Skip to content

Beverly Hills

It had been three years since anyone heard from Weezer. After 2001’s The Green Album and the following year’s Maladroit, both of which most die-hards had  initially despised, the Early Album 5 demos were aborted, and for three years, virtually nothing seemed to be happening with the band at all.

“Beverly Hills” was the single that ended the drought. As guitarist Brian Bell later revealed, that first sampling was nearly going to be “My Best Friend” (a disaster mercifully avoided), but it was “Hills” that was chosen to be the first radio single, and it prefaced Make Believe‘s official release by about six weeks (and its unofficial leak by about half that time). It is distinguished by being arguably one of the least-Weezer songs Weezer has ever released, and their biggest hit — in a little over eight months, it sold nearly a million copies on the iTunes music store, and was the top-selling digital song of 2005 according to Nielsen SoundScan. But between that simple, plodding, boom-boom-chop beat (which recalls Weezer’s own “Blast Off!,” Joan Jett’s “I Love Rock ‘n’ Roll,” Queen’s “We Will Rock You,” and a thousand other tunes), the gratingly corny girl-vocal “gimme gimme!” backups on the chorus (recalling the Offspring’s art crime “Pretty Fly (For A White Guy)”), and the Peter Framptonesque talkbox guitar solos (yes, plural) — the latter of which being perhaps the only interesting thing going on here, and for many the song’s saving grace — it all feels so very anti-Weezer. Cuomo once said that their breakout hit “Undone – The Sweater Song” was the most embarrassingly simple thing the band ever recorded, as it’s simply a basic I-IV-V-IV progression throughout. Granted, “Undone” is actually a fairly complex song, featuring two spoken word interludes, several fine instances of vocal counterpoint, what Sound Opinions talkshow host Jim DeRogatis called “at least three distinct movements,” a guitar-symphonic outro and new music piano postlude — but “Beverly Hills” features an even more simplistic harmony (I-IV-V), and does very little outside the realm of all but the most generic pop (except, tenably, the talkbox solos, which do very little outside the realm of generic Peter Frampton).

That said, I like “Beverly Hills.” It’s not Weezer proper, per se, and something about this song just seems so typical, so stupid, so very much the representation of everything the Weezer of the ’90s was entirely against. But there’s an efficiency to its stupidity, a musically honest communication of the song’s vapid message: it’s cool to be famous. Coming from someone who’s actually famous but, as he admits in the moment-of-clarity bridge, is by no means cut out to be, that message and its song possess some kind of scrappy charm. It’s hard to imagine ever reaching for the studio version, but the song itself wouldn’t be unwelcome on a setlist.

“Hills” features a return to verse-rapping uncharted by Weezer since “El Scorcho,” but the lyrics are mostly terrible (aside from the strangely vivid line, “Look at all those movie stars, they’re all so beautiful and clean / When their housemaids scrub the floors they get the spaces in-between”). Here the “Undone” comparison becomes all the more apt, because that was a single that was taken as a joke, while Cuomo would insist in interviews that it was actually quite heartfelt. No doubt in part thanks to these raps, the same thing happened in 2005 — it’s just a little harder to believe (or accept) in the case of “Beverly Hills.” In Cuomo’s own words:

I was at the opening of the new Hollywood Bowl and I flipped through the program and I saw a picture of Wilson Phillips. And for some reason I just thought how nice it would be to marry, like, an “established” celebrity and live in Beverly Hills and be part of that world. And it was a totally sincere desire. And then I wrote that song, ‘Beverly Hills.’ For some reason, by the time it came out – and the video came out – it got twisted around into something that seemed sarcastic. But originally it wasn’t meant to be sarcastic at all.

