Bad songs are annoying.

Normally, when it comes to bad music, I can set it aside. I usually can compromise with the idea that, hey, it's just not for me. Somebody likes this stuff, and if it makes someone happy, then there's no sense trying to wish it away.

For example, most of that boy band schlock of recent years wasn't good music. However, even as forcibly as it was pushed to the masses, it was pretty easy to ignore - all you had to do was stay away from pop radio and MTV.

It's not unlike the fact that I don't like country music. No sense in maligning it, no sense in complaining about it, since I know in advance I'm not going to enjoy it. (With the lone exception of "Man of Constant Sorrow", which, for some unexplainable reason, I actually enjoyed.)

But, every once in a while, some horrible song invades my turf. I turn on the station that I listen to, and this horrible turd emanates from the speakers. It's a song that just so undeniably horrible, so lacking in any redeeming creativity, that it's offensive. It becomes a Pet Peeve Song.

It seems to happen roughly once a year. So it's on the verge of becoming an annual award in my book.

If that were the case, the Pet Peeve Song of 2001 was Drowning Pool's "Bodies". (I hate bashing bands who've experienced a tragedy like they have, but since most of this opinionating took place prior to Dave Williams' death, I'll explain this out.)

The first time I heard "Bodies", I thought it was a commercial. Seriously. You know how commercials often craft songs that kinda sound like real music, but aren't quite as good? Or that are intentionally bad for the sake of comedy? That's what I thought I was listening to. At any moment, I was expecting a voice to pop in and tell me about the great taste of some beer or the smooth flavor of some malt beverage. (Hunh. Aren't those basically the same thing?) But, to my dismay, the song continued for the full four minutes, and I remained in complete astonishment as the dj's voice came on, telling me that this song was by a real band attempting to make real music.

What was wrong with the song? Pretty much everything. The lyrics, as few as there were, consisted of pretty much every stupid rock cliché of the last twenty years. ("Nothing wrong with me", "Something's got to give", "Argh".) Even worse were the Alice-in-Chains-ripoff wah-pedal wailings. There wasn't a single ounce of anything remotely creative contained in the song.

Ripoff songs can be tolerable if the band doing the ripoff has added something fresh to the mix. For decades, people have been able to enjoy songs in 4/4 time with I-IV-V chord progressions, and there are hundreds if not thousands of them out there. Heck, most blues songs are built on the same 12-bar progression, but good blues musicians can still find ways to make it sound fresh.

This song said nothing. And it was a musical ripoff. So why did it exist? And why was it in regular rotation?

What makes songs like this so deplorable is that the band clearly has some pretty good taste in music. If I opened the CD pack on their tour bus, I would probably find a number of discs that I count amongst my favorites. It's not unlike the days of the hair metal bands - every one of them cited the Beatles and Led Zeppelin. So they took those influences, and wrote "Every Rose Has Its Thorn" and "Cherry Pie"?!?

I thought there was a chance I might make it through this year without having a new Pet Peeve Song. It seemed earlier this year that music was heading in a more thoughtful direction. Even some of the bad songs on alt- rock radio were tolerable, unlike all of the crappy nu-metal of last year. (Fortunately, my local alt-rock station didn't push the nu-metal as much as some stations in the country did, and seemed none-too-happy to ditch it.)

A few days ago, I flipped to MTV2. I caught the new Nirvana video for "You Know You're Right". All was good. Then, a couple of songs later, I was punched in the gut by another offensively horrible song.

Ladies and gentlemen - the winner of Pet Peeve Song 2002...

Good Charlotte's "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous".

In the past, I let Good Charlotte off easy. "Little Things" was modestly catchy, but largely unlistenable to me because of the gratutitous use of the hyper-cliché phrase "I'm breaking down" at the end of the song. But people really seemed to like the song, and it didn't bother me, so I didn't have any complaints about it. I wasn't going to listen to it, if I had a choice, but I didn't have any complaints.

Suddenly, here comes the first single off of their new disc.

Holy crap. From the opening drum ripoff of either Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life" or Adam Ant's "Goody Two Shoes" (take your pick), this song is three-and-a- half minutes of pure, unadulterated garbage.

I can hear some people saying, "Chris, they're just having fun." Don't care, still garbage.

For starters, they're bashing celebs for the interviews they give in magazines. Guess what, kids? Those celebs get interviewed because people want to read about them. If people didn't want to read about them, do you think magazines would care enough to give them space?

But that's not really what gets me. This is Good Charlotte. They are a major label band. They travel the country in a nice tour bus. If they ever want something, all they have to do is attach it to their rider. They are on MTV, and I'm certain you'll soon be reading about them in your favorite music magazine, possibly even Rolling Stone (if they can get past the slight, ooh). And, it would be safe to assume that they're hoping to sell a million-plus copies of their record, potentially so that they can be rich and famous.

Do you see Good Charlotte living out on the street? At the least, are they travelling the country in a beaten-down Dodge van? Hoping to sell ten or twenty CD's at the show that night, so that they can have enough money to get to the next town and afford dinner?

And if you're going to bash celebs for being rich and famous, please, for the love of God, pick some that actually are rich and famous. Marion Barry was Mayor of DC, as referenced in the second verse. I've heard the man called many things, "rich" ain't one of them. (You don't have to be rich to be mayor of a city, though it helps.) He was elected, even after his drug conviction, largely because he was a civil rights hero of the 1970's. And he grew up in poverty - I have a feeling he would do just fine "on the street". (This isn't an endorsement, by the way. I certainly wouldn't have voted for him. Just pointing out the facts.)

And a good ripoff song needs a good ripoff title, and the one they picked speaks volumes. I would lay down money that they thought of the title before any lyrics were written.

And, hey, it's a "perfect" rallying cry for teenagers everywhere. Teenagers hate rich people, because rich people can afford to buy anything they want. And while most teenagers today have ample disposable income, there's always something that they want that they can't afford to buy. Hey, everybody! Let's break into rich people's homes and steal their stuff! Then, we'll all be able to afford those really bitchin' Abercrombie and Fitch shirts! Hell, yeah!!

(Sadly, I think I put more thought into the last few paragraphs than they put into the entire song.)

Want to know the main reason I hate songs like this? They make me feel old. And not for "youth-oriented" reasons. Back when "alternative music" was first emerging into the mainstream, I constantly had to hear it from classmates who claimed that the new music was "garbage" and made statements like "why listen to that crap when you can listen to Zeppelin?".

I hear songs like this, and I think to myself, "Why would anyone listen to this crap when there's ten years worth of good music to listen to?" I want to find any kid waiting in line to throw down $15 for the new Good Charlotte CD, and convince them to buy Nirvana's Nevermind instead. Or Green Day's Dookie. I can easily think of at least a dozen discs that would be better purchases, and there are at least fifty more on the list if I sat down and thought it out. (And I specifically mean albums that a Good Charlotte fan would immediately enjoy, not those that would require effort, even if it made them better for the experience.)

But does that make me just as bad as my former peers? Am I really at the point where I'm slagging stuff because "I don't get it", or is it really crap?

In this case, I'm not worried. This song is crap, no two ways about it.

If you like this song, no worries. I'm not going to slag you for liking it, just like I won't slag a Backstreet fan for their choice of music. But, please, keep this crap out of my yard, okay? We have leash laws around here.

Hey, Good Charlotte - if you guys ever do become "rich and famous" and I read an interview of you complaining about something, do I have permission to break into your houses and steal your stuff?