First Impression (Movie Review): Joker [NO SPOILERS]

To be completely honest, I wasn't expecting to do this. I was very skeptical about this movie when I first saw the original teaser. When the trailers came out  I thought "Ok, this looks pretty good" but there was still doubt in my mind about the whole premise. "If they want this to work, they MUST have some EXTREMELY clever writers" I thought to myself, and between Disney's Remakes, Baby Driver, and Yesterday, I really doubt they would. Finally the reviews came in with overwhelming praise. Despite my doubts about the concept of a Joker origin story, I still wanted to see this movie and the positive reviews encouraged my desire to do so. I went to watch it last week and... well... how do I even start?

"Joker" is an amazing movie. Great cinematography, an amazing performance by Joaquin Phoenix, and a gripping, intense, heart wrenching script. Throughout its entire run time I felt my heart pounding, feeling as it wanted to explode out of my chest. I don't think any movie has made me feel like this. However, fair warning, this movie is very disturbing (for all the good reasons, but disturbing nonetheless). "The Dark Knight" showed us a demon. The embodiment of chaos, death, anarchy, and destruction. "Joker" gave us a man. A person with a family, hopes, dreams, and we watch him be slowly stripped away from everything that made him human until he is nothing but a monster. There is a comfort in villainizing those who commit atrocious acts. We could never become like them because they are evil. To me, this is what's horrifying about "Joker": The realization that monsters were, indeed, once human. 

Now, this movie has problems, like any other. I felt the music could've been quieter in some scenes. Also Joker seems to be whinier in some scenes. Usually he is more confident, commanding, and intelligent but his character does make sense in the world he is portrayed (it IS a different interpretation after all so as long as it works in the story and captures the essence of the character, it doesn't matter). There also a lot of shots that might come off as pretentious because Todd Philips wanted to be artsy, or some sequences that go on for a little too long, but honestly this is all nitpicking. 

"Joker" is a movie that was very carefully made, and the lighting, staging, acting, and cinematography all reflect that. It is absolutely a MUST watch. I might go and see it again because there's so much that can be picked apart. I know this review was kind of vague and short, but I do believe that this is a movie that should be experienced, not be told about. 

Song Review: "Norwegian Reggaeton" by Nanowar Of Steel (feat. Charly Glamour & Gigatron)

I'm going to go on a limb and say this is the song of the year right here. Not "Bad Guy", not "Old Town Road", not "Sucker for You", and absolutely NOT any song released by Ed Sheeran in 2019. As mentioned previously, I haven't been posting much in regards to Billboard Hot 100 because it really doesn't give me anything to say. Most of the songs are simply mediocre, and I do mean mediocre. I talked positively about "Me!" but that doesn't necessarily mean it's good (arguably it's not) but in the context of everything else and the history of its performers, it is a better song than it should be. There are exceptions, however. "Old Town Road" is a good song, but it's been so politicized that it's hard to enjoy at the moment. What is clearly just a silly country rap song has been turned into a battlefield of racial politics, and this sours the music. I want to talk about "Bad Guy" but it's just taking me a while to make up my mind whether I like this song or not (it's complicated and I'll explain why when I get into it). Point is, most of the good songs in popular radio this year have a big asterisk next to them and, with the exception of "Old Town Road", it usually means "it's not really good, but there's much worse going on right now". "Norwegian Reggaeton" doesn't have this problem, at all. "Norwegian Reggaeton" is fun, energetic, catchy, and hilarious.


