584 replies to this topic

[Santa]

I'm with gkgyver on this one. While it's far more important whether or not you like the song, we apply qualitative standards to literature and films for example, so why is it not reasonable to do the same with music?

[rogermoore007]

You may ignore that, and not even be interested in it since you like the song, but liking the song doesn't make it good; it makes it appealing to you.

A song is a musical product, and to evaluate it you have to look at its musical qualities. And Bond music has always had a musical standard that was well above the rest, and that this song doesn't match.

I can definitely see what David Arnold meant with his OHMSS comparison, though.

What exactly are the standards and how does this song not meet them? Just curious...

[spynovelfan]

What an absurd argument. All judgements on art are subjective.

[Forever007]

I'm trying to like this song but the more I lsten the more I realize it isn't the song itself, it's the singer. Cornell voice is poorly mixed into the song making him hard to decipher at times. Perhaps they will clean it up a bit and add some orchestral background that will give it more power. The over sound, minus the lyrics is pretty cool. I hate it becuase of Cornell's voice.

[rogermoore007]

What an absurd argument. All judgements on art are subjective.

I second that

[Forever007]

Do you guys truly believe this is the finished product though? I mean will we hear the exact same thing on the soundtrack when it's released?

[MattofSteel]

A different version of DAD (faster, toned higher) was played on the radio at first. I have that copy, and actually prefer it to the film version. So who knows. I'm waiting for an orchestral version, for sure.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I'll believe otherwise the moment gkgyver can establish the seemingly elusive objective criteria for what constitutes "quality" music, instead of resorting to loudly repeating that what he says is right and what others say is wrong.

I don't think you want to get my point, really. You say the song is good, I say it's bad, and those are both opinions that should respected. And I've never said someone who thinks it's good is a jerk or something.
But both of those opinions can't be right. One of them just has to be wrong. Just take this song to a trained and educated musician, and he'll tell you it's MUSICALLY average. What is so egocentrical about me pointing that out?

Opinions are subjective and can't be labled "right" or "wrong" which makes what you are saying rediculous.

Take this song to a trained and educated musician and you will get different answers depending on who you ask. Are you forgetting that trained and educated musicians created YKMN? Implying you'd get a unaminous answer from musicians is rubbish. Some would like it, some wouldn't depending on who's opinion you asked for.

I don't know why you won't just admit you don't like the song and in your opinion it is horrid. For some reason you have to turn this into "right" vs "wrong" with yourself being on the "right" side of couse.

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 25 September 2006 - 01:18 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Right. We had the same discussion here about Craig being ugly. Once again I ask: Why does everything these days can only fall into two categories - good or bad? Yes or no? You

[Publius]

I don't think you want to get my point, really. You say the song is good, I say it's bad, and those are both opinions that should respected. And I've never said someone who thinks it's good is a jerk or something.
But both of those opinions can't be right. One of them just has to be wrong.

No, what's wrong is the idea that an opinion has to be right or wrong. It can be neither, and therefore strictly subjective. I think blue is a good color, you think it's a bad one. Do one of us have to be wrong? Can one of us even be "wrong"?

Let me ask you this: what constitutes a "good" song? Do you have to analyze it in the context of its genre, or anything else? What exactly does it even mean to be "good"? Is that a worthwhile, descriptive musical label?

Just take this song to a trained and educated musician, and he'll tell you it's MUSICALLY average. What is so egocentrical about me pointing that out?
You may ignore that, and not even be interested in it since you like the song, but liking the song doesn't make it good; it makes it appealing to you.

Are you claiming there will be unanimity? What if there's only a majority who hold that view? Why does their majority trump the majority that like it here? What of a majority of genre fans? What does it take, what standards have to be met, to qualify as a "trained and educated musician" whose opinion can be enshrined as fact? Where's the dividing line? Are there shades of gray?

A song is a musical product, and to evaluate it you have to look at its musical qualities. And Bond music has always had a musical standard that was well above the rest, and that this song doesn't match.

Again, what "musical standard" is that? What is it that Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, A View to a Kill, Licence to Kill, and Die Another Day all have in common? And don't just say that they're "good" and leave it at that, because that's a cop-out.

I'm with gkgyver on this one. While it's far more important whether or not you like the song, we apply qualitative standards to literature and films for example, so why is it not reasonable to do the same with music?

