Song Review: "thank u, next" by Ariana Grande

I've heard so many people talk about this song and how everyone is losing their minds over it. One night, someone asked me "What's the big deal? How come this song is so big?" My answer at the time was simply "Well, what else is there?" which to be fair, I'm not wrong. If you're like me and don't like Trap, there's really nothing for you on the radio since it'll either be something boring like "Better Now" by Post Malone or really stupid like "Lucid Dreams" by Juice WRLD. On the pop spectrum we still have songs like "Girls Like You" by Maroon 5 which is so bad and lazy it was clearly written in autopilot, or "Happier" by Marshmallow ft. Bastille which just doesn't work despite the song being ok. However, despite all of this, the influence of Trap has been taking over the other "styles" of Pop music in recent years. For instance, the vocal melodies in "Girls Like You" have similar phrasings and rhythms are those in "Better Now". However, I hadn't listened to the song at the time so my answer was merely a guess based on what I have heard before on the Hot 100 and from Ariana prior to this release. Now that I've actually listened to the song...


The music is nice. If you listen to an instrumental version, it's a very nice lullaby. A soothing piano playing one little phrase, a motif, that's sweet despite the dissonant notes in the harmony. Very ethereal. It's a song I can close my eyes and feel myself floating in space. It kind of reminds me a of the ending credits song from the anime Nichijou ("zzz" by Sasaki Sayaka). In fact, now that I think about it, a mashup between "thank u, next" and "zzz" might be a little too obvious. But see, here's the first problem with the song, and it's not the music in itself, not at all. "zzz" is a song about going to sleep and waiting excitedly for the next day as it's going to be another fun-filled day, and the music reflects that. It's a gentle song with soft melodies that could cradle you to sleep, but its also a happy tune with a jumpy rhythm to reflect that excitement for what's to come. "thank u, next", also has a soft melody, and as I mentioned before, a sweet ethereal motif. However, as far as I can tell, the topic of the song (which I'll get into later) and the tone seem to be heavily inspired by the movie Mean Girls. Even the title "thank u, next" makes me think that this was going to be a song of Ariana bashing her ex-boyfriends and how they never really meant anything to her. Sounds rude and dismissive.While the song seems to be more introspective, there's still that mean spiritness looming over the lyrics (particularly in the chorus) and specially in the music video which is basically an homage to Mean Girls (seriously, why is that movie so damn popular all of the sudden...?). The result of this disconnect between what Ariana wants to do and the music is doing comes forward in the vocals. Ariana is a good singer, but she's overdoing it in this song. At first I thought the problem was her voice. Ariana is a power singer, and this song needed a sweeter, softer, voice. However, this assumption is wrong. She is singing in the right tone and volume (although the overdubs and the production go way too far and definitely kill the vibe) but the vocal melody is too harsh. This needed something more melodic, not something inspired from Hip Hop.


When you read something, you're tone of voice will naturally adapt to the general feel of what you're reading. If you read The Raven by Edgar Allan Poe, you're probably going to instinctively read it in a different tone of voice than you would Green Eggs & Ham by Dr. Seuss. What does this have to do with anything? Everything. The lyrics of "thank u, next" are for the most part very harsh and mean, and maybe that's why despite Ariana singing softly, it comes across as something harder. At first, this song caught my attention because, as I mentioned before, I thought it was going to be a song of Ariana empowering herself by trash talking her exes, which turned out to be not wrong but not in the way I thought. The impression I get from this song is that it's about Ariana reflecting on her past relationships, why they failed, and how those failures allowed her to grow and mature as a person. This is such a mature, bittersweet, somber, and joyful topic to tackle. She adds to this beautifully interesting subject by suggesting in the second verse that she met someone who loves her and will not leave her no matter what. This person is implied to be herself. What a wonderful moral to sing in a time where depression and anxiety is growing in the general population. Time to ruin it with cursing and Hip Hop slang. I'm sorry but the word contractions, verses like "but this one gon' last", "that shit's amazing", and "I'm so f***ing grateful for my ex" take away from a song that otherwise would be mature and introspective. It sounds childish with all the swears. It reminds me of when I was in 6th grade and my classmates would add unnecessary swears to every sentence because they thought that was the adult thing to do. Not to mention that for lyrics that sound so bittersweet, it's such a shame that we go back into this Mean Girls nonsense in the chorus by repeating "Thank you, next". That line shouldn't be in a song about growth or self love. I guess after the first verse it kind of makes sense if you squint at it. Ariana reminisces about some of her exes and answers with "Thank you, next". A little mean spirited and dismissive but at least the message can be interpreted as "it's time to move on". After the second verse, though, this interpretation falls apart since she's talking about herself. Who is she saying "Thank you, Next" to? Herself? This seems very counter productive to the idea of self love. Then, on the verse before the last chorus, she sings about her wedding and walking the aisle with her mother and thanking her father right before she sings "Thank you, next" to...? See the problem here?


Why is this song so big? I still think because there really isn't anything else. Ariana Grande is the only performer who has really manage to balance the current sounds of R&B and Hip Hop that's trending and Traditional Pop Music. For those who like more traditional Pop, what do we have? Maroon 5? That's disgusting, no thank you. "thank u, next" is not that bad a song, musically, at least. I'd be very happy to hear an instrumental Jazz arrangement  of this song. However, the problems in tone, lyrics, and vocal delivery are what kills it for me. Plus, I'm just sick and tired of the sound of the current pop centrism. A sound that doesn't inspire, challenge, or excites. A sound that's just there. Would I recommend the song? Probably not. The instrumentals are nice but not interesting enough to tell someone to check it out (although I'd love that instrumental Jazz arrangement I mentioned) and the lyrics are not worth looking into as they are written. If the song had better (or rather, more inspired writers), then it might've worked. But as is, all I have to say about it is: Thank you, next.



UPDATE:  I don't usually do updates but I felt this needed to be addressed. I don't follow celebrity news at all, so when I wrote this I didn't know about Ariana's personal life. When you do know about it, this song makes a whole lot of sense. Lines like "He was an Angel" take a whole 'nother meaning once you know who she's talking about and, most importantly, what happened to him. However, I don't think this changes anything about what I said about the song but rather reinforces my critiques. All the cursing and the slang doesn't add to such an emotional and personal song, it takes away from it. Specially now that I know that she wasn't singing from an abstract concept but real, personal experience. She may not be singing about 100% real events necessarily, but she's singing about real people and real feelings. Not to mention the tone is even more of a problem now. The snarky/mean attitude in the song makes sense for some of her bad relationships, but not for her relationship with Mac Miller, for example. The very dismissive attitude of the chorus almost suggests she didn't care about him which, from what I can find, it's completely not true.