Musically, "Norwegian Reggaeton" is simple. I will even go and say it's very derivative. This sounds like something negative, but it's not. "Norwegian Reggaeton" is a comedy song that attempts to make fun of Heavy Metal by putting it in the context of a Reggaeton song. The Heavy Metal part is very obvious (the lyrics are fashioned after themes Metal songs tend to write about, and the heavy distortion guitars). The Reggaeton part is also pretty obvious from the beat they use and the way the lyrics are phrased. However, for anyone who didn't grew up listening to Reggaeton (like I was, against my will),  Reggaeton is a VERY uncreative genre. The beat is always the same (although it may be in different tempo varying from song to song) and the subject matters are always about sex. I don't think I ever mentioned this in my "Despacito" review, but I used to say to my friends "Despacito" was the "Bohemian Rhapsody" of Reggaeton for the simple reason that no song in Reggaeton has ever been as musically complex and diverse as "Despacito". That will give you an idea of how low the bar is. "Norwegian Reggaeton" being derivative could be a nod to this and could be a great joke on its own, however, there's something else in regards to "Norwegian Reggaeton" and Despacito: "Norwegian Reggaeton" very clearly took "Despacito" as a template. The acoustic guitars and vocal melodies are eerily similar, and if this weren't clearly a parody, I'd be very worried of an incoming lawsuit. The chord progression is the same just played half step down ("Despacito" is in Bm - G - D - A, and "Norwegian Reggaeton" is Bbm - F# - Db - Ab), however both of them use the 4 Chords of Pop progression which is probably the most common chord progression in pop music. It could be a coincidence but keeping in mind the other musical similarities, it feels very deliberate. There are 3 possible reasons why Nanowar decided to make "Norwegian Reggaeton" as close to "Despacito" as legally possible:

1) To make fun of a very repetitive genre, down to relying on the most overused chord progression in Pop history.
2) To make the parody more recognizable. "Despacito" is the only Reggaeton song that EVERYONE has heard. Unless you lived in a Latino community (and even then, probably in a very specific one in a specific time), then you've probably never heard of a Reggaeton song outside of "Despacito".
3) Similar to point 2, it could be that "Despacito" is the only Reggaeton song Nanowar of Steel have ever listened to, and based their parody on it since it was their only point of reference. I'm just saying, a Heavy Metal band from Italy doesn't sound like the type to be connoisseurs of a musical genre originated in Puerto Rico.

"Norwegian Reggaeton" is somewhat complicated to talk about for those who are unfamiliarized with Heavy Metal. Not in regards to the music, per say, but in regards to the culture. As mentioned previously, "Norwegian Reggaeton" is a comedy song that attempts to make fun of Heavy Metal by putting it in the context of a Reggaeton song. The problem with this is that if you don't know that, for example, Scandinavian countries (Norway and Sweden specifically) are a fertile ground for Heavy Metal bands, then you'll probably be confused by why the song is called "Norwegian Reggaeton". Most people know Metal lyrics dabble in Satanism, and you can see that referenced in this song, but the song is also littered with lyrics about Norse Mythology. You might assume this is just to play with the "Norwegian" half of "Norwegian Reggaeton" or playing with the idea of the "Brutal Macho" posturing that a lot of Metal has in its lyrics and relating it back the Vikings (history's most notorious badasses), and you're not wrong. However, this is more likely in reference to Viking Metal, a real subgenre of Folk Metal that uses Norse Mythology as a setting for their lyrics and themes.  How many of you know what the line "You burned my Soul like the Fantoft Church in June 1992" is referencing? What I'm saying is that the song is funny on it's own due to the spectacle of a bunch of Metalheads in Black and White makeup dancing to Reggaeton with an entourage of twerking goth girls. However, there's more to it than just the contrast shock. Unfortunately, I don't think I can go into the lyrics in detail because a lyrical analysis would require me to explain the joke (more than I already have, at least) or have to give context so those outside of the Metal community can get the reference which would make for a very tedious read. With that said, painting a very general picture, the lyrics are very funny as they balance Heavy Metal and Reggaeton tropes, Nanowar also throws in some Norwegian probably to add some spice (which, fun fact, technically makes this song trilingual), and there is some clever word play every once in a while.


