Now that Hurley is out, what do you guys think of how the band has changed and is changing?

Do you think they're doing better or worse?

What do you think is going to happen to them within the next for years or in other words what do you see happening to their music in the next 1, 2, or 3 albums?

Tags: album, albums, direction, future, going, is, on, thoughts, weezer, where

Views: 581

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree that I Want To Be Something does not belong on Pinkerton, but only because it wouldn't have fit in with the rest of the record. I think it's a great song - especially since I love acoustic jams. It was written well, and it was performed well.

As for the rest of your post - looks like you've regressed back to blatantly insulting people for their opinions. How terribly ironic.


BackToSchool said:
Prettiest Girl was written well before Weezer returned and started making fools of themselves and their old fans.

Raditude is trash. You're allowed to have bad taste, you just need to recognize that's all it is. Raditude is indefensibly bad in all respects. It deserved to fail miserably. It's funny too, because the failure of Pinkerton turned Rivers into a shadow of himself as a songwriter, but the failure of Raditude just resulted in Hurley, which still sucks.

"I want to be something" belongs nowhere near Pinkerton. It would not fit AT ALL. Once again, taste...you're clearly lacking it.
Yeah, it's real "sad". lol.

Please. I can and have supported my opinion all over this board with more than "i just feel sorry for everyone who can't get past the 90's stuff".

I don't actually care in the least what you or Ross Thomas like or don't like and I'm fairly certain the feeling is mutual. But this is a musical discussion forum and I'm not going to pull my punches. Anyone trying to argue that Raditude is of equivalent quality to Pinkerton is just being ridiculous. I don't mind taking the flak for pointing it out. I think I've said this elsewhere but a whole bunch of fans need to learn how to separate "i like this" from "this is well-made". I like "Toxic". But Britney Spears has no talent whatsoever and really, the song is dumb as hell. See? It's not that hard.

And in keeping with what this particular sub-forum exists for, why don't we pick tunes from Raditude and Pinkerton and compare them side by side-- chord progressions, structure, melodic contour, lyrics, production, performance? Perhaps then we can settle this ridiculous debate once and for all.

There IS a difference in quality. Even members of the band recognize it. You should read Pat's postings over at allthingsweezer.


Sovereign Andy said:


BackToSchool said:
Prettiest Girl was written well before Weezer returned and started making fools of themselves and their old fans.

Raditude is trash. You're allowed to have bad taste, you just need to recognize that's all it is. Raditude is indefensibly bad in all respects. It deserved to fail miserably. It's funny too, because the failure of Pinkerton turned Rivers into a shadow of himself as a songwriter, but the failure of Raditude just resulted in Hurley, which still sucks.

"I want to be something" belongs nowhere near Pinkerton. It would not fit AT ALL. Once again, taste...you're clearly lacking it.

It's funny that you think your opinion weighs more than Ross Thomas' opinion.
It's more sad than funny that you have to be so rude about it.
These are my thoughts. They aren't based on any one specific comment I've read or heard here or anywhere (cause lord knows; I don't have time for that many specific comments.) These are thoughts and observations based on a music fan's observations over a period of x amount of (semi)frustrated years.

