Tom: I’m racking my brains to find a counterexample for that, but I can’t think of one.
Tim: — and the last time we covered them you reported being bored throughout. See if this is any better.
Tom: It’s… yes, it’s better.
Tim: Because I think it’s a lovely track – beautiful sounding vocals, wonderfully dreamy instrumentation and enough variation throughout to keep it very interesting. I have a lot of time for this – how about you?
Tom: It’s good. I’m not sure it’s as good as it could be — that string section is kept remarkably quiet throughout, and that last chorus could stand being elevated one or two notches higher. But yes: it’s not boring me, and while that’s a low bar to clear, they’ve definitely cleared it.
Tim: The greatest music competition of the year kicks off in Gothenburg tonight, Tom, so let’s have another trip to the archives, with this third placer from 2007.
Tim: So that there is I think the first time ever that I’ve been pleasantly surprised by a lack of a key change.
Tom: I know! I really wasn’t expecting that.
Tim: Until that closing section, it’s very much by the numbers – good by the numbers, sure, with its BWO styling and very singable chorus line, but still fairly standard.
Tom: Now, see, I think differently to you: it think it’s a bit of an odd mix. Like you say, it’s good, but the introduction, verse, chorus, and middle eight all sound a bit like they come from different songs. And even that chorus has two very different parts — and there’s one solitary orchestra hit and what sounds like a single run down an accordion keyboard chucked in for the heck of it.
Tim: Hmm, I suppose it does differ in those respects, but there’s the big one that makes it stand out. After that middle eight (which I recommend watching in the non-embeddable official video), is that lovely bit where it goes all euphoric. It doesn’t last long, and I’d have loved it if it kept going for more that eight seconds, because it’s something genuinely different and unusual.
Tom: Yep, despite my grousing, I really do like this song. It’s got a lot of the ‘classic Eurovision’ about it, but not enough to make it immediately dismissable as ‘just schlager’.
Tim: I can’t help thinking that if it had been kept going longer, maybe even until the end, and given an impressive stage treatment, the song might have done a bit better. Ah, well.
Tim: Here’s a track from France for you; it’s the third single off somewhat successful singer Bénabar’s album from last year, and is French for “The High Life”. Not sure of the logic of this video, but I can’t find an official one anywhere; I hope you like film clips, though.
Tom: Well, that’s almost certainly an incredible amount of copyright claims waiting to happen right there.
Tim: Good, isn’t it? I’m not completely sure what the song itself is about, as the lyrics seem to get a bit garbled whenever Google Translate gets involved.
Tom: I looked up a previous song of his to see if it was just that he was overly poetic; not so much.
Tim: Hmm, oh dear. This is slightly more pleasant than that – something about a girl who’s used to having lots of fun and multiple lovers but has recently been dumped by someone she loves. The happy and upbeat chorus, meanwhile, serves to remind her that everything will get better and she’ll find someone else just as special soon enough, and the general amount of joy and chiming bells in the chorus pretty much back that up.
Tom: At about the second line, I was convinced that I was going to dislike this as being just a bit mediocre, but you know what? I was very wrong. There’s something about the earnestness in his voice, and about the instrumentation that really sells it. I’m a sucker for a well-timed tubular bell.
Tim: As am I, along with every sensible human being. It’s a standard upbeat chirpy guitar track, and I think it’s nice to listen to – may have been better suited to a late spring release than a winter one, though maybe if he’d waited six months we’d have been all ‘oh, not another one’ so it might be better this way. I’m rambling – basically, it’s a pleasant track. Good.
Tim: Very new girlband here, who are still getting stuff finalised like what their name will be, but according the the stuff we’ve got it’ll probably be CTRL.
Tom: Wait, the YouTube video’s credited to “New Girlband”? You know, that’s not a bad name.
Tim: Could work, I suppose, and also getting finalised is their first track; here’s a demo, though, and you might recognise it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bw2P1CZxPI
Tom: Oh! Yes, I certainly do, because I think I remember complaining about the first line and then saying the rest wasn’t bad.
