Rating Grantland's Rating of Weezer

For the Grantland article rating all things Weezer click HERE.

For about a year or so now the sports and popculture website Grantland, of which I am a big fan, has run a column called "_________ Overrated, Underrated, or Rated Right", sound familiar?

Now, I'm not claiming somebody at Grantland saw my website and decided to steal my concept (because I don't think they did).  Is it possible they saw the site and thought they'd incorporate the idea in their own writing?  Yeah sure.  But even that I kind of doubt.  

While many may try to rate the pop culture catalogue of the world, only I can do it with the refined snark that the common people love.

But this time they went and tackled a favorite topic of mine:  Weezer.

Yes, with the release of Weezer's new album, resident Grantland music man, Steven Hyden, took it upon himself to rate the various albums and phases and past times of Weezer.  Being the student of the bespectacled rock band that I am, I could not sit idly by with out throwing my hat into the ring.

*note* I'm only going to give basic breakdowns explaining why I disagree or agree with Hyden's take on things here as I've already shared my feelings on Weezer several, SEVERAL times on Rated Wrong, including on a Gentlemen's DisAgreement podcast.  Just search Weezer in the search bar if you're curious.

First, the picture.  Classic pop-art colorscheme Grantland uses for a lot of their pieces.  It looks good.  What I really love about it is that House Greyjoy shirt Scott Shriner is rockin' at the top center of the collage.  Game of Thrones and Weezer, it does not get any better than this folks.

Hyden then opens up talking about Weezer's recent history and decline.  It's all pretty standard "they aren't what they used to be" Weezer fan lamentation stuff.  One thing that caught my attention:

All this subtext is pushed to the forefront of Weezer’s latest LP, Everything Will Be Alright in the End. The album plays like an extended apologia to wearied long-term followers, a conciliatory box of chocolates packaged as a “return to rock” nostalgia move. "Don’t want to pander to the masses anymore," Cuomo pledges on "I’ve Had It Up to Here"...

Just as I was reading this paragraph, I was listening to Everything Will Be Alright In the End (EWBAITE) and that exact line from "I've Had It Up to Here" played.  Freaky.

In this opening ramble most of what Hyden says isn't very controversial among Weezer fans, but he gives a one line review of EWBAITE that I wanted to address:

What’s different on Everything Will Be Alright in the End is that Cuomo has stopped trying to reinvent Weezer’s future and has moved on to reliving Weezer’s past.

He then goes on to assert that this is depressing.

I could not disagree more.  I do not think EWBAITE is the sound of Weezer retreading their past.  Rather, it is the sound of them linking with their past in order to evolve and move forward.  Songs like "The British Are Coming", "Foolish Father", and the "The Futurescop Trilogy" have notes in them (much like a good wine has "notes") that remind you of Weezer's early days, but you would never have found those songs on Blue or Pinkerton.

Way off base, Hyden.  Like - you got caught stealing by the pitcher - off.

Then he starts with the albums, live shows, b-side, and everything else.

*note*  The italicized quotes are Hyden, the bold text and explanation is my assessment of his assessment.

His thoughts on Weezer (1994):

It’s the best guitar-pop record of its era, hands down.

Rated Right.

His thoughts on Pinkerton:

It’s obviously great, but in my mind it will always be inferior to the Blue Album, which is not how history seems to remember it. Therefore, I must declare it to be ever-so-slightly overrated.

Rated Right.  In fact, I'm starting to wonder if Hyden is just copying my articles on Weezer because our opinions are very close so far.

His thoughts on Weezer (2001):

The Green Album makes you feel so fine you can’t control your brain, possibly because your brain is on sleep mode.

He means that in a good way.  Rated Right.

His thoughts on Maladroit:

...it is riff-centric near-metal that out-Kisses any Kiss record released after 1978. 

He says the album is underrated, which I agree with, but he gives the album a little too much credit as Weezer struggled to identify their sound with Maladroit.  Hyden called EWBAITE a failed attempt to do what Maladroit accomplished, when in truth, it is the other way around.  Rated Right - Then Wrong.

His thoughts on Make Believe:

The awfulness of Make Believe tends to be overrated by those who haven’t experienced the true dregs of Weezer’s discography.

