Tim: British singer-songwriter, and just so you don’t yell out “oh, bloody hell” like I did when I first heard this through my headphones walking through Westfield, the first chorus does not, sadly, culminate in a plausible and extraordinary dance breakdown. It’s upsetting, but you’ll understand why later.
Tom: That idea of having a second, instrumental chorus has become the default, hasn’t it? It seemed novel just a few years ago. This definitely didn’t seem like the track to use one, though — admittedly the acoustic bit does have the same effect, though.
Tim: Oh, true – after hearing it in full it’s absolutely not the song for it. Just, listening the first time I was hoping we’d got an Avicii-esque pop-rock intro, verse and chorus and then DANCE. Still upsets me slightly, mind, but it is necessary, you see, so that the next chorus can be STRONGER, and then the one after that can be STRONGER THAN IT EVER WAS BEFORE. Clever, isn’t it?
Tom: It is: although I’m glad it doesn’t outstay its welcome. With a one-line chorus, even three minutes starts to become a bit long. But, yes, clever.
Tim: Particularly because, that one moment aside, this really is very strong indeed, from the music (according to an old interview, he does all the instruments himself) to the voice. Some might say that’s a tad grating, but it works well enough for me, reinforcing the anthem style of it – you don’t need too much of a melody when you’ve got the volume, message and backing like this. As far as I’m concerned, it works very well. Strong indeed.