# The secret to success - 4 chords, baby melody and reverb



## PeterN (Aug 11, 2022)

Both of these piano tracks have hit over a million views. One of them over 8 million. Thousands of likes and praise. Wouldn't like to be to rude, but can't help it, the secret to success - among the masses - appears to be 4 chords, baby melody and plenty reverb. Forget the counterpoint and change of time signature. And Perfect legato then? Nope.

(disclaimer, came across them when searching for a product in deals 2 here, but it just astonishes what all you get success for. dont know anything about them further than listening. really disliked them though, in relation to praise and views. apologies for negativity, but partly an observation)


----------



## GeoMax (Aug 18, 2022)

PeterN said:


> Both of these piano tracks have hit over a million views. One of them over 8 million. Thousands of likes and praise. Wouldn't like to be to rude, but can't help it, the secret to success - among the masses - appears to be 4 chords, baby melody and plenty reverb. Forget the counterpoint and change of time signature. And Perfect legato then? Nope.
> 
> (disclaimer, came across them when searching for a product in deals 2 here, but it just astonishes what all you get success for. dont know anything about them further than listening. really disliked them though, in relation to praise and views. apologies for negativity, but partly an observation)




If one is writing for sadness and pain, this nails it. It's about the emotional connection through encapsulated expression. Capturing our own emotional pain and darkness from inside into our music is what its all about. If you get that captured, authentically, it resonates with any listener who knows pain. I think this writer knows pain and sadness. They authentically translated it to their music. 

This post reminded me to not get so lost in the weeds of complexity and striving for sonic perfection. Clearly, its not all about complexity and production. Even the sound quality can be poor, yet it resonates. 

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## J-M (Aug 18, 2022)

This? This is nothing. At least someone needed to learn a bit of piano to do these. Have you ever been forced to listen to Spotify Top 10? Hey, people are free to listen to whatever they want, just as I am free to say "I swear my life expectancy went down by a couple of years" after hearing some of that (imo) shite. xD


----------



## PeterN (Aug 18, 2022)

GeoMax said:


> If one is writing for sadness and pain, this nails it. It's about the emotional connection through encapsulated expression. Capturing our own emotional pain and darkness from inside into our music is what its all about. If you get that captured, authentically, it resonates with any listener who knows pain. I think this writer knows pain and sadness. They authentically translated it to their music.
> 
> This post reminded me to not get so lost in the weeds of complexity and striving for sonic perfection. Clearly, its not all about complexity and production. Even the sound quality can be poor, yet it resonates.
> 
> Thanks for sharing.


Maybe you are right. I listened again. The second one has 8 million views.

Wanted to provoke a discussion with them, but I thought it didn't resonate, since no-one replied. Maybe nobody listened.

--

But to widen the perspective, Id say, about 98% of what is out there as emotional piano and string tracks, sounds like shi.e. Its rare to come across anything inspiring. When fishing for tracks.


----------



## ReelToLogic (Aug 18, 2022)

While neither of those piano pieces did much for me, I think that we as composers can get too hung up on requiring a lot of complexity in order to make "good" music. Four chords and a strong melody *can* be perfectly sufficient. Perhaps these two got a lot of hits because people searched for music about pain? Thanks for sharing this.


----------



## Benbln (Aug 18, 2022)

Music is more about emotion then about programming skills * and other techniques


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 18, 2022)

GeoMax said:


> If one is writing for sadness and pain, this nails it. It's about the emotional connection through encapsulated expression. Capturing our own emotional pain and darkness from inside into our music is what its all about. If you get that captured, authentically, it resonates with any listener who knows pain. I think this writer knows pain and sadness. They authentically translated it to their music.
> 
> This post reminded me to not get so lost in the weeds of complexity and striving for sonic perfection. Clearly, its not all about complexity and production. Even the sound quality can be poor, yet it resonates.
> 
> Thanks for sharing.



I was gonna make the point that your description would also apply word for word to depressive suicidal black metal, but when I looked for an example to demonstrate how utterly obscure the genre is, I saw that this video actually has 3 million views, so maybe you're on to something.

Intro is over at 1:45 if you want to skip ahead to the metal part:


----------



## PeterN (Aug 18, 2022)

MartinH. said:


> I was gonna make the point that your description would also apply word for word to depressive suicidal black metal, but when I looked for an example to demonstrate how utterly obscure the genre is, I saw that this video actually has 3 million views, so maybe you're on to something.
> 
> Intro is over at 1:45 if you want to skip ahead to the metal part:



Maybe we are living in times of pain? (I searched for Pain Piano which I bought yesterday that's why I came across the tracks earlier) As a side note, I work with a job where people also have usernames, and there's so many with 666 now, its appalling. This phenomenon has started since a year back or so.


----------



## PeterN (Aug 18, 2022)

MartinH. said:


> I was gonna make the point that your description would also apply word for word to depressive suicidal black metal, but when I looked for an example to demonstrate how utterly obscure the genre is, I saw that this video actually has 3 million views, so maybe you're on to something.
> 
> Intro is over at 1:45 if you want to skip ahead to the metal part:



Btw, that is quite disturbing it has 3 million views.


----------



## xepocal (Aug 18, 2022)

I mean.. 'Lo-Fi girl' was the most popular stream on YouTube at some point. Not the type of music you're meant to sit down to and actively listen to. It's just something that you put on to put or keep you in a mood that doesn't demand your attention while you're doing something else. Not all music needs to be demanding, intricate and busy. Many of these 'views' are probably generated by YouTube's radio mix and not really people actively looking for music.

Sometimes I just want a hotdog I can stuff in my face while writing a forum post. The hotdog doesn't need to take me on a spice journey for my taste buds.

When I want sophisticated food, I can always go to a restaurant. But who'd want to go to a restaurant every day?

Complicated is not a quality in itself.


----------



## Awoo Composer (Aug 18, 2022)

MartinH. said:


> I was gonna make the point that your description would also apply word for word to depressive suicidal black metal, but when I looked for an example to demonstrate how utterly obscure the genre is, I saw that this video actually has 3 million views, so maybe you're on to something.
> 
> Intro is over at 1:45 if you want to skip ahead to the metal part:



I find black metal to be a relaxing genre to listen to, but I can tell that the shrieks in that song were of sanity becoming undone and revealing a deep visceral pain beneath.


