“This is a better Carly Rae Jepsen track than the new Carly Rae Jepsen track we talked about earlier this week.”
Tom: We’ve talked about her a few times, including Love You Like That — which we thought was a bit like Taylor Swift’s “Out Of The Woods”, and which then got turned into Katy Perry’s “Never Really Over”. (Properly, as well; Dagny’s credited as songwriter on the latter.)
Tim: Then let’s hear her newest, shall we?
Tim: Ooh, that’s very nice, that is – proper energetic pop music, of which there’s a surprising dearth at the moment.
Tom: This is a better Carly Rae Jepsen track than the new Carly Rae Jepsen track we talked about earlier this week. Seriously, wouldn’t this fit right in on… okay, maybe not Emotion, not the Emotion B-sides album?
Tim: Do you know, it entirely would – and it wouldn’t sound out of place on Taylor Swift’s 1989, either, and that’s high praise.
Tom: It’s not quite a lead single — not yet — but it’s so nearly there.
“That is, for me, just not a Carly Rae Jepsen track.”
Tom: She played London this weekend; a lot of folks I know went and I couldn’t make it. I’m not sure why I mentioned that, other than to vaguely vent.
Tim: Well, let’s hope you don’t stay too negative then.
Tom: Huh.
Tim: Ah.
Tom: I… I don’t like it. Am I just being really cynical? Because, you know, it’s Carly Rae Jepsen.
Tim: No, you’re not – that is, for me, just not a Carly Rae Jepsen track. There’s nowhere near the energy I associate with her, it’s almost dull.
Tom: The chorus has the cadence of a playground rhyme, and I just don’t think it’s very good. Plus, there’s the breathy “cool” and vocal samples in the chorus, and the talky middle-eight: if this was an unknown artist I’d suggest it almost fits under the damnable banner of “novelty song”.
Tim: Ooh, no, wouldn’t go that far. Certainly very, very disappointing, though.
Tom: Full marks to the animator on that music video, though, it’s lovely.
“You see the cyclist and you know with absolute certainty what’s about to happen next.”
Tim: “Hey, I remember that band name from ages ago, what was the song they had?” you may well be asking, because that’s exactly what I thought.
Tom: I have no memory of them whatsoever!
Tim: Fair enough, but the answer is the really very good 2010 hit Young Blood. That’s not important right now, though, as here’s one of my favourite music videos in quite some time; watch it fully before continuing.
Tom: I… am not sold on the music video. Although fair play for the “What” subtitle gag, it’s an old one but it still works.
Tim: I don’t know which moment in there is my favourite: when you see the cyclist and you know with absolute certainty what’s about to happen next, or his face after the runner’s had a heart attack with the very definite “right, I guess that happened” look. Either way, that’s a great video, and I would like more like it please. Also nice: the song itself.
Tom: I’ll say this much: I could hum the chorus after one listen. It’s not bad.
Tim: It’s no Young Blood, but it’s in a very similar style and one I’d happily listen to multiple times. Have done, in fact.
“To be honest I’m kind of having trouble verbalising.”
Tim: “I’m bored of arguing, let’s just call it quits.” Nope, it’s not what I’m thinking right now about this site, but what Benjamin’s having a sing about.
Tom: I could not remember a single thing about that after it finished.
Tim: Hmm. So, I really, really like this – but for lots of reasons that to be honest I’m kind of having trouble verbalising. Sure, I could describe the individual parts of it, but that wouldn’t really come across right because I’d be mentioning things like that peculiar eagle sound effect, and even though it’s objectively weird it just kind of works.
Tom: I went back to listen again, and found that all the things that stood out now bugged me. The talky bit in the middle eight, the eagle-scream synth, the echoing “baby” at the end of the first verse. I’ve got the exact opposite reaction to you.
Tim: I could also talk about the melody, and production levels, and that sort of thing, but again nothing would quite sum it up properly, really, because it’s more than that. It’s just the whole…thing. Just works, unquantifiably. And you know, I like that, every now and again.
Tim: A song for you today in which it continues to be confirmed that, for all their monthly line-up changes and cynical merchandisability origins, Dolly Style are actually a really good girlband.
Tom: Good production, if saddled with songs that are… well, let’s say inconsistent.
Tim: WHAT. A. CHORUS. Not that the rest of it’s bad, by any means – within a few seconds of it starting we’ve established the genre and that they know what they’re doing, and all we have to do is wait for the good stuff to come along, and oh boy, we are not disappointed.
Tom: Careful with “we”, there. I’ll grant you it’s a good chorus melody, but a lot of the production behind it sounds like someone’s just plugged a vague “early 2000s” synth and percussion pack into their computer, and kept it on the default settings. It might well be a style choice, but it doesn’t sound like a deliberate one.
To be fair: there are some occasional strings in there that do lift it up a bit. But as for that verse…
Tim: The verse is, sure, standard stuff – nothing special, but the second half comes along and it dutifully ramps up a little bit – then it goes a bit quiet for the pre-chorus, all yes, yes, yes, box ticking stuff. And then the chorus happens And the melody, the vocal power, the lyrics, the shoutalongability, again those lyrics I’M TOO FREAKING PERFECT FOR YOU.
Tom: Yep, that’s not bad at all. For a band that was originally set up to be a full-on bubblegum pop act, this is… much more credible than I’d have ever thought.
Tim: After that, we’re back to the start, and of course we have the exact same verse structure, then a decent middle eight, and then, oh, would you believe it, there’s a closing chorus with some added howling over the top of it. Of course there is, it’s formula. And sometimes, formula is absolutely FRKN PERFECT.
Tom: No key change though, is there?
Tim: Out of character as it may be for me to say this: sometimes they’re not needed.
Tom: In For The Kill is more than ten years old now.
