Rivers Cuomo's songwriting between the years of 1991-1998 is only bested by the output of the Beatles from 1965-1970.
There, I said it.
Music critics and well, normal people might think I am under the influence, stupid and/or ignorant. Maybe they're half right. Yes, I know you all love Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, radiohead, the Beach Boys, blah, blah, blah....but one day, not too long ago, the question dawned on me: why
didn't Weezer rule the 90's?
Their singles were crazy catchy, their first two videos were smash hits and their first two albums are near pop perfection. Is it because they were too cute or that they were viewed as "sell-outs"? Was Rivers too weird and reclusive? Were they marketed wrong or not enough? Were people's minds warped from the grunge scene to listen to Weezer with an open set of ears?
I know there are people that hate Weezer and maybe you're one of them. Don't let the current incarnation of Weezer ruin old Weezer for you. Some people think Weezer is like a bad joke but I think they basically prove the cliché that "the truth is stranger than fiction". Besides, in all the years since 1994, I have never met anyone in person, no, not a one that didn't like
The Blue Album. That has to
mean something....right?
I know we all have our subjective opinions. The best we can hope for is peace, love and understanding. So, "
if you've come this far, maybe you're willing to come a little further."
 |
| Anytime you can add a Shawshank Redemption reference, you do it. That's in my blog's bylaws. |
Besides, I started to write about the
Red Album and it just depressed me, I ended up riffing on how great early Weezer was and it just kinda morphed into this crazy post.
There were cultural reasons why Weezer would never take over the world in 1994 like they should have. If you're like Brian Greene, and believe in infinite multiple universes, and parallel earths, then there is a universe where Rivers and Co. ruled the 90's and never looked back. On one of those alternate earths, the Blue Album sold 12 million copies,
Pinkerton was a critical smash, Rivers released a sweet "country" solo album (Homie) followed by two more classic albums by the time the mid-00's were around. After that, they probably start churning out crap in that universe too.
Hey, I am a realist after all.
Let's get back to the universe we do inhabit though....
If you were old enough, you might forget just how different Weezer was back in early 1994. "Alternative Rock" in the mid-90's was
serious, serious stuff. Kurt had just committed suicide and bands that had even a scent of contrivance was going to be seen as "sell outs"
. Authenticity, real or imagined was a huge factor in what was deemed worthy of critical acclaim or "respect". Yes, there were exceptions:
Mellow Gold had been released just two months prior to
Blue and the RHCP always had that "wacky" sense of humor. At my high school at least, all everyone cared about were "serious" bands: Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Nine Inch Nails, Smashing Pumpkins, Rage Against the Machine, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden...all bands with zero sense of humor and little "fun" presented in the music itself.
 |
| I thought about putting a screen shot of Eddie Vedder earnestly screaming but you know, Billy Corgan is such a prick. I like the Smashing Pumpkins alright but Billy is a guy who probably stays up late at night thinking about how deep and meaningful his music is. |
The first time most of the public was introduced to Weezer was the video for "Undone - The Sweater Song" or at least the incessant MTV commercial for it as a "Buzz Worthy" video. From the start, you could tell
these guys are different. I remember thinking they looked a little "too nerdy" to be real. I figured maybe they were trying a little too hard to work the "alternative" scene. In fact, I was a bit humorless myself to "get" Weezer or artists like Beck at the time. All I knew is that as much as I felt they were contrived, that damn song was stuck in my head...It took awhile for me to admit it, but once properly introduced to the album, I loved it.
 |
| Pat was bringing it on the "Undone" video. Probably the most memorable part of the video for me is this section of the video. When I was showing my kids Weezer's Video Capture Device DVD videos, not surprisingly, they loved Pat for his silliness the most of all. |
The album isn't a revolutionary album, it's one of those albums that accomplishes what it sets to be and that's actually, a pretty rare feat. There's not a bad song on the album; they all rock and you are guaranteed to be humming these songs later in the day.
The truth be told,
The Blue Album is a pop masterpiece. When I think back to my peer group (class of 1995) I can't think of another album that had such universal likeability. It might make more sense if you know I'm a white guy, who hung out with mainly white males. I also didn't hang out with many music snobs. In my groups of friends, I was the one with "indie" taste, and I wasn't even knowledgeable enough or cool enough to qualify as any group's music snob.
 |
| This band is called "The Blue Album Group" that's all they play...well, technically they haven't had a show since 2010 but the fact that they just played the album from front to finish and that they actually existed at all is a testament to the lasting power of this album. I guess the whole "Memories" tour ended their thang. |
While the album "sounds" like a 90's album - it's got an innocence and vibe that is timeless.