There is a bit of an admission that the meaning had changed here, though, which makes the prospect of hearing Cuomo’s original “Beverly Hills” demo somewhat appealing. Cuomo also stated, in his Fan Interview of 2007, that “Hills” is one of his two proudest musical achievements, saying, “With this one song we were able to transcend our little niche and connect with all kinds of people, young and old, from all kinds of backgrounds.” It’s hard to imagine that a band that had already sold several millions of records in America alone still considered themselves to have a “niche” audience, but it’s not difficult to sympathize with Cuomo’s pride: he had been hoping for a mega-hit of this proportion ever since Pinkerton tanked nearly a decade prior. If for nothing else, it is a wonder of craft for being such a relentless machine of a pop song, with such a specific purpose that is so perfectly and commercially realized that one could be forgiven for thinking its success was inevitable. These kinds of songs aren’t easy to write, and even if the end product is something that might make fans of “Across the Sea” sick, it’s worth crediting Cuomo for the platinum completion of an experiment he first began in 1997: how can one of the smartest songwriters of his time overthink his way into making one of the most accessibly dumb songs ever?

The music video takes place at the Playboy Mansion and features a brief cameo from Hugh Hefner, along with droves of Weezer fans dancing and singing. There’s an “(Early Mix)” of the song in circulation, in which the “gimme gimmes” are not done by a session vocalist/model, but rather the band themselves in falsetto (very preferable). Weezer also turned in a live-in-the-studio take for their 2005 AOL Session, which features the crude dude falsetto in overdrive (on the verses, even), and an extended talkbox solo — pretty good, actually. The band also played it live on Letterman, a rendition that included the extended solo, a pissed- and possessed-looking Cuomo, and a mostly superfluous female vocalist standing to the side of the stage, shaking a maraca and doing the “Pretty Fly” thing. There’s also a hilariously pitiful, literally pretty fly Jimmy Kimmel performance, wherein the band are elevated twenty feet into the air by acrobatic wires during the chorus, which happens accidentally during a low-key verse instead of the big chorus pay-off (Spinal Tap galore). Lastly, there’s a Radio Disney edit of the song in which the word “crap” had to be edited out, so that the opening couplet goes, “Where I come from isn’t all that great / My automobile isn’t all that great.” At the end of the day, that’s probably the most honest version of the song there is.


  1. This Is the Way wrote:

    I don’t like plenty of Weezer songs but I actually hated this one when it came out. I remember when I first saw the video and feeling ashamed of the band. Brian Bell, once my litmus test for cool, agreed to this?! I was horrified, so much so that I wrote a very unfocused, self-righteous article lamenting the decline of Weezer (as well as lots of moaning about U2, Green Day and Gwen Stefani). Nowadays I just sort of ignore the song (its not like I spin Make Believe much).

    Monday, September 8, 2008 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
  2. PeeGrinder wrote:

    What you said, basically. One of my very least favourite Weezer songs, demos included, but deep down I wouldn’t say I truly hated it, I just think it wasn’t what the Weezer faithful were hoping for.

    Monday, September 8, 2008 at 1:25 pm | Permalink
  3. CountChocula wrote:

    For a long time I utterly despised this song. Not that the song itself was bad, but that Weezer became associated with the single least “weezer” song they ever made. I enjoy listening to this song. It’s fun, catchy, simple, the solos are pretty awesome, and it’s a solid start to a (imo) great album. However, to this day I still cringe when someone sees me in a weezer shirt and says “Oh! that beverly hills band, right?” Deep inside I am sure that I would like this song so much more if it never got popular. But I no longer hate it, these days I appreciate it for what it is.

    Monday, September 8, 2008 at 3:32 pm | Permalink
  4. Adroit wrote:

    Great post as always.

    Probably my favourite performance of the song is the recent Hootenanny filmed in LA. If I remember correctly, a fairly ‘loose’ (to be polite) horn section took the place of your beloved Frampton solos, and I felt it nicely undercut the arena-rock bombast that went before it.
    Its such a precise, mechanical song as you say, and the horns provided an offbeat (in every sense of the term) antidote.