What makes a song "good", "better", and "bad"? Is it based on some unwritten criteria somewhere, in some metaphorical crevice inhabited by Clive Davis and John Hammond? Is a song "good" if it's "sucessful", or "popular"? That would seem a good judge, though on such critera we would then have to accept Justin Bieber as a legimate maker of "good" music. Is a song good because of some combination of technical expertise, creativity, and flair? Do complicated time and key signatures, combined with complex and unweildy rhythmic figures contribute to making a song "better"? Does this mean that Rush's "Farewell to Kings" and "Roundabout" by Yes represent the pinnacle of magnficent songwriting? Surely, a song being tecnically impressive can't play all that much into its sucess or contributions to culture: how then do we account for a large portion of one Robert Zimmerman's career? I do believe "The Times They Are a Changin" maxes out on 4 chords, simply being strummed on a six-stringed acoustic guitar. Clearly though, sir, Bob Dylan's legacy stems more from a lyrical excellence and attention to stories, characters, motifs and themes inside the confines of popular music. We're talking about the spokesman of a generation, no? Then do "good" songs instead stem from their lyrics? The music just a vehicle to convey stories and words; therefore the better written, more eloquently spoken songs are truly representative of a "good" quality. Though that said, we must take exception to make room for Cole Porter. The man seldom wrote outside of the subject of love and the act of falling into it. "Night and Day" is charming and lovely and one of the finest examples of "The American Songbook". Sophisticated lyrical writing it sure ain't. Though that said, it's got unusual chord changes in it, and a bridge featuring an immediate and seemingly out-of-place key change up a minor third. Technical craft behooves finer songwriting? What about Willie Nelson? He wrote simple songs in simple keys about simple subjects like love, cowboys, and loving cowboys. Ain't nothing impressive there, rendering him pretty useless in the grand scope of things, no? Unless in some combination of simple things, Willie Nelson is simply a "good songwriter", and thus: wrote "good" songs. He was and is certainly popular. Nick Drake wrote great songs. Some were as good as the best ones Willie Nelson's written. But I challenge anyone, anywhere, to name three Nick Drake songs that aren't "Pink Moon". And then have them name three Black Eyed Peas songs. I love Nick Drake. I don't like the Black Eyed Peas. Nick Drake has become a mysterious cult folk figure, hoarded over by angry young men pawing through vinyl shops in search of unreleased Morrissey singles and the second rerelease of the remixed version of Roger Waters solo acoustic performance of Syd Barrett's rare & unreleased hip-hop tune "Imma Eat Some Raw Octopus Now". And these fellows love Nick Drake, abhor the Black Eyed Peas corporate business music, and judge music by their own standards. They probably hate the Jonas Brothers too. Some of them may have actually seen the Jonas Brothers back when the Jo Bros were a no-name nye-Christian-rock group going from high school to high school in the Greater New Jersey area, giving out red demo CDs that would go on to be worth hundreds. Some of these angry, young vinyl hounds may have even used that now-rare demo CD as a frisbee, cause it was "bad" music. That said, The Jonas Brothers are pretty damn popular. I don't know if those vinyl hounds and "Pink Moon" fans are ready to admit that they like or admire or aspire to emulate them. But they're making a living playing music and making people enjoy listening to said music. And maybe that makes them good. Or bad. Or better, or in between. The Jonas Brothers make "power pop", a label I reckon you could stick on a band called Weezer without much protest. I'm told Weezer only made two "good" albums. That Blue was full of sophisticated songwriting, articulate but not excessive production, and a "good" band. And it was popular. And still is. Pinkerton wasn't popular. So it was bad. Then it was popular. So it was good. Now it's popular, but only "good" if you really know about SFtBH. That makes it awesome. And legendary. So what if you don't hear "Getchoo" on the radio. You hear "Beverly Hills" on the radio. And that's a "bad" song, right? Cause it's just a couple of simple chords. Or because it's got cheesy lyrics. But what about "Undone"? It's a "good" song. Because it was made by "good" Weezer? So who minds the lengthy, nonsensical introduction. Or the exceedingly simple I, IV, V, IV chord progression. Or those incredibly silly verse lyrics, and chorus about a sweater or something. It's a "good" song, by a "good" Weezer. I think. Not like "The Greatest Man that Ever Lived". That was "bad" Weezer from a "bad" album. Something about switching musical genres about 8 times midsong, or adding in baroque harmonies, or completely accapella sections, in a 6 minute pop song. "Bad" songwriting. "Bad" Weezer. We've covered ground I didn't mean to cover in the course of a midnight post on a Weezer forum, but at ramble's end, an ethos: perhaps (and I know us Nick Drake fans really don't wanna admit it). just perhaps, music (and Weezer) is objective, and people can like or dislike what they want. Even if it's got Kenny G guesting on soprano saxophone.


I don't think I have bad taste, my favourite albums would be along the lines of...

Fables Of The Reconstruction - REM
In Utero - Nirvana
Notorious Byrd Brothers - The Byrds
Help! - The Beatles
No Code - Pearl Jam

to name a few..