The Blue Album songs are like vignettes from young American adulthood: the jealously,
alienation, disappointment, anger, and even joy (especially heard in the guitar solos). If the album is about any one "thing", it's about growing up (as much as the
Red Album is about growing old). When I first heard this album I was a senior in high school, so I could relate to the lyrics. As much as I loved Nirvana, I had no clue what Kurt was singing about most of the time. It felt like rock stars lived on the moon, but it felt like the guys in Weezer lived down the street. Some critics think simplistic lyrics indicate poor songwriting, but I've always felt the
TBA (along side
Pinkerton) are authentic because they aren't trying to be something they're not.
Some where down the line we got the idea that if we don't understand the lyrics (re: Dylan, Beatles, Nirvana) they are somehow "deep". Cobain would be the first to admit his lyrics were made up on the spot. According to the great rock bio,
Come As You Are, Cobain stated he wrote the
Bleach lyrics in the car on the way to the studio. Later, on
Nevermind, some lyrics were made up right before they recorded ("On a Plain" being the example that comes to mind).
The fact that critics thought the
TBA was a joke or novelty album frustrated Rivers to no end. Critics thought the band was ironic or goofy but Rivers was earnestly writing from his heart. Much like my own attempts at art, the results are child-like, awkward and a little goofy (I mean that in the best possible of ways).
The album isn't perfect though. One problem might be that the album is a little too uniform....it's all so....relentlessly crunchy. I can understand how some might think it all blends together a little too well. I get it....if you are listening to the album from start to finish, that first minute and a half of "Say it Ain't So" is a relief on the ears. Although the acoustic picking and the occasional harmonica help, the songs don't deviate too far from the formula. The other weakness is the above-mentioned lyrical missteps. I think this is a little over-stated and compared to later Weezer lyrics,
TBA at times can seem down-right sophisticated.
I'm not a music critic and I don't have the knowledge or vocabulary to discuss the music properly. So, in fragment-like form, this is what the album got right:
the drum sound, the crunch of the geetars, HARMONICA, the acoustic picking (thanks Cropper!!), the amazing harmonies (see the end of "The World Has Turned And Left Me Here" and "Holiday" as my favorite examples), guitar solos that go somewhere and act not as technical know-how but as musical narrative, wonderful bridges and the creative endings to many songs. Finally, it's just good solid pop writing.
By my count there are 8 songs I would rate from great to excellent songs (including what might be the best rock song of all time, "Say it Ain't So") and 2 great to good songs. No fillers here. The album is so economic, the only song that could be called indulgent is "Only in Dreams" but again, the music serves the song, not the other way around. The weakest of the bunch has to be "Surfwax America" so it's likely to get skipped, but that's usually because I want to get to "Say it Ain't So" and/or
"In the Garage
". Finally, the album flows well. It's not a concept album but there's a story in there if you're an imaginative listener.
So if the album is so great, why didn't it "rule the world"?
Besides sounding different from other bands, I think people thought Weezer made it look a little too easy. They weren't an underground band that built a fan base over many years as they struggled to make it. They came out of no where, landed a major label deal and suddenly "Undone" was a MTV "Buzz Worthy" video and moderate "alternative rock" hit and then the next thing everyone knows....
 |
| Whatever one thinks of Weezer, Spike Jonze is a genius. Sounds corny but once when the video was on, I ran downstairs and had my parents turn on the video so they could check it out. |
Any hope of being an "indie cred" band died with the "Buddy Holly" video. Mainstream success did come but only at the expense of underground and critical acceptance. Maybe that's a little too neat but it sure seemed that way at the time. If you weren't considered a serious "artist" (and Weezer was too quirky to be considered "rock art") then you were deemed inconsequential.
This was before the internet had hit it big, so reviews and articles in
Rolling Stone mattered. I remember in the late 90's when bands like The Vines (or The Hives) were on magazine covers - they were sold as "authentic" up-and-coming talents. The truth was most of the bands (especially The Vines) sucked and were utterly redundant in the marketplace of ideas. Compare that with the music press' treatment of Weezer. It was dismissive or even worse....Critics reactions to the
Blue Album was generally fair to lukewarm while the special level of scorn was reserved for
Pinkerton. Both deserved better. Had
Rolling Stone and the
Alternative Press selected Weezer as their "break-out" band, I have no doubt, this would have allowed many college-aged consumers to deem them as "acceptable" and enter the world of "bands that I am supposed to like because someone said their album was meaningful and deep".
