Paramore - After Laughter (May 12th, 2017) Album • Page 12

I was thinking earlier about how people think they're trying to basically cash in on the 80s resurgence, but then I realized literally no band doing that 80s thing is bigger than Paramore (at least in America). The 1975? Getting there, but no. Walk the Moon? One huge song, already fading out of popularity. Bleachers? Also getting there, but a whole different ball game. I sincerely doubt Paramore is trying to cash in on this when they've already had more success with their own sound.

And I really don't think this song sounds any more "pop" than something like Still Into You, Ain't It Fun, or Grow Up.

And Panic!'s shift was anything but dramatic. And seriously Death of a Bachelor is a weird album. Pop? Maybe. Traditional pop? Hell no.

Ok going to go listen to Hard Times for the 3879238th time.

 

Nah, I get you. I don't think questioning why implies pop = bad either. There's a lot of this shit around and even just on principle, I think there's justifiable scepticism towards bands from a certain realm continually opting to fall down on the side of pop instead of rock. I'd say that even without considering the fact that a lot of these bands go on to make terrible music and then shout critics down as if they're all narrow-minded music fans who don't like bands to evolve.

In terms of Paramore, I don't have any real issue with it. I didn't like their S/T as much as the previous three, largely because of the change in direction (despite how much of a banger Ain't It Fun is) but I do think they're good enough to get it right and I'm not as sceptical about their intentions as I am with certain other bands.

 

Completely opposite of what Paramore is doing, and that's straight from Taylor's mouth in the Zane interview. He tried it and it didn't work for them.

 

shhhhhhh that goes against the surface level "they sold out for the casuals" narrative shhhhhhhh

 

Haha I don't think anyone could ever say the sell out phrase when it comes to paramore. Impossible

 

Not to mention that I have a very difficult time believing anyone who tries to say Paramore was writing more to what "people love to hear" than "what they love to play" on the S/T.

 

Technically, Paramore has always been pop driven. What was on the radio during early/mid 2000s wasnt unlike what Paramore did on Riot. We had stuff like Blink and Yellowcard on the radio. That's all pop is, popular music. Yes, the sound on Riot is different than what is done in Hard Times, but you can say the same for the radio 10-15 years ago vs now.

Let the band progress how they want to.

 

Paramore was far from a favorite band of mine, so I don't know their personal taste in music. But my statement could be used towards most bands after a certain amount of time.

 

Paramore is growing in the way they want to. Any correlation to "what sells" and "being poppy" is just coincidence.

 

On a much more important note, do we think we'll get another new song before the album? Or since it's coming so soon will it just be Hard Times and then the album? I need more

 

So we went from the "pop music is bad" discussion, to the "sellout" discussion

this thread is bad today

 

I can see something coming a week before the record, but that's it.

 

This conversation has happened with every Paramore album cycle. If they were truly selling out, they'd be re-writing Riot to infinity like half of y'all seem to want. Which is funny because I vividly remember conversations about how "That's What You Get" was lifeless, contrived, etc. back in the Livejournal days. Maybe it's time to accept that this band is always going to sound different on every release. It might also be time to examine what it is exactly that bothers people so much about that.

 

It's interesting to me that if Paramore decided to get heavy and dark we probably wouldn't be having a conversation questioning their motives. It seems that only comes into play when a band/artist gets poppier. They did the guitar rock thing for 4 records, and they're ready to break into new territory now. Some bands are content with being a guitar rock band for their entire career, and the good ones can pull it off (thinking of Jimmy Eat World here), but others want to expand and grow. That's all it is.

 

Why do people always treat the previous Paramore album like some tiny indie rock darling? Since Riot!, Paramore have been a major label pop band with massive radio support and an enormous fan base. The "they're selling out for radio play!" narrative that follows them with every release is very strange and revisionist.

 

Talk. That. Talk.

 

I should have refreshed before I sent that last post, this is a well-said version of the point I was trying to make lol

 

Not that it matters, because there is nothing inherently wrong or inferior about pop music, but imo Paramore is making the leap (if you can even call it that) gracefully. Imo their songwriting has only improved and gotten more creative the more they use guitars as a texture than a driving force in their songwriting. I never found the instrumentation on their first three records to be anything super captivating (aside from the drumming on occasion), their songs relied heavily on Hayley to elevate them. I've been way more impressed with them instrumentally since the self-titled, and watching that Zane interview, it only makes sense seeing how Taylor described finding his own identity as the main songwriter.

 

Yeah i think the music on self titled is way better than the first three albums.

 

Here's the last thing I'll say about this.

From a writing standpoint, pop music is based mainly on a hook and a catchy chorus. Just look at what's out there today, with the heavy repetition of a chorus rather than a well-written song. I might be alone on this, but doesn't anyone get annoyed when a song repeats the chorus multiple times, lengthening a song longer than it should be? Other genres are guilty of doing this as well, but radio-pop music is the most egregious.

 

Every genre has their own niche. Metal was founded on the riff. Blues is mainly written in a I-IV-V chord progression. Jazz introduces a concept and brings the song into its own world with improv solos. Folk is primarily acoustic. Prog utilizes dystopian lyricism. etc.

That's kind of what genres are and it doesn't diminish the quality of the songs themselves because they abide to those common tropes.

 

It honestly depends on the song. As long as the chorus and the other surrounding sections of the song feel inspired, if it suits the song then a more straightforward song structure is the way to go, if it doesn't then it doesn't. Idk. Not every song needs to have a progressive song structure, and not every song benefits from a verse/chorus structure. But this band has always had those song structures so I don't get why that's being brought up tbh.

I appreciate the TRTC avatar btw, but paying attention to the song structures on that album, a lot of them (most?) repeat the chorus several times too.

 

And I'd bet you'd probably be wrong more often than not. People grow, people change. I can't imagine doin anything in life that resembles what I was doing a decade ago, much less creativily. You're not the only one with this pov, it just bothers me ha.

 

Oh I know it's completely selfish and bullshit, but it's my opinion! haha.

 

As long as you know (kidding ha).