0
A Rivers Runs Through It: In Defense of Weezer
Posted by Austin Hudson
on
9:00 AM
in
music
In light of Weezer frontman Rivers Cuomo's recent accident, I thought I'd sit down and type something up that I've been thinking about for the last couple of weeks. Namely, Weezer.
Weezer, for the tragically unhip (or would it be for the ultrahip?) is a California alternative rock band formed in 1992. They had a breakout success with their first album, 1994's self titled (dubbed The Blue Album), before going on to create what many fans consider to be their best work, Pinkerton. From there... well, that's anybody's ballgame.
The case against Weezer is something like this: following the release of Pinkerton, bassist Matt Sharp left the band (for reasons which will probably never be clear). Rivers Cuomo attempted to replace him, but the efforts didn't go so well. Unable to write songs quite the way he and Matt used to, Rivers got depressed, the band went on a hiatus, and after a while they came back with The Green Album, which wasn't that great, and they've sucked ever since.
Some of these things are beyond dispute. The band did go on a long hiatus, there was a pretty nasty falling out between Sharp and Cuomo, and the band has yet to recapture exactly what was on The Blue Album. General consensus even agrees with this, as the Metacritic data for the last few albums goes progressively down with each new release. Does this mean that Weezer sucks? Not necessarily.
I think the easiest explanation for this is, Weezer is the kind of band you would have if you got famous. No, not you, metal freak kid with the scary tee-shirt. But you, the dorky kid who fiddles around with instruments. Weezer is your band.
The fact of the matter is, Weezer has grown to increasingly embrace the rock star lifestyle or, more precisely, what Rivers thinks the rock star lifestyle is. Most of the major missteps in the band's life (ridiculous guest performers on tracks, generic 'radio ready' tracks) are all signs of rockers getting older. Like an overgrown kid, they gleefully add whoever is currently popular on to their album because, heck, we can get Lil' Wayne to sing on our CD! Time itself backs me up on this, as Rivers turned 39 this year and will soon be looking at the big 4-0. If you view the band's most recent release, Raditude, as a professional mid-life crisis from an aging power pop alt. rocker, several of the previously inexplicable decisions make a lot more sense.
Besides, from the time they got big, Weezer has been about playing with the concept of being a stereotypical 'big rock band'. They have their band symbol illuminated behind them in flashing lights at concerts, dangit! It's sorta like Van Halen!
The critics of Weezer have every right to be upset. If you look at a band as a consistent set of output, you'll be very disappointed over time. Some bands get successful releasing the same two albums and four songs over and over, some record a great album and then disappear, and some spend a lot of time playing with what kind of music they want to make. To dismiss the band as awful is wrong; they're simply making music that you don't like.
If Weezer awoke collectively tomorrow and said, It is time to record The Blue Album 2, it would be awesome. It would also tank commercially. The Blue Album still sounds great because it was a product of it's time -- it wasn't overproduced, and it felt like a genuine effort. The same thing wouldn't be as well received today, in a musical landscape where everything is auto-tuned and pitch corrected. The album would come out sounding more like, well, Raditude.
Don't tell Weezer they suck. For every album they release, no matter how bad you think it is, there are always memorable tracks. Maybe one day they'll release the Great American Album or something, but then again, maybe they won't. But the point is, it doesn't make sense to dismiss an artist for a series of weak releases. If that was the case, we'd be saying David Bowie sucked because of his somewhat weaker output in the late 80's and 90's. Just appreciate the albums you like and forget about the ones you don't.
And if you see Matt Sharp, try and convince him to rejoin the band.
|
Weezer, for the tragically unhip (or would it be for the ultrahip?) is a California alternative rock band formed in 1992. They had a breakout success with their first album, 1994's self titled (dubbed The Blue Album), before going on to create what many fans consider to be their best work, Pinkerton. From there... well, that's anybody's ballgame.
The case against Weezer is something like this: following the release of Pinkerton, bassist Matt Sharp left the band (for reasons which will probably never be clear). Rivers Cuomo attempted to replace him, but the efforts didn't go so well. Unable to write songs quite the way he and Matt used to, Rivers got depressed, the band went on a hiatus, and after a while they came back with The Green Album, which wasn't that great, and they've sucked ever since.Some of these things are beyond dispute. The band did go on a long hiatus, there was a pretty nasty falling out between Sharp and Cuomo, and the band has yet to recapture exactly what was on The Blue Album. General consensus even agrees with this, as the Metacritic data for the last few albums goes progressively down with each new release. Does this mean that Weezer sucks? Not necessarily.
I think the easiest explanation for this is, Weezer is the kind of band you would have if you got famous. No, not you, metal freak kid with the scary tee-shirt. But you, the dorky kid who fiddles around with instruments. Weezer is your band.
The fact of the matter is, Weezer has grown to increasingly embrace the rock star lifestyle or, more precisely, what Rivers thinks the rock star lifestyle is. Most of the major missteps in the band's life (ridiculous guest performers on tracks, generic 'radio ready' tracks) are all signs of rockers getting older. Like an overgrown kid, they gleefully add whoever is currently popular on to their album because, heck, we can get Lil' Wayne to sing on our CD! Time itself backs me up on this, as Rivers turned 39 this year and will soon be looking at the big 4-0. If you view the band's most recent release, Raditude, as a professional mid-life crisis from an aging power pop alt. rocker, several of the previously inexplicable decisions make a lot more sense.
Besides, from the time they got big, Weezer has been about playing with the concept of being a stereotypical 'big rock band'. They have their band symbol illuminated behind them in flashing lights at concerts, dangit! It's sorta like Van Halen!
The critics of Weezer have every right to be upset. If you look at a band as a consistent set of output, you'll be very disappointed over time. Some bands get successful releasing the same two albums and four songs over and over, some record a great album and then disappear, and some spend a lot of time playing with what kind of music they want to make. To dismiss the band as awful is wrong; they're simply making music that you don't like.
If Weezer awoke collectively tomorrow and said, It is time to record The Blue Album 2, it would be awesome. It would also tank commercially. The Blue Album still sounds great because it was a product of it's time -- it wasn't overproduced, and it felt like a genuine effort. The same thing wouldn't be as well received today, in a musical landscape where everything is auto-tuned and pitch corrected. The album would come out sounding more like, well, Raditude.
Don't tell Weezer they suck. For every album they release, no matter how bad you think it is, there are always memorable tracks. Maybe one day they'll release the Great American Album or something, but then again, maybe they won't. But the point is, it doesn't make sense to dismiss an artist for a series of weak releases. If that was the case, we'd be saying David Bowie sucked because of his somewhat weaker output in the late 80's and 90's. Just appreciate the albums you like and forget about the ones you don't.
And if you see Matt Sharp, try and convince him to rejoin the band.
|
