Saturday Reject: Saara Aalto – Domino

“That is a BRILLIANT chorus.”

Tim: Finland took the unusual (but not unheard of) step this year of having one artist presenting three songs for the public to choose from. The singer is Saara, who UK readers may remember as runner up in the 2016 series of The X Factor; others may recognise her from previous Eurovision selection competitions, Finland’s The Voice 2012, and considerable success in China, apparently. The winner was a pretty good dancepop number; this here is a really rather excellent ballad.

Tim: Annoyingly I’ve no idea what it looked like live, as for some reason the winning performance is the only one online, but if the sound of it is anything to go by it was likely fairly impressive – if nothing else, that’s a hell of a chorus.

Tom: That is a BRILLIANT chorus. I think this is the first reject where I’ve actually been startled by how good the chorus is.

Tim: I particularly like that the chorus goes on for twice as long as it needs to, and as a result makes up the considerable majority of the song. When you add in the middle eight (with that outstanding vocal note coming out of it), there’s only really a few seconds that the verses might ruin as an inferior part.

Tom: In a contest where most of the audience will have only heard the song once, having a good, catchy, and repeated chorus is a bonus. The verses — well, yep, they were over quickly, just in case they made it worse.

Tim: And they don’t, at all, because they’re very good as well.

Tom: Plus, what an end-and-return from the middle eight!

Tim: All in all, an excellent track, and it’d have been a very worthy Eurovision contender.

GRANT – Shimmer

“…and then there’s that other bit.”

Tim: New one off GRANT, whose first track we both had a good amount of appreciation for; here’s hoping this’ll be the same.

Tim: It’s certainly got a good amount of appreciation from me, because a very large part of this is absolutely lovely. It’s a tad peculiar, split as it is into three distinct varieties: the verses primarily percussion based, the chorus largely string based, and then there’s that other bit.

Tom: At least the other bit stands out. The rest is all a bit bland for me: pleasant, but I’m damned if I can remember it. It is, as you say, very much a song of three parts.

Tim: The first two are fine, and they alone would make an absolutely lovely song. That other bit, though…I’m really not sure about.

Tom: I do not know what’s going on in that post-chorus. I just… huh. Strong stereo pan, odd harmonies. My brain’s intrigued, but I’m not sure I actually like it.

Tim: I don’t dislike it – I can think of many other songs I like that have very similar parts, and it’s not like it turns me off here. It’s just – it doesn’t half stand out, as a sudden shock of electro synths amongst an otherwise entirely symphonic track. Weird. I still like it, but it’s weird.

Felix Sandman – Every Single Day (Orchestral Version)

“…promised something wonderful.”

Tim: Felix, aka the F from The Fooo/The Fooo Conspiracy/FO&O, entered the standard version of this for Melodifestivalen, and came a strong second; God knows how, because it’s entirely tedious, with a vocal backed up solely by one gentle piano line and one cello that arrives towards the end.

Tom: You’re not selling this to me, Tim.

Tim: This version, though, is a fair improvement.

Tom: I’ll say this for it: it’s got a promising introduction. Brilliant string section, good vocals, nice composition, and that “do you think of me” promised something wonderful. And then…

Tim: Admittedly it’s still not a brilliant listen – slow, nothing particularly exciting – and it sure as hell shouldn’t go forward to represent any country at Eurovision, but it does provide at lot more to listen to than previously, and comes across as somewhat soothing and calming.

Tom: We’ve actually got a song here where you’re finding it dull and I’m finding it brilliant. That’s rare, here. There are some really nice bits in here: the little flourish on “you’d approve of who I am”, the whole slow build, and an almost-late-Beatles-like transition coming out of the middle eight.

Tim: It is, mind, entirely possible that I’m simply thinking better of this purely in comparison, but, hey. I’m okay with that, as long as it gives me a song to like.

Tom: This is good, and it’s doing exactly what it’s supposed to — but I just find myself wanting a bit more. This is sold as orchestral, not just “we got a string quartet and a couple of other people”. Get a brass section in there for the final chorus! Add someone absolutely whacking the hell out of timpani! Give us a whole orchestra, and this would be one of the best songs I’ve heard this year.