Tim: I wouldn’t normally bother with just a demo when pretty much everything’s still up in the air, especially since it’s a cover of a song we featured recently, but (a) it’s a slightly differently styled cover and (b) it’s a good excuse to listen to this song again.
Tom: And you know what? I think this is actually an improvement.
Tim: Right – the chorus is as good as ever it was, but the vocals here are much easier on the ear, and the melody in the background takes a bit more focus. Less dance heavy, more listen to whilst doing something requiring an active backing. The middle eight is a lot removed from the song, which to be honest I could do without, and overall I reckon this is roughly on a par with Sharks’s version – just set for a slightly different situation, and I reckon that’s an excellent way to make a cover.
Tom: The first few seconds of this, you’re going to think “why has Tom sent me this, it sounds terrible”. And then it’ll start to build, and build, and then…
Tim: …and then it stays terrible.
Tom: I was not expecting that, and it took me about two minutes into the track to get used to it.
Tim: I was, after the disappointment following that initial build, and then it kept going.
Tom: And here’s the thing: based on the accent of the vocals, the style of the music, and the video, I assumed this was some newly-discovered producer out of one of the less-poncy bits of London. Nope. Completely and utterly wrong.
Tim: Yes, yes it is. You don’t remember I Wanna Be U?
Tom: Chocolate Puma is in fact two Dutch producers called — and I swear I’m not making this up — Gaston and René, who’ve been in the business for more than 20 years and who look more like they’re trying out to be extras in a Guy Ritchie gangster film.
Tim: Oh that much I didn’t know. Doesn’t change my opinion of this track, though.
Tom: Now, I suspect that’s actually more interesting than the song, which — I reckon — is a serviceable dance track.
Tim: Eehhhh, maybe. In certain clubs, but it’s not going to go mainstream any time soon, pleasingly for me.
Tom: It’s probably not going to be a floorfiller in the UK without a decent remix, but I reckon it’ll find a decent audience for itself.
Tom: Eric Prydz, remixer extraordinaire; CHVRCHES, badly-capitalised Scottish electronica. I saw the two names on this, and almost immediately thought “well, this is going to be good”.
Tim: Likewise – YES PLEASE.
Tom: And happily, E-Prydz —
Tim: What.
Tom: I don’t know why I called him that. Anyway, he’s posted three minutes of it to SoundCloud as a preview. Advance warning: this is about 2:30 of build and then it gets cut off just after the drop: adjust your expectations accordingly.
Tim: With expectations duly adjusted, that’s a very good 2:30 of build, though I’m not sure it is all build – there’s enough variety in there for it to be a decent track as it is.
Tom: Presumably there’ll be a radio-friendly edit of about three minutes total soon, which I’m Properly Excited for.
Tim: Yes – if this is just the preview elements, I can’t wait to see what the rest of it sounds like – presumably a lot more vocal, for one thing.
Tom: But in summary: that’s two very good acts working together to make something that reflects well on both of them. With Eric Picklez —
Tim: Seriously?
Tom: — at the helm, it was never going to be an astonishingly inventive remix: it was going to be, as I’ve said before, by-the-numbers but with very good numbers. When you’ve got a good formula, sometimes it’s best not to mess with it.
Tim: Tommy Sizzle, you’re not wrong there. Bring on the rest of it.
“promises exactly what it can deliver, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.”
Tim: Ever since Icona Pop arrived, there’s been a fairly steady influx of female-led dance tracks where the vocal melodies are largely optional. Newly arriving in the mix: Swedish duo Tjuva.
Tim: And you didn’t see that coming, did you?
Tom: Well, I did — but only from the start of that pre-chorus build. It is a clichéd, obvious build: but you know what? There isn’t enough of that right now.
Tim: Another resident of the vocal/BANGING/vocal/BANGING community, it delivers both parts of it really very well indeed. The vocals are melodic enough not to be irritating (and the melody that does exist is pleasant), and the autotune, despite being turned up to 2009 —
Tom: Well phrased.
Tim: Thank you — isn’t particularly worrisome after the first couple of “oh, really?” seconds. And as for the BANGING? Well, that word describes it perfectly, and I couldn’t realistically say I wanted more.
