Electropop – Page 3

Busted – On What You’re On

“Daft Punk”

Tim: There were a number of Big Releases last Friday (by which I mean music, before you jump in with something rude), some of which (HI NIALL) were a tad disappointing. Others, though: not so much.

Tom: This does not sound like Busted. It does, however, sound good.

Tim: I got all worried a few months back, when Busted said their new stuff wouldn’t be like their old stuff, and it’d be a bit more serious. Turns out that is all true, but all that my worries were unfounded, because this is at least five times better than what I was worried it might be. (I had, incidentally, completely forgotten about their comeback single.)

Tom: That’s a difficult sentence to parse, Tim, but yes, I agree.

Tim: It’s a curiously funked up number, which to be honest I’d be surprised if anyone was expecting, but it works well. I don’t know if I’d have enjoyed it as much if it was, say, on the next Daft Punk album (yes, a surprising comparison but still appropriate), but as a new Busted track? I’m game.

Tom: I actually thought ‘this sounds like something off Random Access Memories’. Which might be a bit of a backhanded compliment, but even so. Well done them for trying something new and pretty much pulling it off. Even that sax solo.

Fallulah – Strange World

“Let’s call it inspiration rather than ‘bandwagon we totally jumped on’.”

Tim: Here’s a synthy track for you, and, well, have you seen Stranger Things?

Tom: No: it’s not really my sort of show.

Tim: Fair enough. There is reasoning for my question, though – have a listen, then I’ll explain.

Tim: Thing is, I’ve a hunch that people’s feelings for this may somewhat mirror their attitudes to the TV show. “You like 80s stuff? Well then here’s the song for you!”

Tom: And if you think that the majority of songs from the 80s were a bit rubbish, same as the majority of songs from any decade, and that the only reason we look back at the 80s with such nostalgia is that all the terrible music has been forgotten in hindsight, and that all the retro 80s bars and radio stations play from essentially a list of a few hundred tracks at most…

Tim: Well, look at you cutting all the bullshit right down to size. I don’t know, I may be being too cynical here – God knows it wouldn’t be the first time – but given that this is a fair break from her previous tracks, I can’t shake the idea that someone thought “hey, 80s nostalgia really is massive right now, isn’t it? I’m having A LOT of that”.

Tom: Right. But 80s nostalgia has always been massive. We’ve had so many resurgences of it.

Tim: True. But specifically in this instance: there’s a line on her website, that says “Bonus points if you can tell me what inspired the song.” I’d say the answer is blindingly obvious, and perhaps someone else thought “hang on, we’re gonna get flak for this? Let’s call it inspiration rather than ‘bandwagon we totally jumped on’.”

It’s good, mind. Just very, very derivative.

Tegan & Sara – BWU

Tom: Our reader, Alan, sends this in, saying it’s “one of the best tracks off their recent album”.

Tom: Now, that’s not a message you hear from a song very often, and it’s a good one.

Tim: Yeah, I can see why people might go for that – and your right, it’s not very common, though I’d say it’s more likely just that it’s not a widely-held enough view to be worth singing about.

Tom: The chorus is catchy, and manages to get an appropriate amount of happiness and wistfulness to match the lyrics. I can’t remember the verse, but then if you can remember the verse after one listen, then you’ve basically got a number one hit on your hands.

Tim: Or certainly one that deserves to be.

Tom: Maybe it outstays its welcome a little; but that’s always a problem when you’re trying to do a song like this. Nicely done.

Tim: Indeed. Did annoy me that it took me a while to work what BWU stood for, mind.

Bright Light Bright Light feat. Elton John – Symmetry of Two Hearts

“Elton doesn’t exactly take control much, does he?”

Tim: We last featured Bright Light Bright Light here a couple of years back; somewhat surprised that he wangled a feat. Elton John.

Tom: I wonder if there is some connection via record companies? Or perhaps Elton John just finds bands he likes and asks “hey, want me to sing something for you?”

Tim: Since then, there’ve actually been a couple more – May’s All In The Name Of, which we annoyingly never found time to cover, and this, which we have found time to cover. Hence us covering it.

Tim: Hmm. Elton doesn’t exactly take control much, does he?

Tom: I’m not entirely sure he was in there. Come on, at least give him a line with a million-dollar-piano solo.

Tim: I think I can make out his voice for a second or two around the 2:49 mark and maybe elsewhere in that middle eight wooaahh-ing, but mate, really, put some effort in. On the other hand, Rod has perfectly decent vocals to fill in for him, and you’ve got some top notch choreography going on in that video (makes sense, given the title of his album is Choreography).

