Behind Blue Eyes
 

I just heard this song, and personally, I love it. It's a lot different then most of Limp Bizkits older stuff, but I still think it was very well done, and sounds great. I might actually buy their "new" CD now.

I liked it at first, and I still like it a little bit, but my first impressions of the song are completely different than how I feel now. The stupid robot voice in the middle of the song ruins it for me. Not to mention they seriously over play it on the radio. Now I am beginning to hate it. There new CD isn't as bad as everyone says though. It's worth checking out.

I HATE that stupid robot voice. What the hell is the point of it?

I really prefer the Who's version of Behind Blue Eyes.

Most definatley. I cannot begin to describe just how lame I feel Fred's cover/hack really was. Geez.

After hearing his version, I wish that Fred Durst would die a miserable horrible death.

No wait, I thought that before too.

definetly prefer the who. the only good that can come of most covers is hopefully the people buying the records eventually seeking the originals.

Fred Durst has no business remaking a song by The Who. The Who are one of history's best rock bands. Fred Durst is a tattoo artist who got lucky.

Limp Bizcut's or whatever they're called version is ok, but as others pointed out:

That robot voice or mix or whatever the fuck it is, is really shit and doesn't fit in whatsoever. The Who's version and also the whole album Who's Next (even though it isn't part of the comparison :p) is much better in my opinion :D

Also, i think it's a little sad that the band is probably making the majority of it's revenue off of a cover song, as they are then performers :hmm: Not much artistic merit there...

Fred Durst singing "Behind Blue Eyes" is a fucking sacrilege. He needs to be shot for it.

Color me disgusted as well.

I prefer The Who version. It's a decent cover, but I could do without the speak 'n spell in the middle of the song. Come to think about it, why does Limp Bizkit have to do cover songs on their albums? A sign of lack of talent...

Hard to top perfection, and Limp Shitkip certainly didn't. Count me in for The Who's version heads and tails above the "cover". Shouldn't have been done.

I want to shoot him for doin Brittany Spears before I got to. I agree that it was a pure hack job and I hope that Roger and Pete are sorry they let him do it!

Oh... so much hate for no real reason.

The Who may be like the coolest band ever, dude. But c'mon on... give me one real reason why you all feel Limo BIzkit shouldn't have covered Behind Blue Eyes. A real reason... not the typical "Fred's a fuck" answer. And don't tell me because their music sucks... they are the Led Zepplin/Who of our generation. Our kids will feel about them the same we feel about The Who.

The Original King

you're making me feel old

If my kids think that way about Limp Bizkit, I will excommunicate them. I don't dislike him because he is a "fuck," but rather that he is a fucking sellout. When Limp Bizkit hit the scene whenever the hell they did (my sophomore year in HS, maybe), they were a totally original act. Someone had finally done justice to the whole "rap rock" genre. It was screaming vocals, laid over a killer guitar track, with a hip hop groove. But then the dreaded popularity set in. The kids (top 40 type listeners) began listening to this new style and it spread like wildfire. People who would never have listened to any rock music now listened to LB. But these fans still dug their top 40 shit music too. Top 40 is by far a more popular genre than any form of rock then and now. In order to keep selling records and making money, they had to still be liked by the top 40 crowd. They changed their sound, 86ing the screaming and making way for more of a rap feel. Anyone who has heard more than the latest LB single will not argue that they sound nothing like they used to. Listen to 3 Dollar Bill Y'all and then to whatever the fuck their new CD is called and tell me there isn't a difference. They were faced with the same choice that most other bands hope to face; do I do what I feel is right or do I do what others think is right and hit it big?

So that is why I hate Fred Durst.

I like the origianl done by the Who...... I hate when artists steal other artists songs..... can't they think of anything original

Listen to 90% of rock nowadays. It is more mainstream. "Selling out" is the dumbest term ever. Not "selling out" is like showing up for work, doing work your not supposed to, and getting paid for a long period of time. It doesn't happen. Many of LB's hits have more of a mainstream sound, but the rest of the songs don't.

