Comments (2)

Just because Weezer is the band that broke my heart like no other with their millennial turn from ragged power-pop to tepid, edgeless pop-rock, I have to take issue with Doug's comment.

Rivers Cuomo is not frustrated with the current state of music, nor are his current endeavors satirical. The Chronicle review is well-written and spot-on, while Doug gives Cuomo far too much credit. Cuomo has merely followed the money. In the early 90's he went from playing hair metal in spandex to wearing old t-shirts and looking like Velma from Scooby-Doo because he realized that the money was in accessible grunge. Along the way he created two brilliant records by reinterpreting the Pixies as or more effectively than Kurt Cobain did. In the past decade he has created five more albums of dreck because he realized that more people were buying Sugar Ray's latest confection than would ever purchase "El Scorcho" or "The Good Life." Music is different today than in 1996, but many bands continue to pursue progressive and challenging work. Weezer is not among them.

Check the interview (http://pitchfork.com/news/36686-rivers-cuomo-explains-iraditudei/) quoted below for this candid self-assessment of Rivers's utter lack of interest in artistic growth:

"Pitchfork: Since your first few albums are more personal, I feel like some fans have this expectation that everything you do has to be like that.
RC: Right. But I jump on whatever gets me excited without any concern for continuity or sensible artistic development. If you listen back to my music from before Weezer, it was completely different..."

Weezer apologists, accept the truth: it's hard watching rock stars grow old, but it's harder to justify paying for uninspired music.

Jared
Trinity, '06