Post subject: ADP #12: Significant Other by Limp Bizkit
Yes, you read that correctly; We’re going to discuss Limp Bizkit (sort of, but take a moment to laugh or barf or both if you must).
Every ADP so far has been about albums/artists that are generally well-liked on BEA. So I’m turning the idea on its head to discuss an album/artist generally disliked here on BEA. But whether you like it or not, for a few years Limp Bizkit outsold and outshined most of their contemporaries (and Fred Durst can afford more houses and cars than you probably ever will). We shouldn’t disregard their success because it’s important in the history of rock. And yet many of us certainly like to ignore them. And if we do give Limp Bizkit any attention, they’re usually the butt of a joke, or their songs and albums are given horrible ratings. Why?
Now unlike many earlier ADPs, I will spare you a song-by-song analysis of Significant Other. But instead I would like to use this album as a window to bigger questions/topics about music. And before answering them, if you’ve never listened to Significant Other, try to give it at least one listen. If you have already listened to it, maybe skim through it again before answering.
1. If you like Significant Other or Limp Bizkit in general, don’t be afraid to speak up and tell us why. We’re all respectful of other users’ opinions here on BEA. While I’m not a big fan of the three albums of theirs I have listened to, I’m not ashamed to admit to I like a few of their songs.
2. How was Significant Other important in the history of rock? Was it for better or worse?
3. Is Limp Bizkit’s music really that bad, or are their low ratings partially influenced by Fred Durst being an asshole? For those of you who are unaware, Fred Durst was an anger management case who’s been accused of inciting violence in his crowds. Additionally, he had feuds with several contemporary artists including Eminem, Scott Stapp, Christina Aguilera, Trent Reznor, among others. Fred Durst also once threw a microphone and broke someone’s nose. So I’m wondering if hate for Limp Bizkit is fueled by hate for its frontman. If so, is that fair? This question recalls RockyRaccoon’s insightful ‘Separating the art from the artist’ threads:
Is it possible to separate Limp Bizkit’s music from Fred Durst?
4. Lastly, what makes music good or bad? And why does Limp Bizkit, for so many people, exemplify ‘bad music’? Before answering, consider this quote from one of BEA’s longtime users and contributors:
Anonymous Longtime BEA User and Contributor wrote:
There’s no such thing as "good" and "bad" art, only "good" and "bad" interpretations of art. Almost every work of art has its own layer of beauty hidden inside.
1. Out of all of their albums I would say the one you chose is the most tolerable. Some of the more mellow songs like "Re-Arranged" are not that terrible. It certainly is somewhat creative, but I think Rage Against the Machine who are the real progenitors of "Rap-Metal" or "Nu-Metal" did it a lot better.
2. It started the true beginning of the aforementioned genres that dominated the charts for at least 5 years.
3. I actually don't think he's that much of an asshole. I've seen more recent interviews with him, and he doesn't seem like that bad of a guy. I think it's the die-hard fan-base (like ICP juggalos, same crowd I guess) that people dislike more than the actual artist. The lyrical content of Limp Bizkit is also pretty juvenile even compared to other artists in the same genre. Other Nu-Metal band at least had something interesting to say instead of rhyming "Nookie" with "Cookie". Wes Borland also seems like an OK guy as well, so I don't think it has to do with the members themselves, but the fans and the shitty lyrical content of their hits.
4. As mentioned before, the bad lyrical content, and I don't just mean crude because Fred Durst is not a good rapper in general. All of the derivative bands that came after them really hurts their legacy as well. Plenty of people like Limp Bizkit and will keep paying for concert tickets. My brother and I have a running joke after we watch a bad movie that someone, somewhere; that's their favorite movie. There is somebody out there right now who thinks Transformers 5 is the greatest movie ever, and even though that's not true to the majority of people, it's true to that person and that's all that really matters.
1. If you like Significant Other or Limp Bizkit in general, don’t be afraid to speak up and tell us why. We’re all respectful of other users’ opinions here on BEA. While I’m not a big fan of the three albums of theirs I have listened to, I’m not ashamed to admit to I like a few of their songs.