LunchMoney Lewis – Who’s Up?

“Moderately funky, but entering low and falling swiftly.”

Tom: Remember LunchMoney Lewis?

Tim: The name, yes. The song…no, remind me.

Tom: He was the sound of the summer back in 2015, and — although we talked about the song a bit too early to cover it — that one song did end up being a smash on both sides of the Atlantic. Since then, he’s… well, yes, “one-hit wonder” would sum it up pretty well, albeit a one-hit wonder who’ll be doing well from the songs he’s written for other people.

So: here’s the next attempt at the charts. And the result from today’s Chart Forecast is:

Tom: Moderately funky, but entering low and falling swiftly.

Tim: With a disappointing lack of emotion.

Pete Yorn, Scarlett Johansson – Bad Dreams

“Did I have low expectations, or is this a really good pop song?”

Tim: Hang on – not, that Scarlett Johansson?

Tom: Yes, that Scarlett Johansson.

Tom: Did I have low expectations, or is this a really good pop song?

Tim: Both, I think – certainly better than I ever imagined it would be, given what previous Hollywood A-listers have given us.

Tom: I mean, it’s a little retro, and it’s a bit Radio 2, but there’s a lot of really good influences that have been pulled together into this — a bit of Fleetwood Mac, maybe a bit of REM.

Tim: And put together in a really good way.

Tom: Shame about the low-effort middle eight and final chorus: there’s a lot of opportunities missed there. Even a simple ‘shift the main melody to the harmony for a couple of notes’ would’ve been better.

Tim: Yes – my one moan was that about three minutes in I was thinking “so, anything new going to happen here?”

Tom: Still: not complaining. This is actually a really nice track.

Aurora – Queendom

“Oh I know this, and it’s really good, what is it?”

Tim: So, you ever get that thing when you listen to a song and you think ‘huh, it’s okay’, and then you hear it in the background a bit later and you think ‘oh I know this, and it’s really good, what is it’?

Tom: Yes! Normally on the radio days later. I once asked Shazam about the same song three times in a week, and I feel like it should have been more sarcastic by the end of that.

Tim: I ask, because that’s basically what happened here.

Tim: According to what she told Zane Lowe on Beats 1 last week, her Queendom is what she basically wants to be a home for all her fans who need a place to be alone together.

Tom: I think the most startling part of that sentence is that anyone actually listened to Beats 1. Anyway, yes, you were saying, alone together.

Tim: I don’t really know if that works or not, but I do know that, like I said earlier, it didn’t really do much for me actively the first time I heard it, but then actually it turns out I really like it.

Tom: Whereas I’ll be honest, I’m judging it on the first listen here. It’s… it’s okay, I guess, but if it turns out to be a grower I’m really not sure I’d give it enough a chance.

Tim: And I’m fairly sure that’s not a bad thing – sure, if it was a Eurovision track or similar where one play was all we got, it’d be a significant drawback, but as it is, just a couple of plays in it sounds great. And that’ll do me. Very nicely, in fact.

Saturday Reject: Sannie – Boys On Girls

“It’s Whigfield! With some incredibly distracting dancers!”

Tim: It’s Whigfield! With some incredibly distracting dancers!

Tom: Wait, that actually is Whigfield! Singing… well, let’s just say that Damon Albarn might be wondering if he’s got a case about that chorus.

Tim: Ideally, in most cases, the singer’s the one we should be looking at – sure, sometimes there are exceptions, if they’re really there to make something of the choreography. But here, although I’m certain they’re not meant to be so distracting – there’s that one guy, front and centre when they’re all sitting down, standing directly behind her in that second chorus, and taking attention on the right at the close. I don’t know why (no, it’s not because of that), but he seems to steal it every time he’s there. Just me?

Tom: Just you, mate. But the fact you haven’t written a word about the (sadly, fairly dull) song says a lot.

Birgir – Home

“A combination of familiarity and novelty is generally what sells pop music.”

Tim: I do like it, Tom, when very good looking people turn out to also be very good at making music. Today it’s the turn of Birgir Steinn Stefánsson, whose previous track we both largely liked. Quick heads up: the sound quality on the YouTube clip is somewhat atrocious, so if you’ve got access to a streaming service of some sort, you might want to use that instead.

