# What do you think of Bruno Mars' newest single?



## ChrisSiuMusic

Personally, I'm a big fan of the modulations, smooth production/mix, and overall vibe of the song. And Bruno's voice is smooth as silk, as usual. What about you?


----------



## chocobitz825

im conflicted...he rides a fine line between homage and just kind of blatantly copying the vibe of classic songs...


----------



## Macrawn

That was terrible. Please don't make me listen to it again. 

Technically an A+. 

F- for making a song where everyone smiles through the whole thing. 

It's so darn smooth is lacks something. 

Like I prefer music like that from the 60's or 70's because it wasn't perfect sounding and maybe had a little grit or rawness in the niceness. 

The first version of the Matrix failed for the very same reason.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

chocobitz825 said:


> im conflicted...he rides a fine line between homage and just kind of blatantly copying the vibe of classic songs...


Fair enough! Nothing innovative or new, that's for sure. I think it gives many a nostalgic feel, hence the popularity.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

Macrawn said:


> That was terrible. Please don't make me listen to it again.
> 
> Technically an A+.
> 
> F- for making a song where everyone smiles through the whole thing.
> 
> It's so darn smooth is lacks something.
> 
> Like I prefer music like that from the 60's or 70's because it wasn't perfect sounding and maybe had a little grit or rawness in the niceness.
> 
> The first version of the Matrix failed for the very same reason.


Haha! Love it.


----------



## AudioLoco

Cheese. Vintage-y. But cheese....


----------



## PeterN

Its fuckin good, very professional. Composition, mix, master, singing, video....and transitions, yes. Near perfection. Gods must be listening to this when they look at human achievement.

I didnt know the guy, heard the name. But this is Michelin star class.


----------



## ScarletJerry

Are you kidding me? The guy is a musical genius!

My favorite performance of his is when he plays the part of a Pandora intern on SNL:









Bruno Mars Pandora S.N.L. Skit


A funny skit from Saturday Night Live



www.ebaumsworld.com





Compare that to the autotuned stars today.

Scarlet Jerry


----------



## chocobitz825

ChrisSiuMusic said:


> Fair enough! Nothing innovative or new, that's for sure. I think it gives many a nostalgic feel, hence the popularity.


I mean it’s obviously high quality production and he knows his genres well, but after a few albums of era jumping and providing nothing new or original...I find myself questioning where to put value on this nostalgia. They’re great songs in structure but not superior to songs he’s channeling so thoroughly. Impressive when compared to some of his contemporary rivals, but in greater context, maybe forgettable?


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

chocobitz825 said:


> I mean it’s obviously high quality production and he knows his genres well, but after a few albums of era jumping and providing nothing new or original...I find myself questioning where to put value on this nostalgia. They’re great songs in structure but not superior to songs he’s channeling so thoroughly. Impressive when compared to some of his contemporary rivals, but in greater context, maybe forgettable?


The melody's not the catchiest for me, but I enjoy the harmonic exploration more than anything.  Looking forward to the rest of the album!


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

AudioLoco said:


> Cheese. Vintage-y. But cheese....


Very XD


----------



## Saxer

Sounds like a best of of all Earth Wind & Fire ballads in one song. Well done. Just a little bit too creamy.


----------



## el-bo

Does everything right, with a few unexpected twists. Perfect in execution, but (for me) utterly uninteresting to listen to. That's not to knock 'em. There's real talent there, f'sure.

The only other Bruno mars track I've heard is 'Locked out of heaven', which is an effin' stonkin' track, that never fails to get me a-boppin'


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

el-bo said:


> Does everything right, with a few unexpected twists. Perfect in execution, but (for me) utterly uninteresting to listen to. That's not to knock 'em. There's real talent there, f'sure.
> 
> The only other Bruno mars track I've heard is 'Locked out of heaven', which is an effin' stonkin' track, that never fails to get me a-boppin'


'That's What I Like' is also another fav of mine. So good!


----------



## storyteller

Technically flawless by modern measurements... but not endearing at all. It is the modern music dilemma in my mind, and is probably what the “too smooth“ comments are about. Imperfections are what give songs their character. Quirky choices during analog recordings with unsquashed dynamics give it a soul, a personality. I also don’t think there is a memorable hook in this song and I have no desire to listen to it again. That said, he’s an incredibly talented dude and executed this song’s production flawlessly.


----------



## Fab

Macrawn said:


> The first version of the Matrix failed for the very same reason.


You had me google searching for the pre 'The Matrix' film...


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

I think it's disgusting.


----------



## TGV

That kind of music was already cheesy in the 70s. It's like James Last.


----------



## el-bo

ChrisSiuMusic said:


> 'That's What I Like' is also another fav of mine. So good!


Just checked it out. Musicality it's on point, and I seem to enjoy his voice as an instrument. But the lyrics are just banal nonsense (actually think that was what i found most annoying about the first track posted).

Of course, it's not uncommon for popular music to be lyrically lacking, or for pop stars to be so egotistical to be able to sing such nonsense. But there is definitely a mismatch between the musicality and the song/lyrical themes. Perhaps he might try going back to the drawing-board, or maybe start working with a better lyricist.



Of course, I like my fair share of songs with vapid lyrics so not gonna hold it against you Chris 
------
------


----------



## AudioLoco

There are real instruments, beautifully recorded and produced... The mix is awesome!

But sorry, sorry, sorry! I'm such a negative creep....I am aware...so:

Nice very well executed reverse engineering production exercise.
The current mainstream pop musical landscape apparently is so poor that a talented and super famous singer has to replicate (completely, not just take inspiration from) past eras to do anything remotely interesting.

And, the video represents this phony-ness in such and exemplary way.
Realism is the last important element in a music video, but these guys crammed together in a "real studio" are looking like an episode of a Fallon toy orchestra sketch....

The most symbolic element in the video has to be the fake 70s ashtray with fake cigarette butts....
Amazing!

Apologies again for any bad vibes....


----------



## lux

As a good fan of Bruno Mars i like best the energy of the Unorthodox Jukebox period. That album was such a milestone of modern pop.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

AudioLoco said:


> There are real instruments, beautifully recorded and produced... The mix is awesome!
> 
> But sorry, sorry, sorry! I'm such a negative creep....I am aware...so:
> 
> Nice very well executed reverse engineering production exercise.
> The current mainstream pop musical landscape apparently is so poor that a talented and super famous singer has to replicate (completely, not just take inspiration from) past eras to do anything remotely interesting.
> 
> And, the video represents this phony-ness in such and exemplary way.
> Realism is the last important element in a music video, but these guys crammed together in a "real studio" are looking like an episode of a Fallon toy orchestra sketch....
> 
> The most symbolic element in the video has to be the fake 70s ashtray with fake cigarette butts....
> Amazing!
> 
> Apologies again for any bad vibes....


No bad vibes at all! Thanks for sharing your impressions.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

lux said:


> As a good fan of Bruno Mars i like best the energy of the Unorthodox Jukebox period. That album was such a milestone of modern pop.


A great album for sure!


----------



## Macrawn

Fab said:


> You had me google searching for the pre 'The Matrix' film...


Lol sorry about that. I just meant that when the robots created the first Matrix in the movie they made a perfect world, which was completely rejected by the humans. They only accepted an imperfect world which was the 2nd matrix attempt.


----------



## Macrawn

AudioLoco said:


> There are real instruments, beautifully recorded and produced... The mix is awesome!
> 
> But sorry, sorry, sorry! I'm such a negative creep....I am aware...so:
> 
> Nice very well executed reverse engineering production exercise.
> The current mainstream pop musical landscape apparently is so poor that a talented and super famous singer has to replicate (completely, not just take inspiration from) past eras to do anything remotely interesting.
> 
> And, the video represents this phony-ness in such and exemplary way.
> Realism is the last important element in a music video, but these guys crammed together in a "real studio" are looking like an episode of a Fallon toy orchestra sketch....
> 
> The most symbolic element in the video has to be the fake 70s ashtray with fake cigarette butts....
> Amazing!
> 
> Apologies again for any bad vibes....


I sadly agree. I was thinking for a minute that the whole thing was a parody.. which would make it brilliant...... but it's not. 

But since he's going to sell a gazillion records with it, I get the smiles. Maybe it is a parody after all.


----------



## davidanthony

Surprisingly not into it. I say surprisingly because I admire almost everyone involved in the project. I've studied the techniques employed by/in Bruno/24k Magic, Anderson Paak, Serban, etc. extensively, and brought a lot of them into my own work.

But I've also done extensive listening and studies of the classics this song rests on, and in comparison, I feel like the soul of this song is missing entirely. I couldn't even make it through the entire thing.

It feels like they started with the idea (kitchen sink an era into a song and give it modern production values) instead of the song.

That said, will probably sell like gangbusters because most of the people this is marketed to don't know any better, and it is _way_ more interesting than a lot of the other stuff on the radio right now.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

davidanthony said:


> Surprisingly not into it. I say surprisingly because I admire almost everyone involved in the project. I've studied the techniques employed by/in Bruno/24k Magic, Anderson Paak, Serban, etc. extensively, and brought a lot of them into my own work.
> 
> But I've also done extensive listening and studies of the classics this song rests on, and in comparison, I feel like the soul of this song is missing entirely. I couldn't even make it through the entire thing.
> 
> It feels like they started with the idea (kitchen sink an era into a song and give it modern production values) instead of the song.
> 
> That said, will probably sell like gangbusters because most of the people this is marketed to don't know any better, and it is _way_ more interesting than a lot of the other stuff on the radio right now.


Definitely agree re: more interesting than what's on the radio nowadays. I'm sure the rest of the album will follow in the same vein.


----------



## Polkasound

davidanthony said:


> But I've also done extensive listening and studies of the classics this song rests on, and in comparison, I feel like the soul of this song is missing entirely. I couldn't even make it through the entire thing.
> 
> It feels like they started with the idea (kitchen sink an era into a song and give it modern production values) instead of the song.
> 
> That said, will probably sell like gangbusters because most of the people this is marketed to don't know any better, and it is _way_ more interesting than a lot of the other stuff on the radio right now.


The modern production values are critical to the song's success. If Bruno moved any closer to capturing the soul that you feel in the classics, his core fanbase would not be captured by the song. And I wouldn't say it's because they don't know better; I'd say it's because they _do_ know better. It's just a different kind of better that they know.


----------



## PeterN

Nobody can even come near it - its another level from crappy chord progressions, with staccato and depressing choir. It should not be put among amateurs of VI bcs it gets tainted. Like serving Michelin dish in a trailer park. But the guy didnt do that himself, theres probably 100 people pulling strings.


----------



## artomatic

That's some late 60s to early 70s classic soul right there! 
That's smoove and pretty. I can dig it!


----------



## el-bo

PeterN said:


> Nobody can even come near it...It should not be put among amateurs of VI bcs it gets tainted. Like serving Michelin dish in a trailer park...


----------



## Stringtree

This made my hair and teeth hurt. I understand what's being sought after, but dude, there exists a history of superlative music that surprises. This is a slog. I wanted to like this, but I do not. 

It just seems to punish by the second, and I tried. I have to surface. I can't do this challenge. I need air.


----------



## PeterN

Its an UFO flying by and guys standing with broken skateboards saying they didnt like the "way" the UFO flew by. Better not open mouth, just watch it and sub to the role of a skateboarder.


----------



## Polkasound

One way to help understand the mass appeal of this song is to pretend you're young enough to have no emotional connection to music released before, say, 2008. You grew up listening the "oldies" like Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, and Maroon 5, and it all sounds dated and boring to you. The newer the music is, the better to your ears. Then Bruno Mars comes out with this song, and it's got a totally fresh "2021" sound.

This is why a new pop song can't be full-on vintage, but it can be neo-vintage. It can sound old, but it still has to sound contemporary. Regardless of what I think of the melody or lyrics, I give Bruno and his co-producers a lot of credit for what they've accomplished.


----------



## el-bo

PeterN said:


> Its an UFO flying by and guys standing with broken skateboards saying they didnt like the "way" the UFO flew by. Better not open mouth, just watch it and sub to the role of a skateboarder.


Wait! Am I supposed to be skateboarding before or after being served 'poisson à la merde' in my trailer?


----------



## RogiervG

I liked his previous funky music better.. this is quite dull to be honest. (a cheap imitation of the real deal, style/sound wise.. and the videoclip is weirdish imho)

Btw.. how is this a soundtrack (it's in a soundtrack discussion subforum)? it's just a single.. not used for a film or tv show.


----------



## storyteller

Polkasound said:


> One way to help understand the mass appeal of this song is to pretend you're young enough to have no emotional connection to music released before, say, 2008. You grew up listening the "oldies" like Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, and Maroon 5, and it all sounds dated and boring to you. The newer the music is, the better to your ears. Then Bruno Mars comes out with this song, and it's got a totally fresh "2021" sound.
> 
> This is why a new pop song can't be full-on vintage, but it can be neo-vintage. It can sound old, but it still has to sound contemporary. Regardless of what I think of the melody or lyrics, I give Bruno and his co-producers a lot of credit for what they've accomplished.


Only to an extent. My daughter is 15 and she has had music at her fingertips with an iPod touch since she was two. With Spotify, she discovered the Beatles by herself and told me all about her discovery. She was so excited. Then she found a cover of the song "Yellow" and loved it. I had to tell her about the original, which she loved even more. She loves Damien Rice and even 80's hairbands like Firehouse. She adores music from past generations and, while she does really like a few modern indie artists, most of her music is from decades past. My point here is that she tells me all about the music she loves and the music her classmates like. Surprisingly, almost no one at her school or church likes the modern stuff. Comically, they are all stuck in their own style and generation of music from the past... meaning no one really connects fully with another person based on music alone. But they each respect that and love that individuality with each person.

I've actually started to believe that the billboard charts are about as fake as the rest of the stuff being shoved in our faces by the media. There is no way that certain songs like this are getting mass appeal when no one listens to the radio anymore, adults don't seem to like modern music, no one has gone out to bars, clubs, and music venues in the past year to have it shoved in their faces, and kids seem to enjoy every other generation of music pre-2010 rather than modern stuff. Again, not knocking Bruno Mars. The production is stellar. He is clearly a talented guy. It is just a continuation of the mud of music we've been stuck in for the past 10 years.


----------



## ryans

I think it's quite good, great production.

I have to confess, while they are interesting, (some) of the modulations feel a bit random and unmotivated. And if there's anything that reeeally makes me mad, it's an unmotivated modulation.

But I still dig the song.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

ryans said:


> I think it's quite good, great production.
> 
> I have to confess, while they are interesting, (some) of the modulations feel a bit random and unmotivated. And if there's anything that reeeally makes me mad, it's an unmotivated modulation.
> 
> But I still dig the song.


Hey Ryan, I'd love to know which modulations you feel are unmotivated? And what would you do to make it feel more natural?


----------



## b_elliott

As far as Bruno Mars music, I must live under a rock since I could not tell you which of the singers was Bruno. At first I thought it was the drummer dude who sorta steals the show here, but then the keyboardist gets the focus. Then I wondered if this was just an Eddie Murphy skit with Eddie playing all the parts--including the dancers. Kudos to the make-up artist if so. 
I know my way out. Cheers,


----------



## Living Fossil

ChrisSiuMusic said:


> Personally, I'm a big fan of the modulations, smooth production/mix, and overall vibe of the song. And Bruno's voice is smooth as silk, as usual. What about you?


There are some aspects in this production that might not be obvious, but indeed show the mastery behind it:

1) It's striking how on-point the arrangement is. There is nothing unnecessary, yet everything is there.

