578 replies to this topic

[pgram]

After having listened to it more than 100 times, I still don't like it.

One would have thought you would have made up your mind by the 3rd or 4th or 10th or even the 12th time.

If I didn't like a song the 3rd or 4th or 5th time, I would have moved on instead of wasting my time.

But 100 times? LOL

Each to his own, I suppose.

Well, you know how people in this forum are: you say you don't like something, and they jump at you telling you off for hurrying to condemn something without giving it a fair chance and blah blah blah...

At least no one can blame me for not trying

Plus, seriously, I was wasting my time anyway, studying, while listening to it.

[Publius]

Well, you know how people in this forum are: you say you don't like something, and they jump at you telling you off for hurrying to condemn something without giving it a fair chance and blah blah blah...

I think listening to something too much is a guaranteed way to end up not liking it. If you want to reevaluate something, just wait a while before going back to it. In this case, after a few listens, if you still don't like anything about it, give it a rest until the final version comes out. Between the time away after your first listen and finally having the complete experience, you might at least be a little more forgiving.

I remember when YKMN came out, one of the issues I had to get past was my expectation that the tone of CR would necessitate a darker, more brooding sound. The song was such a shock to me that I was intensely critical, but now I enjoy it thoroughly and see how it fits the film so well.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

It is a lot easier to criticize than actually create something "better".

Beautifully said. Perfect words for A LOT of griping and anorak moaning round here.

No, it's a nonsense argument.

And calling people "fanboys" and "anoraks" because they happen to have a different opinion to your own isn't very nice, either.

I stand by my thoughts (as echoed by NVT) that a great many followers of the series still do not get the films - how they work, why they work and when they work. Of course we all have favourites and they should be separate from everyone else. I don't think GOLDFINGER is the Best Bond Ever. I have a favourite, but it is not the best Bond film by a long stretch (though I could defend why it might be). A lot of fans are unable to separate the film and the canon from the film in the cultural context it arrived in or the cultural zeitgeist it is reflecting.

And all of this moaning tends to come from people who could not do any better. That doesn't mean they cannot moan at all. Of course they can. But to do so from a perspective that is damning someone else's creative efforts without an understanding of the context of their work is foolish and gets the fan world of James Bond 007 nowhere.

Getting back to the song....

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, GOLDFINGER, A VIEW TO A KILL, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, LIVE AND LET DIE, THUNDERBALL ... they were all songs that were as much about the cultural era they emerged in as they were Bond song standards. What happened since 1995 was that we had 007 title tracks that were trying harder to be 'Bond Songs' rather than solid pieces of contemporary music. When Madonna, Cornell, White & Keys come along and create solid Bond songs AND contemporary sounding tracks at the same time, a lot of people panic and let nostalgia damn the tracks.

Moses did not come down from that viewing theatre on the Mount and declare all Bond songs should contain brass, guitars and Shirley Bassey. The first Bond song ever heard on film was a Jamaican calypso ditty that couldn't be less 007 if it tried.

Beg to differ. You're not taking into account that having a title song at all is obsolete by hollywood standards. It wasn't at the time FYEO came out but by the late eighties it had become expendable. LTK suffered the most from changing demographics as not only did it have the dubious honour of being the first film in the series to credit a music consultant (fancy name for an A&R who hires sub-par artists to fabricate a "hits" soundtrack). I still remember that awful sticker on my vynil copy heralding it as "this year's hottest soundtrack". Ouch! I was young and dumb then and would champion anything official even if my gut was having trouble digesting it. By today standards, Bond movies wouldn't even have a prologue as having titles up front on a specially designed sequence is passé and would end up with some gangsta rap. The fact they have kept the titles is to honour tradition and anyway the songs no longer chart so I don't see the point in updating them to please a demographic that doesn't care.
You contradict yourself by defending the song by saying Bond songs needn't have brass in them when the song falls into the same cliché. In fact, AWTD tries so hard in being both retro and "cool" (read new) that is hard to see what you mean with it being "aboutthe cultural era it emerged".
Incidentally, could you do any better? Please let me know when your name appears in a Bond film. Last time I checked, we were all mortals here.

