Latest on MJJC

Sam Smith new Bond Song. The lyrics and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

Annita

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,178
Points
113
Many article to this theme

Sam Smith new Bond Song.The lyriks and why it sounds like Michael Jacskons Earth Song
http://www.breakingnews.ie/showbiz/...-like-michael-jacksons-earth-song-697645.html

BBC Radio 1 ‏@BBCR1 10 Std.Vor 10 Stunden
Bond vs Earth Song. You made us do this. Sorry Sam. #WritingsOnTheWall
https://amp.twimg.com/v/08eba5c6-3edb-4689-9257-9579a563463a …


BBC Radio 1 ‏@BBCR1 11 Std.Vor 11 Stunden
Listen to the new Bond theme frome @samsmithworld here! #writingsonthewall
http://bbc.in/1FxzIwT
 
Last edited:
Re: Smith new Bond Song.Tje lyriks and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

Interesting. I'm not sure I'd call it a "rip off" but I can hear some parts where the two songs sound the same.

Hasn't Sam been accused of "ripping off" someone before to the extent that he was forced to give co-writing credits to the the other artist?

ETA: Oh yeah. It was Tom Petty:

In January 2015, it was revealed that a settlement had been reached with Tom Petty's publishing company to add Petty and Jeff Lynne as co-writers, and that they would receive a 12.5% songwriting credit. Petty's publisher contacted Smith's team after it noticed a likeness between "Stay with Me" and the melody of Petty's 1989 song "I Won't Back Down". According to Smith, he had never heard "I Won't Back Down" before he wrote "Stay with Me",[SUP][10][/SUP] but he acknowledged the similarity after listening to the song, and said that the likeness was "a complete coincidence".[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] Petty and Lynne however were not eligible for a Grammy as the Recording Academy considered "Stay with Me" to have been interpolated from "I Won't Back Down" by Napier, Phillips and Smith; instead Petty and Lynne would be given certificates to honor their participation in the work, as is usual for writers of sampled or interpolated work.[SUP][13][/SUP]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_with_Me_(Sam_Smith_song)
 
Last edited:
Re: Smith new Bond Song.Tje lyriks and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

He had to include Tom Petty ? as co-author of Stay with me, I think.
 
Re: Smith new Bond Song.Tje lyriks and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

^ yeah he has..

With this though, I can hear a Earth Song vibe but I did not think of it when I first heard it.. It wasn't til this thread and listened again that I'm like "yeah can hear it"..
 
Re: Smith new Bond Song.Tje lyriks and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

Oh yeah you can definitely hear where the similarites are. The way he ends the phrases

I spent a life time running but I always get away, But with you i'm feeling something that makes me wanna stay

It's the same melody as the pre chorus to Earth Song
Did you ever start to notice the crying earths a weeping shore

Whether it was accidentally or intentionally I don't know. But they are essentially the same melody.At some point i was expecting Sam to burst into Aaaaaaaahhhh lol

As for the song I'm gonna digest it a bit. I was expecting a grande finale with a big orchestra kind of cinematic explosion. At first listen it's a good song but is it in the same league as Skyfall? I don't know.
 
Last edited:
Re: Smith new Bond Song.Tje lyriks and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

I heard the song a good few hours after playing Earth Song yesterday but I never really connected the two. I suppose I can kinda... see it when the chorus starts?? But I wouldn't have noticed it if I wasn't prompted I don't think.

It might be an alright Sam Smith song but for now I don't think it's that good of a Bond song. It leaves you wanting more and you think it's going to come to this great climax on the chorus... then nothing.

I'll leave my final reservations for when I see how it fits in the actual film (cos it might fit better in with the tone of it than what I expect) but for now I'm not that big on it. Skyfall was a far superior song though, I loved that from the moment I heard it.
 
Re: Smith new Bond Song.Tje lyriks and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

HIStoric said:
I heard the song a good few hours after playing Earth Song yesterday but I never really connected the two. I suppose I can kinda... see it when the chorus starts?? But I wouldn't have noticed it if I wasn't prompted I don't think.

It might be an alright Sam Smith song but for now I don't think it's that good of a Bond song. It leaves you wanting more and you think it's going to come to this great climax on the chorus... then nothing.