2) How the arrangement/production deals with different frequency areas, is amazing.
E. g. i like how the high mids/top end are completely absent of any nervous element, which gives more room to the high elements towards the end of the song. 
The frequency balance (which of course is also a result of the arrangement) in this song is really striking.


----------



## davidanthony

Polkasound said:


> The modern production values are critical to the song's success. If Bruno moved any closer to capturing the soul that you feel in the classics, his core fanbase would not be captured by the song.


Agreed, everyone involved in this knew exactly what they were doing, no accidents in this entire production.



Polkasound said:


> And I wouldn't say it's because they don't know better; I'd say it's because they _do_ know better. It's just a different kind of better that they know.


You're using the word "better" but to me the concept you're referencing is more "different". When I say better, I mean that I feel the original does a better job of communicating emotion than this homage, comparatively. Anecdotally, people with the basis to make that comparison seem to mostly be sharing that opinion.

FWIW this isn't really a new thing for Bruno Mars, pretty much the same thing with this track (just a different source of inspiration):



And I should point out that I'm not one of those people who insists new music or production values are automatically inferior. For example, I actually prefer the Serban remixes (same guy who did this song) of the Saturday Night Fever Soundtrack, e.g.


----------



## Geoff Grace

Saxer said:


> Sounds like a best of of all Earth Wind & Fire ballads in one song. Well done. Just a little bit too creamy.


Wow! That's high praise, as Earth, Wind & Fire recorded some _great_ ballads. Does it really compare, though, to this?




Or this?




Don't get me wrong. Bruno Mars is indeed a talented artist, but I'll take Maurice White and Philip Bailey any day.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Geoff Grace

That said, here are two Bruno Mars songs I like:







(The second is actually a Mark Ronson song that features Bruno Mars.)

Best,

Geoff


----------



## chocobitz825

I think what’s ultimately the problem with the Bruno Mars method is that he’s skating in an area that saves him from the most relevant criticism. You take someone like Michael Buble who directly dabbles in the classics and a classic genre. He lives and dies by his ability to maintain the quality of the songs he covers, and maintain the heart of the genre he is in. You can immediately compare his work to the song he covers and gauge how much he’s contributing to that.

Bruno’s music depends on you knowing it sounds like some song already out there, but by copying the genre as a whole and lifting very obvious elements from classics, he’s basically saying “you know what song this is like!” while avoiding the burden to prove his contribution to what he’s lifting. He is extremely talented, but what has he provided? His only modernization of the genre is in production value and his cocky lyrics.

no doubt this is what he wants to do as he has a history in this since his childhood of performing other peoples music. He is a talented, entertaining singer/songwriter who is skimping a bit on the songwriting part. I suppose that as he’s done 2 or 3 albums like this now, the question is, what is he contributing after all this? (Other than maybe paying some good lawyers to make sure he never gets sued for how close he rides the line)


----------



## Paul Cardon

Gene Pool said:


> After the song itself, arrangers and producers have more to do with the success of a song than the singer. Sometimes a song is a hit largely _because of_ the arranger. Arrangers are criminally under-noticed, under-credited, and receive no copyright on their hooks, lines, and other *original content* which very often sell the song. All efforts to change the law in this regard have been met with yawns by Congress Critters, who do not understand or value creativity.
> 
> Compare the original Uptown Funk to the noticeably superior redo by Akers & Co.
> 
> ORIGINAL:
> 
> 
> 
> REDO:



Do you think that "redo" could be a successful modern pop track? "Better" in this case totally depends on your perspective. Did it tickle my musical brain way more than the original? Yeah. Did it also feel like it was overdoing things, cluttered at times? Yeah. Did it make me wanna bounce and groove and sing along as much as the original? Not at all.


----------



## Alex Niedt

Immaculate execution of a song I couldn't hum back to you and will forget I ever heard about five minutes from now. Love Anderson Paak, though, and now I'm gonna listen to "Come Down", because that is how you craft a throwback vibe in an insanely catchy way and meld it with modern aesthetics.


----------



## Paul Cardon

chocobitz825 said:


> I think what’s ultimately the problem with the Bruno Mars method is that he’s skating in an area that saves him from the most relevant criticism. You take someone like Michael Buble who directly dabbles in the classics and a classic genre. He lives and dies by his ability to maintain the quality of the songs he covers, and maintain the heart of the genre he is in. You can immediately compare his work to the song he covers and gauge how much he’s contributing to that.
> 
> Bruno’s music depends on you knowing it sounds like some song already out there, but by copying the genre as a whole and lifting very obvious elements from classics, he’s basically saying “you know what song this is like!” while avoiding the burden to prove his contribution to what he’s lifting. He is extremely talented, but what has he provided? His only modernization of the genre is in production value and his cocky lyrics.
> 
> no doubt this is what he wants to do as he has a history in this since his childhood of performing other peoples music. He is a talented, entertaining singer/songwriter who is skimping a bit on the songwriting part. I suppose that as he’s done 2 or 3 albums like this now, the question is, what is he contributing after all this? (Other than maybe paying some good lawyers to make sure he never gets sued for how close he rides the line)


This is a soapbox moment less about the track linked in the thread which I don't think is one of Bruno's greats, and more about pop in general but:

The thing he provides is that most of his tracks don't just work as throwbacks. They also work as hugely successful modern pop tracks, and it can be hard to grasp the unique skill required to make successful modern pop. Sure it's fun to flex musicality and technique and aesthetic, but nailing modern pop is a special sort of skill that's incredibly hard to understand without being inside that world.

Someone else mentioned lyricism elsewhere in the thread, that lots of modern stuff is dumbed down compared to great lyricists sitting down and layering meaning and subtext and intelligence, but that's ignoring the most important part. Tapping into the current public zeitgiest *expectations of pop. Knowing what speaks to the most people possible in the most distilled form possible. Complex artistic work or difficult topics _can_ limit the potential audience, and reaching for audience isn't a bad thing.

It's fun to stretch ourselves to learn how to enjoy modern pop, even when it's reductive and simple and corny. Otherwise, we're just wanking around in our own self-imposed superiority. If your self-confidence is enforced by pointing to everyone else and punching down, that's just no fun. Find out why people enjoy stuff and find a way to get into the same place they are. Consuming art and music is way more healthy that way.

/rant[/S][/S]


----------



## el-bo

Gene Pool said:


> REDO:




Gave me stank-face at the brass neck drum fill, nine seconds in. Then it just kept getting better. Never took to the original, but this is great


----------



## Polkasound

storyteller said:


> Only to an extent. My daughter is 15 and she has had music at her fingertips with an iPod touch since she was two. With Spotify, she discovered the Beatles by herself and told me all about her discovery. She was so excited. Then she found a cover of the song "Yellow" and loved it. I had to tell her about the original, which she loved even more. She loves Damien Rice and even 80's hairbands like Firehouse. She adores music from past generations and, while she does really like a few modern indie artists, most of her music is from decades past. My point here is that she tells me all about the music she loves and the music her classmates like. Surprisingly, almost no one at her school or church likes the modern stuff. Comically, they are all stuck in their own style and generation of music from the past... meaning no one really connects fully with another person based on music alone. But they each respect that and love that individuality with each person.


My explanation was only referring to young people whose ears are primarily attuned to the latest, freshest pop music, and find any music as little as five years old to be dated and unappealing. Your daughter is a wonderful example of the opposite, and thankfully there are others like her out there.



storyteller said:


> There is no way that certain songs like this are getting mass appeal


It's no surprise to me that they're getting mass appeal. It's simply because there are a lot of people out there who are able to feel what the songs have to offer.


----------



## Arbee

I've seen Bruno live and f*** the dude can sing and obviously works hard! He's the distilled essence of that genre and does it so well. Love the way the drums sit in that otherwise french polished production mix. Being a "genre" cover artist as opposed to a "songs" cover artist is obviously a smart move. 10 million views in the first 48 hours says something. 

Do I like it? Not so much, "been there done that", but huge respect for the concept and delivery.


----------



## chocobitz825

Paul Cardon said:


> This is a soapbox moment less about the track linked in the thread which I don't think is one of Bruno's greats, and more about pop in general but:
> 
> The thing he provides is that most of his tracks don't just work as throwbacks. They also work as hugely successful modern pop tracks, and it can be hard to grasp the unique skill required to make successful modern pop. Sure it's fun to flex musicality and technique and aesthetic, but nailing modern pop is a special sort of skill that's incredibly hard to understand without being inside that world.
> 
> Someone else mentioned lyricism elsewhere in the thread, that lots of modern stuff is dumbed down compared to great lyricists sitting down and layering meaning and subtext and intelligence, but that's ignoring the most important part. Tapping into the current public zeitgeist. Knowing what speaks to the most people possible in the most distilled form possible. Complex artistic work _can_ hugely limits the potential audience, and reaching for audience isn't a bad thing.
> 
> It's fun to stretch ourselves to learn how to enjoy modern pop, even when it's reductive and simple and corny. Otherwise, we're just wanking around in our own self-imposed superiority. If your self-confidence is enforced by pointing to everyone else and punching down, that's just no fun. Find out why people enjoy stuff and find a way to get into the same place they are. Consuming art and music is way more healthy that way.
> 
> /rant


That’s why its hard to critique this precisely without it being misconstrued. I don’t think people are selling themselves short by enjoying his music. He is a fantastic musician and his ability to do what he does is incredible, but the way in which he does it feels less like original songwriting and more like reharmonization and arranging. Both difficult and relevant skills, but not the same as original contribution of new material, which he has done well in the past.

his genre/era jumping along with full costume changes sells him short IMO. Like he’s less indulging in his talents as songwriter and instead is playing dress up and loosely rehashing classics. (With incredible skill still)

his ability to emulate the classics is just perhaps too good. So it feels like he can always get away with the vanilla ice defense


----------



## chocobitz825

Paul Cardon said:


> Do you think that "redo" could be a successful modern pop track? "Better" in this case totally depends on your perspective. Did it tickle my musical brain way more than the original? Yeah. Did it also feel like it was overdoing things, cluttered at times? Yeah. Did it make me wanna bounce and groove and sing along as much as the original? Not at all.


I think in the case of the redo, the recognizable nostalgic elements being stripped away take away some of that energy that fuel it as a pop hit. Much credit is definitely due to the arrangers and producers who know the precise instrument choices needed to drive that nostalgia out of us.

EDIT: Bruno just came on the radio and I figured the best summary for what his music feels like right now. he feels like the artist equivalent of Behringer/Music Tribe. (The company, not Uli)


----------



## Kent

WILD. Yesterday I was just thinking about Bruno Mars for the first time in a long time and how it was weird he hadn’t released anything in a while. 

Simultaneously, it seems, he releases this!


----------



## ryans

Gene Pool said:


> After the song itself, arrangers and producers have more to do with the success of a song than the singer. Sometimes a song is a hit largely _because of_ the arranger. Arrangers are criminally under-noticed, under-credited, and receive no copyright on their hooks, lines, and other *original content* which very often sell the song. All efforts to change the law in this regard have been met with yawns by Congress Critters, who do not understand or value creativity.
> 
> Compare the original Uptown Funk to the noticeably superior redo by Akers & Co.
> 
> ORIGINAL:
> 
> 
> 
> REDO:



Love the Akers version but that's based on taste really... 

Both tracks are vastly different styles, so I can't say if one is superior/inferior to the other. It's an apples to oranges comparison to me... but to each their own.


----------



## BenG

Huge fan and dude's a 'hit machine'. That said, I think Bruno Mars can sometimes get carried away with his 'homages'...Lately, he actively tries to re-create older songs/genres (that young people haven't heard) in lieu of just writing new music and letting his (obvious) influences shine through. I feel all art should try to convey a message/emotion and that's the primary issue with this track. It's like he is saying 'Hey, remember this classic?' And the resulting music is as banal as the message. That's a big issue with pop music in general where nowadays you'll have 10-20 producers collaborate on a track, ultimately reducing to its most general elements. (Modern scriptwriting has the same problem imho)

Anyway, everyone has 'duds' and I'm always excited to hear anything new from the guy!


----------



## mr

ChrisSiuMusic said:


> Personally, I'm a big fan of the modulations, smooth production/mix, and overall vibe of the song. And Bruno's voice is smooth as silk, as usual. What about you?



Yes, silky smooth for sure ! That song is executed perfectly.
And the mix, wow, Serban is such a master. But of course everything else that comes before it songwriting, arrangement, performance, recording, production, is great, so....

Bruno is a "once in a generation". Saw him and the Hooligans live a few years ago (24k) (Anderson .Paak was opening). I still remember the intro to Finesse (first song), so cool. Amazing energy on stage.


----------



## patrick76

Saxer said:


> Sounds like a best of of all Earth Wind & Fire ballads in one song. Well done. Just a little bit too creamy.


I absolutely love the mix for Earth Wind and Fire's "Sing a Song". This mix on Bruno's is very nice too. I don't like all of his work, but I do enjoy some of his songs and appreciate his skill set. Big fan of the song F** You he did for CeeLo Green. Great stuff. Also, when CeeLo performed with Daryl Hall.... hilarious to see Daryl Hall belt out "F you".


----------



## jonathanparham

the song is decent. I love love love Anderson Paak. saw him live last year with Thundercat as the opening act. The man knows how to play and how to entertain.


----------



## Paul Cardon

Gene Pool said:


> Whenever assessing an arrangement it's essential to understand the salient characteristics of the style and the goals of the arrangent, from an arranger's POV. Nothing was overdone or cluttered for this type of arranging approach. What one prefers is another matter, of course.


Totally! Though it depends on the lens with which we assess. Arranger's POV? Of course, and I'm no arranger, but I found some of the verse sections a bit busy with content, tangental weaving ideas that caused me to struggle on what the focus was meant to be, but that's my own personal assessment, and maybe that's based on preference! Our brains are all made of goo and it all ends up overlapping and mixing in weird ways.


----------



## Rctec

GtrString said:


> Meh, not a fan of that cocky, cocain kid vibe. Its to impress teenagers, not 50+ like me. Wont deny his talent, the music just seems fake.


I’m 63, and I’m really impressed! Try to have a go at writing something like that! And a truly great arrangement and production...


----------



## el-bo

Paul Cardon said:


> Someone else mentioned lyricism elsewhere in the thread, that lots of modern stuff is dumbed down compared to great lyricists sitting down and layering meaning and subtext and intelligence, but that's ignoring the most important part. Tapping into the current public zeitgeist. Knowing what speaks to the most people possible in the most distilled form possible. Complex artistic work _can_ hugely limits the potential audience, and reaching for audience isn't a bad thing.


I mentioned the lyrical content (I might not have been the only one).

"Tapping into the current public zeitgeist"? Really? I guess if you reduce the word zeitgeist to nothing more than lowest-common-denominator fashion/cultural trends selling aspirations of pulling up to clubs in Cadillacs, weighed down by all that bling ("Gold jewelry shining so bright"..."Everything twenty-four karats"), and partying in the VIP lounge ("Strawberry champagne on ice"), to the lowest-common-denominator, then maybe he is.

Maybe I'm wrong, but i think the current zeitgeist is one of fear - Fear of a literal burning planet; Fear of animal (human and non-human) extinction; Fear of the plutocracy (y'know, the lizards  ), and fear of just about everything. There's paranoia and mistrust regarding anything that our governments and world-leaders say, and huge civil unrest. But Bruno wants us to know what weed his lady-friend likes to smoke and informing us that he informed her that, "If you're hungry, girl, I got filets (Woo)".

As I already said, I enjoy my fair share of music with pants lyrics, but i'm not gonna pretend they're more than pants lyrics, or that they're tapping into the zeitgeist. Music can be made and enjoyed for all sorts of reasons, even if only as escapism from the reality of the world around us.