[Elvenstar]

Hello everyone. After reading this board for a while now I decided to register and this song prompted me.
As a newbie (and with my questionable english-language skills) to Bond-admiring crowd I dont think I have the right to bother you with comparisons to Bond classics;) but I really love it (it took me 2 times). I expected more of a ballad though but this beat I just cant get out of my head. So maybe I belong to MTV crowd or how U put it... The beginning reminded me of TND musically but then it all went in the Racounters direction (which I really appreciate).
As I said I'd preferred smth more moody like their track called "Blue veins" from their 1st album, but then I actually think of AWD live performance and really get excited to see and hear this (hopefully at QOS premier). The chorus has a "We will rock U" vibe.
Keys vocals fit well with Whites for me. And of course its intriguing how this song will go with the titles.

Edited by Elvenstar, 17 September 2008 - 04:32 PM.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Mediocre. While not as bad as DAD, it does suffer the syptoms of all "fake" Bond songs (those which didn't involve the score composer). It feels the need to legitimise itself by stealing from real Bond songs (I can see forthcoming editions of the James Bond greatest hits changing the credits to include Monty Norman as co-)composer). I find it laughable all the supporters hoping for the melody to be quoted by Arnold in his score because a) the score is almost ready and there's no melody there to quote. The lyrics are bloody awful. Explicit references a la Sheryl Crow.
The much maligned You Know My Name was better by any standards. The brass chords were integral to the song rather than merely cosmetic and the lyrics were literate by comparison.Even if this is a rough mix (it sounds so), it will only improve sonically but composition-wise, they'd have to start all over again.

A ) You do realise Arnold didn't have to listen to pirated Spanish radio to hear the song like the rest of us?

B ) Who says Arnold has to quote the main chorus? There are plenty of ideas in there that he could lift and adopt into a score just like he did with segments of YKMN.

The recording sounded well enough to assess the quality of the song. All of you claiming you can't judge the song as of yet are basically hoping for a miracle (that the song will be transformed into something that it isn't). Otherwise, you'd say something like it's great in spite of the recording.
Did I say he could only quote the main chorus? Learn to read. I said there's no melody there to quote. Again, excuses. YKMN was co-written by Arnold and both its melody and chords can be transposed with the James Bond Theme (Nassau, Bahamas) without obviously ripping off the later. Real Bond songs are extrapolations/inversions of the JBT chords, not pastiches.

Melody, chorus whatever. Split hairs to your hearts content. My point was there are more ideas to mine from AWD other than the main melody. Or the non-existent melody as you'd have everyone believe.

Either way, you should know by now that in order to quote the title song on the score, the composer should've had access to the song at a very early stage. Luckily, neither Eon nor MGM have deemed it necessary to force the composer to quote such atrocities as LTK, TND and DAD (I consider GE the only exception in that it is a tasteful, appropriate song) and I doubt they'll do so this time.

[Publius]

The fact they have kept the titles is to honour tradition

That may be, but I think they also serve to ease us into the movie with a teaser sequence and then set the tone for the rest with the titles/song.

Anyway, after hearing a new part of the song (with no Spanish radio DJ ), I'm liking it even more. Damn bizarre, in a great way.

[marktmurphy]

Beg to differ. You're not taking into account that having a title song at all is obsolete by hollywood standards.....By today standards, Bond movies wouldn't even have a prologue as having titles up front on a specially designed sequence is passé and would end up with some gangsta rap. The fact they have kept the titles is to honour tradition and anyway the songs no longer chart so I don't see the point in updating them to please a demographic that doesn't care.

Plenty of films have specially designed title sequences. Some are animated, some are just well shot bits of the film which have little going on but the credits and a nicely shot of action. I watched Sahara the other night; that had a specially designed title sequence. Trying to think of a film which doesn't have one is harder than coming up with ones that don't. Even the Bourne films; those epistomes of the modern spy movie, have title sequences. And they're even animated in an abstract way. They put them at the end, but it's the same thing.
Lots of movies also have songs to promote them... I'm not really sure where you're coming from. Yes, Bond songs are slightly different and are big news- just look at how many news stories there were about who was doing this one: it's hard to buy that sort of promotion for your film.

