Song of the Moment: Let the Records Play

[harmless]

That's actually why I love Sirens. I don't find it catchy, and although I think it's overwrought emotionally, I would *much* rather that than more Big Waves or Supersonics. I want their music to matter to me emotionally and Sirens does.

[warehouse]

An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

are there any pj songs like this u can think of?

[Release_Me]

That's one of the things I really like about the song. It has serious, dark lyrics that are really at odds with the upbeat, "sitcom-y" music. It really reflects the lyrical content, too, where the narrator is listening to music as an escape from life.

So meta.

If only that sitcom feel didn't put people off before they saw that, because I think most (if not all) of these songs are doing it.

Yep. I think there's a lot more going on in all of these songs than a lot of people are giving them credit for. I really don't get the claims that LTRP is lazily written or that they took the easy road. I actually think it's the opposite; it's a clever bit of songwriting where the interplay between the lyrics and music provide added depth to the song. The musical/lyrical interplay is one of the things I think Pearl Jam does really well (the crashing-waves sound on Given To Fly, the marching drums on WMA, the urgency in RVM) and this one seems particularly well executed.

Hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. This interplay you talk about isn't new. They've been doing it since Ten and Vs. I've been talking about it so much that I must sound like an idiot by now

Evenflow, Alive, Glorified G, Daughter, Last Exit, etc. A lot of these songs are so catchy that it's easy to not dig in to the lyrics and just assume something completely opposite to what they are about. PJ have been doing this since forever. If people are being put off by the feel of the songs on first listen, then they would have been put off the earlier songs too. I don't believe that's what is happening. I believe a lot of people have gotten so used to the lack of catchiness from the middle period that any sort of return to that songwriting style is putting them off. It's doing the complete opposite for me. I'm jumping around like a kid who just received his favourite candy.

I think the "return to catchiness" argument is too simplistic. If they're catchy now, it's a rather different kind of "catchy" than it used to be. Certainly, if you weren't generally in the "alternative" crowd that enjoyed generally harsh, abrasive music (with some exceptions), you weren't going to really enjoy Pearl Jam even then, no matter how "catchy" they were. I remember trying to argue that PJ were a really catchy band to some friends who just wouldn't buy it, because their whole grunge shtick put them off right away. These days, they've reduced almost everything that would've once been called alternative or subversive about them. Having said all of the above, I do think that people have become very used to the middle period, and it's that middle period that a lot of today's naysayers want back. It's too simplistic to say they want dark, "grungey" early-period-style stuff. But they do want uniqueness, subtlety and nuance, idiosyncrasies, and yeah, less of an effort to write "attention-grabbing" melodies and hooks.

PJ were my introduction to alternative and grunge. I never much liked any of their contemporaries to any great extent. Mostly because they weren't as catchy. Hah! They just dressed up like the others but had little in common with their music. Only common thread that binds the grunge bands together is that their themes were generally darker than those of other rock bands.

Well, PJ were my favourite band of that time by far, even if I listened to some of the others. But it was their power and instrumentation that got me. Subconsciously it may have been the "catchiness", but honestly, I mostly loved it when those musicians were at the top of their game. I just loved the sound of PJ musicians playing together, and still do. That's why I can cope with their crazy genre experiments, if I think they generally work. But I do think that people who want to argue for the new stuff generally exaggerate PJ's "catchiness" in the early stuff, and understate their musical depth, subversiveness and power. Ed said himself during Backspacer that they recently tried for quicker, more simple, immediately catchy stuff which may or may not end up being fairly superficial. Before Backspacer, Pearl Jam had never done that to the extent of a song like The Fixer (or several songs from Backspacer). I think you're in denial if you're not hearing a major difference in much of the newer PJ music... not just to the middle period, but to all of it. And much of that difference is PJ's head space right now, which is content and not "dark" in any way. My argument has always been that if they want to be that, I have no problem with it at all, but there are other bands who are better at it.