    I’m not sure I agree that this song represents the antithesis of what the band had previously stood for, at least lyrically. I don’t hear any ‘anti-Weezer’ sentiments. The themes of alienation and longing are present and correct. Its surely the misjudged Beverley Hills lifestyle metaphor thats the root cause of all the hate for this track.

    Monday, September 8, 2008 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
  5. Sick Nick wrote:

    I remember 1st hearing BvH on that 1st leak in 2005 and being pissed off. I told my friend that “This is the first weezer song i can say i hate”! In hindsight the song has grown on me and it is in the better half of the songs on that record (TISAP, Hold Me, Haunt, P

    Monday, September 8, 2008 at 4:01 pm | Permalink
  6. Sick Nick wrote:

    CONT. …erfect Situation). What scared me at first was the idea that this song would represent the general new sound of A5. This wasn’t the case in the end and it stands as a fun, quirky pop ditty. since then weezer has made songs a do Hate (My Best Friend, Everybody Get Dangerous, CDW)

    Monday, September 8, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
  7. Soyrev wrote:

    It’s funny, I’m noticing a general trend of “at first I hated it, but now I like it and find it to be in the better half of MB” (me included). Is that really just because we got over the shock of, “THIS is new weezer?” or because it actually wound up being FAR from the worst thing on MB?

    Sick Nick: I agree with your shortlist, MBF, EGD and CDW are all utterly despicable.

    Adroit: I didn’t mean “anti-Weezer” in that sense, but rather the fact that it’s just so the opposite of the thought, care and love that used to go in every Weezer song. TGA scaled it back, Maladroit fucked it up, but “Beverly Hills” pretty much obliterated it.

    Also kinda like what the randomizer did this time, too. “Axe Guitar,” the earliest ‘recording’ of Rivers that we have, dreaming of being a rockstar, and “Beverly Hills,” his ultimate and most fulfilled realization of that dream (commercially speaking, at least). Cool.

    Monday, September 8, 2008 at 4:59 pm | Permalink
  8. WaltDisney wrote:

    This song is great and Rivers is right to be proud. Band’s got flow. I think it’s the mass love and all that confusion that brought the fan hate. So crunchy and melodic, and although it’s simple it’s a simple brilliance. I wouldn’t say it lacks thought, care or love. To me it may be “the most anti-weezer”, but only in the acceptable direction that it seems like “the most Rivers Cuomo” of Weezer releases. This would fit really nicely on Alone and suddenly the claps and samples and sillyness and goofyness would be appreciated in a positive light. Certainly i can feel Weezer happily when listening to this song in ways I as yet can’t when listening to half the red album. To me, BvH is much closer to El Scorcho than it is to the awful rap business of EGD.

    The lyrics are very similar to the style of Troublemaker, where there are a lot of interesting subtleties that lift it above what you kind of think it is when you haven’t heard it for a while. In Troublemaker that only goes for the words though, with the signification stuff and the arts and crafts etc., I think BVH has more rhythmical subtlety in the lyrics too.

    Monday, September 8, 2008 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
  9. allpwrtoslaves wrote:

    someone must tell me where i can find that jimmy kimmel performance

    Monday, September 8, 2008 at 7:44 pm | Permalink
  10. Soyrev wrote:

    allpwr: go to, click media, sign in, and search for “bvh.” it’s the one with the picture of scott flying. : P

    Oh yeah, I definitely like BvH much better than EGD, and yes, it evokes “El Scorcho” much more than the latter. I actually switch between the two’s verses/choruses when singing it in my head, sometimes.

    And yes, BvH on Alone would mean it’s a scratchy, solo Rivers demo, which I’m sure A) exists, and B) is much better than the final studio version. Take out those stupid female vocals and add in the band doing the “gimme gimmes” as falsetto backups, and I immediately like the song at least 50% more. I’m sure it could be pretty charming as a home recording; I’m willing to bet every MB song is better in one demo form or another, actually.

    Monday, September 8, 2008 at 7:48 pm | Permalink
  11. H wrote:

    I didn’t like this song when it came out. I still don’t like it.

