Tim: I described Look What You Made Me Do as ‘bloody awful’; you weren’t as down on it but did express hope that further stuff wouldn’t be quite so dark. With due trepidation, then…
Tim: And, well, it’s still not as happy and upbeat as previously (as, of course, we must remember that that Taylor is DEAD), but, surprisingly, I actually quite like that.
Tom: Wait, really? It’s okay, I guess — and to be fair, Look What You Made Me Do has been a grower for me — but apart from the pre-chorus, this didn’t connect with me at all. Why do you like it?
Tim: Partly because right now there’s a slight personal connection – someone at work recently demonstrated a complete lack of etiquette in the ‘buying a drink’ department and now it’s over before it started – but also because the melody’s not unpleasant, it has an enjoyable chorus and she’s actually displaying her vocal talents.
Tom: Yes, she’s got a recognisable voice — one that couldn’t be replaced with just any session singer — but it’s still not as good as… well, basically anything off the last album.
Tim: Oh, that’s very very true – but given that previously described limit, this is actually pretty good. Surprisingly.
Tom: I know we’re meant to be about Europop here, but let’s talk about this.
Tim: Oh, must we?
Tom: Everyone else is.
Tom: It’d be a banger if it had an actual sung chorus.
Tim: Yes – ironic, really, that given all the beef she’s had with Katy Perry over the past few years she’s now releasing a song with the exact same flaw as Dark Horse.
Tom: Everything else about this is great: the introduction, the build in the first verse, the pre-chorus… and then it, well, it goes all a bit wrong.
Tim: Are you…are you on glue? It’s dull, there’s next to no melody, the lyrics are horrible, they gave Right Said Fred writing credit in advance so they didn’t get sued – and that video would appear to be going for horror movie but it comes out like Scooby Doo (and we also need to teach her what underlining is).
Tom: I know, I know, but I went into this cold — I’ve looked up the other opinions now, but I just went “ooh, new Taylor Swift track” without seeing the reactions. And genuinely, I really liked everything up until that chorus. It could have been good.
Tim: Well, takes all sorts, I suppose.
Tom: To be fair, by the end of the track I think I “got it” — I just hope the rest of the album’s not quite as dark. I’m reminded of Robbie Williams’ strategy: release the weird single first to get attention, follow it up quickly with a radio-friendly banger for airplay. If that’s what’s going on here, there’s hope yet.
Tim: Well, sorry to disappoint you, but the old Taylor won’t be on the radio any more. Why? BECAUSE SHE’S DEAD, remember? This is it, apparently, and it’s bloody awful.
Tim: The first film gave us Love Me Like You Do and that dodgy version of Crazy in Love.
Tom: Dodgy? It was absolutely brilliant. Anyway.
Tim: The sequel brings us both Taylor Swift’s first new music in over two years. Would you like a music video which absolutely definitely was filmed with the two of them together at the same time?
Tom: Astonishingly, it actually was, although heaven knows why they bothered.
Tim: Huh, weird. But also there, amongst other things, is Zayn Malik showing us exactly what sort of vocal range One Direction missed out on when he wandered off, and it’s quite impressive.
Tom: That’s some impressive falsetto there – particularly for what’s usually the masculine role in a song like this. I can’t help feeling that I actually want him to hit some notes in a lower register at some point. Surely he’ll knacker his voice?
Tim: I don’t know, he’s been doing it a while now.
Tom: Anyway, I don’t know whether the song was written for them, or whether it was tailored afterwards, but it really does match both their vocal styles.
Tim: There are a lot of other bits in there that are good as well – right from the start, that backing vocal is great, and I’m also a fan of how the drums pretty much leading the instrumental throughout.
Tom: It’s also a good chorus, by which I mean I can sing it after one listen and it’s not irritating. Those are my main requirements for a good chorus.
Tim: And so much as I didn’t think I would like it the first time I heard it, I’ve really grown to like this. Doesn’t mean I’ll see the film, though.
Tom: So the record label’s finally got around to making the best track (don’t argue, it is) from 1989 a single, and the big-budget music video has just been released.
Tim: I won’t argue, but I will give a quick context note: this is another that is generally believed to be about her and Harry Styles; she’s not denied that, but said the relevant relationship was had “anxiety coursing through it” due to “every single person in the media thinking they could draw up the narrative of what we were going through”. So, probably.