I'm talking mainly of the LB songs we've heard so far. BS took a completely different attitude to that same style of songwriting and made it something snappier, punkier, etc. The Fixer isn't the epitome of catchiness in any way. It's just a high profile example people use to contrast the middle period with present day PJ. There was only one 'The Fixer' and it's more the exception rather than the rule for that kind of song. Nothing about PJ's catchiness in the early era is exaggerated. They wrote great pop songs with a rock attitude. The mood was darker because of what Ed was going through and that is the major difference. The musical depth was there and I'd venture to say it's there on LB so far too, if not to the same extent. You might like that era better when it comes to musicianship. I do too. But this is much, much more reminiscent of the PJ I want to listen to.

[McParadigm]

An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

are there any pj songs like this u can think of?

Where's that slowed down Fixer when you need it?

[harmless]

There are so many great catchy bands and pop artists out there.

Then why are you listening to the Counting Crows?

They might not have been the best example, because they're also pretty sweeping, emotionally wrought and melodramatic. But they made the transition from that to more poppy stuff with so much style. Hard Candy is a really, really successful "pop" album. Adam Duritz's intention was to make an album full of the best pop songs he could, with people like Joni Mitchell as inspiration. And he nailed it. I would rather listen to that than Backspacer, any day of the week. Just my opinion, man.

Edit: and neither "Johnny Guitar" nor "The Fixer" could ever hope to be "Mr. Jones."

[Strat]

so, was that rollingstone interview with Ed real or fake? Im confused.

[harmless]

so, was that rollingstone interview with Ed real or fake? Im confused.

That was real and is in the reviews thread I believe.

[harmless]

That's one of the things I really like about the song. It has serious, dark lyrics that are really at odds with the upbeat, "sitcom-y" music. It really reflects the lyrical content, too, where the narrator is listening to music as an escape from life.

So meta.

If only that sitcom feel didn't put people off before they saw that, because I think most (if not all) of these songs are doing it.

Yep. I think there's a lot more going on in all of these songs than a lot of people are giving them credit for. I really don't get the claims that LTRP is lazily written or that they took the easy road. I actually think it's the opposite; it's a clever bit of songwriting where the interplay between the lyrics and music provide added depth to the song. The musical/lyrical interplay is one of the things I think Pearl Jam does really well (the crashing-waves sound on Given To Fly, the marching drums on WMA, the urgency in RVM) and this one seems particularly well executed.

Hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. This interplay you talk about isn't new. They've been doing it since Ten and Vs. I've been talking about it so much that I must sound like an idiot by now

Evenflow, Alive, Glorified G, Daughter, Last Exit, etc. A lot of these songs are so catchy that it's easy to not dig in to the lyrics and just assume something completely opposite to what they are about. PJ have been doing this since forever. If people are being put off by the feel of the songs on first listen, then they would have been put off the earlier songs too. I don't believe that's what is happening. I believe a lot of people have gotten so used to the lack of catchiness from the middle period that any sort of return to that songwriting style is putting them off. It's doing the complete opposite for me. I'm jumping around like a kid who just received his favourite candy.

I think the "return to catchiness" argument is too simplistic. If they're catchy now, it's a rather different kind of "catchy" than it used to be. Certainly, if you weren't generally in the "alternative" crowd that enjoyed generally harsh, abrasive music (with some exceptions), you weren't going to really enjoy Pearl Jam even then, no matter how "catchy" they were. I remember trying to argue that PJ were a really catchy band to some friends who just wouldn't buy it, because their whole grunge shtick put them off right away. These days, they've reduced almost everything that would've once been called alternative or subversive about them. Having said all of the above, I do think that people have become very used to the middle period, and it's that middle period that a lot of today's naysayers want back. It's too simplistic to say they want dark, "grungey" early-period-style stuff. But they do want uniqueness, subtlety and nuance, idiosyncrasies, and yeah, less of an effort to write "attention-grabbing" melodies and hooks.

PJ were my introduction to alternative and grunge. I never much liked any of their contemporaries to any great extent. Mostly because they weren't as catchy. Hah! They just dressed up like the others but had little in common with their music. Only common thread that binds the grunge bands together is that their themes were generally darker than those of other rock bands.

