Favorite Child – Just Wanna Belong

Tim: A production team that have previously worked with Tove Lo and Icona Pop, stepping out on their own, with this, a dance number with something I will leave as a surprise for you.

Tim: Now I don’t know if it’s a direct similarity to one track in particular, or just because the vocalist (Erik Rapp, off Swedish Idol 2013) sounds identical to Zayn Malik, but the first almost-a-minute of that sounds very much like something that could come off an early One Direction album.

Tom: It’s reminiscent of a lot: that verse cadence is basically lifted straight from Katy Perry’s Firework, and there’s some Galantis in the chorus backing. And then… then there’s the trumpet. What an odd, strident choice.

Tim: Interesting choice of word, there – obviously it switches things up a lot, but it’s nice that we’re off to a good start, and even nicer is that is doesn’t dip below that at any later time.

Tom: Wait, it works for you?

Tim: Absolutely – I don’t feel as much of a disjoint as I might first have expected. All in, with a brass layer on top of a danced-up good pop sound, you’d struggle to go wrong. And this lot really haven’t done.

Tom: I’ve got to disagree: that trumpet just doesn’t sit well in the mix for me: it’s basically a second vocalist, and not a particularly listenable one. To each their own, I guess.

Yohanna – Revolving Doors

“Let’s have a game of Guess What It Is About The Lyric Video That Annoys Tim Far More Than It Should.”

Tim: Nice ballad here for you, but to keep you interested in case you doze off, let’s have a game of Guess What It Is About The Lyric Video That Annoys Tim Far More Than It Should. GWIIATLVTASTFMTIS for short.

Tom: Is it the “wanna” instead of “want to”?

Tim: It’s not, no – that sort of thing I long ago learned to live with. It is actually: WHY DO THE ‘O’S IN THE ‘DOOR’ CHORUS LINE CLOSE LIKE A NORMAL DOOR AND NOT REVOLVE? This is the WHOLE POINT of the song – if the doors were just regular doors, you’d just go straight through them, be in a happy place, assuming we’re sticking with that metaphor, and there’d be no need for the song. Just plain silly. (Also there’s the ‘Arrangment’ and ‘Keypboard’ in the credits as well, but I can live with that.)

Tom: And, as someone who does this sort of animation, I can tell you it wouldn’t actually be that much more difficult.

Tim: I KNOW. But anyway, as for the actual song – it’s basically exactly what we’d expect from Yohanna, following her previous couple of appearances on these pages. If you’re in the mood for a gentle ballad that’d fit nicely on a Disney soundtrack, it’s a very good gentle ballad to have on standby – the revolving door metaphor stands up fairly well to scrutiny, and she’s got perfectly on point vocal skills, and, when called for at the end, an excellent set of lungs to blast those out with.

Tom: I don’t have enough slow ballad music in my library: it doesn’t tend to get me excited enough to get past my threshold of “I actually want to download this”. This is a great slow ballad: as usual, it doesn’t get past that threshold, but it’s not bad at all.

Tim: Basically, if I hadn’t get annoyed with this lyric video, I’d have no problems at all. It’s probably for the best that the designer didn’t put his name on the credits.

Ladyhawke – A Love Song

“That is very, very much what a love song sounds like.”

Tim: Wait, Ladyhawke’s back?

Tom: Our reader, Oscar, sends this in with the comment “Ladyhawke hasn’t had much presence for the last few years and is making a comeback with this track and an upcoming album.”

Tom: WHAT A CHORUS. You’re the ephemeral-electronica-pop fan out of the two of us, though, Tim: what do you think?

Tim: I think that is very, very much what a love song sounds like. You’re right – that chorus is just brilliant.

Tom: For my money, the verse doesn’t quite work well enough — but the chorus more than makes up for it.

Tim: It really does – it puts me in mind of CHVRCHES at their very very best, and in fact it’s exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for from their second album.

Tom: It’s interesting how, listening through, I can sort of predict where the melody’s going — but I don’t know whether it’ll be the vocals or synth line that’ll follow my prediction. This is interesting, complicated, and fun. I like it.

Tim: I’ve done some clicking around, and Sweet Fascination was put out at the same time – it’s not quite as great, but it’s sure as hell making me look forward to the beginning of June, when the new album’s out. BRING IT.

Alfred Hall – Safe & Sound

“Diaphanous wonder and breathy rapture”

Tim: “If you like music that expresses diaphanous wonder and breathy rapture, then you’ll love Norwegian duo Alfred Hall,” says the e-mail, which brings the first time my vocabulary’s been outdone by ludicrously verbose PR guff, and to be honest I’m surprised it’s taken five and a half years.

