Paramore, or the Musical Equivalent of Vanilla Ice Cream.

Collin R. Vogt
May 4, 2017
8 min read

Paramore, in better times.

I don’t know what it is about 2017. 2016 was the year all the talented people die, but maybe 2017 is when talent itself actually dies.

Overdramatic? Yes. Do I care? Nope!

Seriously though, I was in for quite a disappointment when I listened to Paramore’s new song, “Hard Times”. I don’t think any band has ever so completely aborted everything about their music that made them popular in the past.

This isn’t to say that bands aren’t allowed to evolve, of course. But evolution in itself does not necessarily imply a positive evolution or that it was successful in what it was attempting to change. And when it comes to Paramore’s evolution, it feels more akin to the appendix, which no longer serves a purpose, than something impressive, like being able to fly. Or at least even something that’s not detrimental, like being triple-jointed. Does that make sense?

The reason I’m talking about evolution is that I saw a comment thread on the “Hard Times” video that bugged me. The first comment said something along the lines of how Paramore seems to have lost their identity, their unique voice, which is a fair criticism and relatively subjective, although I think it’s fairly indisputable that Paramore’s last two albums sound very different than their first three. Whether that difference is good or bad is up to you.

Anyway, the comment that bugged me was a response to the first one. This reply accused the first commenter of “not being a true fan” because bands “evolve”.

This is true. But for evolution to be successful, you can’t drop everything that worked before. If we’re still going with the evolution analogy, that’s like losing the ability to see because you gained the ability to hear. It’s a net zero, and therefore, not a useful evolution. The second commenter's point seems akin to celebrity worship rather than fandom.

So, what has Paramore gained with their latest evolution? The best thing I can say is that they seem to have adopted a bit of a “weird”, unorthodox flavor, especially at the end of the chorus, where Hayley Williams blurts out, sort of abrasively, “And I gotta get to rock bottom!” It’s really jarring, but it actually works pretty well. It’s an interesting twist, and it actually reminds me a lot of Kimbra’s song “90s Music”. It's surprising, grabbing your attention and getting you more actively involved in listening to the song.

But that’s about the only thing that I can say is a useful addition to their music. The rest of it sounds like a huge step back. They kind of sound like Vampire Weekend-Lite, which is not a compliment. It sounds very casual, blasé, and quite devoid of tension. The song doesn’t seem to really have anything to say and is trying to be as widely appealing as possible. Hence, the musical equivalent of vanilla ice cream.

The "Hard Times" video.

What Paramore had in the past that they seem to be lacking now is a sense of vitality, necessity, or urgency. It lacks an emotional energy and intensity that made Paramore such a listenable band. It had strong emotions that could be related to, even if it wasn’t necessarily an “angry” song, like “Ignorance” (which is probably my favorite song from Paramore). Strong emotions fuel the best art, even if those emotions are subtly conveyed.

Paramore perfectly straddled the hyphen in pop-punk. It had a pleasant, clear, sound, but their music never lost that emotional intensity, purposefulness, and edge that punk is so known for. This new song is basically just pop, and it’s not even very successful in this aspect.

What you expect from Paramore, and Hayley Williams, is big vocals. She’s got a great voice, a great range, and unique vocal mannerisms that perfectly suited the pop-punk genre. However, there was an added layer that always went just beneath notice in Paramore’s music. They actually had excellent songwriting. Everything was tight, and the Farro brothers are obviously the source of that. Josh Farro, the elder brother, was a huge part of the band’s songwriting, and his absence on the last two albums really shows. His songs were so well-constructed that you would barely even notice how well constructed they are. It’s like that old saying: if you can’t say it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.

Paramore’s songs, while simple in technique, were excellently structured. They perfectly blended tension, melody, and clarity, for a sound that successfully stood out in the pop-punk genre. In my opinion, Paramore is actually quite similar to a band I have always loved, Static-X.

You probably wouldn’t think to compare these two bands, one being a pop-punk band fronted by a cute five-foot-nothing redhead, the other being an industrial metal band fronted by a guy with his hair glued straight up, but while their music definitely has two different energies, they are both very similar in terms of their songwriting.

Don't act like you can't tell which one is Wayne Static.

Static-X never tries to reinvent the wheel. They’re not trying to impress anyone with their musicianship. Their goal was simply to write the most enjoyable songs possible, and they used the traditional verse-chorus structure to achieve it. Their songs always have a great melodic hook, big chunky riffs, and clear, simple choruses, and they did it all with a very distinct and unique attitude. It’s great to have music that is challenging, but sometimes the most stripped down, barebones songs are the most memorable. Wayne Static, the songwriter and front-man for Static-X, is a master of using all the tools at his disposal. So many of his riffs are just open-string chugging, but they all sound different. He could do so much with so little, it always inspired me in my own writing. His music never sounded like it was trying to imitate anyone else, simplistic as it was. He was truly a master of the “less-is-more” approach. Static-X’s music oozes focus, precision, and raw power, and never loses the songs momentum.

