Tim: We featured Sandra last month after she put out a video for a previous track; here’s a new track with a video for it right from the off.
Tim: And, last time we reckoned it sounded like it came out of 2013; this one I’m going to date to 2012, when everyone was jumping on the bandwagon led by Mr Saxobeat, and I’ll rate it about the same as most of those – good, but seeming to rely too much on that say than anything else.
Tom: Yep. It’s like we’re steadily going back in time. That sax-sample wasn’t quite a novelty genre, but it was pretty close.
Tim: It’s funny – take out that saxophone (which is admittedly perfectly decent enough) and it might improve the song. The way I see it, it mainly serves to takes the attention away from the (very good indeed) rest of it, and turns it into “just another sax-based dance track”.
Tom: Ah, see I’m not sure the rest of it works well enough on its own. The sax is, sadly, the only notable thing for me here.
Tim: A shame, especially since we’re now four years on from its heyday.
Tom: A title that sounds like a euphemism for being caught short. This bodes well.
Tim: Debut track off Ester, hailing from Uppsala in Sweden, and it gave me an “ooh” on it’s first note, and then an “ohh” 54 seconds later.
Tim: Because eesh, that autotune isn’t pleasant.
Tom: Are you sure? I don’t hear it! Which is weird, because normally I’m the one bitterly complaining about it. This sounds pretty natural to me.
Tim: Seriously? I don’t know, maybe it’s not that, then, but those extended notes really do sound a bit unpleasant. The rest of it? Lovely, great. The music’s excellent, never going down from that first “ooh”, and it’ll be some time before I hear a better instrumental middle eight.
Tom: And that pre-chorus is just fantastic: one of the best I’ve heard this year so far.
Tim: The melody, the verses – all fine. But damn, those vocals in the chorus – whatever the reason for it is, there’s something about it that just doesn’t sit right with me.
Tom: I still don’t notice it. But I did notice those bloody awful “I’m a Swede” lyrics, which… no. Just no.
Tim: OHHH, this is so nearly a great great track, and yet the bulk of what I’m writing about it is negative, and I don’t like it. DAMN YOU ESTER.
“I think that’s a compliment. It was meant to be.”
Tom: Our reader, Joe, sends this in. He says it’s “some French house that I found on Soundcloud while looking for something completely unrelated. I quite liked it.”
Tim: Sure, I’m up for that.
Tom: You know Justice? This is some other French people trying to be Justice.
Tim: I don’t know them, but okay.
Tom: Because this does sound startlingly like Justice: it’s like they’ve directly ripped off their synth patches for some of it. But if you’re going to copy a band, that’s a good one to pick: † is one of my favourite albums right now, and this song could sit quite happily… well, maybe not on it, but certainly as one of the bonus tracks for an overseas market.
I think that’s a compliment. It was meant to be.
Tim: Yeah, just about comes across as one. Not for me, personally – I like my synths less harsh, a bit fuzzier – but sure, sounds decent enough, and I’m always happy for suggestions. CHEERS JOE.
Tim: A Swede here on her third track, which is “a celebration of individualism”, which sounds nice until the rest of the (lengthy) accompanying blah can basically be summed up as “screw you guys, I’m fine on my own”. So please, do enjoy.
Tim: And that, I believe, is really rather pleasant, despite the message.
Tom: Hmm. I’m not sure I enjoyed that. I mean, I wouldn’t say it’s unpleasant, but I can’t say I came away wanting to hear it again.
Tim: Yes, about 50% of the lyrics are either “push delete” or “don’t need you”, and to be honest that does get a bit tiring after a while once you notice it…
Tom: I noticed that unfortunately early.
Tim: …but the music’s pretty lovely to listen to, her vocal has a sultry quality to it that invites more listens, and that first big drum beat when the chorus hit took me quite by surprise, which is often nice. All in all: better than might have originally been thought.
Tim: Sophomore release from this Swede with a silly stage name; I think ‘BIG’ would be an appropriate introduction.
Tom: The artist or the music?
Tim: Oh, just have a listen.
Tim: Fair? Big instruments all the way through, aside from the excellently suspenseful pause before each chorus; big vocals gerenally moving up to huge in the chorus; all in all, making what should be a very, very good song.
Tom: That is fair, but I notice your “what should be” in there, and I suspect I’m going to agree.
Tim: Except…well, I’ve heard it a few times now, and five minutes on I can’t really remember it. It’s a shame, because everything it needs to be great is right there, and I really love it when it’s playing – I just can’t remember what it is I love afterwards.
Tom: Yep. Bigger isn’t always better: all the ingredients are here, but they haven’t been put together quite right.
“That’s an introduction that promised nothing, and then…”
Tim: A 2016 redo of a 2010 track; as far as I can tell, that’s had every trace of it wiped from the internet, so we can only imagine what it sounded like. Fortunately (and I do mean fortunately, as you’ll hear), the 2016 version is right here.
Tom: That’s an introduction that promised nothing, and then…
Tim: …and then BANGER. CHOON. FLOORFILLER. ETC. Blimey, what a track, and much as this hasn’t been entered in any Eurovision selection competitions DEAR GOD I hope we get a lot like it.
Tom: There’s some decent vocal quality behind it as well; okay, she might not get four chairs turning on The Voice, but she’s a cut above your regular dance track session singer.
Tim: Maybe it is just every stereotype of Eurodance turned all the way up to 2003, but HOT DAMN stereotypes exist for a reason and those reasons are very very good. COME ON EUROPE. DO WHAT YOU DO BEST.
Tim: Ladies and gentlemen, sound the klaxons: we have a POP EMERGENCY on our hands, and it was all caused by THIS, a song submitted (but rejected) for the Moldovan Eurovision qualifying round in 2014, by Moldovan singer Felicia Dunaf.