Song Review: "Alexander Hamilton" by Lin-Manuel Miranda/ "Alexander Anderson" by Team Four Star

It's been 3 years since Hamilton hit the stage and swept the entire nation as the new, hottest show on Broadway. Lin-Manuel Miranda, the man behind the play and its music, has gotten a reputation after Hamilton and his work in Disney's Moana. As someone who was part of the theater club in college, I have heard the Hamilton soundtrack over and over again and I never thought too much of it.  However, last year around October, YouTube Channel Team Four Star released their 8th Episode for Hellsing Abridged and in that episode they made a parody of the opening number of Hamilton to send off one of the main characters: Alexander Anderson. I adored this version and get carried away every time I listen to it. Why? This review is mostly an analysis on why I liked one version so much when the original version of the song was so forgettable. Because this is a song from a musical, however, the context and its role in the larger story is important. Songs in any good musical tell the story and further the plot. Not viewing "Alexander Hamilton" (and by extension, "Alexander Anderson" as well) in the context of the grander picture would do a great disservice to the song (fortunately, it is the opening number of the play). Also, I won't be talking about the lyrics too much because they serve their purpose and there's nothing that strikes me particularly interesting on either song. In other words, this analysis and comparison is strictly musical (composition, arrangement, and its relevance and effectiveness on each song's respective stories). One last thing before we dive in, I'll be calling Lin-Manuel Miranda's version "Hamilton" and Team Four Star's version "Anderson" to avoid any confusion.


The first thing I've didn't liked about "Hamilton" is, ironically enough, the rapping. The rhythm and syncopation doesn't sound groovy and very out of breath. In "Hamilton", everyone sounds very uncomfortable singing their parts. I don't know how to explain it, but their delivery sounds forced (I'll come back to this later).  As an opening number, however, it is the perfect song: starting with an loud opening, followed by a string ensemble transitioning to a lower, softer, tone to catch the audience's attention. The way the song builds in intensity eases and engages the audience into the story. Not to mention, this song tells you who the main character is, and introduces other characters and their impressions of Alexander Hamilton. Lin-Manuel Miranda had to summarize 20 years of a man's life before the play began and this song was a good way to naturally dump exposition, not to mention set the tone for the rest of the play.

"Anderson", on the other hand, took an interesting approach. As a parody, it obviously made the changes to fit their story and characters. But, instead of the opening number, "Anderson" is the closing song. This change affects the tone of the song, somewhat. While in Hamilton the song is used as an introduction to the character, Team Four Star used the song as a Eulogy, a Memorial. In "Hamilton", one of the characters sings before the final chorus "I'm the damn fool that shot him" but this doesn't come across, in my opinion, as a character moment but rather a fact. Again, we are just being introduced to these characters so this statement has no emotional impact. This is knowledge, not emotion. "Anderson" changes the line to "I'm the vampire that shot him" to keep in spirit of the characters of their story. However, this line now has weight to it. When Alucard sings this line, there's an impact unlike when Burr sings it, because the relationship between the characters has been established in one but not in the other. Moving the song to the end allowed that line, and many of the lyrics of the song, to have weight. This is the second problem that I see with the original: either it doesn't understand how to create emotion and just works as exposition, or it assumes that we know American history and the characters beforehand to force a response out of us (which would be incompetent from a story telling perspective). One might argue that once you see the play and re-listen to the song, you feel that emotion because you have experienced the life of Hamilton. The counter argument would be that Team Four Star didn't assume anything so the song hits you on the first listen. The songs are essentially the same, but the "when" the song is played made one version a lot better than the other. "Hamilton" is an exposition song. "Anderson" is a eulogy song. A book can tell you about a character, a song can make you feel it.

As mentioned before,  I don't like the delivery in the original song. could it be awkward songwriting or the singers themselves? The way the cast sings the song seems forced and it feels like they are always dragging behind and trying to catch up to the beat. Why? Let's look at how the song is written. The song accentuates the weak beats. This syncopation may be the reason with why it may sound like the song is dragging or stretching the melody. The problem with this assumption is that is Eminem did this in "Shake That" (ft. Nate Dogg) and it didn't sound dragged or stretched.  Maybe the way these singers were trained did not match the singing techniques required to pull off this song and that's what made it sound awkward. So, how does Team Four Star compare? Well, they fair a lot better than the Hamilton cast. They seem a lot more comfortable with this style of singing than the Hamilton cast (plus extra points because most of the cast of Hellsing Abridged are changing their voice and/or faking accents while singing). In "Anderson", it sounds less forced and more natural. I cannot really explain why or how one sounds more natural than the other, but to put it simply: "Hamilton" feels like if Frank Sinatra tried to rap. One is more in its element than the other.

The instrumental arrangement is what makes all the difference. Lin-Manuel Miranda's version and Team Four Star's parody are essentially the same song. So whatever is good about one is good about the other (in terms of composition). "Hamilton" consists of a piano, a string ensemble, a drum machine, drums, and maybe a guitar. Again, a lot of the hoopla behind Hamilton was "modern"/"contemporary" musical gimmick of using the elements of rap and electronic music. I call it a gimmick because in the grander scheme of things, these elements add nothing to the story.

Furthermore, they don't blend well in "Hamilton". When the drum machine kicks in, there is no transition, no lead-in, nothing. It just starts while being accentuated by an overly dramatic strumming of the string section, and instead of creating a new dynamic level organically, it feels like a forced stop in the momentum in the song just so it can jam this drum track where it doesn't belong. This is where the song loses me. When the rest of the instruments are re-instated, these elements work a little better together but not by a whole lot. When I said the build up in the song "Hamilton" was good, I was referring to the idea. I have no doubt this was the intended, but the execution of this idea will fall flat if the proper lead-ins, or transitions, aren't used. In order for the song to build up, it has to do it naturally. You can drastically change the style of a song, the tempo, the time signature, the rhythm, but these changes are meant to stop a song's momentum and take it in a different direction. They are not meant to build up to a climax. The drum machine is really a bigger problem than it should. Going back to not adding anything to the plot, rapping can be done acoustically, so in the context of a Period Piece Musical while not a genre or musical style present in the time period, it can fit as rapping is essentially fast talking poetry. The drum machine is not. Some People might argue that the addition of the drum machine doesn't matter because the music in a musical is not a physical element in universe (i.e. people don't literally break into song). However, it absolutely does matter and here is why: Music tells a story. The instruments you choose, when they play, and what they are playing is important to the story. You don't put a Heavy Metal guitar on a song about tranquility. In a musical, this goes double. The Phantom of the Opera doesn't have songs written as an opera just because Andrew Loyd Webber wanted it that way, or Marc Shaiman didn't use Rhythm and Blues in Hair Spray (which is set in the 1960's) just because he thought it would be cool. The music was written selectively to be the brushes utilize that paint the canvas, not adornments. What is the purpose of all of this modern production on Hamilton? This is mainly what Team Four Star got right.