I'll leave my final reservations for when I see how it fits in the actual film (cos it might fit better in with the tone of it than what I expect) but for now I'm not that big on it. Skyfall was a far superior song though, I loved that from the moment I heard it.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly! The song needed a climax
 
There is more comment at the link below; and someone has 'hybridised' the 2 songs on soundcloud:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/sam-...chael-jackson-s-earth-song-video-492851.shtml

Everything related to the James Bond franchise is a huge deal, and not just for the millions of diehard fans. Sam Smith has been selected to perform the theme song, and the efforts of his labor, a song called “Writing’s on the Wall,” were made public some hours ago.

The Internet isn’t exactly thrilled with the song. Those who don’t find it very bland and too mellow for the kind of action movie that Bond has become in modern times, since Daniel Craig came on board as 007, find it a poor copy or shameless ripoff of Michael Jackson’s environmental ballad “Earth Song.”

You can see some samples below of this kind of reactions that “Writing’s on the Wall” generated on Twitter. Mashups of the two songs have also started popping up online, and I will include a couple of them for you to check out, so you can form a more educated opinion on the latest Bond so-called controversy.

“Writing’s on the Wall” is currently available solely on iTunes and Spotify, and it’s sitting at the top of the iTunes chart. Obviously, it’s not a flop and many people find it beautiful, powerful and just as history-making as Smith promised it would be.

It’s still not on the same level as Adele’s Oscar-winning “Skyfall,” which she wrote and recorded for the previous film, though.
 
Re: Smith new Bond Song.Tje lyriks and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

Never really cared for the guys music. They all sound a bit whiney to me and the same. Imo
 
Re: Smith new Bond Song.Tje lyriks and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

Amazing voice. Love him. But not really feeling this track tho.

It's better than that Jack White/Alicia Keys bond theme tho.
 
Re: Smith new Bond Song.Tje lyriks and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

As far as a BOND song I think it's good. they always seem to have this similar vibe to it... It's ok overall but yeah - as far as hearing an MJ feel to this, I think it's a bit far fetch.. There are many other songs on a daily basis that I hear on the radio that i'm like "Ok that's so MJ style right there."
 
Re: Smith new Bond Song.Tje lyriks and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

I think people are going after him because of the Tom Petty thing. I didn't hear similarities with that really either.
He's on top, so people naturally attack. Ugly human nature.
 
Re: Smith new Bond Song.Tje lyriks and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

People seem so eager to accuse artists of plagiarism nowadays. I did not agree with the Blurred Lines verdict either. There was no direct sampling involved and although it certainly reminded me of Got To Give It Up, I did not think it was similar enough to warrant credit. The verdict really surprised me. Criticizing them for being unoriginal is one thing, but being unoriginal does not equal plagiarism.

In this case, I can hear the similarity at the end of the verses. But that's the only part that sounds similar to me. A few notes. I'm actually surprised this comparison garnered so much attention. I think that if I had heard the song prior to hearing of this controversy, I might have picked up on it (feeling an inexplicable urge to go "ah-aaahhaaa, haaaa-aaaa aaa-aaa-haaa, haaa" all of a sudden), but I might not have either. In either case, I would not have thought twice about it. Odd to see it being mentioned so much.

The Tom Petty comparison makes more sense, but still... we're talking very basic chord progressions and straightforward melodies here. The production around it and the tempo were all distinctly different. There's no doubt that you can find several songs that sound similar to either of those tracks at some level.

An example of a case which does sound like plagiarism to me is Robin Thicke's 'Million Dollar Baby'. That's basically a cover of Marvin Gaye's Trouble Man with different (vastly shittier) lyrics (not to mention inferior vocals).
 
Last edited:
Re: Smith new Bond Song.Tje lyriks and why it sounds like Michaels Earth Song

SoCav said:
People seem so eager to accuse artists of plagiarism nowadays. I did not agree with the Blurred Lines verdict either. There was no direct sampling involved and although it certainly reminded me of Got To Give It Up, I did not think it was similar enough to warrant credit. The verdict really surprised me. Criticizing them for being unoriginal is one thing, but being unoriginal does not equal plagiarism.
Click to expand...