    I can’t bring myself to listen to it enough times to give it a chance – maybe in a few months.

    Monday, September 8, 2008 at 9:32 pm | Permalink
  12. Low wrote:

    ugh. when “beverly hills” came out i started feeling ashamed of being a weez fan. it’s such a bad, dumb song.

    >And yes, BvH on Alone would mean it’s a scratchy, solo Rivers demo, which I’m sure A) exists, and B) is much better than the final studio version.

    why are you so sure? i don’t know why, but it seems like after pinkerton everyone believes that if something sounds less produced it means it’s better.

    Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 1:15 am | Permalink
  13. John wrote:

    This is the first weezer song i heard, which lead me to buy Make Believe which lead me to buy Pinkerton and blue. So i owe a lot to this song and my opinion is that its okay.

    Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 8:07 am | Permalink
  14. This Is the Way wrote:

    EWACTFAA: I’m definitely behind releasing a full band version but I Can Love is just a bland streak of piss, like so many others of that time. Pig is great in both demo and studio form. River absolutely should have done a solo acoustic version at the AOL sessions, that would have been brilliant.

    Oh and Beverly Hills is terrible. I also hate the video more than terrorists hate our freedom.

    Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 9:44 am | Permalink
  15. Crow T Robot wrote:

    I have to admit the concept of this song is clever (Rivers doesn’t want to BE the celebrity, he just wants to be married to one and get all of the perks that come with it). The video seemed to undermine a lot of that, though – four minutes of Weezer partying at the Playboy Mansion because they are (minor) celebrities. That was my first exposure to the song and killed it for me initially.
    It’s kind of sad, though…after BvH, Perfect Situation, Hash Pipe, IITS…the fact that Rivers still has to battle his record company over singles is insane.

    Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 11:50 am | Permalink
  16. Low wrote:

    production isn’t what really matters. if song is good, recorded on a shitty hand-recorder or in big fat studio, it will remain good. the main problem with weezer is that most of their songs are not good at all.

    well, imo, at least.

    Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm | Permalink
  17. Soyrev wrote:

    Are you kidding me? Production is essential to any recording, as integral as phrasing is to an article. That’s like telling me that this blog would be just as good if an 8-year-old wrote it, so long as he has the same general opinions about the song as I do (please don’t tell me that).

    High quality isn’t always what’s best. “Broken Arrows,” to my ears, sounds perfect on that shitty answering machine tape, but as soon as the band brought it into the studio, it became as faceless and unremarkable as any other Maladroit-era piece of shit, and I would seriously not even remember how it goes if it weren’t for that original tape. But as it is on the answering machine tape, I think it’s one of Cuomo’s best compositions ever.

    A great example is Guided By Voices’ mid-period albums. They make perfect sense in lo-fi, shitty 4-track tape, but if you brought a lot of those songs into a flashy studio (as the band later attempted to), they fall apart. Likewise, TBA wouldn’t be nearly as good if it were recorded on a boombox.

    Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 3:15 pm | Permalink
  18. Low wrote:

    >That’s like telling me that this blog would be just as good if an 8-year-old wrote it, so long as he has the same general opinions about the song as I do (please don’t tell me that).

    not really. more like – even if this post had many typos and no commas it would still be great, only hard to read. and production is exactly the same thing, it can make things a lot easier to listen, but it’s not changing anything. lo-fi recordings have a lot of charm, but when you take these songs to big studio and it turns out they are shitty as hell, it’s not studio’s fault but the songs. and that’s why broken arrows failed, it was poorly arranged without any good devenlopement of the original idea.

    Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 2:35 am | Permalink
  19. Soyrev wrote:

    I see some legitimacy in your opinion, but frankly, it’s outdated. Any decent literature on the topic will tell you that since Sgt. Pepper’s, recording techniques have been endlessly used as part of the compositional process. The thought of “a good song is a good song” is nice, but in modern parlance, it’s simply wrong. Think of a nice, simple, no-bones-about-it acoustic recording of a great song, just the performer, his/her guitar and voice. Nice song, isn’t it? Now imagine that simple little recording done in a big, flashed out studio, with a bit of a trance beat added in beneath it, then compressed to all hell like, say, Make Believe. I guarantee you, no matter how pretty the words or how great the songwriting, that song is now officially unlistenable.