He calls it underrated.  Hyden really goes to bat for Make Believe, and it does have a few good songs ("Haunt You Every Day", "This is Such a Pity") but he labels the sophmoric "Perfect Situation" as their last great single and sites "We Are All on Drugs" - maybe the worst song in the entirety of the Weezer catalogue - as a quality song.  Rated Wrong.

His thoughts on Weezer (2008):

Is the Red Album a joke or just incoherent? Either way, it made me feel like an asshole for liking Weezer.

Hyden hates this one.  I think the problem here, a problem that many people run into when judging Weezer's Red album, is that they ignore the bonus tracks.  The album proper is pretty ho-hum and "Heart Songs" is pretty crappy (though I don't think it is "The worst Weezer song of all time" as Hyden states), but the bonus tracks are fantastic.  "Pig", "Miss Sweeney" and "It's Easy" are some of the best songs Weezer put out in the last 15 years.  For Hyden to ignore this can only mean he either wants to hate Weezer or he has never heard the bonus tracks.  Either way, he has comitted a mortal sin.  Rated very, very Wrong.

His thoughts on Raditude:

So the Red Album didn’t make you feel like an asshole for liking Weezer, huh? Here, this ought to do it.

Ratidude is Weezer's worst album, but again with the crapping on Red.  Rated Right.

His thoughts on Hurley:

Hurley doesn’t look so bad in comparison to the Red Album and Raditude. With a different album cover, it might’ve even been considered a minor comeback.

Hyden calls it underrated.  He's so close, yet so far.  Ignoring the repeated digs at Weezer (2008) he appears to call Hurley Weezer's best album since Maladroit or at least Make Believe.  In this sense he calls it underrated, because while bad it's not that bad.  I (mostly) agree, but here's the problem:  most Weezer fans who have listened to it have the exact same opinion.  Hurley is rated right by fans and Rated Wrong by Hyden.

His thoughts on Death to False Metal:

Death to False Metal isn’t as dire as might be expected. Then again, I had never heard “I’m a Robot” before last week, and I don’t intend to ever hear it again.

He calls it Rated Right in that it is largely ignored.  I have to say, I'm surprised he even included this album.  Rated Right.

How can Hyden say no to this face??

His thoughts on Songs From the Black Hole:

Like so many “lost” albums, Songs From the Black Hole is more intriguing as an idea than as a record. Pinkerton is unquestionably stronger.

Hyden calls it overrated but takes the time to point out that certain tracks from this aborted Weezer album are real classics of their catalogue ("Devotion", "I Just Threw Out the Love of My Dreams"). Hyden simply makes the honest assessment that while these songs center around the peak of Rivers Cuomo's mythos, they don't quite live up to the sum or their hypothetical parts.  Rated Right.

His thoughts on B-Sides, Unrealesed, and Outtake Tracks:

The narrative with each new Weezer album always includes the part about Cuomo writing approximately 492 new songs and winnowing the backlog down to 10 just-right tracks. His vault of material is immense. (The Alone compilations apparently only scratch the surface.) But if we’re talking non-album Weezer tracks, only three songs (and four ladies) matter: “Susanne,” “Jamie,” and “Mykel and Carli.” Any list of Weezer’s 10 best songs must include these tunes, or else that list is irrelevant. Honestly, I would trade all but two or three Weezer albums just for those songs.  Properly rated.

I included the whole segment he wrote.  Wonderfully said (except for "Jamie", not sure I'd put that in the top 10).  Rated Right.

His thoughts on Weezer's Live Show:

Weezer either plays songs I enjoy like it just woke up from a coma, or songs I hate with the ferocity of coked-out accountants cutting loose at the karaoke-themed office party.

Hyden has apparantly seen Weezer twice.  I've seen them eight times through the years.  I've witnessed the full evolution of live Weezer.  While they're music has been dimisinished returns for the better part of a decade, they're live show has gone along the exact opposite trajectory.  It is a lot of fun.  The one thing he gets wrong:  they DO still play the hits.  In fact they play more tracks from Pinkerton than they ever did 15 years ago.

His Thoughts on the Music Videos:

Buddy Holly: overrated

Sweater Song: underrated

Keep Fishin': properly rated

First "Buddy Holly".  I don't know if he has something against the song, but this is a great music video.  Period.  Rated Wrong.

Second, "Undone (The Sweater Song)".  I don't know who would call this underrated, but I'm certainly not going to argue with them.  Rated Right.  *FUN FACT* the two guys in the hallway at the beginning of this video are wearing gravity boots and are actually upside down.