"Anderson" consists of a piano, a string ensemble, drum machine, drums, a brass section, church bells, and choir. Naturally, "Anderson" has a richer and fuller sound because of the addition of a brass section and choir. But that's not what fixes the problems "Hamilton" has in regards to musical arrangement. First, let's talk about the introduction of the troublesome drum machine. In "Hamilton", the drum machine takes over, overpowering the snapping of the fingers (the percussion up to that point) and the piano. In "Anderson", when the drum machine kicks in, what accentuates its arrival is not the strings, but a church bell. First of all, the soft ringing of the bell keeps a somber tone, but most importantly accentuates the introduction of the drum machine in a less jarring way. Also, the volume of said drum machine is way lower in "Anderson" than in "Hamilton" so it doesn't overshadow the rest of the instruments in the song. It doesn't feel forced or jammed. It feels like a natural progression. Another thing that helps the transition into the drum machine is that Alucard doesn't change his singing style when it hits. When Burr sings that part, he is trying so hard to sound like a rapper that it makes the transition even more noticeable and forced. Alucard does sing with a little more intensity but his vocal delivery is not that different from his first verse. The other problem Team Four Star fixes is that every instrument played has a purpose in the song. Who is Alexander Anderson? Alexander Anderson is a Catholic Priest, a member of the Iscariot Organization. A man fully devoted to God and killing Vampires and other demons (and heathens). The inclusion of the church bells and the choir play into the character  of Alexander Anderson. The inclusion of a brass section creates a heroic and epic tone on many parts of the song, and what is a vampire hunter but a hero? Furthermore, now the drum machine is not out of place anymore! While Team Four Star never establishes a date for when the series is happening (and neither does the original anime), the references and jokes made in every episode maked it very clear that the show (at least the parody) is set in present day. This fusion of the Old and the New merge better in "Anderson" because the setting and the character already merge the old traditions and the new world.


The song "Hamilton" is a brilliant way to get exposition out of the way and it kind of sets the tone for the rest of the play, however it fails to connect with the audience emotionally at that juncture. We get to know the characters to some degree but we don't get to feel their importance or influence in relation to each other (specially at that "I shot him" line), and every instrument and creative decision seems to be there for no other reason than "just because". "Anderson" took what was originally exposition and turned it into a surprisingly fitting and heartbreaking sendoff to the character. Every instrument matches and reflects the tone, the setting, and/or the story as a whole. Everything each character sings about Alexander Anderson means something because we got to know the whole cast..

This review was really for me to understand and clarify why I didn't like something so popular, yet enjoyed the parody infinitely more than the original. "Hamilton" had all the potential for greatness but failed to meet it. Once I took a deeper look into both versions I understood that it was about timing, delivery, and purpose. The simple and seemingly innocuous elements are what ended up breaking a song.

Song Review: "Flashback" by Miyavi (ft. KenKen)

Does anyone else remember when music was supposed to be good? Japanese guitarist Miyavi apparently remembers. On November 7th, 2017, Miyavi released Samurai Sessions Vol. 2 and it is amazing. This album is heavily influenced by Pop and Electronic music yet still holds on to its Rock edge. Long story short, give it a listen. It is seriously amazing and if I knew this existed when I did my Year End Retrospective, this would've most certainly been on the Best Songs of the Year category, undoubtedly. If you're still not convinced, the best way I can sum it up is: It's like "Something Just Like This" combining Electronic Music and Rock... but its actually original and creative. And/or I could say that it is like "Thunder" by Imagine Dragons... but Not terrible. If those comparisons don't convince you, then allow me to demonstrate to you why this album should be listened to by analyzing the most popular song of the album: "Flashback"

Where do I even begin...? "Flashback" is a collaboration between Miyavi and Japanese bass player KenKen. Now, if I'm completely honest, songs like "Forget You" and "No Thanks Ya" would be more of the breakout hits under normal circumstances as they are more traditionally Pop (still with a Rock edge). Those songs are more reminiscent of Rihanna and Nicki Minaj whereas "Flashback" is still Pop, but it is quite an odd song. "Flashback" had something that the other songs didn't. however: A vessel. "Flashback" got as popular as it did because it is the opening of an anime called Kokkoku. While the anime was not particularly good (from what I understand, I haven't seen it), "Flashback" caught the attention of the anime community by being one of the best opening songs of the season (if not, the best).

How did "Flashback" achieve this? To make it easy on myself, I'm going to split the song into the A Section and the B Section. Keep in mind, a guitarist who plays slap and a bass player who plays slap playing on a song together, you are guaranteed an amazing funk-like groove. "Flashback" delivers immensely on that and even goes beyond by giving 10 times what it promised. The beat in the A Section and the B Section are both amazing, brimming with energy.  The beat and the groove are hard hittingly wonderful and it all stems from not only the musical composition but the fact that the bass and guitar are playing with so much fun over this beat that it is contagious. That is not to say that is its only strength. What makes the song so accessible is simplicity and the way it is written:
In the A Section we have a verse (an introduction with little instrumental accompaniment), the drop (where the beat, and the song, kick in), Repetition of the first verse (with full instrumental accompaniment), the drop (with added percussion), then the bridge into the B Section. It is a short song, and while it is musically complex, it's fun, catchy, energetic and contagious. The oddities begin from the moment the song kicks in (at the first drop): the bass plays a short riff, funky as expected from KenKen, but when played with Miyavi's guitar riff (aided with a Pitch Shifter, giving it a more electronic tone to the guitar) it sounds kind of disjointed, which is not helped by the drums which land the beat on the weak beat. At the drop, the song becomes very minimal, allowing you to hear this strange cacophony with no distractions. But it works. Why? Well, needless to say the drop is not actually disjointed, it's the bass and guitar riffs that create this illusion but it is just an illusion. The bass and guitar even share the first 2 notes of the riff before branching out into their separate paths and the back beat creates a funky/dance beat for it all to take place. The reason it's so minimal is because Miyavi wants to feel the groove, get familiarized with the beat before he adorns it later with more percussion and effects when we come back to it. Not to mention, that drop, the guitar riff played by Miyavi, is catchy as hell. Listen to it once and it'll be in your head for a while.

About one third through the song, the bridge leads in to the B Section where the music comes to a sudden stop. This section is actually very simple. It's only one stanza, 8 bars which repeat over, and over, and over again. A group of backup singers (which sound like children voices) sing:

                 Japanese Phonetic                                                         English Translation

" Don't Stop Modoranai Flashback                            " Don't Stop No Turning Back Flashback
  Look Up Kidzukeba It's all Past                                Look Up Realize It's all Past
  Too Fast Hikisakaresou sa Ahh~ Ahh~ "                  Too Fast We're Almost Torn Apart Ahh~ Ahh~ "

While simple, this is one of those cases where simplicity is best. The song repeats these 8 bars 9 times in total (I counted). It's 2 minutes of the same 8 bars. Doesn't it get boring? On principle, yes. In Practice, not only does it not get boring, it works wonderfully. The First time it plays, the only things you hear is the choir and a gentle synth laying out the chords. The Second time it plays, the bass kicks in with a funky (and very impressive) bass riff that creates tension as the kick drum marks the tempo. The Third time it comes around, the snare drum comes in laying the backbeat and the chords are now reinforced by the guitar making them clearer. The Fourth time it comes around its the kicker: everything up until now has been buildup to this moment and that's when the instruments come at full force as Miyavi plays some fills to accompany the rest of the song until the 6th repetition. Then he plays a guitar solo on top of all this on the 7th repetition where he plays this pretty dark harmonic riff to contrast the "funky party" feel of the song until the 9th repetition where the song once again comes back down to the choir and the guitar laying out the chords.