Tim: The main criticism we had previously was that it sounded slightly derivative of other tracks; this one doesn’t have that problem remotely as much.

Tom: A combination of familiarity and novelty is generally what sells pop music, and I still reckon there’s a lot of familiarity here. You can trace the elements here back to all over the last ten years, but they’re pulled together well.

Tim: But this did give me the most obscure ‘sounds like’ I think I’ve ever had, with a ‘GAH, what I do want that to spin off into’ in the run up to the chorus. Took me a good ten minutes to work it out, but it was in fact the 2012 Belarusian entry to Eurovision. Third from bottom in its semi-final, but I quite liked it.

Tom: Astonishing.

Tim: BUT ANYWAY, this song. Takes a while to get there, but boy when it does, that second chorus is a blinder, as is pretty much everything that follows it; listening a second time, that first chorus stuck out at me more than it had done previously as well. All in all, lovely stuff.

Tom: And a note for having a Proper Ending as well. It stays exactly as long as it should, no less, no more. That’s underrated.

Smith & Thell – Dumb

“Please, don’t delete this.”

Tim: New discovery: about two and a half years ago, Smith & Thell removed roughly everything they had every done from the internet, and indeed elsewhere: YouTube videos and SoundCloud tracks all gone, no songs on Spotify or up for purchase, anywhere. All gone, completely.

Tom: Well, that’s bold. Dramatic PR stunt, getting angry with old work, or a Big Massive Change In Direction?

Tim: Big Massive Change In Direction: from dancey numbers like Kill It With Love (still up unofficially in dodgy quality on Vimeo if you want to remind yourself) to more boring standard guitar stuff. So it’s slightly understandable – forget the past, we don’t do that any more – until you realise that actually, their new track is very much closer to the old stuff.

Tom: You’re not wrong there.

Tim: In fact, what we’ve got is a really, really good blend of the two styles, with a U2-esque beginning, and continuing undercurrent, of guitars and drums and standard band-style singing, which then quickly adds on some synths and develops eventually full-blown dance banger territory for the second chorus and what follows. And I absolutely love that idea.

Tom: It does, but there’s something wrong with the production here, or at least in the version that’s been sent up to YouTube. Everything’s been gated so loudly that it’s difficult to make out the vocals: there’s no headroom anywhere in there. There’s a really great vocal quality hidden in there, but it’s been pushed so loud and limited so heavily that it’s almost painful to listen to at times.

Tim: Hmm…

Tom: Yes, I’m complaining about the ‘loudness war’, but it’s rare to actually make such a difference. Either that or my ears are blocked.

Tim: Well, I kind of get what going for (and it’s not YouTube, the studio version’s the same), but I don’t find it a problem. The two styles are blended together so so well, and it’s a track I can listen to many times over, particularly once you add the great “luh-luh-luh-love me” bit in that pre-chorus which I find a particular highlight. And that higher melody in the middle eight? Also great. In fact it’s ALL GREAT. So please, don’t delete this.

Causes – Let It Rain

“It didn’t need another chorus, it just needed a bigger final one.“

Tim: Causes, a Netherlands based band, who…

Tom: Are covering East 17?

Tim: Again, the wrong option you’ve jumped in with. No, it’s a new song, and to find out more you can just read the video.

Tom: Well, that’s a really irritating video.

Tim: It is slightly distracting, yes, as I was paying so much attention to reading their story that I had to go back to remind myself what the track was like.

Tom: Yep, background tab right away.

Tim: Fortunately, re-listening didn’t bother me so much because it’s a damn good track that I’ll happily listen to multiple times. The sound is good from the start, it brings a great happy message (‘let it rain, let it rain, let it rain, before you know it you’ll be dry again’ is a lovely lyric).

Tom: I’m not sure it’s enough, really, but it’s… well, it’s inoffensive. I’ll admit I felt unsatisfied by the ending: despite there being one additional vocal line, that last chorus feels about the same as the first one. Just when it feels like the track might be going somewhere, it stops dead. It didn’t need another chorus, it just needed a bigger final one.

Tim: You might be right there, I suppose, but all in all it just seems…nice. And right now, I’ll take that.