I cannot tell you how much I love this song. I was dying laughing when I first heard it. I will admit I probably found it funnier because, as mentioned in my "Despacito" review, I grew up in a community where Reggaeton was everywhere, and every Rocker, Metalhead, and Music Professor with a PhD I've ever talked to said that it wasn't "even worth calling music". I recall a professor at my music academy one time saying in class "It has a beat, rhythm, and melody. I hate myself for this but I legally have to say that Reggaeton IS music, but only by definition" (no joke, he actually said this). Keeping this in mind, I might have a little bit of a bias since I have a direct musical history with Metal, Reggaeton, and the relationship between both genres. However, not to over hype this song, this is not the first time this joke has been done. Costarrican comedy group La Media Docena made a comedy skit where they play a song called "La Cumbia Metalera". Cumbia had a similar reputation as Reggaeton (although its hatred is not AS abysmal), and the shock of watching a "Heavy Metal" band playing a Cumbia while making metal references was enough to make the joke work. However, "La Cumbia Metalera" is a lot more shallow in its references (it's basically just name dropping a bunch of band names and terms like "moshing") and it's more of a straight up Cumbia. "Norwegian Reggaeton" actually tries to blend both genres lyrically and musically, making the joke be more than just "oh, isn't this wacky how these two things don't go together". I wish I could say more about "Norwegian Reggaeton", but it is just magic that has to be experienced. If you haven't checked it out, I HIGHLY recommend that you do. Even if you don't find the jokes all that funny as I did, you'll still end up with a cool, fun song with a solid hook, catchy melody, and infectious energy.

Song Review: "ME!" by Taylor Swift ft. Brendon Urie

Since American pop music, in general, seems to be so mediocre and lazy lately (including the good songs), I haven't been paying much attention to what's popular anymore. This why I haven't been posting much of anything since 2017. Even when I do, it's not on songs that are contemporary or popular. I've heard a couple of songs that even if I tried writing something about them, there's very little to work with. For example, "Earth" by Lil Dicky was one of these songs. It's unfunny like everything else Lil Dicky has done, the only appeal is the amount of celebrity cameos, the song itself is substandard, and it has one joke about World War 2 that he just shouldn't have done at all. He doesn't have the wit or charisma to make it even work, not to mention that he seems like the type of person who doesn't understand the weight and implication that joke carries. And that right there was the entire review.

You can imagine the joy I had when a friend of mine asked me to review "Me!" by Taylor Swift. Last time someone asked me to review a song, it was one of the worst things I have ever heard sung by one of the worst people I have ever heard of. So I was filled with dread and excitement. Taylor Swift has devolved as an artist into black hole of ego ever since "Shake It Off" hit the charts. Since then, her singles have become even more about herself and her reputation. A song by her with the title "Me!" sounded like Taylor Swift's final transformation to Meghan Trainor levels of narcissism. Not to mention that the song has Brendon Urie, lead singer of Panic! at the Disco. Which as a band has also devolved into the discount version of Fall Out Boy (who themselves have crumbled into an angrier version of Maroon 5). Oh how the mighty have fallen.

With my expectations set, I finally listened to the song and it was overwhelmingly ok. In fact, I actually like it more than I thought I would. Why? For starters, it stands out. While nothing really groundbreaking, it takes little to no influence from Trap, so the song actually has some energy in it.  This on its own already sets it a part from the rest of the Hot 100. It's also written in the key of C major which is a very bright sound to contrast the downbeat darkness of other hit songs of the past 2 years. Unlike "Happier" by Marshmello, it doesn't sound or feel hollow either. It does in a way due to the production, but Taylor and Brendon's voice have a lot more personality than Dan Smith's voice does, helping the song feel more alive. Furthermore, the drum beat on the verses help the energy of the song have a pulse and properly build up to a chorus. Once in the chorus, we're hit with a synth chord progression of C-Am-F-G accompanied by some horn fills. Again, not necessarily a groundbreaking chord progression or melody, but it is a bright, catchy, and well composed section. Everything is where it needs to be and it fits the tone and theme of the song.


