General Pearl Jam Bitching

[stip]

I'm over 30. I have no need to feel cool anymore. PJ are a source of art and entertainment for me; it's either conceptually and musically ear-pleasing, or it isn't. It really doesn't need to be cool in the context of the current music biz. I've felt like that since I bought Binaural and it really wasn't very cool. Nothing's changed. PJ are still the band that they were in that sense. They refuse to be 'cool' for us. As long as they're not totally shit, I'm fine with that. But some people here aren't, yet. And I remember not being either, so I can forgive them. I'd just like to know who they are so I can block them (only half-joking).

Binaural is cool as fuck.

Says who? (I think so too, now, but it took me years to appreciate.)

I got into Pearl Jam just when Binaural came out. I thought the artiness of it, especially coming from a former mainstream band, was super cool. It wasn't cool in the "context of the current music biz," but that's what makes it actually cool. They didn't give a fuck.

spin reviewed them side by side with matchbox 20. What could be cooler?

[harmless]

At first, I found Binaural to be full of rehashes of past work. That seems to be the stock criticism with every album and I got over it.

[LikeLukin]

Nowadays, they still aren't cool in the eye of the current music biz, but they aren't cool any other way either.

They weren't cool in either realm then, either. They've been in that position for a very long time.

I disagree. They were cool during that time to a lot of people I knew. They played the music they wanted to play, didn't care about pleasing anyone, and it resulted in a great experimental album.

I feel like they began conforming in 2006 by trying too hard to be the "Pearl Jam of old" so many kept asking for. When that got them a little attention, they tried for a bigger follow-up with Backspacer which was a blatant attempt at mainstream airplay.

It is obvious they are running their business (er, I mean band, sorry) to bring in as much cash as possible these days. I can't blame them I guess, being parents and all now. When it's no longer about the music though, then it becomes uncool. Binaural was still 100% about the music and artistic expression, hence 100% cool. Avocado and Backspacer, not so much.

[LikeLukin]

I'm over 30. I have no need to feel cool anymore. PJ are a source of art and entertainment for me; it's either conceptually and musically ear-pleasing, or it isn't. It really doesn't need to be cool in the context of the current music biz. I've felt like that since I bought Binaural and it really wasn't very cool. Nothing's changed. PJ are still the band that they were in that sense. They refuse to be 'cool' for us. As long as they're not totally shit, I'm fine with that. But some people here aren't, yet. And I remember not being either, so I can forgive them. I'd just like to know who they are so I can block them (only half-joking).

Binaural is cool as fuck.

Says who? (I think so too, now, but it took me years to appreciate.)

I got into Pearl Jam just when Binaural came out. I thought the artiness of it, especially coming from a former mainstream band, was super cool. It wasn't cool in the "context of the current music biz," but that's what makes it actually cool. They didn't give a fuck.

spin reviewed them side by side with matchbox 20. What could be cooler?

A typically horrible Spin article Haven't read it in a while but I don't think common attributes of the music (other than being "rock") or lyrics are what inspred that review.

[LikeLukin]

At first, I found Binaural to be full of rehashes of past work. That seems to be the stock criticism with every album and I got over it.

Any songs in particular? I find this interesting, because that's how I felt about some of Avocado. Perhaps since I got into PJ around Binaural's release, I was still new to all of the songs and I didn't notice this.

[EJ]

It was actually Rolling Stone. Bizarre review.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/album ... l-20000608

[stip]

I'm over 30. I have no need to feel cool anymore. PJ are a source of art and entertainment for me; it's either conceptually and musically ear-pleasing, or it isn't. It really doesn't need to be cool in the context of the current music biz. I've felt like that since I bought Binaural and it really wasn't very cool. Nothing's changed. PJ are still the band that they were in that sense. They refuse to be 'cool' for us. As long as they're not totally shit, I'm fine with that. But some people here aren't, yet. And I remember not being either, so I can forgive them. I'd just like to know who they are so I can block them (only half-joking).

Binaural is cool as fuck.

Says who? (I think so too, now, but it took me years to appreciate.)

I got into Pearl Jam just when Binaural came out. I thought the artiness of it, especially coming from a former mainstream band, was super cool. It wasn't cool in the "context of the current music biz," but that's what makes it actually cool. They didn't give a fuck.

spin reviewed them side by side with matchbox 20. What could be cooler?

A typically horrible Spin article Haven't read it in a while but I don't think common attributes of the music (other than being "rock") or lyrics are what inspred that review.

totally shit, but still a barometer of at least what the 'official' line on this was.

[harmless]

Nowadays, they still aren't cool in the eye of the current music biz, but they aren't cool any other way either.

They weren't cool in either realm then, either. They've been in that position for a very long time.

I disagree. They were cool during that time to a lot of people I knew. They played the music they wanted to play, didn't care about pleasing anyone, and it resulted in a great experimental album.

I feel like they began conforming in 2006 by trying too hard to be the "Pearl Jam of old" so many kept asking for. When that got them a little attention, they tried for a bigger follow-up with Backspacer which was a blatant attempt at mainstream airplay.