The bands I love evolved and took risks and that's what Weezer do too.

As a result you are not going to like everything they do, but on the whole I think Weezer are a great band - still very prone to making shocking errors in judgement - but a worthy artistic endeavour for sure.

Raditude for me was the album Make Believe tried to be but better. Some of Make Believe was jarring and annoying, Raditude has great pop sensibilities, no song is overlong or self indulgent, everything is in the right place to make a great pop album for the listener. The Lyrics are trite fluff aimed at 11 year olds but they work well and tell a story. A lot of the songs on Green and Maladroit are just jumbled words and I feel that lets those albums down a lot.

Sounds to me that a lot of fans here would have rather Rivers shot himself like Kurt in 1996 so we could all say what a tortured genius he was now. Who knows what Nirvana would have been doing now if they had gone on? Look at John Lennons output on Double Fantasy - people grow up and change and develop - Rivers is no different and is stil a great artist




Frank Falisi said:
These are my thoughts. They aren't based on any one specific comment I've read or heard here or anywhere (cause lord knows; I don't have time for that many specific comments.) These are thoughts and observations based on a music fan's observations over a period of x amount of (semi)frustrated years.

What makes a song "good", "better", and "bad"? Is it based on some unwritten criteria somewhere, in some metaphorical crevice inhabited by Clive Davis and John Hammond? Is a song "good" if it's "sucessful", or "popular"? That would seem a good judge, though on such critera we would then have to accept Justin Bieber as a legimate maker of "good" music. Is a song good because of some combination of technical expertise, creativity, and flair? Do complicated time and key signatures, combined with complex and unweildy rhythmic figures contribute to making a song "better"? Does this mean that Rush's "Farewell to Kings" and "Roundabout" by Yes represent the pinnacle of magnficent songwriting? Surely, a song being tecnically impressive can't play all that much into its sucess or contributions to culture: how then do we account for a large portion of one Robert Zimmerman's career? I do believe "The Times They Are a Changin" maxes out on 4 chords, simply being strummed on a six-stringed acoustic guitar. Clearly though, sir, Bob Dylan's legacy stems more from a lyrical excellence and attention to stories, characters, motifs and themes inside the confines of popular music. We're talking about the spokesman of a generation, no? Then do "good" songs instead stem from their lyrics? The music just a vehicle to convey stories and words; therefore the better written, more eloquently spoken songs are truly representative of a "good" quality. Though that said, we must take exception to make room for Cole Porter. The man seldom wrote outside of the subject of love and the act of falling into it. "Night and Day" is charming and lovely and one of the finest examples of "The American Songbook". Sophisticated lyrical writing it sure ain't. Though that said, it's got unusual chord changes in it, and a bridge featuring an immediate and seemingly out-of-place key change up a minor third. Technical craft behooves finer songwriting? What about Willie Nelson? He wrote simple songs in simple keys about simple subjects like love, cowboys, and loving cowboys. Ain't nothing impressive there, rendering him pretty useless in the grand scope of things, no? Unless in some combination of simple things, Willie Nelson is simply a "good songwriter", and thus: wrote "good" songs. He was and is certainly popular. Nick Drake wrote great songs. Some were as good as the best ones Willie Nelson's written. But I challenge anyone, anywhere, to name three Nick Drake songs that aren't "Pink Moon". And then have them name three Black Eyed Peas songs. I love Nick Drake. I don't like the Black Eyed Peas. Nick Drake has become a mysterious cult folk figure, hoarded over by angry young men pawing through vinyl shops in search of unreleased Morrissey singles and the second rerelease of the remixed version of Roger Waters solo acoustic performance of Syd Barrett's rare & unreleased hip-hop tune "Imma Eat Some Raw Octopus Now". And these fellows love Nick Drake, abhor the Black Eyed Peas corporate business music, and judge music by their own standards. They probably hate the Jonas Brothers too. Some of them may have actually seen the Jonas Brothers back when the Jo Bros were a no-name nye-Christian-rock group going from high school to high school in the Greater New Jersey area, giving out red demo CDs that would go on to be worth hundreds. Some of these angry, young vinyl hounds may have even used that now-rare demo CD as a frisbee, cause it was "bad" music. That said, The Jonas Brothers are pretty damn popular. I don't know if those vinyl hounds and "Pink Moon" fans are ready to admit that they like or admire or aspire to emulate them. But they're making a living playing music and making people enjoy listening to said music. And maybe that makes them good. Or bad. Or better, or in between. The Jonas Brothers make "power pop", a label I reckon you could stick on a band called Weezer without much protest. I'm told Weezer only made two "good" albums. That Blue was full of sophisticated songwriting, articulate but not excessive production, and a "good" band. And it was popular. And still is. Pinkerton wasn't popular. So it was bad. Then it was popular. So it was good. Now it's popular, but only "good" if you really know about SFtBH. That makes it awesome. And legendary. So what if you don't hear "Getchoo" on the radio. You hear "Beverly Hills" on the radio. And that's a "bad" song, right? Cause it's just a couple of simple chords. Or because it's got cheesy lyrics. But what about "Undone"? It's a "good" song. Because it was made by "good" Weezer? So who minds the lengthy, nonsensical introduction. Or the exceedingly simple I, IV, V, IV chord progression. Or those incredibly silly verse lyrics, and chorus about a sweater or something. It's a "good" song, by a "good" Weezer. I think. Not like "The Greatest Man that Ever Lived". That was "bad" Weezer from a "bad" album. Something about switching musical genres about 8 times midsong, or adding in baroque harmonies, or completely accapella sections, in a 6 minute pop song. "Bad" songwriting. "Bad" Weezer. We've covered ground I didn't mean to cover in the course of a midnight post on a Weezer forum, but at ramble's end, an ethos: perhaps (and I know us Nick Drake fans really don't wanna admit it). just perhaps, music (and Weezer) is objective, and people can like or dislike what they want. Even if it's got Kenny G guesting on soprano saxophone.
Let me ask you this regarding Raditude once again....