If you actually go back to what I said, my main point was of a mismatch between the high-calibre of musicality and performance and the vapidness of the lyrics. I'm not suggesting that he completely alienate his current audience. However, there is a whole universe between what is currently being presented and "Complex artistic work". Of course there is a fine line to tread, but like you pointed out, great lyricists can manage to layer meaning, subtext and intelligence. So I don't think there's any reason why if he really wanted to convey a message that he couldn't, even if it meant collaborating with writers that could help him with that.

I also think it's worth pointing out that musically, at least with this track, he has no issues challenging his audience. Many of us here have acknowledged that this is very well-written and arranged track. It is definitely clever, not in the sarcastic sense but _really_ intelligent.

Maybe, like you said, he's only interested in audience numbers. And maybe it really is just a parody. Maybe he's all about the clever juxtaposition of the world's possible imminent implosion with his evident laissez faire/Que será attitude to home-security (Who leaves their door open, in 2021?) and love for weed and steak. As long as his house clean ("My house clean"), his pool warm (
"My pool warm") and he's just shaved ("_smooth like a newborn"), _all is right with the world 

Clearly, I'm just exaggerating to prove a point. Not everyone is going to 'answer' to the Rodney King beatings in the way 'Living Color' did:



However, my posting of Marvin Gaye's 'What's Going On' (One could add 'Mercy Mercy Me' and others, and from other artists), was to give an example of someone who not only tapped into the zeitgeist of their time, but whose timeless message unfortunately is still just as relevant to the zeitgeist of 2020/21. There is nothing alienating about the message of his songs, despite the themes he was writing about.



Paul Cardon said:


> It's fun to stretch ourselves to learn how to enjoy modern pop, even when it's reductive and simple and corny. Otherwise, we're just wanking around in our own self-imposed superiority. If your self-confidence is enforced by pointing to everyone else and punching down, that's just no fun. Find out why people enjoy stuff and find a way to get into the same place they are. Consuming art and music is way more healthy that way.
> 
> /rant


It's a shame your rant is predicated on such over-reaching assumptions.

I doubt I'm the only one here with absolutely zero issues with enjoying modern pop. I'd even go so far as to say that I'm not the only one who is happy to say they like what they like, regardless of genre or of artist. I don't listen to much current music. I don't really listen to much music, in general. However, I have no issue with either Bruno Mars or Britney Spears making it into my iTunes library (They both have). Letting you know I/we don't like a particular song shouldn't lead you to conclude that I don't I/we need to "stretch ourselves to learn how to enjoy modern pop".

As for "even when it's reductive and simple and corny". Again, I'm talking about in this case there being a mismatch. I am recognising a huge musical talent and lamenting that they seem to have no interest in matching that with some kind of worthwhile lyrical substance. No need to infer from that that I can't dig reductive, simple or corny. And certainly no need to reach further, towards accusations "self-imposed superiority". GTFOH, with that shit! I'd be lucky to have 1% of his talent and charisma and don't begrudge him a single bit of it. The fact that I see more potential in him, is in recognition of his talent. On the whole, my general feelings about life and my place in it don't put me in any position to be "punching down".

Preferring the Akers version of 'Uptown Funk' does not diminish the value of the original. The original had to exist, for starters. In preferring that, no one need argue or defend whether that particular version would've been a hit, in it's own right. It's just another version that appeals to certain musical sensibilities, more than the original. Don't assume from that some superiority because one is less pop-y. Also don't assume it being impossible to lie and enjoy both versions. 

Not gonna bother addressing the rest of what you wrote, 'cause just more baseless assumptions.

Perhaps re-read the thread and notice how in most cases those of us were able to declare a lack of interest in certain aspects of or just not being hooked by one song, yet were quick to separate that from our general feelings of the artist(s) in question, and their clear talent.

I bid you "Good day!"


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

Rctec said:


> I’m 63, and I’m really impressed! Try to have a go at writing something like that! And a truly great arrangement and production...


Hi Hans, thanks for jumping in. Just wanted to wish you well and safe health, just like all my fellow members here.


----------



## Kent

el-bo said:


> But Bruno wants us to know what weed his lady-friend likes to smoke and informing us that he informed her that, "If you're hungry, girl, I got filets (Woo)".


Thanks to you this song has become significantly less cool.

I seriously heard (and was _all about_):

"If you're hungry, girl, I got the Lays"







Easily the best line in the whole song! Except, sadly, not...

'Scuse me while I kiss this guy, I guess.


----------



## chocobitz825

el-bo said:


> I mentioned the lyrical content (I might not have been the only one).
> 
> "Tapping into the current public zeitgeist"? Really? I guess if you reduce the word zeitgeist to nothing more than lowest-common-denominator fashion/cultural trends selling aspirations of pulling up to clubs in Cadillacs, weighed down by all that bling ("Gold jewelry shining so bright"..."Everything twenty-four karats"), and partying in the VIP lounge ("Strawberry champagne on ice"), to the lowest-common-denominator, then maybe he is.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but i think the current zeitgeist is one of fear - Fear of a literal burning planet; Fear of animal (human and non-human) extinction; Fear of the plutocracy (y'know, the lizards  ), and fear of just about everything. There's paranoia and mistrust regarding anything that our governments and world-leaders say, and huge civil unrest. But Bruno wants us to know what weed his lady-friend likes to smoke and informing us that he informed her that, "If you're hungry, girl, I got filets (Woo)".
> 
> As I already said, I enjoy my fair share of music with pants lyrics, but i'm not gonna pretend they're more than pants lyrics, or that they're tapping into the zeitgeist. Music can be made and enjoyed for all sorts of reasons, even if only as escapism from the reality of the world around us.
> 
> If you actually go back to what I said, my main point was of a mismatch between the high-calibre of musicality and performance and the vapidness of the lyrics. I'm not suggesting that he completely alienate his current audience. However, there is a whole universe between what is currently being presented and "Complex artistic work". Of course there is a fine line to tread, but like you pointed out, great lyricists can manage to layer meaning, subtext and intelligence. So I don't think there's any reason why if he really wanted to convey a message that he couldn't, even if it meant collaborating with writers that could help him with that.
> 
> I also think it's worth pointing out that musically, at least with this track, he has no issues challenging his audience. Many of us here have acknowledged that this is very well-written and arranged track. It is definitely clever, not in the sarcastic sense but _really_ intelligent.
> 
> Maybe, like you said, he's only interested in audience numbers. And maybe it really is just a parody. Maybe he's all about the clever juxtaposition of the world's possible imminent implosion with his evident laissez faire/Que será attitude to home-security (Who leaves their door open, in 2021?) and love for weed and steak. As long as his house clean ("My house clean"), his pool warm (
> "My pool warm") and he's just shaved ("_smooth like a newborn"), _all is right with the world
> 
> Clearly, I'm just exaggerating to prove a point. Not everyone is going to 'answer' to the Rodney King beatings in the way 'Living Color' did:
> 
> 
> 
> However, my posting of Marvin Gaye's 'What's Going On' (One could add 'Mercy Mercy Me' and others, and from other artists), was to give an example of someone who not only tapped into the zeitgeist of their time, but whose timeless message unfortunately is still just as relevant to the zeitgeist of 2020/21. There is nothing alienating about the message of his songs, despite the themes he was writing about.
> 
> 
> It's a shame your rant is predicated on such over-reaching assumptions.
> 
> I doubt I'm the only one here with absolutely zero issues with enjoying modern pop. I'd even go so far as to say that I'm not the only one who is happy to say they like what they like, regardless of genre or of artist. I don't listen to much current music. I don't really listen to much music, in general. However, I have no issue with either Bruno Mars or Britney Spears making it into my iTunes library (They both have). Letting you know I/we don't like a particular song shouldn't lead you to conclude that I don't I/we need to "stretch ourselves to learn how to enjoy modern pop".
> 
> As for "even when it's reductive and simple and corny". Again, I'm talking about in this case there being a mismatch. I am recognising a huge musical talent and lamenting that they seem to have no interest in matching that with some kind of worthwhile lyrical substance. No need to infer from that that I can't dig reductive, simple or corny. And certainly no need to reach further, towards accusations "self-imposed superiority". GTFOH, with that shit! I'd be lucky to have 1% of his talent and charisma and don't begrudge him a single bit of it. The fact that I see more potential in him, is in recognition of his talent. On the whole, my general feelings about life and my place in it don't put me in any position to be "punching down".
> 
> Not gonna bother addressing the rest of what you wrote, 'cause just more baseless assumptions.
> 
> Perhaps re-read the thread and notice how in most cases those of us were able to declare a lack of interest in certain aspects of or just not being hooked by one song, yet were quick to separate that from our general feelings of the artist(s) in question, and their clear talent.
> 
> I bid you "Good day!"



maybe this is his genius at work. In an age where lyrical content and grammar are secondary to a good groove and melody, maybe these lyrics are his tongue-in-cheek way of saying "look what I can do without even trying!" I think many of us feel it's a bit of a waste of his obvious talents since he's clearly shown an ability to do more than just shallow songs about how "fly" he is. It's working for him, so I'm sure he has no reason to change, and it's probably extremely fun as his live shows imply. It's just a bit of a shame.

EDIT: perhaps I stand corrected...upon further inspection it seems like everything after Ari Levine stopped co-writing is where things got incredibly shallow....perhaps Ari was the one with the lyrical sense...


----------



## el-bo

Rctec said:


> I’m 63, and I’m really impressed! Try to have a go at writing something like that! And a truly great arrangement and production...


Most of us agree that it has great musicality, arrangement and production. Where some of us find it lacking is in the 'Soul' department, which seems like it should be the track's raison d'être.


----------



## Technostica

If it had turned into a comedy record/video after about 30 seconds I wouldn't have been surprised.


----------



## el-bo

kmaster said:


> Thanks to you this song has become significantly less cool.
> 
> I seriously heard (and was _all about_):
> 
> "If you're hungry, girl, I got the Lays"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily the best line in the whole song! Except, sadly, not...



Thats hilarious! I also first heard it as 'Lays'. And it was only in Googling the lyrics that I was able to read the rest of the screed in one place.

I'm torn, really. As a vegan, I'd rather people not be eating steak. But it would certainly make more sense to the whole portrait that Bruno et al are painting for us. "Rose petals in the bathtub"and packets of crisps/chips doesn't seem to cut it. Could be that juxtaposition, again. Either way, you know those two lines will be the one's that get loudly hollered at parties 

Also, don't rule out the possibility that the lyrics have been written incorrectly. It often happens.




kmaster said:


> 'Scuse me while I kiss this guy, I guess.



Haha! Yeah! Like when 'The Magic Numbers' opened their debut album with a song about "Urine denial":


----------



## el-bo

chocobitz825 said:


> maybe this is his genius at work. In an age where lyrical content and grammar are secondary to a good groove and melody, maybe these lyrics are his tongue-in-cheek way of saying "look what I can do without even trying!" I think many of us feel it's a bit of a waste of his obvious talents since he's clearly shown an ability to do more than just shallow songs about how "fly" he is. It's working for him, so I'm sure he has no reason to change, and it's probably extremely fun as his live shows imply. It's just a bit of a shame.


Yeah! I think it's being gracious to extend this idea of parody etc., in lieu of what seems like pandering to his audience. It's a shame, you're right.



chocobitz825 said:


> EDIT: perhaps I stand corrected...upon further inspection it seems like everything after Ari Levine stopped co-writing is where things got incredibly shallow....perhaps Ari was the one with the lyrical sense...


I now know three of his songs. Of the three, "Locked Out Of Heaven" suits my taste more. However, it's also much more solid in a lyrical sense. Hardly deep and profound (Again, it need not be), but works well in context:

_Never had much faith in love or miracles
Never wanna put my heart on the line
But swimming in your world is something spiritual
I'm born again every time you spend the night_


----------



## chocobitz825

el-bo said:


> I now know three of his songs. Of the three, "Locked Out Of Heaven" suits my taste more. However, it's also much more solid in a lyrical sense. Hardly deep and profound (Again, it need not be), but works well in context:
> 
> _Never had much faith in love or miracles
> Never wanna put my heart on the line
> But swimming in your world is something spiritual
> I'm born again every time you spend the night_


that seems to be an Ari-era song


----------



## toddkreuz

i'm just gonna throw this out there. Yes, its live.


----------



## Paul Cardon

el-bo said:


> I mentioned the lyrical content (I might not have been the only one).
> 
> "Tapping into the current public zeitgeist"? Really? I guess if you reduce the word zeitgeist to nothing more than lowest-common-denominator fashion/cultural trends selling aspirations of pulling up to clubs in Cadillacs, weighed down by all that bling ("Gold jewelry shining so bright"..."Everything twenty-four karats"), and partying in the VIP lounge ("Strawberry champagne on ice"), to the lowest-common-denominator, then maybe he is.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but i think the current zeitgeist is one of fear - Fear of a literal burning planet; Fear of animal (human and non-human) extinction; Fear of the plutocracy (y'know, the lizards  ), and fear of just about everything. There's paranoia and mistrust regarding anything that our governments and world-leaders say, and huge civil unrest. But Bruno wants us to know what weed his lady-friend likes to smoke and informing us that he informed her that, "If you're hungry, girl, I got filets (Woo)".
> 
> As I already said, I enjoy my fair share of music with pants lyrics, but i'm not gonna pretend they're more than pants lyrics, or that they're tapping into the zeitgeist. Music can be made and enjoyed for all sorts of reasons, even if only as escapism from the reality of the world around us.
> 
> If you actually go back to what I said, my main point was of a mismatch between the high-calibre of musicality and performance and the vapidness of the lyrics. I'm not suggesting that he completely alienate his current audience. However, there is a whole universe between what is currently being presented and "Complex artistic work". Of course there is a fine line to tread, but like you pointed out, great lyricists can manage to layer meaning, subtext and intelligence. So I don't think there's any reason why if he really wanted to convey a message that he couldn't, even if it meant collaborating with writers that could help him with that.
> 
> I also think it's worth pointing out that musically, at least with this track, he has no issues challenging his audience. Many of us here have acknowledged that this is very well-written and arranged track. It is definitely clever, not in the sarcastic sense but _really_ intelligent.
> 
> Maybe, like you said, he's only interested in audience numbers. And maybe it really is just a parody. Maybe he's all about the clever juxtaposition of the world's possible imminent implosion with his evident laissez faire/Que será attitude to home-security (Who leaves their door open, in 2021?) and love for weed and steak. As long as his house clean ("My house clean"), his pool warm (
> "My pool warm") and he's just shaved ("_smooth like a newborn"), _all is right with the world
> 
> Clearly, I'm just exaggerating to prove a point. Not everyone is going to 'answer' to the Rodney King beatings in the way 'Living Color' did:
> 
> 
> 
> However, my posting of Marvin Gaye's 'What's Going On' (One could add 'Mercy Mercy Me' and others, and from other artists), was to give an example of someone who not only tapped into the zeitgeist of their time, but whose timeless message unfortunately is still just as relevant to the zeitgeist of 2020/21. There is nothing alienating about the message of his songs, despite the themes he was writing about.
> 
> 
> It's a shame your rant is predicated on such over-reaching assumptions.
> 
> I doubt I'm the only one here with absolutely zero issues with enjoying modern pop. I'd even go so far as to say that I'm not the only one who is happy to say they like what they like, regardless of genre or of artist. I don't listen to much current music. I don't really listen to much music, in general. However, I have no issue with either Bruno Mars or Britney Spears making it into my iTunes library (They both have). Letting you know I/we don't like a particular song shouldn't lead you to conclude that I don't I/we need to "stretch ourselves to learn how to enjoy modern pop".
> 
> As for "even when it's reductive and simple and corny". Again, I'm talking about in this case there being a mismatch. I am recognising a huge musical talent and lamenting that they seem to have no interest in matching that with some kind of worthwhile lyrical substance. No need to infer from that that I can't dig reductive, simple or corny. And certainly no need to reach further, towards accusations "self-imposed superiority". GTFOH, with that shit! I'd be lucky to have 1% of his talent and charisma and don't begrudge him a single bit of it. The fact that I see more potential in him, is in recognition of his talent. On the whole, my general feelings about life and my place in it don't put me in any position to be "punching down".
> 
> Preferring the Akers version of 'Uptown Funk' does not diminish the value of the original. The original had to exist, for starters. In preferring that, no one need argue or defend whether that particular version would've been a hit, in it's own right. It's just another version that appeals to certain musical sensibilities, more than the original. Don't assume from that some superiority because one is less pop-y. Also don't assume it being impossible to lie and enjoy both versions.
> 
> Not gonna bother addressing the rest of what you wrote, 'cause just more baseless assumptions.
> 
> Perhaps re-read the thread and notice how in most cases those of us were able to declare a lack of interest in certain aspects of or just not being hooked by one song, yet were quick to separate that from our general feelings of the artist(s) in question, and their clear talent.
> 
> I bid you "Good day!"