AWTD tries so hard in being both retro and "cool" (read new) that is hard to see what you mean with it being "aboutthe cultural era it emerged".

That's how White's stuff always is: he appreciates what's gone before and puts his twist on it. The Raconteurs aren't really an avant garde group, but they are very much of the now.

[Mister Asterix]

Hello everyone. After reading this board for a while now I decided to register and this song prompted me.
As a newbie...

Welcome to CBn, Elvenstar.

[marktmurphy]

Hello everyone. After reading this board for a while now I decided to register and this song prompted me.
As a newbie (and with my questionable english-language skills) to Bond-admiring crowd I dont think I have the right to bother you with comparisons to Bond classics;) but I really love it (it took me 2 times). I expected more of a ballad though but this beat I just cant get out of my head. So maybe I belong to MTV crowd or how U put it... The beginning reminded me of TND musically but then it all went in the Racounters direction (which I really appreciate).
As I said I'd preferred smth more moody like their track called "Blue veins" from their 1st album, but then I actually think of AWD live performance and really get excited to see and hear this (hopefully at QOS premier). The chorus has a "We will rock U" vibe.
Keys vocals fit well with Whites for me. And of course its intriguing how this song will go with the titles.

Hi there! I agree- I am looking forward to seeing it work with the titles. And yes to the Raconteurs direction too; you can tell it's a Jack White song!

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Did I say he could only quote the main chorus? Learn to read. I said there's no melody there to quote.

Yes, but you also implied it was too late for him to add it to the soundtrack, which is nonsense.
And you're wrong about there being no melody to quote- it's not got a strong melody, but any phrase from a song can be quoted; the three descending quotes are recognisable, as is the piano motif.

YKMN was co-written by Arnold and both its melody and chords can be transposed with the James Bond Theme (Nassau, Bahamas) without obviously ripping off the later. Real Bond songs are extrapolations/inversions of the JBT chords, not pastiches.

Surrender and TWINE seemed like pastiches to me.

Maybe they were, but at least they were good pastiches. TWINE particularly is a very good song. I'd have only hoped it hadn't been necessary to sell it as a Garbage song and had been recorded by Manson solo as a fully orchestral piece.
As it is evident by the reports on this site alone, QOS had an open call for a title song, similarly to TND where Pulp's was rejected. With CR, CC was hired to work with DA and anything they'd come out with would have gone into the film. Here, not only did would DA have to wait until the songs were finished by other people but also until Eon/MGM/sony have made a decision on which one to use. By then, incorporating it on the score would have delayed composing and therefore recording. It is too late and to hope otherwise shows little insight into how history repeats itself with the Bonds.

[marktmurphy]

Maybe they were, but at least they were good pastiches. TWINE particularly is a very good song.

That's only your opinion, though. I think it's nothing more than a Bond pastiche and sounds like it comes from a spoof- there's nothing original about it all and for me the tune's not even very interesting. I'll take AWtD over that any day of the week: it sounds like Bond plus it has a bit of freshness about it.

As it is evident by the reports on this site alone, QOS had an open call for a title song, similarly to TND where Pulp's was rejected. With CR, CC was hired to work with DA and anything they'd come out with would have gone into the film. Here, not only did would DA have to wait until the songs were finished by other people but also until Eon/MGM/sony have made a decision on which one to use. By then, incorporating it on the score would have delayed composing and therefore recording. It is too late and to hope otherwise shows little insight into how history repeats itself with the Bonds.

I really don't think you're coming with the facts; just how you imagine it will have worked. If John Barry could manage to work with someone else's song...
And if it's not in the soundtrack, I'm not going to be that worried. He threw away YKMN when he had the chance to use it well (i.e beyond some brief phrases of it), so I'm not that bothered about him using any other songs now.

[richyawyingtmv]

The full song's been leaked.

It's better than the samples.

