In any event, notwithstanding how retarded I am or how much I suck, the column did pretty well. So I thought about it some more and I have additional songs for the list. Spoiler alert. If you hated the last column, I promise you, you will hate this column too, so please, please, please don't read it. Or do that other thing you like to do: read all of it and tell me how much it sucks. In fact, just to be sure, after you read it, go and read my Cracked serialized novella Notes from the Internet Apocalypse and then watch all my old Hate By Numbers videos. And puke all over it. That's ok too.
Also, I should point out, I'm not trolling. If I were trolling you'd see Stairway to Heaven or Hey Jude or Carry on Wayward Son on this list. And I would never do that. Not because I'm afraid of pissing people off (clearly) but because they're great songs. Also, if I were trolling, I'd also probably mention that I'm in your mother, like right now. And she's really into it. But I'm not a troll, so I'll just say I may or may not be in your mother.
Again, the following songs are included here if they meet two criteria:
1. They are songs that have been played continuously on classic rock radio since their release until today:
2. And they have no musical, lyrical, or even sociological justification for being immortalized by constant play.
Lastly, I don't think anyone needs to be told (including me) that this list is subjective. Of course, it is. Most things in life are subjective. For example, I once had a girlfriend who hated it when I did that thing with the thing, but your mother is like totally into it. I mean, may or may not be totally into it.
Start Me Up by The Rolling Stones
I know. The Stones. How could I? Well, first off let me say that I didn't. I didn't put The Rolling Stones on a list; I put Start Me Up on a list. And I'll get to that in a moment, but as long as we're talking about the Stones...
I'll be the first to admit that The Rolling Stones have about fifteen to twenty absolutely sensational pop rock songs: Satisfaction, Sympathy for the Devil, Wild Horses, Paint it Black, 19th Nervous Breakdown. . . but they've been a band for over 40 years. The Beatles put out that many great songs on just three album sides. And the other thing that always rubbed me the wrong way about the Stones was that unlike the Beatles or Pink Floyd --whose sound evolved by breaking new ground-- the Stones were always caving to what was already fashionable. When they wanted to break into America after The Beatles, they recorded The Beatles song I Want To Be Your Man sounding a lot like the Beatles. When the Beatles went psychedelic in 1967 with songs like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds the Stones did 2000 Light Years From Home
When Glam Rock exploded in the early 70's, Mick donned eye shadow and put out the heavily T Rex-influenced It's Only Rock n' Roll". Then disco came so The Stones did disco. Then rock and roll died in the 80s and there was no obvious genre to ape and the Stones did whatever the hell this crap is. And then in the 90s, Mick Jagger decided the Stones should work with Babyface.
But ok, that brings us to Start Me Up. Certainly, one of the Stones' most played songs and yet, there is nothing distinctive about it. Listening to it is always frustrating because it feels like it's about to go into some great chorus that just never comes. I can't listen to Start Me Up without changing mental channels to Beast of Burden or even Shattered or any other Stones songs where something actually happens. It just the straightest most nondescript Stones hit ever where Mick's minimal and meaningless lyrics merely double Richards' riff, adding no lyrical or melodic flourish. At the end of the day, the most exciting thing about Start Me Up is its association with a Windows 95 commercial, which is kinda harsh tokes for something that's supposed to be a classic song from the bad boys of Rock.
"When It's Love" by Van Halen
I put this song here for two reasons: 1) Because it really, really sucks; and 2) as my personal apology to David Lee Roth. Let me explain:
When I was a small boy, Van Halen were rock gods. Jump and Panama were massive hits and Davie Lee Roth was everywhere with his ass-shaking antics and over the top smarm. When Van Halen broke up, Eddie Van Halen did an excellent job of vilifying Diamond Dave just as he would do with Sammy Hagar years later. I realize now that this is mostly likely because Eddie Van Halen is a douchebag, but at the time, I listened to every word. And I heard all these stories about how Eddie wanted to grow as an artist and do serious compositions, but that Dave just cared about goofing off and screaming over records.
So I welcomed Sammy Hagar as the new lead singer of Van Halen, and it seemed like Eddie was right because the new Van Halen was more earnest and the new Davie Lee Roth was like an exercise in self-parody. But by the time When It's Love came out on the OU812 album, I realized something that apparently David Lee Roth knew all along:
Van Halen's music is not supposed to be taken seriously.
Eddie Van Halen may be one of the greatest guitarists in rock history, but his compositions sure are all things cheesy. Van Halen NEEDS a frontman like David Lee Roth who gets what makes music fun.
Roth knew exactly who he was and what Van Halen was and with him at the helm they were one of the most entertaining hard rock acts of all time. While Sammy Hagar's vocals are fine (indeed, on a technical level he's a more talented vocalist than Roth) without all of Roth's shtick, you're just left with Eddie's keyboard-laden compositions. Listen up and tell me this song isn't every bit as wimpy as Winger. And that whole Beatlesesque-Little Help From My Friends lead vocal, backing vocal Q and A is just disturbingly awful for a band that's supposed to kick ass.
Mr. Roth, I apologize for ever doubting you. Forgive me.
"Pour Some Sugar On Me" by Def Leppard
OK, Def Leppard fans. Before you crucify me right while I'm in the middle of having sex (or maybe not having sex) with your mom, listen closely: Def Leppard has done some great things. 1983's Pyromania is a great album. Photograph is one of the greatest hard rock/pop songs ever written. But Pour Some Sugar On Me is from 1987's Hysteria. And while Pyromania and Hysteria have a lot of the same letters in common, the differences between them are as significant as having an ejaculation versus getting an inoculation.
It's hard to give objective proof of why the song sucks such hard, I mean other than pointing to the pool of blood dripping from your ears after it's played, but I'll try. First off, "pour some sugar on me" is arguably the gayest rock metaphor ever written. And I don't mean gay as in lame (although it's that too). I mean gay as in homosexual. Unless, we're talking about the rare phenomenon of the female squirting orgasm, "pour some sugar on me" sounds like a request to have a starring role in an all dude Bukkake film. And hey, that's fine. Faith No More have had some very effective homoerotic lyrics ("you're the master and I take it on my knees," and "if I tighten up my hole you may never see the light again") but I kinda feel like Joe Elliot wasn't quite aware of the image he was creating.
Also, the lyrics were composed by Joe Elliot and producer Mutt Lange rambling stream of conscious nonsense words into dictaphones and then swapping and rewriting. And while many great songs have been created with novel experimental cut up techniques (David Bowie cutting up lyrics and rearranging at random on Moonage Daydream or George Martin cutting up pipe organ solos in the back of The Beatles' Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite) these lyrics actually sound worthless as the process that created them.
Also, is it too dickish to say the drums on this sound like they were played by a guy with one arm? It is, right? OK. I won't say that.