The reason why this repetition works and it's not tedious nor it gets boring is because the song is very dynamic and the repetition is used to build up to a climax and then come back down to a resolution. It's actually the same reason "Shape of You" works despite the song being literally one 8 bar riff. Like Ed Sheeran, Miyavi starts simple and as the song progresses through each part he adds something to keep the momentum going, yet he keeps it familiar. It is a way for us, the listener, to anchor ourselves and latch on to something as the artist keeps adding more and more stuff on top of this core. While Ed Sheeran does this throughout the entire song through very subtle ways, Miyavi makes explicit additions unto the song with each repetition. Starting simple and gradually adding the other elements to the song is a great way to make the song dynamic, and by the time we hit the climax (around repetition number 4) we are so familiarized with the song that all we have to do is jam with it. By the time the 9th repetition comes around and the song dials back down to a calmer note, we are left with a kind of "high".


"Flashback" is an amazing song, 10/10. If knew this existed when I did my year end review, any song from "Samurai Sessions vol. II" would've been easily my pick for best song of the year, but specially this one. This song is fun, energized, contagious, and an all around good time. Every time I listen to it, I have to play it again several times to satisfy that "high" this song gives. I didn't go into details of the lyrics because they aren't that important to the song. They're not particularly good per say (they aren't bad either). It just feels amazing to sing along (trust me). Safe to say that "Flashback" is all about the music: making sure the song sounds good and feels good. The lyrics, to me, are simply  means to that end. I had the honor to see this song being performed live and I guarantee the energy present in the album version is half of what it is like to listen this song Live. To me, it is such a shame that quality work like this is relegated to a niche market while in the mainstream we keep getting garbage like Maroon 5 and Imagine Dragons. Miyavi succeeded where other rock bands have failed: make a Pop album with a rock edge. Unlike Imagine Dragons's "Thunder" which highlights the worst that Rock and Pop can offer, Miyavi's "Flashback" highlights the best of what this combo can do for you. What can I say but give "Flashback" a listen. While you're at it, give the entire album a listen as well.

Song Review: "La Cantata del Diablo" by Mägo de Oz

If I were asked my top 3 favorite songs of all time, the songs that would come to mind are (from worst to best) "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" by The Beatles and "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen. The last song would be "La Cantata del Diablo" by Mägo de Oz. Now, let me come clean and clear up an argument that I'm sure someone will point out: Mägo de Oz is my favorite band of all time. Aren't I'm being biased to call this song "the best song of all time" because it's by my favorite band of all time? While that is a fair question, the answer is NO. Here's why:


1) This song is not my favorite song of all time because is by Mägo de Oz. Mägo de Oz is my favorite band of all time BECAUSE of this song. I will go into detail as to why this song is a masterpiece in this review, but for now let's make it clear that I'm not blinded by my "fanboy" mind.

2) If I am to be a critic, I MUST remain 100% objective when looking at any piece of work, regardless of who is it by. In fact, the arguments I despise the most are the ones defending a piece of work just because is made by this one renowned artist, like it has been the case with "Baby Driver" where the biggest argument in favor of it has been that it was made by Edgar Wright. "Baby Driver" is a terrible movie because it's a terrible movie and Edgar Wright has nothing to do with how good or bad this movie turned out to be.

3) I will admit when something is not good. Mägo de Oz is not perfect and they have made a lot of terrible music alongside great songs. In fact, there are bands I have more consistently praised like Wagakki-Band and Diablo Swing Orchestra than I have Mägo de Oz (to the point when people are surprised when I tell them that Mägo de Oz is indeed my favorite band).

4) This is mostly a disclaimer: "La Cantata del Diablo" has a lot of religious imagery and the song brutally attacks the Catholic Church (it even ends with a perversion of the Pater Noster prayer that serves as a giant middle finger to the church) so it'll be undoubtedly controversial. When talking about the lyrics, I will explain the context and how it's not really about religion at all but if you're getting offended just by reading this, then you should probably stop reading this. My suggestion would be keep an open mind and check the song out but if that's not what you want, you're free to do as you please.


"La Cantata del Diablo" was released in 2005 as the album closer for the second album in the Gaia Trilogy "Gaia II: La Voz Dormida". This is a monster of a song to review as it is 21 minutes and 11 seconds in length. Furthermore, I would call this song a "One Act Musical". Musically speaking, it has 3 lead singers, 3 guitars (acoustic and electric), 1 bass, 1 keyboard, 1 drummer, 1 lead violin and one lead flute, a band of bagpipes, and orchestra, and a choir. Wikipedia is also telling me the song also has a Caxixi, a Bodhrán, a Piccolo, and a Tamboril and although it's not listed, I can also hear a Rainstick. As far as I know, this song has only been performed live once and understandably so. "La Cantata del Diablo" doesn't have all these instruments just because. Mägo de Oz uses each one to create a mood and varying sonic textures to create a song with a wide dynamic range while shifting in tone and musical genre. "La Cantata del Diablo" is a masterpiece and it is 21 minutes because that's how long the song needed to be to give the music time to fully unravel and be displayed at its full potential. The song is also divided in movements/chapters and they each sound different, allowing the song to never become tiresome or boring.

On a general level, the music is beautifully composed and the symphonic aspects of the piece and the Heavy Metal aspects of the piece are not only handled wonderfully, but the relation between the two is fully taken advantage of. For instance, when the song starts (after the a big choir singing in latin), it starts with an acoustic guitar playing a sweet yet dark arpeggio (in D minor) while the flute and violin play the melody. It's a beautiful sound but it keeps an air of mystery and dread. Once the character of the inquisitor enters the stage, the heavy distorted guitars and the heavy beating drums come in changing the mood entirely from a dark eerie calm to a violent confrontation. It elevates to "base level" intensity which is more typical of what you'd expect from a power metal song, but never losing the theatricality as the characters sing back in forth to each other. When it comes back down, it returns to the calm but it's not eerie anymore. While still in D minor, the way the guitar is strummed (not fingerpicked) plus the addition of instruments like the Rainstick create a soothing tone (fitting as it is when the character supposedly dies and meets his god). On an individual level, the song has what you expect from top level musicians. While it is not Prog Rock solos, the solos in "La Cantata del Diablo" are superb, and everyone is forced to play. There are multiple guitar and keyboard solos but there is also a bass solo, bagpipes solo, and multiple flute and violin solos. Everyone gets to show off and it is so top notch that when they played it Live, many of the solos were changed (most of the musicians who played in this song were gone by the time they played it live). This was just a sample of what listening to "La Cantata del Diablo" is like. It is truly an experience that I cannot fully describe in a concise manner. Speaking of that only live version of the song, I can understand why. While, if I'm honest, it's not a complex Progressive Metal song with multiple strange time signatures and Jazz chords, it is a hard song to pull off AND to pull of well. When Mägo de Oz decided to play it live it was because they had the right amount of musicians, budget, coordination, and rehearsal time to pull it off. This goes to show how good of a song this is that the band didn't even attempt to play it live unless they knew they had everything they needed to recreate the experience "La Cantata del Diablo" provides when you listen to the studio version.