My little rant was just me expressing my own feelings on how I take in music around me. Not direct assumptions and accusations on the specific character of anyone here, rather my projection of some trends I tend to see from my peers, sorry! Was being more general than I was being personal. I haven't completely read through every post in this thread.

Also "zeitgeist" was the wrong word. Maybe it would be better to say "what topics and themes and thematic difficulties people like to hear in their pop music right now", but I totally agree with most of your points!


----------



## el-bo

Paul Cardon said:


> My little rant was just me expressing my own feelings on how I take in music around me. Not direct assumptions and accusations on the specific character of anyone here, rather my projection of some trends I tend to see from my peers, sorry! Was being more general than I was being personal. I haven't completely read through every post in this thread.
> 
> Also "zeitgeist" was the wrong word. Maybe it would be better to say "what topics and themes and thematic difficulties people like to hear in their pop music right now", but I totally agree with most of your points!


All's good. Evidently I needed to vent


----------



## jonathanparham

el-bo said:


> I mentioned the lyrical content (I might not have been the only one).
> 
> "Tapping into the current public zeitgeist"? Really? I guess if you reduce the word zeitgeist to nothing more than lowest-common-denominator fashion/cultural trends selling aspirations of pulling up to clubs in Cadillacs, weighed down by all that bling ("Gold jewelry shining so bright"..."Everything twenty-four karats"), and partying in the VIP lounge ("Strawberry champagne on ice"), to the lowest-common-denominator, then maybe he is.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but i think the current zeitgeist is one of fear - Fear of a literal burning planet; Fear of animal (human and non-human) extinction; Fear of the plutocracy (y'know, the lizards  ), and fear of just about everything. There's paranoia and mistrust regarding anything that our governments and world-leaders say, and huge civil unrest. But Bruno wants us to know what weed his lady-friend likes to smoke and informing us that he informed her that, "If you're hungry, girl, I got filets (Woo)".
> 
> As I already said, I enjoy my fair share of music with pants lyrics, but i'm not gonna pretend they're more than pants lyrics, or that they're tapping into the zeitgeist. Music can be made and enjoyed for all sorts of reasons, even if only as escapism from the reality of the world around us.
> 
> If you actually go back to what I said, my main point was of a mismatch between the high-calibre of musicality and performance and the vapidness of the lyrics. I'm not suggesting that he completely alienate his current audience. However, there is a whole universe between what is currently being presented and "Complex artistic work". Of course there is a fine line to tread, but like you pointed out, great lyricists can manage to layer meaning, subtext and intelligence. So I don't think there's any reason why if he really wanted to convey a message that he couldn't, even if it meant collaborating with writers that could help him with that.
> 
> I also think it's worth pointing out that musically, at least with this track, he has no issues challenging his audience. Many of us here have acknowledged that this is very well-written and arranged track. It is definitely clever, not in the sarcastic sense but _really_ intelligent.
> 
> Maybe, like you said, he's only interested in audience numbers. And maybe it really is just a parody. Maybe he's all about the clever juxtaposition of the world's possible imminent implosion with his evident laissez faire/Que será attitude to home-security (Who leaves their door open, in 2021?) and love for weed and steak. As long as his house clean ("My house clean"), his pool warm (
> "My pool warm") and he's just shaved ("_smooth like a newborn"), _all is right with the world
> 
> Clearly, I'm just exaggerating to prove a point. Not everyone is going to 'answer' to the Rodney King beatings in the way 'Living Color' did:
> 
> 
> 
> However, my posting of Marvin Gaye's 'What's Going On' (One could add 'Mercy Mercy Me' and others, and from other artists), was to give an example of someone who not only tapped into the zeitgeist of their time, but whose timeless message unfortunately is still just as relevant to the zeitgeist of 2020/21. There is nothing alienating about the message of his songs, despite the themes he was writing about.
> 
> 
> It's a shame your rant is predicated on such over-reaching assumptions.
> 
> I doubt I'm the only one here with absolutely zero issues with enjoying modern pop. I'd even go so far as to say that I'm not the only one who is happy to say they like what they like, regardless of genre or of artist. I don't listen to much current music. I don't really listen to much music, in general. However, I have no issue with either Bruno Mars or Britney Spears making it into my iTunes library (They both have). Letting you know I/we don't like a particular song shouldn't lead you to conclude that I don't I/we need to "stretch ourselves to learn how to enjoy modern pop".
> 
> As for "even when it's reductive and simple and corny". Again, I'm talking about in this case there being a mismatch. I am recognising a huge musical talent and lamenting that they seem to have no interest in matching that with some kind of worthwhile lyrical substance. No need to infer from that that I can't dig reductive, simple or corny. And certainly no need to reach further, towards accusations "self-imposed superiority". GTFOH, with that shit! I'd be lucky to have 1% of his talent and charisma and don't begrudge him a single bit of it. The fact that I see more potential in him, is in recognition of his talent. On the whole, my general feelings about life and my place in it don't put me in any position to be "punching down".
> 
> Preferring the Akers version of 'Uptown Funk' does not diminish the value of the original. The original had to exist, for starters. In preferring that, no one need argue or defend whether that particular version would've been a hit, in it's own right. It's just another version that appeals to certain musical sensibilities, more than the original. Don't assume from that some superiority because one is less pop-y. Also don't assume it being impossible to lie and enjoy both versions.
> 
> Not gonna bother addressing the rest of what you wrote, 'cause just more baseless assumptions.
> 
> Perhaps re-read the thread and notice how in most cases those of us were able to declare a lack of interest in certain aspects of or just not being hooked by one song, yet were quick to separate that from our general feelings of the artist(s) in question, and their clear talent.
> 
> I bid you "Good day!"



Well Living Color is in my top ten favorite groups of all time. I'm always ready for a new album. I believe they're going to a festival with Steve Vai later this year in Brazil. Anyhoo. In the example you cite, Marvin Gaye I believe was persuaded NOT to perform it by Barry Gordy. Gordy thought it would hurt his image but Gaye thought it was an important statement to make. I believe there are pop groups out there reporting was going on. I saw D'Angelo at a festival and he especially 'dedicated' part of his act to victims of police brutality. Robert Glasper also has whole songs dedicated to victims of police Brutality. But yes Living color and groups like Public Enemy have been speaking on several issues for about 30 years + now. IMO you can put on Fear of Black Planet by Public enemy and then play Times UP by Living Color and get the SAME message. Artists of African descent, completely different genres of music, but SAME message.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

el-bo said:


>



Ah yes, here we go. The world would be a better place if more people listened to Living Colour instead of disgusting crap like this Bruno Mars number.


----------



## pondinthestream

If this Bruno Mars track was the scope of music I would not bother with music. Sounds like Starbucks.


----------



## kgdrum

Like others have mentioned it’s a strange song and yes I’m totally conflicted with this. The quality of the production and the performance is quite good but the song,the production and arrangement is totally derivative to the point of feeling like the finest grade A plastic that if it was biodegradable you’d dispose of immediately.
There's nothing creative from a originality perspective but the production gives me the feeling like I put artificial sweetener in a cup of instant coffee with non-dairy creamer,why bother. This feels like a marriage of plastic pop and blue eyed soul.
Yeah Bruno & the guy pretending to play drums have great voices and the production is top shelf but imagine if they actually used this talent,budget and production mastery to create something original,creative with some actual substance that hasn’t already been done hundreds of times.
If I’m going to listen to neo-soul I prefer an artist that embraces the history and also looks forward with creativity,originality and its own authenticity for me the choice will be someone like Prince did and D’Angelo is still doing. Someone who has their own vision and isn’t afraid to take a risk and put his own stamp on his creativity.


----------



## chocobitz825

kgdrum said:


> Like other have mentioned it’s a strange song and yes I’m totally conflicted with this. The quality of the production and the performance is quite good but the song,the production and arrangement is totally derivative to the point of feeling like the finest grade A plastic that if it was biodegradable you’d dispose of immediately.
> There's nothing creative from a originality perspective but the production gives me the feeling like I put artificial sweetener in a cup of instant coffee with non-dairy creamer,why bother.
> Yeah Bruno & the guy pretending to play drums have great voices and the production is top shelf but imagine if they actually used this talent,budget and production mastery to create something original,creative with some actual substance that hasn’t already been done hundreds of times.


artist equivalent of Behringer..


----------



## X-Bassist

ChrisSiuMusic said:


> Personally, I'm a big fan of the modulations, smooth production/mix, and overall vibe of the song. And Bruno's voice is smooth as silk, as usual. What about you?



What's with the Xylophone? There are bright Xylo mallets over the whole thing, maybe that's how they did it in the 70's? Seems weird to have something so prominent that's nowhere in the video. 

I agree with others, would be great to hear this amount of effort put into something original, where this feels like a well done retread of a song I forgot about several decades ago.


----------



## Kent

X-Bassist said:


> What's with the Xylophone? There are bright Xylo mallets over the whole thing, maybe that's how they did it in the 70's? Seems weird to have something so prominent that's nowhere in the video.
> 
> I agree with others, would be great to hear this amount of effort put into something original, where this feels like a well done retread of a song I forgot about several decades ago.


Sounds like glock to me.

cf


----------



## chocobitz825

kmaster said:


> Sounds like glock to me.
> 
> cf





now all i can think of is this guy showing up in the video


----------



## Mishabou

ChrisSiuMusic said:


> Personally, I'm a big fan of the modulations, smooth production/mix, and overall vibe of the song. And Bruno's voice is smooth as silk, as usual. What about you?



Can't deny his talent...the guy is a true hit machine. Oh and Anderson Paak...check him out, great singer/rapper and killer pocket behind those drums!


----------



## re-peat

Ridiculing and dismissing this track for its lack of originality and absence of artistic vision is an odd and somewhat preposterous stand to take, I find, on a forum that has “lack of originality” and “absence of artistic vision” needle-pointed in its flag. A place where the vast majority of the members aspire to just that: sheepishly and unimaginatively doing what’s already been done (by successful composers) thousands of times before, and wanting to produce music that safely and predictably ticks all the boxes that whatever aimed-for style or genre (epic, nordic, cinematic, trailer, …) requires being ticked.

Most everybody here tries desperately to sound like either John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Thomas Newman, Nils Frahm, or some other successful composer, and the better they succeed, the more applause they get. The old place would be near silent if it weren’t for the endless discussions about tools, tricks, theories and techniques that might help one to write music that sounds as close as possible to that of one’s musical heroes. Many people here actually pay money for courses that will help them to achieve just that.

Shameless imitation, risk-free unadventurous replication, uninspiredly retreading of old ground, blatant unoriginality, opportunistic eclecticism and cowardly carbon-copying are the main characteristics of 99% of the musical efforts that surface in this community.

But we have no problem with that. We actually encourage it. When it happens here on the forum, within the boundaries of the musical stylings most of the members here seek to master, we equate it with great skill and call it accomplishment. We rapturously applaud anyone among us who can excrete a minute of ersatz-Williams, mock-Zimmer, faux-Powell, pseudo-Herrman or third-rate Howard. “Very well done”, we say, “you, Sir (or Madam), are a true artist.”

But when the exact same thing occurs in pop music, it’s dismissed, pretentiously and condescendingly, as ‘lack of vision, originality and personality”. And we call it “Starbucks music”.

A little strange, that.

Me, I’m not particularly wild about the Bruno Mars track — but then I was never much into the originals that were used as an inspiration for this track either —, but surely, there’s no denying that this is extremely well crafted, that everything it hopes to nail is nailed superbly and that only the sincerest love for the idiom and a thorough grasp of its musical requirements could have produced this result? Very well done, I say.

__


----------



## chocobitz825

re-peat said:


> Ridiculing and dismissing this track for its lack of originality and absence of artistic vision is an odd and somewhat preposterous stand to take, I find, on a forum that has “lack of originality” and “absence of artistic vision” needle-pointed in its flag. A place where the vast majority of the members aspire to just that: sheepishly and unimaginatively doing what’s already been done (by successful composers) thousands of times before, and wanting to produce music that safely and predictably ticks all the boxes that whatever aimed-for style or genre (epic, nordic, cinematic, trailer, …) requires being ticked.
> 
> Most everybody here tries desperately to sound like either John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Thomas Newman, Nils Frahm, or some other successful composer, and the better they succeed, the more applause they get. The old place would be near silent if it weren’t for the endless discussions about tools, tricks, theories and techniques that might help one to write music that sounds as close as possible to that of one’s musical heroes. Many people here actually pay money for courses that will help them to achieve just that.
> 
> Shameless imitation, risk-free unadventurous replication, uninspiredly retreading of old ground, blatant unoriginality, opportunistic eclecticism and cowardly carbon-copying are the main characteristics of 99% of the musical efforts that surface in this community.
> 
> But we have no problem with that. We actually encourage it. When it happens here on the forum, within the boundaries of the musical stylings most of the members here seek to master, we equate it with great skill and call it accomplishment. We rapturously applaud anyone among us who can excrete a minute of ersatz-Williams, mock-Zimmer, faux-Powell, pseudo-Herrman or third-rate Howard. “Very well done”, we say, “you, Sir (or Madam), are a true artist.”
> 
> But when the exact same thing occurs in pop music, it’s dismissed, pretentiously and condescendingly, as ‘lack of vision, originality and personality”. And we call it “Starbucks music”.
> 
> A little strange, that.
> 
> Me, I’m not particularly wild about the Bruno Mars track — but then I was never much into the originals that were used as an inspiration for this track either —, but surely, there’s no denying that this is extremely well crafted, that everything it hopes to nail is nailed superbly and that only the sincerest love for the idiom and a thorough grasp of its musical requirements could have produced this result? Very well done, I say.
> 
> __


I agree with your assessment of the irony in contrast with the common tone of this forum, but I cant say with certainty that every naysayer here has been a part of the '99%'. This has been my common gripe and relates to at least two other discussions I've had in the last week or so. Imitating the greats does not make you great.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

To be fair, perhaps there's a difference between how media music work and entertainment music are perceived. The two most important skills of the media composer are crawling up somebody's ass and copying what other people do, so it's to be expected that these two traits would be respected the most amongst VI Control members in regards to their own efforts. But that's not to say that the same people perhaps don't value something different in music people actually listen on purpose and for enjoyment.