Tom: And it’s a pretty good pop song, isn’t it? The production is lovely, the melody is great, and I found myself tapping along with that chorus. That’s rare.

Tim: Musically we’ve excellent synth work and brass all blended together nicely, so sod Elton’s lack of being, I’m happy with this as it is.

Tom: Maybe Elton’s doing that sax bit in the final chorus. It’s a good sax bit.

Pet Shop Boys – Happiness

“A huge amount of what I can only describe as ‘good stuff'”

Tom: We’ve been covering tracks from the new album as they’ve been releasing them. So far you’ve been more impressed than I have: and I’m wondering if this is going to switch that around.

Tim: I think you’re right.

Tom: Because what we have here has a clear base in Aviici’s style: a country-sounding sample with a load of EDM around it. Except this is also clearly the Pet Shop Boys’ synthpop style, with a huge amount of what I can only describe as “good stuff” added.

Tim: Hmm. I’m fairly sure there’s a reason they performed The Pop Kids when they were on Graham Norton’s show last week – because that really doesn’t do it for me. I love the vocal part, and indeed the instrumental underneath it. But the instrumental part between those sections just really doesn’t do it for me.

Tom: See, I have no idea why I like this so much. I shouldn’t: that lyric and melody should be cheesy, the electronic stuff’s chaotic, and I’m not even sure it works as a whole. But you know what? I immediately hit replay after it finished, and it’s a rare song that makes me do that.

Tim: And in future I can imagine myself sadly pushing the skip button when it comes along on the album.

WDL feat. Make – Hurricane Highlife

“Lost track of the structure of this song.”

Tim: This is… interesting. Yeah, that’s a decent way to introduce it.

Tim: There are bits that I really quite like, such as the choruses, and the outro; there are bits that I don’t like, like the intro to the first chorus and that part where the middle eight would go if this had much semblance of a structure; there are parts I’m indifferent to, like the intro, and the second verse.

Tom: I’ll be honest, I lost track of the structure of your sentence there — although I’d say the intro to that first chorus is brilliant. Which is apt, because I also lost track of the structure of this song.

Tim: It’s weird – there’s very little structure to the song. It took me a couple of listens to realise that there is no verse/chorus, as the lyrics are just one half repeated, and beyond the singular melody there’s not much unifying it – there seems to be a case of just turning up at the studio and winging it, thinking “yeah, let’s chuck that in there”. And I’m not sure if it works.

Tom: I expected not to like it at all: and then the string samples kicked in. And then I realised this is a really good soundtrack: I’m not sure what it’s a soundtrack to, but it’s a good one.

Tim: For me, at least, there’s enough I don’t like that I don’t want to keep listening to it, despite my liking a lot of it. Hmm.

Pet Shop Boys – The Pop Kids

“They have never stopped being brilliant. Not once.”

Tim: You want to know the best thing of all about Pet Shop Boys?

Tom: The unexpected guitar riff that pervades their Live 8 performance of “Go West”, which completely redefines the song without overwriting the original.

Tim: That is very good, but nope. I’ll tell you in a bit.

Tim: Right: basically, they have never stopped being brilliant. Not once.

Tom: Wait, hang on. They must have. They’ve got a hell of a lot of hits, sure, but they’ve got a few misses too.

Tim: I’m not so sure – three and a half decades, they’ve been going, and every single album they’ve released has made the top ten and their latest here is up there with the best. Off the top of my head, the only comparable band I can think of would be U2, and their lead singer is widely regarded as a bellend, so I think it’s obvious who wins there.

But anyway, this track, and of course it’s obvious that I, and basically every pop fan, is going to love it purely because they can identify with it.

Tom: Then I must be the exception.

Tim: Oh come now, don’t be silly. I myself certainly remember telling (and indeed still do tell) pretty much anyone who will listen that rock music’s overrated, and only this morning I quoted Shania Twain at someone. Even if I were coming at it from another angle, though, it’d still be brilliant – the lyrics tell a wonderful heart-warming love story about people and music, and the music behind it sounds great fits that perfectly.

Tom: Which is all well and good if that works for you: but without that, I’m not sure this is actually all that good a track? The early-90s synth patch is a decent choice, sure, but the melody’s sort of okay; the lyrics are terrible — he’s literally rhyming “pop kids” with “pop kids”; and it ain’t all that catchy. And let’s face it, that talking part’s pretty cringeworthy.

