Song of the Moment: Sirens

General Pearl Jam discussion.
Post Reply

So...Sirens?

5 stars
47
38%
4 stars
30
24%
3 stars
25
20%
2 stars
7
6%
1 star
16
13%
 
Total votes: 125

User avatar
Thejambi
Rank This Poster
Posts: 4301
Joined: Fri April 12, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: Potato

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by Thejambi »

harmless wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
harmless wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
Thejambi wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote: So, you're saying Riot Act didn't have any hits? I agree. That could be one reason it sucks.
I am not a Riot Act fan . It is not a radio album. I like Backspacer better but I'd have to say the quality of the songs on RA are better.
This is one of the reasons this place is annoying. It's as if you're implying 'high quality' is synonymous with 'not being played often on the radio' or even broader 'not being liked by the general public'. Does this mean Adele's Rolling in the Deep and other hits are not 'high quality' (for her) because they were played on the radio often? The songs of hers that are not played often are therefore, 'higher quality'?

This is why I say "hipster" to describe folks here. Hipsters love to say they like stuff that no one else likes, or that the stuff no one else likes is the highest quality. Contrarian may be a better word, but I've also used that to describe some here.
What's with the qualification (for her)? You don't think Adele being played on the radio proves their quality?
I've been saying that sales is a reasonable proxy for quality for an individual or band IF and ONLY IF it's used to make album by album comparisons for ranking that individual or bands material against itself. I suppose you could say radio play for said individual or band's singles - relative to their other material could work too, but as I mentioned earlier singles are different from albums and probably a worse proxy. So, I'm not sure what you meant.

I will say once you try to extend this from one individual to compare individuals (or bands) across genres, I'd say it doesn't hold. In other words, comparing Justin Beiber to Pearl Jam doesn't make sense with sales. But, comparing Justin Beiber's albums to Justin Beiber's albums does.
You said that Adele is quality FOR HER, meaning that you don't think Adele is as great a quality as, say, Pearl Jam. I wonder why you'd say that since, by your logic, she's much better because she sells more records.
Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.
There's the dog. You can't fake that stuff. Confess with your mouth.
User avatar
Chris_H_2
10Club Complaint Department
Posts: 15599
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm
Location: An office full of assholes

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by Chris_H_2 »

BurtReynolds wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
doug rr wrote:
EJ wrote:
doug rr wrote:
she likes Willie Nelson's version better...She just really hates Ed now though so its all understandable




its because of this, right? :lol:
:haha:

ya, that didnt help
And because he married a [super]model, right?
she's not super! look at that nose!
"Things that an anti-semite would say?"
IlluminEddie
Broken Tamborine
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri July 12, 2013 8:16 pm

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by IlluminEddie »

harmless wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
harmless wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
Thejambi wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote: So, you're saying Riot Act didn't have any hits? I agree. That could be one reason it sucks.
I am not a Riot Act fan . It is not a radio album. I like Backspacer better but I'd have to say the quality of the songs on RA are better.
This is one of the reasons this place is annoying. It's as if you're implying 'high quality' is synonymous with 'not being played often on the radio' or even broader 'not being liked by the general public'. Does this mean Adele's Rolling in the Deep and other hits are not 'high quality' (for her) because they were played on the radio often? The songs of hers that are not played often are therefore, 'higher quality'?

This is why I say "hipster" to describe folks here. Hipsters love to say they like stuff that no one else likes, or that the stuff no one else likes is the highest quality. Contrarian may be a better word, but I've also used that to describe some here.
What's with the qualification (for her)? You don't think Adele being played on the radio proves their quality?
I've been saying that sales is a reasonable proxy for quality for an individual or band IF and ONLY IF it's used to make album by album comparisons for ranking that individual or bands material against itself. I suppose you could say radio play for said individual or band's singles - relative to their other material could work too, but as I mentioned earlier singles are different from albums and probably a worse proxy. So, I'm not sure what you meant.

