The Singles Jukebox

Also ft. Guy From Chainsmokers’ Correctly Styled Hair.

[Video][Website]
[3.89]

Alfred Soto: Whether they’re dickheads or playing at being dickheads comes to the same thing. One of them is cute and styles his hair correctly, though, which is enough to give “All We Know” a passing grade; I dock them for not knowing what the hell to do with Phoebe Ryan.
[3]

Katie Gill: “Closer” 2: Electric Boogaloo. If you’re going to rip off your own music, don’t do it so OBVIOUSLY.
[1]

Hannah Jocelyn: Let’s get this out of the way — there’s nothing I can say here that Mark Ronson didn’t say better in this incredible tweet. But while he clearly loathes them, and just as many love them, I’ve always been indifferent, to the point where I was the only writer to give “Closer” a [5] upon initial release. In fact, I probably would like this more if I hadn’t heard “Closer” for several months straight — in “All We Know” the mixing is better, the drop is more exciting, and it’s as well-penned as any of their other songs. Now that “Closer” has been #1 for several weeks, though, this whole mid-tempo ballad thing really sounds like all they know, not because ‘it worked the last time’ but because they forgot how to do anything else. At least we’ll always have “Roses,” which still holds up improbably well.
[4]

Will Rivitz: I’ve spent the past few months trying to reconcile my surprisingly positive feelings on The Chainsmokers with the more mixed feelings of The Internet At Large, particularly this corner right here. I don’t know if I’ll ever come to an unassailable conclusion, but here’s what I do know: the duo makes music specifically for people like me, mildly disaffected early 20-somethings who spent most of their music-taste-formative period getting high off The Drop and coming down when we realized the mainstream pop house we liked all kind of sounded the same. The Chainsmokers know that flare-out well, as they blew up on one side of that divide (remember #SELFIE?) and are now entrenching themselves on the other as staunchly as possible. They understand perhaps better than any other pop artist around how their specific demographic of fans tick; hence, we get “All We Know,” moody verses and vocals reverbed to perfection. Sure, the chorus is basically “Closer” Part 2 and the drop is basically a slightly modified “Roses,” but the melancholy ambience, at least to my ears, which is really all they’re aiming for, makes me yearn for the feelings I’m hearing. I couldn’t explain exactly why, but as with “Closer,” it evokes sadness and hopelessness and elation and contentedness and a whole cocktail of other related emotions all at once, and I’m left stunned at its power. Maybe all this will seem embarrassingly cliched by the time I hit 25, but it works for now.
[9]

Olivia Rafferty: I don’t know if I’ve been listening to “Closer” too much, but even without the comparison, this song would still be an anticlimax. Chainsmokers, or as I like to refer to them, Those Eyebrow Guys, seem to be repeating a lot of their formula here. The clear bridge/refrain that shares a lot of the rhythm and intention that its counterpart in Closer had. By the time we get to the instrumental hook, you’re left feeling a bit hard done by. It’s got all of the structure of Closer, but absolutely none of the lift. So if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go listen to the Eyebrows x Halsey version now.
[3]

Katherine St Asaph: You can’t even say the Chainbros are boosting Phoebe Ryan’s song this time, because they’re not; the writers are Sara Hjellström and Nirob Islam. What a pipeline: a vocalist who came up on hip-hop covers, supplanted by another vocalist who came up on hip-hop covers, supplanted by two half-sapient kegstands who get the credit.
[3]

Ramzi Awn: Phoebe Ryan might find some lucrative work in television commercials for home goods.    
[4]

Cassy Gress: The Chainsmokers have been publicly chauvinistic enough that it’s hard for me to hear them singing with a girl who sounds about 12 and not feel weirded out; this thematically and production-ally is similar enough to “Closer” for it to seem mostly like a cash grab. There was a great article I saw the other day, which I can’t find now so link it below if you know what I’m talking about, which was talking about how the DJ/pop world has changed over the last several years – used to be “DJ nobody has heard of with big featured vocalist” and now it’s “Big famous DJ featuring girl nobody has heard of”. I preemptively feel bad for Phoebe Ryan, and I hope she didn’t get groped. While fighting flames of fire, redundantly.
[3]

Will Adams: Oof, I haven’t done The Chain Rule in a while, lemme grab my old calculus textbook. Ah, here it is. Okay, so it’s the “derivative of the composition of two or more functions… derivative of the outer function times derivative of the inner one…” All right, I think I get it. So in this example, the outer function encompassing the whole thing is “Closer,” so we make a derivative of that (this one’s easy: just simplify the geographic references and the melody, and also halve the vocals of dude who can’t sing), then multiply by the derivative of the inner function, “Roses” (a bit trickier: you have to reduce both harmonic and vocal weight of the original, but keep the constant of loveliness)… I think I got it! The correct answer is:
[5]