Third, "Keep Fishin'".  Not sure why he chose to review this video, when others were far more popular ("Beverly Hills", "Hash Pipe").  I think he just thought he could get a good joke out of it.  He kind of does.  Rated Right.

His thoughts on Matt Sharp's legacy with the band

Sharp disputed songwriting credits on the first two albums, filing a lawsuit in 2002 that was settled out of court. But any suggestion that his creative contributions would’ve significantly changed Weezer’s direction seems bogus. Weezer will always be primarily a vehicle for Cuomo’s songs, for better or worse.

The real void Sharp left in Weezer concerns his unofficial status as co-frontman...

Rated Right - Then Wrong - sort of. He calls fans' persistent theories of Sharp's importance to the band and connection to Weezer's decline overrated.  I agree with this.  Then he says that he was the one guy in the live show that had any sort of spark.  Not completely untrue, but the video he uses as an example that features Cuomo standing like a statue and Sharp jumping around like a maniac is a poor one since Sharp was trying to compensate for the fact that Rivers had a broken leg at the time and was performing in a very painful brace.  How do I know all of these things about Weezer!?!?

His thoughts on Ric Ocasek's Contributions

But the evidence that Ocasek is a magic bullet isn’t very compelling, considering the albums he produced after the Blue Album — the Green Album and Everything Will Be Alright in the End — just get progressively worse.

Two things are becoming abundently clear.  Steven Hyden does not like Weezer's awesome new album and at some point, Ric Ocasek stole his girlfriend.  Rated Oh-So Very Wrong.

His thoughts on B.o.B.'s "Magic" and Rivers Rapping

First of all, the Treblemakers did it better. Second of all, Rivers Cuomo rapping on a ubiquitous pop hit was unfortunate but inevitable

It hurts so much, but it's true.  Rated Right.

His thoughts on Patrick Wilson's Frisbee Skills

He's impressed.  And rigthfully so.  Rated Right.

His Thoughts on the Weezer Cruise

I get that Weezer wants to work it out with its fan base, but sometimes divorce is nobler than seasickness..

You know, I get that the Weezer Cruise is lame, but Hyden is unnecessarily cruel here.  Shame on you sir.  I know my Weezer parents will be together FOREVER!!!!  Rated Wrong.

So, in conclusion, not a bad effort by Hyden.  There was a lot here I liked, a lot of good truthful rating going on.  Doesn't quite have the snark down yet.  He has more missteps than I would have liked but hey, I'm the master, next to me everyone is going to stumble now and again.  If I could give him one piece of advice it would be research, research, research.  The worst parts of this were when he rated something improperly based on faulty or incomplete information.  Also, give Everything Will Be Alright In the End another listen, Steven, it is pretty damn good.

Game of Thrones: In Defense of "Spoilers"

Note: This article does not contain spoilers (things in a story's plot that are unpredictable and/or significant to the characters or events), however, it does mention events yet to occur on Game of Thrones in a vague manner.  If you're Frank Costanza, stop reading now.

Game of Thrones is the most popular show on television.  The only thing these days it seems people like to do as much as watch Game of Thrones is talk about it on the internet.  A lot.  Now, while it is true that since the age of social media the buzz around Game of Thrones is unprecedented, the concept is an old one.  For the better part of a decade any show to make a splash on TV (or Netflix) has gone on to do the same on the interwebs with countless recaps, power rankings, " So and So speaks out about shocking episode", and mindless conjecturing.

And that last one is where all the trouble starts for Game of Thrones.  Fans of TV have always relished in trying to be one step ahead of the show and it's story.  "What will happen next?"  It's a infectious spirit that has been with us since the days of "Who shot J.R.?" but was made most popular for today's boob tube generation by ABC's Rube Goldberg machine to nowhere: Lost.

Losties loved to play the guessing game of where it was all going ever since they found Jack, Kate, Sawyer, and Locke trapped on that mysterious island.  Wild theories abound, as an errant cough could be seen as the missing piece that tied everything together.  It turned out in the end, guessing was actually more fun than seeing.  But even with its failure to live up to expectations, Lost had supplied the model for every successful tv drama to come in it's wake.

Game of Thrones has taken this model to all new heights, there is only one problem: you can't theorize about what will happen when it's already happened in a book someplace.

