Lightning Bolt: the official album thread

[harmless]

And yes, if you're not a Floyd fan, it's absolutely because you think the sound is far too cheesy and over-produced. The band obviously went through periods that didn't sound like that, but some of their definitive catalogue is awash with cheesy production and over-the-top excess. So is their live show. They also have a live show which virtually no one can afford.

[Jorge]

Disclaimer: I have nothing invested in reviews of this song, be they positive or negative. Just putting this here for the heck of it. Guess I found it a bit surprising that a piece this long was written about just this one song.

http://www.antiquiet.com/news/2013/09/p ... th-sirens/

So you think this guys a Pearl Jam fan or not?

This guy has Binaural as #2 best album of the decade so he's probably a hipster

He posts here, or at least on the old board. Great writer and big PJ fan.

He used to yell at us a lot.

Haha, really?

Yeah. And he lambasted me on Twitter and said I was no match for his "monstrous encyclopedic Pearl Jam knowledge" because I suggested Matt wasn't the only reason they play fast. He's kind of a dick, honestly.

[harmless]

FWIW, though, I do think that throughout Binaural and Riot Act, Neil Young and "muddy" blues and folk-inflected rock was still what was being channelled by Pearl Jam. And there was definitely a nod to U2 in something like "You Are", which I initially baulked at. And "Breakerfall" is just a very good Neil Young cover.

Dude, you need a history lesson...first Pink Floyd is cheesy and overproduced and now Breakerfall sounds like Neil Young? It literally lifts chords from I Can See For Miles. There may not be a more Who-inspired track in their catalog.

Is this post telling me that the comparisons I hear are not the same comparisons you hear, and therefore they're wrong?

I did actually mean The Who, by the way; it would've been good for you to correct my tiredness-induced mistake without being a dick about it.

I don't think he's being that much of a dick.

There is at least some fore-skin in that post.

There wasn't any way for the guy to know it was, as Harmless now says, a mistake.

I would never say to anyone "You need a history lesson, dude." Maybe that's just me but I don't make the assumption that anyone needs their head read or is totally ignorant of music history. You both just did that. I usually try to comment on what's actually being said in a post.

[Birds in Hell]

If there's one thing I've noticed about the Harmless account it's that he really hates being wrong.

[mastaflatch]

i'm not familiar with their solo output (save for Ed's) but the kind of songs that made it onto the albums both from Jeff and Stone have consitently declined in originality since the Yield-Binaural-Riot Act stretch and those guys often seem relegated to b-side quality material (Big Wave, Olé, Supersonic, LTRP) or to songs that reflect Ed's songwriting (Got Some, Life Wasted, Comatose) - Parachutes and, to an extent Army Reserve are the glaring exceptions. Matt is a wildcard - some of the best stuff on the 2 latest records are his, unless he gets the fixing treatment while Mike doesn't really have a style of his own, yet a pretty good emulator. i'm just wondering here what happens when they get back in the studio for a PJ record; are the 4 other guys sending tapes of most of their new songs and leave it to Ed/BO'B to select which ones fit with the bulk of Ed's stuff or do they suggest a handful of songs that Ed/BO'B will most likely choose? do they have two separate batches of songs i.e. one for PJ and one they keep for their solo stuff?

Well BoB said he disliked the band doing side projects cause he wanted them to keep thier best songs for pj, but we know they all did anyway. Didn't soundgarden do a song that matt originally wrote for pj?

I think they usually do a buch of stuff without ed or eds songs and then throw eds in and see what happens. I think mike said in that last interview that they vetoed a whole lot of songs while recording, I don't know if they veto songs themselves cause they know the rest of the band/ ed won't like em.

thanks, i did not know that.

[EJ]

Yeah. And he lambasted me on Twitter and said I was no match for his "monstrous encyclopedic Pearl Jam knowledge" because I suggested Matt wasn't the only reason they play fast. He's kind of a dick, honestly.

Moreso than the Gremmie guy? Wish they would post here more often. This place needs more drama.

[Jorge]

Yeah. And he lambasted me on Twitter and said I was no match for his "monstrous encyclopedic Pearl Jam knowledge" because I suggested Matt wasn't the only reason they play fast. He's kind of a dick, honestly.

Moreso than the Gremmie guy? Wish they would post here more often. This place needs more drama.

I'll say this much: he gets a lot more hilariously emotional than the Gremmie guy.

[Birds in Hell]

And yes, if you're not a Floyd fan, it's absolutely because you think the sound is far too cheesy and over-produced. The band obviously went through periods that didn't sound like that, but some of their definitive catalogue is awash with cheesy production and over-the-top excess. So is their live show. They also have a live show which virtually no one can afford.

Jesus, no.

[Jorge]

If there's one thing I've noticed about the Harmless account it's that he really hates being wrong.

WHO DOESN'T

[harmless]

When I'm wrong, I admit to being wrong. I made a typo. Or am I backtracking?

[EJ]

Yeah. And he lambasted me on Twitter and said I was no match for his "monstrous encyclopedic Pearl Jam knowledge" because I suggested Matt wasn't the only reason they play fast. He's kind of a dick, honestly.