----------



## The Gost (Aug 18, 2022)

PeterN said:


> Both of these piano tracks have hit over a million views. One of them over 8 million. Thousands of likes and praise. Wouldn't like to be to rude, but can't help it, the secret to success - among the masses - appears to be 4 chords, baby melody and plenty reverb. Forget the counterpoint and change of time signature. And Perfect legato then? Nope.
> 
> (disclaimer, came across them when searching for a product in deals 2 here, but it just astonishes what all you get success for. dont know anything about them further than listening. really disliked them though, in relation to praise and views. apologies for negativity, but partly an observation)



Yes this music is simple, it may be what people who listen to this music are looking for and if they have so many views, good for them! I still prefer that to the two hundredth mockup of john Williams or his thousandth musical copy.


----------



## Rv5 (Aug 18, 2022)

Is your measure of success millions of views on YouTube or music containing "counterpoint and change of time signature. And Perfect legato"? I'd gently suggest considering millions of views on YouTube isn't representative of much other than millions of people watched something..


----------



## PeterN (Aug 18, 2022)

Rv5 said:


> Is your measure of success millions of views on YouTube or music containing "counterpoint and change of time signature. And Perfect legato"? I'd gently suggest considering millions of views on YouTube isn't representative of much other than millions of people watched something..


Well, eg. the second track, 8 million views and there's nearly a million who pressed "like".

Its an *obvious* measure of success. Maybe they aren't playing in Royal Albert Hall, but still a measure of success. At least to some degree. But you have a point, and success is relative.


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 18, 2022)

PeterN said:


> As a side note, I work with a job where people also have usernames, and there's so many with 666 now, its appalling. This phenomenon has started since a year back or so.


That has always been a thing in certain circles, maybe it's going back in style or going mainstream?




Awoo Composer said:


> I find black metal to be a relaxing genre to listen to


Absolutely! Mgla is great for that, I often fell asleep listening to them because they're so relaxing and hypnotic.




Awoo Composer said:


> but I can tell that the shrieks in that song were of sanity becoming undone and revealing a deep visceral pain beneath.


I don't know anything about this specific band but I'm sure most people in the scene are suffering a great deal.




Rv5 said:


> Is your measure of success millions of views on YouTube or music containing "counterpoint and change of time signature. And Perfect legato"? I'd gently suggest considering millions of views on YouTube isn't representative of much other than millions of people watched something..


Millions of views is the perfect measure of quality of music and this is objectively one of the best songs of all time: 



Spoiler





1.268 *BILLIONS *of views


----------



## mopsiflopsi (Aug 18, 2022)

Bear in mind you don't know anything about the demographics of the 8m views, and that a certain age group craves anything with the word pain/dark/sad/sorrow in it (as did I at that point in my life). Perhaps your audience doesn't go to YouTube for their listening pleasure?


----------



## PeterN (Aug 18, 2022)

mopsiflopsi said:


> Bear in mind you don't know anything about the demographics of the 8m views, and that a certain age group craves anything with the word pain/dark/sad/sorrow in it (as did I at that point in my life). Perhaps your audience doesn't go to YouTube for their listening pleasure?


Well, lets check it further.

Its a guy, around 30 age, his track _Sociopath_ nearly 30 million views, but its 4 years ago. Recent tracks around 10k. No mention about him in main news. Not a fan page (couldn't find on quick search).

*Verdict: not a big success, but not a failure.*

---

Has anyone thought about naming their track _Sociopath_ to boost searches? I suggested in another thread this is a good time to name track as "Heat wave" and "Drought".


----------



## babylonwaves (Aug 18, 2022)

One thing worth mentioning is that most people prefer what they comprehend. So, there you are - apparently, 4 chords it is.
On the other hand, a much smaller group of listeners get a kick out of a tune they don't understand (and cannot follow or remember in detail). Those usually are into free jazz and such 

People are just different and that's totally fine.


----------



## becolossal (Aug 18, 2022)

xepocal said:


> Complicated is not a quality in itself.





ReelToLogic said:


> While neither of those piano pieces did much for me, I think that we as composers can get too hung up on requiring a lot of complexity in order to make "good" music. Four chords and a strong melody *can* be perfectly sufficient. Perhaps these two got a lot of hits because people searched for music about pain? Thanks for sharing this.


1,000x both of these. The final arrangements of the pieces demonstrated here are more than just the piano, but great music doesn't have to be complicated:


----------



## JJP (Aug 18, 2022)

PeterN said:


> the secret to success - among the masses - appears to be 4 chords, baby melody and plenty reverb.


Could the secret to success also be the right title to trigger the algorithm?


----------



## PeterN (Aug 18, 2022)

JJP said:


> Could the secret to success also be the right title to trigger the algorithm?


Possibly.

It seems betting on the more sinister ones could bring hits?

Maybe name both group and track _Sociopath. _

Can we make broader social analysis of this? Its intriguing.


----------



## szczaw (Aug 18, 2022)

People respond first and foremost to melody, harmony and rhythm. Do non-musicians even know what counterpoint and legatos are ?


----------



## PeterN (Aug 18, 2022)

szczaw said:


> People respond first and foremost to melody, harmony and rhythm. Do non-musicians even know what counterpoint and legatos are ?


Counterpoint is if you have a point but someone disagrees?


----------



## The Gost (Aug 18, 2022)

................... Don't be jealous somewhere....  do the same with your own music with 4 chords but yours ! there is a lot of boring music with fugue, harmony and counterpoint maybe if Mozart came today, he would be homeless, if people like this type of music, it may not be a coincidence but just a choice, a musician can be boring even if he has 50 years of technique. .what affects people may be an enigma but it is a reality.


----------



## szczaw (Aug 18, 2022)

PeterN said:


> Counterpoint is if you have a point but someone disagrees?


I've never hear from anyone: I like this music because of counterpoint (or legatos or tempo / signature changes).


----------



## devonmyles (Aug 18, 2022)

PeterN said:


> Well, lets check it further.
> 
> *Has anyone thought about naming their track Sociopath to boost searches*? I suggested in another thread this is a good time to name track as "Heat wave" and "Drought".


You've just given me an idea for my next library track name...even if it's a Barn Dance.


----------



## PeterN (Aug 18, 2022)

szczaw said:


> I've never hear from anyone: I like this music because of counterpoint (or legatos or tempo / signature changes).


