Maroon 5 Announces New Single & Date & Cover

[Serendipity 7,821]

I thought they disbanded ages ago

​Adam does a bit of solo then and now, but the band still exists to my agony

[StarryNight 10,106]

Is this gonna be a new song? or from latest album?  

[thefamebitch 834]

Jeez they release albums so quickly 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

I'll give it a listen

 

I usually like most of their songs cause they're such earworms and catchy af  

[GagaMyBlood95 9,915]

Idk... Maybe it grows on me..

[bionic 50,107]

i like the photo

[TimisaMonster 31,073]

Wow...not Feelings? It Was Always You?

 

[BillieGOAT 5,227]

​So screeching singing as if he were punched in the balls makes women moist?   

I personally hate adam levine.. I'm just making a prediction based on the past  ​http://img2-3.timeinc.net/people/i/2013/specials/sma/covers/adam-levine-300.jpg  

[Chiunzhan 997]

Remember when they used to make (real) music?

[Mills 446]

Don't like the song title, but the cover is nice to look at. This is a good example of simplicity at its best.

Is this gonna be a new song? or from latest album?  

​It's a new song which will serve as the lead single for the upcoming re-release of their current album, V (which is the parent album of Animals and Sugar), aimed to extend the album's longevity (and push its sales to platinum at last) and at the same time have the bragging rights of having more hits from one parent album. For comparison's sake, it's like Katy Perry's "Part of Me" from Teenage Dream's 2012 re-issue and Rihanna's "Take a Bow" from GGGB's 2008 re-release. It's noteworthy that all of these albums experienced a string of top 10 hits prior to the re-release, which further shows that the re-issues are more aimed to milk off whatever success the original album title has. But, on the other hand, they're also aimed to revive the interest on an album if the initial singles were not warmly accepted by the fans, like what they've done with their 2010 album. It took a 2011 re-issue for them to get a smash hit titled "Moves Like Jagger" and for their album to sell more than a million.

Remember when they used to make (real) music?

​I honestly don't understand the idea that there's a "real" music aside from the music most know. No matter how "good" or "bad" a song is to one's preference, whether it's a vocal song or an instrumental one or a combination of both, it won't change the fact that it's still an actual form of music at the end of the day, doesn't it? 

Implying there's a form of music which is either considered "real" or the opposite of it just comes off as an elitist view, if not an illusion of grandeur. Even those who regard what's "real" music from what I've read outside this forum have no universally accepted definition for it, other than what suits their musical taste the best. Some rock music fans call rock music as what "real" music is and/or should sound like. But then there are also jazz music fans who'd call jazz as what "real" music is. And same goes with other fans of the other genres. They consider their musical taste as the standard of what should be considered as "real" music without accepting that what they regard as "real" or as "best" will always be based on their own personal musical preference. And one's musical taste will never be the musical preference of everyone every time. Neither does it change the fact that what some regard as "bad" music could be considered by others as "good" music nor does it make one's music "not real" for others to have a right to call a type of music "real" to begin with.