Musically it probably isn't the worst thing ever. It is however lyrically some of the worst work ever created. For me good music needs to emotionally entrap me and mentally challenge/intrigue me. This music really doesn't do either. Even as a teenager I revolted against it because I felt it was music made by idiots for idiots.
The musicianship isn't terrible though. I guess this is what happens when you let the Guitar Center heroes make music. The bass work at times is actually pretty good. In other words, some of it is musically interesting, but has the depth of a 5 year old.
At the very least there's a few hits on this record I'm glad I haven't heard since like the year 2000.
If I were to pick a "good" song of theirs, it'd be Re-Arranged. Pretty good drums and bass work, and the lyrics don't make me vomit. It also almost has a Cure/Come as you are feel to it.
(not meaning to be rude, but also don't want to hold back what I really feel).
2. How was Significant Other important in the history of rock? Was it for better or worse?
To be honest, I think hair metal will be more important than Nu-Metal. I think Nu-Metal is what killed any chance of rock music to live any further. JNCO4EVER. I'm not going to completely dismiss it, because as you stated it sold many records and is part of music history for sure. And maybe I'm wrong... I mean anything is possible in WalMart nation.
3. Is Limp Bizkit’s music really that bad, or are their low ratings partially influenced by Fred Durst being an asshole? For those of you who are unaware, Fred Durst was an anger management case who’s been accused of inciting violence in his crowds. Additionally, he had feuds with several contemporary artists including Eminem, Scott Stapp, Christina Aguilera, Trent Reznor, among others. Fred Durst also once threw a microphone and broke someone’s nose. So I’m wondering if hate for Limp Bizkit is fueled by hate for its frontman. If so, is that fair? This question recalls RockyRaccoon’s insightful ‘Separating the art from the artist’ threads:
Is it possible to separate Limp Bizkit’s music from Fred Durst?
I really don't care for who a person is when it comes to the music. If the music itself is high quality, I don't care if the creator of it is a serial killer or likes to hunt or likes to do charity work yet lives in a mansion (cause that cancels out anything you do good right?)
Now I'm not going to pretend that IQ or EQ doesn't play a role.
4. Lastly, what makes music good or bad? And why does Limp Bizkit, for so many people, exemplify ‘bad music’? Before answering, consider this quote from one of BEA’s longtime users and contributors:
Anonymous Longtime BEA User and Contributor wrote:
There’s no such thing as "good" and "bad" art, only "good" and "bad" interpretations of art. Almost every work of art has its own layer of beauty hidden inside.
Do you agree with this quote?
I agree with the quote, but I think there are varying degrees of layers of beauty/good aesthetic. Would I want to spend my time with something that has 1% layer of beauty or 99%? For example Re-Arranged has some aesthetic I enjoy, but it is musical ideas rehashed I can enjoy elsewhere (and am totally fine if I never listen to Re-Arranged ever again). Limp Bizkit or other terrible music for that matter really comes down to the obvious lack of emotional and intellectual depth.
Lastly, this reminds me of reader response theory which basically states that a text doesn't exist until it is interpreted. It also reminds me of the question - do we all see the same color of blue? However, I do disagree that there's no such thing as bad art. If art has no catharsis, no pleasing aesthetic, no emotional or intellectual depth,
it isn't art, it is entertainment at best.
1. Out of all of their albums I would say the one you chose is the most tolerable. Some of the more mellow songs like "Re-Arranged" are not that terrible. It certainly is somewhat creative, but I think Rage Against the Machine who are the real progenitors of "Rap-Metal" or "Nu-Metal" did it a lot better.
No arguments here.
Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:
2. It started the true beginning of the aforementioned genres that dominated the charts for at least 5 years.
Indeed. I think if it weren't for the soaring popularity of Significant Other, Deftones, Linkin Park, and System of a Down would not have had the same level of exposure when they released music between 2000-02. And I think most of us agree those bands have plenty more good material (especially SOAD).
Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:
3. I actually don't think he's that much of an asshole. I've seen more recent interviews with him, and he doesn't seem like that bad of a guy. I think it's the die-hard fan-base (like ICP juggalos, same crowd I guess) that people dislike more than the actual artist. The lyrical content of Limp Bizkit is also pretty juvenile even compared to other artists in the same genre. Other Nu-Metal band at least had something interesting to say instead of rhyming "Nookie" with "Cookie". Wes Borland also seems like an OK guy as well, so I don't think it has to do with the members themselves, but the fans and the shitty lyrical content of their hits.
Interesting. I didn't consider the fanbase. But yes, I can see how an obnoxious fanbase can lead to harsh criticism. Is that entirely fair? Personally I think if someone rates Significant Other 5/100, it should be criticizing the music, and only the music, not the music + the fans + the artist.
It isn't uncommon for celebrities to assume a totally different persona when they're in the spotlight. Now that you mention it, I've also heard Fred Durst isn't a bad guy in a normal environment. But when he puts on that backward red Yankees cap, and he has mic in front of him and camera recording him, he becomes the Fred Durst we're more familiar with...loud and angry.
1. If you like Significant Other or Limp Bizkit in general, don’t be afraid to speak up and tell us why. We’re all respectful of other users’ opinions here on BEA. While I’m not a big fan of the three albums of theirs I have listened to, I’m not ashamed to admit to I like a few of their songs.
Musically it probably isn't the worst thing ever. It is however lyrically some of the worst work ever created. For me good music needs to emotionally entrap me and mentally challenge/intrigue me. This music really doesn't do either. Even as a teenager I revolted against it because I felt it was music made by idiots for idiots.
The musicianship isn't terrible though. I guess this is what happens when you let the Guitar Center heroes make music. The bass work at times is actually pretty good. In other words, some of it is musically interesting, but has the depth of a 5 year old.
At the very least there's a few hits on this record I'm glad I haven't heard since like the year 2000.
If I were to pick a "good" song of theirs, it'd be Re-Arranged. Pretty good drums and bass work, and the lyrics don't make me vomit. It also almost has a Cure/Come as you are feel to it.
(not meaning to be rude, but also don't want to hold back what I really feel).
Never hold back what you want to say.
I find Limp Bizkit's lyrics to be very non-traditional, non-poetic, but relatable at least. Limp Bizkit's lyrics just say what they want to say, which many times simply sound like the ramblings of a pissed off drunk. No need to spin a good yarn to understand them. Are their lyrics lazy? No question about it. Do their lyrics get old? Sometimes before the first verse is over. Certainly intellectually lacking. However I wouldn't say they lack emotion. Music is about expressing an emotion and evoking that emotion from its audience. Limp Bizkit's music was meant to be angry and it did succeed in that regard. And every once in a while, I can let off some steam to their music (for a maximum of three songs before I get tired of them, whereas I can go for two hours of SOAD and not get tired of them).
sethmadsen wrote:
2. How was Significant Other important in the history of rock? Was it for better or worse?
To be honest, I think hair metal will be more important than Nu-Metal. I think Nu-Metal is what killed any chance of rock music to live any further. JNCO4EVER. I'm not going to completely dismiss it, because as you stated it sold many records and is part of music history for sure. And maybe I'm wrong... I mean anything is possible in WalMart nation.
Hmm, what do you mean by 'killed any chance of rock music to live any further? Are you saying Nu-Metal cheapened rock, and stripped it of essential qualities?
1. I don't like Limp Bizkit but this and 3DBY are decent albums and get too much unwarranted hate in my opinion. They had more personality at this time than the likes of Linkin Park, Disturbed, etc. that turned up later, although, as I'll elaborate on later, they still don't have a significant place in the nu-metal canon for me. Most of the songs are decent, although N 2 Gether Now is somewhat mediocre because of the terrible chorus and Fred Durst being on the same track as Method Man, and Show Me What You Got and Outro are terrible and mess up the sequencing of the second half (just fucking end the album with No Sex and A Lesson Learned). Other than that, it's a more interesting album than it's given credit for usually: Just Like This, Nookie, and I'm Broke are rare examples of nu-metal sounding colourful and upbeat; the closest thing to them I can think of is Incubus' Science. Re-Arranged and No Sex are nice ballads (the former in particular), adding variety to the album. I also enjoy Break Stuff, a hilariously tongue-in-cheek and catchy track that I can imagine being something like the Ramones' take on nu-metal. The strings on Don't Go Off Wandering and the experimental A Lesson Learned add some drama. Meanwhile, Trust is a highlight, and their most intense track. I'd suggest haters to consider these songs again. It's a pity they didn't continue building on such ideas, they could've eventually become one of the more respected nu-metal artists. Instead...