The tempo change in Mr Blue Sky is great. Its comes at 3.57. @alcorey


----------



## szczaw (Aug 18, 2022)

PeterN said:


> The tempo change in Mr Blue Sky is great. Its comes at 3.57.


I like tempo changes in metal. That shouldn't be your main selling point, because nobody is going to buy it.


----------



## PeterN (Aug 18, 2022)

devonmyles said:


> You've just given me an idea for my next library track name...even if it's a Barn Dance.


Insider tip. Name the track: "_food shortages_".

Here's what Glass animals did with "_Heat Waves_"

Glass Animals - Heat Waves (Official Video)​373,223,284 views
*
What is the verdict of the panel?*


----------



## devonmyles (Aug 18, 2022)

PeterN said:


> Insider tip. Name the track: "_food shortages_".
> 
> Here's what Glass animals did with "_Heat Waves_"
> 
> ...



Musically, it makes me want to fall asleep (quickly). 
The only thing that kept me awake was trying to recognise the London street and area, it seems very familiar.


----------



## David Kudell (Aug 18, 2022)

If you only write music for other composers

A) you’ve made your potential audience infinitesimally small

B) Other composers won’t like it anyway as they tend to be the most critical (as much due to jealousy as to genuine criticism)

Also, there is no shortage of composers who try to do their version of John Williams but miss the whole point of why Williams’ music is popular (it’s not the virtuosity, but the fact that anyone can hum the melody to Indiana Jones). 😉


----------



## Alex Niedt (Aug 18, 2022)

While it's true that music doesn't have to be complex to be "good" or to evoke emotion, these examples are so hackneyed that the only mood/vibe I get is corniness, TBH


----------



## Pier (Aug 18, 2022)

People respond to simple and emotional music. Who would've thought!


----------



## mikeh-375 (Aug 19, 2022)

..._" all you need is 3 chords and the truth"
(from the tv series 'Nashville')._


----------



## jonnybutter (Aug 19, 2022)

The problem with this kind of music is not its simplicity - how could there be something inherently wrong with simplicity? It’s the almost baleful *sameness*. When a budding black blues artist makes his version of a country song (Ida Red => Maybelline), you don’t get perfect fidelity to the original song, but a synthesis. When Louis Armstrong does his take on marching band music, or Rosetta Tharp does her version of gospel, they are making something new rather than being ‘authentic’. Culture develops largely via “corruption”, in language, music, food, etc. Sometimes the corrupter knows what they’re doing, and sometimes they don’t - or it‘s just a mistake. It doesn’t matter.

The problem with the music in the videos, and so much other bilge like it, is that what the producer is really going for - because the masters of the universe demand it - is to make something that is not just a cliche, but an ever more distilled cliche - the essence of it: the cliche’s cliche if you will. A lot of times these days it’s called ‘stripped down.’ AKA “the same but different”, but I think the quality gone for is “authenticity” (or, “classic”). Instead of developing culture, this kind of trash is dead culture. Writing this kind of throwaway dreck used to be something done for money, for movies or tv. Now I think some people actually like it as music.

IMO it’s a mistake to blame people for what they like. People like whatever is available, musically (or otherwise - if you grow up eating Marmite, you like it!). The emotional response is real. But it’s not a good state of affairs.


----------



## GtrString (Aug 19, 2022)

It's not the language, it's what you say and how you say it. Music is the language, and one track/ song is just one short passage in your conversation.. sometimes you take a breath, and take it easy. At other times you pack more information into your passages. You have to do both (and then some) in order to be an interesting and trustworthy person to be in a conversation with..


----------



## xepocal (Aug 19, 2022)

jonnybutter said:


> It’s the almost baleful *sameness*.


What authority, other than personal taste, sets the threshold for 'too samey'?

To my parents, all of the 90s sounded the same. To me, all of 60s popular music sounds the same.

Three points I'd like to make:

- The blinders you put on as you get older. When was the last time most of us had a comprehensive overview of what's going on musically? Data suggests the general population stops having an interest in discovering new music around the age of 30. What even is trapstep djent?

- Music becoming less sophisticated harmonically and melodically is not a new thing. It's been going on for centuries. Bach would scoff at what we consider 'classical'.

- At the same time, other aspects of music have become more complex. Dubstep took sound design to a new level. The rhythmical complexity Djent brought to metal. Production values, mixing and mastering getting more refined.

Thanks to streaming services, everyone having a phone and earbuds, music has become completely omnipresent. Almost necessarily, that means a lot of new music has become less 'pay attention to meeeee'.

There's probably *more* 'good' music than ever before - and *even* more 'bad' music. But finding the good stuff hasn't gotten any easier. Either because we're too old to care or because the algorithm only cares for what's most profitable (= most agreeable to the broadest of audiences).


----------



## portego (Aug 19, 2022)

I can understand the frustration, but at the same time, I can understand why those videos have so many views. They just work. As soon as you combine music with an image, it is more than just music. In a sense, those views are not a representation of the musical quality of the song, just a representation of the quality of video as a whole and consequently a never-ending algorithmic push. In the end, Youtube is just one big and ever-changing algorithm. Or in other words, what's the difference between a song on Youtube Music and on Youtube itself? It's the video aspect. It's not just an artwork and music, but literally a music video. Like in the old days with MTV. That was the reason they spend so much money on the music videos... A bad song can work with the right video, because it's interesting and/or fun to watch. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 19, 2022)

Cannot believe no one has posted this youtube video yet..


----------



## Pier (Aug 19, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> Cannot believe no one has posted this youtube video yet..



This is probably one of the best videos ever made


----------



## youngpokie (Aug 19, 2022)

jonnybutter said:


> it’s a mistake to blame people for what they like. People like whatever is available, musically (or otherwise - if you grow up eating Marmite, you like it!). The emotional response is real. But it’s not a good state of affairs.



In music theory there is this concept of "listener inertia", which postulates that people naturally gravitate to the harmonic foundation and style that they're most familiar with through repeated exposure - in a way similar to what you suggest. Some theorists say all music ever created can be roughly classified into more or less ~9 or so harmonic systems, which are defined by their specific "anchor" chords and if/how they are combined into patterns. It just so happens that the framework in which these chord progressions in the videos live is an especially powerful earworm and this has been so for a few hundred years now.