Tim: Thing with the lyrics is that they’re there to tell a story, and what you think of the lyrics will most likely be largely influenced by that story. I love it, and so love the lyrics. Melody and instrumental – hmm, well, maybe I wouldn’t choose to listen to an instrumental, sure, but it all works together for me. (And technically he’s rhyming “kids” with “hit” and “bits”, though I’m not sure that’s much better.)

Tom: This is, oddly, roughly what we thought of the last big Pet Shop Boys single: maybe it’s just that I have a higher bar, or — shockingly — different taste. But I’ll listen to Inner Sanctum over this, every time.

Tim: Well at least we’re agreed that Super will have at least one great track on there, and probably many more. And for me at least, their brilliance seems immortal – let’s truly hope it is.

Miike Snow – Genghis Khan

“By that measure, this succeeds perfectly.”

Tom: Yesterday, a video that looked convincingly like the 1980s. Today, we’re off — just as convincingly — to the 1960s.

Tim: So, the bit around 1:33 when he hit the wall suddenly made me think of Kylo Ren, and now I really really want to see an alternate ending of The Force Awakens.

Tom: A good song, to me, is one that I find myself singing the chorus after I’ve listened to it — and not being annoyed by it, but going back and playing it again. By that measure, this succeeds perfectly.

Tim: I played it again, but mostly so I could concentrate on the song without being engrossed in the video.

Tom: I think it’s a bit too repetitive — is there even a verse in there? If there is, I can’t remember it — but it’s a good song, paired with a really lovely video. Once again, it’s a video that convinces me the song’s better than it is, but I’m still reasonably happy with this.

Tim: Yeah, and weirdly, the video bears no relation to the song at all, really – sure, there’s an element of being unsure in there, but that’s as far as it goes. I really like the video; sadly, I’m somewhat ambivalent about the song.

CHVRCHES – Empty Threat

“Oh, oh, that video is lovely.”

Tim: Weird how chart success works, isn’t it? Take this lot – both albums have gone straight into the top 10, but they’ve only ever had one actual single in the top 40, which got to the stunning heights of 38.

Tom: There are many paths to the charts, now – and Music Fans do still like their albums.

Tim: Anyway, here’s their latest release.

Tom: Oh, oh, that video is lovely. I know I’m a sucker for that sort of bleached-out, retro Americana style of shot, but that’s just a wonderful video.

Tim: And whoever said goths couldn’t hang out and have fun at a water park? This is a really rather enjoyable track, I’d say, and is very much one of the best songs on the album, so God knows why they’ve left it for the fourth single from it – it’s considerably better than any least two of the previous three. It’s got a catchy chorus, it’s got that great sound and production that we love from them, and unlike the lead single we looked at in August, it doesn’t leave me with any sense of dissatisfaction. Very well done, back on form.

Tom: And unusally for one of their singles, I can actually remember some of the melody after listening to it. Yeah, I’ll go with that — if I’m in the mood for something like this, I suspect I wouldn’t find much better.

Tim: Success prediction? Well, it’s been on the Radio 1 playlist for a few weeks now, so maybe it’ll do better – though given that the album’s been out for three months already (got to number 4) and none of the first three tracks individually broke the top 100 singles, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Tom: But like you said at the start: that’s not always how you measure success these days.

St. Lucia – Dancing On Glass

“More or less, everything I want from a St. Lucia track.”

Tim: New St. Lucia track for you, the lead from their second album, and rather enjoyable listening, as I see it.

Tim: And there we go. Nice intro to the band in the video in case we’ve forgotten who they are, kicking off the otherwise somewhat incomprehensible video.

Tom: I can’t tell if this is an actual attempt at Art, or someone parodying Art. Maybe that’s the point.

Tim: I’d say that even with actual Art, there should be some element of sense, so I’d go with the latter, and hope I’m right. Following the names, though, a rather immediate reminder of the band’s somewhat excellent style.

Tom: And that’s a reminder I needed, because apparently we’ve covered one of their tracks twice before, and I couldn’t remember them even after that.

Tim: Ah, well, at least it’s there, then. We have heavy beats with a light electro tinge, loud yet entirely enjoyable vocal – more or less, everything I want from a St. Lucia track. The melody’s great, the instrumentation used to deliver it is great.

Tom: “Great” is a strong word. It’s good, it’s competent — it’s just not standing out for me. That main synth line, with its almost duck-quack sound, just started to grate — and while it’s not a bad chorus, it’s not all that memorable.

Tim: See, I disagree: for me, it’s all, well, great.