Tom: Diaphanous wonder? That probably just means the music’s so light and meaningless that we’ll see right through it.

Tim: Well let’s see…

Tim: ..that’s bloody great, so I looked it up and apparently diaphanous means “light, delicate and translucent”; it’s normally used to describe fabric, and I have genuinely no idea what it means when describing wonder. Nor, now I come to think think about it, how “breathy” could define rapture. BUT ANYWAY we’re not here to criticise promoters, as easy as that might be. Let’s do the music, because I love it. The melodies, the vocals (which can be described as breathy), the xylophone bit. Even the whistling – much as I typically loathe anything that could be described as jaunty, that sounds really good and chirpy.

Tom: I was all set to disagree with you, to write a piece about how this was pretty mediocre, and then the final chorus kicked in. It took a while to get there, but yes: this has some good in it. Replace that whistling with the much better instrumentation from the final chorus, and I think I could get behind this.

Tim: Alfred Hall have been going a few years now in Norway, with an album or two under their belt, but this is their first attempt to crack the international market; I do hope they succeed, if all their stuff is this good.

Saturday Reject: Gregorian – Masters of Chant

“Laser-equipped knuckledusters”

Tim: Germany this year was a good watch – out of ten entries, seven were enjoyable (and somehow one of the others got through to the final three, but never mind).

Tom: And then… then there was this one?

Tim: Oh no, this is a very enjoyable one. It’s the one that hits the “yes it’s a novelty but then so was Lordi and look at them” mark. Infuriatingly, there’s no proper version online, so we’ll have to make do with the crappy audience recording.

Tim: Sure, for the first fifty seconds you’re there thinking “oh bloody hell what is this nonsense” but then the chorus hits and suddenly you’re in Hans Zimmer soundtrack territory.

Tom: Which, incidentally, means they’re not doing a bloody Gregorian chant, because that’s monophonic and on a very limited scale.

Tim: Ooh, pedantic, though technically accurate. Second verse, they bring out the soprano with the less impressive vocal, but then the others have all got laser-equipped knuckledusters so you don’t care. Final chorus, we’re back in soundtrack territory and you’ve got the lighting change which really brings out the flames, the film suddenly taking a trip to the underworld for a terrific climax.

Tom: It’s… actually not bad. The lyrics are ludicrous, but it’s more listenable — and certainly more memorable — than a lot of Eurovision entries.

Tim: Would it have won Eurovision? Absolutely not. But would it have been entertaining, and maybe a decent track for Germany to send anyway, given that they’re guaranteed a place in the final? I think: absolutely yes.

Tom: Remember LT United? Yes you do. And that’s the point.

SaRaha – Kizunguzungu

“Spoiler alert: the only key change to have made it through.”

Tim: Our last trip to this year’s Melodifestivalen final, then, with this, the most colourful entry and (spoiler alert) the only key change to have made it through.

Tom: It’s also “Rainmaker“. You should know, Tim, you were in the front row with me getting splashed. Anyway.

Tim: This was written by SaRaha, along with Anderz Wrethov, who seems to get around a bit – he was also behind both David Lindgren and Samir & Victor’s finalist songs. The main influence on the song, both in lyrics and genre, seems to come from her upbringing in Tanzania, with the pre-chorus in Swahili and the title translating to Dizziness. And it’s a good track.

Tom: Damn right: this was one of my absolute favourites, and I’m sad it didn’t do any better.

Tim: Yes, the focus is on that African sound, but you’ve got plenty of modern touches going on through, starting right from the start with that distorted backing vocal.

Tom: Although it’s worth pointing out that under Eurovision rules, that’d have to be performed live. It didn’t work well for our entry last year.

Tim: On top of all of that, well, that combination of key change, catherine wheels and confetti explosion is just excellent. A worthy finalist indeed.

Oscar Zia – Human

“BLIMEY, the power of that.”

Tim: As much as Melodifestivalen is a massive music contest in Sweden, it is at heart still all about Eurovision, and as such there aren’t many songs there that could actually go on for international success. Every year, though, you get a few that you feel really could, with the right contacts made. For example.

Tim: Because BLIMEY, the power of that.

Tom: It’s a shame about the direction: I know they’re going for “edgy” but, for me, they only managed “unsettling”.

Tim: Until Frans’s tripe was unveiled, this was the favourite to win, and I’m not remotely surprised that this is the song that ended up favourite with the international juries. Yes, it’s still straight up pop, but MAN, it’s big and powerful and heartfelt, and so, so, so much more deserving of a win than Frans.