This pervasive earworm-ness seems to be triggered by the constant repetition of tension-release on which the system is based. The listener hears the tension, anticipates the release, hears the release, feels emotional pleasure. This can be subtle or obvious but it's there - the chords in the first video oscillate in this way a bit more clearly and the majority of radio pop hits make it completely exposed.

No other of the 9 harmonic systems (except perhaps plagal) possesses this catchy earworm-ness in such a concentrated way and this extreme concentration is the reason the system is so addictive. We are exposed to it as children, along with other types of systems (pentatonic, chromatic, etc), but it is this one that we then crave it for the rest of our lives in its many disguises and incarnations, from Mozart to heavy metal. It doesn't help that novels and blockbuster movies are written using the same approach (conflict-resolution) and even Classical era architecture is based on it (column-arc-column) and the ancient epics (battle-victory).

That's also the reason that classical composers who innovated on top of this system (Stravinsky, Shostakovich) were a lot more successful than the composers who tried to completely replace it (Webern, Schoenberg).


----------



## re-peat (Aug 19, 2022)

I don’t get these discussions. Complexity or simplicity are not parameters which, on their own, have any intrinsic musical value or meaning. They only become meaningful if matched to the right musical ideas. (Match them to the wrong idea, and you get either weak, empty and lazy simplicity, or contrived, self-conscious and pretentious complexity. Both are insufferable.)

You can’t make, say, “The Sacre” or “The Adventures of Greggery Peccary” any less complex than they are without robbing these works of their potential to be — _fully_ be — all that they were envisaged and written to be. Or, in other words: a simpler, less complex verison of “The Sacre” is no longer “The Sacre”. The complexity of pieces such as this — whether it is a Beethoven symphony, the Goldberg Variations, Monk's "Crepuscule with Nellie" or Fagen's “Babylon Sisters” — is an integral and defining element of their musical being.
Similarly, you can’t (and shouldn’t) make a Gymnopédie or T-Bone Walker’s "Stormy Monday” any more complex or musically sophisticated than they are because, if you do, you’ll ruin these pieces’ musical identity and weaken their impact.

Recognizing the innate requirement for complexity or simplicity (or sometimes both) of a musical idea (but also, and every bit as much, of the context in which you want that idea to bloom), is, in my opinion, a very-very-very-very important part of good composition. Judge things wrongly, of fail to come up with the required and matching degree of complexity or simplicity, and you end up with poorly written music.
If you’re asked, or want to write something like “The Asteroïd Field”, you better make sure that you know more about musical composition than four chords and have more than some basic, generic tune-writing skills. At the other end: few things more preposterous than a keyboard player in a rock’n'roll band who wants to go from I7 to IV via tritone substitutions or a couple of ‘listen to this, how clever' maj7flat5#9 chords.

All of which also means (in my viewpoint anyway) that praising or dismissing music on the grounds that it is (too) complex or (too) simple, is a rather stupid thing to do, and only reveals a serious lack of musical understanding and insight on the part of the person who does that kind of thing.

Good music is always as simple or as complex as it needs to be. That's an inextricable part of it being good.

Complexity and simplicty both strengthen, each their own way (and not mutually exclusive), music’s capacity for beauty and emotional impact. Some beauty needs complexity in order to be at its utmost beautiful, some beauty requires simplicity in order to be at its most shattering. Neither is superior to the other.

_


----------



## Living Fossil (Aug 19, 2022)

re-peat said:


> Good music is always as simple or as complex as it needs to be. That's an inextricable part of it being good.


Exactly.

Mattheson spoke of "the inner state of the thing itself" (_der innere Zustand der Sache selbst):_

„In den *gewöhnlichsten *Tantz-Arten, so wie überall, muß, nebst dem bekann- ten und deutlichen, was neues, lebhafftes, nachdrückliches und mit dem vorha- benden Affect übereinstimmendes gefunden werden. In den *vornehmsten *Täntzen äussert sich auch bey ihren Melodien selbst die *Pracht und Majestät*; ja in den *allergeringsten *Menuetten darff doch weder Schönheit noch Anmuth fehlen. [...] Mit dem eintzigen Worte, *natürlich*, wird übrigens in der Abhand- lung von Stylen fast alles gesagt, was deren Eigenschafften betrifft, und man be-darff keiner andern Haupt-Abtheilung, als in Kirchen- Theatral- und Kammer- Styl, so wie wir sie hier erkläret haben: denn diese mssen dem *natürlichen *We- sen allemahl zum Grunde unterleget werden, weil sie wircklich, und nach dem innern Zustande der Sache selbst, allgemein d. i. general, und dabey einfach sind, wie ein ieder Grund-Satz seyn muß. 

Wenn nun eine *hohe *Schreib-Art in der Ton-Kunst *natürlich *seyn soll, so muß sie prächtig klingen. Eine *mittlere *kan nicht *natürlich *seyn, falls sie nicht flies- set. Und eine *niedrige *voller künstlicher Ausarbeitungen wäre *unnatürlich*. Das hohe, mittlere und niedrige steckt also zusammen in dem *natürlichen *We- sen, und in den Sachen selbst; ist also nicht einfach. Diese aber stecken nicht in jenem.“218 

„Trinck- und Wiegen-Lieder, Galanterie-Stücklein etc. darff man eben nicht immer ohne Unterschied läppisch nennen: sie gefallen offt besser, und thun mehr Dienste, wenn sie recht natürlich gerathen sind, als großmächtige Concer- te und stoltze Ouvertüren. Jene erfordern nicht weniger ihren Meister nach ihrer Art, als diese. [...]"

Source: Mattheson, Der vollkommene Capellmeister, p. 70–71.

p.s. sorry it's in German.


----------



## jonnybutter (Aug 19, 2022)

xepocal said:


> What authority, other than personal taste, sets the threshold for 'too samey'?


Because sameness is what they are going for. All sounding the same is not an insult - it’s what they *want*. And they are succeeding - there’s not room for any kind of alteration or mistakes.


----------



## jonnybutter (Aug 19, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> In music theory there is this concept of "listener inertia", which postulates that people naturally gravitate to the harmonic foundation and style that they're most familiar with through repeated exposure - in a way similar to what you suggest.


Interesting. I was not aware of the term. 

