Tom: “This is my moment! This is my disco-o-o moment, with you!” …no?
Tim: No.
Tom: Shame.
Tim: Quick backstory: I’ve recently been listening to a lot of electropop, and then I found this, which is a great compilation if anyone’s looking to expand their knowledge. One of the tracks on there is this, from last summer. Enjoy.
Tom: Four-on-the-floor disco beat. This bodes well.
Tim: Video: no idea what’s going on, I really don’t, although I have learned that blue lipstick really doesn’t do much good for your teeth. Music: speaks for itself. The backing beats and melody and fantastic, the verses stand up well and as for that chorus, well, just listen to it, and I challenge you to tell me it’s not brilliant.
You can’t, can you?
Tom: I wouldn’t deign to try. The verses are a bit too quiet and monotonous for me, but then without them the chorus wouldn’t shine as brightly.
Tom: In fact, it’s so distracting that I’m going to put an unofficial lyric video in here, and we can work from that instead.
Tim: Oh, fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uTF9Z6cjb4
Tom: Adam Levine sounds increasingly like a parody of himself; there’s a fine line between “recognisable voice” and “Kermit the Frog”. Still, he hasn’t crossed it yet, and when the chorus is this good I think we can forgive occasional bits of nasality. And the usual one or two swear words – just enough to create an “explicit” version to seem edgy, but not so much that they have to censor every other word.
Tim: Indeed – edgy is cool, whereas Kid Cudi just sounds like he’s got a particularly bad stutter.
Tom: Oh wait! It’s time for a rap bit that announces itself with a good bit of profanity.
Tim: Hooray!
Tom: It’s not as bad as it could be, though; Wiz Khalifa’s always had a more laid-back flow that fits into a pop record. Here’s my general rule for rap middle eights in 2012: “it could be worse; it could be Pitbull.”
Tim: That’s true. It also doesn’t last particularly long, which is nice. Actually, strike that—it does, but I was too engrossed in that first video to notice it. Oh well.
Tom: Good song though.
Tim: Indeed, and we must ensure that it gets top 10, so that Radio 1 are either broadcasting explosions over the airwaves or the official expletive-filled lyric video over the internet.
Crikey, has Lady Gaga gone and got herself a beard now?
Tim: Yesterday we discussed the Stockholm Pride 2012 song, and I reckoned it wasn’t as good as it could have been. This has reinforced my view, because, well, just listen to it.
Tom: Crikey, has Lady Gaga gone and got herself a beard now*? Because the movements and style of Bearded Man do seem a bit… “inspired by”.
* Heh. That joke works on at least two levels.
Tim: They do, don’t they? And that is just one reason why I reckon this would have been a vastly better choice. I don’t know how these things get chosen, but musically it’s just as, if not more, clubbing and banging and all that than Lena’s track, and it’s lyrics where it stands out. I still don’t know what yesterday’s one means…
Tom: Although to be fair, that’s because you don’t speak Swedish.
Tim: Fair point, but these ones are definitely sending out the right message – about coming out unafraid, fighting against anyone saying no and showing people why they’re proud. And all that’s just in the first verse, before we get to the chorus about taking a stand together as one family.
Tom: While I’m being a bit childish, by the way: he also pronounces “duty” as “doody”.
Tim: Yes, yes he does. Well done. The band themselves describe themselves as, would you believe it, an “unambiguously gay duo”…
Tom: That may or may not be a plan on Saturday Night Live’s “Ambiguously Gay Duo“, which is worth a watch. If you’re not at work. (And yes, that’s Stephen Colbert.)
Tim: Nice. And they did actually do last year’s official song, so maybe the organisers didn’t want the same band two years running or something. But still, Lena’s track’s rubbish compared to this.
Tim: Official Stockholm Pride 2012 anthem, this is, and a remix of a single from earlier this year.
Tim: Ehh. Don’t know what to think. It’s big, it’s brash, it’s dancey – at least, it is for the most part.
Tom: Well, mainly the second part.