Moreso than the Gremmie guy? Wish they would post here more often. This place needs more drama.

I'll say this much: he gets a lot more hilariously emotional than the Gremmie guy.

I haven't heard Sirens yet. But, I read what I assume was his review on it on that site. Seemed a bit over the top, gushy, no? What did you guys think of it?

[Heathen]

Yeah. And he lambasted me on Twitter and said I was no match for his "monstrous encyclopedic Pearl Jam knowledge" because I suggested Matt wasn't the only reason they play fast. He's kind of a dick, honestly.

Moreso than the Gremmie guy? Wish they would post here more often. This place needs more drama.

I'll say this much: he gets a lot more hilariously emotional than the Gremmie guy.

I haven't heard Sirens yet. But, I read what I assume was his review on it on that site. Seemed a bit over the top, gushy, no? What did you guys think of it?

it was

Spoiler: show

cheesy

[Rob]

I've always felt that if Pearl Jam had a defining album it was Vitalogy. And I think most if not all previous albums have at least one song that is distinctly PJ.

Porch
RVM
Corduroy
In My Tree
DTE
Insignificance
LBC
Severed Hand
Unthought Known

These are what I think are the most pj sounding songs on each album. I'm sure every one of those was influenced by someone, but if I really wanted to show someone what Pearl Jam sounds like - not necessarily their best songs - I'd choose these.

So far I think only Lightning Bolt (the song) has that definitive sound, though Swallowed Hole is totally EV.

[jforte20]

If i wanted songs that sounded just like Vitalogy, I'd just listen to vitalogy. I still like the new stuff.

[Oh, Jimmy]

And yes, if you're not a Floyd fan, it's absolutely because you think the sound is far too cheesy and over-produced. The band obviously went through periods that didn't sound like that, but some of their definitive catalogue is awash with cheesy production and over-the-top excess. So is their live show. They also have a live show which virtually no one can afford.

I suppose cheesy can depend on if you like it or not, but "overproduced" to me implies that there's alot of stuff added to augment the playing of the actual band. I don't think that's the case with most of their catalog. I'd be a fool to argue that their live show wasn't excessive or over the top at times, but some of that is a result of trying to get across the bigger message and concepts of their music and were any of their shows really that excessive besides The Wall?

Maybe I was too strong with the history lesson thing so.... Dude, you might need a history lesson, or maybe just a nap.

[Strat]

And why the fuck did Strat respond to me by reporting my post as warez??

that confused me as well

I have no idea what happened. I was posting from my phone....

[harmless]

And yes, if you're not a Floyd fan, it's absolutely because you think the sound is far too cheesy and over-produced. The band obviously went through periods that didn't sound like that, but some of their definitive catalogue is awash with cheesy production and over-the-top excess. So is their live show. They also have a live show which virtually no one can afford.

I suppose cheesy can depend on if you like it or not, but "overproduced" to me implies that there's alot of stuff added to augment the playing of the actual band. I don't think that's the case with most of their catalog. I'd be a fool to argue that their live show wasn't excessive or over the top at times, but some of that is a result of trying to get across the bigger message and concepts of their music and were any of their shows really that excessive besides The Wall?

Maybe I was too strong with the history lesson thing so.... Dude, you might need a history lesson, or maybe just a nap.

The nap, most definitely. PJ fandom plus insomnia is not a mix I'd recommend to anyone.

But to me, "over-produced" is anything unnecessary to the rock music (or any style) underneath, the song itself. That could mean a fuck-ton of effects, or it could mean added instruments that the producer has added to make songs more "powerful". Brendan O'Brien does both, but I think Floyd at least does the former. As you've said, their excess is part of their surreal, progressive aesthetic. They are deliberately strange, poetic, and everything supports that, including their lyrics. I'm OK with that when I'm in the mood, but I can immediately recognise that their excess isn't present in other rock bands.

As far as the shows go, I have no idea, but the show's I've seen on TV (albeit recent ones) are absolutely over-the-top (though brilliantly executed), theatrical pieces of art which some people will be into for the spectacle but other people won't, choosing instead to sit at home and listen to the CDs without the added theatrics. FWIW, I feel the same way about Muse. Their current space rock-opera leanings, the light show, the balloons, the pyro stuff, are mostly too much for me. According to everyone I've spoken to, the sheer expense Pink Floyd go to to achieve all of this on stage makes their ticket prices impossible for anyone who isn't white, probably male, upper middle-class and part of the right circles. And everyone I know (at least in the UK) who is a Pink Floyd fan has been that kind of person. This is admittedly just my experience.

[Dr. Van Nostrand]

If i wanted songs that sounded just like Vitalogy, I'd just listen to vitalogy. I still like the new stuff.

exactly, i love that they do somehting at least a little different every time they put out an album, i might not always love it, but id rather they do that then record the same album over and over again

[E.H. Ruddock]

So, what's been going on in here?

[Thejambi]

So, what's been going on in here?

Harmless may or may not need a history lesson.