[meme] Day 16. A song that you used to love but now hate

[jon_chaisson]

You know, I used to like the Strokes, until I noticed:

--there's no bass in Julian Casablanca's vocals. It's all treble.
--Dudes, the 70s NYC junkie look went out in the mid-70s.
--emmalyon and lynxreign pointed out that they're a "C+ band". In other words, they're doing the minimum, but not trying any harder. I think this video is testament to that. ;)


That said, however...DJ Freelance Hellraiser did a brilliant job back in '02 mixing their also half-assed "Hard to Explain" with Christina Aguilera's "Genie in a Bottle" for one of the best mashups EVER.

Comments

[mekkasimian.livejournal.com]

NO, REALLY: HOW THIS "PHONING IN"? HOW QUANTIFY AMOUNT EFFORT PUT FORTH? MUST ASPIRE TO TECHNICAL PROWESS? MUST WRITE DEEP SERIOUS LYRICS? MUST CHANGE SOUND BETWEEN ALBUMS?

MEK ALWAYS CURIOUS REASON WHEN OUTSIDER INSIST ARTIST "NOT TRY HARD ENOUGH". BASE ON BAND PAST PERFORMANCE? OR PACE OF OTHER BAND IN SIMILAR GENRE?

=M=

[joncwriter.livejournal.com]

I get where you're coming from...don't get me wrong, I don't loathe this band (as said previously, I find it hard to find a band that completely turns me off to the point of hatred). I think if anything it's shelflife.

I think with this band, at least for me anyway, the thing is "will it stay in my head as a good song"? With pretty much every song on their first album, I didn't love it but it was an interesting and enjoyable listen. Listening to it now, though, just sounds so half-assed. I kinda think the White Stripes are similar in this fashion--interesting to listen to, but the more you listen to it, the more you find problems with it, or the more it just doesn't move you the way it did previously.

[Of course, there are some dated songs out there that I like and/or still love (and I have the LJ posts to prove it!), but that's more due to my own personal and/or emotional connection involved than the emotional prowess of the song, if that makes sense.]

It took me awhile to realize this, why there are some bands out there that I expected to be so much better than the hype or my impressions of them. I was curious as to why I'd bought a cd and really enjoyed it, and listened to it six, twelve months, years down the road and thought, "meh. It's okay, but just doesn't do it for me anymore." I thought originally it might have been an emotional attachment, but it had to be more than that. There's a bit of longevity involved as well. I think now I can be a little pickier with my tastes because I can hear these songs and tell if this is going to be one that gets stuck in my mind in a good way, or if it'll just gather dust on my shelf.

Sadly one of the worst examples of this is Nirvana. I REALLY liked them back in the early 90s, but now I listen to Nevermind and find it very dated. I think it's also that there was SO much better-quality stuff out there at the time that I didn't know about or didn't pay attention to that I'm finding now.

[mekkasimian.livejournal.com]

WELL THAT SEEM MORE LIKE EXPECTATION THAN BAND EFFORT.

OR RATHER, "STROKES HAVE TO WORK LOT HARDER TO LIVE UP TO HYPE!"

CERTAINLY SOME ALBUMS/BANDS NOT HOLD UP TO TIME, BUT MEK OKAY WITH THAT. PEOPLE CHANGE, AND SOMETIMES MUSIC NOT FIT AS WELL. BUT ON OTHER HAND, MEK ALSO LATER GET *INTO* BAND THAT PREVIOUSLY DISMISS FOR SURFACE GLOSS OR OTHER HYPE.

SO SEEM LIKE ENTIRE DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN ADVERTISE. MEK DOUBT THAT BANDS CAN BE SUBJECTIVELY, UNIVERSALLY GRADED AS SUCH. OTHERWISE, QUANTIFICATION JUST COME BACK TO: "WHO BETTER: BEATLES OR STONES?"

=M=

[joncwriter.livejournal.com]

Well, the BEATLES, of course!!! Geez, like you had to ask...! ;)