You are my personal hero for the day

So because Limp Bizkit became popular they suck.

The Who is far more popular then Limp Bizkit... Therefor... They suck.

Let's be real, covers are done all the time. I am not a big Limp Bizkit fan, but this cover is o.k. They took a great song and didn't fuck it up too much(if you ignore the aforementioned "robot voice"). IMO defending Limp Bizkit as the next Led Zepplin or Who is more than a bit premature, they have many rivers to cross before they get there.

I think of today's "Top 40"/pop music as a fad. Although I have no way of knowing, I don’t think “Top 40” music will be listened to 30 years from now or will have any lasting impact.

Will the people who listen to this music today still listen to it tomorrow? Probably.
I don’t see any "top 40" hall of fame being built in the future.

In the future, oldies stations will still play the same songs they play today.
When a song is played on "new hit stations" it is out of circulation in a few months. Where does the song go?

New music genres will be created and people will either hate or like them because TRL plays the music videos.
:hmm: hmmmmmmmm......

It's a kid's learning toy. I thought it was by Fisher-Price but I ca't find it on their websight. It would ask you to spell somthing and you would type it in as it said the letters.

I think....

Now,back to your regularly scheduled thread....

Maybe my post came across the wrong way. All I meant was that LB had a good thing going until they totally changed their sound to make it more accessible to the masses. I don't begrudge anyone for becoming popular.

That's the main reason I dislike this cover; it does absolutely nothing to add to the original. Covers should only be made if you have an original idea to add to the cover (and, I love covers). Even Limp Bizkit's "Faith" was better that this, because it wasn't a note-for-note copy of the original.

I could never say it any better.

Hmmm, I was thinking the same thing...no, I was wishing unspeakable pain on Durst before the miserable horrible death for doing a Who song. :mad:

It's absolute garbage.

Ok I totally hate it.....nothing beats Pete Townshed's original screaming guitar in the original....the worst is I heard the making of the video and he was saying he "just" heard the song....I've known that song since I was in 1st grade.....And he just recently heard it! And sorry to say that most people that like that song alot have never heard the original.....

I honestly never heard that song before Limp Bizkit did it.

OK, I have no problem with covers. I like a good cover that puts a new light on a song. The Cardigans' version of Iron Man, or Richard Cheese's version of Chop Suey, or Metallica's version of Thin Lizzy's version of Whiskey in the Jar, or The Gourds' version of Gin and Juice, or, so as not to leave all with the impression that a cover needs to be more mellow than the original, Devo's version of NIN's Head Like a Hole (you wouldn't think that could get much grungier, but they surprised me) or Sanctuary's cover of White Rabbit. However, these all either put a novel spin on the original song or realize the original version of the song in ways that couldn't be or just weren't done with the original. That's all fine and dandy and I appreciate it.

I also understand scumbags in rock and roll. Keith Moon was a public nightmare, and damn near every band worth mentioning in the heyday of rock was a disaster waiting to happen. That's OK. I can even understand, though I begrudge, that some of them were talentless hacks. I play better bass than Adam Claton, Sid Viscous, or Marc Anthony (or Alex Van Halen. Whichever one of them keeps riding that open A to the bank.) It peeves me, but I can still enjoy the music (particularly when I can point to a great bass riff an say, "That's the Edge playing that").

Finally, I understand that all rock and roll is largely derivative, either of older rock, or of the Blues, Rockabilly, Country, Gospel, and even Classical. (There's a Beatles tune where the main melody is Pomp and Circumstance played upside down and backwards. Wish I could remember which one.) That's OK, excellent even when the synergy of the various derived and original elements has something novel to say. However, leave your tape deck home, and leave the rapping to folks who can't afford the time to learn how to play guitar, or even afford a guitar.

