“A year between singles. He’s no Rihanna, that’s for sure.”
Tim: It’s been a long time coming, especially as the two EPs that were promised last year never actually materialised, but Darin’s sixth album is finally out at the end of the month; here’s the second single, after last February’s Nobody Knows.
Tom: A year between singles. He’s no Rihanna, that’s for sure.
Tom: Hmm. Well, that’s…. OK? I guess? I mean, I know it’s a bit rich to call out pop music for being repetitive, but this does seem to go on a bit.
Tim: Synth stuff, dance bit, great. Vocals and lyrics as good as necessary for a dance track like think. But the main “You keep playing with fire”? Actually, not so keen, or at least not at the start – the second batch in each chorus works alright, and it gets more listenable throughout the track and with further listens, but the initial rounds with next to nothing underneath aside from the one heavy beat does quite put me off this.
Tom: Agreed.
Tim: Which is a shame, because the rest is all great.
“I’m fairly sure that’s basically ‘Euphoria’ tarted up a bit.”
Tim: Remember how, last May, Loreen won the Eurovision Song Contest?
Tom: I did. She was very good.
Tim: And you remember the main hook of the song was the “eu-PHOOOOOOR-i-AH” bit?
Tom: How could I forget? I always sing “euphonium” along to it instead.
Tim: Well, from the song that Cascada wants to enter this year’s contest with, it seems she remembers as well.
Tom: Hmm. That’s… close. That’s quite close. In fact, I’m fairly sure that’s basically ‘Euphoria’ tarted up a bit.
Tim: It’s a decent song – the original stuff is very good, danceable and perfectly listenable. Easily, a possible contender. So, why oh why did they lift the hook, note for note, from last year’s winner? How can that possibly go anywhere?
Tom: It is still a good song, though. With her name behind it, I can actually see it winning, assuming the juries don’t just go “no, that’s a blatant ripoff, nul points.”
Tim: You know, I think you could be right. But still, I’m trying to imagine a conversation that might have happened, at some point in the production process – the only scene I’ve got in my head is a meeting between an angry producer demanding an immediate people-pleaser and Euphoria being the only CD the assistant’s got to hand as an example. “THAT’S GOOD! Now take it away and make it a bit different.”
A month later, “NO! That’s TOO DIFFERENT. Make it LESS SO, and also throw in a bit of The Wanted at the start to throw people off the scent.”
Tom: As I listened to the first verse of this, I wrote this opening line: “Calvin Harris needs to get himself a new synth patch.”
Tom: …and then the proper chorus kicked in. Not the pump-up “We live, we die” pre-pre-chorus, not the downbeat pre-chorus, but the actual full-on Calvin Harris jump-up-and-dance chorus, and I figured that maybe he can keep using his usual one for a bit longer yet.
Tim: Pre-pre-what now? Get your terminology right, boy: a chorus is strictly vocal; the hook you are discussing is in fact the post-chorus. Dearie me.
Tom: Can I just call it the “good bit”?
Tim: Oh, I suppose so. But you’re right – could be varied, but it’s actually pretty good anyway.
Tom: Yes. The chorus on this is brilliant, and here’s the thing – I’m not sure it’d seem quite as good if it didn’t have those lacklustre verses to compare it with.
Tim: Lacklustre in musical or lyrical sense? Because I think they should get points for grouping together Cyndi Lauper, Lady GaGa and Blondie. Once you throw in Danny DeVito you’re pretty much begging for a Brit Award for the most peculiar cultural references in a song.
Tim: The second single off the upcoming album Heartthrob, this is a tad quieter than Closer, but, I think you’ll agree, none the worse for it.
Tom: Years and years ago, the local radio breakfast show where I lived had a jingle they’d play sometimes: “And now, a song with a long twinkly piano intro!” I’m not sure why that came back to me. Perhaps it’s because this intro is particularly twinkly.
Tim: It is, and right from there you know you’re in for a gentle ride, and for the verses at least that’s true. The chorus dials things up a notch, though, and has a great rhythm and vibe to it that’s really quite something.
Tom: It didn’t come together for me until the middle eight, but when it did – yes. This’ll do nicely.
Tim: Not keen on the ending – while the chorus line is lovely at the start, repeated over and over to fade doesn’t quite work so well for me.