I will say once you try to extend this from one individual to compare individuals (or bands) across genres, I'd say it doesn't hold. In other words, comparing Justin Beiber to Pearl Jam doesn't make sense with sales. But, comparing Justin Beiber's albums to Justin Beiber's albums does.
You said that Adele is quality FOR HER, meaning that you don't think Adele is as great a quality as, say, Pearl Jam. I wonder why you'd say that since, by your logic, she's much better because she sells more records.
Read the full context.
doug rr
The Master
Posts: 27424
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:45 pm
Location: I'm now Canadian..go broncos

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by doug rr »

Chris_H_2 wrote:
doug rr wrote:
EJ wrote:
doug rr wrote:
she likes Willie Nelson's version better...She just really hates Ed now though so its all understandable




its because of this, right? :lol:
:haha:

ya, that didnt help
And because he married a [super]model, right?
My wife is a smart woman..she can see through his BS..much the same reason she cant stand Sean Penn..that video just confirmed it for her..she still loves a lot of the music though
User avatar
harmless
10Club Complaint Department
Posts: 17337
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:41 pm

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by harmless »

IlluminEddie wrote:
harmless wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
harmless wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
Thejambi wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote: So, you're saying Riot Act didn't have any hits? I agree. That could be one reason it sucks.
I am not a Riot Act fan . It is not a radio album. I like Backspacer better but I'd have to say the quality of the songs on RA are better.
This is one of the reasons this place is annoying. It's as if you're implying 'high quality' is synonymous with 'not being played often on the radio' or even broader 'not being liked by the general public'. Does this mean Adele's Rolling in the Deep and other hits are not 'high quality' (for her) because they were played on the radio often? The songs of hers that are not played often are therefore, 'higher quality'?

This is why I say "hipster" to describe folks here. Hipsters love to say they like stuff that no one else likes, or that the stuff no one else likes is the highest quality. Contrarian may be a better word, but I've also used that to describe some here.
What's with the qualification (for her)? You don't think Adele being played on the radio proves their quality?
I've been saying that sales is a reasonable proxy for quality for an individual or band IF and ONLY IF it's used to make album by album comparisons for ranking that individual or bands material against itself. I suppose you could say radio play for said individual or band's singles - relative to their other material could work too, but as I mentioned earlier singles are different from albums and probably a worse proxy. So, I'm not sure what you meant.

I will say once you try to extend this from one individual to compare individuals (or bands) across genres, I'd say it doesn't hold. In other words, comparing Justin Beiber to Pearl Jam doesn't make sense with sales. But, comparing Justin Beiber's albums to Justin Beiber's albums does.
You said that Adele is quality FOR HER, meaning that you don't think Adele is as great a quality as, say, Pearl Jam. I wonder why you'd say that since, by your logic, she's much better because she sells more records.
Read the full context.
I'd rather not.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
User avatar
Thejambi
Rank This Poster
Posts: 4301
Joined: Fri April 12, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: Potato

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by Thejambi »

IlluminEddie wrote:
Thejambi wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
Thejambi wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote: So, you're saying Riot Act didn't have any hits? I agree. That could be one reason it sucks.
I am not a Riot Act fan . It is not a radio album. I like Backspacer better but I'd have to say the quality of the songs on RA are better.
This is one of the reasons this place is annoying. It's as if you're implying 'high quality' is synonymous with 'not being played often on the radio' or even broader 'not being liked by the general public'. Does this mean Adele's Rolling in the Deep and other hits are not 'high quality' (for her) because they were played on the radio often? The songs of hers that are not played often are therefore, 'higher quality'?

This is why I say "hipster" to describe folks here. Hipsters love to say they like stuff that no one else likes, or that the stuff no one else likes is the highest quality. Contrarian may be a better word, but I've also used that to describe some here.
You are hopelessly retarded.
Mature. What I said was true. You implied that high quality is synonymous with not being played often. That sounds like a fun world to live in.
In no way did I remotely imply that. Just because a song is a hit doesn't make it quality. The same as just because a song isn't a radio hit doesn't make it inferior.

You've had terrible logic from the start.
There's the dog. You can't fake that stuff. Confess with your mouth.
User avatar
stip
The worst
Posts: 42946
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by stip »

Heathen wrote:
stip wrote:
Heathen wrote:
stip wrote:phew, made it
if you've read them only once I don't think you can really get these posts, you might have to start again
if RM doesn't hold my interest anymore I'm not sure it's worth the time. There's lots of other message boards I could be posting on.
deny all you want but if you're still here that means you're still a bit invested in this board
I still like reading the older posts.
IlluminEddie
Broken Tamborine
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri July 12, 2013 8:16 pm

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by IlluminEddie »

Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.
No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.
gems and rhinestones
likes rhythmic things that butt up against each other
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun January 20, 2013 8:02 am