Well, PJ were my favourite band of that time by far, even if I listened to some of the others. But it was their power and instrumentation that got me. Subconsciously it may have been the "catchiness", but honestly, I mostly loved it when those musicians were at the top of their game. I just loved the sound of PJ musicians playing together, and still do. That's why I can cope with their crazy genre experiments, if I think they generally work. But I do think that people who want to argue for the new stuff generally exaggerate PJ's "catchiness" in the early stuff, and understate their musical depth, subversiveness and power. Ed said himself during Backspacer that they recently tried for quicker, more simple, immediately catchy stuff which may or may not end up being fairly superficial. Before Backspacer, Pearl Jam had never done that to the extent of a song like The Fixer (or several songs from Backspacer). I think you're in denial if you're not hearing a major difference in much of the newer PJ music... not just to the middle period, but to all of it. And much of that difference is PJ's head space right now, which is content and not "dark" in any way. My argument has always been that if they want to be that, I have no problem with it at all, but there are other bands who are better at it.

I'm talking mainly of the LB songs we've heard so far. BS took a completely different attitude to that same style of songwriting and made it something snappier, punkier, etc. The Fixer isn't the epitome of catchiness in any way. It's just a high profile example people use to contrast the middle period with present day PJ. There was only one 'The Fixer' and it's more the exception rather than the rule for that kind of song. Nothing about PJ's catchiness in the early era is exaggerated. They wrote great pop songs with a rock attitude. The mood was darker because of what Ed was going through and that is the major difference. The musical depth was there and I'd venture to say it's there on LB so far too, if not to the same extent. You might like that era better when it comes to musicianship. I do too. But this is much, much more reminiscent of the PJ I want to listen to.

I don't care what the reasons were for the mood being darker and deeper then. I'm just saying that it was, and so trying to argue that because the songs were sometimes also "catchy", we should be appreciating their catchy efforts now, is kind of ridiculous. They're very different. A lizard and a plant can both be green, but they're entirely different organisms.

Edit: however, I'm happier that the LB songs have some of their roots set in earlier PJ than I was for the Backspacer songs.

[stip]

An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

I couldn't fathom approaching music this way. I'd miss out on so much amazing stuff.

Prose delivered in spoken word, huh? Sounds horrible. Catchy spoken word is much better

Just making a point

I'm just failing to believe that anyone really, honestly, was attracted to PJ just because they were catchy. That's kind of like saying you're attracted to tarantulas just because they're furry, when in fact you could buy a cat instead. Even now, I would rather listen to Counting Crows or R.E.M than catchy Pearl Jam. I still listen to Pearl Jam, but "catchy" tunes aren't what I crave from them. There are so many great catchy bands and pop artists out there.

There is a darkness to some of the themes and concerns that still seem to appear in all these songs that aren't necessarily there in those other bands. It's just that the presentation of those ideas is a little lighter than it's been before, or just more immediate. And that's both a nice change and a nice combination that I think they are doing quite well.

It's not catchy, it's not happy(these are not really happy songs), as much as it is more immediate and a sense that music doesn't always have to be a chore.

[stip]

There are so many great catchy bands and pop artists out there.

Then why are you listening to the Counting Crows?

They might not have been the best example, because they're also pretty sweeping, emotionally wrought and melodramatic. But they made the transition from that to more poppy stuff with so much style. Hard Candy is a really, really successful "pop" album. Adam Duritz's intention was to make an album full of the best pop songs he could, with people like Joni Mitchell as inspiration. And he nailed it. I would rather listen to that than Backspacer, any day of the week. Just my opinion, man.

Edit: and neither "Johnny Guitar" nor "The Fixer" could ever hope to be "Mr. Jones."

Nor do they aspire to be.

[Jorge]

Hey Markless, did you read that recent article about "In Utero" and "August and Everything After"? http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/968 ... ears-later I reckon you'd enjoy it.