"La Cantata del Diablo" uses satanic imagery (the whole album does, actually) and it attacks very harshly the catholic church. The song doesn't wait any time by starting with a choir singing in latin "In the name of the devil and Belial, Satan, Lucifer, Astaroth, and Yahweh". As mentioned in the disclaimer, this in itself might be controversial and offensive to many, but bare in mind the following: The religious imagery used in the song is a metaphor for the greater issue at hand. Mägo de Oz is not a band of Satan Worshippers criticizing Catholicism but attacking the idea of Religion and how people have corrupted it to benefit their own needs and control the masses. Why from a perspective of  Satanism? Well, the simple answer is "they're a metal band". However, while there is Satanic imagery, the main character doesn't worship Satan in actuality, but Gaia. In fact, the story of "La Cantata del Diablo" is about an Aztec named Azaak who is captured by the sent to burn to death by the Inquisition for refusing to convert and be baptized. Satanism doesn't play a direct part on the narrative or the content of the song, but I do believe it plays a part on the theme of the song (and the band as a whole). In my research on Satanism, one of the things that jumped out to me were the values of Independence, Respect, and Education and Knowledge which is almost one to one with the philosophy of Mägo de Oz in general. If I could sum up the creed of the song and the band with one line it would be "In the name of Freedom, Faith in Oneself, and Peace, burn down the flags and say 'no' to religion. And may your god be a song written from the heart, and may your country be wherever your feet take you". Despite "La Cantata del Diablo" being a direct attack on the church and Catholicism, the song can and almost begs to be interpreted in a grander umbrella. The song is about freedom from the shackles of religion, politics, and a cry to break down the barriers that keep us divided as human beings. Although, on the note of giving the Catholic Church a giant middle finger, the song ends with a perversion of the Pater Noster called "El Salmo de los Desheredados" (translated as "Psalm of the Disinherited") which is just a brutal critique on Catholicism with lines like "It doesn't matter if you are a triune. With one willing to help would be enough" and "Our daily bread are rapes, gender violence, pederasty, dictatorships, and climate change". In short, its a showcase of everything religion has promised contrasted with what we actually have. However, they way it is written says that is not just a "I hate religion, and god, because it makes me angry" kind of criticism, but a call to action to bind together. The prayer starts "Our Father, of All of Us, of the poor, of the homeless, of the disinherited and those without protection. Of those who follow you and those who worship you no longer". We are ALL the disinherited, abandoned by this "Fatherly God". The prayer reinforces this notion by asking "What is thy Kingdom? The Vatican? The Banks? The high politics? Our kingdom is Nigeria, Ethiopia, Colombia, Hiroshima". It is harsh, gripping, and inspiring, to be honest. It's not destructive to be destructive. It is not dark for the sake of being dark and edgy. It is a psalm to break down the walls that have separated us for far too long.

"La Cantata del Diablo" by Mägo de Oz is a monster of a song and well worth your time. I encourage you to give it a listen and not let the language barrier stop you from giving this song a chance. I understand this song is not for everyone due to its length, genre, and sure, political, social, and religious points of view. However there's no denying the level of artistry Mägo de Oz has achieved with this song with well written lyrics, well composed and arranged music, and thought provoking message. "La Cantata del Diablo" is in the end a song of Freedom and Unity. When Mägo de Oz played this song live in Mexico, not only was everyone singing and cheering the entire song but when the "Psalm of the Disinherited" came up, the cheering stopped. The claps and screams stopped. Everyone began praying. Line by Line, every single line of the psalm resonated through the arena. 22 thousand people with their heads held up high as they scream to the heavens "Our Father, of all of us. Why have you forgotten us? Our Father, Blind, Deaf, and with nothing to do, why have you abandoned us" was awe inspiring to me. This to me is what the song wanted to achieve: a community of brothers and sisters. Music is said to bring people together of different backgrounds, ethnicities, creeds, and nationalities. This has certainly been echoed with bands like BABYMETAL where I have gone to a concert with undeniable hardcore metalheads and people how don't even like metal at all, or Miyavi who practices this philosophy and uses it to further humanitarian efforts. "La Cantata del Diablo" is the song, to me, that actively tries to achieve this through its powerful and enticing music.

Avengers: Infinity War (Quick Analysis)

As many predicted, Infinity War was a big event and people knew that it was going to be big because many will die. What people didn't know is the scale. Reactions on social media and the memes coming out of the Marvel fan community have centered (on the most part) on how Infinity War left them emotionally wrecked. I went to watch it and... I think all these people need to watch Madoka Magica to know what being emotionally wrecked is really like. To be clear, the movie is good. It has the Marvel standard of quality: it's serious, dumb, funny, engaging, and entertaining in all the right places. Infinity War is a solid 8/10. However, the biggest impact according to fans failed in my eyes. Why?
To be clear, this is NOT a review on the movie. If you seen any Marvel movie, you know what to expect from this. If you didn't like it, you probably didn't like any of the other movies so why did you watch this one? Again, solid 8/10. Also, since I will be focusing on character deaths and the villain there will be a huge amount of spoilers (and in this movie, there are a lot, so watch the movie before reading this).

First, let's talk about Thanos. He is a good villain. Nothing more to say there. For a character that isn't really intimidating, everyone who worked on him really succeeded in making him a believable threat. Strangely enough, also sympathetic, which was a pleasant surprise. I felt for Thanos, which didn't make me root for him but it did make him more of a three dimensional character and not just some generic evil intergalactic schoolyard bully. So, what's my problem with Thanos? Well, not with him exactly, but what he becomes by the end of the film. By the end of the movie, Thanos obtains all infinity stones, making him the most powerful being in the universe. The problem with this is that not only are we told about what he is able to do with that power, but we see it. The Villain won. Creating a challenge for our heroes is fine, but Thanos defeated our heroes starting with one stone and now he has all of them, and half of the heroes are dead. Not to mention that among the stones he has, he possesses a stone that can warp reality and a stone that can reverse time (with no clear limits on these powers). I've seen this scene before. The anime Soul Eater walked through this exact plot line (Spoilers for Soul Eater, if you haven't finished it): Asura needed to do something to become completely invincible... and then he does. Then, this invincible entity that even Death couldn't beat is defeated by getting punched in the face by a 14 year old girl. The anime tries to shoe horn an explanation on how Courage defeats Madness (I guess using the same logic as Rock-Paper-Scissors) but I think anyone who has watched the anime can agree that it was absolutely terrible. The way Infinity War ended has me worried more about the writers than the heroes (more on that on the second point). Thanos, by the universe's own rules, has become too powerful which will lead to either a gimmicky Deus Ex Machina (which may or may not involve Captain Marvel) or some logically sound but unsatisfying ending. I will definitely see the next Avengers movie, but only to see how the writers get themselves out of this corner.

Second, let's talk about death. A lot of characters died in Infinity War, MANY of them unceremoniously. People's been reacting mostly the way they're supposed to: sad and mourning. I, on the other hand, am just asking one thing: "Ok... out of all of the characters who died, how many of them will STAY dead"? Here's why I don't buy most of the character deaths in Infinity War.