    I make this example because I’ve heard songs undergo this transformation before, from demo to finished product. My favorite song/performance of all time is just a girl and her guitar recorded on crappy 4-track tape, and it’s beautiful — the very best thing I’ve ever heard. When she took it to the studio, she fucked it up pretty bad (not quite as bad as the example I made earlier, but still), and while there’s still some quality left in the “official” version, I wouldn’t even place the song in my top 100 had the studio version been the only one I heard. Presentation is everything and, nowadays, is as vital as the song and the performer(s) themselves. This isn’t the pre-Beatles era, where all studio engineers actually looked like engineers, dressed in white labcoats and recording/producing everything to a set standard of procedures and specifications. Production is art now, and it’s up to the bands now to decide how they want to incorporate it.

    That’s why I can’t listen to Prince. Sure, some of the songs on his 80s records are fucking awesome, but the production. is just. so bad. That shitty 80s production just sounds so goddamn stale, the tinny snare, the stupid synths…Strip those songs down and they’d sound great, occasionally even timeless. As it is, because of production choices, they sound hopelessly dated, almost a parody of the decade from whence they came.

    Re: GBV, this just further serves to prove my point. Yeah, a lot of those songs didn’t translate to the big studio well (“Game Of Pricks” being a sort-of exception), but it’s not the song’s fault. Or the producer’s. It was the production. These songs were written from a very specific, unique, amazing perspective: listening to all these short snippets of songs blending together and coming out of the air like magic on Alien Lanes is a near one-of-a-kind experience in music. It sounds like the pure, beautiful stream-of-consciousness of a wildly imaginitive, barely-yet-corrupted child, full of hope and dreams and wonderful wonderful thoughts. The 4-track analog tape production serves to be the perfect expression for that: it’s warm, it’s beguiling, it blends together and warps and gets fuzzy like some strange, half-remembered dream. It’s beautiful, beautiful stuff, and the production (in this case, analog lo-fi) is integral to it.

    And thank you for the compliment, but if I went back and re-edited all these posts to be filled with typoes and completely commaless, it’d be an unreadable piece of shit not worth anyone’s time.

    Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 8:15 am | Permalink
  20. Low wrote:

    can’t say i’m disagreeing with your view. but i think it’s not the greatest place to discuss it. so.. if you want talk more about it maybe drop me a mail or let’s leave it as it is.

    Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 2:11 pm | Permalink
  21. Soyrev wrote:

    I don’t mind the comments getting tangential here, but I know what you mean.

    So uh, yeah…BvH. Crow T Robot, what makes you think that Cuomo doesn’t want to be a celebrity, and rather wants to marry one? I don’t see that in the text of this song at all.

    Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 2:53 pm | Permalink
  22. HowCoolIsThat wrote:

    I’ve been waiting for this one to come up. Honestly, I don’t think it’s that terrible of a song. Actually, I applaud Rivers for achieving what he has always worked for – a hit pop-rock single that every radio station is playing. I also wanted to interject an observation I’ve made about “Beverly Hills”. My friends all know about my Weezer obsession and the overwhelming majority of them have told me their favorite Weezer song is BvH. Of course, this is when I smile politely and think to myself about how badly they need a =w= education.

    With that being said, I still remain sitting here listening to pre-2000 tracks, currently “You Gave Your Love To Me Softly” (the lifetaker edition 😉 ).

    Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 5:00 pm | Permalink
  23. Art Vandelay wrote:

    Ah we’ve arrived at yet another song I really haven’t listened to since the month of it’s release.

