Hipsters

[Murdoc]

There was an excellent article in the NY Times a few years ago, so here's a link:

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/how-to-live-without-irony/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

I over use the word hipster and I'm starting to hate both my use of the term and just my general view to even get so snarky about it. It's easy to point out the way someone dresses or their facial hair, but I think the article above really boils it down to what I actually don't like about society.It's not so much a style or beards, it's living in irony with a healthy dose of cynicism. I've started to listen to some of my the younger people(and I mean by like 1-5 years) and the conversations they have as friends is really disheartening, I can't tell if anyone in a group is being sincere anymore.

 

Probably doesn't help that I live in SF, between that and the class/tech war dominating every single conversation it's starting to get old quick. 

[Patrick R]

It's not so much a style or beards, it's living in irony with a healthy dose of cynicism. I've started to listen to some of my the younger people(and I mean by like 1-5 years) and the conversations they have as friends is really disheartening, I can't tell if anyone in a group is being sincere anymore.

 

Probably doesn't help that I live in SF, between that and the class/tech war dominating every single conversation it's starting to get old quick. 

 

Maybe it's because I live in Chicago, but I feel like I have never ever encountered this in my life? Not doubting you, just baffled this is a thing. I don't think I can even imagine what this as a thing sounds like?

[clyde]

I would posit that a great many people, possibly even the majority, thinks neither of these things, or at least wouldn't identify as doing so.* Are all non-hipsters squares, or are squares a group as specifically-defined as your definition of hipster?

* Of course, there are psychological phenomena that cause people to frame their perceptions in terms of social context, and these are unavoidable, even to hipsters. Nevertheless, I encounter plenty of thoroughly forthright opinions counter to the norm from people with pretty much zero stake in any ideas of counter-culture or authenticity or whatever.

I think I was both too specific and too general with that definition. I'm going to try and re-summarize my thoughts:

When people use "hipster" as a pejorative,I think they are typically shaming certain qualities.

-The dismissal of the norm due to its normalcy.

-The attraction to the different due to its divergence from the norm.

-Thinking that they are cool.

The above may not actually be the case, but it's how I am imagining it. So here is why I think that self-identifying as a hipster is important:

My view is that though these qualities may be limiting in the extreme, I recognize that I have these qualities and that I want to have these qualities. I see other people with these qualities and I tend to respect them. Ehen someone accuses someone else of being a hipster and the only working definition has a negative connotation, I think that qualities that I value are being dismissed and rejected without thought. Additionally, another response is this idea that hipsterism is a non-sense word without actual meaning. When I hear this, I think that the qualities I value are being dismissed even further by assuming that no one could possibly value the things I value and that the idea (that someone may think that they are cool, that pop-art is crap and that art can't be valued relevant to its divergence from the norm) is so absurd, that the only possible use is a pejorative towards someone who doesn't even think those things; no one that values the things I value exists! So when I say that I am a hipster, I'm saying that I have these qualities and that I am proud of them.

Is every non-hipster a square? Yes and no. No one is anything, everyone is something. It's like asking "Is every non-conservative a liberal?". It's a perspective in opposition to another perspective, people may identify with either perspective and group based on the granfalloon. This idea that defining a perspective, naming it, associating it with a fashion, and self-identifying with it is inherently bad is one I do not get behind. I think it's cool that subcultures exist and that people identify with them.

[Murdoc]

Maybe it's because I live in Chicago, but I feel like I have never ever encountered this in my life? Not doubting you, just baffled this is a thing. I don't think I can even imagine what this as a thing sounds like?

Damn, maybe it's just the coasts then? I really should check out Chicago, it's been making a good case for itself lately.

[feelthedarkness]

counterculture: juggalos. 

[Murdoc]

http://www.whoopdreams.com/

[miffy495]

I think I was both too specific and too general with that definition. I'm going to try and re-summarize my thoughts:

When people use "hipster" as a pejorative,I think they are typically shaming certain qualities.

-The dismissal of the norm due to its normalcy.

-The attraction to the different due to its divergence from the norm.

-Thinking that they are cool.