(Casualties: Loki, Vision, Gamora, Winter Soldier, Drax, Groot, Mantis, Starlord, Spiderman, Doctor Strange, Falcon, Black Panther, Maria Hill, and Nick Fury)

1) It was never established that a main character could die in this universe like in Game of Thrones or Mahou Shojo Madoka Magica. It's very unlikely they would kill so many characters this late in the game. "They killed Quicksilver" you might say, but Quicksilver was pretty much introduced to be killed. "They could go the Harry Potter route" you say and sure, that could be true, except that Harry Potter started killing characters  at the end of the series to make the War of the Wizards mean something in regards to narrative stakes, and to prevent the temptation of wanting to bring back the ones who died. We know that Marvel has plenty of movies coming (including for those killed in Infinity War). Furthermore, it has been established more times in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that characters can cheat death. Furthermore, characters have more consistently cheated death in this movie than they have actually died. To the point were Thanos had to break the fourth wall to tell us "Yes, Loki is dead. For Real this time". Death in this universe means very little from a reality point of view and an In-universe point of view.

2) Many of the deaths mean nothing to the plot. When it comes to characters who stay dead, Vision and Gamora would make sense because their deaths served a purpose. That's the kind of movie this is. Nick Fury, Maria Hill, and Falcon could stay dead because (like Quicksilver) they are not that big of characters to kill off while still being beloved to have an emotional reaction. But let's be honest here... Killing Doctor Strange is outlandish enough. 3/4 of the Guardians of the Galaxy, they are certainly coming back because you know Marvel wouldn't kill Guardians of the Galaxy 3. Killing off Spiderman after all the legal battle with Sony for his rights? KILLING OFF BLACK PANTHER!? Of course Marvel would kill off their most celebrated movie (which is still on the theaters, by the way, and has a sequel in production).

I can't feel emotionally invested in these character deaths because most of the Deaths in Infinity War are inconsequential. In Game of Thrones they established early on that ANYONE can die at ANY TIME (no plot armor for nobody). Madoka Magica killed one of their leads by episode 3. Establishing this in the narrative is not just for shock and stakes. It establishes a universal rule in the world we are exploring: Death is an unforgiving mistress. In the Marvel Universe this was never established. Death happened to make you sad or to further the plot, and even then, it was a supporting character or villain, NEVER a lead. So, killing off so many leads this late in the game is simply not believable. Furthermore, if Marvel tries to shoe horn all of these deaths as permanent, well... most are unsatisfying deaths. Again, only Vision and Gamora died in any significant way. Everyone else just vanished into a puff of smoke. It comes out of nowhere and makes no sense either from a business/marketing perspective nor a narrative perspective.

Movie Non-Review: Death Note (2017)

I'm going to give in and talk about Netflix's attempt at a Death Note movie. Before I do, I need to clear some things up.
1) Unlike my other reviews, I have NOT watched the movie and I will NOT be watching this movie. Why? Simply because I think the movie will suck and be a waste of my time and the reviews and reactions seem to have proven to me so. Therefore, I will take my money and spend it on something worthwhile. I refuse to contribute to studios and companies making terrible movies and people watching and paying for them because they didn't want to watch them. That makes no sense, and it gives these people what they want: money.
2) This movie has been bothering me for a while because I think people have been misunderstanding this movie. Some people like it because it's "so bad it's good". Some people hate it because its bad. Some people like it because it was different and some people hate it because it was different. People can like and dislike whatever they want, but from the arguments I've heard, people have been missing the most important point when making any adaptation. So, I'm going to address that as well.
3) As I have not seen the movie, these criticisms will come from what I've seen and heard. Furthermore, I'm not here to tell you why this movie is good or bad, but rather how, and why it failed as an adaptation.I repeat, This Non-review is not about my thought's on Netflix's Death Note adaptation but understanding why this movie failed as an adaptation.
4) Whatever critiques I have will NOT be towards the director for I don't know how much say he actually had in this movie. Film is a collaborative effort and sometimes a director has the least control in a production. In other words, my criticisms will be addressed to Netflix as a stand in for the director, producers, the studio executives, screenwriters, etc.
5) Seeing how I'm going to be talking about how the story was adapted, I'll be referencing many details about the Story in the anime (aka, SPOILERS).


Let's start from the beginning: What is Death Note?

Very long story short, Death Note is a manga series written by Tsugumi Ohba and Takeshi Obata that ran from 2003 to 2006 (Spanning 12 volumes). It was adapted into an anime series in 2006 and finished airing on June 2007. The Story is about a high school student, Light Yagami, who stumbles across the Death Note: a notebook capable of killing anyone as long as you have a name and a face. As Light begins to kill a bunch of criminals (under his alias Kira), a police task force is formed to capture him lead by world famous detective L.

What is Death Note about?

Some people might be wondering already if I forgot to mention the shinigami (or Gods of Death) in my brief synopsis and to answer that: No, I haven't. I deliberately left them out to make a very clear point about Death Note. Doesn't matter how you interpret the story, Death Note is about HUMAN AFFAIRS.

The Wisecrack channel on YouTube made an interesting video on the Philosophy of Death Note and described the anime as a Socratic Dialogue. This is a very accurate description of the series because Death Note asked some questions about Justice, Morality, Tyranny, and Society, but never gave us an answer. We are tasked to ask ourselves these questions, discuss them, and maybe come up with answers. The story was carefully constructed to be a tool for discussion and the "Gods" serve one of the main starting points of this philosophical discussion: They don't care about our ideals. Its all meaningless to them. Having Ryuk, Rem, and other shinigami partake in the action allow for the story happen but also show the detachment between Gods and Humans.

Let's take a look at character motivations: characters like Light, L, Chief Yagami, Misa, Near, Mello, and the police task force have their motivations rooted in some sort of "greater good" (Justice, Family, Civil Protection, Love, etc). Characters like Ryuk, Rem, Jealous, and Sidoh have their motivations rooted in boredom and self interest. Ryuk explicitly states throughout the entire series that he has no alliance to neither Kira nor L and the anime makes it very clear that when he helps Light is because of his own self interest (for example, when Ryuk located all the cameras in Light's house because Light convinced him that he could eat apples if he found a blind spot). Sidoh is especially important because he's whole introduction and character arc is that he wants his notebook back. Sidoh is such a pointless character that I had to look him up. Why bother writing someone like him into the story? Simple, to drive the point home that they are NOT interested in our "greater good".

What's my point here? Well, if you are writing a story about Justice, Good, and Evil, having an all powerful being sway the characters one way or the other takes away from the meaning of their actions. If I went to trial for murdering 7 children and proved that I was commanded by God or possessed by Satan to do so, then I'm not evil. I didn't do anything, in fact, I maybe wasn't even in control: it was God's will. Death Note, by removing all powerful beings from influencing our characters makes them responsible for their actions and makes them have to justify their philosophy.

Side Note: Leaving the obvious reference to Michael Angelo aside,
Notice that Light is not only chained
but also his wings are melting just as they did in the Myth of Icarus.
This reference is more than a simple reference
or homage. It is a metaphor for the characters and the story.
The higher Light goes, the more knowledge and power he obtains,
the greater will be his inevitable fall.