So yeah, it might well be that media music is supposed to be this anemic compromise that's meant to not rub any of the dozens of involved parties the wrong way, while "pop" music is expected to excite, inspire and be more personal.

Anyways, I don't necessarily despise the Bruno Mars track because it's such a glib reproduction, but mainly because it's disgusting music.


----------



## Jorgakis

I think it’s a cool track, continuing the level of songwriting of 24k magic, but now in a 70s environment. I don’t think it’s a 100% reproduction of 70s sound, because to my ear it’s not authentic enough for that (Mostly due to the writing).
I like that Bruno is one of the few mega stars in who’s music you can find actual interesting harmonies to serve your nerdy composer side, even if it’s cheesy at the same time. 
Also I admire his singing, it’s unbelievable to hit that notes, even if his voice is not that full sounding. The lyrics are stupid sounding to my ears but I’m not a native English speaker, so I don’t know if I’m missing something there. 
But overall great track, maybe slightly behind the level of some songs of the last album.


----------



## gamma-ut

I see the narcissism of small differences is getting a thorough workout here.


----------



## pixel

re-peat said:


> Ridiculing and dismissing this track for its lack of originality and absence of artistic vision is an odd and somewhat preposterous stand to take, I find, on a forum that has “lack of originality” and “absence of artistic vision” needle-pointed in its flag. A place where the vast majority of the members aspire to just that: sheepishly and unimaginatively doing what’s already been done (by successful composers) thousands of times before, and wanting to produce music that safely and predictably ticks all the boxes that whatever aimed-for style or genre (epic, nordic, cinematic, trailer, …) requires being ticked.
> 
> Most everybody here tries desperately to sound like either John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Thomas Newman, Nils Frahm, or some other successful composer, and the better they succeed, the more applause they get. The old place would be near silent if it weren’t for the endless discussions about tools, tricks, theories and techniques that might help one to write music that sounds as close as possible to that of one’s musical heroes. Many people here actually pay money for courses that will help them to achieve just that.
> 
> Shameless imitation, risk-free unadventurous replication, uninspiredly retreading of old ground, blatant unoriginality, opportunistic eclecticism and cowardly carbon-copying are the main characteristics of 99% of the musical efforts that surface in this community.
> 
> But we have no problem with that. We actually encourage it. When it happens here on the forum, within the boundaries of the musical stylings most of the members here seek to master, we equate it with great skill and call it accomplishment. We rapturously applaud anyone among us who can excrete a minute of ersatz-Williams, mock-Zimmer, faux-Powell, pseudo-Herrman or third-rate Howard. “Very well done”, we say, “you, Sir (or Madam), are a true artist.”
> 
> But when the exact same thing occurs in pop music, it’s dismissed, pretentiously and condescendingly, as ‘lack of vision, originality and personality”. And we call it “Starbucks music”.
> 
> A little strange, that.
> 
> Me, I’m not particularly wild about the Bruno Mars track — but then I was never much into the originals that were used as an inspiration for this track either —, but surely, there’s no denying that this is extremely well crafted, that everything it hopes to nail is nailed superbly and that only the sincerest love for the idiom and a thorough grasp of its musical requirements could have produced this result? Very well done, I say.


I agree 100% I wrote my opinion but you described my thoughts way better than I could.

Seriously I prefer comments under the YT video where people are simply enjoying music (isn't it the purpose of the music?) more than grumpy comments here. I feel like some people here lost the original meaning of music and they just see/hear the technicality of music production.


----------



## AudioLoco

re-peat said:


> Ridiculing and dismissing this track for its lack of originality and absence of artistic vision is an odd and somewhat preposterous stand to take, I find, on a forum that has “lack of originality” and “absence of artistic vision” needle-pointed in its flag. A place where the vast majority of the members aspire to just that: sheepishly and unimaginatively doing what’s already been done (by successful composers) thousands of times before, and wanting to produce music that safely and predictably ticks all the boxes that whatever aimed-for style or genre (epic, nordic, cinematic, trailer, …) requires being ticked.
> 
> Most everybody here tries desperately to sound like either John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Thomas Newman, Nils Frahm, or some other successful composer, and the better they succeed, the more applause they get. The old place would be near silent if it weren’t for the endless discussions about tools, tricks, theories and techniques that might help one to write music that sounds as close as possible to that of one’s musical heroes. Many people here actually pay money for courses that will help them to achieve just that.
> 
> Shameless imitation, risk-free unadventurous replication, uninspiredly retreading of old ground, blatant unoriginality, opportunistic eclecticism and cowardly carbon-copying are the main characteristics of 99% of the musical efforts that surface in this community.
> 
> But we have no problem with that. We actually encourage it. When it happens here on the forum, within the boundaries of the musical stylings most of the members here seek to master, we equate it with great skill and call it accomplishment. We rapturously applaud anyone among us who can excrete a minute of ersatz-Williams, mock-Zimmer, faux-Powell, pseudo-Herrman or third-rate Howard. “Very well done”, we say, “you, Sir (or Madam), are a true artist.”
> 
> But when the exact same thing occurs in pop music, it’s dismissed, pretentiously and condescendingly, as ‘lack of vision, originality and personality”. And we call it “Starbucks music”.
> 
> A little strange, that.
> 
> Me, I’m not particularly wild about the Bruno Mars track — but then I was never much into the originals that were used as an inspiration for this track either —, but surely, there’s no denying that this is extremely well crafted, that everything it hopes to nail is nailed superbly and that only the sincerest love for the idiom and a thorough grasp of its musical requirements could have produced this result? Very well done, I say.
> 
> __


Putting everyone here under the same umbrella of "bland copy attempters of JW or Hans" for having DARED to criticize an artist you appearantly really like, is blind shooting with an Uzi doing 360s in a market. You have no clue who you have in front and you have no idea what we all do, what we like, what our actual music sound like.
Many people might do "derivative" stuff to pay the rent and totally unique original and cutting edge projects in the rest of their time. You can't know that.

I see a lot of anymosity and aggressivity for a little civilized music critique and that is not cool in my opinion.
Everybody has the right to criticize who they want without sparkling aggressive comments like this.

Also criticizing a position that is understandable to anyone which is : it is "derivative" (We ALL agree on this)....
So saying "yes he is derivative but AAAAALLL of you guys are derivative too so shut up" oozes negativity and provokes conflicts unecessarily and is frankly not the most convincing position in any debate. 

Also music for media has some requirements which are most of the time:
Follow the brief, make the director happy, make something people would like to sync because it sounds familiar etc... So being ABLE to copy convincingly is part of the JOB.
In media you work towards a project most of the time and if you want to pay the rent you have to be able to replicate stuff, it is a skill that is being studied around here and this is why people discuss these topics. Then there is 1% of us (or some of us for some projects) that are allowed more artistic freedom and that is certainly when the magic happens. That is undeniable.

So pointing a finger at an entire section of specific people in this way is not very functional to a debate I would say.

As for an already famous world wide talented singer who could do ANYTHING, even fart in the microphone and have anyway his 100 million views and decides to to...that... for me is totally sad. And I have the right to point it out without being attacked (not directly personally sure but for a position). 
He has infinite budget and can choose to work with anybody and write anything and chooses to COPY.... Well I can criticize him for that. Especially as I PERSONALLY find the results soul-less and uninspiring.
Nobody expects Bob Dylan or RATM lyrics from this guy (even if with everything that happened in the world and especially in the US could be nice to have someone with such a resonance saying something about something), it's pop, it's just entertainment nothing more. 
It has to make money so the guy and his collaborators can have more stake and chill in the pool.
Defending it as it was Stockhausen with such determination... well... come on...

Peace


----------



## AudioLoco

PS: Just to be clear about my position, "derivative" and "Pop" is not THE problem, it can be done infusing it with personality. Like this for example:


----------



## Loïc D

It’s certainly well done, well played, well arranged, well produced and I appreciate this. It’s miles better than most stuff on the radio, including the funny video that made me smile.
And I certainly enjoy what Bruno Mars does.

My main concern with the song is its lack of personality. I’ve watched it yesterday and today I can’t remember anything of it (and I’ve got a very good memory in music, bad one and good one).

I hope the rest of the album is more original.

To @re-peat : I get your point but your criticism of the community is too harsh. Most of the submissions I hear - especially for contests - are far from Zimmer/Williams/Horner mockups. Even so, copying is certainly the best way to learn (I plead guilty). Even so, many composers are doing what they are paid & told to.


----------



## Kent

I mean, this certainly has some signifiers of the early 70s soul aesthetic, but it feels very much like a modern song. The overall mix, the words of the lyric, the formal structure of the lyric...all of those are firmly in the style of the late 2010s.

But sure.

If this is still somehow too derivative for you, then check out Janelle Monáe’s interconnected series of concept albums where she jumps between any and all R&B forms. 
Some examples from Electric Lady (2013):

In the style of early The Jackson 5


In the style of mid-70s Stevie Wonder


----------



## chocobitz825

kmaster said:


> I mean, this certainly has some signifiers of the early 70s soul aesthetic, but it feels very much like a modern song. The overall mix, the words of the lyric, the formal structure of the lyric...all of those are firmly in the style of the late 2010s.
> 
> But sure.
> 
> If this is still somehow too derivative for you, then check out Janelle Monáe’s interconnected series of concept albums where she jumps between any and all R&B forms.
> Some examples from Electric Lady (2013):
> 
> In the style of early The Jackson 5
> 
> 
> In the style of mid-70s Stevie Wonder



for me, the same criticism applies. It screams of marketing, more than unique artistic expression. Not a lack of quality or talent, but just a bit of a waste to stay in that pocket just to stand out from others by playing dress-up and emulating the past. 

I would say Adele and Sam Smith handled these transitions from genre to pop better. Ideas about the quality of songs aside, they both started with a somewhat retro style, and then transitioned into more fusion pop. Even the Weeknd was better at this since his singles stuck to retro style, but many of the other tracks went back to his more signature sound.


----------



## SupremeFist

I don't hear an actual song here. Everything else is great though.


----------



## el-bo

jonathanparham said:


> Well Living Color is in my top ten favorite groups of all time. I'm always ready for a new album. I believe they're going to a festival with Steve Vai later this year in Brazil. Anyhoo. In the example you cite, Marvin Gaye I believe was persuaded NOT to perform it by Barry Gordy. Gordy thought it would hurt his image but Gaye thought it was an important statement to make. I believe there are pop groups out there reporting was going on. I saw D'Angelo at a festival and he especially 'dedicated' part of his act to victims of police brutality. Robert Glasper also has whole songs dedicated to victims of police Brutality. But yes Living color and groups like Public Enemy have been speaking on several issues for about 30 years + now. IMO you can put on Fear of Black Planet by Public enemy and then play Times UP by Living Color and get the SAME message. Artists of African descent, completely different genres of music, but SAME message.


Yup! Living Colour were definitely a big part of the soundtrack to my 90's. First three albums are timeless, and not sure many other bands could've so easily pulled off the Skillings/Wimbish transition, while also indulging their much heavier side, and still managing to keep love for both periods. Lost touch with it all after they disappeared for a decade (?), and when I eventually got around to hearing the newer material I guess I wasn't too receptive to it. Nothing really grabbed me. Still, their CBGB's footage (I used to own the 'Time Tunnel' documentary) makes me wish i could've been there for it:



And Vai is right there in my top fav' guitarist list. Seeing Vai and LC on the same stage would definitely be a highlight for me 

Interesting what you said about Gordy and Gaye. Guess the right choice came to pass.

As for Public Enemy. Not really been into them since YBRTS. Not for any other reason than I moved away from hip-hop and landed straight into a punk/post-punk and goth phase  Didn't really seem compatible.Not sure i heard any further hip-hop until Wu-Tang.

Will definitely go back and have a listen to FOABP, though. Definitely appreciate music that manages to stand for something.


----------



## el-bo

re-peat said:


> Ridiculing and dismissing this track for its lack of originality and absence of artistic vision is an odd and somewhat preposterous stand to take...Me, I’m not particularly wild about the Bruno Mars track — but then I was never much into the originals that were used as an inspiration for this track either —, but surely, there’s no denying that this is extremely well crafted, that everything it hopes to nail is nailed superbly and that only the sincerest love for the idiom and a thorough grasp of its musical requirements could have produced this result? Very well done, I say.



I've taken the liberty of reordering and conjoining the top and tail of your post. I think it better highlights that you've mis-characterised the preceding comments before then going on to pretty much echo what most of us have actually been saying.

Here is a quick tally-up of the general sentiment. I already read most of the posts, yesterday, so today only just re-scanned up till the point where i saw a definite statement. Not claiming it to be 100% accurate, but it should give a general idea of how much ridicule and dismissal of this track there actually was:

------------
------------

*Genius!*

1

*Liked/loved it*

8

*Technically good, but lacks ‘soul’, “personality”, or is just plain forgettable*

7

*Giving it more soul might alienate the audience*

1

*Prefers BM’ earlier material*

4

*Unoriginal*

3

*Disliked*

4

*Disgusting*

I

------------------
------------------




re-peat said:


> I find, on a forum that has “lack of originality” and “absence of artistic vision” needle-pointed in its flag. A place where the vast majority of the members aspire to just that: sheepishly and unimaginatively doing what’s already been done (by successful composers) thousands of times before, and wanting to produce music that safely and predictably ticks all the boxes that whatever aimed-for style or genre (epic, nordic, cinematic, trailer, …) requires being ticked.
> 
> Most everybody here tries desperately to sound like either John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Thomas Newman, Nils Frahm, or some other successful composer, and the better they succeed, the more applause they get. The old place would be near silent if it weren’t for the endless discussions about tools, tricks, theories and techniques that might help one to write music that sounds as close as possible to that of one’s musical heroes. Many people here actually pay money for courses that will help them to achieve just that.
> 
> Shameless imitation, risk-free unadventurous replication, uninspiredly retreading of old ground, blatant unoriginality, opportunistic eclecticism and cowardly carbon-copying are the main characteristics of 99% of the musical efforts that surface in this community.
> 
> But we have no problem with that. We actually encourage it. When it happens here on the forum, within the boundaries of the musical stylings most of the members here seek to master, we equate it with great skill and call it accomplishment. We rapturously applaud anyone among us who can excrete a minute of ersatz-Williams, mock-Zimmer, faux-Powell, pseudo-Herrman or third-rate Howard. “Very well done”, we say, “you, Sir (or Madam), are a true artist.”
> 
> But when the exact same thing occurs in pop music, it’s dismissed, pretentiously and condescendingly, as ‘lack of vision, originality and personality”. And we call it “Starbucks music”.
> 
> A little strange, that.
> 
> Me, I’m not particularly wild about the Bruno Mars track — but then I was never much into the originals that were used as an inspiration for this track either —, but surely, there’s no denying that this is extremely well crafted, that everything it hopes to nail is nailed superbly and that only the sincerest love for the idiom and a thorough grasp of its musical requirements could have produced this result? Very well done, I say.
> 
> __



I've been here for a relative short amount of time, but I don't agree with your position(s).

Is there a lot of imitation happening here? Of course. Are any of the peeps announcing "I done a Star Wars" claiming originality? And is anybody applauding how original they have been or how genius? Of course not. Seems everyone is in agreement that practicing mocking-up others' works is a fundamental stage of the learning-process. Also, in the context of this and similar forums, these works are being replicated for the purpose of testing the limits of current virtual instruments/libraries. Is there any better way to test the nimbleness of a legato patch than to get it to track a particularly 'flighty' Williams' section, that everyone is familiar with having heard it for years being played by real orchestras?