[Publius]

I'm not sure it's the full song, richyawyingtmv. Seems like it's still a little short. The forum member who first told us about it even says he edited in the Coke ad instrumental to make it sound more complete. The bulk of it definitely seems to be there, though.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Beg to differ. You're not taking into account that having a title song at all is obsolete by hollywood standards.....By today standards, Bond movies wouldn't even have a prologue as having titles up front on a specially designed sequence is passé and would end up with some gangsta rap. The fact they have kept the titles is to honour tradition and anyway the songs no longer chart so I don't see the point in updating them to please a demographic that doesn't care.

Plenty of films have specially designed title sequences. Some are animated, some are just well shot bits of the film which have little going on but the credits and a nicely shot of action. I watched Sahara the other night; that had a specially designed title sequence. Trying to think of a film which doesn't have one is harder than coming up with ones that don't. Even the Bourne films; those epistomes of the modern spy movie, have title sequences. And they're even animated in an abstract way. They put them at the end, but it's the same thing.
Lots of movies also have songs to promote them... I'm not really sure where you're coming from. Yes, Bond songs are slightly different and are big news- just look at how many news stories there were about who was doing this one: it's hard to buy that sort of promotion for your film.

AWTD tries so hard in being both retro and "cool" (read new) that is hard to see what you mean with it being "aboutthe cultural era it emerged".

That's how White's stuff always is: he appreciates what's gone before and puts his twist on it. The Raconteurs aren't really an avant garde group, but they are very much of the now.

I do mean TITLE SONGS and OPENING CREDITS. Can you recall any current movie that has a prologue, then a title sequence? It's in itself a very sixties notion not exclusive to Bond (The Pink Panther). End titles are a very different beast. Movie's over and most people don't stick around after they start.
Songs written for film are also a rarity nowadays (Titanic, Lord of the Rings). Most are just bought by "music supervisors" and shoehorned wherever possible in the film (did we really need that awful Wedding Party track in LTK, did anybody discover the movie from that "song"?). My point is, they are no longer an integral part of the movie, just a marketing tool and we all now how "well" Hollywood markets films. I can't believe somebody got paid to come up with TWINE's teaser poster (the "designer" should have been fined for that one) and let's not even think about how much Madonna got for her efforts. I think you know where I'm getting at, you just have mixed feelings about it.

[bond 16.05.72]

Some people are digging them selves in a little too much here and need to watch what they say because when they hear the finished article on a proper stereo not a bloody computer, I've a feeling some of them may need to eat humble pie.

Since when is hearing a song on a computer not good enough ? Everyone keeps on making excuses for me or anyone else not to judge the song in the negative and I am tired of it. I heard it clear as day and I don't like it. I didn't say it was the all time worst but it's mediocre at best.

Having said that some are so disgusted at this moment I doubt their pride will let them admit it's a decent song, I can't believe it's caused so much outrage.

Contradiction alert. If I can't judge the song by listening to it on what you call a "bloody computer", neither can you.

It just goes to show and yes it my opinion that some people's view of music is decidely narrow minded and what they think should or should not be a Bond theme.

Is this according to YOU ?

A computer does not show a song off to it's best effect, I'm betting the 7" vinyl will show alot more range to this track.

I don't believe for one minute this is the extent to what this song will sound like, that is a poor version, I worked in Record shops for most of my working life and I used to listen to new albums on CD's in the work place, it was only when I got home and I heard it on vinyl (always makes a diffrence) that I heard little subtlties to the track that I'd never heard on stereo at work.

I don't care how good your computer is that is a poor quality version of the song.

Your not hearing the finished product properly, fair enough you don't like it but listen to the proper song..

It's like judging a film from a trailer.. oh wait a minute some do that, don't they?

[DR76]

So, people are posting these reviews of only a small part of the song and not the whole song? I thought everyone was talking about the entire song.

[Royal Dalton]

Some people are digging them selves in a little too much here and need to watch what they say because when they hear the finished article on a proper stereo not a bloody computer, I've a feeling some of them may need to eat humble pie.

Not me. The longer version sounds just as bad.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Maybe they were, but at least they were good pastiches. TWINE particularly is a very good song.

That's only your opinion, though. I think it's nothing more than a Bond pastiche and sounds like it comes from a spoof- there's nothing original about it all and for me the tune's not even very interesting. I'll take AWtD over that any day of the week: it sounds like Bond plus it has a bit of freshness about it.