Speaking of the theme, what is this song about? Not what I expected at all. It's a love song, to begin with. The song is about how "I (the narrator) have a lot of problems, and there are other people out there who comparatively are better and/or cooler. However, no one is going to love you like I love you". This is the gist of it and it reminds me a lot of the "You Belong With Me", but crossed with the (probably accidental) self-awareness of "Blank Space". "ME!" is undoubtedly about how the narrator is the right person for you, like "You Belong With Me", but it doesn't hide the fact that the narrator is not perfect. "You Belong With Me" is a great "Teenage Love Song". It's young, naive, and innocent.
"ME!", on the other hand, is honest, open, mature, and with the right level of assertiveness. The characters of this story are slightly dysfunctional to make them feel like real people, but not too much to where we (the audience) don't think the relationship is dead. But instead of comparing it to "You Belong with Me" and "Blank Space", I think we should compare "ME!" with "Somebody that I Used to Know". Both songs have a good enough concept to make them work in any song (in theory), but what make both of these songs great is having a guest singer. Brendon and Kimbra both serve the same purpose in their respective songs: give the narrative a different perspective. In "Somebody that I Used to Know", Kimbra sings her side of the story, making Gotye look not as innocent as the first verses made it seem. Because of the way songs are generally written, breakup songs are very one-sided and The Other is the one who looks bad while the narrator looks more like the victim. Gotye subverts this idea by having Kimbra sing her side of the story, making the song way more interesting, developed, and relatable, while emphasizing that this relationship is dead and both parties are hurt and bitter. Like "Somebody that I Used to Know", Brendon sings about the relationship from his point of view. Unlike "Somebody that I Used to Know", Brendon's verses are there to emphasize how this relationship, despite its problems, is alive and well. Without his point of view, "ME!" could be interpreted as being a self-centered breakup song of someone in denial. There's something romantic about the idea behind "I suck/I suck too, and I love you regardless" and this song understands the what makes this sort of narrative appealing. We all have problems and we all want to find someone who loves us despite our problems. The line that I think best encapsulates what makes this song work is "You're the only one of you/Baby that's the fun of you".

I was very pleasantly surprised with this song. I know I didn't talk too much about the music itself, but I think the strength of this song lies in the theme and the singers. The music is just the setting where this story takes place, and it does its job nicely. Even though Taylor Swift and Brendon Urie haven't written anything "good" per say in a long while, they are talented singers with a lot of personality in their voices. It's not anything revolutionary, and a lot of things could've gone very wrong. However,  I can safely say that this song is in fact ok (I'm tempted of even calling it good, for what it is). The one part of the song that objectively doesn't work at all is the "rap" break where they "spell" It's quite forgettable, but it does make me laugh due to how bad it is, so I'll let that part slide. When I first heard it, my first impression was "This sounds like Imagine Dragons or Lukas Graham if they didn't suck". Could it be that I like this song because comparatively there isn't much of anything in the pop charts to like? Maybe. There is something to keep in mind and that is that this IS a Taylor Swift song. It is unfair to listen to "ME!" and expect it to be the modern day equivalent of a Mozart composition. As far as Taylor Swift songs go, it is an improvement from "Look What You Made Me Do" and "End Game". Would I recommend this song? Not particularly, but if you have 3 minutes and 14 seconds to spare, I'd say give it a listen.

Song Review: "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" by Marilyn Manson

There are a lot of bands and artists I'm not a particular fan of, but I respect them greatly as Artists. As mentioned in my "Shape of You/Castle in the Sky" review, Ed Sheeran is one of them since I believe he can be making much better music if he focused more on his strengths as a musician rather than a pop star. Marilyn Manson is another one of these artists. I respect the man, his philosophy and artistic intent, more than I do his work. I just find his music boring most of the time since a lot of his appeal was the shock value and at the time that worked but now that the shock is gone, his songs have to rely on the strength of his music and lyrics. There are some great songs in his repertoire like "The Beautiful People". It is one of his most popular songs for a reason. The energy and the groove are superb. That driving drum beat and the almost percussive guitars create a dark, tense atmosphere. It's a great song with some great lyrics and commentary that still holds up on its own. However, there's one song that people always seem to bring up when it comes to Marilyn Manson: his cover of Eurythmic's "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)". I don't get it.