Tom: Exactly. This track promises exactly what it can deliver, nothing more, nothing less, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Tom: Right – we have a MASSIVE BANGER mixed in with a decent I Love It-style track, both of which suit me just fine.
Tom: This week, Tim, we went to a trampoline park, where I heard this song. The next morning, I learned two things: first, that I’m not 16 any more and can’t jump around like that for hours without it hurting.
Tim: Deep Heat Pain Relief Heat Patches, mate – I currently have one on each thigh and they work like a charm.
Tom: Second, the guest artist on this song is only 16 and he probably still can do that, damn him.
Tom: More Suggs than Simon and Garfunkel, there. And notably, an entirely new verse, presumably because “making love in the afternoon” ain’t the best first line for a wholesome boy band.
Tim: Yeah, that’s probably for the best. Interesting that we have another instance of the ‘feat.’ artist not standing out much – more like an guest member of the band, like Kelly Brooke at the Britain’s Got Talent auditions.
Tom: Now, a bit of an admission here: I really like this cover. The new verse is good, the production and vocals are solid, and that effect of only putting the full instrumentation in on the second line of the chorus works really well. I can even forgive the lacklustre middle eight and the chanty bit that follows it.
Tim: I think ‘admission’ is very much the wrong word there, Tom. Announcement, maybe, statement, or assertion, but admission sounds like you shouldn’t be doing it. And that’s wrong, because this is pretty good. An enjoyable cover worth listening to.
Tom: Also, I could do without that “why-ay-ay-ay” bit, but given that the alternative cover has that 90s “wheeeep” sample permanently in the back of it, I can live with it.
“I’m not sure there’s much higher a compliment I can pay”
Tim: This is an entirely great track, and if you don’t agree you’re basically wrong.
Tom: A bold claim, there, and one that’s almost certainly to set me up against it.
Tim: Well, I guess you’d better listen then.
Tim: Because I reckon that’s up there with some of the better Ellie Goulding tracks – and I’m not sure there’s much higher a compliment I can pay a track of this genre.
Tom: I was going to say “Ellie Goulding album track” during the first verse, but you’re right: with that chorus, it gets elevated up to… well, maybe third or fourth single off the album. I’m coming off as a bit harsh here, but it’s a decent track.
Tim: It really is, and specifically, that ‘longing for the lunar lights’ is a great way to start the chorus – the melody is instantly memorable, and basically it’s right there to sing along to when the chorus comes back for a second time.
Tom: Yes, that I’ll agree with you on, although I’m not sure the rest of it’s so memorable.
Tim: Fair point, and I’m particularly not so convinced by the pre-chorus – it does its job very well as a build in to the chorus, true, but melodically it leaves me wanting a bit more. That chorus, though, very much provides the more, and all my negatives are wiped out. Like this a LOT.
“Given the two vocalists here, I’ve got high expectations.”
Tom: Given the two vocalists here, I’ve got high expectations for this.
Tim: Well, the vocals were certainly on point.
Tom: Although now I come to think of it, normally you get a “featured” artist that sounds different from the “main” one. I’m not sure I could tell you which of them is singing which line: mostly it’s just regular harmony.
Tim: Yeah, but that’s not a bad thing – just gives it mores of a girlband feel than a regular duet.
Tom: Huh, that’s fair. I hadn’t thought of it like that.
An odd thing here: there was one more chorus than I expected, and that was the best part of the song. All the lead-up to it was a bit… well, a bit mediocre if I’m honest, not upbeat enough, not melodic enough, a bit by-the-numbers.
Tim: Thing is, it felt a lot longer than four minutes – after two and a half, I was kind of ready for it to end, although that might just be because I had seen more than I needed of the old guy in the swimming trunks.
Tom: That last chorus, though? Suddenly I realised what the song was trying to do. I just wish it had tried a bit harder.
Tim: I wish it had done it a bit faster – speed up by twenty per cent, I reckon you’d have a decent track. As it is, I’ll pass thank you.