However, when a derivative talentless hack scumbag like Fred Durst brings together all that's questionable in rock and roll and puts very little back, well, that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. I can roll with some Limp Biscuit. My Way is an excellent song, and there is energy in Break Stuff and Nookie that sometimes overcomes those dominating elements of the songs that are indistinguisable from noises that hundreds of industrial engineers spend millions of man hours each year trying to eliminate. Even their treatment of the Mission Impossible theme is not wrathworthy, if not inspiring.

However, Limp Bizkit (what kind of a jackass name is that anyway? Still I suppose we have to let that slide, wot with Led Zeppelin and Def Leppard) should be roundly excoriated and universally reviled for raping Behind Blue Eyes. They really screwed the pooch on that one. Durst's gravelly attempt at holding a tune gets a E for effort. Stacked up against Daltrey's vocal mastery, it verges on blasphemy, but if that were the only flaw in the song, it could be forgiven. However, the music is nothing but a pale mimicry of the spare excellence of the opening and closing portions of the original. Pete Townsend may be the single best rhythm guitarist who will ever grace rock and roll, and he's no slouch on the lead either. None of these unwashed children could touch his skill on the worst day of his life. Finally, the Break: Behind Blue eyes is made by that break. It is the whole reason for the song. I've listened to the dogs dinner Durst and the rest of the Primate house made of it, and I have yet to detect any vestige of that amazing, incredible, trancendental break. No cover of this song is worth the air it's hung on if it doesn't address the break.

And I don't even like the Who all that much.

Are you answered, OK?

Limp Bizkit is the Led Zeppelin of No generation, and the Who only of "Who most demonstrated that rock and roll had grown moribund in the 90's and 00's?" There is more talent in the little finger of the least talented member of either of those bands in a fraction of a second than there is in the entirety of Limp Bizkit for the entirety of their lives.

Now, don't get me wrong. I can enjoy some of their music, but I am ever thankful that P2P has obviated the need for me ever to pay for it, and remain puzzled as to how anyone could call themselves a fan of these ... whatever they are.

Oh, and Fred Durst is a Fuck, but that's almost (but not entirely) beside the point.

(Edited for fat, klutzy fingers.)

I'm down with that. My post came off as a little harsh. Thanks for not blowing up at me.

I just thinks its horrible, due to the fact FD cant sing........

Alex Van Halen plays drums. Michael Anthony is the bass player.

Stacked up against Daltrey's vocal mastery, it verges on blasphemy

Not that I love LB's version of the song, but if there is one thing that roger daltrey never mastered, it was vocals. Style? yes. Always in tune? um.....

He nailed that one though. I guess what i am trying to get at with my diatribe is that it's Limp Bizkit at their worst attempting the Who at their best, and all discussion of the relative merits of the two bands aside and all things being equal, that is plenty to make the cover a serious drop off in quality from the original.

Remember when the silly boy from Oasis said they were more popluar than the Beatles? This is a lower severity, and far more subtle (a word one rarely hears relating to LB or rock in general) attempt at the same claim, and it failed.

same here, probably because I have heard as much of the works from The Who as Pink Floyd - not one full album and damn few singles.
And no real preference either way on Limp Bizkit (give me ragtime/swing/sinatra/etc anyday), but even before it was overplayed I thought it mediocre drek at best. I would definitely want to the hear the original at least once for comparison though.

I have a new favorite version of that song. Got a live Pete Townshend album about a year ago. No Roger, just raw Pete. Lots of feeling.

I like the LB version of the song, maybe because I don't listen to the radio too much so I haven't heard it 9 million times. And to agree with someone up there, I hadn't heard "Behind Blue Eyes" until the LB version came out. And please, nobody pin me as some idiot who doesn't know his music because he didn't know about some Who song, I'm a different generation.

I hate it too....The thing that pissed me off alot about that song is when they were interviewing Fred Durst he just heard that song not that long ago...hell i've know that song since I was six.