Agreed. As much as I dislike that song, that verdict is complete and utter bullshit. I honestly saw it as nothing more than Marvin Gaye's family trying to make some extra money off a dead man.
 
SoCav;4109374 said:
People seem so eager to accuse artists of plagiarism nowadays. I did not agree with the Blurred Lines verdict either. There was no direct sampling involved and although it certainly reminded me of Got To Give It Up, I did not think it was similar enough to warrant credit. The verdict really surprised me. Criticizing them for being unoriginal is one thing, but being unoriginal does not equal plagiarism.

In this case, I can hear the similarity at the end of the verses. But that's the only part that sounds similar to me. A few notes. I'm actually surprised this comparison garnered so much attention. I think that if I had heard the song prior to hearing of this controversy, I might have picked up on it (feeling an inexplicable urge to go "ah-aaahhaaa, haaaa-aaaa aaa-aaa-haaa, haaa" all of a sudden), but I might not have either. In either case, I would not have thought twice about it. Odd to see it being mentioned so much.

The Tom Petty comparison makes more sense, but still... we're talking very basic chord progressions and straightforward melodies here. The production around it and the tempo were all distinctly different. There's no doubt that you can find several songs that sound similar to either of those tracks at some level.

An example of a case which does sound like plagiarism to me is Robin Thicke's 'Million Dollar Baby'. That's basically a cover of Marvin Gaye's Trouble Man with different (vastly shittier) lyrics (not to mention inferior vocals).
Click to expand...

Agree. It is perfectly possible that such a small part sounding the same in two songs is a mere coincidence. And I think the same about the Tom Petty thing. IMO it was pity from Petty (no pun intended :p ) to sue Smith for that.

It seems to be a very modern concept that any similarity in a song to some older song should be considered as "plagarism" or "unoriginality". Probably having more to do with economics (ie. some people seeking money for such similarities) than with art. Because as far as the artistic side is concerned inspiration and even borrowing is a driving force of art including music. As long as there has been art and music, inspirations, borrowings have always been a part of it and for most of music's history it actually wasn't considered a bad thing and it wasn't considered a sign of lack of "originality" or lack of "creativity". On the contrary, a lot of musical masterpieces would not exist without borrowing. All great classical composers borrowed and at the time it wasn't considered a bad thing. After all there are only 8 notes and people throughout history vary those 8 notes to make music. It is bound to happen there would be unintended similarities in some pieces but even the intended ones are not necessarily a bad thing.

See:

This obsession with musical borrowing as “theft,” “stealing,” or being otherwise unethical or wrong is one implication of the trend beginning in the late eighteenth century of what has been described as the notion of the “romantic author” that rewards only the creation of completely original works by a single person and discounts or punishes any creative process that deviates from this (arguably unobtainable) ideal. As discussed in my previous post, before this trend gradually became the new orthodoxy, sharing was prevalent in the European classical music tradition and was not merely incidental to the development of this form of music, but an integral part of it. For instance, Handel borrowed from just about everyone and many borrowed from Handel, including Beethoven, Brahms, and even the twentieth century composer Arnold Schoenberg. The simple fact is that the masterpieces of Western classical music would not exist without the rather large amounts of appropriation and borrowing that occurred.
Click to expand...

https://askinnerlopata.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/borrowing-stealing-and-great-composers/


I suspect that the whole concept of borrowing vs stealing is really not an aesthetic one at all, but purely an economic or legal one. Where there was no actual marketplace for the sale of music as some sort of commodity, before the invention of music printing, for example, there was no stigma whatsoever attached to using material from someone else. Even after the invention of printing composers hand-copied music by other composers and used it for their own purposes. As Ross says, Bach's re-working of Vivaldi is a famous example. As legislation was developed giving creators legal possession of the rights to their music, however, the stigma has grown. And so now poor Golijov finds himself chided for some behind-the-scenes collaboration. As Ross notes, "...
the many orchestras involved in the “Sidereus” project may be miffed to discover that the work they commissioned is not exactly brand new."​
Click to expand...

http://themusicsalon.blogspot.hu/2012/02/composers-dont-borrow-they-steal.html

MJ too borrowed this way. He took the "let's dance, let's shout" chant from Marvin Gaye's Got To Give It Up Part 2 and turned it into another song (Shake Your Body). (BTW, Marvin never tried to sue MJ for that - apparently he understood how art works better than his family does.) Or he took the Makosa chant from Soul Makosa and made it a part of a song (WBSS) and (IMO) elevated it and made it better.