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by gems and rhinestones »

doug rr wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
doug rr wrote:
EJ wrote:
doug rr wrote:
she likes Willie Nelson's version better...She just really hates Ed now though so its all understandable




its because of this, right? :lol:
:haha:

ya, that didnt help
And because he married a [super]model, right?
My wife is a smart woman..she can see through his BS..much the same reason she cant stand Sean Penn..that video just confirmed it for her..she still loves a lot of the music though
Yet a lot of other smart women don't hate him and think he is genuine.
User avatar
Norah
Poster of the Year
Posts: 37454
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by Norah »

stip wrote:
Heathen wrote:
stip wrote:
Heathen wrote:
stip wrote:phew, made it
if you've read them only once I don't think you can really get these posts, you might have to start again
if RM doesn't hold my interest anymore I'm not sure it's worth the time. There's lots of other message boards I could be posting on.
deny all you want but if you're still here that means you're still a bit invested in this board
I still like reading the older posts.
lol
User avatar
dimejinky99
what on earth am I talking about
Posts: 39789
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by dimejinky99 »

stip wrote:
Heathen wrote:
stip wrote:
Heathen wrote:
stip wrote:phew, made it
if you've read them only once I don't think you can really get these posts, you might have to start again
if RM doesn't hold my interest anymore I'm not sure it's worth the time. There's lots of other message boards I could be posting on.
deny all you want but if you're still here that means you're still a bit invested in this board
I still like reading the older posts.

I hope we never lose the ever unflappable Stip
Calibrate your enthusiasm
User avatar
harmless
10Club Complaint Department
Posts: 17337
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:41 pm

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by harmless »

IlluminEddie wrote:
Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.
No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.
Nobody's said that though.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
User avatar
Jaeti
Future Drummer
Posts: 2642
Joined: Mon July 08, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by Jaeti »

bodysnatcher wrote:about to send this song (video version) to my wife with a little trepidation to see what she thinks.
Yeah, I'm nervous about making my girlfriend listen to it. Not just because of what it is, but because she's 8.5 years younger than me. Pearl Jam has never been in her musical conscience. I think I'll need to institute the you-must-listen-four-times rule.
User avatar
harmless
10Club Complaint Department
Posts: 17337
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:41 pm

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by harmless »

gems and rhinestones wrote:
doug rr wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
doug rr wrote:
EJ wrote:
doug rr wrote:
she likes Willie Nelson's version better...She just really hates Ed now though so its all understandable




its because of this, right? :lol:
:haha:

ya, that didnt help
And because he married a [super]model, right?
My wife is a smart woman..she can see through his BS..much the same reason she cant stand Sean Penn..that video just confirmed it for her..she still loves a lot of the music though
Yet a lot of other smart women don't hate him and think he is genuine.
Yup.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
IlluminEddie
Broken Tamborine
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri July 12, 2013 8:16 pm

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by IlluminEddie »

harmless wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.
No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.
Nobody's said that though.

He "implied it". Once again, go read the full thing in context this time.
User avatar
Jaeti
Future Drummer
Posts: 2642
Joined: Mon July 08, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by Jaeti »

harmless wrote:
bodysnatcher wrote:about to send this song (video version) to my wife with a little trepidation to see what she thinks.
DON'T DO IT THIS IS ABOUT US
:haha:
User avatar
harmless
10Club Complaint Department
Posts: 17337
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:41 pm

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by harmless »

Jaeti wrote:
bodysnatcher wrote:about to send this song (video version) to my wife with a little trepidation to see what she thinks.
Yeah, I'm nervous about making my girlfriend listen to it. Not just because of what it is, but because she's 8.5 years younger than me. Pearl Jam has never been in her musical conscience. I think I'll need to institute the you-must-listen-four-times rule.
Let her discover it for herself, no one needs latter-day Pearl Jam forced upon them.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
AllNiteThing
A Return To Form
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon July 15, 2013 7:26 pm

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by AllNiteThing »

IlluminEddie wrote:
Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.
No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.

You're not too familiar with the definition of 'logic', are you?
User avatar
harmless
10Club Complaint Department
Posts: 17337
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:41 pm

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by harmless »

IlluminEddie wrote:
harmless wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.
No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.
Nobody's said that though.

He "implied it". Once again, go read the full thing in context this time.
Well you implied a lot of things yourself, so...
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
User avatar
Norah
Poster of the Year
Posts: 37454
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month

Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens

Post by Norah »

I'm so ino everything the IlluminEddie account it's sickening.
Post Reply