I actually think humans learn to like, or desire, just about anything they’re exposed to a lot, including horrible things. In college I worked in a convenience store and my partner and i had to decide at the end of each night who was going to sweep and who was going to mop. He preferred mopping, and one night he told me, “You know, if you mop everyday, man, after a while you start to LIKE it!” And it’s true! I think if you listen to Webern for an hour a day for a month, you will start to like it (or crave it anyway). We are so adaptable.


----------



## youngpokie (Aug 19, 2022)

jonnybutter said:


> I think if you listen to Webern for an hour a day for a month, you will start to like it (or crave it anyway).


Tried it (although not for the full month)! Sadly, it never worked on me - I still hate the style itself. 

But it did have one surprising impact - I appreciate much more dissonant music. Prokofiev used to sound like fingernails on chalkboard but now it's really enjoyable!


----------



## jonnybutter (Aug 19, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> Tried it (although not for the full month)! Sadly, it never worked on me - I still hate the style itself.
> 
> But it did have one surprising impact - I appreciate much more dissonant music. Prokofiev used to sound like fingernails on chalkboard but now it's really enjoyable!


😉 Close enough!


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi (Aug 19, 2022)

For me music is about creating an image, not to make it as loaded and tricky as possible. There are many great songs and pieces that have a few cords, but developed really well, crate a coherent flow that stimulates our imagination and/or emotion and/or body. Sometimes it takes a few notes with an interesting timbre and some effect, all with good timing and overall ballance. So, it's more about how you used those notes, and not how many of them.
I would also add that it should be just appropriate for the goal. For example, consider ambient music - it's just a few notes and huge amount of reverb.

Shoenberg's pieces are amazing source of motif development techniques and example of how far you can go before reaching limits of coherence, but I have absolutely zero interest in listening to them for all those music experiences we are usually looking for(and got into all of this in the first place).

Regarding the pieces you posted - the only thing I would complain about is that they seem a little bit underdeveloped, unfinished.


----------



## PeterN (Aug 19, 2022)

Faruh Al-Baghdadi said:


> For me music is about creating an image, not to make it as loaded and tricky as possible.


Yep. I think this is for most. For me, personally, composing has an "intellectual aspect" (in lack of better word), or maybe "challenging creative aspect", is a better word, where, for example, you are able to make a chord structure that can contain both a major and minor of same chord. Or change root note, but jump back to it. But, has a great melody on top of it, and is still coherent. Something like that - the creative aspect in going outside of the common 4 chords structure (in major and minor).

In other words, challenge yourself to do something creative. But this is not mainstream attitude. Its like, when you compose, you challenge yourself to break out of a fools prison of simple chords, simply bcs they've been used so much. So, I would put for example, Bethoovens Moonlight Sonata, say, Beatles Yesterday, and why not Bowies Life on Mars, Mozarts Requiem, even Elton Johns Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, in this category. And so on. These are just examples, that came to mind spontaneously now.

Why are film music composers not making tracks like Cavatina anymore. Maybe there's not a demand, or challenge anymore, to create anything unique. The 4 chords and reverb, may resonate with the masses, but would an artist go for that? (I do think there are some "4 chord tracks" that manifest exceptional creativity, but there are not many left to grab).


----------



## jonnybutter (Aug 20, 2022)

Faruh Al-Baghdadi said:


> For me music is about creating an image, not to make it as loaded and tricky as possible.


But there’s room for every kind of music, no? And some music is very sophisticated but doesn’t particularly sound like it. 

For many, including on this thread, the assumption is that the norm is highly intellectual, complex, ‘tricky’ music. But even at university, this is not really true anymore. And in the realm of pop and media it never was (even in the late 60s-70s it was the exception). The norm for the last 20 years or so is the examples in the OP; music that is simpler than ever, and designed to convey a pre-defined image or emotion - that’s 99+% of what’s available.

I’m not only complaining about it. I just find it interesting, I guess sociologically, that we think of ourselves as reacting to something which isn’t really a standard or norm at all. Another good example of that is what I would call the Art School approach to music. A super good guy (and pretty creative person) I have been jamming with sent me some music he‘s been listening to, and described the band as people who “may not be technically good musicians, but they make something fun and interesting anyway” (think: art school kids trying to sound like The Shaggs). The implication is that most bands aspire to virtuocity, and this is a surprising _twist_, a zig to everyone else’s zag, a novel reaction to normal musical pursuits. But the Art School Band idea has been around for decades! The Velvet Underground released their first album in 1967 (55 years ago). And John Cage was developing (roughly speaking) similar ideas in the 1950s.

Music can be about emotion or image, but also about conveying that which can’t be expressed in words, can be expressed _only_ via music - music as synchreticism. As George Szell put it, thinking with the heart and feeling with the mind.


----------



## JSTube (Aug 20, 2022)

Benbln said:


> Music is more about emotion then about programming skills * and other techniques


what sacrelige is this????? 



re-peat said:


> I don’t get these discussions. Complexity or simplicity are not parameters which, on their own, have any intrinsic musical value or meaning. They only become meaningful if matched to the right musical ideas. (Match them to the wrong idea, and you get either weak, empty and lazy simplicity, or contrived, self-conscious and pretentious complexity. Both are insufferable.)
> 
> You can’t make, say, “The Sacre” or “The Adventures of Greggery Peccary” any less complex than they are without robbing these works of their potential to be — _fully_ be — all that they were envisaged and written to be. Or, in other words: a simpler, less complex verison of “The Sacre” is no longer “The Sacre”. The complexity of pieces such as this — whether it is a Beethoven symphony, the Goldberg Variations, Monk's "Crepuscule with Nellie" or Fagen's “Babylon Sisters” — is an integral and defining element of their musical being.
> Similarly, you can’t (and shouldn’t) make a Gymnopédie or T-Bone Walker’s "Stormy Monday” any more complex or musically sophisticated than they are because, if you do, you’ll ruin these pieces’ musical identity and weaken their impact.
> ...


I think the basis of these discussions is more that there's some level of "injustice" occurring.

Like if I posted this thread, and were lamenting about the fact that my music, which is toiled over and carefully put together -- and what a moral travesty is! -- that MY, CAREFUL, GOODLY-MADE music doesn't get the same level of appreciation as ... what OP shared.

Note the glaring irony in all of this. (Implying that some music deserves to have reach, and other music, which you deem to be less-than -- doesn't)

I can identify with having interests that society no longer deems relevant. I always love the implication, too, that 4 chords and a "baby melody" and you'd be so good, too, right up there with them at 8M+ views. If one only _DECIDED_ to be that successful.

