Oct 14

WESTLIFE – “Swear It Again”

Popular88 comments • 7,229 views

#822, 1st May 1999

westlife swear Westlife have always been this blog’s nemesis, the doom encoded in its premise: however entertaining the song or era I’m writing about is, at some point I will have to deal with fourteen Westlife number ones. There have been times when I’ve wondered myself what on earth I would say, given that from a standing start I could barely remember two of them. But here we are.

Implicit in the jokes is a feeling that Westlife are different. Look at the list of the most successful Number One acts – Elvis, the Beatles, Westlife. One of these things is not like the others, apparently. The scale of Westlife’s success, more than almost any other factor, was enough to convince even sympathisers that the charts were broken, that pop was broken, a damaged transmitter no longer capable of processing the cultural signals around it.

This idea – Westlife as a sign of pop catastrophe – is a mix of the true and the false and the condescending. Westlife are a group like any other, with fans they speak to and mean a lot to, and deserve to be considered as more than just a statistical anomaly. Even so, the degree of success says very little good about how the charts were working by 1999, as a finely staged ballet of release date scheduling and fanbase priming. Westlife are the ultimate fanbase band: almost every one of their many, many hits is a one-week wonder and gets out of the Top 10 sharpish. There’s barely a sign of crossover to a wider singles-buying audience. But there’s a corollary to this: if Westlife come and go so quickly, it’s a stretch to suggest that they themselves were a ruinous force in pop music. They had very little impact on the rest of it. They were the Olestra of pop, slipping through its body undigested to leave an oily mess.

Westlife aren’t the only fanbase band: in chart terms, Blur or the Manic Street Preachers perform similar disappearing acts. But Westlife manage this again and again and again for years. To game the charts this efficiently you need two things. You need a loyal audience, which probably means one that isn’t being well served by the rest of pop music (so won’t switch to rival bands or sounds in a hurry). And you need a very good game-player. Enter Simon Cowell.

Cowell’s part in Westlife’s origins is a preview of his later household-name role: a murderer of youthful dreams. Take five lads from Sligo, schoolfriends. They can sing a bit, they’ve seen Boyzone doing well, so they get a group together. There’s Shane, Graham, Mark, Kian, Michael. Two of these men are now a hairdresser and a garda. The other three have sold forty million records. The difference is Cowell, then at record label BMG, who pronounced IOYOU – as they were – the ugliest band he’d seen in his life, and got his scalpel out. Pete Bestlife. (A sixth schoolfriend, with the rather un-boybandly name of Derek, had already been given the push by Louis Walsh. He ended up a barman, if you’re keeping score.)

Despite the personnel upheavals, there’s no great sign of creative tension in the early Westlife story. IOYOU knew what they wanted to sound line – their demo, “Together Girl Forever”, a Shane and Mark co-write, is a well-churned slow jam from the limper end of R&B. The tempo, the harmonies, the pledges of devotion: even in the Sligo classroom, the lads knew the moves well enough. It sounds like – well, it sounds like the kind of performance that gets you through Judges’ Houses on the X-Factor, and with hindsight that’s precisely what it was: you can see Simon’s appreciative half-grin as the boys’ voices combine, and his slight eyebrow-raise at a couple of the more puppyish ad libs. If Westlife knew their moves 17 years ago, the whole country knows his now.

But the transition from IOYOU to Westlife hides another shift. Boyzone’s Ronan Keating – stepping, like a midfielder nearing retirement, into a coaching role – apparently recommended the name change on the grounds that “IOYOU” sounded “too boyband”. But IOYOU were a boyband. Which suggests that Cowell, Walsh and Keating had other ideas for Westlife. And so we’re back to the question of Westlife’s audience – the other factor, apart from Cowell’s remarkable skill as a pop fixer, in their dominance. Who were they? What did they want to hear?