It is obvious they are running their business (er, I mean band, sorry) to bring in as much cash as possible these days. I can't blame them I guess, being parents and all now. When it's no longer about the music though, then it becomes uncool. Binaural was still 100% about the music and artistic expression, hence 100% cool. Avocado and Backspacer, not so much.

They are still cool to a lot of people I know. They're just not considered cool culturally or in the music business. It's not as if everyone thinks PJ are the Rolling Stones. We're just saying that Binaural really wasn't 'cool' in any way whatsoever, and neither has any PJ album been since Yield, when they were still generally thought of as a more-or-less vital and interesting rock band. Regardless of whether PJ has cool Indie street cred or not, they're still doing the same thing; being exactly who they want to be. 'Cool' is just a matter of how you feel about what they're doing.

[EJ]

They are still cool to a lot of people I know. They're just not considered cool culturally or in the music business. It's not as if everyone thinks PJ are the Rolling Stones. We're just saying that Binaural really wasn't 'cool' in any way whatsoever, and neither has any PJ album been since Yield, when they were still generally thought of as a more-or-less vital and interesting rock band. Regardless of whether PJ has cool Indie street cred or not, they're still doing the same thing; being exactly who they want to be. 'Cool' is just a matter of how you feel about what they're doing.

That was the point I was going to follow up my original post with, thanks.

[harmless]

Also, I'm happy that people carry on drinking the "experimental" Kool-Aid, but PJ have never been that. They've always experimented within their own (fairly limited) rock context, that's all. The only people who think they are truly experimental and innovative are people who otherwise listen to nothing but relatively dumb rock music. PJ have transcended that in the past, but the suggestion and possibility that they might revert back to it in later-career music has been there for a very long time. The roots for current PJ go back a long way, and they begin with things as simple as the amount of covers they play at gigs (which was always excessive and marked them out as reverent appreciators rather than innovators).

[harmless]

LikeLukin, it's great that you became a fan at Binaural, but it might mean that you didn't see the flaws other people saw in it, because you didn't have the context of having heard those sounds and (what I thought at the time were) better attempts at the songs.

[stip]

Also, I'm happy that people carry on drinking the "experimental" Kool-Aid, but PJ have never been that. They've always experimented within their own (fairly limited) rock context, that's all. The only people who think they are truly experimental and innovative are people who otherwise listen to nothing but relatively dumb rock music. PJ have transcended that in the past, but the suggestion and possibility that they might revert back to it in later-career music has been there for a very long time. The roots for current PJ go back a long way, and they begin with things as simple as the amount of covers they play at gigs (which was always excessive and marked them out as reverent appreciators rather than innovators).

I prefer synthesizers, but appreciators isn't wrong, and neither matter to me as long as the song is good. I don't think innovation should be an end in itself.

When Eddie inducted REM into the R+R hall of fame he described Peter Buck as someone who played guitar like they worked in a record store. I always thought that could have applied to PJ, with an appreciation of history at its best, an unfortunate desire to please heroes at its worst

[harmless]

Also, I'm happy that people carry on drinking the "experimental" Kool-Aid, but PJ have never been that. They've always experimented within their own (fairly limited) rock context, that's all. The only people who think they are truly experimental and innovative are people who otherwise listen to nothing but relatively dumb rock music. PJ have transcended that in the past, but the suggestion and possibility that they might revert back to it in later-career music has been there for a very long time. The roots for current PJ go back a long way, and they begin with things as simple as the amount of covers they play at gigs (which was always excessive and marked them out as reverent appreciators rather than innovators).

I prefer synthesizers, but appreciators isn't wrong, and neither matter to me as long as the song is good. I don't think innovation should be an end in itself.

I agree completely. In fact, a lot of 'experimental' bands these days are writing songs which are failing, imo, just for the sake of trying. I'd rather someone write a good song with a familiar sound that I've grown to appreciate.

When Eddie inducted REM into the R+R hall of fame he described Peter Buck as someone who played guitar like they worked in a record store. I always thought that could have applied to PJ, with an appreciation of history at its best, an unfortunate desire to please heroes at its worst

Very much so. I really, really respected Ed's deference to his 'betters'. There was something almost student / sensei about it that I really thought was unusual, but admirable. But it has set a few precedents, one being that now (as always really, but now it's more obvious) there is an obvious deference in their musical style as well. Songs are largely more obviously derivative these days. That used to be a thing occasionally ("Off He Goes sounds like Neil Young", etc.) but because it was occasional it was fine.

[LikeLukin]

Also, I'm happy that people carry on drinking the "experimental" Kool-Aid, but PJ have never been that. They've always experimented within their own (fairly limited) rock context, that's all. The only people who think they are truly experimental and innovative are people who otherwise listen to nothing but relatively dumb rock music. PJ have transcended that in the past, but the suggestion and possibility that they might revert back to it in later-career music has been there for a very long time. The roots for current PJ go back a long way, and they begin with things as simple as the amount of covers they play at gigs (which was always excessive and marked them out as reverent appreciators rather than innovators).

