Vitriolic digression aside, they do have some compelling stories, if one can get through an entire article (not a trait you want in an online magazine, btw), like this story on Limp Bizkit.
Or, more correctly, this story defending The Bizkit.
Back in 2005 some dude asked a friend of mine, during a workshop of some kind, what kind of music we thought he listened to. "You look like you listen to Limp Bizkit". The guy stood there in stunned disbelief; like "did this kid really just say that?"This is in 2005, mind you. Just 5 years earlier they sold over a million records in a week. Those there be some Hannah Montana numbers. People must have liked them.What in the world changed opinion? Did they really suck? They were always -always - on TRL.
Remember those TRLs? Remember rushing home after school to watch Carson Daly verbally fellate 'n slurp whatever band was on for the day? Remember the 10 minute commercial breaks? Remember them only showing about 2 minutes of each video only to return to commercial? Remember it being the SAME FUCKING VIDEOS on every single day until they mercifully "retired" them after 65 airings? Remember the empty feeling of "wait, why was I anticpating this so much" you felt immediately after? Good times.So, did they really suck? If so, how'd they get so popular despite their suckitude? To find out I dug into my piles of junk and pulled out my burned copy (free at that) of their cd Chocolate Starfish and the Hotdog Flavored Water. That's right. Judge me... asshole.
And yes, it does suck. Whatever the opposite of lyrical genius is, Fred Durst embodies it. Rolling is pretty great. Gotta love the guest spots by Redman, DMX, and the M-E-T-H-O-D, man.
Wu-Tang for life.
In retrospect, most popular music from that time sucked too (re: boy bands) so lets chalk their popularity up to that. And, btw, the blowhard Slate columnist JonahWeiner even admits they suck in the article.
Next Time: Linkin Park.