Tom: Shot in New Zealand, like Lord of the Rings. Ridiculous budget, like Lord of the Rings. Impressive CGI, like Lord of the Rings. No coherent plot, like… well, never mind.
Tim: Binning off the snark for a moment (sorry): beautiful looking, like, yeah.
Tom: But here’s my point: 1989 is an album from 2014. It’s 15 months old. And new video releases still get massive publicity, millions of views in the first day, and — crucially — this isn’t an album track. This could have been the lead single. 1989 really is a spectacular album.
Tim: It is, and it’s no surprise that this was the initial promo track for the album. The chorus alone sums it up, and your attitude to the song will likely rest solely on that: high speed, high intensity, hefty on the shove-it-down-your-throat message. If you like the chorus, you’ll like the song. If you don’t like the chorus, there’s something wrong with you.
“It’s pleasant and enjoyable to listen to, and it certainly keeps people coming back for more.”
Tim: Fifth(!) single from 1989 but it still got top 5 in America a couple of months back, and now it’s getting a push over here – latest from Tay-Tay (a better nickname than Jeppo?).
Tim: And BOOM, DECONSTRUCTION, for all the snarky arseholes who were about to say “no, she never went within 200 miles of a lion there”, so nicely played Taylor. In other news; nice track, and a whole lot more pleasant to listen to than Bad Blood was.
Tom: Having listened to 1989 a few times, I started out by writing “and she’s starting to get to the weak tracks”. But on reflection…
Tim: Well indeed – the main question is: is it clear that it’s a fifth single? Was it released just to get more cash or because it’s a great track? I’m guessing: bit of both. It’s pleasant and enjoyable to listen to, and it certainly keeps people coming back for more.
Tom: And, heck, if you’re still touring, and you can still get airplay: well, why not? It doesn’t feel overstretched, which is a sign of just how good an album 1989 is.
Tim: It does, though, serve as a reminder that the whole 1989 campaign started almost two years ago now, even if the album itself is only a year old, so it kind of gets me thinking: NEW STUFF I WANT MORE. And that’s never a bad thing for people to say of an artist. Unless you’re Rihanna, in which case it’s getting really rather tired by now.
Tim: So we all know and adore the original, of course, but I was at Radio 1’s Big Weekend *CLANG* —
Tom: Gig-dropping again there, Tim?
Tim: You don’t mind, do you? — where I saw Taylor Swift sing this, an updated version.
Tim: It came with a nice explanatory intro about how she came across Romeo & Juliet at school and loved all of it except for [SPOILER alert] the whole suicide business, and so she changed the ending, an act which literary scholars would argue the merits of for possibly entire minutes.
Tom: I’m just going to take a moment to appreciate that last clause.
Tim: Regardless, in the six years or so since then her style has changed quite a lot, so she’s done a version which would sit nicely on her 1989 album. And, well, obviously it doesn’t match up to the greatness of the first, but it’s an interesting take on it.
Tom: I disagree: I think this is better. I mean, for some reason, the sound engineer’s put the backing vocals up way too loud, but as it’s live, we can forgive that. This is an amazingly good arrangement — it brings it up to date, it fits her new style, and it replaces the overly cloying instrumental. Yes.
Tim: Fair point, I suppose, and if it was a new song I heard now I’d probably love it; as it is, though, the overly cloying instrumental is part of what brought the ridiculously syrupy original’s charm, and it kind of doesn’t sound right without it. It’s still very good, but it wouldn’t take the same place in my heart that the original did, especially now the key change has lost its sense of whacking you in the ear with an aural frying pan.
Tom: More like this, please.
Tim: Yes – it is something that I’d kind of like other artists to do every now and again. We could have Britney’s Baby One More Time sung in the style of Toxic, perhaps, or Eric Saade’s Manboy sung in the style of Girl From Sweden, though if I think a bit actually both of those would be terrible ideas so let’s move quickly on.
Tom: Okay, so when I say “more like this”, I mean “more artists who’ve massively improved their style doing this”.
Tim: Sensible caveat, so this one’s alright, as an observation if nothing else.
Thirty years of pop culture in three and a half minutes.