This is what I meant. They tried different things within the rock context, and kept it fresh. Experimental is probably too strong a word. Again, my articulateness.

[harmless]

Also, I'm happy that people carry on drinking the "experimental" Kool-Aid, but PJ have never been that. They've always experimented within their own (fairly limited) rock context, that's all. The only people who think they are truly experimental and innovative are people who otherwise listen to nothing but relatively dumb rock music. PJ have transcended that in the past, but the suggestion and possibility that they might revert back to it in later-career music has been there for a very long time. The roots for current PJ go back a long way, and they begin with things as simple as the amount of covers they play at gigs (which was always excessive and marked them out as reverent appreciators rather than innovators).

This is what I meant. They tried different things within the rock context, and kept it fresh. Experimental is probably too strong a word. Again, my articulateness.

Na, it's cool; a lot of people use the word, not just you.

[Lament]

Also, I'm happy that people carry on drinking the "experimental" Kool-Aid, but PJ have never been that. They've always experimented within their own (fairly limited) rock context, that's all. The only people who think they are truly experimental and innovative are people who otherwise listen to nothing but relatively dumb rock music. PJ have transcended that in the past, but the suggestion and possibility that they might revert back to it in later-career music has been there for a very long time. The roots for current PJ go back a long way, and they begin with things as simple as the amount of covers they play at gigs (which was always excessive and marked them out as reverent appreciators rather than innovators).

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. They get so constantly lauded by their fans for being so "experimental," but at the end of the day when you compare their back catalog to that of other artists/bands who span over a decade, there isn't a vast amount of ground being covered. For the most part, just about anything they've ever done could've realistically come from any album session and not seemed out of place. That's not a bad thing; for the most part you could say the same thing about Bruce Springsteen or Oasis or Tom Petty or Morrissey or any other number of artists with fantastic collections of work.

[harmless]

Also, I'm happy that people carry on drinking the "experimental" Kool-Aid, but PJ have never been that. They've always experimented within their own (fairly limited) rock context, that's all. The only people who think they are truly experimental and innovative are people who otherwise listen to nothing but relatively dumb rock music. PJ have transcended that in the past, but the suggestion and possibility that they might revert back to it in later-career music has been there for a very long time. The roots for current PJ go back a long way, and they begin with things as simple as the amount of covers they play at gigs (which was always excessive and marked them out as reverent appreciators rather than innovators).

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. They get so constantly lauded by their fans for being so "experimental," but at the end of the day when you compare their back catalog to that of other artists/bands who span over a decade, there isn't a vast amount of ground being covered. For the most part, just about anything they've ever done could've realistically come from any album session and not seemed out of place. That's not a bad thing; for the most part you could say the same thing about Bruce Springsteen or Oasis or Tom Petty or Morrissey or any other number of artists with fantastic collections of work.

Yep. I've always loved, or even just liked, the sound of PJ. There is no experimental "golden age" I need them to return to, which is probably why I feel pretty OK doing what I've always done, listening to something and waiting to see if it grows on me. I'm addicted to that experience, because more often than not, PJ's music has grown on me. I totally understand the feeling that PJ have lost some edge. They have. But my feeling about MYM ("could be better, but pretty great") was my feeling about Riot Act at first. So I just don't think my insecurity in listening to new PJ is a new thing.

[LikeLukin]

Regarding cool, what exactly would be considered cool in the music biz these days?

[Heathen]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. They get so constantly lauded by their fans for being so "experimental," but at the end of the day when you compare their back catalog to that of other artists/bands who span over a decade, there isn't a vast amount of ground being covered. For the most part, just about anything they've ever done could've realistically come from any album session and not seemed out of place. That's not a bad thing; for the most part you could say the same thing about Bruce Springsteen or Oasis or Tom Petty or Morrissey or any other number of artists with fantastic collections of work.

I really disagree with the bolded part. I do think most Riot Act or Binaural songs, for instance, don't sound like they would belong on Backspacer or s/t. Nor do I think that the glossy sound of the last few albums would feel in its place on the early records.

[harmless]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. They get so constantly lauded by their fans for being so "experimental," but at the end of the day when you compare their back catalog to that of other artists/bands who span over a decade, there isn't a vast amount of ground being covered. For the most part, just about anything they've ever done could've realistically come from any album session and not seemed out of place. That's not a bad thing; for the most part you could say the same thing about Bruce Springsteen or Oasis or Tom Petty or Morrissey or any other number of artists with fantastic collections of work.

I really disagree with the bolded part. I do think most Riot Act or Binaural songs, for instance, don't sound like they would belong on Backspacer or s/t. Nor do I think that the glossy sound of the last few albums would feel in its place on the early records.

I think you're right that nothing prior to S/T would fit on that and Backspacer, but that's because 1) those albums are mediocre compared to the first 7, and 2) the production is mediocre compared to that of the first 7. In terms of the songs themselves, any song from the last two albums could've fit on any of the previous ones except that they're weaker. It's only the production making them glossy.