The signature sound of Westlife arrives fully-formed on “Swear It Again” – five voices, moving as one. That kind of ultra-close harmony is a powerful emotional tool for the group, giving everything they sing a kind of polyvocal guarantee, four or five layers of underlined sincerity. The chorus of “Swear It Again” is a blanket of it: a mantle of reassurance, piling steadily up every beat of the bar: I’M – NEVER – TREAT – BAD / I – NEVER – SEE – SAD. Any hint of sex is left for the videos: this is the ballad as an endless hug.

Nothing too novel about that, perhaps. But the framing of this devotion is quite interesting – on the verses, Shane dismisses the idea that “everything must have its place in time”, and laments how “all of the people that we used to know” are giving up on love. And the chorus ends “I swore to share your joy and your pain, and I’ll swear it all over again”. Sure, this could be the hyperbolic language of teenage infatuation, and it’s been carefully crafted to speak to a young audience too, but its aim is wider. “Swore to share your joy and your pain” feels more like a marriage vow, and the rest of the lyric also seems to have the longer term in mind. This is a pop song not about falling in love, not even about marriage, but primarily about renewal of vows – an answer record, three decades on but in the same style and with the same appeal, to Englebert Humperdinck’s divorce ballad “Release Me”.

Kat Stevens, in her very entertaining Westlife tumblr Blogging Without Wings, calls the band “mum-pop”, which implies an equivalent force to the ossified poses and throwback grunts of Dadrock. Both Dadrock and Mumpop are intentionally crass, stereotyping names, because both describe music that was marketed in a crude and populist way, dog-whistle appeals to a mistily conservative idea of what rock or pop might be. If critics nod approvingly when rock appeals to the nostalgic instincts of middle-aged blokes, and recoil when pop does the same thing to middle-aged women – well, that’s a symptom of a wider problem, but it doesn’t mean there’s a fundamental difference between this record and Lenny Kravitz.

Of course younger women bought masses of Westlife CDs (and I’m sure a good few men did) – but Keating’s instincts were right: this is no boyband. This is a group designed to build a pan-generation romantic coalition, and tap an audience lost to pop, but opened up again by the widening of record distribution. It’s no coincidence that Westlife’s reign aligns with the peak of CD sales in supermarkets and Woolworths. And if Westlife are essentially a ‘boyband for grownups’, it explains their most distinctive feature – their infuriating dependability: the suits, the stools, the rivers of mid-tempo treacle. (“Swear It Again” is one of the finer examples, though – Mark’s yearning middle eight is a decent piece of work that resolves the song’s emotional struggle and earns the inevitable key shift. This is a lot better, for me, than any of the Boyzone records we’ve seen, and its weightiness is part of the reason.)

Cowell had gone this route before, with Robson And Jerome, but there are obvious limitations to using actors: they have other commitments, and they’re harder to control. Cowell, you feel, was happy enough to be parasitic on a successful show in his early career, but needed to own more and more of the process. A band that mixed Robson And Jerome and Boyzone was a logical step.

Still, there was something about TV and the eyeballs it brought in. You don’t need to rely on lyrical analysis to suggest Westlife had a distinctive fanbase: you could also point to their dominant showing at ITV’s Record Of The Year awards. This show – brainchild of another proud pop game-player, Jonathan King – had a simple format: a tinselly celebration of the year’s big singles, with the winner crowned by a Eurovision-style phone vote. In sales terms, Westlife barely figured on the end-of-year charts. At Record Of The Year, in the phone vote, they cleaned up. It seemed the singles-buying tip of Westlife fans concealed a larger iceberg: a family TV audience who really glommed onto them but had zero interest in the rest of music. Further evidence, though, that Westlife’s fanbase was something unusual.

So let’s go back to that initial, absurd, comparison: Elvis, The Beatles, and Westlife. It turns out they do have something in common: all three of them succeeded by creating a new audience. The difference is that the new audiences of Elvis and the Beatles woke hungry for new records, more records that could keep tapping the feelings those artists did. So their energies fed back into pop. But Westlife inspired few imitators: even other boybands mostly stayed away from the wholesale commitment to steadiness Westlife’s music implied. But that didn’t mean there weren’t ways of tapping – and broadening – Westlife’s newly potent audience. There’s a sense with hindsight of a jigsaw here whose pieces aren’t quite fitting. Simon Cowell. A bunch of singers. A family audience. A national phone vote. Just as Boyzone were the caterpillar for Westlife, so Westlife themselves look like a chrysalis stage for something yet vaster.