Still, book-free fans of the show do their best.  But anytime you find an article or thread wondering "what will happen next" some book reader can't help themselves and needs to spoil it for everyone.

Now let me pause for a moment to make one thing clear:  I hate those people.  I can't stand it when some loser has to go around dropping bombs on fans of the show in some sort of childish attempt to feel smart.  It happens a lot more than it should.  You couldn't even look at a picture of Robb Stark on the internet without some jerkoff saying "He's gonna die" for years.

God Dammit, People!

This spoiler culture around GoT has not only made it very difficult to navigate social media, but it has made things unpleasantly hostile on both sides.  Book readers are excited to talk about the show, but annoyed by having to constantly censor themselves.  Show watchers - for the most part - appreciate having people around who can help them understand what the hell is going on, but are frustrated when they find out more than they want to.

As one who is firmly in the "book reader" camp I have to say the whole thing is quite tiresome.  I understand the plight of the "show watchers" and I think a lot of "book readers" are pretty obnoxious but just because you don't know something, does not mean it is a "spoiler".

When you talk about the ending of a movie that only came out a week before, THAT is a spoiler.  When you talk about the ending of an episode of a television show the next day, that IS NOT a spoiler.  Would you expect everyone to stay off social media about the final score of a major sporting event just in case you DVR'd it?  The responsibility to avoid social media until you've seen a LIVE viewing event is yours and no one elses.

If I were to tell you that in Empire Strikes Back you discover Vader is Luke's father, THAT is a spoiler.  If I were to tell you that Han and Leia go to a cloud city, that IS NOT a spoiler.  Most of the time, telling people something that was probably in the trailer isnt' a big deal, but because of the spoiler culture around Game of Thrones any leak of information, no matter how benign, is considered a grave sin.

This is even more ridiculous on a show like Game of Thrones where most of the pure show-watchers can hardly understand what is going on in the first place.  The world of Game of Thrones (which is actually the world of Ice and Fire) is so rich there is no way they could show everything even if they wanted to.  So, don't complain to me when I tell you the Three-Eyed-Raven is Brynden Rivers a bastard of the Targaryen family, former Hand of the King and Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, because the show is almost certainly never going to bother to tell you.  In fact, telling show-watchers things like this is beneficial to them, because Brynden Rivers only had one eye (unlike his counterpart on the show) which makes the line "A thousand eyes and one." Much more logical.

Did anyone else notice this?

The spoiler culture around GoT is a treacherous one and I admire those who weather it with dignity.  One writer/podcaster I particularly enjoy reading and listening to for GoT is Andy Greenwald at Grantland, largely because he does not recognize the books and it is interesting for me to see the differing perspective of someone who truly does not know what is going to happen next.  Sure, plenty of other writers "pretend" they don't know what is coming, but there is something patronizing about the tone that makes the pieces feel false and dull.

With Greenwald, you get to see someone explore solely the world of the show and theorize what will happen next free of any trolling book-reader influence.  It is impressive how often he gets it right.  But even people like Greenwald - who beams with pride whenever he announces that he has not, nor has he any intention of reading the books on which GoT is based - fall victim to the very smug characteristics they complain of in book readers.  Perhaps from enduring what I'm sure in an endless bombardment of obnoxious spoiler rich tweets and emails from fans and trolls, Greenwald has what would be generously be described as a thinly veiled contempt for fans that have read the books.  He will question the quality George R.R. Martin's (the author of the books) story based on incomplete information, then proceed to become indignant if a book reader dare correct him.

If you haven't read the books, you might think Drogon is a laughably bad name for a Dragon. But if you have, you'd know he was named after Khal Drogo. 

Blaming, Martin for storytelling choices made by the show (which is not run by Martin) is commonplace.  Even highly thoughtful and perseptive viewers like Greenwald can't help but compare the show to its source material and blame it for the show's shortcomings, even when they hardly even know what they're talking about.  They are careful not blame the show for a misstep keeping in mind that it is an adaptation, but are quick to blame the source material forgetting that it is an adaptation.

It's a hard, hard world that Game of Thrones fans live in.  The balancing act between fun for you and fun for all is one carried out on an unreliable scale.  In order to get along we have to respect the other side.  With GoT book readers need to know when to keep it to themselves and show watchers need to learn not to get indignant about every little detail they hear from a fan instead of the show.