As it is evident by the reports on this site alone, QOS had an open call for a title song, similarly to TND where Pulp's was rejected. With CR, CC was hired to work with DA and anything they'd come out with would have gone into the film. Here, not only did would DA have to wait until the songs were finished by other people but also until Eon/MGM/sony have made a decision on which one to use. By then, incorporating it on the score would have delayed composing and therefore recording. It is too late and to hope otherwise shows little insight into how history repeats itself with the Bonds.

I really don't think you're coming with the facts; just how you imagine it will have worked. If John Barry could manage to work with someone else's song...
And if it's not in the soundtrack, I'm not going to be that worried. He threw away YKMN when he had the chance to use it well (i.e beyond some brief phrases of it), so I'm not that bothered about him using any other songs now.

He did. FRWL was written by Lionel Bart because Barry was not yet a songwriter. He did the orchestral arrangements and conducting in that song and incorporated into the score.
You're not coming with the facts either. Twine is almost a decade old now and I haven't changed my initial appreciation of the song. Will you able to say so about AWTD when the hype is all gone?

[Judo chop]

I don’t understand the ‘yelling at each other’ complaints. I can understand them just fine. They’re not ‘out of tune’ so much as just doing their own thing, which is a much more sensible approach than trying to perfectly layer one another. It’s a kicked-back jam sound, which is totally fitting considering the rattling’ trap set sound driving the song.

What I’m still hearing is that the chorus’ impact is under-whelming. It feels a little lethargic, which I think might have been helped by an increase in either tempo or register. Or maybe either some sustained horns, or another layer of guitar grit.

But that’s hearing the song isolated. There’s no doubt YKNM as a song is helped by CR’s titles and I have high hopes AWTD will benefit in the same way.

[marktmurphy]

I do mean TITLE SONGS and OPENING CREDITS. Can you recall any current movie that has a prologue, then a title sequence? It's in itself a very sixties notion not exclusive to Bond (The Pink Panther). End titles are a very different beast. Movie's over and most people don't stick around after they start.

By changing the goalposts you're being ridiculously specific. No, not many films have main characters called Bond in, either. Plenty of movies feature songs and specially designed opening credits. Even the film I mentioned above (purely because it's the film I most recently caught on telly) 'Sahara', features a specially designed opening credit sequence (which begins after we've already seen some action, as I remember) with a song playing over the top of it. So, no; you're wrong. Some films do, some don't- it's purely a stylistic decision, nothing to do with being retro or not.

Songs written for film are also a rarity nowadays (Titanic, Lord of the Rings). Most are just bought by "music supervisors" and shoehorned wherever possible in the film (did we really need that awful Wedding Party track in LTK, did anybody discover the movie from that "song"?). My point is, they are no longer an integral part of the movie, just a marketing tool and we all now how "well" Hollywood markets films. I can't believe somebody got paid to come up with TWINE's teaser poster (the "designer" should have been fined for that one) and let's not even think about how much Madonna got for her efforts. I think you know where I'm getting at, you just have mixed feelings about it.

Don't tell me how I feel; I'm telling you. And to say that Hollywood can't market films is laughable. How have you heard of them without them being marketed? Some are marketed worse than others, but it's a nonsensical generalisation to say they're all marketed badly.
Songs written for films may be a rarity: I'm not seeing your point, though. How does this make doing it worthless?

[bond 16.05.72]

Predictably I love it!

Listening to the full length version for the 2nd time, it's sounds much much better and nowhere as generic as YKMN

The fact Arnold's not involved is a good thing cause even YNMN was ok, his previous other effort was rubbish.

This does sound very Bondian to me, a touch of Barry, yeah their will be those who still hate it but they just want generic soundalike, it sounds the freshest Bond tune in decades.

Burned to CD and I'm gonna listen to it again!!!!

Edited by bond 16.05.72, 17 September 2008 - 05:38 PM.

