Recently I read an article that reported a blog post made by Patrick Stump, the singer/songwriter/guitarist of Fall Out Boy, commenting on how all everyone does is hate/troll anymore over Twitter, YouTube, and whatever other sit-behind-a-safe-chair-and-criticize-people social media website that the world uses. This led me to his blog post. I read it. I liked what he had to say. I do think he's right on one level: people can't seem to really encapsulate why they hate Nickelback, they just do; people can't seem to grasp why they hate Creed, Taylor Swift, Nicki Minaj, Justin Bieber, Rhianna, and any other artist you can think of that gets mass radio airplay over the pop stations. Patrick goes on to say that he never indicated that he himself liked Nickelback or Creed either, but that people should stop trolling and "defining themselves by hate." This is a valid point, and one that I should consider myself. Patrick Stump even went as far as blowing up his tweeter feed to someone who trolled him recently and the insults he threw back were pretty creative. The man knows his stuff..
But you know what...I do know why people extremely dislike those aforementioned artists--well, at least I know why I extremely dislike them.
I'll start with Fall Out Boy. In my opinion, the lyrics and words are just pretentious, fanciful, and self-dramatizing (see what I did there? the irony), but that is me. That isn't the kid sitting alone, depressed, wishing he had someone to talk to and puts a Fall Out boy album on and it speaks to him. That's different. I'm 24. I grew up with different tastes and so maybe I'm giving Patrick Stump too hard of a time on that one. Stump: 1. Matt: 0. But then I see the title of their latest album: Save Rock and Roll.
You google this and find numerous reporters writing articles asking, "Can Fall Out Boy save rock and roll?" to which Stump has not replied. And I don't expect him to. 1) Fall Out Boy isn't rock and roll; they never have been. At most, the band is the apotheosis of an emo evolved pop/punk band, influencing legions of young teens in their youth that deal with issues at home, at school--whatever. I say emo, but not in a condescending sense of the word. I mean emo as in not rock and roll: rock and roll is a term that has its origins in sex (of course). When people wanted to get it on they would say, "let's rock and roll". Like everything, it has evolved. Music became its medium, where rock and roll could take the form of notes, of harmonies, of earth-shaking guitar riffs. And so, there aren't many rock and roll bands left that fit that criteria that are still touring. There aren't many bands that shake the ground they play on. I'd say the Rolling Stones, Red Hot Chili Peppers to some extent, AC/DC, Oasis (if they'd ever get back together), U2 at some moments in their career (my favorite band), The Black Keys, Foo Fighters, and The White Stripes (when they were together)--Jack White is some mix of all the awesomeness in the world so I don't consider him Rock and Roll to the full extent. There are others that I know I'm forgetting but these are the ones off the top of my head.
2) Knowing that you aren't a rock and roll band--Patrick acknowledges this in his blog post--what message is he sending, and is the band sending, with this new album titled Save Rock and Roll? Fall Out Boy can't save it, and it's something beyond arrogance if they ever thought they could. Sorry, they just aren't talented enough. They're a good band with good lyrics, but there is a reason bands like RHCP, U2, AC/DC. Jack White, are regarded with such admiration and awe. They got something more. I don't know what it is, but take a look at some of Bono's lyrics sometime, particularly the songs, "The Fly" or "Moment of Surrender", or listen to how unbelievably difficult and creative and long-lasting RHCP has been and how freakin gifted they are. Look at how U2 has changed over the years. Listen to "Mysterious Ways," then "Where the Streets have no name," then "Lemon."--yes that's the same band. And maybe I'm biased--okay, I probably am very biased, but other bands have done this as well: Zeppelin, Beatles, Stones, Radiohead; they know that music--their music must evolve and become more complex, while at the same time still being able to appease the hardcore fans they've had since they were young.
I can forgive all that. That still doesn't make it for me. Though the bands I mentioned have these characteristics in common, they also have another one that is much more important: they created something completely unique and new. Edge. Enough said. He alone has influenced music to the likes of Coldplay, Killers, Muse, and any other freakin' band that uses a delay and echo pedal. RHCP blended punk, funk, and rock for the first time ever; and the Beatles...well..do I even need to say anything? The point is this: Who the hell titles their album Save Rock and Roll when they have never been a rock and roll band and never will be and will never have the talent to save anything except for their respective genre?