If pop bands that are the constant butt of ridicule wrote Raditude such as Good Charlotte or AAR would the album still be awesome? Same songs, keys, time signatures, lyrics, etc....

Somehow I think your answer will be different.


BackToSchool said:
Yeah, it's real "sad". lol.

Please. I can and have supported my opinion all over this board with more than "i just feel sorry for everyone who can't get past the 90's stuff".

I don't actually care in the least what you or Ross Thomas like or don't like

Sure you do.
They should just release songs from the black h***. They screwed up majorly when they didn't. Probably lost confidence with the way pinkerton was slammed.
It's funny how people are so pissed about how Weezer are now that they even try to start a campaign fund raise $10 million to get them to split http://www.spinnermusic.co.uk/2010/10/06/weezer-split-campaign/.
I don't get why people who think like that don't just stop listening to Weezer and accept what they have become.
I love their first 2 albums and Pinkerton has to be the album that had the greatest influence on my life, but Rivers admits he is a completely different person then to now, and basically tries to say it was just his mood and how his life was going at the time that he used as an inspiration for such music.
I do believe if he had not snapped out from the hard times he was having, he would have continued a legacy similarly to Kurt Cobain, especially with his reputation of letting things get to him and his reaction to depression.
Rivers changed his style of music because he could not take criticism with what he took seriously, putting his mind and heart into his music. I think this started off when Weezer were tagged as a "geek" band, then following by the "failure" of Pinkerton that he just broke down and took a break, considering changing the style of his music and up his confidence so his figure and reputation would be reconsidered, almost trying to redeem himself from the "geek" image originally perceived from him, to a more upbeat, football fanatic and happy, loving family man with a sense of humour.
I must admit, I do like a a fair amount of 21st century Weezer, but I find it just being too different to their original work, it seems Rivers just wants to experiment time and time again to find his own sound that pleases all fans, rather than just continue writing music the way he did 14 years ago (I read in a recent interview on Kerrang magazine [British Rock magazine] that RIvers doesn't like the sound of his own stuff, as he feels Weezer get too much credit for the sound produced, saying he felt bad every time listening to his old work, as when he hears the songs all he hears are the copied ideas from other bands, if I remember straight :P).
I suppose a lot more of what went through the Weezer world since they made quality music will be understood when "The Pinkerton Diaries" gets released.
Slowly, with all of Weezer's new songs, I think would just stop bothering to buy their albums and listening to songs they produce, but Blue and Pinkerton will always have a place on my heart.
This is just my opinion and I what I have said is nothing new and is repeated all the time with Weezer discussions, so please don't flame me with that.
This is my first post, and would just like to compliment that the forums seem great with great discussions and great community of people with different opinions.
Thanks.