Some YouTube idiots would probably say things like he "stole" it, like when they claim he stole "moonwalk" or this or that, but that just showcases these people do not know anything about art and inspiration in art and the history of art. Nothing and no one ever is completely new or completely original. Art is a chain of inspirations and influences and yes, borrowings.

The bottom line is this, how Gene Kelly's widow put it:

When I mentioned Gene's voracious appetite to dance historian Elizabeth Kaye, she said it reminded her of her friend Rudolf Nureyev. "He was like a huge Hoover, scooping up everything." When she asked him about his consumption, he replied with an impish grin, "I only steal from the best."

Though Gene appreciated when people paid tribute to his work, he never relished literal renderings. He preferred, instead, to see artists take his steps and ideas and turn them into something new. Referring to the role of the artist, he said, "If he just follows the leader and accepts what's been done before, naturally, that can be brought to a very high skill. But if he wants to change it in some way and do it differently, then it jumps up to the major league."


To Gene, Michael Jackson was one who made this leap. His movements were derivative, yet he transformed the many borrowings into a new and exciting art form.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patri...ng-from-the-best_b_6173404.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

And I guess that is the difference between stealing and inspiration/borrowing.

Of course, there are clear cases of stealing and usually you know when that is the case. When something is just the imitation of something without adding anything different, any new or own twist, any new context etc. - I think usually that is distinguishable from artistic inspiration.

I realize I am moving a bit away from the original point, which wasn't necessarily an intentional borrowing by Sam Smith but simply a coincidence in the similarity of a couple of notes in a song.
 
Last edited:
It's way too easy today to build a 'legitimist' lawsuit. It all comes down to money, companies spend MILIONS of dollars on lawyers literally to find reasons to find someone to sue.

Any time a song REMINDS someone of another, it does not mean something was stolen.. There is a chance that it was not even influenced by the song.. Anything can bring reminisce of another song. Tones, melody, specific keys, vocal arrangement, vocal style, tools used, underlying sounds, production techniques, an engineers styling, filtration, etc.. It could even be an obsessive fan relating everything to a specific artist.. Which I've done before lol!
 
we keep talking about suing over music but I would highly doubt that Sam Smith would be sued for this song "sounding" like Earth Song. It doesn't really!! Influenced or not, it's not at all Earth Song.
 
respect77 said:
Talking about Blurred Lines and to be fair to the Gaye family: it was actually Thicke who sued them, not the other way around:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blurred_Lines#Marvin_Gaye_lawsuit_and_authorship_questions
Click to expand...

It looks like Thicke, Williams and T.I. submitted the lawsuit after the Gaye family made claims about the song and wanted a 'monetary settlement' http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/robin-thicke-sues-protect-blurred-607492

In all honesty it seems like the Gaye family were going to launch a lawsuit eventually, it was just Thicke, Williams and T.I. who beat them to it.

KOPV said:
we keep talking about suing over music but I would highly doubt that Sam Smith would be sued for this song "sounding" like Earth Song. It doesn't really!! Influenced or not, it's not at all Earth Song.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here thinks the Estate will sue Sam Smith (and I personally hope they don't). It's just a discussion that's arisen from the topic at hand :p
 
The lawsuits were more than just "it sounds like" Marvin Gaye's and Tom Petty's songs. You'll be laughed out of a courtroom with a claim so general and generic! The testimonies and technical evidence were very detailed and both Smith and Thicke/Williams lost their cases (as they should have). There's nothing wrong with being inspired by an artist, but stealing their work is still illegal. If they simply asked to sample/use their melodies/song structure/etc, gave them co-writing credits AND paid them, it probably wouldn't have been a problem. Being deceased doesn't mean you no longer own your work, either.
 