 

 

When I read this list, I thought that you were describing what a "good" hipster would try to distance themself from. While I would not shame a person for ascribing to these beliefs, I do kind of feel bad for them. To me, to dismiss or be attracted to something based on it's relation to what you perceive as "normal" or "popular" (god, I'm using a lot of scare quotes here, I'm sorry) speaks to an underlying discomfort and insecurity around what you like. I think this is what people mean when they say "inauthentic" as well (fucking scare quotes!). The working definition of authentic in this case would be whether or not the person in question would still like thing X in a societal vacuum. Of course, tastes being influenced by society, this is still a meaningless and nebulous term, but that's the vibe I get from that objection. On top of that, judging your self-worth in relation to the tastes of the masses feels to me like a weird throwback to archaic aristocratic practices (for example, the term "vulgar" originally meaning "common") and kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think that the underlying reason for hostility to hipsters is that being insecure in your tastes is actually far more common and the degree to which hipster-typified behaviour holds a mirror to this makes other people more uncomfortable with their own likes.

 

That said, the traits you list are not traits that I think essentially define "hipster". I know many people who are hipsters who really do just like what they like and happen to like things that other hipsters do. Associations based around tastes are no problem to me, and by that logic I'm a bit of a hipster myself. I count that as one of many potential labels that someone could throw at me to which I would shrug and say "sure, why not?". Oddly, one of the traits that I most commonly would associate with a hipster is the rejection of labels in general, lending credence to the "hipsters never want to say that they're hipsters" sentiment. However, I am fully aware that saying "I don't care what you think of me, I like what I like" is a very hipster-y thing to say so the label would probably be valid in relation to me. What I do distance myself from as much as possible is passing judgement on anything due to its popularity. As you yourself have mentioned, this can be difficult (discussing production values in entertainment, if I recall) but if I catch myself not liking something because it's popular I give myself a pretty harsh internal dressing-down. I do understand the joy of finding something cool, but I think that's just human, not hipster. The part that becomes (negative, societal definition of) hipster is trying to keep it to yourself to ensure its validity as cool. If it's awesome and I found it, sharing it with as many people as possible only gives me more people to talk about it with. I remember in 2006 a co-worker was upset that Modest Mouse was suddenly popular because "They used to be MY band!" and wondering what the fuck was wrong with him. I still feel that way.

 

Anyway, that's probably enough for now. I have no rage at you for being a hipster, but am puzzled that you find the quoted traits laudable. I am probably a hipster too, but to my mind, the hipsters I like to associate with are those who do not chase the label, but have no need to deny it if someone were to use it on them. Chasing labels? VERY un-hipster. (Sarcasm, mostly. Please don't read that as a personal attack.)

[clyde]

First of all why would one assume that a dislike of the popular or enjoyment of the obscure is due to insecurities about what they like? Why is the popularity of an object off-limits whereas color, shape, behavior remains relevant? If I didn't like purple things, I don't think anyone would assume an insecurity or inner-confusion about my personal tastes

Also, I don't have any desire to keep anything unpopular. If the reason for hostility towards hipsters is because hipsters are trying to keep information to themselves, then I don't have a response. I don't associate intentional exclusivity with hipsters. I can imagine some tribal-tendencies that would fuel that, but I really don't think I'm attracted to that behavior in the least. In fact, I wish you would all watch Daguerrotypes by Agnes Varda so that it will show up on Netflix or Amazon Prime or Itunes or SOMETHING so that I don't have to pay $18 for a dvd.

And just to be clear, I haven't been made to feel uncomfortable once in this thread. In order to have opinions, we must make assumptions; for me, this thread is mostly about being honest and questioning assumptions.

Ahem*

Can we please talk about the hipster in the societal vaccuum? I want to talk about the hipster who inhabits the societal vaccuum.

I think this would be the best possible thing to talk about.

I think that a hipster who inhabits a societal vaccuum would feel great relief in consideration of their personal tastes, but very, very lonely. Lonely hipster would have nothing to consider, but the natural world untouched by human hands. Unless they started noticing that ants favored certain plants, then they would begin asking themselves "What's so great about that plant?"

[Bjorn]

Lonely hipster

 

[clyde]

I watched "Kid's react to walkmans" on Youtube last night. My mind was blown. I officially know what it is like to feel old.

Your depiction of lonely hipster reminded me of this.

[Bjorn]

Lonely hipster just made me think of Sad Keanu, and I figured there had to be a good music related picture of the Sad Keanu doll out there somewhere.

 

My daughter and her friends constantly make me feel old.  It is one of the joys of the young to torture the old with their gleeful ignorance.

[miffy495]

First of all why would one assume that a dislike of the popular or enjoyment of the obscure is due to insecurities about what they like? Why is the popularity of an object off-limits whereas color, shape, behavior remains relevant? If I didn't like purple things, I don't think anyone would assume an insecurity or inner-confusion about my personal tastes

 

Short answer? Colour, shape, behaviour are about the thing. They are intrinsic to it. If any of those were to change, we would be talking about a different thing. Popularity is extrinsic. A thing's (non-economic) worth is not determined by how popular it is, and in ascribing value to a reaction to a thing rather than it, we are no longer talking about the thing but the reaction. It's entirely fair to talk about the reaction to something, and disapprove of it strongly, while still having that not apply to the thing at all. To make a very extreme (and admittedly probably a bit unfair, but this is a reductio I'm trying for here) example, it's the difference between saying "I hate the way society fetishizes adolescents" and "I hate adolescents because society fetishizes them". If you dislike something because it's popular, you are saying effectively nothing about it and every expression of preference boils down to "I don't like society." If that is all someone ever says when asked for their opinion about things, I hope you can see how it could get tiresome.

 

ABSURD UNFAIR EXAMPLE OF TALKING TO THIS STRAW MAN:

"How are you liking your meal?"

"I don't like society."

"Fair enough. Did you see [TV SHOW] last night?"

"I don't like society."

"Huh. Ok. Well, I'm going to a concert later. Would you like to come along?"

"I don't like society."

"Right. Bye then."

 

This person is nothing but contrarian. A values-system based on the popularity of a given thing boils down to either "I don't like society." or "I LOVE SOCIETY!" for all evaluative statements, depending on which side you fall on. Either person is not someone I want to talk to.

 

NOW, to be clear, I also have a fascination with that which deviates from the norm. To say something is fascinating however is not a value judgement. I can be fascinated by something's existence and still either love it or think it is garbage. I think one of the biggest flaws with Straw-man hipster is that they confuse this fascination with preference.

 

(Again, this is a straw-man reduction of the common perception of "hipster." No personal affront intended. I assume that you are a more well-rounded person than that and have other reasons for liking what you like.)

 

As for the "hipster in a vacuum" thought experiment (FORMER PHILOSOPHY MAJORS, REPRESENT!), well, I brought that up and then immediately pointed out it was a ridiculous thing. As humans, we are social animals. We thrive on interactions with each other. It is as absurd to me to consider someone immune to the effects of popular opinion as it is to consider someone who is nothing but reactive to it. Your brief "what's so great about that plant?" statement shows you've got a decent sense of humour about this, so we'll go from there:

 

Our hypothetical lonely hipster feels a great relief relative to her personal tastes. By implication, she therefore does have personal tastes upon which her preferences are founded. The relief, I must assume, is in response either to a lack of judgement on the part of others or a lack of pressure to be reactionary in her tastes to popular opinion. If it is the former, then she is incredibly sensitive to the opinions of others and insecure in her likes and dislikes and, while I am happy for the relief this vacuum gives her from the judgement, I do pity that her self-concept is fragile enough to be so shaken outside of it. If the reason for the relief is the latter, then the explanation that comes to my mind is that her need to be contrarian will occasionally override what she would otherwise genuinely like and cause her to avoid or, even worse, denounce it. Bear in mind, the only thing we have removed from the scenario is popular opinion. If anything other than popular opinion had been preventing her from being true to her preferences, it would still be present and therefore there would be no relief. By this, I have to conclude that either way we have someone who is unsure of herself enough to habitually capitulate to the opinions of others in matters of taste and she is relieved that, in this societal vacuum, she is finally able to make up her own mind. 

 

Either way, I see the relief as indicative of a hyper-sensitivity to the opinions of others and a value system that is reactionary to that rather than founded on any consistent beliefs within herself. This is where it becomes entirely personal opinion, but to me, that feels like a tragic and precarious way to go through life.

 

Crap that's a lot of text. Sorry about that.

[Gormongous]

I don't know if I can respond to all of your post, Miffy, much of which I agree, but I don't know if a robust suspicion of popular things is quite the social nihilism you make it out to be. I'm hardly contrarian about what I like, but I certainly stop using memes when they become popular enough to appear on Family Guy or network TV. There's just something unquantifiably less fun about knowing and liking something that everyone and their dog knows and likes.

[miffy495]

Oh, certainly not. I get tired of things that I used to find funny when they pass that "overused" threshold in my brain all the time, usually faster than many of my friends. This actually gets me something of a hipster reputation among them. That threshold is a personal thing. I would assume though, that because you initially found whatever it was funny/apt/whatever, that what changed for you was not "Well, it's popular now, I guess it's done" but "Man, I've heard that a lot and it's really lost it's impact."

 

As I said several times, this is a straw man thing and I don't believe that anyone is actually that extreme.

 

The alternative would be this guy:

[Murdoc]

As I said several times, this is a straw man thing and I don't believe that anyone is actually that extreme.

I may be overstating this or simply misunderstanding what I've seen and heard, but the "it's popular now, so it's done" has been an attitude I've come across here in SF.

 

edit: Now that I think of it, maybe I was overstating things and misunderstood peoples disdain of standing in line for an hour to get brunch rather than trying to go against the norm.

 

I find Portlandia pretty endearing because it's a reflection of a lot of the "stereotypes" I see in the city(SF, not Portland, though they probably exist in Portland due to shows name) but as "extreme" as their portrayals go, they aren't far off from a bunch of people I've met here.

[Patrick R]

The thing about Portlandia is most of their characters are achingly, totally, even misguidedly sincere. Portlandia is chiefly about the absurd shapes people will twist themselves into by trying to do what they perceive as the right thing. There aren't many ironic characters in that show, certainly none that I can think of.

[Thrik]

I've never really thought of as there being such a type of person as 'a hipster'. When I've used the term, it's often been to describe someone liking something because it's a little popular but only with a very niche crowd — making them feel like they belong to some kind of elite that has superior taste to everyone else. Another way I've used it is to describe someone not liking something because it's popular, for example an aversion to any music that's ever been in any kind of chart or that's in a certain genre out of sheer principle.

 

I don't mean the above in a particularly hostile way because the above has applied to very good friends of mine, and indeed sometimes myself (I used to irrationally refuse to listen to hip-hop/rap). Generally, the word 'hipster' is more of a descriptor for particular behaviours rather than the person as a whole. For example, I know someone who is otherwise your average dude but he's caught onto the beard thing that's been doing the rounds during the past few years ('THIS IS HOW REAL MEN SHAVE: THEY DON'T', blah blah blah) and for that I did jokingly call him a hipster because it was the most appropriate word that jumped to mind for that kind of thing.

 

These little movements tend to pop up around certain unlikely things, and there are people who seem to pursue such interests primarily because they enjoy being seen as somebody into that kind of thing. This is certainly not the rule, and anybody can exhibit such tendencies regardless of whether or not they're what you'd wholly call 'a hipster'. In some ways, 'hipster' as a descriptor is almost the exact opposite of 'mainstream'. Both can simultaneously be applied to a person; you can be a hipster in terms of fashion, but mainstream in terms of musical taste. Are these labels stupid? Pretty much, but they're useful.

 

I guess that retaking the term is a noble cause, but it does seem peculiar to me as hipsters have never really been a definitive group of people to my eyes. To bounce this back to my previous point, it's a bit like trying to retake the term 'mainstream' (which it's interesting to note is frequently used in a similarly pejorative way to 'hipster'). They're relatively vague words that work in certain contexts that I'm struggling to think of alternatives to. A desire to be associated with such words as if they were a distinct movement almost seems like... being a hipster. 

[clyde]

Crap that's a lot of text. Sorry about that.

Walls of text are one reason I enjoy forums and find Twitter to be frustrating. 

 

Short answer? Colour, shape, behaviour are about the thing. They are intrinsic to it. If any of those were to change, we would be talking about a different thing. Popularity is extrinsic. A thing's (non-economic) worth is not determined by how popular it is, and in ascribing value to a reaction to a thing rather than it, we are no longer talking about the thing but the reaction. It's entirely fair to talk about the reaction to something, and disapprove of it strongly, while still having that not apply to the thing at all. To make a very extreme (and admittedly probably a bit unfair, but this is a reductio I'm trying for here) example, it's the difference between saying "I hate the way society fetishizes adolescents" and "I hate adolescents because society fetishizes them". If you dislike something because it's popular, you are saying effectively nothing about it and every expression of preference boils down to "I don't like society." If that is all someone ever says when asked for their opinion about things, I hope you can see how it could get tiresome.

 

Can anyone explain to me what the difference is between intrinsic and authentic? They seem pretty much the same to me. I'm not wanting the demarcation because I want to say that judging art based off its intrinsic or authentic qualities is unwarranted (I enjoy doing it myself), but some people in the conversation seem to dislike the idea of authencity; do you like inherency?

 

Colour, shape, behaviour, and popularity are all relationships that the we have with the object. Art-works are formed with a synergy of the intrinsic and extrinsic circumstances. I still don't understand why you would make the distinction. Is it a matter of consistency and reliability? Aspects that can be agreed upon? Or just an estimation of how much an audience can be expected to know about the piece in a typical viewing?

 

I'm going to change your example to something more to my liking 

Saying "I hate how everyone thinks that Til the World Ends is a great song" and "I hate Til the World Ends because everyone thinks it's a great song" is similar to saying "I hate how Britney's voice is auto-tuned in Til the World Ends" and "I hate Til The World ends because Britney's voice is auto-tuned." Yes, an aspect of the song is being favored or disfavored, but art does partially consist of its aspects (including the perceived views of the larger audience). For some people popularity is more of an influence on art-work than colour. I don't think that's an inferior view-point. 

We should just get this part out of the way, I think that the difference between my saying that something is "good" and liking something is this:

-When someone says something is "good", they are saying that they are somewhat confident in their hypothesis of why other people enjoy something.

-When someone says that they "like" something, they are saying that they themselves enjoy it.

So you can see why I would find it odd for people to chastise hipsters for allowing their opinion of art be influenced by popularity. To me saying "It is good" is similar to saying "I can see why this would be popular".

 

I do think there is a difference between saying "I like Til the World Ends" and saying "Til the World Ends has a beat that pulls me and intriguing sex-bot vocals." In this case, I am attempting to explain what I like about it with my reaction to what is in the song, but at no point is my reaction to Til the World Ends not informed by the broader world outside of that 3:55 of audio. Part of my reaction is what everyone else thinks about it, but in my view that is part of the song because the song is not stimulus alone, but an experience between the audience and the stimulus. I'm going to watch the video now. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qzU9OrZlKb8

 

 

 If you dislike something because it's popular, you are saying effectively nothing about it and every expression of preference boils down to "I don't like society." If that is all someone ever says when asked for their opinion about things, I hope you can see how it could get tiresome.

 

ABSURD UNFAIR EXAMPLE OF TALKING TO THIS STRAW MAN:

"How are you liking your meal?"

"I don't like society."

"Fair enough. Did you see [TV SHOW] last night?"

"I don't like society."

"Huh. Ok. Well, I'm going to a concert later. Would you like to come along?"

"I don't like society."

"Right. Bye then."

 

This person is nothing but contrarian. A values-system based on the popularity of a given thing boils down to either "I don't like society." or "I LOVE SOCIETY!" for all evaluative statements, depending on which side you fall on. Either person is not someone I want to talk to.

 

NOW, to be clear, I also have a fascination with that which deviates from the norm. To say something is fascinating however is not a value judgement. I can be fascinated by something's existence and still either love it or think it is garbage. I think one of the biggest flaws with Straw-man hipster is that they confuse this fascination with preference.

 

A person can dislike something due to it's popularity for reasons that are not entirely contrarian. Our time is limited. When I play the Shadowrun FPS or Super Monday Night Combat, part of my enjoyment is that I'm supporting dying communities. I don't get that enjoyment from Titanfall or Call of Duty. I don't think that's contrarian.

 

How is saying that something is fascinating not a value judgement? This makes no since to me at all. 

 

 

 

 

Our hypothetical lonely hipster feels a great relief relative to her personal tastes. By implication, she therefore does have personal tastes upon which her preferences are founded. The relief, I must assume, is in response either to a lack of judgement on the part of others or a lack of pressure to be reactionary in her tastes to popular opinion. If it is the former, then she is incredibly sensitive to the opinions of others and insecure in her likes and dislikes and, while I am happy for the relief this vacuum gives her from the judgement, I do pity that her self-concept is fragile enough to be so shaken outside of it. If the reason for the relief is the latter, then the explanation that comes to my mind is that her need to be contrarian will occasionally override what she would otherwise genuinely like and cause her to avoid or, even worse, denounce it. Bear in mind, the only thing we have removed from the scenario is popular opinion. If anything other than popular opinion had been preventing her from being true to her preferences, it would still be present and therefore there would be no relief. By this, I have to conclude that either way we have someone who is unsure of herself enough to habitually capitulate to the opinions of others in matters of taste and she is relieved that, in this societal vacuum, she is finally able to make up her own mind. 

 

Either way, I see the relief as indicative of a hyper-sensitivity to the opinions of others and a value system that is reactionary to that rather than founded on any consistent beliefs within herself. This is where it becomes entirely personal opinion, but to me, that feels like a tragic and precarious way to go through life.

 

Again, you claim that impressions based of of popularity make someone pitiful and broken while ignoring that popularity has massive influence on the actual piece of art.

 

Do you have an appreciation of this song?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=My2FRPA3Gf8

 

I think that the song-craft is amazing. But I didn't realize it until I saw the hipster version.

 

 

Don't pretend that popular expectations, quantities of money, and distribution models don't influence a piece. Popularity is a heuristic for all these things.

 

 

As for the "hipster in a vacuum" thought experiment ... Bear in mind, the only thing we have removed from the scenario is popular opinion. If anything other than popular opinion had been preventing her from being true to her preferences, it would still be present and therefore there would be no relief. 

We removed the entirety of society. We removed all which is humanity.

[clyde]

I guess that retaking the term is a noble cause, but it does seem peculiar to me as hipsters have never really been a definitive group of people to my eyes. To bounce this back to my previous point, it's a bit like trying to retake the term 'mainstream' (which it's interesting to note is frequently used in a similarly pejorative way to 'hipster'). They're relatively vague words that work in certain contexts that I'm struggling to think of alternatives to. A desire to be associated with such words as if they were a distinct movement almost seems like... being a hipster. 

 

Agreed. Without the widespread assumption that having hipster leanings is a fault, there would be little fun in claiming that you are one.

[Patrick R]

This is a pet peeve of mine so I'm bound to overreact ever so slightly, but the trend of "I'll take a popular song and legitimize it by performing it acoustically and joylessly" is The Worst Fucking Thing In The Entire Universe And That's Including Malaria. 

 

The differences between those two Wrecking Ball covers is not popularity, quantities of money, and distribution models. It's condescension. If you can't detect songcraft unless it's all acoustic instruments, you don't deserve pop music. You deserve DEATH. DEATH I say.

[Badfinger]

This is a pet peeve of mine so I'm bound to overreact ever so slightly, but the trend of "I'll take a popular song and legitimize it by performing it acoustically and joylessly" is The Worst Fucking Thing In The Entire Universe And That's Including Malaria. 

 

The differences between those two Wrecking Ball covers is not popularity, quantities of money, and distribution models. It's condescension. If you can't detect songcraft unless it's all acoustic instruments, you don't deserve pop music. You deserve DEATH. DEATH I say.

 

I'm with you, man. I would suggest I don't deserve pop music for other reasons, though. Plus that cover isn't country, it's bluegrass. Also it's not real because there's no one fucking playing bass and there's a bass track.

[clyde]

This is a pet peeve of mine so I'm bound to overreact ever so slightly, but the trend of "I'll take a popular song and legitimize it by performing it acoustically and joylessly" is The Worst Fucking Thing In The Entire Universe And That's Including Malaria. 

 

The differences between those two Wrecking Ball covers is not popularity, quantities of money, and distribution models. It's condescension. If you can't detect songcraft unless it's all acoustic instruments, you don't deserve pop music. You deserve DEATH. DEATH I say.

We all vary in ability. Some people can't see well without glasses for example.

Also, I don't think it's entirely the acoustic instruments that bring it out. I think that the well-known version has a lot of distraction added. 

 

Here is another example. But oh that god-awful electronic chirping; talk about a distraction

 

 

[Twig]

I think it's hilarious to call that cover joyless. I find it very difficult to believe that someone who doesn't find joy in the song in the first place would put enough effort into it to make a working cover. I quite like both versions, personally. U:

 

That said, banjo guy is pretty much a fucking zombie based on his expressions. Or lack of them. He gets a little better by the end, though.

 

EDIT: Also I'd never watched the video for the original song before. Huh.

[Badfinger]

We all vary in ability. Some people can't see well without glasses for example.

Also, I don't think it's entirely the acoustic instruments that bring it out. I think that the well-known version has a lot of distraction added. 

 

Here is another example. But oh that god-awful electronic chirping; talk about a distraction

 

 

 

Ok, now this just confuses me. What's special about this version besides the fact that it's two female voices? Peter Gabriel's version is just strings and two singers. it's simple and elegant (if you like the song). If you want to improve Book of Love, this is how you do it.

 

[Patrick R]

I think it's hilarious to call that cover joyless. I find it very difficult to believe that someone who doesn't find joy in the song in the first place would put enough effort into it to make a working cover. I quite like both versions, personally. U:

 

That said, banjo guy is pretty much a fucking zombie based on his expressions. Or lack of them. He gets a little better by the end, though.

 

EDIT: Also I'd never watched the video for the original song before. Huh.

 

It's a phenomenon outside of that specific video. 

 

Here is a good example.

 

 

This was a cover that went viral and even got a good amount of radio play on radio stations that would never play the original. This kind of shit is the worst.