I just don't think Weezer have changed as much as everyone says here. The production is very different but the songwriting isn't really. Good life as an example has just the same clunky geek chic lines that Raditude gets blasted for.


Sinnorf said:
It's funny how people are so pissed about how Weezer are now that they even try to start a campaign fund raise $10 million to get them to split http://www.spinnermusic.co.uk/2010/10/06/weezer-split-campaign/.
I don't get why people who think like that don't just stop listening to Weezer and accept what they have become.
I love their first 2 albums and Pinkerton has to be the album that had the greatest influence on my life, but Rivers admits he is a completely different person then to now, and basically tries to say it was just his mood and how his life was going at the time that he used as an inspiration for such music.
I do believe if he had not snapped out from the hard times he was having, he would have continued a legacy similarly to Kurt Cobain, especially with his reputation of letting things get to him and his reaction to depression.
Rivers changed his style of music because he could not take criticism with what he took seriously, putting his mind and heart into his music. I think this started off when Weezer were tagged as a "geek" band, then following by the "failure" of Pinkerton that he just broke down and took a break, considering changing the style of his music and up his confidence so his figure and reputation would be reconsidered, almost trying to redeem himself from the "geek" image originally perceived from him, to a more upbeat, football fanatic and happy, loving family man with a sense of humour.
I must admit, I do like a a fair amount of 21st century Weezer, but I find it just being too different to their original work, it seems Rivers just wants to experiment time and time again to find his own sound that pleases all fans, rather than just continue writing music the way he did 14 years ago (I read in a recent interview on Kerrang magazine [British Rock magazine] that RIvers doesn't like the sound of his own stuff, as he feels Weezer get too much credit for the sound produced, saying he felt bad every time listening to his old work, as when he hears the songs all he hears are the copied ideas from other bands, if I remember straight :P).
I suppose a lot more of what went through the Weezer world since they made quality music will be understood when "The Pinkerton Diaries" gets released.
Slowly, with all of Weezer's new songs, I think would just stop bothering to buy their albums and listening to songs they produce, but Blue and Pinkerton will always have a place on my heart.
This is just my opinion and I what I have said is nothing new and is repeated all the time with Weezer discussions, so please don't flame me with that.
This is my first post, and would just like to compliment that the forums seem great with great discussions and great community of people with different opinions.
Thanks.
Why do people always want bands to sound and write the same way they did at the beginning of their career? Weezer is an amazing band that has churned out exciting infectious rock and roll songs for the last 16 years or so. Red Album, Raditude and Hurley are all great.
I miss the guitar solos... I understand that a band does not always keep the exact same sound, there is usually evolution. But, Raditude and Hurley were kind of disappointing. However, I am a die hard Weezer fan, and have been since the Blue Album came out when I was in high school. I just wish for the "deep introspective" Weezer tunes of yesterday.
This has always summed up my view of modern day Weezer. Well said.

I have never expected the 14 year old contingent on this website to get that. Shame, because that is what the "new sound" is geared towards.



Abby said:
I miss the guitar solos... I understand that a band does not always keep the exact same sound, there is usually evolution. But, Raditude and Hurley were kind of disappointing. However, I am a die hard Weezer fan, and have been since the Blue Album came out when I was in high school. I just wish for the "deep introspective" Weezer tunes of yesterday.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Weezer Bootlegs

SOCIAL

  • Weezer Links

Weezer Mailing List

Music

Loading…

© 2014   Created by Weezer.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Offline

Live Video