And ditto for learning tools, tricks, theories and techniques that are/were used by the greats. Is everyone supposed to re-invent the wheel? Is it not of benefit to learn how others do things, before using tricks and techniques, even with modifications, to compose completely new and original works that stand as worthy in their own right? Perhaps in a parallel universe there is a re-peat on an art forum telling artists they shouldn't try and replicate the masters as a tool for learning.

Also, not sure it's fair to blame aspiring (media/professional) musicians for the fact that everything has to sound Zimmer-esque or pseudo-Hermann, nor to blame these composers themselves. They are clearly exceptionally talented; enough to pretty much create their own genres, but the drive for the same-ness seems to be coming from the kinds of movie directors who aren't perhaps in a position (financially or otherwise) to be able to employ genre-defining composers. So they go with what they know to work. Either way, I have seen many posts from VI-C members bemoaning the cookie-cutter-ness of soundtracks, trailer-music (Woe betide anyone who can't program a good sub drop) or Nordic Noir. So, again...who here is claiming originality?

The irony of all of this to me is that the only track i've heard of yours (and I keep forgetting to go back and listen to the rest) was you similarly paying homage to a bygone era of funky-jazzy-soul-y shit. Maybe my memory is not spot on, but I seem to remember you managing to capture and express, solely using MIDI, more authentic vibe and feel that the BM track we're all commenting on


----------



## Paul Cardon

Here's a fun little interview piece about them working on the track. It's kind of masturbatory, but not posting it in support of the track one way or another. Rather it might be cool to get some perspective on how this specific track came about, the people involved havin' fun chattin' about it, their inspirations, working with Bootsy Collins, etc.:


----------



## robgb

Love it.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

They look like some 3rd class pimps or something. Disgraceful.


----------



## Paul Cardon

I think the question that's best served up against @re-peat 's angle is: would you hold as much frustration and, in some of you, anger towards a composer creating a cue or a score that is also highly derivative of a writing style or an aesthetic as so many of us do? If you would, more power to you.

But I do like what others have said about how in the media composing world, we're often fulfilling goals for others rather than being allowed to forge totally new paths. Two things, though: 1. the pop world is, in its own way, super similar, tapping into a sound and a style and lyricism that gets that modern pop audience moving or meeting a record label goal. And 2. so much of the music world is derivative already no matter where you look. And that's not a bad thing.


----------



## SquirrelMan

chocobitz825 said:


> I mean it’s obviously high quality production and he knows his genres well, but after a few albums of era jumping and providing nothing new or original...I find myself questioning where to put value on this nostalgia. They’re great songs in structure but not superior to songs he’s channeling so thoroughly. Impressive when compared to some of his contemporary rivals, but in greater context, maybe forgettable?


This is the thing. It should give you an idea how badly the talent pool has eroded. Bruno Mars is competent but honestly 30 years ago he would have been regarded as a top shelf Vegas entertainer and nothing more. But since there's no real talent at the top anymore, he gets pushed into superstar status.

But if you look at him through the lens of the legitimate talent that dominated the top of the charts 30 and 40 years ago, it becomes very easy to see this.


----------



## Alex Fraser

Thanks Chris for posting the track. I must admit I'd gone off Mr Mars in recent times, as he's generally been on repeat around here (my wife rinses his music for choreography work..)

Original? Not a chance. But it's not supposed to be either. I liked it and I wish I had all those admirers in the studio when I'm fussing with midi CC.


----------



## chocobitz825

Paul Cardon said:


> I think the question that's best served up against @re-peat 's angle is: would you hold as much frustration and, in some of you, anger towards a composer creating a cue or a score that is also highly derivative of a writing style or an aesthetic as so many of us do? If you would, more power to you.


one song? no.. an entire career worth of derivative work? yes. 



SquirrelMan said:


> This is the thing. It should give you an idea how badly the talent pool has eroded. Bruno Mars is competent but honestly 30 years ago he would have been regarded as a top shelf Vegas entertainer and nothing more. But since there's no real talent at the top anymore, he gets pushed into superstar status.
> 
> But if you look at him through the lens of the legitimate talent that dominated the top of the charts 30 and 40 years ago, it becomes very easy to see this.


I think it's a perplexing space he occupies. He was a performer of classic hits in his childhood, and essentially a producer/arranger before he got his break, and then became viewed as a singer-songwriter after. What he does now absolutely suits his skill set, but as you said, it's kind of more akin to a vegas entertainer than a prolific original new artist. Honestly, there's nothing terribly bad about that either, but knowing he can do better is just bittersweet. I think he has the potential to stand up with those artists of 30-40 years ago, if only he were a bit more daring.


----------



## chocobitz825

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> They look like some 3rd class pimps or something. Disgraceful.


calm down now...


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

chocobitz825 said:


> calm down now...


I would have used exclamation marks if it was supposed to sound agitated.


----------



## chocobitz825

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I would have used exclamation marks if it was supposed to sound agitated.


3rd class pimps sounds a bit loaded.....they can afford first class


----------



## re-peat

el-bo,
(Attach a ‘zo’ to that, and you have an entire vinyl side of Chick Corea’s “My Spanish Heart”, containing many, many minutes of great music.)

Those semi-funky pieces I posted last week represent maybe 3% of what I do musically. And I posted them only as illustration material in my reply to the OP’s question in that thread. It’s not that I disown that 3% (quite the contrary: I am quite fond of it), but if one day, many years from now, my great-grandchildren — if it should come to that — ever decide to excavate their great-grandfather’s music, I hope my other pieces, which are *much* more important to me, will receive the best of their attention. Which is not a given however, as much of that other music consists of rather experimental, unaccessible stretches of weird sample-mangling, bizarre electro-acoustic ejaculations mixed with shreds of twisted retro ideas and various chaotic mock-orchestral excursions. The music of a lunatic, is one of the kinder ways in which I’ve heard it described. See, my musical leanings are Zappa, Mingus, Thelonious Monk (all jazz, as it happens, from hot to free, except ‘smooth’) and Stravinsky. And Beethoven and Bach. But not, as AudioLoco, despite insisting on the correct protocol of the debate, quite wrongly assumed … Bruno Mars.

I don’t give a rodent’s rectum about Bruno Mars or his music. Before this thread, I had never listened to Bruno Mars. The track that’s under scrutiny here, is in fact the very first Bruno Mars song I’ve ever listened to _knowingly_. I probably will have heard some of his other music as well, but if so, I certainly wasn’t aware of it, let alone that I remember it.

And, as I intimated earlier, I do not think this is a particularly remarkable song. It’s not awful, it’s not great, it’s sort of an instantly digestible, professionaly concocted and well-crafted effort. And inspired and driven by a genuine affection for the originals, it seems to me. But the kind of thing you expect reasonably gifted students to be able to write after having attended a rigorous summer course “How to write an old-fashioned soul-pop song?”.
I don’t know if you remember, but ten-fifteen years ago, there was a series of quite popular movies called “High School Musical” (I remember because my then teenage daughter was quite into it). Well, this Bruno Mars song is the sort of song I can imagine hearing in that type of movie: skilfully written stuff, but totally formulaic, never containing a single compositional surprise, and always staying safely within the prescribed boundaries of how such songs are supposed to be written. Not necessarily bad, you know, but never really great either.
The harmony and modulations in this Bruno Mars song have been singled out, in some of the posts of this thread, as being worthy of note, but I don’t hear it. I mean, I hear it alright, but I don’t think any of it deviates form the tried-and-tested musical vernacular of the idiom. And I can easily name a hundred songs, for starters, from writers such as Bowie, Brian Wilson, Richard Rodgers, Donald Fagen, Burt Bacharach, Paul Simon, Sting, Stevie Wonder, Ray Davies, to name just a few, which are all infinitely more interesting, harmonically speaking (and every-other-way of speaking, for that matter). And that is, or was, pop music too.

That said however, I am also of the opinion that, as a pop production (and I don’t just mean the audio side of things), this stands up very well. Very, very well indeed. I mean, if you’re going to do this type of thing today — and we can’t really talk much sense here without also considering the ethics and aesthetics of today’s mainstream music industry — I don’t really see how you could do it much better (apart from writing a better song). The arrangement is copulating brilliant, the execution is spot on, the sounds are totally right for the track (I especially like the unassuming, quite natural sound of the drums) and every little detail is judged to perfection within the concept of what this track was intended to be and convey. Artificial? Sure. Completely so. But pop music has, since its earliest days, always been the art of artificiality. (Which is precisely one of the things I love so much about it.) So yes, definitely a thumbs-up from me (in as far as my lack of true enthusiasm for this track allows me to muster the energy to raise any thumb at all, that is).

As for the other point of contention: I feel that, perhaps, there’s been a little misunderstanding. I don’t mind people copying, imitating, rehashing, playing it safe and obeying the rules of the game — who am I, an avid pasticheïonado on several days of the week, to mind anyway? — nor do I object to people dismissing popular music on the basis of its banality, its superficiality or its whateverity (not that I agree: I believe there’s a rightful place for banality and superficiality in even the greatest of art). What I do have a bit of a problem with though, is the combination of the two: when musical suburbia — which is what, in my opinion, V.I.-C by and large is — feels itself entitled to look with a superior and condescending eye at manifestations of music which happen outside its chosen musical ken and which it perceives, for reasons best known to itself, as musically inferior. And usually, it’s pop music that has to take a beating.

Sometime ago, there was a thread here that mocked the fact that the I-VI-IV-V chord progression is used in god-knows-how-many pop songs. Ha-ha-ha, these pop musicians, what a silly, primitive bunch, aren’t they? That’s the sort of snotty idiocy which you can see surfacing here on the forum and which I hate. That’s so stupid and pretentious — especially given the questionable quality of much of the music that usually walks away here with all the idolatry and applause —, on every imagineable level, that I don’t know where to begin to express my loathing for it.
The opposite, which annoys me just as much, occurs as well: the time before last we discussed some of the more arcane expressions of 20th century music, there were several voices who felt it necessary to label Schönberg and his students as sick, childish, incompetent frauds. And the next day, some of those same people posted another dire slice of ‘epic’ muzak of course.

Musical suburbia, you know.

It’s that all-too-widespread, extremely myopic view on music which I never could comprehend among musicians and which often stirs the less kindly side of my personality, I’m afraid. That bafflingly narrow-minded attitude — often very conservative, conformist and surprisingly ignorant as well — with which people judge, consume, make and talk about music, which never ceases to astound me (in a deeply saddening way).

There’s many here who still think about orchestral music as if three quarters of the 20th century never happened. And, preferably, shouldn’t have happened. In fact, they’re only prepared to take that century into consideration to the extent in which its musical innovations and accomplishments can be reduced and cliché-ified to fit the format and requirements of film and/or media music. I find that truly, truly depressing.

(Depressed is, by the way, also how I feel when I observe with how little imagination, curiosity and sense of adventure the majority of people here think about, and work with samples and computers. But that’s a different topic, I suppose.)

Sure, you can’t lump the entire community together in that one bag of beige blandness and inert uniformity, I know. There are very exciting and inspiring exceptions, there’s some terrific music and music-making being posted too, absolutely, but the previous pages of this thread sadly also contained, once again, just a fraction too much of that chronic, thinly-veiled disdain and snobbery, ever-present just under the surface of this and many related discussions, which is why I felt triggered to write what I wrote.

_


----------



## AudioLoco

Thank you re-peat for taking your time to explain your point of view. And mainly recognizing the main point to which me and others have responded about "lumping the entire community". 
The reason why I assumed you were so much into Mars is because of the tone of your post, which you must admit was there.
As for snobbery and "Musical Suburbia"....
I, and I am guessing many others sharing similar opinions about this track, are not part of this view and can't be pigeon holed so easily and simply dismissed as snobs for sharing an opinion about one track. 
You are doing again the same generalizing mistake in my opinion. It is just "opinion" and "taste" and it tends to vary in humans, and especially in those strange creatures called musicians. 

One of the best songs ever (in my opinion obvs!): 2 chords from the beginning to end, but MEANING every single note and non-note.


As for Pop in general. There are multiple and various definitions of "Pop", which is just "Pop-ular". 
Ranging from Paul Simon and the Beatles (put your favorite personal example here) who have written ultra interesting harmonic based stuff with interesting poetic and intriguing lyrics, to "Barbie Girl"....
So the discussion really can't be that narrow. 

All the best


----------



## Loïc D

Alex Fraser said:


> I liked it and I wish I had all those admirers in the studio when I'm fussing with midi CC.


I am. Your midi CC fussing gives shivers down my spine.


----------



## chocobitz825

Loïc D said:


> I am. Your midi CC fussing gives shivers down my spine.


I love the way you automate


----------



## lychee

Wow I wasn't expecting that, I see more negative reviews than anything else, you would almost make me ashamed to love his songs.
Some say he copies this old genre and doesn't add anything new.
Already it is inspired by these times, and if according to you it is a copy I would like somebody to make me listen to the original song, and then I do not want anything new, especially these ultra autotuned Trap music (sorry for Trap lovers, music is suggestive, everyone has their own taste).
Anyway, I'm old and like all old people I say to myself "it was better before", so if a "youngster" comes and wants to revive all those old sounds, why would I say no?
Then comes the question of the lyrics, well, I admit not having looked into it (I'm French), maybe that's the bulk of your negative reviews.
It must be said that here in France, everything in English is often taken as is without translation.


----------



## chocobitz825

after a little more inspection, I found that Anderson .Paak's recent works are far more original, and I reckon that if they were given the same production treatment as the recent collaboration, it would potentially be just as much of a hit.


----------



## Paul Cardon

chocobitz825 said:


> after a little more inspection, I found that Anderson .Paak's recent works are far more original, and I reckon that if they were given the same production treatment as the recent collaboration, it would potentially be just as much of a hit.



This is flippin' awesome stuff. I'm hopeful some of this energy makes it on the full Silk Sonic album.


----------



## molemac

Geoff Grace said:


> Wow! That's high praise, as Earth, Wind & Fire recorded some _great_ ballads. Does it really compare, though, to this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong. Bruno Mars is indeed a talented artist, but I'll take Maurice White and Philip Bailey any day.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Geoff



Earth wind and fire are the Gods of music , how could you dare compare . Talking of modulations, try these for size ( and it’s live )


----------



## lychee

Yes I know, it's all a matter of taste, but I'm sorry his album is shaping up to be a pure killer, and I immediately warn anyone who would contradict me that he will be a victim of swatting, FBI'ying, armying and termonuclearing. 
I just discovered this extract from the album on his youtube channel, no sorry, it kills! :


----------



## SupremeFist

I feel old because it seems like the people who love this don't even remember Outkast, let alone Prince.


----------



## lychee

SupremeFist said:


> I feel old because it seems like the people who love this don't even remember Outkast, let alone Prince.


I do not understand how we could not both love Bruno Mars and those who would have inspired him.
The thing is, I'm a pure Prince fan on top of that, a bit less of Outkast (well I mean their 60's trip like "Hey Ya", I'd rather be a "Mrs Jackson" fan).

Your gift!:



And one of his proteges:


----------



## Kent

SupremeFist said:


> I feel old because it seems like the people who love this don't even remember Outkast, let alone Prince.


I mean, Big Boi was an executive producer on the Janelle Monáe album I linked to some cuts from...and Prince was a featured artist on track 2 of that same album (song: Givin’ Em What They Love)


----------



## SupremeFist

kmaster said:


> I mean, Big Boi was an executive producer on the Janelle Monáe album I linked to some cuts from...and Prince was a featured artist on track 2 of that same album (song: Givin’ Em What They Love)


I didn't know that connection, thanks!