Today it seems more acceptable to be a "fun" pop band. Layer distorted guitars over songs and have a "rock" band perform them and suddenly it's supposed to be "art". Meanwhile music classified as "pop" is graded on a curve. I mean, let's be honest, it's a criminal act that most people don't know who Fountains of Wayne are. That's pop music at it's best.
Even DJ's at radio stations mattered (wow, remember that?). Weezer was a 'tweener. The music was in- between the formats of "Rock Stations" and "Alternative Stations" (whatever "Alternative" meant). Nirvana, Pearl Jam, STP, Rage, etc. were all able to were able to "double dip" at the wells of both kind of formats. The "rock" station in my city simply didn't play Weezer. Any Weezer, except on their "Alternative Show" on Sunday nights from 10:00-12:00...and actually, I only remember hearing them once on that show. Surprisingly, in 2001 Hash Pipe" broke into the station's rotation. Then a few years later I would occasionally hear "Say it Ain't So" and "Undone" late at night. The band was not held in high esteem by the "shock jock"/macho rock DJ's and this hurt the band's sales and impact. The "geek shtick" helped market the band as different but it ultimately hurt them.
Take for example the video treatment for "Say it Ain't So". A normal band, rocking out in the garage. It didn't work (not a bad performance video, but not a great concept either). It didn't help that the band (other than Matt) looked like a totally different band from either of their previous two videos as well). As amazing as the song is, the band was already "pegged" and the video and single were only moderate hits.
 |
| Exhibit A in my evidence that many albums in the 90's now feel and sound dated. I loved the first five songs off this album at the time but about five years ago I realized I hadn't listened to "Core" in years, so I popped it in my stereo and well....it just sucked. I couldn't even get two songs through it. Many radio stations treated this as "serious rock music" when in reality, it was just stupid, testosterone-driven schlock. The lyrics were stupid and it droned on and on and on. Yes, it did rock, but it was a thoroughly un-enjoyable slog. |
Furthermore, with the smash hit of the video of "Buddy Holly" people viewed Weezer as sell-outs as the video was put on the Windows 95 disc. The video seemed to have all the markings of a one-hit wonder and a novelty. Many thought the video carried the song and band further than they deserved. It was hard to take a band seriously if all the videos were so slick and seemed a little silly. Yes, I do think they were punished for making cool videos. I read numerous times that Weezer were a 90's alt-rock version of the Monkees. Cute and packaged rock music for the kiddies. After all, the guys on the cover of The Blue Album looked like fresh-faced, clean-cut kids. Not the sad-sack, disgruntled, ugly, unshaven, rebellious rock-stars they could have been. The Weezer backlash had begun before Weezer knew what hit them.
 |
| I would have hated them at the time and I know they didn't write their hits but WOAH some of their stuff is severely underrated. |
The band's success even got into the band's head. Were they successful because of the videos or because the music was good? This question fueled the most ambitious song-writing era for Rivers as he wanted to be taken seriously as a song writer. When
Pinkerton flopped two years later (critically and commercially) it seemed like Weezer was destined to be one of those "one-album wonders". They were supposed to know their place and go away quietly into the oblivion of pop history.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the bargain bin. The fans stuck around. Notably, with myself and others on the Weezer newsgroup. People cared about the music because it resonated in their lives. We salivated over any scrap of music or information we could get our hands on. Weezer was this huge mystery after the
Pinkerton tour was over. There was a hunger for more....and in that time, there was a new appreciation for the albums by the public at large. Other artists openly praised Weezer and many noted how influential the albums were. A new narrative was appearing about Weezer and their 90's legacy continues to grow to this day. Today, most people think the
Blue Album is one of the 90's best albums. It's seen as a genuinely influential album and has been re-reviewed over the years to show that it is a great album. I know, I know....
 |
| Yeah, my whole post can kinda be summed up that way. |
|
It's likely I have over-stated my case. Maybe Weezer could have never ruled the 90's under any circumstances. Maybe the truth is, I am just a fan-boy. Maybe there is just a limited number of people who would like Weezer's music. It might be that Weezer was never as good as I thought. They over-achieved and were lucky because the "Buddy Holly" video was so awesome. Or maybe not....
One could argue that
Pinkerton and Rivers' released and unreleased demos in the 90's disproves the idea that Weezer didn't create great music. If rock stations would have pushed Weezer a little more, if music critics would have reviewed the music instead of how the band looked, if the public would have allowed a band to have a sense of humor and not pegged them as "that silly band"...maybe, just maybe....Weezer could have ruled the 90's. Then again, it's all for the better that it never happened....