I don't. I can't stand certain Bond movies, for example, but far be it for me to "objectively" claim they're of intrinsically less quality than others. Or should I defer that judgment to someone who went to film school, or is in the movie industry? Will they necessarily have a more worthwhile opinion than me, a movie buff who's seen every Bond movie countless times, but just decided to not go for a pretty little piece of paper that says I'm special enough to lord my opinions over the "uneducated" masses?

(This post probably seems more venomous than it's meant to be, but I think some of you need to be knocked off your high horse and realize that labels like "good" and "bad" are by definition value judgments and not objective standards of anything.)

[Santa]

(This post probably seems more venomous than it's meant to be, but I think some of you need to be knocked off your high horse and realize that labels like "good" and "bad" are by definition value judgments and not objective standards of anything.)

It does seem venomous but as you're someone who always writes things that make sense and that I respect, I won't be rude or sarcastic in my usual unpleasant fashion. It's subjective, it's all subjective and that's a good thing, but I think the fact does remain qualitative judgements are made on all these things, be it by giving them awards or how much money they earn, whatever, I still think an objective good or bad can be applied. However, the last thing I'd want to do (usually ) is say I'm the one to make that call or even to choose who should make it for me. I don't take it too seriously as I also pride myself on my affection for rubbish. , one of my favourite films is Flash Gordon. So I don't really think it's something worth arguing about. I happen to think it's a bad song, but as there's no way of saying who should make the judgement on that, I'm happy to concede that far more relevant is the fact that I dislike the song. I keep listening to it at work, encouraging it to grow on me, but I've found I have to stop as it's boring me to sleep on my desk.

[JimmyBond]

So if this song wins (or even gets nominated) an award. Will that change your minds about if the song is good or not?

[Santa]

Nope. Titanic won a load of Oscars and it was pants. Award winning was only an example and you know, you cheeky little turd

[Thunderfinger]

I wish he would have done something more along the line of "Jesus Christ Pose" from Soundgarden

[e.s.blofeld]

I've listened to it a few times, and I like it, but don't love it. This is from theperspective of someone who would take Soundgarden's 'Superunknown' to a desert isle if I could only bring one album. I also like Audioslave, but they have less of an edge.

This song is good, but isn't exactly Cornell's forte; I imagine they had to tone him down a bit (hence the orchestra, which would be unheard of on a Soundgarden album) to make it less edgy for the masses. Not anything wrong with that, I suppose.

I'm somewhat surprised to see folks getting so worked up over whether they like it or not, honestly. I will make this suggestion to those who aren't fond of the song: close your eyes as you listen to it and imagine the silohettes of naked chicks dancing around while the credits are playing, and see if you like it any better.

[Thunderfinger]

Better.
But I

[Tarl_Cabot]

I hate it.

[_JW_]

Lyrics...

On the first page it says
"The coldness burns through my veins
You know my name"

I swear it sounds like he's saying "the coldest blood runs through my veins."

[Shaun Forever]

Naff

[bernsmartin007]

I swear it sounds like he's saying "the coldest blood runs through my veins."

He is, just says the "d" softly

[DaveBond21]

It's really growing on me, can't get it out of my head...

Someone said it was aimed at "the kids" but I disagree. The artist Chris Cornell belongs to the previous generation. Mine I guess. He was at his peak 13 years ago. So, this music is aimed at people in their early 30s, if anyone.

Does anyone else think the end is like the end of the Thunderball theme, being belted out like that???

[Dunph]

Could it be that this song may be growing on me? I'm confused. I don't like it. Is this just blind Bond fandom smothering my taste? What's happening?

[DanMan]

I think it's a very cathcy song. Can't stop listening to it.

[DaveBond21]

Yeah, it is stuck in my head too.

I want to hear it in the cinema....

Now!!!!

[gkgyver]

What exactly are the standards and how does this song not meet them? Just curious...