Tim: Yes, that’s the problem – the first verses just seem a bit dull, which is a real shame. When pretty much everything from two minutes on is as big as it is, it just seems a shame to waste the first half of the track, when you could build this up into something right from the start, especially if you’re making a remix. They’ve already made it significantly more lively than the (not remotely dull to start with) original, but, why not go all the way?
Tom: I think part of this might be the compression we’re hearing on the web version – it seems rather low-quality and dull, as if it’s been crushed within an inch of its life. I rarely hold truck with the audiophiles who claim there’s a major difference with MP3 audio… but I wouldn’t mind hearing a slightly higher-bandwidth version of it.
Tim: Yes, that may be part of it. It also doesn’t help that I have no idea what the lyrics are. Google isn’t hugely helpful with the title, and I can’t find actual lyrics anywhere. WHY CAN’T I SPEAK SWEDISH?
Tim: By quite some way his best work since Bromance.
Tom: Really? I have to disagree: that synth melody seems to be the opposite of catchy. It seems almost like a kid playing random notes on a keyboard. I can still hum “Bromance”. This one? Not so much.
Tim: Well, I think you’re wrong. It’s not as good as Bromance, sure, but it’s still good, dancey, and it’s got a good vocal, which some of his have missed.
I do have one issue, though: that break in the middle. Yes, it stops people ripping it off YouTube, but bloody hell, is that really the best way they could fit something like that in?
Tom: The more disturbing it is, the better, as far as the labels are concerned. Admittedly it just means people will search for “aviicy siluetts mp3” and find it anyway, but still.
Tim: True. The only benefit is that if this gets into the top 10, it’ll sound lovely coming out of Radio 1 who, since they’ve started playing the videos on the website during the chart show, have to broadcast the video edits over the radio so it all syncs up properly. Somehow, every single person involved forgot about videos like this. Numpties.
Tom: First of all – that’s a silly idea. And second of all – surely they’ll have an edited version just for that?
Tim: No, or at least they didn’t when they did it with the whole top 100 singles since 2000 or whatever it was a few weeks back – I remember quite vividly Scott Mills deciding to talk over bits like that and inform the listener what was going on, so they wouldn’t miss out. But anyway, bloody good track.
That is beautiful. (With bonus Doctor Who music digression!)
Tim: Band who appeared suddenly on Facebook about a fortnight ago, bringing with them pages on Tumblr, YouTube, SoundCloud and probably just about every other site in existence.
Tom: Now there’s a Doctor Who plot waiting to happen.
Tim: Ah, but how many Doctor Who stories come with two songs, with this being one of them?
Tom: Well, there are at least two Doctor Who songs, but I wouldn’t look at either unless you value your sanity. First, there’s Jon Pertwee’s bizarre “I Am The Doctor“, and then there’s Ian Levine’s stunning, cringe-inducing, disaster “Doctor in Distress“. If the name Ian Levine sounds familiar… he was behind INJU5TICE.
Tim: That answer is vastly longer and more informative than I was expecting, so well done, but I really think it’s time we moved on to the music. Yes?
Tom: That is beautiful.
Tim: Indeed. There’s often a fine line between ‘melancholy’ and ‘dull’, and occasionally, a song comes along that manages to traverse that line as it runs its course. Today seems to be one of those occasions.
Tom: Ooh, now this is where we have a difference of opinion. It could fall into melancholy, sure, but it doesn’t seem that way for me at all. Adjectives like “powerful” and “uplifting” come to mind for me.
Tim: Towards the end, sure, but it takes a while to get there. When I first heard this for the first two minutes I was getting slowly and slowly less interested, but when 1:56 hit I was all sorts of ooh, this is actually alright.
Tom: The other trouble with that chorus is that I keep expecting the second line to be “Twisted firestarter”, which was a bit distracting.
Tim: Sure, the verse after that could still do with livening up a tad, but when that chorus hits again you’re all “oh, this is why I liked it,” and it’s at that point that it springs into life properly. You’ve also got some lovely instrumental bits following each chorus, and when you realise that that’s where the song’s closing you actually feel a bit disappointed, if only because it’s only just got going properly. More please.
I remember why we didn’t do it as a Saturday Reject.
