Tuesday, January 14th, 2020

Sigala feat. Ella Henderson – We Got Love

You, on the other hand, got meh…


Will Adams: This is now the fifth Sigala song we’ve covered that has “love” in the title. Fittingly, his exhaustion of the concept of love has been working in tandem with the exhaustion of blandly uplifting house music.

Iain Mew: Ah, they’re back together for a second go round, I thought confidently. Turned out I was thinking of Sigma ft. Ella Henderson and/or Sigala & Ella Eyre. Ah, Sigala have done basically this exact song before with the same message about the ultimate pre-eminence of love, I thought, and this time it was definitely “Came Here for Love.”

Joshua Minsoo Kim: Songs like “We Got Love” — much like everything else from Sigala — have such a glossy veneer and chipper sound that it’s hard to shake the feeling that it wasn’t made to soundtrack corny commercials filled with crowds of diverse people smiling and dancing. Everything about it sounds artificial, which is why there needs to be a soaring vocal performance that helps me get past the artifice (or, perhaps more accurately, understand and empathize with it). “We Got Love” doesn’t get there because the chorus is centered around obnoxious, synthesized string stabs. Give me more Henderson, less instrumentation that makes me feel reflexively jaded.

Alfred Soto: I remembered Katy B while blasting “We Got Love” in an effort to pin this smoke machine emission to the wall — Ella Henderson shares some of her nasality. No matter how Katy fought to sound like a normal anonymous person, Henderson beats her with Sigala’s help.

Michael Hong: Sigala and Ella Henderson pull it off — finally, something that sounds as joyous and bouncy as UK dance-pop should be. Ella Henderson delivers a favourable performance that almost makes it possible to ignore the cookie-cutter genericism of the lyrics. Almost.

Thomas Inskeep: Average house track with an equally average singer, wasting a sample from one of the greatest records of all-time, Rhythm Is Rhythm’s “Strings of Life.” Listen to that instead.

Oliver Maier: It’s startling how quickly songs in this particular post-EDM house vein can switch from fun and kinetic to genuinely unpleasant, enough that I feel gullible for enjoying the verses and pre-chorus so much. Lots to like here, including but not limited to: the gooey bass, the horn quacks in the hook, the way Ella Henderson sings that stupid line about mannequins draped in designer, and most of all the surprising “Digital Love” solo near the end. All it takes is the clumsy drop to suck the soul out of the proceedings and make me feel like I’m either at the gym or sifting through Clean Bandit demos.

Brad Shoup: Sigala works up a urgent buoyancy, but Henderson is stuck scrubbing a couple egregious similes for profundity. Why didn’t she get to spend more time gliding along the filter house break?

Jacob Sujin Kuppermann: The hurried feel of the beat and the rushed pacing of Henderson’s vocal performance (up until a bridge that slows things down half-heartedly before picking the tempo back up) distract from the intended lyrical message of love triumphing through (unspecified) adversity. There’s nothing unpleasant here but maybe there should be; it’s frictionless dance-pop that doesn’t realize that friction is the key to an effective groove.

Scott Mildenhall: In the first paragraph of the main body of Sigala’s Wikipedia lies the fact that he possesses a degree in commercial music, a profuse gift of ammunition to all who wish to deem his productions calculated. Sure enough, picking out a house classic and dredging the humanity from Ella Henderson’s expansive voice are both things that could be done through code. But answer this, critics: wouldn’t a computer be capable of a more coherent treatise?

Katherine St Asaph: For a presumably hand-composed song, this is a fine demonstration — as fine as any other Sigala song, which is the point really — of the 10,000 Bowls of Oatmeal problem of procedural generation: “There are so many artifacts being produced that any given one of them will probably start seeming less special. I can easily generate 10,000 bowls of plain oatmeal, with each oat being in a different position and different orientation, and mathematically speaking they will all be completely unique. But the user will likely just see a lot of oatmeal.

Reader average: No votes yet!

Vote: 0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

Leave a Reply