Tom: It’s been a few weeks, so let’s have some more mashups. First of all, here’s Miracles by Norwegian Recycling.
Tom: It’s one of those genius mashups that pulls in a dozen different sources to make a coherent whole. It doesn’t really seem to go anywhere, or do any building, but it’s just rather pleasant to listen to. It’s a run through thirty years of pop culture in three and a half minutes, and the video brings it all together nicely.
Tim: Ooh, I like that – I’ve always quite liked mashups that pile in a whole load of songs together just to see what happens, such as the United State of Pop ones, and Party Ben‘s Boulevard of Broken Songs, and this one pulls it off well.*
* There’s also Axis of Awesome’s Four Chord Song, which whilst not actually being a mashup is still fun to listen to.
Tom: There’s been some very clever autotuning on Cee-Lo Green, as well; while it still sounds like him, I’m fairly sure those aren’t exactly the notes he was originally singing…
Tim: Well, with so many songs you’re bound to need a little pitch correction on there just to keep them in the same key, surely.
Tom: No, it’s more than that: I think they’ve actually got him singing a different melody, not just a different key. I might be wrong, though.
Tim: The only thing I dislike about it is the Jason Derulo track – it’s one of his better ones, but it sounds like he forgot to write words to half the chorus, which gets me every time I hear it.
Tom: Second up, here’s a simple A+B mashup by Sam Flanagan. It’s called “Brimful of Bonkers”, and that tells you all you need to know really. Oh, but watch out for an unexpected cameo just after three minutes in.
Tom: It’s easy – there is, of course, not even any pitch correction to do – but it’s still a hell of a party tune. It could use being a bit shorter, but it’s good enough that I don’t really mind.
Tim: I thought that as well – it could easily lose the first verse/chorus, since it’s identical to the second. Anyway, you’re right, it is good, especially the cameo.
Tom: I know both the original songs off by heart, which normally would just make a mashup like this confusing – but this is just pulled together so nicely that it doesn’t matter.
Tim: Personally, I prefer it when I know the original songs – you get to think ‘Ooh, this is fun – never thought of these going together.’ And speaking of knowing the original songs, here’s a mixture of two Europlop favourites merged together by Benji of Sweden (apparently he’s the only one in the country) to form one big Bromance Killer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9scZ67EAGc
Tim: Aside from the Radio Sweden jingle (which is surprisingly nonintrusive anyway), I think it’s ruddy marvellous, with him still managing to keep the big Lovekiller climax and all the energy that was originally there. Well done Mr Sweden.
Tom: Wow, that’s a belter. Bromance itself is steadily picking up more and more airplay and traction in the UK – the vocal remix with Love U Seek gets released on 25th October, which means it might well be a Big Autumn Hit.
Tom has just discovered how to be a complete dick at karaoke.
Tom: Taylor Swift’s new single leaked online the other week, and was swiftly released properly in response. It’s just hit the US Billboard charts, and no doubt it’ll be over on these shores sooner or later; the official video just came out, too.
In related news, I have just discovered how to be a complete dick at karaoke. Here is the karaoke backing track for Love Story by Taylor Swift: your challenge is to sing You Belong With Me over the top of it. Provided you nail the key change at the end, and can deal with the harmony singer on the backing track throwing you off, they fit perfectly.
Tim: Oh, you and your… you-ness. Good work. You been doing karaoke?
Tom: If by “karaoke” you mean “singing along too loud while wearing headphones” then yes. The two songs have the same structure and same chords.
The new one’s got roughly the same structure, but then so does every schlager song in existence. At least it sounds a bit different, even if it’s the same “oh look, we’re in love, and despite some setbacks we’re still in love at the end” that describes most of her songs.
Tom: Not surprising – they’re by the same producer.
Tim: Do we need to bother reviewing Mine? It’s absolutely nothing special at all: if people liked Love Story and You Belong With Me they’ll like this as well, and if they didn’t they won’t. I think we should leave the summing up for YouTube commenter MoonfulBlue, who seems to live in her own little world of fluffy bunnies and pink clouds, but has an appropriate take on Taylor Swift’s music:
‘I love how Taylor’s songs always talk about things in life that could actually happen and they don’t talk about drugs/sex/violence and instead, love is in place.’