Sigh.
Patrick says we shouldn't have people like Nickelback or his own band, but you're asking for it when you title your album that way. Patrick stated that nickelback is working on being the best damn nickelback they can be. Oh yeah. You mean the I-use-the-same-four-chords-but-on-a-different-key-to-get-a-hit-song band? Cause that's what they do? Go listen to photograph, then someday, somehow, then far away.. same chord progression, same goal in mind: let's make a hit song to get popular with younger audiences, particularly teenage girls, so that we can make more money.
That's why we hate those types of people. That's why we troll. We get sick of the music industry in general. We get sick of listening to Taylor Swift write another song with below-mediocre lyrics about a girl in love with a boy she can't have or has broken up with. That's like romance novelists: they have a formula, they stick to it.
The plot is the same, the characters different. The song is the same,
let's just change the order and melody a bit. No effort really. None. Nobody cares. Sure, teenage girls want to hear it, but let artists who are at that age sing about those experiences. How old is Taylor Swift now? 22? And the best she can come up with in all her life experiences is singing about sitting around a fire gabbing about exes and meeting strangers that you want to have sex with? You know what most people were going through at 22? Life adjustment issues. Moving away from family. Changing Roles. Accumulation of Responsibilities. Some people went through Divorce. Depression. Thoughts of Suicide. Deaths in the family. Deaths in your friendships--real or symbolically. Ask yourself when you were 22 which would you find more relevant, which would connect with you the most: that Taylor Swift song or someone talking about leaving home for the first time, having to do things on their own, etc.? That song isn't a song about someone at 22; it's a song about someone at 15, masquerading like its supposed to be 22-year-olds. It shows the lack of maturity and how Taylor has yet to leave high school.
Why do we hate Justin Bieber? Because he won a goddamn milestone award for his ingenuity and musical innovation at the tender age of 17 when he hasn't done a damn thing (this was voted by fans). His music hasn't created anything new. He isn't Daft Punk. He didn't define Blue-Eyed Soul like Billy Caldwell, Hall and Oates, and Michael McDonald. He isn't Bill Withers, Al Green, Earth, Wind, and Fire; he didn't define Motown like the Spinners and he isn't changing Motown like Fitz and the Tantrums are doing right now. He didn't freakin' define Rock and Roll like Clapton, Cream, Zeppelin, and numerous other bands emerging in the 1960s, and he isn't changing it like Jack White, RHCP, and the Black Keys are doing right now. I don't care if he writes what he writes. He can write stuff like "boyfriend"; it's age appropriate. That's what I would be writing if I was 17. But don't wear your pants below your damn knees and walk around like your god's gift to music. You have nothing to be arrogant about and you should know that.
But I really don't blame him. I blame the industry and I blame the lack of education in homes about music, what's good what's bad. I know that sounds pedantic and austere, but we let our teens listen to crap. And it shouldn't be a big deal. I know it, and I really don't know why I'm so pissed about all this. I guess its because I believe music should be more than what some artists represent it be. It should be more than making money. It should be about Tupac writing about his struggles to get out of the hell he was in; it should be about Billy Guy singing the blues or Stevie Ray Vaughan talking about his struggle with alcoholism. It should be something that opens our mind to new ways of singing or playing guitar (Jimmy Page, Edge). It should be about fighting for a cause, or an anthem for the poor. It should be about the terrible heartache that individuals go through and about the joys of love, about the mind-numbingness of death in a family or friend, and about the injustices of this world.
Remember the first Black Eyed Peas song that was a hit single? It was about what was wrong with the world and now what are they singing about? Exactly. The same goes with Maroon 5: Adam Levine is so damn talented and yet he writes these sappy pop songs to make money. So do other bands and artists like Taylor Swift. The point? The sad pathetic point? You're wasting your talent. You have the opportunity to do something more with it and here you are caught up in the short-term aspect of things when you could do what U2 does and change the face of music. Okay done ranting. Whew.
No comments:
Post a Comment