Why don't you wake up tomorrow being okay with 4 chords and a 'baby melody' (*SMH at that perjorative* -- _do better!)_ then claim your rightful place alongside [minimalist composer] at 10M views, then.

*The actual net outcome is that I would never share my music, e.g. on this website for example, knowing full well that this is the lens through which it's likely to be judged by my contemporaries*. I might not use enough 6ths or 7ths or 13th chords to be cool enough or worthy of mention ... and I even sometimes write fully diatonic pieces! Yikes! I must be stupid, because anyone could do that. (I must be even more stupid for not having tens of millions of views on Youtube, because I've already stooped low enough to DARE to write tonally...)

Some people just feel entitled to success when they reach competency within a field, and they're enraged to see somebody else that's being successful by doing something that they *could* do (from a technical proficiency POV), if they just _decided to_.



GeoMax said:


> If one is writing for sadness and pain, this nails it. It's about the emotional connection through encapsulated expression.


Imagine actually taking that emotion and encapsulating it, and writing a piece about it and sharing it with the world.

Now imagine that other people that love music as much as you do are talking about your music as if it's some travesty against what hard work and discipline somebody put in, and how easy and tropey it is, and how ANYONE could have gotten those 10M views, if they just decided they wanted it.

*I truly do not wish to be regarded as skilled or successful by any of my contemporaries, if this post is the lens/metric by which my work would be scrutinized.*


----------



## zigzag (Aug 20, 2022)

8 million views is not that extreme. I've seen YT videos of people playing video games and randomly yelling into a microphone with more views


----------



## JSTube (Aug 20, 2022)

I'd probably be more upset if I had 8M views and nothing to show for it, monetarily, than if I had no views at all. So at least there's that. it's not like exposure is necessarily a career-maker-or-breaker, anymore. I think networking (who you know) still is, and always has been more important.

Social media gives people a new way to promote themselves without managers, but doesn't necessarily lead to cash. I think a lot of people don't actually want exposure, they just wish they knew someone who was an 'in' for them, but thought exposure would lead to career advancement, so they made a social media account for their composer anyway.

That's a great delusion to have, but imagine having that delusion and then achieving 10M+ views, how mad you'd still be afterwards, with none of what you actually wanted! Neither an 'in' nor money to show. What??? I got all these views, and I'm STILL a nobody?? :O

Food for thought: I wonder if OP's definition/metric for success truly ends at "having a channel with that many views," (since the title is "The Secret to Success" -- I'd like to think OP regards this guy with a youtube channel as successful) or if OP is assuming that this composer's high number of views implies some greater level of achievement/reward than just the views alone.


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi (Aug 20, 2022)

jonnybutter said:


> But there’s room for every kind of music, no? And some music is very sophisticated but doesn’t particularly sound like it.
> 
> For many, including on this thread, the assumption is that the norm is highly intellectual, complex, ‘tricky’ music. But even at university, this is not really true anymore. And in the realm of pop and media it never was (even in the late 60s-70s it was the exception). The norm for the last 20 years or so is the examples in the OP; music that is simpler than ever, and designed to convey a pre-defined image or emotion - that’s 99+% of what’s available.
> 
> ...


Well, when I said "image" I meant a "concept". And then, when you realized or formulated the concept enough for moving forward, you are looking for expressive sources that will... Express the concept close enough for you to accept it as such. My point was that the "Music" in general should have some aesthetical value, otherwise it is am effect, a background, an exercise or whatever, but no music. 
But again, some music can be interesting for specific groups of people - composers, religious people etc.

Speaking of simplicity. There's a big misunderstanding of certain periods of music history(in any region, not just in Europe). Some people still believe that "classic music" was very common back then, but even in 18th-19th centuries the most common music was simple songs. They were not performed in concert halls, but among simple people - farmers, craftsmen and so on. 

I tried to understand it and I think the answer is really simple - it's due to our attention and memory capacity. We can't have too much stuff happening at the same time in our mind, it confuses us. It seems like the best music is the one that reaches the line between "surprising" and "confusing", but never crosses it 🫣 
By the way, if we pay close attention to the most successful classic pieces, we can see that, despite being really long, they were structured in sections that had theme and often all elements traditionally found in song forms - intros, events, outros, - and ballance of repetition and variation. Those things allowed listeners to have a sense of pleasing flow. 

Of course we also have to teach ourselves or develop sense(taste?) of difference between "simple" and "primitive".


----------



## Trash Panda (Aug 20, 2022)

These types of threads in a nutshell:


----------



## NuNativs (Aug 20, 2022)

This reminds me of the years I spent listening to speed metal guitarists who were all so technically proficient, and yet utterly BORING with little to say.


----------



## Arbee (Aug 20, 2022)

I'd like to put this video up for comment in the context of this thread. I find it to be absurdly simple yet so compelling. Is it the chord progression, the melody, the arrangement and choice of instruments, the performance, something else, or is it just the sum total of all those elements? When I hear music like this I tend to conclude (like writing software code) that elegant simplicity requires a greater skill and depth of knowledge than unrefined complexity.



And this is obviously one of the most iconic examples (the power of a well placed major 7th interval!).


----------



## PeterN (Aug 21, 2022)

Arbee said:


> I'd like to put this video up for comment in the context of this thread. I find it to be absurdly simple yet so compelling. Is it the chord progression, the melody, the arrangement and choice of instruments, the performance, something else, or is it just the sum total of all those elements? When I hear music like this I tend to conclude (like writing software code) that elegant simplicity requires a greater skill and depth of knowledge than unrefined complexity.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is obviously one of the most iconic examples (the power of a well placed major 7th interval!).



Both are nice, they are near perfect in the simplicity - not bad. But there's an element of cliche. This resonates with the masses, but the Gods would demand more.


----------



## Arbee (Aug 21, 2022)

PeterN said:


> but the Gods would demand more.


😄 indeed they would!


----------



## Alex Niedt (Aug 21, 2022)

JSTube said:


> ...and how ANYONE could have gotten those 10M views, if they just decided they wanted it.


You seem hung up on the view count, as if view count is determined by, or reflective of, some inherent quality.