----------



## SupremeFist

lychee said:


> The thing is, I'm a pure Prince fan on top of that, a bit less of Outkast (well I mean their 60's trip like "Hey Ya", I'd rather be a "Mrs Jackson" fan).


The album that single is from is amazing though, like someone finally decided to take Sly and the Family Stone on a spaceship into the future.


----------



## chocobitz825

lychee said:


> Yes I know, it's all a matter of taste, but I'm sorry his album is shaping up to be a pure killer, and I immediately warn anyone who would contradict me that he will be a victim of swatting, FBI'ying, armying and termonuclearing.
> I just discovered this extract from the album on his youtube channel, no sorry, it kills! :



I’m sure the album will be quality production and playing. These members are undeniably talented. I doubt I’ll hear much of it out here in Japan, so I doubt it will become an ear worm that lasts long.

no doubt the album is full of brilliantly executed reinterpretations of classic styles and references to “that song you know”


----------



## Mr Greg G

Can’t say I’m impressed, the word is a tad strong but as a fan of Marvin Gaye’s work, I really enjoyed the track. Really pleasing to my ears, good melodies and chords progression. It’s also great to see and listen to the performance of real musicians for once and not an EDM programmed backing track with 8 mouse clicks in Fruity Loops. It’s been rare in pop music recent years to be noted.

I discovered Andersonn paak maybe 6 years ago in Dr Dre last LP, Compton, in which he played a significant role. He is a really talented chap.


----------



## el-bo

re-peat said:


> el-bo,
> (Attach a ‘zo’ to that, and you have an entire vinyl side of Chick Corea’s “My Spanish Heart”, containing many, many minutes of great music.)


Had a quick 'dip' and enjoyed what I heard. Will go back for the rest. So, guess I'll take "Bozo" 



re-peat said:


> Those semi-funky pieces I posted last week represent maybe 3% of what I do musically. And I posted them only as illustration material in my reply to the OP’s question in that thread. It’s not that I disown that 3% (quite the contrary: I am quite fond of it), but if one day, many years from now, my great-grandchildren — if it should come to that — ever decide to excavate their great-grandfather’s music, I hope my other pieces, which are *much* more important to me, will receive the best of their attention. Which is not a given however, as much of that other music consists of rather experimental, unaccessible stretches of weird sample-mangling, bizarre electro-acoustic ejaculations mixed with shreds of twisted retro ideas and various chaotic mock-orchestral excursions. The music of a lunatic, is one of the kinder ways in which I’ve heard it described. See, my musical leanings are Zappa, Mingus, Thelonious Monk (all jazz, as it happens, from hot to free, except ‘smooth’) and Stravinsky. And Beethoven and Bach. But not, as AudioLoco, despite insisting on the correct protocol of the debate, quite wrongly assumed … Bruno Mars.


Wasn't saying it was representative of your oeuvre, just that it's the only piece of yours I've heard and it turns out to be quite apropos. And maybe one day you'll get to find out what your great-grandchildren think of your music 



re-peat said:


> And, as I intimated earlier, I do not think this is a particularly remarkable song. It’s not awful, it’s not great, it’s sort of an instantly digestible, professionaly concocted and well-crafted effort. And inspired and driven by a genuine affection for the originals, it seems to me.


As I tried to point out, your opinion is shared by most of the commenters.



re-peat said:


> this Bruno Mars song is the sort of song I can imagine hearing in that type of movie: skilfully written stuff, but totally formulaic, never containing a single compositional surprise, and always staying safely within the prescribed boundaries of how such songs are supposed to be written. Not necessarily bad, you know, but never really great either.


If everything was great then nothing would be great  Sometimes there's nothing better than a peanut-butter and jam sandwich.



re-peat said:


> As for the other point of contention: I feel that, perhaps, there’s been a little misunderstanding. I don’t mind people copying, imitating, rehashing, playing it safe and obeying the rules of the game — who am I, an avid pasticheïonado on several days of the week, to mind anyway? — nor do I object to people dismissing popular music on the basis of its banality, its superficiality or its whateverity (not that I agree: I believe there’s a rightful place for banality and superficiality in even the greatest of art). What I do have a bit of a problem with though, is the combination of the two: when musical suburbia — which is what, in my opinion, V.I.-C by and large is — feels itself entitled to look with a superior and condescending eye at manifestations of music which happen outside its chosen musical ken and which it perceives, for reasons best known to itself, as musically inferior. And usually, it’s pop music that has to take a beating.
> 
> Sometime ago, there was a thread here that mocked the fact that the I-VI-IV-V chord progression is used in god-knows-how-many pop songs. Ha-ha-ha, these pop musicians, what a silly, primitive bunch, aren’t they? That’s the sort of snotty idiocy which you can see surfacing here on the forum and which I hate. That’s so stupid and pretentious — especially given the questionable quality of much of the music that usually walks away here with all the idolatry and applause —, on every imagineable level, that I don’t know where to begin to express my loathing for it.
> The opposite, which annoys me just as much, occurs as well: the time before last we discussed some of the more arcane expressions of 20th century music, there were several voices who felt it necessary to label Schönberg and his students as sick, childish, incompetent frauds. And the next day, some of those same people posted another dire slice of ‘epic’ muzak of course.
> 
> Musical suburbia, you know.
> 
> It’s that all-too-widespread, extremely myopic view on music which I never could comprehend among musicians and which often stirs the less kindly side of my personality, I’m afraid. That bafflingly narrow-minded attitude — often very conservative, conformist and surprisingly ignorant as well — with which people judge, consume, make and talk about music, which never ceases to astound me (in a deeply saddening way).
> 
> There’s many here who still think about orchestral music as if three quarters of the 20th century never happened. And, preferably, shouldn’t have happened. In fact, they’re only prepared to take that century into consideration to the extent in which its musical innovations and accomplishments can be reduced and cliché-ified to fit the format and requirements of film and/or media music. I find that truly, truly depressing.
> 
> (Depressed is, by the way, also how I feel when I observe with how little imagination, curiosity and sense of adventure the majority of people here think about, and work with samples and computers. But that’s a different topic, I suppose.)
> Sure, you can’t lump the entire community together in that one bag of beige blandness and inert uniformity, I know. There are very exciting and inspiring exceptions, there’s some terrific music and music-making being posted too, absolutely, but the previous pages of this thread sadly also contained, once again, just a fraction too much of that chronic, thinly-veiled disdain and snobbery, ever-present just under the surface of this and many related discussions, which is why I felt triggered to write what I wrote.


This seems like a lot of baggage you've brought to this thread, from who knows how far back, and with this thread being your 'Last straw'. So it's maybe not worth repeating that the majority of the posts (At least up until the moment you made your original post) are similar to yours and not "thinly-veiled disdain and snobbery" (It's called the last straw for a reason).

There's a lot to unpack here, but considering I'd put myself squarely in your "bag of beige blandness and inert uniformity", perhaps I'm not the right person to do so  But I do agree with you about snobbery. Can't stand it in music...or anything, really.


----------



## el-bo

AudioLoco said:


> PS: Just to be clear about my position, "derivative" and "Pop" is not THE problem, it can be done infusing it with personality. Like this for example:



And there's no need for "derivative" to always be pejorative. We derive light and heat from the sun, energy from food and joy from a multitude of activities. Is there really anything new under the sun? Are we not all standing on the shoulders of giants?

But yes, you've given maybe the perfect example (imo) of an album wearing it's influences on it's sleeves, but where the music serves serves the song. That album had certainly had "personality" (Amy clearly poured her heart and soul into some of those songs).


----------



## AudioLoco

el-bo said:


> But I do agree with you about snobbery. Can't stand it in music...or anything, really.


The Hip Hop crowd is snubbed by the Rock people for not playing "real instruments", the Rock people are snubbed by the EDM guys for being "old and dads", the EDM people are snubbed by the "cinematic" people for "playing with one finger", the cinematic people are seen like "little children with toys" by the Classical musicians, the Classical musicians are snubbed by the Jazz crowd for being "even older then the Rock people and not being able to function without some written stuff", the Jazz people are snubbed by the Hip Hop people for "doing music only they want to listen to", the Hip Hop people are snubbed by......etc etc etc.....

The circle of snob...

I agree too there is no place for snobbery in music - whatsoever!


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

AudioLoco said:


> The Hip Hop crowd is snubbed by the Rock people for not playing "real instruments", the Rock people are snubbed by the EDM guys for being "old and dads", the EDM people are snubbed by the "cinematic" people for "playing with one finger", the cinematic people are seen like "little children with toys" by the Classical musicians, the Classical musicians are snubbed by the Jazz crowd for being "even older then the Rock people and not being able to function without some written stuff", the Jazz people are snubbed by the Hip Hop people for "doing music only they want to listen to", the Hip Hop people are snubbed by......etc etc etc.....


Thing is, all of that is true. Other than the "old and dad" thing, but considering that EDM is music for teenagers, one would expect such a sentiment from that corner.


----------



## SupremeFist

chocobitz825 said:


> after a little more inspection, I found that Anderson .Paak's recent works are far more original, and I reckon that if they were given the same production treatment as the recent collaboration, it would potentially be just as much of a hit.



Now _this_ I love!


----------



## Ndee

Really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughtful reflections. I dislike BM's music in general, but I think this song's musical-esque ride through various modulations and musical spaces is fun to experience. The sharper-than-a-japanese-knife production really gives it a contemporary tint (like one expects from a Serban mix). The bass and kick drum were doing some serious work down there.

Didn't really feel like nostalgia for its own sake at all to me.

Sort of surprised to see "carbon copy" thrown at a song in a forum where we talk about VI's that are often made with a very specific, almost homage-like sound in mind (and not seldomly used for such purposes). Sure, I get the idea is to do something original with them, and the accusation here is Mars & co didn't do so with their tools. But to be honest, I felt Mars & co topped their idols - I found the song creative and ambitious, the more I listened to it.

I agree it's not a song I'd hum, but then I don't regard that as a measurement for anything but earworms. Most of my fave soul and rnb albums are about inviting you into a certain atmosphere, instead of trying to make you sing along.

Also some classic, more "ambitious" rock does that to me - there are Steely Dan songs I love to sing in the shower, but then some of their stuff I just like for the vibe and can't remember a thing about a given song save for the mood or a neat compositional trick.

Back to this song. I especially like how Bruno's voice becomes one with the arrangement - really immersive, sort of wall-of-sound-y vibes. I'd love to hear this in a film or, yes, a musical. Not something I'd reach for in most if any situations, but a terrific listening experience nevertheless.

_edit: typos_


----------



## PeterN

Saw on Fox this morning they got the Grammy for this. Not that it matters, but it was maybe well deserved. But the production of the track must have involved an army division - nobody is fooled, they are posters for a product polished to the finest detail. But product is great. Those two guys probably smoke so much pot they would never have the patience for this type of mastering of details - but product is great. Almost fake - or maybe even fake. Hope they are not photoshopped.


----------



## chocobitz825

PeterN said:


> Saw on Fox this morning they got the Grammy for this. Not that it matters, but it was maybe well deserved. But the production of the track must have involved an army division - nobody is fooled, they are posters for a product polished to the finest detail. But product is great. Those two guys probably smoke so much pot they would never have the patience for this type of mastering of details - but product is great. Almost fake - or maybe even fake. Hope they are not photoshopped.


You do know that Bruno Mars started out as a writer/producer...before he had his big break, right?.....Anderson too for that matter..

besides I find it hard to believe that they smoke too much weed for the patience to produce their tracks, but not enough to stop them from spending the equivalent hours mastering their craft as singers, writers and instrumentalists....


----------



## PeterN

No way they did that - feel free be fooled by this, but it wont fool me. Every detail is polished, from the shining shoes to the movement of fingers. This is a fuckin product - its a high quality product - but just like so much else these days they are following script and moved as marionettes. You get a diamond ring for that, nice bodied ladies, and posh grammy awards too, so not blaming them. My guess is they tweaked the high freq eq button with a joint between the mouth, maybe once, or at most twice - rest is following script. No mortal even has time to do this high quality stuff, this is the work of a dedicated army division. They achieved the goal.


----------



## chocobitz825

PeterN said:


> No way they did that - feel free be fooled by this, but it wont fool me. Every detail is polished, from the shining shoes to the movement of fingers. This is a fuckin product - its a high quality product - but just like so much else these days they are following script and moved as marionettes. You get a diamond ring for that, nice bodied ladies, and posh grammy awards too, so not blaming them. My guess is they tweaked the high freq eq button with a joint between the mouth, maybe once, or at most twice - rest is following script. No mortal even has time to do this high quality stuff, this is the work of a dedicated army division. They achieved the goal.


can't tell if you're being serious and ignorant, or telling a rather unfunny joke...

either way, for clarity, the song credits 4 songwriters and 2 producers. Produced by Bruno Mars and D'Mile









Watch Roddy Ricch Perform 'The Box,' Debut New Song 'Heartless' at 2021 Grammys


The Compton rapper was one of the most nominated artists tonight with six nods




www.rollingstone.com





D'Mile must be a one-man army I guess....

plus a lot of the world's best rock songs have been produced by a few individuals on far harder drugs than weed....

just saying...


----------



## SupremeFist

PeterN said:


> Saw on Fox this morning they got the Grammy for this. Not that it matters, but it was maybe well deserved. But the production of the track must have involved an army division - nobody is fooled, they are posters for a product polished to the finest detail. But product is great. Those two guys probably smoke so much pot they would never have the patience for this type of mastering of details - but product is great. Almost fake - or maybe even fake. Hope they are not photoshopped.


What exactly is it about these guys that makes you think they smoke too much weed to be able to work hard at their craft?


----------



## PeterN

chocobitz825 said:


> either way, for clarity, the song credits 4 songwriters and 2 producers. Produced by Bruno Mars and D'Mile



Where you found, that theres 4 songwriters and 2 producers? It was not in the link, but 4 songwriters is probably true. You can taste it in the soup, that theres around 4 of them. You can smell the pot, the curry, basil and even garlic powder there.

2 producers sounds realistic too. Thats two teams.


Where you picked that?


----------



## chocobitz825

PeterN said:


> Where you found, that theres 4 songwriters and 2 producers? It was not in the link, but 4 songwriters is probably true. You can taste it in the soup, that theres around 4 of them. You can smell the pot, the curry, basil and even garlic powder there.
> 
> 2 producers sounds realistic too. Thats two teams.
> 
> 
> Where you picked that?











Leave the Door Open - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Kent

SupremeFist said:


> What exactly is it about these guys that makes you think they smoke too much weed to be able to work hard at their craft?


If you click a username you can use this handy forum function to avoid bad-faith takes.


----------



## chocobitz825

back on topic..



I can see they channeled the floaters and a handful of other artists for their grammy performance.


----------



## danevaz

I ignored this topic for week - didn't understand why it kept hanging around for so long. But today I finally bit.

I think one of the issues with many of the comments is the lack of distinction between the song/music and the video. Most pop videos are slick overdone, shallow fantasies. When I listen to stuff on You Tube I either scroll the video off the screen, or move to another tab on my browser so I can listen to the music without being distracted by the video noise. The video is not the song.

As to the lyrics - it's fairly standard pop music fare - not meant to be anything else. You could criticize 430,345,678.5 other pop songs for the same "banal" lyrics, and crime of "lacking soul."

The posting of the Grammy performance above confirmed my original sentiment - that it's a well sung, produced, and arranged pop song with some interesting musical changes. It's an homage to the 70s soul groups. And they performed it pretty good didn't they?

There's really a lot worse "pop" music out there today.


----------



## sailenox

I really like Bruno Mars. Anderson Paak is also a very good artist and drummer. I like this song, i feel the vibe. Maybe its not for everyone, but i like it


----------



## alexkrisandre78

pondinthestream said:


> If this Bruno Mars track was the scope of music I would not bother with music. Sounds like Starbucks.