I'll go straight to the point. This song is BORING. A lot of the praise I hear about it is how Manson re-contextualized a song about sweet dreams and turned it into a nightmare. With the video, maybe. But you could play the original song over disturbing footage and get the same effect if you have a good enough editor.  Without the video, the song is boring, limp, and weak. I HAVE fallen asleep while listening to it. The song starts fine with a guitar playing the riff, and Manson softly singing over it. The problem, however, is that he doesn't know where to go from there. The bass kicks when Manson sings "Some of them want to use you" and then a distorted guitar lets a note ring on when he sings "Some of them want to abuse you". This is great for build up, when the bridge hits, all the buildup and atmosphere is gone. Why? Well, it's just guitars and bass playing eighth notes, switching between 2 chords. Furthermore, those chords are G# and G. They just play the power chords but if you played the full chord both of them would be major chords. So, that bridge while not exactly bright, it's not dark or eerie either. It's not dissonant and the rhythm is too mundane to create any sort of musical interest or atmosphere. And this is supposed to be the climax. The second verse is just as boring as the first, but the kick drums mark the beat this time. This song is so pedestrian and boring I'm struggling to find how to explain how boring it is since the arrangement is beyond basic and the song is very repetitive. If you hear the song all the way to the bridge, you've heard the entire thing, basically. Manson just adds more stuff like a solo (which also sounds bright since it's being played over major chords) and a wah-wah, which doesn't matter the context a but wah-wah pedal has never nor will it ever be scary.  Is there something Manson missed when deciding to make this cover?

If we go back to the original, what's the first thing that pops up? That synth, right? Yes, but also the kick drum marking the beat. "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" is a very simple song, but here's the thing. The song is tight and tense. It is almost robotic. Even if the song is almost robotic on how precise and repetitive it is, it's not boring. "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" builds on that one synth riff, adding and removing voices and harmonies to make the song more dynamic. Furthermore, those G# and G chords, along with some nice vocals, make the bridge feel almost ethereal, breaking the monotony of the main riff. This is not a chorus, or in other words: not a climax. The main riff IS the climax of the song. Note that around the 1 minute and 16 second mark, the song goes into a "pre-chorus" of sorts where it keeps building up as Annie Lennox repeats "Hold your head up/ Keep your head up, movin' along". This section builds up and where does it build up to? The Main synth riff. If you split this song into distinct sections, you'll only end up with 3 parts, and both parts 2 and 3 always go back to part 1: the synth riff.

So, what did Manson do wrong? Well, first off, his arrangement is more down beat, but it's not tense. I understand him wanting to create a feeling of something creeping up on you, but he missed one of the most important elements of the song. "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" is a very tight and tense song and if you don't play it right, it loses all of its power. Secondly, the solo was played on the bridge of the song (the G#-G section of the song) which if you're gonna make a song dark, is a terrible decision. What confuses me is that in the original, the "solo" was played ON the main riff. This makes so much more sense in a metal song since the underlying chord progression is Cm-G#-G. You're playing on a minor chord, a minor scale, a darker tone. Lastly, Manson didn't seem to
understand the song he was covering and why it was written the way that it was, so when it came to "translating" it to his style, he changed the song in all the wrong places. There is one part that actually accomplishes what the song set out to do. After a pathetic guitar solo, around 3:10 into the song, Manson whispers his vocals in his signature creepy voice. And that genuinely sounds like a nightmare whispering into my ear right before I wake up with sleep paralysis.This song needed more of this sort of thing. Less distortion, less metal, less screaming. This song would've worked great with a softer sound. Make it creepier rather than aggressive. However, if you want to scream, make it more of a shriek, don't be afraid to go out of tune. Go big or go home if that's what your intention was. If Manson wanted to have the distortion guitars and the solos and the yells, he should've been wailing his vocals.You want some disturbing screams? The ones that'll haunt your nightmares?  Either Check out "Daddy" by Korn or anything by Silencer ("Death Pierce Me" or "Sterile Nails and Thunderbowels"). These songs are terrifying and disturbing like no other because they go all the way with their horror and pain, which is no surprise if you know the story behind the songs, but the point still stands. These songs are disturbing because they come from a real place of horror. "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" tries to be a place of horrors, but it just doesn't come across. However, these are superficial elements. Might they have made this song better? Probably, but not by much because he'd still miss that the song is tight and tense and that the "main riff" is the most important part of the song. Overall, I think this cover was a great idea but terribly executed.