These threads often make me wonder about standards in other crafts. If someone writes a book with no original ideas, no imagination, full of clichés, how many writers would argue it has artistic merit if a bunch of people read it thanks to an algorithm? So much of the music world feels like an ongoing saga of The Emperor's New Clothes to me.


----------



## PeterN (Aug 21, 2022)

Heres an interesting case. Check comments, likes and views (215,156,928 views) .


----------



## szczaw (Aug 21, 2022)

When something I don't like gets enormous attention anyway, I assume that I just don't get it. One man's garbage is another man's treasure.


----------



## SupremeFist (Aug 21, 2022)

In my opinion it is actually a deep truth that _millions of people can't be wrong. _If one is tempted to dismiss some piece of very popular art on the grounds that it is crappy, simplistic, etc, one will almost always learn something about one's own craft by, contrarily, really trying to understand analytically why it is popular. There will be a reason.


----------



## PeterN (Aug 21, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> In my opinion it is actually a deep truth that _millions of people can't be wrong. _If one is tempted to dismiss some piece of very popular art on the grounds that it is crappy, simplistic, etc, one will almost always learn something about one's own craft by, contrarily, really trying to understand analytically why it is popular. There will be a reason.


maybe the quality threshold has lowered, or maybe culture is in decline.

Id bet on both.


----------



## SupremeFist (Aug 21, 2022)

PeterN said:


> maybe the quality threshold has lowered, or maybe culture is in decline.
> 
> Id bet on both.


Ok boomer


----------



## PeterN (Aug 21, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> Ok boomer


Doubt its the heyday


----------



## Trash Panda (Aug 21, 2022)

PeterN said:


> maybe the quality threshold has lowered, or maybe culture is in decline.
> 
> Id bet on both.


Or maybe popular music has always been pretty simplistic. Just look at what was popular in the “golden age” of America. 



Majority of songs didn’t even have different lyrics for each verse and almost always has to literally speak the chorus line after already hearing it 2-3 times.


----------



## PeterN (Aug 21, 2022)

Trash Panda said:


> Or maybe popular music has always been pretty simplistic. Just look at what was popular in the “golden age” of America.
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of songs didn’t even have different lyrics for each verse and almost always has to literally speak the chorus line after already hearing it 2-3 times.



Well, .... the concept of Western world being in decline (from moral to cultural) - *lets say this hypothetically* - is shared with vast majority of non Western world.

So lets keep it as one possibility.


----------



## SupremeFist (Aug 21, 2022)

PeterN said:


> Well, .... the concept of Western world being in decline (from moral to cultural) - *lets say this hypothetically* - is shared with vast majority of non Western world.
> 
> So lets keep it as one possibility.


the concept of the "western world" being in decline is as old as, er, the western world (ie back to at least Homer).


----------



## szczaw (Aug 21, 2022)

Things have changed a little since Beethoven. Most if not all music used to be commissioned by upper class of people. Now peasants dominate and dictate what is popular. Folk and peasant music has always been simple.


----------



## PeterN (Aug 21, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> the concept of the "western world" being in decline is as old as, er, the western world (ie back to at least Homer).


maybe

maybe last heyday was Rome.

anyway, my bet is on the decline, your bet is on that we should learn from the trash.


----------



## SupremeFist (Aug 21, 2022)

PeterN said:


> maybe
> 
> anyway, my bet is on the decline, your bet is on that we should learn from the trash.


We could both be right!


----------



## PeterN (Aug 21, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> We could both be right!


true


----------



## youngpokie (Aug 21, 2022)

szczaw said:


> Folk and peasant music was always simple.


Well, this piece of folk music from Bulgaria is a million times more sophisticated, melodically, harmonically and rhythmically, than the videos in the OP. And it's not more complex than the rest on this album.


----------



## szczaw (Aug 21, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> Well, this piece of folk music from Bulgaria is a million times more sophisticated, melodically, harmonically and rhythmically, than the videos in the OP. And it's not more complex than the rest on this album.



Respect to the peasants of Bulgaria


----------



## Alex Niedt (Aug 21, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> In my opinion it is actually a deep truth that _millions of people can't be wrong._


I knew the McDonald's argument for quality would work its way in here at some point. Also, groups of millions have been VERY wrong many times throughout history about a great many things. Argumentum ad populum never holds up.


----------



## NekujaK (Aug 21, 2022)

*Sigh*



​


----------



## mikeh-375 (Aug 21, 2022)

SupremeFist said:


> In my opinion it is actually a deep truth that _millions of people can't be wrong. _If one is tempted to dismiss some piece of very popular art on the grounds that it is crappy, simplistic, etc, one will almost always learn something about one's own craft by, contrarily, really trying to understand analytically why it is popular. There will be a reason.


Stravinsky, on hearing about the success of Britten's 'War Requiem'..."well it can't be any good then."


----------



## PeterN (Aug 22, 2022)

mikeh-375 said:


> Stravinsky, on hearing about the success of Britten's 'War Requiem'..."well it can't be any good then."


We can use the Youtube metrics to analyse the masses.

When the suicidal metal Martin put here start to become exceptionally popular, that's when its time to build a bunker and get a rottweiler and a pitbull. Modern technology will also provide tools. The YouTube metrics can reveal we are currently in a state of "_expanding absurdity_". The metrics should be observed monthly, and actions taken accordingly.

_Expanding absurdity_ is a half critical state, because if it is combined with angst, it can be utilised to create mass formation on the masses, who search for some meaning in the absurdity. In other words, they are prone to manipulation. 

Comrades, take actions accordingly.


----------



## zigzag (Aug 22, 2022)

But really, what qualifies as good music? Is it amount of detail, number overlapping layers, use of advanced harmony, odd time signature, polyrhythms, complex melodies and counter-melodies...? Complexity > simplicity?






I think that simplifying can make elements that are left more prominent. Deciding what to exclude can be harder than adding things. Few brush strokes can paint a stronger picture than a million brush stokes.

In the left picture every element is important. You can hardly take anything away without degrading the character. But you could easily remove few thousand hairs from the lion on the right without anyone noticing. Both pictures are excellent, even though one is extremely simplified and the other complex.

However, neither simplicity nor complexity guaranties that the end product is any good.

PS: That Deorro song is like a Marvel movie. Simple, repetitive, lacks depth, won't advance the art form in any way etc., but it can still be fun.


