Tom: Woop! Woop! That’s the sound of the CHARI… oh. Actually, that’s the sound of the police. I think they’re looking for you.
Tim: What? What have I done now? Oh God, they’re not still worried about that— actually, never mind. This is for Sport Relief, you see, which is still nine weeks away but I guess that’s no reason not to start pushing the single now.
Tom: “Wherever you go… whatever you do… I will be right here waiting for you.”
Tim: Oh come on – it’s proper emotional balladry, and all the stylistic tricks have already been used many times over.
Tom: It’s more than that, Tim, it’s the entire bloody chord sequence and instrumentation.
Tim: Look. The important thing is that this is definitely not another Collective idea, which as far as I’m concerned makes it brilliant all on its own and we could stop the review right here. But no – this deserves more, because aside from the fact that they missed a golden opportunity for what would have been a perfectly justified key change, this a shining example of what a cool mellow pop song should be.
Tom: It is a shining example. Specifically, it’s Bryan Adams’s shining example.
Tim: Bryan Adams?
Tom: …the guy who did “Right Here Waiting For You”. Seriously, it’s really, really close.
Tom: Oh. Oh, damn. Damn. Anyway, you’re right about missing the key change.
Tim: Well, obviously. The lyrics are along the lines of you’re brilliant, I’m not quite as good as you are but give me a bit of time, because, well, “all that I do is to make you proud” —
Tom: Heh. Euphemistic.
Tim: I’ll ignore that — and the tone conveys that appropriately. We’ve got solo stuff in the verses, getting the emotive stuff across well, and in the chorus we’re all in there, making sure you understand. Then, of course, at the end we’re harmonising in about six octaves all at once, because that way you know we’re really very serious about this indeed. What more do you want?
Tom: I suppose a collaboration like this was inevitable. There’s only so far you can go with boy-band ballad harmony, and getting someone else in to do the rap vocals is a better idea than letting any of the condom-peddlers have a go.
Tim: Yeah, but – he isn’t, really. He’s there for less than fifteen seconds; according to maths that works out to about six and half percent, which barely justifies the ‘featuring’. The cynical part of me would suggest that they’re aiming for the Tinie Tempah fans, because for whatever reason the JLS fans aren’t enough. God knows why, though – they’ve not really had a problem getting a number 1 before now.
Tom: There’s hardly any interaction between the two, though. JLS sing. And then Tinie Tempah raps for a bit. And then JLS sing for a bit more. With the exception of a couple of quick exclamations at the end, it’s almost as if Tinie just recorded his verse to a click track and let the producers paste it in later.
Tim: Weird thing: Tinie’s yelling out the names, but thirty seconds into the song after JLS have done their bit. It’s as though they correctly thought, ‘Yelling out names at the start of the record is silly. Let’s make our song properly,’ but then he came along and said, ‘What’s this? I’m a rapper, I can’t be in a song but not yell my name out a the start! How dare they try and stop me.’
Tom: Speaking of which: I reckon you’re thinking “this sounds a lot like Calvin Harris’ I’m Not Alone“. And you’d be right – because Calvin Harris produced this too, not so much ‘laying down’ the track as ‘copying and pasting’ it.
And, while we’re at it, did they really have to rip the title from Stanley Kubrick? I’m assuming JLS aren’t getting involved in masked orgies. If they were, the tabloids would be onto them like a shot.
We can’t deny that we’ve featured more than a handful of not very good tracks.
Tim: We can’t deny that we’ve featured more than a handful of not very good tracks. Fortunately, there are people out there who Take Steps to rectify such issues with what people in the musical business call ‘remixes’, and here are a few. First up, the Kardinal Beats Remix of JLS’s Love You More.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qo6wZIdB1E
Tim: The original was boring and didn’t really deserve to be playlisted on any radio station ever, but foolishly was by BBC Radio 1. This, on the other hand, deserved to be playlisted by every popular radio music station ever, and sensibly was by BBC 1Xtra (which does, it seems, have some redeeming features). It has vibrancy, excitement – it even sounds like the guys are putting some effort into it, which is nice when it’s a charity single.
Tom: I know it wouldn’t play well with the mums-and-daughters demographic that actually buys Children in Need singles, but I’d much prefer this to be the actual single. There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect between the hard beats and the soulful vocals though; I feel like I’m listening to a mashup, even though I’m not.
Not sure about the sleigh bell and whistle samples though.