Song Review: "La Cantiga de las Brujas" by Mägo de Oz

Weren't you sick and tired of 2018? I sure was, and I am so glad to finally be done with it. I know I should do an obligatory "Year End Retrospective" but I honestly don't think it's worth it since I can sum it up right here: BORING at best and Disastrous at worst. Juice WRLD is one of the worst things to happen to the radio this year, Maroon 5 is still a thing (and a terrible one at that), Bastille returned to the spotlight with a nothing song. Even Miyavi, who I cannot stop praising as a musician and ADORED his previous album "Samurai Sessions Vol. 2", released an ok and pretty forgettable follow-up with "Worlds Collide: Samurai Sessions Vol. 3". I don't know why 2018 was so bad in music, but it could be related to how everyone seems so depressed. Maybe the reason we can't make anything good is because we lack the energy/motivation to do so. In any case, if you wanted to know what 2018 was like, Post Malone is your man. His bad stuff is bad and his "good" stuff is just there. Doesn't do much, doesn't bother anyone, it just takes up space. But it is now officially 2019. Honestly I don't know how much worse music can get from here so I am kind of hopeful of what the new year can bring. Even my favorite band of all time, Mägo de Oz, is releasing a new album! They even released their first single today (January 3rd)! What a great way to start the new year, right?

So, for some context, ever since Jose Andrea left the group, Mägo de Oz has been in a little bit of a slouch. Losing their frontman would be devastating for any band, but I think they did a good job finding a replacement in Zeta (even if some fans might disagree with me). However, let me point out that Jose left in 2011, one year after releasing "Gaia III: Atlantia" and "Gaia: Epílogo". Since then, Mägo de Oz has released "Hechizos, Pócimas, y Brujería" (2012) and "Illusia" (2014). Other than that, it has been nothing but Greatest Hits/Compilation albums (some times with a gimmick like with "Celtic Land" which CD1 is a compilation of their old hits sung in English with guest singers and CD 2 is a compilation of their old hits sung in Spanish with guest singers), a live album ("Diabulus in Opera" in 2017), and "Finisterra: Opera Rock" (2015) which was a re-recording of their 2000's album "Finisterra". I'm not saying they're not staying active, I'm just saying that their well of creativity might be running dry. So you can't imagine how simultaneously excited and skeptical I was when they announced their new album "Ira Dei". Now that the first single has been released, does it live up to the expectations? Let's talk about "La Cantiga de las Brujas".

Once the song starts, it is very promising. It opens with a lute, a flue, and a violin. That folk-y/medieval sound is one of the things that made me fall in love with Mägo de Oz when I was a kid. Zeta's soft voice perfectly fits the Troubadour vibe of the instruments. The melody invites intrigue, it's not one to entertain but to tell a tale. The chord progression follows a simple Am-G-Em-Am for the first part of the phrase, and for the second half, the bass plays a walk up from an A, B to a C chord and then it follows to a G, Em, and back to Am. This is a fairly simple and common chord progression (I figured it out in 2 minutes) but it's very effective in setting tone and atmosphere. Plus the melody that the flute and violin play is simply beautiful. Once the Heavy Metal part of the song kicks in, it does sound like the classic Mägo de Oz sound that any fan would recognize. In addition to the flute and violin, there's a bagpipe playing the melody as the guitars and drums kick the song into gear. Everything seems to be going great but once the verse comes in, is all downhill from here. Zeta trying to sing low and "tough" doesn't work. His voice is not hard enough to pull that off. Plus, there's a call and response between Zeta and La Diva Satánica (I tried to find a name but apparently that's what she goes with) and she sings screamo. I don't think this is inherently bad. Adding some black metal elements to Mägo de Oz is not the weirdest thing Mägo has tried (that has to go to the Reggae sections in some of there songs), and it actually sounds pretty good. The phrasing is a little weird (that might have more to do with the fact that it's sung in Spanish, however I don't have time to go down this rabbithole of music and linguistics), but I think that overall it's alright. However, the problem with the screamo is that it emphasizes how soft and delicate Zeta's voice is. If they wanted this to work, Zeta had to sing something more melodic and soft to better contrast La Diva Satánica's voice. This would play to both singers' strengths instead of showcasing their downfalls. The rest of the song, musically, is ok. It's a standard Mägo de Oz song. If you're a fan of their music ("Hechizos, Pócimas, y Brujería" and "Gaia II: La Voz Dormida" specifically), you might enjoy it. However, Mägo de Oz are known for their poetic, profound, philosophical, and political lyrics. Lyrics of Love, Life, and Freedom.

