YouTube, why not completely ruin the audio too?
Tim: “Everything we do, we do for love, and everything we see and feel comes from love.” Bloody hell.
Tom: It’s not a bad track, I guess — after a minute or so I just moved it to a background tab — but it’s a bit like candyfloss, all style no substance. I mean, it’s candyfloss sung by someone with a great voice, but… hm. That analogy got away from me.
Tim: Little bit. Never mind. Yes, the video’s a nice idea, but execute it properly, please, because the song is great, and I really really wish the video didn’t ruin it.
Tim: As with last year, the viewers and international juries disagreed on who should win Melodifestivalen; unlike last year, the viewers’ choice won out, so by 212 points to Ace Wilder’s 210, this is Sweden’s Eurovision entry.
Tom: Crikey, that is close. I maintain that Melodifestivalen has one of the best all-round scoring systems, well, anyway. I’ll be interested to see what it beat.
Tim: Pfft. The somehow runaway favourite that can be safely described as a bit above average.
Tim: A risky option, perhaps, as it takes a good time to go anywhere, but man, when it finally impacts at the second chorus – what an entrance.
Tom: Taking a slow builder to Eurovision isn’t always a good strategy. It is, ultimately, a schlager track and that might not go down well — when was the last time we had a winner with a key change? —
Tim: I’m well aware that was rhetorical, but: Serbia, 2007, which actually came with two.
Tom: — but hell, this has the chance of Big Pop Success.
Tim: It’s possible that the initial verse/chorus didn’t quite resonate with everybody, and while it’s good, three minutes of it really just wouldn’t do at Eurovision, which leaves us with an unusual power ballad, really, almost completely changing direction. It’s much for the better, because the second and final choruses are just glorious.
Tom: It reminds me a bit of Little Mix’s “DNA”, actually: quiet start, big chorus number — they didn’t have the key change, though.
Tim: Far be it from me to suggest cynically that this song was built around the interminable recaps that permeate every live music competition, but blimey, show the viewers that immense return from the middle eight enough times and they’re sure as hell not going to forget this track.
Tom: Could we be going back to Malmö next year? Can the Swedish broadcaster afford it? I guess we’ll find out in a few weeks.
Tim: Two asides: interestingly (or not), this is the second time Sanna’s been the public favourite but not the juries’ – last time was 2008 against Charlotte Perrelli’s Hero, which ultimately won out. And speaking of Charlotte Perrelli, have a look at Saturday’s opening act. Not necessarily for the music, but mainly for the cameras flying around in the middle bit – WHAT AN ARENA.
Tim: Linda Bengtzing, schlager queen. Three years back, she pulled quite the shocker by coming first in her heat, then last in the final; she then swore off Melodifestivalen and said she’d never be back. She came back this year, and just missed out on a slot in Andra Chansen. With this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1vyPbu2zX8
Tim: Right, expletives ahead, as I’m emotional.
Tom: “Tired and emotional”?
Tim: Yeah, we’ll call it that. I mean, really. Just how the bollocks did that not get through? Sweden, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?
Tom: ‘Cos it’s a bit dull and repetitive? I mean, it’s good, but it’s not a classic.
Tim: OH COME ON. Admittedly it’s not Alla Flickor, but for a start, there was a totally SHITTING AWFUL track (dull song, very weak singer) that went through to Andra Chansen, and you kicked out THIS? I mean, WHY? It’s not even as if it’s “oh, it’s crappy camp schlager, we don’t like this”. It’s really an incredibly good pop track.
Tom: It’s okay. It goes on a bit, even at three minutes.
Tim: IT DOES NOT. Why the hell did you not vote it through? WHAT ON EARTH IS THE MATTER WITH YOU? I am actually tempted to GIVE UP. ENTIRELY. Sweden, YOU HAVE FAILED ME. I AM APPALLED. HOW VERY DARE YOU.
Tom: You realise we’re going there in a few weeks, right?
Tim: Matt Cardle’s had an interesting career – filled with highs and lows, and despite having been ditched by Syco as soon as possible, he’s actually emerged as one of the more successful X Factor winners.
Tom: Strange, isn’t it? I’d have predicted obscurity, but he just keeps going. I’ve got to respect that.
Tim: He won it two years after (the arguably should-have-been-more-successful) Alexandra Burke but he’s got more albums out, and more than Leona Lewis had at this point in her career. Here’s the third single off his new album, and, despite’s Syco’s best hopes, really rather good.
Tom: Hmm. I’m not convinced. What’re the good points for you?
Tim: The sound is great, it’s memorable, it’s loud and not excessively so, and what it shows most of all is his variety. Compare this with High School Musical extract Loving You, or his more recent funk-driven When You Were My Girl, and we’ve clearly got an artist who can do pretty much whatever he wants.
Tom: Of course, you could also spin that as a lack of consistency. For me, this track just doesn’t appeal: when the standout part is the lead into the middle eight, it doesn’t speak well for the rest of the song. But you’re right: he can certainly do what he wants.
Tim: It also gives an insight into both why he was so quick to break from X Factor – I’m guessing not enough artistic freedom – and why they were so quick to wipe him from history – he’s a clear example of what can go right when you don’t stay under the thumb. And it can clearly go very, very right.