Tom: “This song was in Melodifestivalen last year,” writes reader Plupp. “It was the first song on the entire festival last year,” they continue; “…it was placed LAST but was played on loop the entire year on the radio later.”
Tim: I remember this from last year. I also remember why we didn’t do it as a Saturday Reject.
Tom: I’ll say this much, Tim; these are some ridiculous outfits.
Tom: If this placed last, then I’ve got to agree: either it’s an injustice, or there were some incredible other tracks in that heat. Aside from a slightly dodgy middle eight, this sounds like it could come off any Clubland CD. Hmm. I meant that as a compliment, but it didn’t sound like it.
Tim: Well, however complimentary that may have been, I agree with you. And that’s the issue. It’s standard, bang in the middle of the road club music, as opposed to something representative of Sweden. Any Eurovision song should carry a message of ‘this is the music we do’, and this is just a bit too generic for that.
Tom: Whoa, whoa, hold on. And we brought the ‘Dinck?* No wonder we didn’t win.
What I mean is this: it’s a proper CLUB BANGER, and perhaps that makes me like it more that I should. I want to dance to this. Maybe it’s because the backing reminds me of Caravan Palace’s superb Clash, or maybe it’s just a damn good track.
*It’s a classier nickname than “The Humper”.
Tim: Oh, it is a damn good track, and a deserved radio mainstay. It’s just not a Eurovision entry. (And FYI, the official nickname is ‘The Hump’, but we’ve already discussed that more than is necessary.)
Tom: Either way, it shouldn’t have been last.
Tim: Probably not. But it’s right that it didn’t win.
Tom: I can sum this up in five words: “not as good as Stronger”.
Tim: Agreed.
Tom: Which is a shame, because I want to like this song – and not just because I like Kelly Clarkson. It’s got a cracking chorus when it kicks in, but it’s spoiled by a few things. The calmer “will you love me / even with my dark side” bit just seems out of place, and the video just seems melodramatic and fake.
Tim: It me, it seems…a bit dull. Yes, it gets going towards the end, but since you opened this review comparing it to Stronger I now want something as big as that was. It’s YOUR FAULT I’m disappointed, Tom Scott. YOUR FAULT.
Tom: Pink does this kind of song and video very well: the “people aren’t ideal, but try to cope with them” track that’s got an emotional punch that’ll make teenage girls cry. And this track is trying so hard – too hard – to be that. But on the back of Stronger, it just seems like a poor imitation.
Tom: Little Boots has just such a sound, and my word, it’s a good one.
Tom: Okay, so the “la la la” chorus is a bit unimaginative, and the rest of the lyrics are a bit meaningless and ridiculous, but none of that really matters, because it’s a proper electropop dance track.
Tim: But if it’s a track about music in general, “la la la” is fairly appropriate if you’re going to have a recurrent theme.
Tom: A bit more poppy than her previous album, perhaps – but that’s by no means a bad thing.
Tim: I’d go so far as to say: it’s a good thing. Although I would say that at four minutes and with such a notable, recurring theme going on, it sounds a bit drawn out at the end. That’s my only criticism, though.
Tim: Bit different, isn’t it? Previously was CLUB BANGER, but now we have beat-heavy ballad, and I like it. Partly because it’s been a while since I heard a song where the emotion of the lyrics is mirrored so perfectly in both the delivery of them and the music behind them.
Tom: Sinéad O’Connor’s version of “Nothing Compares 2 U” comes to mind. Not because this song’s equal to it – it’s a good track, but it’s not that good – but becaues it has that perfect match between vocals and instrumentation.
Tim: Right. Normally something seems a tad off – maybe it’s a bit too fast, or the voice is too excited – but here it just seems to work. She’s not too over-the-top screamy desperate, and the music’s got just the right amount of, well, whatever it is that it needs to be right. (That made sense in my head, I promise.)
Tom: Once I parsed that sentence, I can only agree.
Tim: It’s even there in the video – the quiet longing, not overplayed but just enough to really get you if you’re feeling a bit emotional. Basically, here everything goes together perfectly, and because of that, full marks.
Tom: It’s a proper break-up song. If you’re in the mood for that, well, it will do the job nicely.