You should really listen to what’s going on here. This song, and the Billie Eilish tracks, are actual composed songs with chords and structure. We have just endured 20 years of loops and structures where the intro, verse and chorus are the same chord progression. At least now we’re getting back to song crafting like the 60’s and 70’s. I only see this song as a good sign for what’s to come in the pop industry


----------



## chocobitz825

alexkrisandre78 said:


> You should really listen to what’s going on here. This song, and the Billie Eilish tracks, are actual composed songs with chords and structure. We have just endured 20 years of loops and structures where the intro, verse and chorus are the same chord progression. At least now we’re getting back to song crafting like the 60’s and 70’s. I only see this song as a good sign for what’s to come in the pop industry




I suppose all I can see is that his career will basically amount to being a talented impersonator. It's in his roots and it's what he does now. He does it VERY well, but I generally tend to think that if yourr only answer is to go back, you've failed. If we can't possibly find something new to do, and going back to the 60s and 70s is the only answer, music is officially dead.

I'll agree that Finneas is doing some great new stuff with Billie and others, but bruno is not doing that.


----------



## lychee

chocobitz825 said:


> ...He does it VERY well, but I generally tend to think that if your only answer is to go back, you've failed. If we can't possibly find something new to do, and going back to the 60s and 70s is the only answer, music is officially dead...


I respect the fact that everyone has their opinion on such and such a subject, and it is by sharing their ideas that the world moves in the right direction, but however, I do not agree with this way of seeing things.
There are music that last and others that die, soul is a music that we still listen to today, so I find it logical that artists influenced by this sound want to perpetuate what they love.
As said somewhere here, that's what Amy Winehouse did, and that's what Bruno Mars does, we might can not like that way of doing it, but I don't see why we blame him for doing it.
Above all, I don't see why the music would have died by refusing to go towards something new, modern...
If we already have something good, why change the recipe?


----------



## chocobitz825

lychee said:


> If we already have something good, why change the recipe?


that's the whole mischaracterization of the argument I am trying to make. There is nothing wrong with doing what you love, and if you have a good recipe and want to stick to that recipe for the rest of your days, great! but that's, not progress. It's either stagnation or regression depending on the starting point. 

Other than the mixing techniques and parts of the more blunt lyric, there is nothing new about what Bruno is contributing. It's not a problem that an artist chooses to stick to a genre like Winehouse, but Bruno isn't sticking to a genre, he's pulling from eras of music and profiting off of nostalgia. Totally fine, but it's not original, it's not new, it's not progressive. It feels like his career from his youth, as an impersonator of hits. For me, the only thing that irks me about that is that he has all the talent to do something progressive. He has the talent to take his influences and add something new, but his projects of late have basically just been locked into a complete reinterpretation of classics, beat by beat, wardrobe, and all.

It's fun, it's high-quality stuff, but it's not new, and I wish I could hear him use his talents to make something new because the music world could use a Finneas in that realm of soul/funk/pop.


----------



## chocobitz825

apparently if you youtube bruno a couple times, it recommends dozens of relevant videos. This one is interesting because it cements my feelings that he could be doing better. Most of the songs on this list that arent era-based songs just arent that interesting to me...so when you strip away the era-based music, what is he doing with all that talent?


----------



## lychee

chocobitz825 said:


> that's the whole mischaracterization of the argument I am trying to make. There is nothing wrong with doing what you love, and if you have a good recipe and want to stick to that recipe for the rest of your days, great! but that's, not progress. It's either stagnation or regression depending on the starting point...
> 
> ...It feels like his career from his youth, as an impersonator of hits. For me, the only thing that irks me about that is that he has all the talent to do something progressive. He has the talent to take his influences and add something new, but his projects of late have basically just been locked into a complete reinterpretation of classics, beat by beat, wardrobe, and all...


There is a big difference between the Bruno Mars of the beginning and the Bruno Mars of today.
When I read your comments, I have the impression that BM only does covers, but his songs are very new and his own, only the style is old.
I understand the urge to have something fresh and original to put in your ears (so I understand you), but even then there is no current music that does not take its inspiration from the music of the past.
I also believe (I could be wrong) that you are "young", therefore you look towards the novelty, but when you are old like me, the novelty or the originality cannot be a guarantee of quality.
So we go back to the old sounds, and if we can have new old sounds that's even better.


----------



## chocobitz825

lychee said:


> There is a big difference between the Bruno Mars of the beginning and the Bruno Mars of today.
> When I read your comments, I have the impression that BM only does covers, but his songs are very new and his own, only the style is old.
> I understand the urge to have something fresh and original to put in your ears (so I understand you), but even then there is no current music that does not take its inspiration from the music of the past.
> I also believe (I could be wrong) that you are "young", therefore you look towards the novelty, but when you are old like me, the novelty or the originality cannot be a guarantee of quality.
> So we go back to the old sounds, and if we can have new old sounds that's even better.


Again perhaps a bit of an oversimplification. Not sure where my 30s puts me on your measurement there but I can look at winehouse and buble and appreciate what they did/do as committed artists to particular genre. I can look at The Weeknd’s dabble into synth pop for his last album as a refreshing stroll down memory lane while merging with modern sounds and production (though I’m not a fan of some of his blatant Michael Jackson imagery he’s trying to invoke). I can appreciate Adele and Sam smith started with soul and gospel influences and moved on toward a different style of pop.

my issue with Bruno are two things. The collective works of his career as an artist tend to be square in the realm of imitation. The other issue I have is with the genres of soul and funk. Like classical they tend to be easily stuck in their ways. Generations of artists doing the same thing barely moving the needle forward. Instead of bold new music it tends to become a measure of ones musical mastery and then gets stuck there. Say what you will about modern pop and rock but it has moved. It takes influence from the past but still moves forward. I want desperately for r&b, funk and soul to move forward. I know how good soul, and funk are, now I’d like Bruno to show us how much better they could be with fresh new ideas.


----------



## NoamL

Interesting song Chris.

I really dig the fake-out modulation that happens at the end of the chorus, and I like that he repeated it. The composition is solid.

The lyrics are ridiculous, you can imagine if Key & Peele made a parody skit about funk music, there wouldn't be too much difference in the lyrics. I guess the sincerity is admirable.

The production is just not.... raucous? funky? ... enough. It feels too smooth. There is not enough jamming!

The lack of originality does NOT bug me at all. It's just that the performance & arrangement feels so under control. It feels at odds with both the genre of the music and the content of the song.

I thought funk was supposed to be like this:



Or this:



I would rather listen to Snarky Puppy than this song. They may be more of a "math rock" / "nerd band" version of this kind of music though.

Speaking of parodies....


----------



## NoamL

toddkreuz said:


> i'm just gonna throw this out there. Yes, its live.



now this is some @#[email protected]#$ music


----------



## toddkreuz

NoamL said:


> now this is some @#[email protected]#$ music


I don't think it gets much better. The band, the vocals, all live, unreal.


----------



## jonathanparham

NoamL said:


> now this is some @#[email protected]#$ music


hey hey hey, watch the language. Gospel artist right there lol. Kidding aside I did listen to this and enjoyed that. I was a chaplain to a Gospel choir right out of school and Kirk Franklins Stomp was all the rage then.


----------



## alexkrisandre78

chocobitz825 said:


> I suppose all I can see is that his career will basically amount to being a talented impersonator. It's in his roots and it's what he does now. He does it VERY well, but I generally tend to think that if yourr only answer is to go back, you've failed. If we can't possibly find something new to do, and going back to the 60s and 70s is the only answer, music is officially dead.
> 
> I'll agree that Finneas is doing some great new stuff with Billie and others, but bruno is not doing that.



Yes, you’re right. I’ve failed. I failed again today because I was listening to Bartok and could only pray that I could compose like that. Silly me.


----------



## alexkrisandre78

chocobitz825 said:


> I suppose all I can see is that his career will basically amount to being a talented impersonator. It's in his roots and it's what he does now. He does it VERY well, but I generally tend to think that if yourr only answer is to go back, you've failed. If we can't possibly find something new to do, and going back to the 60s and 70s is the only answer, music is officially dead.
> 
> I'll agree that Finneas is doing some great new stuff with Billie and others, but bruno is not doing that.



At best, I am an impersonator too.


----------



## chocobitz825

alexkrisandre78 said:


> Yes, you’re right. I’ve failed. I failed again today because I was listening to Bartok and could only pray that I could compose like that. Silly me.


glad to see people can still make ridiculous conclusions from a simple criticism. If you wished to compose “like” that. Good on you. Finding elements of music you like and incorporating into your own commercial compositions is great. If you wished to simply compose “that”, as in blatantly copy the construction of Bartok to the point that it’s no more than a reductive reimagining of the original pieces, and you decide to make a career of that, yeah, I don’t find that to be especially appealing.

there are no 100% original compositions, we are all influenced by something. I don’t contest that. However we all have seen pieces of work that practically border on plagiarism. Bruno’s total discography is almost bordering on that line. Let’s not forget that 24k gold is not subtle able it’s reference to the theme song of In Living Color. This song is no less subtle about where he’s pulling from. I don’t think it’s a harsh standard to want him to provide something new, knowing he absolutely can do it.


----------



## lychee

chocobitz825 said:


> glad to see people can still make ridiculous conclusions from a simple criticism. If you wished to compose “like” that. Good on you. Finding elements of music you like and incorporating into your own commercial compositions is great. If you wished to simply compose “that”, as in blatantly copy the construction of Bartok to the point that it’s no more than a reductive reimagining of the original pieces, and you decide to make a career of that, yeah, I don’t find that to be especially appealing.
> 
> there are no 100% original compositions, we are all influenced by something. I don’t contest that. However we all have seen pieces of work that practically border on plagiarism. Bruno’s total discography is almost bordering on that line. Let’s not forget that 24k gold is not subtle able it’s reference to the theme song of In Living Color. This song is no less subtle about where he’s pulling from. I don’t think it’s a harsh standard to want him to provide something new, knowing he absolutely can do it.


I went to look for the music of In Living Color to see if we are at that famous "limit of plagiarism" you are talking about, and ... no, no, no ... I can't let you say that!
First, the people doing this comparison compare the sound of In Living Color with Finesse by Bruno Mars and not 24k.
Then, apart from the "orchestra hit" contained in the two sounds, it is very, but very far from plagiarism.
The track Finesse is quite simply a New Jack Swing inspired sound, a style of music that was on top in the years '87 to '92 before the advent of (new) R&B.
The "orchestra hit" was a very used element in this style of music, as well as this very recognizable long release snare on a syncopated rhythm.





On the other hand, Finesse is very inspired (without being a copy for my taste) by "Remember The Time" of Michael Jackson (composed by Teddy Riley, the inventor of New Jack Swing).
Some even made a Remenber The Time vs Finesse mashup that fits perfectly:





And the song of In Living Color is itself very inspired by "Wanna Get With U" by the group GUY (of which Teddy Riley was a member).


----------



## lychee

The Koreans often use old sounds and are particularly inspired by the New Jack Swing in their K-Pop.




We like it or we hate it, but the thing is that it works, and it is even quite intelligent on the part of the artists, because they can capture an audience both old and young rather than addressing only young people and abandon the older generation.
Yes because we old people too would like something "new" rather than replaying our vinyls over and over again.
Otherwise some try to hybridize between the old and the new, like this group that I have just discovered and which tries to mix the New Jack with elements of Trap (chocobitz825 maybe it is lack of audacity that you reproach Bruno Mars?):


----------



## chocobitz825

lychee said:


> I went to look for the music of In Living Color to see if we are at that famous "limit of plagiarism" you are talking about, and ... no, no, no ... I can't let you say that!
> First, the people doing this comparison compare the sound of In Living Color with Finesse by Bruno Mars and not 24k.
> Then, apart from the "orchestra hit" contained in the two sounds, it is very, but very far from plagiarism.
> The track Finesse is quite simply a New Jack Swing inspired sound, a style of music that was on top in the years '87 to '92 before the advent of (new) R&B.
> The "orchestra hit" was a very used element in this style of music, as well as this very recognizable long release snare on a syncopated rhythm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, Finesse is very inspired (without being a copy for my taste) by "Remember The Time" of Michael Jackson (composed by Teddy Riley, the inventor of New Jack Swing).
> Some even made a Remenber The Time vs Finesse mashup that fits perfectly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the song of In Living Color is itself very inspired by "Wanna Get With U" by the group GUY (of which Teddy Riley was a member).



You're right finesse was the song in my mind. proof I shouldn't type while on the run. My point was not as direct since I'm pulling from points I made earlier in this thread. It's the total package of his presentation that rubs me the wrong way. If he had done any of these songs in isolation, without the visual cues on top of it in his music videos, maybe I would feel a bit more appreciation for the nostalgia, but its not one video or one song. Its entire albums and music videos. I would say Unorthodox Jukebox was a more tolerable balance of retro and modern, but still a bit heavy on the retro. Since the success of uptown funk, he's gone deep in. 


lychee said:


> The Koreans often use old sounds and are particularly inspired by the New Jack Swing in their K-Pop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We like it or we hate it, but the thing is that it works, and it is even quite intelligent on the part of the artists, because they can capture an audience both old and young rather than addressing only young people and abandon the older generation.
> Yes because we old people too would like something "new" rather than replaying our vinyls over and over again.
> Otherwise some try to hybridize between the old and the new, like this group that I have just discovered and which tries to mix the New Jack with elements of Trap (chocobitz825 maybe it is lack of audacity that you reproach Bruno Mars?):



Some kpop reference new jack swing makes sense as Korea had a point of 90s music that was inspired by the genre. Selling nostalgia every now in then is great, but selling nostalgia as your only product, and telling us that its new is tiresome.

to speak honestly about why this bothers me the most is that for the better part of my career, I've had to listen to thousands of submissions of pop songs by various career writers. The lack of originality is mind-numbing. You can have 5 writers who don't know each other who all use the exact same melodies, and chord progressions, and lyrics in parts of the song. Not because all the good stuff has been done, but because they're following the formula and hoping that because it's worked for others before, that it will work for them. They've either convinced themselves the formula is the only way to succeed, or they lack the confidence to dare and be bold to stand out. Formulaic songwriting is boring, and their music usually ends up assigned to artists who have such low budgets they can't afford the good stuff.

Bruno made his name on bold songs. Now that he has a name, he's riding on formulaic songs. well-executed, well-produced music that, had he not been the artist Bruno Mars, likely would not be the hits that they are now. It is unique in that, you'd hard-pressed to find another artist who could sing these songs as well as him nowadays, but it still remains that he's banking on our nostalgia and the formulas to do half the work.

I could be absolutely wrong, and just maybe I'm bitter from my experience, but I cannot imagine that people will look back on these songs decades later with the same love and appreciation as the songs he's pulling from. Which sucks because he is a rare talent, and I wish he operated more as an artist, rather than an arranger/producer/stage impersonator. (not meant to cut him down, I'm just speaking to his actual career experience)


----------



## Markrs

A couple of excellent video breaking this track down. One harmonically the other based on the instrumentation. Both are very much worth a watch.


----------



## chocobitz825

Markrs said:


> A couple of excellent video breaking this track down. One harmonically the other based on the instrumentation. Both are very much worth a watch.



haha youtube just recommended the first video. Excellent breakdown.


----------



## Markrs

chocobitz825 said:


> haha youtube just recommended the first video. Excellent breakdown.


Charles' energy and excitement when breaking this track down is just infectious


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

So I really enjoyed the 2nd single from the album:


----------