Mägo de Oz are known for their poetic, profound, philosophical, and political lyrics... If "La Cantinga de las Brujas" was the first song you ever heard of Mägo de Oz, I guarantee you would call me a filthy liar setting you up for a scam. By god these lyrics are terrible! I personally don't think Mägo de Oz were particularly good at making Concept albums. The best one that tells a coherent story from start to finish has been "Jesús de Chamberí". "La Leyenda de la Mancha" comes as a close second but it's honestly just a retelling of Don Quixote, so it serves as more as a soundtrack than as a story. The Gaia trilogy supposedly has a story per album, but the songs better explore a theme than a story.
And their worst offender is "Finisterra" which is (from what I have found) basically a Ripoff of The Matrix which has absolutely nothing to do with anything in the songs. It seems that "Ira Dei" is shaping up to be their next attempt at storytelling but judging from this song, it's going to be a train wreck.  "La Cantiga de las Brujas" gives the impression that it is about something but it's really about nothing. My point is that even if their efforts of telling a story in their albums haven't been great, I love all of these albums because not only are the songs great, but they also explored the general themes of the stories they wanted to tell. Not to mentioned that they explored said themes in poetic, creative, and intelligent ways. "La Cantiga de las Brujas" doesn't. I know this album is about the Apocalypse because of the promo trailers and the title of the album ("God's Wrath"), but this song, as a first single, doesn't tell me anything about who the Anti-Christ is, the Apocalypse, the story, anything. It's a song about how cool and provocative witches are. The poetic imagery is either super corny, dumb, or nonexistent, and some of the lines are straight up awful. Not to mention that I find it hard to believe that the same band that wrote such provocative and thought-provoking lines like "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", "The only church that enlightens is the one that burns", and "For handfuls of progress I lost my freedom" are the same people who wrote this:

"To be a witch you don't need a costume,
Look at your Ex and you'll be convinced

If life one day gives you a stick
Make a broom out of it."

You may think that this sounds stupid because of the translation. Trust me, it sounds just as stupid as in Spanish. Seriously, what were they thinking? There's also this weird thing in the second half of the chorus where they use School metaphors. They actually say stuff like "This is Lucifer's School" and if you become a witch you must "Enroll". I'm not making this up, that's the actual language they use: not "join us" or "give in" but "Enroll". It begs me to ask what is the tuition.

It really is like watching the fall of the Roman Empire because their biggest claim about "Ira Dei" was that they were returning to their "Gaia II" sound. This is one of their best albums, with some of the best lyrics. What's important to keep in mind is that Mägo de Oz made drastic changes to their sound and image. Before "Gaia II", they were gypsies, troubadours, pirates, even. "Gaia II" was their darkest album. It was a risk but they decided to change their sound and image from Celtic Folk to Gothic. They were demons, singing about  witches, death, Satan, melancholy, darkness. I think that risk paid off. "Gaia II: La Voz Dormida" was a reinvention of the band, as well as an expansion of their sound. I get why they would want to go back to this era. Right now, Mägo de Oz has been in a difficult place. Ever since Jose left, they have been fighting against the shackles of his legacy and try to move on with someone new. They tried to move forward with 2 albums that as far as I can tell, didn't free them from their restraints. So, in a time where they want to move on, a reinvention might be just what they need. However, based on "La Cantiga de las Brujas", what should've been a triumphant return is going to a painful downfall.

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.