Before I move on to Netflix, let's talk some history. For those who don't know, Death Note is semi-based on a real life story. Shoko Asahara was the leader of the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan (formed in 1984). He believed himself to be a god and the world to be rotten. Asahara believed that in order to cleanse the world of evil, he needed to kill off criminals. He even called himself the "Killer Christ".
On March 20th, 1995, followers of the Aum Shinrikyo committed a terrorist attack in the Tokyo Subways using sarin Gas. Anyone who has read the manga or seen the anime will already see some similarities between Shoko Asahara and Death Note's Light Yagami. However what Tsugumi Ohba and Takeshi Obata wanted to tell with Death Note was a morality tale about evil born out of good intentions. I think I can safely say we all want to make the world a better place but where does this sentiment end and evil begins? Furthermore, if we are to rid the world of evil, what is good and what is evil? Tsugumi Ohba and Takeshi Obata felt this story was so important that they went out of their way to bathe Death Note in Western Theology, Philosophy, Art, and Literature (some even speculate that some characters mirror William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar) so it could be read and understood by not just the Japanese audience, but also a western audience.


What does this has to do with Netflix's Death Note?

Well, everything. First, let's be clear on what an adaptation is supposed to be. It is taking a work or story and make it suitable for a different medium. This does not mean, of course, making a frame by frame copy of a work. This is not suitable because, in that case, why just not go enjoy the original work? Also because every medium of entertainment has its pros, cons, and limitations. While settings and descriptions can be simply shown instead of having to write down 6 pages to let your audience know what a room looks like, a book can be as long as it wants and cram as many details as the author likes. A film has a limited time frame and that time frame is (to most people) 3 hours at most. Therefore, when a book is turned into a film, changes MUST be made. However, when is it good to change something and when is it good to leave it intact? To put it simply: When it doesn't affect the core of the story and characters.

I enjoyed the Japanese Live Action movies of Death Note. I even thoroughly enjoyed the Musical (yes, there is a Broadway-style Death Note Musical). Most people would ask me how can I excuse these adaptations and not Netflix's interpretation? Because they get it. The Japanese Live Action movies from 2006 and the Musical made changes to the story to fit their medium. They added characters, removed characters, remove events, even change the endings to fit better the story in their respective medium. Where they all good changes? No, some were terrible and others laughable. However, after its all said and done, the story and its message are not affected in any way, shape, or form. The characters are still who they were in the original source material and their motivations are not changed. The opening number of the musical establishes the main question of the entire series: what is justice and is there such thing as justice? The freaking musical that I watched AS A JOKE had a better understanding of its source material than a 40 Million Dollar budget Feature Film.

Netflix,on the other hand, dumb down the source material for a wider audience. The screenwriters took this morality tale about two geniuses playing a game of cat and mouse claiming their actions to be in the name of Good and Justice and turned it into a Final Destination knock-off. What? Why!? Was the gore necessary? Film Theory made a pretty interesting estimate on how many people die in the anime and as you would expect, it is a lot. I bring this up because what MatPat does in this video is shed some light into Kira's actions throughout the anime in the form of how many people were killed by Kira and how many people might've been actually innocent. While the estimate he makes does make you contextualize the power of the Death Note if it were real, the point I want to make is the following: So many people die in the anime throughout Kira's reign but how much blood do we see?

This is the main problem with Netlix's Death Note movie. The story taking place in Seattle, the characters being American, Mia being a cheerleader and not a model, these changes make sense. Ryuk being the more traditional devil, Light being a complete idiot, Mia manipulating Light, these are the changes that bother me. Netflix not only tries to "make it appealing for a wider audience" (which on itself it's pretty insulting because there's some unflattering assumptions about their audience if this is what they came up with) but make changes that ultimately change the core of the story. Why change the essence of the characters? Why change the heart of the conflict? Why change the message? Really, a Prom in Death Note? My problem with this particular movie is all the unnecessary changes they made to a story that was fine on its own. To quote another YouTuber, The Dom, "If You're Going to tell your own story, THEN TELL YOUR OWN STORY". In fact, this whole issue could've been avoided if the writers had decided to change Light's name entirely, remove L from the story, used a different Shinigami that was more devious than Ryuk, and just set it in the same universe as the anime. Kira's story in the anime ends in 2012, setting the story in 2017 with new characters and a new Death Note as some sort of sequel/spin-off movie would've solved most of this film's problems. You could've told the story YOU wanted, with no need to consult the source material (assuming they even did look at the source material), and nobody would've compared it to the original. It would've been judged as its own thing that just so happens to be in the same universe as the original series.

Conclusion.

Joey The Anime Man tried defending this movie but not in a "its a good movie" kind of way. He makes it clear that it is terrible but enjoyable. Again, some people claim Netflix's Death Note is a movie that is "so bad it's good" like The Room, The Happening, and The Lady in the Water. To be fair, what I've seen online does seem pretty unintentionally funny and I've heard William Defoe's acting is pretty good. This is all well and good but I bring him up for a different reason. He makes a point that this movie had a $40 Million budget, which is too much money for this film to be a cash-grab (going as far as to call it a "Passion Project").

However, this is the type of mentality I want to prevent. A $40 Million budget for a cash-grab is not a lot of money. The Emoji Movie's budget was $50 Million. 50 Shades of Grey's budget was $40 Million. The budget for Foodfight! (which currently holds a score of 1.7 out of 10 in IMDb) was $65 Million. Studios will give a ton of money for a franchise that have already proven to be successful, specially now with the amount of online reviewers. Netflix's Death Note was a mediocre film and I wouldn't call it a "passion project" by ANY stretch, and we shouldn't have indulged it. Today, the less people want to watch a film or the worse a film is or appears to be, the better it performs. The Emoji Movie (which, again, had a budget if $50 Million and has a 9% on Rotten Tomatoes) grossed over $200 Million world wide, People who knew it was going to be bad still went and watched it to rant about how bad it was. In fact, this mentality and the surge of online content creators might benefit the movie if it IS bad. If the movie is bad, then more people will want to make Rants and Reviews on YouTube, giving the movie free publicity and making others wanting to watch the movie to ride the Trend Train. In the end, it's a lot easier to write and make fun of something that is bad rather than something that is good. People who don't make online content, will want to watch the movie just to see how bad it was. It's similar to Uwe Boll's Videogame movies: it took a property with an established fanbase to make a secure profit, and benefited from the movies being bad through legal loopholes.


This is the part that bums me out the most: in our "ironic enjoyment" philosophy, we accepted the mediocrity we were given instead of demanding for something better. Furthermore, no matter how much we complain, rant, or analyze how bad a product is, we still bought it. They made a profit.

The same reason why they are so many Transformers movies despite everyone agreeing unanimously after the second one came out how all of them are trash. By the time we fight back with reviews and critiques, they have already won. Their goal was to make a profit and with junk food entertainment they did. I didn't want to write a review for the Death Note movie because I didn't want to give this garbage anymore free publicity. I could pull out a complete philosophical, psychological, and literary analysis of the manga and the anime, compare it to the adaptation, give it an accurate review on what it did wrong and right and why, and give it a review both as a stand alone film and as an adaptation (both from a production stand point and from a narrative stand point). As I said before, however, it would've change nothing and only benefited the film. The best thing I could've done as a reviewer, movie goer, and an aspiring filmmaker was to do nothing and let the film die. This Non-review was not about my thought's on Netflix's Death Note adaptation, it was about understanding why this movie failed as an adaptation, why this movie is offensive to its source material.