“One of the best-sounding intros I’ve heard in a while. And then… good grief”
Tom: Oh crikey, that’s a dodgy title.
Tim: This song was initially accepted for this year’s Melodifestivalen, and allocated a slot in the final 32, but then got kicked out a few weeks beforehand because these two are, apparently, best known for being an advert. But here’s the song and, well, it’s basically utterly ludicrous.
Tim: So let’s split it into segments. Intro: very promising.
Tom: Heavens, yes. That’s one of the best-sounding intros I’ve heard in a while. And then… good grief.
Tim: Verse: awful. Pre-chorus: fairly awful. Middle-eight: fairly awful then very good.
Tom: I’m fairly sure I heard the words “Mick Jagger” in there somewhere.
Tim: I wouldn’t be remotely surprised. The chorus, though: utterly wonderful and so brilliant that I started laughing as soon as I heard it.
Tom: I wouldn’t go that far. It’s certainly a pretty good schlager chorus, but it doesn’t make up for the rest of it.
Tim: Not really, no. It’s certainly no loss to Melodifestivalen, though there are worse tracks in there so I suppose it might have been an improvement but actually if it had gone to Melodifestivalen this ridiculous video might not have surfaced, and that would have been a shame. Basically this song is half brilliant and half awful, and I’m really not sure which half takes it for me. Though I am tempted to chop out that chorus and set it as a ringtone for one particular group of my friends.
Tim: This track comes in to us from Charlie, who also co-wrote it. I do like it when people own up to sending their own tracks in — occasionally we get folks pretending they’re fans of their own work, and it’s always a bit awkward.
Tom: “Let me show you what undressing’s about.” Hmm. Now, I was going to write “that’s clunky as hell and the clothing metaphor gets old”, but on second listen my brain finally worked out that “wearing you out” could be about something other than sex and I forgave it.
Tim: Yes, those lyrics can be okay, but the rest of it – I’m going with 60% listenable and 40% annoying. The chorus is decent enough (and a nicely executed key change), but the verses, early middle eight and pre-chorus don’t have much for me to focus on aside from the straight-from-2009 autotune, which is just unpleasant.
Tom: Despite some ridiculous clichés in the video — forget the dancer’s head, let’s just focus just on her body! — it’s well produced, and whoever scouted the locations deserves a pay rise. That mountaintop is gorgeous. And, presumably, very cold for someone who’s only in two layers of clothing. Which is a bit ironic, given the whole clothing metaphor thing.
Tim: Can’t disagree with, well any of that.
Tom: All that said: cracking key change, decent production for what seems to be an indie release, almost certainly not going to be number one but a more than respectable showing for something that hasn’t been through Stargate Studios and its ilk.
Tim: Yeah, I’ll stick with that. Lose the autotune and I might even be enthusiastic about it.
Tim: Last Friday, BBC Eurovision producer Guy Freeman sent a wave of relief through British Eurovision fans by announcing that this year’s entry would be based on not what he heard on a pub jukebox at the weekend but on actual current talent; specifically, largely unknown talent taken from the BBC Introducing program (new acts send their stuff to their local BBC radio station, if it’s good enough they get played, and then maybe noticed by the big boys at Radio 1 or 2).
Tom: I never thought I’d say “bring back Bonnie Tyler”. But I listened to ‘Believe in Me’ a couple of times today, and, you know what? It might not have won Eurovision, but it’s not a bad song at all.
Tim: It’s not – it’s just a slightly uninspiring ballad that really wasn’t a vote-winner. This, on the other hand?
Tim: Very possibly a vote-winner, because I reckon that’s quite good.
Tom: I’m not so sure. What’s with that awful ‘power to the people’ chant? That’s a really bad motif to start and end the song with. The rest of it’s not bad at all — but all anyone’s going to remember is the dull bit.
Tim: Oh, I doubt that – for me, it’s the titular hook that sticks. In fact, on repeated listens, I’d go so far as to say it’s very good. It has a good number of the requisite Eurovision elements – big PAY ATTENTION drumbeat, powerful chorus, emphatic singalong chant, slightly throaty voice that means the singer has depth, backing singers in the first chorus that could in any standard song be left until the final chorus to improve it but MOLLY KNOWS WHAT SHE’S DOING. This is a song that was written by her specifically for Eurovision, and with it comes an entirely welcome nail-on-the-head feel-good message to it. YEAH! WE’RE the CHILDREN. Of the UNIVERSE. The whole flipping UNIVERSE, dammit! WE CAN MAKE IT RIGHT. WHHEEEY!
Tom: She’s got a good voice, it’s a modern pop song, it’s just… well, let’s just say I’m pretty sure we’re not going to be seeing Eurovision in the NEC next year. That said, I maintain that “Only Teardrops”, last year’s actual winner, was a bit of a letdown — so what do I know?
Tim: I’ll resist the temptation. It’s worth noting, finally, that we still weren’t guaranteed a decent act – sure, we got Florence and the Machine and Rizzle Kicks through Introducing, but it also spewed out Ed Sheeran and Jake Bugg. Fortunately, it’s done us very well here, and it’s nice that, for only the second time in five years, I’m not largely embarrassed by our national entry. And who knows? It might even get Radio 1 airplay, and (just possibly) turn Eurovision into a well-respected music competition.
