Quite good? Yes, yes, YES!

What do we know about the new Girls Aloud single?

:: It’s louder than Sarah Harding after a few power shandies.

:: Musically, it doesn’t make much sense.

:: The raised-finger-pointing-upwards bit of the dance routine is quite good but no match for the little bounce they do during and just after the intro.

:: It cements Girls Aloud’s position as the poster girls of new rave (even though new rave doesn’t exist, etc. etc.)

:: The title is not only ridiculous but also destined to be incorrectly annotated by 99% of anyone who ever tries.

:: Possible ‘interpretations’ include:

’Sexy… No. No? No!’
‘Sexy? No, No, No’
’Sexy! No! No! No!’
‘Sexy! …No No No’
‘Sexy No No’

:: And so on.

:: (Someone will inevitably try to chuck in a few parentheses too).

:: That means that, in the ‘potential title confusion’ stakes at least, ‘Sexy! No, No, No…‘ is way ahead of ‘Song 4 Mutya (Out of the Sugababes)’, or whatever it‘s called.

:: The intro is amazing.

:: Radio 1 will probably edit the intro.

:: Judging from the first 30 seconds, Ashley Cole must have lost the will to live while wooing wife Cheryl. She’s well up for having a coffee (“Hell yeah!”) but not so keen on any of the fun stuff, like dancing or ‘whispering honey’.

:: Poor Ashley.

:: But wait! The verses reveal that all of Girls Aloud have minds ridden with filthy thoughts, they’re just big on playing hard to get! Apparently it’s ’sexy’. Hurrah!

:: Overall, it’s like a version of ‘Something Kinda Ooooh’ that is nearly as good as ‘Biology’.

:: But still nowhere near as good as ‘Biology’, obviously.

:: Hmm.

:: There was something else but we’ve forgotten.