Last edited:
“Writing’s on the Wall” Yeah in some parts it sound familiar to me, also some part of the title does :whistle2:
 
SheilaMJFan4Ever said:
The lawsuits were more than just "it sounds like" Marvin Gaye's and Tom Petty's songs. You'll be laughed out of a courtroom with a claim so general and generic! The testimonies and technical evidence were very detailed and both Smith and Thicke/Williams lost their cases (as they should have). There's nothing wrong with being inspired by an artist, but stealing their work is still illegal. If they simply asked to sample/use their melodies/song structure/etc, gave them co-writing credits AND paid them, it probably wouldn't have been a problem. Being deceased doesn't mean you no longer own your work, either.
Click to expand...
Sam Smith did not lose his case as he settled with Tom Petty before it went to trial.

What makes the Pharell/Thicke case so difficult is that imo it ended up exactly being about "it just sounding like" Marvin Gaye's song, as you say. It basically came down to the groove being similar. But how do you quantify groove? Normally in cases of plagiarism melodies are compared, but the melody of Blurred Lines is very different from Got To Give It Up. The bass line is somewhat similar but again not identical, plus the bass line is not particularly special or prominent - again, you can probably find many bass lines in soul/funk from that era that are just as similar. The percussion is similar, but from what I read online, Blurred Lines could only be compared to Marvin Gaye's composition as presented in the sheet music. The percussion is obviously not in there, so in theory they should have been free to copy it. Even if not for that technicality, is the percussion that out of the ordinary that similar (not sampled!) percussion should be deemed illegal?

So imo what it comes down to is that basically, yes, the jury did decide that it just 'kinda sounds like' Got To Give It Up. I am a fan of Marvin Gaye, not into most of Pharrell's stuff that much and find Robin Thicke incredibly annoying. I thought Blurred Lines was a shitty track. I also found it incredibly petty that they sued the Gaye family for saying that they stole the "feel" of the song from Marvin (which I personally think is quite likely true - I just don't think that should be criminal). Sueing the family of one of your obvious inspirations for saying something like that is just incredibly childish. But I just can't agree with the verdict.

Using musical ideas from other work, either consciously or unconsciously, and making something new out of it has always been done. I guess there's always a certain grey area in between what is deemed acceptably similar and too similar. But if you start calling this copyright infringement then imo it's getting close to the point that using any conventional elements of a particular genre could get you sued.

Didn't they appeal the case? I wonder what will happen with that.
 
SoCav said:
What makes the Pharell/Thicke case so difficult is that imo it ended up exactly being about "it just sounding like" Marvin Gaye's song, as you say. It basically came down to the groove being similar. But how do you quantify groove? Normally in cases of plagiarism melodies are compared, but the melody of Blurred Lines is very different from Got To Give It Up. The bass line is somewhat similar but again not identical, plus the bass line is not particularly special or prominent - again, you can probably find many bass lines in soul/funk from that era that are just as similar. The percussion is similar, but from what I read online, Blurred Lines could only be compared to Marvin Gaye's composition as presented in the sheet music. The percussion is obviously not in there, so in theory they should have been free to copy it. Even if not for that technicality, is the percussion that out of the ordinary that similar (not sampled!) percussion should be deemed illegal?

So imo what it comes down to is that basically, yes, the jury did decide that it just 'kinda sounds like' Got To Give It Up. I am a fan of Marvin Gaye, not into most of Pharrell's stuff that much and find Robin Thicke incredibly annoying. I thought Blurred Lines was a shitty track. I also found it incredibly petty that they sued the Gaye family for saying that they stole the "feel" of the song from Marvin (which I personally think is quite likely true - I just don't think that should be criminal). Suing the family of one of your obvious inspirations for saying something like that is just incredibly childish. But I just can't agree with the verdict.

Using musical ideas from other work, either consciously or unconsciously, and making something new out of it has always been done. I guess there's always a certain grey area in between what is deemed acceptably similar and too similar. But if you start calling this copyright infringement then imo it's getting close to the point that using any conventional elements of a particular genre could get you sued.