A Year End Retrospective: 2017

Lately I've been pretty inactive, and I apologized for it. I've been really busy lately and nothing in the music world has really been worth talking about. So, for this year-end Retrospective (since I felt I likely missed out on most or all hits this year) I went and looked up what were Billboard's Top 100 Songs of 2017. I think I wasn't the only one who felt this year in music was worthless for in the list Billboard included songs like "Treat You Better" by Shawn Mendes, "Black Beatles" by Rae Sremmurd, "Heathens" by Twenty-One Pilots, and "Can't Stop the Feeling" by Justin Timberlake which were all released in 2016. I guess there wasn't a lot I needed to catch up with, huh?

What were the toxic wastes of 2017? Well, if we're looking at Billboard's Top 100 Songs of 2017, "Treat You Better" by Shawn Mendes, might be the worst of them all. However, it was released in 2016 so unfortunately doesn't count. Even though we had to borrow trash hits from the previous year fill up the slots this year, there were some terrible, terrible songs. "Bad Things" by Machine Gun Kelly (ft. Camila Cabello), despite the interesting sampling of "Out of My Head" by Fastball (and by "interesting" I mean that they sampled this song at all), it was just a mediocre rap song with a mediocre singer with no personality. However, it could be worse. It could be Taylor Swift ripping off Right Said Fred in one of the most self-indulgent, pretentious, train-wrecks of a song. Still struggling with her persona, Taylor seems to be fed up with everything and everyone and is no longer young sweet Taylor. Too bad she hasn't been young sweet Taylor for years now. Bad songwriting aside, "Look What You Made Me Do" is probably the embodiment of a headache. Other trash contaminating our airwaves and our ears this year were "Juju on that Beat" by Zay Hilfigerrr & Zayion McCall, anything by Migos but especially "Bad and Boujee", and "Thunder" by Imagine Dragons.
But by far THE STUPIDEST song in 2017 HAS to be "Body Like a Back Road" by Sam Hunt. While musically, it isn't that bad and it is catchy as hell, "Body Like a Back Road" is everything I hate about country music: cheesy, stupid, and way too proud over minor insignificant stuff. While it isn't Bro-Country (which is probably the worst out of all possible outcomes) it is pretty infuriating how badly written this song is. First off: a "Body Like a Back Road" isn't a compliment. It's an insult. It may have curves, sure, but never in my life have a seen a back road that is pretty in ANY sense of the word. A "Body Like a Back Road" is a body with no care, unpaved, used up, old, full of pot holes, and depending on where this back road is, probably full of feces of various animals ranging from dogs to horses. Dear Sam Hunt, are you sure this is the metaphor you want to use to describe your wife? Dear Sam Hunt, are you absolutely sure you want to sing this song about YOUR WIFE to THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE? Wasn't there ANY other country cliche you could've compared your wife to? Like the American Flag? Maybe written something like "the stars in your eyes" or "you are my freedom"? Dear Sam Hunt, really...?

For the Mediocrity awards we have A LOT of runner ups. Again, most of the songs on Billboard's Top 100 Songs of 2017 were songs released on 2016 (or in the case of "Scars to Your Beautiful", 2015) so that means that there are a lot of songs not worthy of even putting up there. However, I have to name drop a few and more than a bad or mediocre song, "Castle on the Hill" is probably the biggest disappointment. In fact, let's just throw in the entirety of the "÷" album on here. As mentioned in my "Castle on the Hill"/"Shape of You" review, Ed Sheeran as a pop singer/songwriter is like chocolate but as a musician he is like wine. While his pop songs are good, they get tiresome to the point of seeming terrible (as such is the case of songs like "Thinking Out Loud"). On the other hand, Ed sometimes releases songs that go beyond "Pop songs" and just get better with every listen (like "Make it Rain"). "÷" unfortunately leaned more towards Ed's chocolate side and while that doesn't make it bad, it doesn't live up to the promise of "Shape of You". Moving on to ACTUAL mediocrity (and not just disappointment) Maroon 5 is still a thing (and a pretty bad one at that), and so are Charlie Puth and Shawn Mendes (which I'm actually happy because it is an improvement from "Treat You Better"). But mediocrity isn't just what is "eh". There's one song that truly went one step further to be the laziest and most "eh" song of them all:
"Something Just Like This" by  The Chainsmokers and Coldplay. Lord, even the title I think was just a comment the producers said to them and either the Chainsmokers or Coldplay said "Perfect! Let's use that as the name of the song". The Chainsmokers are infamously known for using the same chords in 99.9% of their songs, but using the exact same drop as "Roses" might be a little too lazy even for them. Actually, it kind of sounds like a recycling of "Roses" and "Hymn for the Weekend". Was there ANY work done on this song!? Like, AT ALL!? It is bad enough for the music to be this blatantly lazy, but did the lyrics have to be phoned in as well? "Spiderman's control and Batman with his fists"? What the hell are you talking about!? That means literally nothing. The song is about feeling like you're worthless when compared to the legends of the days of old and then finding comfort in settling for what you have and what you are. This is not a bad message, but in the context of this song it almost feels like they're brainwashing you to be less critical about the music you like for them to keep feeding you recycled garbage. You know, Something JUST LIKE THIS.

Not all is doom and gloom, however. There were some great songs in the radio this year (even if apparently we had to borrow most of them from previous years). "Shape of You" is still one of my favorite songs of the year and the overplaying of it is just proof of how good it really is. Furthermore, it is testament to Ed Sheeran's talents as a songwriter. Even though it is one riff, Ed masterfully escalates the song to an amazing climax through very subtle additions to the song with every passing stanza. One downside of it is, of course, that it is pretty much the same song as Sia's "Cheap Thrills" but it is so good I'm willing to let it slide. "Believer" by Imagine Dragons was another great song full with energy and a heartbeat. It was alive! Even if the songwriting choices were if-y at best, musically it was just a perfect combination of accidental genius. Imagine Dragons are by far not good songwriters or composers, but "Believer" is their best work to date and it is a seed for greatness to come (either by them or by someone breaking down and re-working this song).
Finally, the song everyone has been loving and then immediately hating, "Despacito" by Luis Fonsi & Daddy Yankee. This song has been overplayed to death and its song is based on the 4 chords of pop, but the word play is pretty good (kind of vulgar, but it is Reggaeton), the performance and delivery are great, and most importantly: there is passion, energy, and fun. Like with "Shape of You", the fact that it is overplayed just demonstrates how good the song is, and furthermore, how much we need songs like this.

This time, I will not nominate a best song of the year because I honestly haven't been paying as much attention to the music scene as much as I should've. I will say that the sickness of 2016 still lingers and permeates the music of today, but I still hope that we'll get better music in the near future. Here's to a better year and great music in 2018.
Happy New Year to all!