Transpose these qualities into the pop-punk genre, and you have Paramore. The problem that I have with a lot of bands in pop-punk is that their music seems to lack a general sense of purpose. Their music has always taken itself seriously, and that carries a certain intensity to it that is lacking in the genre, which is exactly why Paramore has been such a beloved and popular band. While you might like a hook or melody from a particular song, the band that’s really going to hold someone’s interest is the one that imbues their music with purpose. It makes the music feel vital and necessary. We listen to people that have something to say. It’s fun to sit and bullshit with the guy at the bar, but we get tired of that pretty quickly, and want a little more depth. It’s the same with music. Even if the purpose of the art itself is simply artistic experimentation (like Bjork, for example), that’s more than enough.

"Dirthouse", by Static-X.

Paramore’s music may actually be a bit more complex than Static-X’s, as their riffs and phrases are not as derivative of each other as the latter’s, but the main relation is that both of these bands create very tight, purpose-driven songs that understand how to write music thick with drama and tension.

One way that Paramore successfully creates that drama is actually through Zac Farro, the band's drummer. While you might not expect that much from a pop-punk drummer, he is truly a very impressive drummer, and does very well what I consider to be the most important role of drums in a rock group – setting the pace. If a phrase is a musical sentence, coming from the guitar or vocals, then the drums are the punctuation to that sentence. Punctuation is often underappreciated in its ability to affect the way a story is read, but it is equally as important as the words. To create tension in verses and bridges, Zac Farro plays tight, short, and snappy, with a heavier emphasis on the snare and hi-hat, and limited use of cymbals. In choruses, he plays open and clearly, with a standard snare on 2 and 4, consistent bass drum kicks, and lots of crash cymbals. This does a lot to open the chorus up and makes it feel more explosive and energetic, while his more tense playing increases the pressure and builds drama, making the release of the energy even more effective. Guess where else you’ll find drumming like that? Static-X.

Now, the reason I say Paramore’s music is actually a bit more complex than Static-X’s is that they often have more ideas working in songs, with a central melody that comes in at different points in the song, aside from just the verse, chorus, and bridge riffs, while Static-X typically only has a main riff and a chorus that is derived from that riff. It makes it consistent and focused, but not quite as expansive as some of Paramore’s songs, and that is simply a difference in how the music is trying to accomplish its goals.

So why is “Hard Times” so bad? One reason is that there is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on between the lyrics of the song and the music itself, that just kind of makes you go “huh?” The music is trying to be that shitty, soft, safe shit that completely lacks edge or tension for the sake of not trying to alienate anyone. It has a bland, repetitive, simple, major key melody and big happy chords, all while Hayley Williams sings about wanting to “wake up fine”, and knowing that she “ain’t gonna die”.

The music doesn’t support these themes at all, and it makes the whole song lack a sense of weight and urgency, which is exactly what made Paramore so good in the first place. Like I said at the beginning, it’s basically like a shitty Vampire Weekend, which is already shitty, but what they at least have going for them is that they are intentionally trying to make their music that way, for whatever misguided reason that may be (I hate Vampire Weekend). Paramore stumbled on it accidentally, and that just makes it seem like they have no idea what they’re doing anymore. The first thing you hear in the song sounds like the steel drum from "Under the Sea", which is a really bad sign, and then this little four note melody is picked up in the guitar. It actively sounds trite, as if it's making a commentary on simplistic and boring pop music. But it's not. It's like a riff a four-year-old would start playing the first time they picked up a guitar, it's that basic.

"Ignorance", by Paramore.

"Ignorance" is the perfect example of everything Paramore does right. The music is brilliantly layered in both the vocals and guitars, which adds drama and grandeur in what might be a fairly simple song otherwise. Zac Farro's drums are short, springy, and snappy, which echo the song's more overt lyrical themes of frustration and alienation. The song is not so much contemplative, which would be supported by a slower tempo and a more open structure, but is deliberate, clear, and concise. This doesn't mean that the lyrics and music always have to mirror each other - juxtaposition can be extremely effective, like in Tove Lo's "Habits (Stay High)", which sounds like a happy, typical pop song, until you realize that it's presenting a facade, similar to how someone in the situation described in the lyrics might. The only problem is that it has to be intentional. And humans have a supernatural ability to detect intention. Go watch "The Room" if you need convincing, and tell me with a straight face that it's intentionally hilarious.

“Hard Times” isn’t bad because it’s different. It’s bad because it’s bland, overly simplistic, devoid of tension, and worst of all, because it’s attempting to be the lowest common denominator in music. Something not too offensive and easy to listen to, but without any real staying power or sense of purpose. This, ladies and gentlemen, is musical vanilla ice cream. Is anyone's favorite flavor vanilla?