    What to say…

    I think, way back when this leaked, I could initially point out some positive qualities… It’s certainly done with more conviction and energy than the uniformly bland crap-o-rama of material that preceded it. The presence of two guitar solos suggested the band had abandoned the arrangement formula they’d stuck to come hell or high water since the Green era. It’s fairly memorable and certainly catchy.

    On the other hand, it’s simplistic to the point of stupidity, and I don’t see it as being fundamentally different than what a band like, say, Bowling For Soup does. I’m unable to view it as anything thoughtful, relevant or relate-able… it feels too much like an aging band pandering to an adolescent audience. It’s got nothing to do with the band I once admired.

    So I rate it as such:


    Not the worst song in the world, but nothing I care to listen to, and definitely not the return to form it was heralded as before it’s release.

    Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 5:27 pm | Permalink
  24. GumbyTom wrote:

    Can’t believe there’s been 20+ messages and not a mention of the infamous cell phone clip.

    While it’s not Weezer’s best song, I think a lot of fans were upset with the cell phone clip and were looking to not like BvH when it came out. It’s not my favorite, but also, not my least favorite. I could definitely do without the “Gimmie Gimmie”s and “when the housemaids scrub the floor…” line.

    Still, this song brought them some mainstream commercial success at a time when they needed a comeback. And for that, I’m happy for them.

    Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 8:10 pm | Permalink
  25. tapegun wrote:

    for me, it’s all about rivers intent and motivation. if someone could ever turn his head around i truly believe we could see another outstanding album.

    then again maybe he’s just shot his wad a long time ago.

    Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
  26. Jason-From A6 Boards wrote:

    I struggle with BvH.

    I enjoy it, because I look at it as a “machine of a song” as you said. But I can’t help but feel like a giant tool singing along with this horribly generic and bland song.

    I really really really hope Rivers was going for the megahit here, not for the legitimate desire of living in Beverly Hills.

    If he’s serious about that, this song is an obvious statement of “Hey! I’m still a nerd!! Look at me! Can you guys love me again?!?!? I’m sorry for Pinkerton, it sucked!! Love me again, 13-year-old girls!! Please!”

    Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 9:20 pm | Permalink
  27. Martin wrote:

    Haha I couldn’t get enough of this song when it first came out. I suppose I still can’t. I remember how excited I was when I first heard it and I thought the spoken word part was so cool. The song’s wonderfully fun live. Although, I do see where the dislike comes from. I was once walking around Japan with some obnoxious New York nerd that I didn’t want to be with at all and I told her I “liked” Weezer (a gross understatement, but she didn’t seem worth the time). She said, “hey cool! Bevahlee Hillz is my sawng!!” I said “No, it isn’t.”

    I think that basically sums up this song.

    Monday, September 15, 2008 at 2:53 pm | Permalink
  28. Martin wrote:


    shouldn’t Troublemaker now be considered the most dishearteningly simple Weezer song now?

    Monday, September 15, 2008 at 2:54 pm | Permalink
  29. Soyrev wrote:

    Haha, funny story Martin. Also, yes, I suppose “Troublemaker” now does take that cake.

    Monday, September 15, 2008 at 3:03 pm | Permalink
  30. Melack wrote:

    I just felt like going back commenting this song.

    To begin with I have to say that I’m not a big fan of MB at all, so it might not be that big of an accomplishment for this song to be my favourite song on this albym along with The Other Way.

    The main reason I like it is that it actually has some personality and is quite a unique song in the Weezer discography while mostly the rest of MB is a bland overproduced mess that just flows together into one big boring song.

    At least Beverly Hills stands out.

    But of course that’s not the only reasons I like it then WAAOD would have been a favourite, but it’s the worst W song ever for me)

    My favourite musical parts of the song is the verses and the solos. I’ve never had any problems with Rivers rapping in the verses, I find them very catchy and honest. While let’s say the rap part in TGMTEL is more Rivers trying to copying southern rap style with cocky lyrics and all, making it more of a parody. The same applies to the RHCP funk rap in EGD.