2. ...this album, and Limp Bizkit in general, will not have a significant place in rock because there are half a dozen nu-metal bands and/or albums that came before and after them and excelled at what they did far more. Some examples are Rage Against the Machine's s/t and Korn's s/t, two albums that were clearly a major influence on their debut; Incubus' Science, which was even more diverse and skillfully so; Slipknot's fanbase has ruined its reputation but Slipknot's s/t (Iowa and Vol 3 as well?) is generally seen as somewhat respectable by quite a few; Deftones and System of a Down also succeeded in getting the kind of critical acclaim usually reserved for other metal genres because of their talent. History might be slightly kinder to their first two albums, and they will remain as essential listens for anyone interested in nu-metal, but unlike the above examples they won't hold a respectable position because...
3 and 4. ...their fanbase is terrible and their lyrics turn off a lot of people. I enjoy Nookie and Break Stuff but even I have to cringe sometimes (e.g. the choruses of N 2 Gether now and No Sex, all of Show Me What You Got and Outro). What the hell is that rant in Outro all about anyway? Were people actually supposed to take their stuff seriously and consider them revolutionary? If yes, then how were their later albums revolutionary in any way? Maybe I'm missing the point and the rant is a joke, but it's not a good joke and it exposes their hypocrisy, especially in retrospect, when we have stuff like Chocolate Starfish to consider as well. As for Fred Durst, I don't know much about his behaviour but I imagine people don't find him a charming frontman anyway. His performance was decent on 3DBY but he got progressively worse after that; on Chocolate Starfish, he's even more annoying than Chester Bennington/Mike Shinoda of Linkin Park, and the band's personality had deteriorated by that point until they were just another commercial nu-metal act with nothing to say. But I think some people can enjoy the first two albums a bit more if they let go of their biases against nu-metal.
1. I don't like Limp Bizkit but this and 3DBY are decent albums and get too much unwarranted hate in my opinion. They had more personality at this time than the likes of Linkin Park, Disturbed, etc. that turned up later, although, as I'll elaborate on later, they still don't have a significant place in the nu-metal canon for me. Most of the songs are decent, although N 2 Gether Now is somewhat mediocre because of the terrible chorus and Fred Durst being on the same track as Method Man, and Show Me What You Got and Outro are terrible and mess up the sequencing of the second half (just fucking end the album with No Sex and A Lesson Learned). Other than that, it's a more interesting album than it's given credit for usually: Just Like This, Nookie, and I'm Broke are rare examples of nu-metal sounding colourful and upbeat; the closest thing to them I can think of is Incubus' Science. Re-Arranged and No Sex are nice ballads (the former in particular), adding variety to the album. I also enjoy Break Stuff, a hilariously tongue-in-cheek and catchy track that I can imagine being something like the Ramones' take on nu-metal. The strings on Don't Go Off Wandering and the experimental A Lesson Learned add some drama. Meanwhile, Trust is a highlight, and their most intense track. I'd suggest haters to consider these songs again. It's a pity they didn't continue building on such ideas, they could've eventually become one of the more respected nu-metal artists.
I agree with you that 3DBY and SO have exciting youthful personality to them. I also agree there's interesting things going on musically on Significant Other that get overlooked. It's a better album than most give it credit for. And yeah, they didn't follow up Significant Other well. I hated Chocolate Starfish (more on that below).
