Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Β« Previous | Main | Next Β»

Kelly Clarkson - 'Never Again'

Post categories:

Fraser McAlpine | 10:05 UK time, Thursday, 31 May 2007

Kelly ClarksonThe Trials of Being a Reviewer, Part 36: It's not always easy to separate a record from the drama that surrounds it. For example, if I were to try to review a Lily Allen single at this moment in time, I'd wonder if my opinion of it was skewed at all by her current spat with Cheryl Cole (especially since I'm totally Team Cheryl, just for the record). Likewise, it's quite hard to listen to the new Kelly Clarkson material objectively without remembering how this is the material that record label head honcho Clive Davis apparently wanted to chuck in the bin, and Kel had to fight tooth and nail to get released. I mean, I want to believe that Kelly was right, but that's a lot of pressure to put on a record, isn't it?

Pretty much any Kelly Clarkson single from now until the end of time is going to end up being measured against 'Since U Been Gone', and there's little sense in pretending otherwise, so let's get the difficult bit out of the way first: this isn't as good. Sorry. It doesn't quite have the raw punchiness or smooth but confident growth of that track - this one's afflicted with a chorus that's a little bit all over the place, and a slightly hopskotch melody, which lets it down.

That isn't to say it doesn't work on its own merits, mind. There are some nicely spiteful lyrics, particularly the opening "I hope the ring you gave to her turns her finger green", and not many people can sell anger, hurt and determination like Kelly can while delivering a technically proficient and powerhouse vocal at the same time. Essentially what this song chiefly lacks is that killer hook that turns a good song into a great song, which is a real shame. Returning to the opening paragraph, as to whether Kelly was right to fight for this or not? I'm withholding proper judgement until I've heard the whole album, but for now I'll say sure. A little more polish wouldn't have gone amiss, that's all.

Four starsDownload: Out now
CD Released:
June 11th

(Steve Perkins)

Comments

  1. At 06:50 PM on 31 May 2007, Lisa K wrote:

    i LOVE this. It's kind of an angry song though!

  2. At 12:32 PM on 01 Jun 2007, Eve wrote:

    Nice video! Really well put together. Very spooky. The song's OK too. And I'm Team Lily, haha.

  3. At 01:14 AM on 02 Jun 2007, Jessie wrote:

    I saw her perform on AI and it was awesome so angry and powerful.

    I think I'll like the whole album because I just found some clips leaked from Kelly's new album so if you want to know what her album's gonna sound like go here

  4. At 03:56 AM on 02 Jun 2007, Cassi wrote:

    Her new song is so great! It shows a new side of Kelly Clarkson. She just proved to everybody that she can sing anything!

  5. At 07:14 PM on 02 Jun 2007, Zaceck wrote:

    This song is boring, it has no melody and if the whole album is gonna be like this, well Clive Davis as always is right....!!!

  6. At 09:06 PM on 02 Jun 2007, kyle wrote:

    AWESOME SONG. I can't wait until her new album is released on June 25th

  7. At 10:46 PM on 02 Jun 2007, Tom Atkins wrote:

    Sorry, i disagree with this. This song is damn right truthful and highly emotional and angry - raw. No, polish is not needed. That's what pop songs have. The grit and human-ness of this song is so immense that polish would make the situation gleam - which is the wrong!! Kelly's voice is like you said a powerhouse, but it's so unique that it carries this song off better than any pop-rock song there has been since her last album. This could well be the song of 2007, so don't undermine

  8. At 08:46 AM on 06 Jun 2007, Susan Flowers wrote:

    im so not a fan of this song. i mean im not really a fan of kelly clarkson. but yeah this song is kind of try hard. i cant stand listenin to it. she shouldve taken the advice and chucked it.

This post is closed to new comments.

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.