Tom: Yep, I’d agree with that. Repeat to fade seems to be making a comeback recently, usually with an extra bit of instrumentation shoved in there; I wish it’d go away again.
Tim: Still, it’s a lovely number, and one that’s got me looking forward to the album, as has another track they stuck on the internet last week.
Tom: A friend of mine introduced me to VNV Nation the other day, and I have no idea how I missed them before. I have a new favourite album. The genre is vaguely defined as “future-pop”, and all I can say is “more, please”.
Tim: Six minutes? SIX MINUTES?
Tom: I know, I know. “It’s a six minute track, that’s too long”. It’s not too long. Let it run.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jqVo88Gv_M
Tim: Yeah, actually, you have a point there. I retract my incredulous yelling.
Tom: I listened to the whole ‘Automatic’ album in one go the other night, and ended up spending most of it alternating between working really hard, dancing in my chair, and just punching the air. Some other reviewers have claimed it’s “more of the same” and their earlier albums were better: well, as someone who’s coming in cold on the latest album, I can only suggest that “more of the same” is exactly what was needed.
Tim: Though I was a bit surprised when the intro kept going and going and going, it was worth it when it all happened. And I really did like that sudden synth that came in when it all seemed to be getting a tiny bit tired. It’s good.
Tom: I don’t even really want to review this, I just want to point you at the album and say LISTEN. LISTEN TO IT.
Tim: Alright, alright, gimme a while and I’ll get back to you.
Tom: Now I disagree there, but I can’t put my finger on why. I suspect this might just be my personal taste getting in the way: it certainly ticks all the boxes.
Tim: It really does. A great chorus. Brilliant instrumentation (with multiple guitars, you’ll notice). An excellent voice. And a cracking key change. I don’t think there’s anything more we need from a song, is there?
Tom: Well, it depends on the song. If we were looking at a concept album by Jack White, for instance, perhaps we’d be looking for narrative consistency and some experimental materials.
Tim: You might – I’d be wanting a decent key change.
Tom: Fortunately, this isn’t a concept album by Jack White, so I suspect we’re all good.
Tim: Pretty much, yes, although I suppose we could complete the set with a nice inspiring message in the lyrics; it’s fortunate, then, that the title means “Don’t Give Up”, and so we have our full house. Wonderful, more like this please.
Tim: Yes, we did a Frida Sundemo track just a few days ago. But this is off the same released-in-March EP, quite a bit better than Indigo, and (to top it all) somewhat topical. What fun.
Tom: That’s a builder and no mistake. What a difference from a few days ago.
Tim: Absolutely – the video is not disturbing, the lyrics are not nonsensical, and even better than that, it does more than just squat. Instead, it gets up and does stuff. Not too much, obviously – it’s meant to be a sad song about not enjoying being alone.
Tom: There are parts where that comes through a little too strongly – that glitchy, repeating part at the end of the chorus grates badly for me – but the rest of the chorus is so good that I can’t really complain.
Tim: Good. And despite the song’s sadness, it makes a very good job of dancing around at times, building snowmen, and in the quieter moments you can imagine it lying down to making angel shapes.
Tom: I think this metaphor might be getting away from you.
Tim: And yet I shall persist. It might not want to be outside at all – it would probably rather be inside, being given a mug of hot chocolate from its more upbeat friends, but while it’s out there it’s damn sure it’s going to make the best of a situation that’s almost as bad as, I suppose I should agree, this metaphor has become.
Tm: So last week was pretty much the week that music came back in its entirety. First there was Bowie, then Justin Timberlake, and then Destiny’s Child. Cascada put out a track she’s hoping to represent Germany with, of which we’ll naturally have more in due course. And then, to close the week, there was this.
Tom: My word, that’s lovely. And it sounds, well, exactly like Dido used to. Like Bowie’s comeback, this could easily have been a track from Dido’s glory years.
Tim: Of course, since you’re launching on a Friday evening, you’ll want it to be a track to get people ready for the weekend, a big dance ban– no? Oh, fair enough then. But this is Dido, doing what she does best. And it’s…well, it’s alright.
Tom: I absolutely loved this on first listen – particularly when combined with the odd, ephemal-Americana video – but I suspect this may be one of those tracks that I grow to dislike the more I hear it.
Tim: You think? For me it was…okay, and then kept being okay. I was joking about the dance-ness of it (believe it or not), but I still wouldn’t mind something with a little more impact. You know, something like Hunter or White Flag – great tracks with energy, a drumbeat, something you can really get into.
Tom: See, I really got into this – but then I managed to predict the rest of the chorus based on the first line, and even air-drummed along with a drum fill that I didn’t know was coming. It’s very nice on first listen because it sounds so familiar, but it’s also so trite that I don’t really want to hear it again.
Tim: Hmm, fair enough. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s bad – it’s tranquil and lovely – and I don’t dislike it at all. It’s just, it’s the sort of Dido track that may well be improved by having an angry white rapper on top of it, and that’s not the style that I’d want to come back with.
Tim: Part of me feels I should apologise from the get go, here. This is a boyband comprising three 14/15 kids that, much like INJU5TICE and FriXion, is destined for ignominy, obscurity and oblivion. And it’s a pretty terrible track. Why are we covering it, then? What is remotely noticeable about it? Well, the band is the sole output of Duncan Bannatyne’s new record label. Yes.
Tom: I’ve been playing around with Melodyne over the last few days – the industry-standard pitch-correction-slash-Autotune tool. I’ve found that I really can’t sing – and I’ve had that told to me in cold, mathematical detail – but I’ve also found that autotune is really, really obvious when you have pitch that’s as bad as mine.
So either one or more of these guys can’t sing, or they really need to upgrade their copy of Melodyne.
Tim: Now, we think, Bannatyne is a business genius, and must have some brilliant marketing people. So what have they called the record label? Bannertune, maybe, or perhaps Bangertyne. Or, if he’s feeling cheeky, POP! Bangertyne! But no, it’s Bannatyne Records. OPPORTUNITY MISSED, DUNCS.
Tom: “POP! Bangertyne!”? Bloody hell, Tim, you should be in marketing.
Tim: You’re very kind. But let’s move on. The song. Let’s be honest, it’s not remotely notable.
Tom: It’s not notable, but I will say this: it is competent. Mostly. I mean, I keep thinking that “picking the numbers” will become “picking the nose”, and “kissing an angel” sounds remarkably like “kissing a ninja”, but it’s not actually a bad track. I can see it being an album track for a proper mainstream pop band, and hell, if One Direction somehow decided to put it out it’d still race to the top of the charts.
The previous bands we’ve mocked really did have terrible singles – but this isn’t terrible.
Tim: No – perhaps I was slightly harsh, almost predisposed to disliking it. But it’s really not special.
The band? The blond one’s eyebrows look a bit scary, but again, nothing notable. The video? Well, the ugly nerdy does not, in strict violation of correct policy and procedure, suddenly turn beautiful thanks to something or other during the middle eight, so that’s out.
Tom: It’s a pretty cringeworthy video, to be sure – they haven’t quite got the budget or acting chops to pull off what they want to pull off.
Tim: I can, basically, think of nothing positive to say about this.
Tom: Have another listen. Much as I’d love to hate it, I don’t. As a cheap and cheesy pop song, it’s good.
Tim: The song may be alright, but nowhere near good enough to raise the band to an acceptable level. So, are you going to say it, or shall I?
Tom: Take it.
Tim: Duncan. The track is mediocre. The band is disappointing. The video is distinctly sub-par. For those reasons, I’m out.
Tom: And now, the creepiest video I’ve seen in a little while.
Tim: Having previously worked as a mascot for the best part of a year, I’d like to express my disapproval that he’s not wearing paws. That there makes it quite clear that it is not, in fact, a massive bunny rabbit that she’s having relationship issues with, which is just not right.
Tom: “You’re an indigo”?
Tim: YOUR MUM’S AN INDIGO.
Tom: Look, I know I shouldn’t complain about nonsense lyrics in pop, but that’s nonsense in several different ways.
Tim: Shouldn’t you? Why on Earth not? We complain about everything else, and this is just bloody ridiculous.
Tom: And maybe I could forgive it if the rest of the track was worth it: but the rest of the track just kind of squats around for a bit.
Tim: ‘Squats.’ That’s a good word to use. Well done.
Tom: She’s singing, yes, and there’s some instrumentation. It’s upbeat, sure, but for want of a better metaphor it just seems to be running on the spot, never quite going anywhere. Aside from the brief middle eight, it’s all the bloody same. Sometimes that works, and here… here it doesn’t.
