The swift ascent of the “Wellerman” song is a captivating musical event, particularly notable for its TikTok origins. Following its journey from a viral social media trend to an official single release, complete with a dance remix, the song has impressively climbed near the top of the UK charts. This surge in popularity suggests the sea shanty craze, often dubbed “ShantyTok,” is set to continue its wave.
While the EDM remix might appeal to some, examining the original version reveals intriguing production choices. The phenomenon began with a Scottish vocalist performing a traditional folk tune, marked by a raw and genuine quality. This initial rendition was unproduced, emphasizing authenticity. It was Nathan Evans’s unrefined energy, distinctive voice, and engaging personality that resonated with TikTok users, inspiring numerous duet videos. This raises the question: why did the official production opt to heavily process his vocal performance with Auto-Tune? This decision seems counterintuitive to the song’s initial appeal.
The application of Auto-Tune is not only excessive but also poorly executed. It imparts an unnatural, synthetic EDM character to the voice, occasionally faltering in pitch-tracking, creating audible glitches, for example, around the words “he” at 1:18 or “days” at 1:43 in the song. While minor tuning issues can become irritating upon repeated listens, a more subtle approach could have preserved the song’s inherent charm.
Beyond the vocal processing, the overall production exhibits a contrived, computer-generated feel. The background vocals sound meticulously micro-edited, reminiscent of Pentatonix’s style, and the percussion track features repetitive, sampled guitar thuds. These additions were unnecessary. A looser editing approach, or recording live guitar hits with a click track, could have maintained a more organic sound. These production choices arguably diminish the song’s appeal and the singer’s relatability. For Nathan Evans, who may have aspirations for a lasting music career, this production style could be a concern. By stripping away the unique qualities of his breakthrough hit, the production risks making him indistinguishable from other potentially manufactured artists – perhaps a younger, visually appealing, and equally processed “teen folkstress,” possibly backed by a major label capitalizing on a fleeting trend.
However, the song’s structure deserves attention. It largely consists of a repeating sequence of Verse – Chorus – Verse – Chorus – Scat Chorus. This stripped-down, strophic verse-refrain structure is uncommon in contemporary chart music. Its novelty may contribute to its chart success, as many modern producers might have been tempted to incorporate a more elaborate, Mumford & Sons-esque arrangement. Interestingly, the Verse’s A-B-A-C phrase structure mirrors the Chorus’s D-E-D-C pattern. Both exhibit a similar “there and back again” melodic contour in their initial phrases and conclude with a shared descending scale. This subtle formula is effective and could be valuable in mainstream pop and rock, given the commercial advantage of melodic hooks at the end of both verses and choruses.
A minor critique concerns the two “da-d-da” Scat Choruses (at 0:43 and 1:33). These sections are less impactful, partly due to the bass and melody lines doubling the third of the first-inversion Ab chord – a questionable harmonic choice – and then moving in parallel to the fifth of the subsequent second-inversion Eb chord. While folk musicians might dismiss classical music theory, this harmonic passage sounds somewhat muddy and directionless compared to the main verse and chorus. This might explain why the producers opted to replace the scat chorus with a repetition of the main chorus at the song’s conclusion, aiming for a stronger finish.
Published on 26 Feb 2021