    The rap in BH sounds like the real Rivers rapping in his quirky melodical way just like in El Scorcho (not comparing the songs itself just the style of rapping)

    The great thing about the solo in BH is just not that it’s a cool talkbox solo. But on many MB songs it felt like Rivers wrote a solo just for the sake of having a solo on the song not for actually helping the song forward.

    But the solos in Beverly Hills actually fits well into the context of the song and makes it better.

    My main complaint about this song is that Brian should have done the background vocals on the chorus.

    But all in all it’s one of my favourite PP songs even though I know I will be very much alone in that opinion for the rest of my life.

    Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 10:28 am | Permalink
  31. brado8 wrote:

    ‘The rap in BH sounds like the real Rivers rapping in his quirky melodical way just like in El Scorcho (not comparing the songs itself just the style of rapping)’

    I do enjoy the way he sings ‘I wanna live a life like that’ and ‘Take my picture by the pool’. Way better than the ‘rapping’ on ‘The Greatest Man That Ever Lived’.

    I think the song is decent, but I wouldn’t say it’s one of my favorites from MB(which I do believe has a couple great tunes on it).

    Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 5:34 pm | Permalink
  32. NoobcakesMcGee wrote:

    I think I agree with Melack and brad08 here. I recently just re-listened to Maladroit and MB in full, and while Mala lowered in ranking for me, I found Make Believe to not be as horrible as it’s portrayed as, this song especially. This was actually the first Weezer song I remember hearing (yes, before even Island or Buddy Holly and interestingly followed by Perfect Situation) and the first one I looked up the guitar for. I enjoyed playing guitar on this song and singing along because I did like Rivers’ odd style of singing/rapping. Little did I know he had perfected the art three albums previously with El Scorcho.

    Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 10:16 pm | Permalink
  33. nate wrote:

    This song came on my MP3 player today, and now that we have Raditude as apart of the Weezer discography, this doesn’t seem so bad anymore.

    Yeah, I like this song now.

    Friday, February 12, 2010 at 2:45 pm | Permalink
  34. Ludicrosity wrote:

    Oh come on, how can you like this over those AWESOME “hindu” vocals on Love Is The Answer!? They totally didn’t open that song’s mouth, shit in it and then fuck it up the ass without lubrication!

    (That was sarcasm, btw…)

    Friday, February 12, 2010 at 5:58 pm | Permalink
  35. Brownerton wrote:

    I listened to all of the Weezer studio albums in order the other day. The only songs I skipped rather than suffer through are this, Love Is the Answer, and Possibilities.

    Friday, February 12, 2010 at 6:33 pm | Permalink
  36. nate wrote:

    At the very least, this song seems so much more “Weezer-like.”

    Rivers’ goofy rapping is at least one Weezer staple.

    Lil’ Wayne’s rapping is not.

    Friday, February 12, 2010 at 9:25 pm | Permalink
  37. Ludicrosity wrote:

    So I am not the only one who can’t get into the Raditude version of CSP eh? I loved the demo because the way it was played on acoustic guitar added sadness and emphasized that living your life like that will lead to bad things. It was a nice artistic touch… then came the over-production of Raditude and, while I think it was added to make the song sound more ironic, it’s so ham fisted and… to be honest… it wouldn’t surprise me if it wasn’t done with that intended purpose at all. They really lost the entire point of what made that song great in the first place… even the Stereolab arrangement would’ve been a million times better than what we got.

    And God, I still can’t get over how brutal Love Is The Answer is… how could any band record a piece of shit like that and think it was worth releasing… as an album track no less! It’s honestly the only Weezer album track I can’t bare and must skip through everytime it comes on. Possibilities may sound terrible but at least it’s not Weezer trying to force feed us another culture’s music and doing it badly in the process. I just listened to the non Hindi version at the site for the Weezer mix contest too and, while it’s nothing exceptionally remarkable, I actually enjoy listening to that version… how in the bloody fuck could they have not chosen it over the version we got on the album? That just absolutely floors me.