Tom: And that’s why we have the televote: Sweden has always balanced well between “what the world wants” and “what Sweden wants”: and I’d say that’s part of why they’ve won. It’s also arguably another Zelmerlite—

Tim: Zelmerlïte.

Tom: —and in a contest full of them, perhaps Frans will make it. As for this song…

Tim: It is quite entirely outstanding, and I love it.

Wiktoria – Save Me

Tom: Look, I’m a sucker for songs like this, okay? But this was my favourite of the Melodifestivalen final.

Tom: Hell of a voice. Country guitar on a pop song. Jump-around chorus. Amazing projection design. But unfortunately, much as a I like it, I have to say that the Melodifestivalen judges and televoters made the right decision.

Tim: You sure? Because I agree with every single one of those four points, and anyone who’s confident enough to bookend the performance with Wonder Woman’s logo shining bright on her top has got to be worth something. What’s wrong with it?

Tom: Because I don’t think this is a Eurovision winner: top half, maybe, and it’d stand a decent chance of getting my vote. But I’ve never voted for a Eurovision winner, save for Lordi: the public at large generally likes something a little more mainstream.

Tim: Is this not mainstream, though? It’s certainly a hell of a lot closer to current chart hits than the dirge Sweden actually ended up with.

Tom: It’s a great song. It’s just not the right song.

Samir & Viktor – Bada Nakna

“Swedish Jedward.”

Tim: I didn’t realise until I looked it up just now, but the song title translates to “Skinny Dipping”, which suddenly brings a whole lot more sense to the performance.

Tim: That’s the performance from the final, there, which differs from the first heat and from Andra Chansen in that here they pull their trousers off as well as their tops, getting even more in the mood.

Tom: My assessment of them as Swedish Jedward holds true.

Tim: Another thing non-Swedes might not get: the first line of the chorus talks about getting your kit off in Sergels torg, a location that’s basically Stockholm’s version of Trafalgar Square. So now we know what sort of song it is, we’re in a better place to judge it.

And you know what? Despite their decidedly off point vocals, it’s a pretty good song, as we’d expect from the writers: one of them had a hand in Undo and another brought us Guld och Gröna Skogar, so we shouldn’t really be going wrong.

Tom: Yep, you’re right. But this got zero points from the juries. It shouldn’t be going wrong…

Tim: …and yet, it is. The problem, of course, is that it’s being sung by two guys who, while admittedly being very good looking and energetic, manage to hit approximately a quarter of all the notes.

Tom: Which is such a shame! I looked up the studio version of this and — when they’re not doing the vocals live — it’s actually a really good track, in the same way that Jedward’s “Waterline”, with its similar staging, was a really good track. If they could sing, this would have been among my favourites.

Tim: We’ve pretty much got a song that only one act could pull off, and yet they can’t sing particularly well. You’re right – Jedward all over again. Oh, well, into the dustbin of musical history you go.

David Lindgren – We Are Your Tomorrow

“Zelmerlïte”

Tim: We watched the Melodifestivalen final together, Tom, and while the winner was dire (silly Swedes), there were a lot of highlights, so let’s have a few this week. We both had our favourites, and here’s mine, just clinching it ahead of a couple of others.

Tim: Ooh, we’ve got a lot of things going on here. Hand controlled lighting first seen on these pages a couple of years back, but it’s all GREEN with LASERS so it’s automatically better – think my favourite and weirdest movement is at 0:57 when he pulls an imaginary very heavy lever inwards before releasing the beams WIDE OPEN.

Tom: I called this “Discount Måns Zelmerlöw”.

Tim: Zelmerlïte, then.

Tom: Because it’s the same structure, the same down-the-lens look, the same scripted movements and interaction with the set design. He’s even got Måns’ lean with the green lasers.

Tim: You’re not far wrong, I suppose. But speaking of green, David takes inspiration for this performance from, of all possible places, the widely panned 2011 Green Lantern film.

Tom: Wait, what? Really?

Tim: Yes – he says, “I love these movies because they are easy to absorb. It’s quite nice and important to have a background story to the number.” I’ve no idea how that works — I’ve never watched it and have no immediate plans to.

Tom: Don’t.

Tim: Duly noted — but there are parts of this performance I love. There’s the aforementioned gestured lasers, and then the walk forwards through the middle eight, with the fist bump and the hugging reinforcing that message. It’s BANGING and UPBEAT and there’s a big YEAAAAAAAHHHH moment, it’s ALL GREAT.

Tom: And unfortunately, it was done better last year. It is banging and upbeat, yes, but it’s just dialled the cheese a bit too high.