Tim: Huh – I’m fairly sure you’re saying that as a “God, that’s a long time”, but I think I’d actually have placed it as older than that. But anyway, she’s still on!
Tom: Possibly controversial opinion: this is a song that perpetually feels like it’s about to go somewhere, and then doesn’t.
Tim: Controversial maybe, but I won’t disagree with you. On the other hand, In For The Kill, and much of their other stuff, never really went in for Big Banging Numbers, and I think this is the same. Maybe you’re expecting too much?
Tom: It is absolutely full of promise. The production is incredible, the vocals are great, and the whole track sounds suitably modern and retro at the same time. It’s even got a repeat-until-fade!
Tim: Indeed, because everything it wants to do is right there.
Tom: It’s just that the chorus sounds like a verse to me: perhaps because there’s not much differentiation between the two.
“Yes, it’s a sad one, and yes, it’s a slow one, and yes, I’d normally chuck it straight in the bin, but OH, BOY.”
Tim: “After dealing with anxiety for many years, I decided to write about my experiences. The result came to be ‘Light Up’. A song about the strength that comes from sharing the things we feel.” Yep, it’s a melancholy one, but it does sound lovely so have a listen.
Tim: So, yes, it’s a sad one, and yes, it’s a slow one, and yes, I’d normally chuck it straight in the bin, but OH, BOY does the instrumentation make it worth it.
Tom: I was about to ask “why on earth have you sent this”, and then the chorus kicked in.
Tim: Yes – I should admit that I didn’t start paying much attention to the music for the first minute or so (until then I’d been working out whether that was the artwork or whether Isak was just very, very good at standing still and looking zoned out) so I didn’t get put off but the lack of anything massive under the first verse. When I eventually paid attention, though, the chorus was on, and, well, the drums and the piano and LORD ALMIGHTY that fabulous string section were all there sounding absolutely gorgeous.
Tom: I always feel a bit bad talking about music like this, because my reaction is almost always “sure, that’s okay, I guess”. This is, at least, a bit above that: in short, I can see why you like it, even if it doesn’t quite work for me.
Tim: It carries on getting bigger and better throughout the second verse and chorus, and I really just can’t get enough of it. It’s marvellous.
Tim: There was a TV show in Norway a few years back called The Stream, standard music talent show format with the USP the contestants who went through to the next round were decided by…
Tom: The length of time they could spend holding their breath under the surface of a stream?
Tim: Nope.
Tom: The length of their stream of urine?
Tim: Eww, NO, and no more guesses. It’s the number of streams they got of the song they’d covered the previous week.
Tom: Right. Well, sure, that’s an option, I guess.
Tim: Here, three and a bit years on, is the winner’s first proper song.
Tim: Godawful artwork, but I’m thinking the track itself is pretty good, no? The production’s great, the melody’s nice, and the emotion’s coming through, particularly in the verses. If I was allowed to make one change it’d be to make the post-chorus a bit shorter – it might just be personal taste, but it does seem drag to on a bit after a while.
Tom: It dragged immediately for me: it’s by far the weakest part of the track, as far as I’m concerned. So I’m not sure “shorter” is the right idea.
Tim: In that case, possibly scrapping it entirely from the end of the first chorus, turning it into a middle eight before coming back for that final bit. That’d be nice. But, still, it’s fine as it is.
Tom: “Fine” about sums it up. There’s nothing wrong with this, as far as I’m concerned: it’s just okay.
Tim: Oh, and if you’re wondering how successful the show was: it ran August to December 2016, there hasn’t been a second series, and NBC picked up the American rights for it midway but have yet to do anything from it. Oh, well.
“It’s got an interesting history to it, purely in terms of its musical DNA.”
Tim: For no reason at all other than I heard it the other day for the first time in years and was reminded how brilliant it is, this underappreciated 2003 number.
Tom: I… huh. Underappreciated is right, because I can’t work out if I’ve ever heard this exact version, or whether I just know that melody from… where did it come from?
Tim: It’s got an interesting history to it, purely in terms of its musical DNA. Technically it’s a cover of the 1969 song Daydream by the Belgian band Wallace Collection, though it shares much more in common with the 1970 cover of it by the German group Günter Kallmann Choir. The genre in the verse is very different, but the underlying instruments are the same, and I’ve a feeling the chorus is a direct sample. All that’s kind of null and void, though, given that a fair amount of the melody originally came from multiple pieces by, erm, Tchaikovsky.
Tom: This is why I’m in favour of shorter copyright terms. I would love to see what could happen if this amount of creativity was just allowed, without fear of lawsuits or licensing agreements.
“You know that synthpop style where it’s been inspired heavily by the 80s, but made with modern tech and dropping unexpected F-bombs?”
Tom: Indie-pop from Brighton here: the sort that sells cassettes and logo-printed bum bags on their merch store. Basically, you know that synthpop style where it’s been inspired heavily by the 80s, but made with modern tech and dropping unexpected F-bombs?
Tim: Ah, yes, that style.
Tom: I can’t tell whether the music is catchy, or whether it just sounds like a lot of things I’ve heard before. That’s not necessarily a bad thing: it’s just that after listening to it a couple of times, I found I wasn’t actually humming the chorus afterwards. Instead, I was humming something that sounded like the chorus, with a completely different rhythm, and I cannot place it.
Tim: Yeah, I was like that as well – parts of it the melody, and partly the instrumentation in the middle eight reminds distinctively of a Sound of Arrows track (speaking of whom, HURRY UP PLEASE WE’RE WAITING). Like you said, though, that’s no bad thing – it’s entirely listenable.
Tom: Shame about the video, which feels like someone watched a couple of episodes from third season of Black Mirror while really drunk.
Tim: Yeah – that reads to me as distinctly standard.