1 2 3 All
  1. 61
    sukrat does standup on 14 Oct 2014 #

    I wanted to make a joke about a boy band called RoyZone (who were all called Roy, it’s very hilarious) but I googled to check if anyone had had this amazing joke already and there is actually a ceilidh band called RoyZone except (very unhilariously) only one of them is called Roy.

  2. 62
    James BC on 14 Oct 2014 #

    I don’t think that is the rule – didn’t East 17 have two members called “bloke at the back”.

  3. 63
    iconoclast on 14 Oct 2014 #

    And isn’t the “fat one who writes the songs” mandatory, too?

  4. 64
    Mark G on 15 Oct 2014 #

    Yes, but there is definitely only one of those per.

    You could say that the Spice girls break all those rules (two Mel’s, more than one songwriter, etc). You’d be right, that’s because they are girls.

  5. 65
    James BC on 15 Oct 2014 #

    Yes, the rules are clearly different for girl bands. All Saints had a Mel as well and no one batted an eyelid.

  6. 66
    ace inhibitor on 15 Oct 2014 #

    … or blatted an eyelid?

    I’ll get my coat.

    (favourite moment from a diana-funeral-day documentary at around this time – drunk man in Bristol pub explaining how nothing compared to her: “if that prince charles walked in here right now, I wouldn’t batter an eyelid.”)

  7. 67
    Tommy Mack on 15 Oct 2014 #

    Two things I know about Westlife:

    1. On a Radio 4 doc about boybands, one of them said ‘this is just a job, it’s the best job in the world but at the end of the day, it’s still just a job’. Interviewer should have replied ‘yeah, I get that from your music, mate’. I can’t imagine any other major pop act being so nakedly cynical in the public arena, not even Boyzone.

    2. Westlife are huge in China, among men as well as women. The lyrics are easy for EAL speakers to follow and the band are seen as the epitome of ruggedly handsome western men. Loads of chinese lads asked if I liked Westlife and were surprised when I said it was only really women who liked them in the UK.

    Cowell really is a depressing man. You get the impression he could do a lot better but is deliberately aiming for just good enough without stretching himself or his acts too much. (Yes, I realise he doesn’t write or produce the songs but he must call some of the creative shots)

  8. 68
    AMZ1981 on 15 Oct 2014 #

    #67 I was going to save this point for one of the later Westlife entries but I think your paragraph sums up Westlife – but to be fair also their audience. Westlife were a capable enough act vocally and I often thought they could try something a lot more complex such as a song with multiple vocal parts and stun us all. I actually noted this when we discussed A Different Beat by Boyzone; that song was an attempt to do something a bit different and the feedback from the fans seemed to be `stick with the Bee Gees covers`.

    The public gets what the public wants. But given that Take That (only three years defunct at this point) owed a lot of their appeal to the fact they tried something new each time, even if it didn’t always work, you have to wonder what changed.

  9. 69
    Mark G on 16 Oct 2014 #

    I think what was different was the audience’s expectation: Take That entertained by changing, Westlife kept their audience by giving them more of the same. In fact, if the ‘life had changed more, they’d have had as much success as the TT singles (not guaranteed pole position, but always top ten, ref: the ‘different’ westlife singles that didn’t make number one)

    Even here: it’s going to be tough coming up with something different, comment-wise, for each of these Popular Westlife entries (not just Tom’s review but the rest of us too) and yeah, I was going to keep my comment #55 for later in the series but hey.