Tim: Next up, there’s admittedly only so much you can do with a song described as fomulaic and less good than Nickelback, but the excellent folks at Almighty have had a pretty decent go at Shayne Ward’s version of Gotta Be Somebody:
Tom: Oh, Almighty, you wonderful people. You name the track, they’ll produce a danceable version of it. Even if they really shouldn’t.
Tim: The energy here has been pushed through the ceiling, the bridge has been made into something proper – the song as a whole has moved from ‘radio playlist crap’ to ‘dance floor choon’, and I think it’s much better for it.
Tom: I would dance to this. Probably quite badly.
Tim: I can imagine, although I’m not sure there’s much of a ‘probably’ involved. But moving on, you remarked that a dance mix of The Wanted’s Heart Vacancy would go down well in under-18 clubs. I think the DJs From Mars remix may fit the bill rather nicely.
Tom: Blimey, that opening’s brilliant. DJs From Mars have done some sterling work in the past, and this is no exception.
Tim: This is not a tune where the band members can just sit down in the video – or if they do, they at least need to move their arms around a bit. Energy-wise, it’s far more on a level with decent music that the original was, and while it’s not going to win any awards it is a significant improvement, and should be applauded.
Tom: The ‘in your heart, in your heart, in your heart’ bit doesn’t fit in, but that’s fine – it didn’t in the original either. When the beat drops, the dancefloor will fill up – although I’m suspecting that the dancefloor will be a teen club night somewhere uninspiring. Wakefield, say.
Tim: One of my cousins used to read this blog. He probably won’t any more, so thanks for that.
Tim: It’s probably time we discussed this. We’ve referred to it briefly on a couple of occasions, and ever since then it’s been lurking in the background, waiting to rear its beautiful, graceful head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sOoTeprHiU
Tim: Now, I think this is marvellous.
Tom: It’s not beautiful, it’s not graceful, and it’s not marvellous.
Tim: It is, though. The emotion of the original is all there.
Tom: Yes, it is. Maudlin, saccharine emotion. Only this time, just in case it wasn’t drummed into you enough by the song, it’s backed up with Ken Burns Effect-photos of soldiers emoting. The only thing it’s missing is a big block of scrolling text which says “FEEL SAD NOW HURRRR”.
Tim: Oh, I have no problems whatsoever admitting the video is appalling – it is, by far, the worst thing about the song. It is the music where it shines, though, such as the key change – fairly impressive already in the original, here it’s been turned up to about 27. The only bad part of it is the vocals from Rachel at 2:33, which are just nasty, but they can be turned down a bit.
Tom: Musically, there’s nothing wrong with it. I’ll agree with that. It’s just so goddamned syrupy that it sends me into the musical version of hyperglycaemia.
Tim: Everything else? Brilliant, and I challenge you to provide an actual reason otherwise.
Tom: There’s a comment on YouTube from “PeterKaay94”, which says “How can you dislike this video? It’s for the armed forces you dicks.” I had a whole riff here about other fund-raising efforts that said commenter would then have to approve of, but frankly it just got a bit disrespectful so I’ve cut it.
Tim: Well as far as I’m concerned the cause has got nothing to do with it, and Mr 94 is speaking out of his arse. A song should stand out on its own merits, and being for charity should be no excuse whatsoever for weakness – JLS proved that.
Tom: Yes, it’s for a worthy cause, and yes, musically there’s nothing really wrong with it – but it just makes my skin crawl. That’s a reason.
Tom: Two years ago, McFly released Do Ya, which I now agree is pretty much their best single, for Children in Need. Last year, it was Peter Kay and his Animated All-Stars. This year, it’s… ah, well, it’s JLS. Never mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfoAEwTJBYU
Tom: I want to comment on this, but it’s just so generic that it flies in one ear and out the other. I mean, they can sing in harmony (unlike certain bands we know) and it’s a competent enough track that pushes all the buttons. In fact, the most obvious feature is the end, because it feels like they’ve stopped right in the middle of a
Tim: It’s…dull. There’s really not a lot to like about it. Charity records ought to be fun, to get people excited about raising money and stuff – this is anything but. Where’s the excitement? Where’s the enthusiasm? Where’s…anything that’s interesting? I will, however, try to excuse it by assuming they were all too busy with condoms to concentrate on their music.
Tom: I want to mock that, I really do, but it’s actually a genuinely good way to get a safe-sex message out. Wow. For once, I actually have to applaud that cash-in.
And as for the video: They’re also doing The Pusher-style blurryvision; the director has discovered DSLR video and It Must Be Filmed With Shallow Depth of Field. I know I’m the only one who’s annoyed by this, but I’m going to keep blathering about it.
