General Pearl Jam Bitching

[McParadigm]

I don't need the studio performance to hear that that performance was flawed.
General bitch, bitch, bitch!

Well that's been kind of my point all along. It seems that some people don't want to believe that, though, so let's just wait for the album.

I can't think of any performance-tweak adjustment that could possibly make that even close to an interesting song.

[harmless]

I don't need the studio performance to hear that that performance was flawed.
General bitch, bitch, bitch!

Well that's been kind of my point all along. It seems that some people don't want to believe that, though, so let's just wait for the album.

I can't think of any performance-tweak adjustment that could possibly make that even close to an interesting song.

FD, LB, or both? Because I think they're both OK. 'Interesting' has always been relative with this band; if I want an interesting band I don't really go to PJ anyway.

[stip]

I don't need the studio performance to hear that that performance was flawed.
General bitch, bitch, bitch!

Well that's been kind of my point all along. It seems that some people don't want to believe that, though, so let's just wait for the album.

I can't think of any performance-tweak adjustment that could possibly make that even close to an interesting song.

not interesting (assuming you are not using interesting as a synonym for good), but I can easily imagine l-bolt being a really enjoyable anthem (it's almost there), and FD being a lovely song.

[McParadigm]

To the extent that interesting is defined as attention-holding or absorbing, I don't understand what you mean.

Beyond the great semantic yawn, though, I mean that literally nothing about Lightning Bolt's melody, movement, or phrasing interested me in the least. So for me, no performance-level change could bring that song up to even Backspacer-level quality.

Future Days is a far bigger turd, but if the band is allowed to intrude more then it may at least sustain a mood....which is still not enough to save it.

On the plus side if PJ had named Backspacer off of a song it probably would have been called Supersonic....so maybe that's all LB is.

[LetMeSleep]

To the extent that interesting is defined as attention-holding or absorbing, I don't understand what you mean.

Beyond the great semantic yawn, though, I mean that literally nothing about Lightning Bolt's melody, movement, or phrasing interested me in the least. So for me, no performance-level change could bring that song up to even Backspacer-level quality.

Future Days is a far bigger turd, but if the band is allowed to intrude more then it may at least sustain a mood....which is still not enough to save it.

On the plus side if PJ had named Backspacer off of a song it probably would have been called Supersonic....so maybe that's all LB is.

I was just going to reply to Harmless and Stip that they should Wake their ideas up. Lovely, OK and enjoyable. Fucking hell.

[Thejambi]

To the extent that interesting is defined as attention-holding or absorbing, I don't understand what you mean.

Beyond the great semantic yawn, though, I mean that literally nothing about Lightning Bolt's melody, movement, or phrasing interested me in the least. So for me, no performance-level change could bring that song up to even Backspacer-level quality.

Future Days is a far bigger turd, but if the band is allowed to intrude more then it may at least sustain a mood....which is still not enough to save it.

On the plus side if PJ had named Backspacer off of a song it probably would have been called Supersonic....so maybe that's all LB is.

I may be speaking a bit for Harmless here too so excuse me if i'm incorrect. From the start we never said the studio version is going to transform the song into something its not nor will it elevate it up a hundred notches. I see this song as good. A studio version could reveal some nice production choices, guitar subtleties/texture and other elements that could add to the song to make it a more enjoyable listen. We are not talking going from a 1 to a 5 but maybe a 3 to a 3.5. If really don't like the song you're right , the studio version is far less likely to change your mind.

I really don't know how this concept is getting so misconstrued.

[LetMeSleep]

I don't feel I'm misconstruing any concept except that I disagree that these songs are 3*. Or anywhere near 3*. 3* for me would be Rats or GSMF or Habit or Pilate. These are nowhere near those mentioned songs.

I hope that I'm wrong and the studio versions and their context within LB make these 3* or more but my hopes aren't high.

[Thejambi]

It's just seems like the ones arguing against the "the studio will make the song better" camp keep interpreting it like we think its going to be a whole new song. If you don't like it already that's fine. I think it's good but based on my preference of studio cuts and the way delicacies of songs get lost with live Pearl Jam, I think I will enjoy how it sounds more.

[harmless]

Look, I don't really give a shit about having to justify why I think LB and FD could become good songs. I'm bored stiff of this. I think they're OK, you don't.

[harmless]

PJ are not a very good live band. Stop living in denial, and then we can begin the discussion about live versions vs. studio.

[Thejambi]

Look, I don't really give a shit about having to justify why I think LB and FD could become good songs. I'm bored stiff of this. I think they're OK, you don't.
Drops the mic.

[Birds in Hell]

PJ are not a very good live band. Stop living in denial, and then we can begin the discussion about live versions vs. studio.

I think that depends on how you're measuring what makes a "good live band".

I certainly have my issues with modern day Pearl Jam but I still think they're an excellent live rock band.