[marktmurphy]

I really don't think you're coming with the facts; just how you imagine it will have worked. If John Barry could manage to work with someone else's song...
And if it's not in the soundtrack, I'm not going to be that worried. He threw away YKMN when he had the chance to use it well (i.e beyond some brief phrases of it), so I'm not that bothered about him using any other songs now.

He did. FRWL was written by Lionel Bart because Barry was not yet a songwriter. He did the orchestral arrangements and conducting in that song and incorporated into the score.

Yes, well done: that was my point. That's why I said 'if John Barry could manage to work with someone else's song'. I'm not sure how you've got confused over that..?
The point was, you were saying that Arnold couldn't possibly have worked with someone else's song, I was pointing out that John Barry managed it. Do you get it now?

Twine is almost a decade old now and I haven't changed my initial appreciation of the song. Will you able to say so about AWTD when the hype is all gone?

My initial thoughts of TWINE haven't changed either- huge disappointment.
What's the point of even asking me what I'll think of AWtD in 10 years? How is anyone supposed to know that? What does it even matter- Quantum of Solace comes out in 2008, not 2018.

The full song's been leaked.

It's better than the samples.

Thanks for this- he's snipped it together but pretty well it seems: I'm enjoying it.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I do mean TITLE SONGS and OPENING CREDITS. Can you recall any current movie that has a prologue, then a title sequence? It's in itself a very sixties notion not exclusive to Bond (The Pink Panther). End titles are a very different beast. Movie's over and most people don't stick around after they start.

By changing the goalposts you're being ridiculously specific. No, not many films have main characters called Bond in, either. Plenty of movies feature songs and specially designed opening credits. Even the film I mentioned above (purely because it's the film I most recently caught on telly) 'Sahara', features a specially designed opening credit sequence (which begins after we've already seen some action, as I remember) with a song playing over the top of it. So, no; you're wrong. Some films do, some don't- it's purely a stylistic decision, nothing to do with being retro or not.

Songs written for film are also a rarity nowadays (Titanic, Lord of the Rings). Most are just bought by "music supervisors" and shoehorned wherever possible in the film (did we really need that awful Wedding Party track in LTK, did anybody discover the movie from that "song"?). My point is, they are no longer an integral part of the movie, just a marketing tool and we all now how "well" Hollywood markets films. I can't believe somebody got paid to come up with TWINE's teaser poster (the "designer" should have been fined for that one) and let's not even think about how much Madonna got for her efforts. I think you know where I'm getting at, you just have mixed feelings about it.

Don't tell me how I feel; I'm telling you. And to say that Hollywood can't market films is laughable. How have you heard of them without them being marketed? Some are marketed worse than others, but it's a nonsensical generalisation to say they're all marketed badly.
Songs written for films may be a rarity: I'm not seeing your point, though. How does this make doing it worthless?

I'm not changing the goalposts. My original post states clearly title song as opposed to just song. In your previous post you half-heartedly admit that Bonds are a special case so I'm not telling you how you feel, I'm reading it!
I find it sad that it's the Brits and not the Yanks who're the first ones to defend Hollywood. They truly don't know how to market films. They use exactly the same approach for any movie, regardless of its target audience, plot, etc. If the Bonds ever got greenlit in the first place was because of United Artists, a unique company that was too good to be true. Columbia didn't give a flying one for Bond when they could've gotten it cheap and now they bounced into it, they call the shots like they'd never been wrong. MGM didn't take on the offer either. It's very easy to spend big bucks on a film that comes preceeded by 21 installments. There's no gamble in it.
You may no see my point but at least I've got one.

[Mister E]

A computer does not show a song off to it's best effect, I'm betting the 7" vinyl will show alot more range to this track.

No it doesn't but it's not a huge difference

I don't believe for one minute this is the extent to what this song will sound like, that is a poor version, I worked in Record shops for most of my working life and I used to listen to new albums on CD's in the work place, it was only when I got home and I heard it on vinyl (always makes a diffrence) that I heard little subtlties to the track that I'd never heard on stereo at work.

Yes, it's going to be so much different, right ? You're living in denial. I don't care how long you worked in Record shops, you are spouting bull to prove your point.

I don't care how good your computer is that is a poor quality version of the song.

