Tim: So I reckon I know exactly how this review is going to go, but I’ll put it forth anyway.
Tom: Here’s what I said the last time we talked about Future Duper: “I think it’ll take a few listens — or, rather, a few tracks like this — before I can actually get the hang of this. Right now, it sounds like a rather more experimental genre than it should.”
Tom: So is this a more mainstream track, or have I got used to them?
Tim: Oh no, it’s a lot more mainstream, don’t worry about that. And you see I think it’s an entirely adequate dance-pop tune. The melody is fine, decent vocals, and while the lyrics are a little off (made more so, curiously, by the decision to include the repetition in the lyric video) I’m happy to forgive that because it’s got a decent enough donk on it that I will jump around to it with no real problem.
Tom: Hold up. A donk is a very specific sound. This does not have a donk on it.
Tim: Interesting you say that, because I’ve always though of a donk as just something that makes a song more exciting – most recently, I discussed the 2005 Doctor Who theme tune getting a donk added on for Christmas 2007 onwards. Let’s leave the precise terminology aside, then, and say: I am happy with it. You, meanwhile, will likely agree that it’s adequate, but also point out that it is largely forgettable, and that this time next week I could hear it again and have no memory of it whatsoever.
Tom: I’m starting to think this might not be the job for me, Tim.
Tim: Roughly right?
Tom: Yep. Same pieces, just in a slightly different order. Which is true of most pop music, to be fair; I just wonder if I’m burned out somehow? I’m sure there are wonderful things around somewhere — I’m just not hearing them.