Tom: Oh, that’s lovely! I mean, it’s by-the-numbers schlagery Europop, but they’re good numbers. Every little trick in the book: that counterpoint-melody from the backing singers, the cheesy 808 clap sound effects… oh, I like it a lot.
Tim: As do I, but it seems Moldovan TV producers thought otherwise, and so no-one else ever heard it. Nonetheless, the writers still reckoned they had a hit on their hands, and hell, why WOULDN’T they? As such, this year they played with it a bit, wrote new lyrics, got it recorded by Swedish singer Anna Book, and submitted it to the Melodifestivalen guys. Confirming their views, it got accepted, and was due to be performed tomorrow evening at heat 1. With me so far?
Tom: Yep. And I’ll bet it’d place well in its heat — probably enough to make it through to Andra Chansen — but not get near Eurovision itself.
Tim: Unfortunately, we’ll never know – check out the date on that video. Back in 2014, after it was rejected, Felicia thought she might as well get some promo from it, and uploaded to to her YouTube channel, without telling anyone, where it got about 24 views. Except, well, rules is rules, and while having a song previously on YouTube isn’t *technically* against Eurovision rules, it very much is against Melodifestivalen rules.
Tom: They’re that strict? Blimey. Eurovision will allow it as long as it hasn’t had significant exposure, but… crikey. I suppose all the others have abided by the rules and passed up other promotional opportunities, so I guess that’s fair.
Tim: And presumably they didn’t want to worry about potentially having to haggle about the extent of “significant”. Anyway, the news surfaced yesterday after people started watching Anna’s rehearsal clip, so the Swedish version of COBRA rushed together, had a chat, and then said to Anna, in hopefully sympathetic terms, “You’re out.”
Tom: I believe that’s “CÖBRÅ”.
Tim: Ooh, good work. But aaaaanyway, now we’ve got through all of the story, shall we hear Anna’s version?
Tim: And oh, GOD, it’s INCREDIBLE. Dammit dammit DAMMIT, this would have been fantastic. Like you said, it probably wouldn’t have won, but with the pink lighting, the backing dancers, that wonderful wind machine and ALL THOSE TRUMPETS, it would have been a whole lot of fun. She’ll still be performing tomorrow, mind, so we can at least see what would have been, and I very much look forward to it, but as for her Melodifestivalen 2016 journey? Sorry, Anna.
Tim: A track here from a US-based Swede, taking its cues from modern guitar dance stuff and, it seems, Cascada.
Tom: What the bloody hell is that?
Tim: That, my friend, is a very, very odd track, stylistically if nothing else, because it doesn’t really fit, well, anywhere.
Tom: There’s some complicated polyrhythm stuff going on it there, I think? The vocals and percussion both seem to be marching to their own drum, but it all comes together in the end.
Tim: It’s—WAIT, I’ve realised where it would fit perfectly. This probably won’t be seen as a compliment, and perhaps it isn’t, but this strikes me as being just right for a Dance Dance Revolution machine. The beats are all there, so’s a load of excitement, and the styling is entirely atemporal so it can run for a decade without seeming out of place.
Tom: As someone who’s played a lot of DDR in his life, I’d quibble with that — the rhythm isn’t necessarily suitable for that. But I’ll grant you, with the odd style, and what seem to be chiptune samples in there, the style’s right.
Tim: Like I said, I’m not sure it’s a compliment, and it’s almost certainly not what she was aiming for, but it certainly makes it good to dance to.
“That chorus stands out so far above everything else.”
Tim: February’s rubbish, so shall we have a nice dance track with a great title to pretend it’s summer?
Tim: I’ll be honest, I’ve got no idea what ‘dust’ means as a verb aside from doing a bit of light housework, and given that that’d be a weird thing to sing about, let’s do music.
Tom: Mediocre verse, slightly dodgy pre-chorus, wonderful bit of instrumental work in the chorus. That chorus stands out so far above everything else.
Tim: I’d dispute the ‘mediocre’, but your last sentence is bang on: I’ve listened to this four or five time times now and it’s showing no signs whatsoever of getting tiring. It’s a lovely tune, albeit with a slight disconnect between the lyrics and the general mood in the melody; regardless, listen to it and be energised, as far as I’m concerned.
Tom: And while I’m not convinced by that verse, I’m in favour of the more complex rhythm patterns in the vocals there: there’s more than you might expect.
Tim: Exactly what I need right now with this tedious day of admin I’ve got to get through.
“It’s as if someone with a kazoo was hiding out in the corner of the recording studio.”
Tim: Nice song, lovely lyric video. Interested?
Tom: It’d be terrible for our format if I said no.
Tim: Fair point. Here it is.
Tim: I say lovely lyric video, and it’s certainly one of the most interesting ones I’ve seen, but, damn, the way that there are five spoken “oh”s and only four pictured really, really irritates me. And it gets annoyingly repetitive towards the end. But still, interesting.
Tom: Ha! I’m not the only one that spotted that.
Tim: And nice music as well.
Tom: I’m now going to ruin it for you.
Tim: Oh, do you have to?
Tom: There’s a bizarre “uh” sample just before the third beat in the bar, almost all the way through the song. And now I’ve pointed it out to you, it’s all you’ll hear. “We mess UHH all the time. Tonight we’ll UHH it right.”
Tim: OH GOD YOU’RE RIGHT. It’s as if someone with a kazoo was hiding out in the corner of the recording studio. OH I HATE YOU YOU KNOB. But anyway, it’s not a track that’ll go down in history as one of the greats, but listening to it in comparison to yesterday’s fairly awful number, and even with that repeated noise, it sounds absolutely divine.
Tom: See, this is where we disagree. This has some good parts: that timpani hits are great. But honestly? I prefer the lipstick, and the lack of groaning samples.