It isn't that poor. You are exagerrating to a ridiculous degree just so you can prove your point. You are also looking pretty foolish after I gave a rather fair criticism of it.

Your not hearing the finished product properly, fair enough you don't like it but listen to the proper song..

It's like judging a film from a trailer.. oh wait a minute some do that, don't they?

1. It's almost two minutes of a four minute song. You only get about two minutes of a usually 90 minute or more film. Your comparison makes no sense.

2. Yes, I have judged films by trailers and rarely have I been wrong. I was certaintly right about some of the crappy movies that came out this year.

[Loomis]

Noel Gallagher of Oasis weighs in on this debate (kind of). Warning: some rather blue language.

http://www.nme.com/news/oasis/39763

[marktmurphy]

I'm not changing the goalposts. My original post states clearly title song as opposed to just song.

So why aren't you mentioning 'specially designed credits' anymore if you're not changing what you're talking about?

I find it sad that it's the Brits and not the Yanks who're the first ones to defend Hollywood. They truly don't know how to market films. They use exactly the same approach for any movie, regardless of its target audience, plot, etc.

Where's your proof that it doesn't work? Because they seem to make a fair bit of cash to me.

If the Bonds ever got greenlit in the first place was because of United Artists, a unique company that was too good to be true. Columbia didn't give a flying one for Bond when they could've gotten it cheap and now they bounced into it, they call the shots like they'd never been wrong. MGM didn't take on the offer either. It's very easy to spend big bucks on a film that comes preceeded by 21 installments. There's no gamble in it.

What's this got to do with marketing or this song?

You may no see my point but at least I've got one.

Which is...?

Noel Gallagher of Oasis weighs in on this debate (kind of). Warning: some rather blue language.

http://www.nme.com/news/oasis/39763

After hearing their latest single, the first from their album (which is traditionally one of the strongest songs from an album) and struggling to remember how it goes whilst I'm listening to it I really doubt that he's got more songs than he knows what to do with.
I don't mind people being arrogant if they've got something to be immodest about...

[bond 16.05.72]

A computer does not show a song off to it's best effect, I'm betting the 7" vinyl will show alot more range to this track.

No it doesn't but it's not a huge difference

I don't believe for one minute this is the extent to what this song will sound like, that is a poor version, I worked in Record shops for most of my working life and I used to listen to new albums on CD's in the work place, it was only when I got home and I heard it on vinyl (always makes a diffrence) that I heard little subtlties to the track that I'd never heard on stereo at work.

Yes, it's going to be so much different, right ? You're living in denial.

I don't care how good your computer is that is a poor quality version of the song.

It isn't that poor. You are exagerrating to a ridiculous degree just so you can prove your point.

Your not hearing the finished product properly, fair enough you don't like it but listen to the proper song..

It's like judging a film from a trailer.. oh wait a minute some do that, don't they?

1. It's alomost two minutes of a four minute song. You only get about two minutes of a usually 90 minute or more film. Your comparison makes no sense.

2. Yes, I have judged films by trailers and rarely have I been wrong. I was certaintly right about some of the crappy movies that came out this year.

I've heard the finished version now and it does sound different say what you like I don't care Bond theme tunes have been dire to OK for decades, this to me is the most exciting theme tune in ages.


Loomis

Noel Gallagher has such an ego and unfortunatley not the song writing talent to back it up.

Oasis haven't released anyting decent in over a decade.

Noel Gallagher do Bond, now that is funny!!!!

[Bradley De La Cloche]

I've just heard the full song...

AND IT IS FANTASTIC!

[Mister Asterix]

Peace people. Peace.

Just be aware that some people won’t share your opinion.

Also some people who hate the song now, will like it when they see the credits. And some will hate it more. It will cloy on some who now love it. And some will have dedicated iPods just so no other inferior song taints this gift from The All Mighty.

Telling someone they aren’t looking at a song or analysing a song correctly isn’t going to change their opinion. People have different tastes. Accept it.



Except Loomis. Someone needs to get his head straight about this.

[marktmurphy]

Anyone noticed that Jack appears to play the OHMSS main melody during the last verse?