[harmless]

I don't feel I'm misconstruing any concept except that I disagree that these songs are 3*. Or anywhere near 3*. 3* for me would be Rats or GSMF or Habit or Pilate. These are nowhere near those mentioned songs.

I hope that I'm wrong and the studio versions and their context within LB make these 3* or more but my hopes aren't high.

Another thing is that my 3, post-S/T, is not as high as the 3 I would have given 'Rats' or 'Pilate'. 'Habit' gets a high 4 from me. GSMF gets a new 3, by which I mean my bar is lowered for latter day PJ. Nothing on any album since S/T has got a high 3 from me, and neither will LB.

[harmless]

PJ are not a very good live band. Stop living in denial, and then we can begin the discussion about live versions vs. studio.

I think that depends on how you're measuring what makes a "good live band".

In terms of comparing live / studio versions, musicianship. In terms of the simple fact of standing there and playing their instruments and their songs with skill and craftsmanship, they don't measure up to what they used to be. They can work a crowd, they can build an atmosphere, they can give thousands of people a great time. All of which distract us from really listening to the (more often than not) diminished quality of the actual playing.

[McParadigm]

It's just seems like the ones arguing against the "the studio will make the song better" camp keep interpreting it like we think its going to be a whole new song. If you don't like it already that's fine. I think it's good but based on my preference of studio cuts and the way delicacies of songs get lost with live Pearl Jam, I think I will enjoy how it sounds more.

I don't disagree with the idea that the studio improves songs at all. I consider that an absolute truth. My point was that (especially for a meat and potatoes band like Eddie Old and the Boomsticks), as a truth, it only really pays out if you already like the song. So I don't really see what the value was in even bringing it up...or at least, not in the "General Pearl Jam Bitching" thread.

We're already divided into people who dislike these songs and people who are holding out hope for them, so what's even the point of pushing an argument that offers little more than "well, hey...the people who like this song will probably like this song?"

Look, I don't really give a shit about having to justify why I think LB and FD could become good songs. I'm bored stiff of this. I think they're OK, you don't.

You're pretty great, you know, harm. And whatever else this is, nobody's intention is to hold you to task over stated opinions.

PJ are not a very good live band. Stop living in denial, and then we can begin the discussion about live versions vs. studio.

Studio is always a superior venue for delivering on the peak potential of a song, no matter what band you like or how great you think they are in concert.

There, I said it. I'd say it again if I had to.

[warehouse]

PJ are not a very good live band. Stop living in denial, and then we can begin the discussion about live versions vs. studio.

Studio is always a superior venue for delivering on the peak potential of a song, no matter what band you like or how great you think they are in concert.

There, I said it. I'd say it again if I had to.

you can say it all day, you will still be wrong

[harmless]

PJ are not a very good live band. Stop living in denial, and then we can begin the discussion about live versions vs. studio.

Studio is always a superior venue for delivering on the peak potential of a song, no matter what band you like or how great you think they are in concert.

There, I said it. I'd say it again if I had to.

you can say it all day, you will still be wrong

warehouse is wrong doo-be-doo, doo-be-da.

[harmless]

It's just seems like the ones arguing against the "the studio will make the song better" camp keep interpreting it like we think its going to be a whole new song. If you don't like it already that's fine. I think it's good but based on my preference of studio cuts and the way delicacies of songs get lost with live Pearl Jam, I think I will enjoy how it sounds more.

I don't disagree with the idea that the studio improves songs at all. I consider that an absolute truth. My point was that (especially for a meat and potatoes band like Eddie Old and the Boomsticks), as a truth, it only really pays out if you already like the song. So I don't really see what the value was in even bringing it up...or at least, not in the "General Pearl Jam Bitching" thread.

We're already divided into people who dislike these songs and people who are holding out hope for them, so what's even the point of pushing an argument that offers little more than "well, hey...the people who like this song will probably like this song?"

Look, I don't really give a shit about having to justify why I think LB and FD could become good songs. I'm bored stiff of this. I think they're OK, you don't.

You're pretty great, you know, harm. And whatever else this is, nobody's intention is to hold you to task over stated opinions.

PJ are not a very good live band. Stop living in denial, and then we can begin the discussion about live versions vs. studio.

Studio is always a superior venue for delivering on the peak potential of a song, no matter what band you like or how great you think they are in concert.

There, I said it. I'd say it again if I had to.

So much love for this post. SO. MUCH. LOVE.

[stip]

i still am expecting lightning bolt to be everything I kinda wanted UK to be, although UK has better lyrics

[harmless]

For me, I'm not sure if the "Nothing Left" part of UK totally undoes anything good it does lyrically. Overall I'd probably say LB was better, if only because I think it's fun to speculate about the intent of the song. I also think it's more layered (albeit in a less-than-spectacularly profound way): it's about a girl and / or 'mother nature' and / or a surfboard. There's quite a bit of interesting metaphor going on there, even if it's muddled, and the "It's not about a girl" theory holds up when you look at what the lyrics are doing.