    I’m somewhat gratified that the individual WLifers were all “it’s a job”, because it is, and at least they don’t have to feel that they have ‘sold their musical souls’ for this level of achievement, because at the end of the day they’re not invested particularly heavily, emotionalwise…

    Put it this way: If the “Westlife Musical” ever goes ahead onto the West End stage, it’d better have one hell of a good story….

  10. 70
    Tom on 16 Oct 2014 #

    My argument is simply that Take That and Westlife were doing different things for different people. It’s easy to look at 5 attractive young men (OK, 5 young men some of whom are attractive) and think all such iterations must basically appeal to the same people, but I don’t think it’s true: even if you say “OK, it’s young girls”, there are a lot of young girls! And they are not all the same! It’s like saying “look at Ocean Colour Scene, who always did the same thing, then look at Radiohead, who always did different things – EXPLAIN THAT HUH?”

  11. 71
    punctum on 16 Oct 2014 #

    Except OCS only always did the same thing from their second album onward. Few remember their shoegazing/baggy debut.

  12. 72
    Mark G on 16 Oct 2014 #

    #70, my original version of #69 had it “what was different was the audience”, I should have made it “and their expectations”

    Yes, as I say that’s when the penny dropped was when Peter Cushing expressed a liking. It doesn’t explain why the singles went immediately to the top then disappeared, unless that audience were more used to doing that than the Peters and Lee (or, indeed, The Batchelors) ‘s fans were.

    (Can you leave a hanging apostrophed “‘s” open as long as that? Anyway..)

    I suspect that had the main product supply been downloads, there might have been a longer uptake time. Then again, everyone has a computer and knows how to use it, nowadays…

  13. 73
    AMZ1981 on 16 Oct 2014 #

    Westlife were largely seen as direct descendants of Take That although I appreciate there was a stylistic change as well as a shift in the market – Boyzone were obviously the link between the two. It will be interesting to see what kind of pattern develops when we look at the competition for each Westlife number one as even their detractors have to agree they had an astonishing strike rate for the time.

    Am I being thick here or is there another Peter Cushing – the only one I can think of is the horror actor who died in 1994.

  14. 74
    glue_factory on 16 Oct 2014 #

    The grave cannot keep Peter Cushing…

  15. 75
    PurpleKylie on 16 Oct 2014 #

    Ugh, the utter bane of my tween life. I honestly felt like the only female in the British Isles to think these berks were awful even back then, it seemed like all the other girls were fawning over them and thinking they were awesome.

    FOURTEEN TIMES?! Jesus H Christ, I’m going to have to think of 13 other original ways of saying how crap they were and still are!

  16. 76
    Mark G on 16 Oct 2014 #

    ah, damn this ‘not researching thanks to not being a proper journalist’ business.

    Right, not Peter Cushing. So, if its not Vincent Price, and the person I’m thinking of is still alive, who is left?

  17. 77
    Nixon on 16 Oct 2014 #

    Christopher Lee? Christopher Plummer? Lee the Plumber?

  18. 78
    Mark G on 17 Oct 2014 #

    Christopher Lee! That’s the trousers!

  19. 79
    Weej on 17 Oct 2014 #

    #78 – Fairly unlikely to be Christopher Lee

  20. 80
    swanstep on 17 Oct 2014 #

    @78, Mark G. All of Lee’s Desert Island Discs were classical (with Handel’s Rinaldo #1) so, again, no encouragement for a Lee-Westlife connection. (Note that Sir Christopher will be back on screen this Xmas in the final Hobbit blowout; still badass at 92!)

  21. 81
    Mark G on 17 Oct 2014 #

    Well, it was a small piece in the Metro as far as I recall. Any road up, I’d say Chris Lee’s the most likely one but whatever. I tried googling “Old actor who likes Westlife” and found out all the names of the band members! Who Knew?!?

    Wlife were going to be called Westside, but there was already one of those. Stunning fact #6! The other five were their individual names…

  22. 82
    Tommy Mack on 22 Oct 2014 #

    Mark G @ 69: my complaint isn’t really that Westlife should view their roles as ‘just a job’, more that their music doesn’t suggest that anyone involved in the creative process either viewed it as more than ‘just a job’ or had the skill (or cared enough) to conceal their indifference.