MUSICAL standards. Purely and strictly musical ones. Words like "standards" or "good" and "bad" are very abstract, especially when it comes to music. And I've tried to break it down into more specific categories, but since obviously nobody paid much attention to it, for whatever reasons, I'll try again.
Of course art is subjective, but just like in any form of art, there are pioneers, people that are a class of their own, and people who just swim along. Just like you can distinguish a cubistic painting from an impressionist's one by numerous rules and ideas each period developed and represents, you can distinguish a Bond score from a Superman score, you can distinguish Elfman and Williams, Goldsmith and Horner and so on and so forth.
And just like you can tell the difference between a real impressionist and a wannabe, you can tell the differece between a Bond song and a song that tries to be one.
Music appears to be very intuitive, very effortless and improvised on the outside, but the notes on paper form a very logical construct that takes musicians in training a long and hard time to fully understand.
And this logical blueprint on paper, more precisely the chord progression, defines whether a song or a piece of music in general is inventive and complex or double- standard, dull musac. Whether we find a piece of music engaging and thoroughly interesting depends on that construction.
And a strong theme just makes it more interesting. Now please understand that only because the song makes musical sense, which is the very least you can expect, you can't automatically call it a strong theme. Those are two very different things. A theme, musically speaking, is a strong, evocative, recognisable arrangement of notes with the length of a couple of bars max, that is playing to a character or an abstract idea. That's where earlier Bonds almost always scored, their songs, their themes, were very much in touch with the atmosphere of the picture. To such an extent, like I said, that the theme could appear in the score without problems. It almost seemed like the title song evolved from the score. The major difference now is that the song doesn't get treated like a piece of score anymore, it's just treated like a piece of important marketing. And ultimately, that's why this song or any other Brosnan song, except TWINE, is more in touch with "the rest" than with 007.
But I'm drifting off.

Big roles also play orchestration and meter. Well, the meter in pop music rarely changes in a single song, that's not a point against YKMN, so let's focus on orchestration.
Just like you can identify a certain artist by his colour choice or choice of medium, the big shots in music have their own signature sound. And who would argue with me that the sound of James Bond has always been associated with the sound of John Barry? I'm not saying "try to imitate Barry", but whenever we go "hey, that sounds Bondian", it's because we hear something that Barry often used in his signature musical constructs.
David Arnold said a very simple, yet profound thing in an interview about TND: "I think when people go to see a James Bond movie, they are expecting James Bond music. I think it would be foolish to run away from that."
YKMN features guitars, which is Bondian. But it has become a cliche. Heck, even Barry himself rarely used them in later films. And the Brosnan era used them so heavily that I can't help but cringe at the relentless string pounding in YKMN.
And experience plays a role. Someone who doesn't listen to music regulary or someone who doesn't pay much attention to it inevitably must perceive a simpler construction as more complex than it actually is. But that doesn't actually make it more complex, it's only more complex for the individual person.

Does this sound like the criticism of a Bond purist who can't live with anything that has "60s" written all over it? It's simply an objective observation by someone who deals with writing, arranging and editing music almost every day.

I simply think, just like santajosep said, that some (or maybe quite a few) people have to learn how to separate subjective impressions and objective quality.
You can say "well, this song stinks, but I like it", that's not an oxymoron, that's fine. Personally, I don't like many parts of the original Star Wars score, but I still acknowledge its musical qualities and its historical importance.
Why can't some of you at least acknowledge that YKMN's musical qualities are mediocre? Is that a sin or something?
Do I have to be called "sitting on a high horse", just because I have slightly more musical knowledge than some of you? I don't force anyone to hate it, for crying out loud.

[DavidSomerset]

MUSICAL standards. Purely and strictly musical ones. Words like "standards" or "good" and "bad" are very abstract, especially when it comes to music. And I've tried to break it down into more specific categories, but since obviously nobody paid much attention to it, for whatever reasons, I'll try again..............................................................................
Do I have to be called "sitting on a high horse", just because I have slightly more musical knowledge than some of you? I don't force anyone to hate it, for crying out loud.

Dude, Only Simon Cowell would have said it better.
Yes, I agree the song stinks. Reminds me of the LTK song. Unless EON gets John Williams to do the score, I doubt if we will hear another great Bond song/theme again after Barry. Even a Elton John kind of love song for James AND Vesper would have been better than this juvenile crap. Imagine a "Can you feel the love tonight" kind of song and then immediately Bam Bam "Yes, considerably". :)The lyrics are good though.

Edited by DavidSomerset, 26 September 2006 - 04:22 AM.

[DaveBond21]

I can't quite believe it but has DavidSomerset just given a spoiler on this music thread??


I don't want to know what happens in Casino Royale!

What is wrong with some people?

[DavidSomerset]

I can't quite believe it but has DavidSomerset just given a spoiler on this music thread??


I don't want to know what happens in Casino Royale!

What is wrong with some people?

Oops My Bad. My thousand apologies. I will try to edit my earlier post.

[DaveBond21]

It's OK, but I hope people realise there is a spoiler thread for discussing the plot.

[DavidSomerset]

It's OK, but I hope people realise there is a spoiler thread for discussing the plot.

I didnt realize that I was into Spoiler territory, hence the snafu. Personally, I hate spoilers too.
BTW havent you read the novel?