Facetious wrote:
2. This album, and Limp Bizkit in general, will not have a significant place in rock because there are half a dozen nu-metal bands and/or albums that came before and after them and excelled at what they did far more. Some examples are Rage Against the Machine's s/t and Korn's s/t, two albums that were clearly a major influence on their debut; Incubus' Science, which was even more diverse and skillfully so; Slipknot's fanbase has ruined its reputation but Slipknot's s/t (Iowa and Vol 3 as well?) is generally seen as somewhat respectable by quite a few; Deftones and System of a Down also succeeded in getting the kind of critical acclaim usually reserved for other metal genres because of their talent. History might be slightly kinder to their first two albums, and they will remain as essential listens for anyone interested in nu-metal, but unlike the above examples they won't hold a respectable position.
True. I will credit Significant Other with bringing Nu-Metal to the mainstream, paving the road for better bands and albums that followed. That's how I think it's historically relevant. But history will not be kind to Limp Bizkit in the long run. Hell, history is already harsh on them, which they don't deserve because I don't think Limp Bizkit intended to be superstars. I think they're another case of mainstream coming to them. Yes they were part of a Nu-metal movement that was growing in popularity, but nobody expected Nu-metal to take off the way it did, and nobody expected Limp Bizkit to be the most popular band of that movement. Both were coincidences. Rather, according to interviews, Limp Bizkit treated their music as a fun time, and if a small audience could join in their fun, then I think they would've been happy with that.
Facetious wrote:
3 and 4. Their fanbase is terrible and their lyrics turn off a lot of people. I enjoy Nookie and Break Stuff but even I have to cringe sometimes (e.g. the choruses of N 2 Gether now and No Sex, all of Show Me What You Got and Outro). What the hell is that rant in Outro all about anyway? Were people actually supposed to take their stuff seriously and consider them revolutionary? If yes, then how were their later albums revolutionary in any way? Maybe I'm missing the point and the rant is a joke, but it's not a good joke and it exposes their hypocrisy, especially in retrospect, when we have stuff like Chocolate Starfish to consider as well.As for Fred Durst, I don't know much about his behaviour but I imagine people don't find him a charming frontman anyway. His performance was decent on 3DBY but he got progressively worse after that; on Chocolate Starfish, he's even more annoying than Chester Bennington/Mike Shinoda of Linkin Park, and the band's personality had deteriorated by that point until they were just another commercial nu-metal act with nothing to say. But I think some people can enjoy the first two albums a bit more if they let go of their biases against nu-metal.
I do feel the rant in Outro is a joke directed at pop artists and boy bands. But I don't mind it because I feel Significant Other wasn't meant to be taken seriously. It's supposed to be silly and angry and it does that through Fred Durst's crass non-poetic lyrics. However, when it came to Chocolate Starfish, it felt like Limp Bizkit took a step further with their silliness while simultaneously trying to be serious. On some tracks on Chocolate Starfish, the lyrics are even more ridiculous to the point where they're not even silly. They're just plain stupid and awful. While on other tracks on Chocolate Starfish, it seems like they were actually taking their music seriously, which they never had the talent to pull off. The result is abysmal. I despise Chocolate Starfish and never listened to any subsequent Bizkit album as a result. But 3DBY and Significant Other...they're not good but they're not terrible either. _________________ on such a winter's day
whereas I can go for two hours of SOAD and not get tired of them).
Agreed. SOAD is so much better a band on many different levels. Not the best out there, but fantastic for the genre/who they were.
StreetSpirit wrote:
Hmm, what do you mean by 'killed any chance of rock music to live any further? Are you saying Nu-Metal cheapened rock, and stripped it of essential qualities?
Eh I kinda feel like Rock never recovered after this period. There hasn't really been anything since this time period to be proud of or to say was great/inspiring. I mean not that rock really was ever meant to be that - but even early rock seemed more inspiring than this period.
RE: Emotion
Yes I suppose it does have a clear emotional feel to it, but it feels more like a brat emotion than a truly angry emotion - WAY to many bands to list who do it WAY better, but a few to mention: Nirvana, RATM, and like you mention, even SOAD.
I guess for me sometimes their anger can become laughable to me, instead of earnest. Like a little brat throwing a tantrum. IDK, that's the feel I get from many of the NU-METAL bands.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