Didn't they appeal the case? I wonder what will happen with that.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with what you wrote. I also don't really care for Pharrell (except for Happy) and don't care too much for Robin Thicke either (except for "Fall Again") but I didn't think "Blurred Lines" sounded at all like "Got to Give It Up" except for some background percussion. And when they got into the technicalities of the case, as you wrote, it really didn't.
I think they got sued because of all the bragging Thicke did about it-and saying he was channelling Marvin every chance he got. Instead of suing the Gaye family, they should have just negotiated a settlement for borrowing some parts of his song or the mood of the song.

But I was shocked when the Gaye family lost the case. I think that's worrisome for people who are channeling good music now for a change-
 
Had a listen and did not hear any similarities.

Almost fell asleep half way through.

And I found it too romantic for a Bond film. Maybe I misheard the lyrics.
 
I miss the days when Bond songs were actually good, and not the boring snoozefests we have now.
 
analogue said:
I miss the days when Bond songs were actually good, and not the boring snoozefests we have now.
Click to expand...

Adele's Skyfall came out 3 years again and was an absolutely incredible Bond song - the complete opposite of boring. The one for Quantum of Solace had a pretty cool opening (thats all I remember about it) and the song for Casino Royale's one was great (with an equally amazing titlecard sequence).

Just because Sam Smith's one isn't that amazing doesn't mean the last few having been 'boring snoozefests'. Can't speak for many others though, I haven't seen many Bond films outside of Daniel Craig's :p (although Paul McCartney's Bond song Live and Let Die is really good! My second favourite Bond song behind Skyfall).
 
to stay with the topic of "James Bond"

http://vallieegirl67.com/2015/11/07...her-love-of-michael-*****n-in-november-vogue/

BOND GIRL LÉA SEYDOUX TALKS ABOUT HER LOVE OF MICHAEL *****N IN NOVEMBER VOGUE

fs_anon_366696_1446911040.jpg

fs_anon_442581_1446910117.jpg


French actress and model Léa Seydoux plays an intelligent and very sensitive doctor in the new James Bond flick Spectre, which premiered in theaters on November 6th.

In the November 2015 issue of of Vogue UK, Léa reveals that her love for dancing started because of the King of Pop. She talks at length about her admiration for Michael Jackson (“I am a huge fan”), how she’s read his biography over and over, and is impressed by how someone so shy and quiet in daily life could be such an extrovert performer.

In a 2012 interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Lea says, “Yes, I’m very shy. Michael Jackson has always fascinated me – he was the biggest star in the world and he was shy. I’m a little bit…very shy.”
 
Paris78;4115823 said:
to stay with the topic of "James Bond"

http://vallieegirl67.com/2015/11/07...her-love-of-michael-*****n-in-november-vogue/

BOND GIRL LÉA SEYDOUX TALKS ABOUT HER LOVE OF MICHAEL *****N IN NOVEMBER VOGUE

fs_anon_366696_1446911040.jpg

fs_anon_442581_1446910117.jpg


French actress and model Léa Seydoux plays an intelligent and very sensitive doctor in the new James Bond flick Spectre, which premiered in theaters on November 6th.

In the November 2015 issue of of Vogue UK, Léa reveals that her love for dancing started because of the King of Pop. She talks at length about her admiration for Michael Jackson (“I am a huge fan”), how she’s read his biography over and over, and is impressed by how someone so shy and quiet in daily life could be such an extrovert performer.

In a 2012 interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Lea says, “Yes, I’m very shy. Michael Jackson has always fascinated me – he was the biggest star in the world and he was shy. I’m a little bit…very shy.”
Click to expand...

Wow never knew that. She's such a great beautiful actress. Michael inspires everybody! :)
 
HIStoric said:
Adele's Skyfall came out 3 years again and was an absolutely incredible Bond song - the complete opposite of boring. The one for Quantum of Solace had a pretty cool opening (thats all I remember about it) and the song for Casino Royale's one was great (with an equally amazing titlecard sequence).

Just because Sam Smith's one isn't that amazing doesn't mean the last few having been 'boring snoozefests'. Can't speak for many others though, I haven't seen many Bond films outside of Daniel Craig's :p (although Paul McCartney's Bond song Live and Let Die is really good! My second favourite Bond song behind Skyfall).
Click to expand...

Some really good Bond songs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top