    It makes choices like Beverly Hills look like amazing ideas in comparison. Like someone said, at least the goofy rap style is a Weezer staple and, while there’s not any progression in the song to speak of, those chugging guitars sound like Weezer too. If you don’t over-think it, BVH can be a great song and I think they actually excuted the idea they had for Raditude better on BVH than they did on the album itself. It was disposable pop-rock but, as bad as it is when compared to Weezer albums before it, at least the song doesn’t sound forced like Raditude does. Where this song is bland, it isn’t actively offensive like a lot of Raditude is.

    Sunday, February 14, 2010 at 9:28 am | Permalink
  38. Ludicrosity wrote:

    And “great song” was an over-statement on my part but this tune was successful for a reason. It was enough like Weezer to keep casual fans interested and it was a fun song without sounding like it was forced. It still had some quirkyness, whereas Raditude has none… any quirkyness it might’ve had was lost in the production (CSP for example) except for maybe If You’re Wondering… which isn’t a great song but at least it’s somewhat endearing. I would honestly take BVH over 90% of Raditude any day of the week, which really says something about just how bad that album truly is. It has its bright spots but they are few and far between.

    Sunday, February 14, 2010 at 9:37 am | Permalink
  39. nate wrote:

    I agree 100% about CSP. I don’t understand why Rivers keeps pushing the idea that it has the same feeling as the acoustic version. When I actually managed to listen to the lyrics of the Lil’ Wayne’s rap, it was completely different than the original view.

    I mean, they added the sound of a bong hit. What the fuck?

    Also, am I the only one bothered by Lil Wayne dropping the F-Bomb? I don’t have anything against swearing in music or whatever (one of my favorite bands is RATM, so fuck yeah) but it’s just so uncharacteristically Weezer. Everybody KNOWS that the Weezer swear word of choice is “Goddamn.”

    In a happier note, happy birthday Weezer!

    Sunday, February 14, 2010 at 10:15 am | Permalink
  40. Ludicrosity wrote:

    I find it more out of place because they don’t seem to swear in their songs anymore actually. Wasn’t Pinkerton the last album they swore on? The whole Lil’ Wayne rap in general, while not terrible by rap standards, just sounds so out of place… especially when Rivers sings at the end of it. Everytime I hear it, I can’t help but think that it sounds so damn forced. Like he’s trying to prove to the kids that he’s still cool and with it… it really just comes off as a father figure trying to sound cool by singing along with what his kid likes… and as well all know, Rivers is your daddy.

    Sunday, February 14, 2010 at 11:59 am | Permalink
  41. Soyrev wrote:

    Lil Wayne isn’t what’s out of place on the album version of “Can’t Stop Partying” — that would be Rivers. In fact, Lil Wayne is really the only thing that fits. His verse is definitely the highlight. I find Cuomo’s attempts at being dark and subversive much more problematic here, and way less natural than it sounds on the demo — even his attempt to add some guitar is a misfire, and Cuomo’s guitar once was one of Weezer’s best assets.

    Sunday, February 14, 2010 at 8:52 pm | Permalink
  42. thegreatestscorch wrote:

    honestly the thing that frustrates me the most about the weezer of right now is guitarless rivers. whats worse than no guitar solos? guitar solos not played by rivers. now ok maybe this would be livable on the albums, but live? thats a problem

    Sunday, February 14, 2010 at 9:14 pm | Permalink
  43. ThomYorke wrote:

    The Raditude edition of CSP is an abomination, and it ruined everthing the demo had going for it. The artistic touch wasn’t just muted, it was sucked in to a black hole never to be seen again.

    I agree with Ludicrosity that I’d listen to BvH over about 90% of Raditude, and THAT is fucking SAD.

    Monday, February 15, 2010 at 8:09 am | Permalink
  44. Mr. Sweeney wrote:

    Anybody else seen this? It’s pretty bangin’. I mean, it sucks, but it’s kinda cool.

    Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *