The Most Disappointing Album of the Year

    In my ever so amateurish taste, I rarely come across an album that I flat out do not like. There have been plenty of albums I listened to this year that I simply didn't care for, but even then I just admit that I must not being trying hard enough to like it, or  more likely I'm just not in the target demographic for the album. Ignore Grief by Xiu Xiu may have been too scary for my taste, and Wallsocket by underscores may have had vocals that I found annoying, but for this year, there was only one album that really took the cake for worst album of the year, and that's due in large part because I'm in the target demographic. Read any interview the band did about this album and you'll find the same: THIS ALBUM WAS MADE FOR ME!

Without further ado: drumroll please.

And the worst album of 2023 goes to...

The Beautiful Letdown (Our Version) – Switchfoot

    Why? Why does this album exist? In an interview with Billboard, Jon Foreman (you know, the frontman of the band) claims that this album was "made for everyone who's sung along with these songs," as opposed to the suits at Sony music. But in answering a follow-up question, Foreman admits that there was nothing wrong with the original album, that it was the album they wanted to make. So why rehash 20+ year-old material? Your guess is as good as mine.

    The title of the album is an obvious reference to Taylor Swift's massively popular re-recordings of her older records, but she has a valid reason: someone else holds the rights to the masters, meaning Swift technically doesn't own her songs. By re-recording, she's taking back what's hers. As far as I can tell, this isn't a concern for Switchfoot; either they already own the masters or their lack of ownership is a moot point. It's also possible that the inspiration for re-recording may have come from U2, who put out Songs of Surrender—an album consisting of nothing but re-recordings and re-imaginings of older songs—a littler after Switchfoot's release. Foreman has admitted to taking influence from U2, but unless Switchfoot were paying close attention to U2's hints toward such a project, it's dubious whether U2 played a role.

    But that's just context. Sure, the inspiration may be tacky and trend-chasing, but if the album is good, then the album is good! On one hand, this is true: the album is good because it's a re-recording of the original album, The Beautiful Letdown (2003), and I really enjoy that album. It isn't anything mind blowing; the alternative guitar riffs paired with approachably existentialist lyrics simply make for an enjoyable listen. On the other hand, it's bad because it's completely unoriginal. Why would I listen to this new version when even the frontman admits that there's nothing wrong with the old version? The major difference is the production: things understandably sound a little different this time. I was talking with a friend about my confusion with the album's existence and he said the modern production helps people who wouldn't otherwise listen to Switchfoot listen to them and realize, "Hey, these lyrics are pretty good!" Fair point, one problem: what was the barrier for entry for the original album? It wasn't exactly harsh or provocative. I think the only barrier for entry is that the album is old and sounds like other old albums. The quality isn't poor; it just sounds like 2000s alt rock. It's been mostly forgotten outside of the Switchfoot fanbase. That's it.

    The funny part is that the new album still sounds like 2000s alt rock, because that's how the songs were written, and they didn't change the writing of the songs. The biggest change I noticed was in the drums and the guitar. They may sound more modern, but they lack the punchiness that made the original album fun. That's all the positives I can say; otherwise, the drums are either serviceable or awful (read: way too loud in the mix. See "Meant to Live" and "Ammunition" for more). The only lyric I recall changing is on the song "Gone," my personal favorite from the original record. Foreman changes the word "Lexus" to "Tesla," because Tesla is more trendy and more recognizable as a high-end consumer car. Not even the lyrics are safe from trend-chasing. Again, with these slight downgrades, I have to ask myself: Why?

    Now the ultimate celebration of The Beautiful Letdown isn't all doom and gloom. Alongside Switchfoot's re-recordings came a second (third?) version of the album: same tracklist, but all covered by different artists and bands (and some heavy hitters, I might add: Jonas Brothers and Jon Bellion show up to pay homage). I'll admit I didn't listen much to this album, but I listened enough to know that Relient K ("Ammunition") and Owl City ("Gone") butchered their respective covers, but Tyler Joseph of Twenty-One Pilots ("Twenty-Four") and Sleeping at Last ("Monday Comes Around") did well on theirs. To get back to my friend I mentioned earlier, I think this covers version of the album does a better job at drawing new fans to the album, as it draws attention from numerous and sometimes larger fanbases.

    I may not know why this album exists. That's it: there is no "but..." The original is by all measures better, as the Our Version songs that aren't poorly mixed are simply on a similar level of greatness as the original songs, so there's really not much of a reason to listen to Our Version. This album is a disappointing way to celebrate the legacy of The Beautiful Letdown, and I think Switchfoot would have been better off either "remastering" the album or just letting other bands cover their work.