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi (Aug 22, 2022)

PeterN said:


> Well, .... the concept of Western world being in decline (from moral to cultural) - *lets say this hypothetically* - is shared with vast majority of non Western world.
> 
> So lets keep it as one possibility.


Couldn't agree more. The last season of West World was pathetic 😩


----------



## youngpokie (Aug 22, 2022)

zigzag said:


> But really, what qualifies as good music? Is it amount of detail, number overlapping layers, use of advanced harmony, odd time signature, polyrhythms, complex melodies and counter-melodies...? Complexity > simplicity?


I think this points to the other dimension of this debate: the evolution of our cultural norms, and our unfortunate tendency to evaluate and judge (sometimes harshly) the past using the standards of the present. Edit: and of course vice versa!

A composer, architect and painter from the 1800s would take some rough idea and create a work of art on top of it via the process of elaboration. Adding a lot of thoughtful, meaningful and symbolic detail was central to the process; it was akin to giving life to something unrefined and "soulless".

But the standard has been different in the last hundred years or so. Ornamentation and beautification are now considered superficial and overwrought, while minimalism is the standard, a new kind of "realness". It can't be explained as the loss of craft and democratization of art even though that clearly happened - the cultural norms did indeed change, and we rightly admire Bahaus and Kandinsky.

In my view, the addictive nature of Classical era harmony in music means it continues to dominate today, even in this minimalist setting. It is returned to its basic building blocks. If there is any ornamentation and "beautification" at all, it's in production. To some ears, this music sounds painfully amateurish and primitive. To others, it's modern and instantly relatable. But that is an argument about values as so many said here.


----------



## xepocal (Aug 22, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> The standard has been different in the last hundred years or so. Ornamentation and beautification are now considered superficial and overwrought.


Wasn't the Baroque 'peak ornamentation' and what followed it (today's 'classical' music) a deliberate pushback against the perceived 'irrational' and 'excessive' playfulness of Baroque music? A return to simpler times and simpler, more minimalist, less self-indulgent, less ornamented music.

So, were the universally admired greats that came after the Baroque just a bunch of hacks because their music was less complex?

I'd like to think most things, including music, go in circles. Fashion, hairstyles, architecture, names certainly do.

The kids wear crimped hair, round glasses, mullets, washed out blue plastic jackets and listen to cheesy synth strings. Where/when have I seen this before.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the 'good' music comes back.

Please, someone (PeterN) give me a rough set of parameters that separates the good music worthy of success from the bad music that we should bury out in the desert.


----------



## zigzag (Aug 22, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> In my view, the addictive nature of Classical era harmony in music means it continues to dominate today and even in this minimalist setting. It is returned to its basic building blocks. If there is any ornamentation and "beautification" at all, it's in production. To some ears, this music sounds painfully amateurish and primitive. To others, it's modern and instantly relatable. But that is an argument about values as so many said here.


One thing that attributed to simplification of music is probably technology. To fill full frequency spectrum composers used to need to skillfully utilize harmony and orchestration. But with the invention of loudspeakers, electronic instruments, analogue effects, digital effects and digital instruments this has progressively become easier. Now playing a single note can fill the full spectrum. No need to use more complicated composition techniques. Want to achieve a different color? Again, what used to be created with the choice of harmony and orchestration can now be achieved by selecting a different synth patch. Need more ornamentation and beautification? Just automate some parameters. Similar musical functions can now be achieved by using technology instead of a music theory.


----------



## PeterN (Aug 22, 2022)

xepocal said:


> Please, someone (PeterN) give me a rough set of parameters that splits the good music worthy of success from the bad music that we should bury out in the desert.


Nope.

Getting bored of this topic already. Besides, ideas and thoughts evolve, they are not nailed in wood. Summarised: I started lamenting, how the cliche attracts the masses (maybe obviously), but then it evolved suspecting cultural decline, and from that to pondering if dumbing down the population is a tool for totalitarianism, or maybe even a satanic spiritual force.

Today I dont give a fuck. You need to *really light the fire* if you want me continue.


----------



## youngpokie (Aug 22, 2022)

xepocal said:


> Wasn't the Baroque 'peak ornamentation' and what followed it (today's 'classical' music) a deliberate pushback against the perceived 'irrational' and 'excessive' playfulness of Baroque music?


It's possible but I am doubtful - it took a _very_ long time for Classical era to completely replace Baroque and the majority of the techniques were retained. Besides, Bach was resurrected and popularized by the Classical era composers themselves. If there was a rebellion, then it was very different from the burning of disco music LPs or the explosion of grunge in reaction to Ace of Base.


----------



## MarcusD (Aug 22, 2022)

Music is the sum of as an artist(s) ability to articulate their language through the tools they use. Obviously personality, experience and creativity factor into this equation, but at the end of the day, it's all about how well you speak YOUR language, not how well you speak someone else's. That's not to say the latter is bad, but I think that's where a lot of similarities stem from. The more you consciously distance your self from that, the more original the music will sound.

With that said, to me, music, is no different to having a conversation. It's just some people are better at articulating thoughts & feelings, or the approach in which they do so, uniquely captivating. I guess you could say, music is the science of clarity, in which meaning is delivered - and how well the listener can relate to it. I don't know though... Just my 2 pence.


----------



## PeterN (Aug 22, 2022)

MarcusD said:


> Music is the sum of as an artist(s) ability to articulate their language through the tools they use. Obviously personality and creativity factor into this equation, but at the end of the day, it's all about how well you speak YOUR language, not how well you speak someone else's. That's not to say the latter is bad, but I think that's where a lot of similarities stem from. The more you consciously distance your self from that, the more original the music will sound.
> 
> With that said, to me, music, is no different to having a conversation. It's just some people are better at articulating thoughts & feelings, or the approach in which they do so, uniquely captivating. I guess you could say, music is the science of clarity, in which meaning is delivered - and how well the listener can relate to it. I don't know though... Just my 2 pence.


That was fairly well articulated.


----------



## Rob (Aug 22, 2022)

I'm tempted to say there's emotion and emotion... all music is emotional, but touches different places in our "spirit". I find "La Mer" to be emotional, or Chopin's Piano concerto in E minor, it's just different feelings, the examples posted make me feel almost manipulated, like some advertising messages do.
Keith Jarrett sometimes wander in similar proximities, but not in so banal ways... this one got 154.000 views, in two years time


----------