  23. 83
    iconoclast on 23 Oct 2014 #

    @82: In a nutshell, it’s not Art, it’s Product.

  24. 84
    Tommy Mack on 23 Oct 2014 #

    But between Art and Product, lies a big blurry area called Craft* where technical skills are used to reconcile artistic and commercial ambitions and – my initial complaint – I don’t hear much of that going on (DISCLOSURE: I do not go out of my way to listen to Westlife…) although I imagine many of the people involved are capable. Or maybe there is a sort of craft there. I’m assuming Westlife’s fans would chose a better version of the same music if it were offered to them but I think I’m probably wrong in that: plenty people like Walls Ice Cream/Quality Street/Nescafe and not just because they’re cheap and readily available. What’s the secret then? Comfortably familiar? No jarring elements? Comfortingly bland, I guess. I’m not trying to be patronising here but it’s hard when it’s something I really can’t find the appeal in.

    *Actually, I think Art, Commerce and Craft are more like three Cartesian axes (x,y,z) – Motown for example sits in the top, right, back corner, a bunch of mates sloppily jamming in a garage in the bottom, front left.

  25. 85
    ciaran on 25 Nov 2014 #

    So then one time Frankenstein’s bunny have now become Frankenstein’s Monster. Louis Walsh’s ultimate project made flesh.

    Thought I’d be here to stick the boot in but SIA wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. Boyzone comparisons are a given especially with the panoramic widescreen image both had and the Irishness but this is going more down the ‘Back for Good’ route in craft and video.As a first hit its a reasonable effort even if its a rater ominous sign of things to come.

    It was touched on before with Boyzone and the Irish Model idea but I would describe Westlife as the archetypal Celtic Tiger band. Where once you would have had 3 lads from Sligo(the 5th/6th smallest population in Ireland with the province of Connaught a fair amount of emigration historically) maybe going to London for summer work or more now the breakthrough sensation in the uk and ireland, all led by their contractor like boss from County Mayo.Fitting that the decline began aroound the same time as the Tiger to boot.

    I more or less expected them to be around for quite a while and so it proved.Competition was all but fading with Take That/East 17 all but nostalgia by Spring 99 and the Uk rivals a bit too boisterous for the public.This might be boyband heresy to Tom but I would have preferred Boyzone overall as they didnt have it as easy getting to Number 1 and they were more likeable or interesting individually.

    The first year of Westlife contains the ‘best’ stuff but by the time of Comic Bunny it was time to shout enough already.

    Anways back to SIA. 4

  26. 86
    MUSICALITY on 24 Apr 2017 #

    Great post review and my views exactly however taking this on face value and trying to block out Westlife’s future and awful long existence, it’s a good strong pop ballad.

    It’s also ORIGINAL how that would soon change.

  27. 87
    Gareth Parker on 28 May 2021 #

    Not too much to say here, 3/10 from me.

  28. 88
    Mr Tinkertrain on 9 Jun 2022 #

    Very good article on a fairly average song. Taken on its own terms, this is fine – it’s well enough put together, has suitably romantic lyrics (although, as noted, it preaches commitment rather than passion) and has that kind of chorus where all the band members stand up off their stools to sing it (this comment applies to pretty much every #1 they had, so far as I remember).

    It’s just the sheer volume of them that’s dispiriting. Most boy bands lasted two or three albums until the fans grew up and moved on, or the most talented member(s) went solo. But these guys were a juggernaut that went on forever. Kudos for longevity I suppose, and they certainly cornered the market, but it would have been nice if they’d done something more interesting. I’ll give this one a generous 5 as it reminds me of some happy times; I suspect I won’t be as generous to most of their later ones.

1 2 3 All

Add your comment

(Register to guarantee your comments don't get marked as spam.)

If this was number 1 when you were born paste [stork-boy] or [stork-girl] into the start of your comment :)


Required (Your email address will not be published)

Top of page