[harmless]

An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

I couldn't fathom approaching music this way. I'd miss out on so much amazing stuff.

Prose delivered in spoken word, huh? Sounds horrible. Catchy spoken word is much better

Just making a point

I'm just failing to believe that anyone really, honestly, was attracted to PJ just because they were catchy. That's kind of like saying you're attracted to tarantulas just because they're furry, when in fact you could buy a cat instead. Even now, I would rather listen to Counting Crows or R.E.M than catchy Pearl Jam. I still listen to Pearl Jam, but "catchy" tunes aren't what I crave from them. There are so many great catchy bands and pop artists out there.

There is a darkness to some of the themes and concerns that still seem to appear in all these songs that aren't necessarily there in those other bands. It's just that the presentation of those ideas is a little lighter than it's been before, or just more immediate. And that's both a nice change and a nice combination that I think they are doing quite well.

It's not catchy, it's not happy(these are not really happy songs), as much as it is more immediate and a sense that music doesn't always have to be a chore.

Well, yes and no in my opinion. I think a little of what they're doing now just crosses that line from "immediate" into "catchy", in a slightly trite / patronising and off-putting sense. I use the example of "Shiny Happy People" a lot because although it's very "fun", there's a sense in which it's talking to grown adults about fun, and there's an element of mockery there. Having said that, I agree about PJ lyrics remaining quite wry and dark for the most part, so when that works it's a real treat. So far I like all of these Lightning Bolt songs to various degrees, so hopefully we might like this album equally, where we disagree with certain elements of Backspacer. I found that too light, and while I'm convinced that it was cathartic (and probably necessary) for the continuing vitality of the band, there's not so much for me to sink my teeth into. And I don't find enough of those other elements -- darkness and irony etc. -- to compensate in some places. But as I say, hopefully Lightning Bolt will get the balance right for me. Backspacer definitely helped them shed a heavy skin emotionally and creatively, I think, but I think this album will contain some fully fleshed-out ideas, even if they remain in the general "pop" vein. I've just horribly mixed a metaphor.

[harmless]

Actually, I don't mean "darkness" as much as "seriousness". There wasn't enough thematic seriousness on Backspacer, which made the songs almost feel like jingles. Part of what I loved with PJ is that I often had very strong emotional responses to the songs, and that just didn't happen with Backspacer. Or rather it did for a few songs, but the feeling was very fleeting.

[Mine]

Some people already feel that 'glam' was an affront to the blues genre. It seems to have been a reaction to the heteronormative, 'masculine' stereotype of blues rock (hence the androgynous clothing etc.). But that might be me talking crap.

You and Stone Gossard in the recent interview.

[harmless]

Some people already feel that 'glam' was an affront to the blues genre. It seems to have been a reaction to the heteronormative, 'masculine' stereotype of blues rock (hence the androgynous clothing etc.). But that might be me talking crap.

You and Stone Gossard in the recent interview.

He said this? Where?

[Mine]

Some people already feel that 'glam' was an affront to the blues genre. It seems to have been a reaction to the heteronormative, 'masculine' stereotype of blues rock (hence the androgynous clothing etc.). But that might be me talking crap.

You and Stone Gossard in the recent interview.

He said this? Where?

in part 6. T-Rex is the main example he gives obviously.

[harmless]

Some people already feel that 'glam' was an affront to the blues genre. It seems to have been a reaction to the heteronormative, 'masculine' stereotype of blues rock (hence the androgynous clothing etc.). But that might be me talking crap.

You and Stone Gossard in the recent interview.

He said this? Where?

in part 6. T-Rex is the main example he gives obviously.

Shit, and that's the one part I missed. I'll go back to it now. Is it OK that I feel pretty smug about this?

[Mine]

Some people already feel that 'glam' was an affront to the blues genre. It seems to have been a reaction to the heteronormative, 'masculine' stereotype of blues rock (hence the androgynous clothing etc.). But that might be me talking crap.

You and Stone Gossard in the recent interview.

He said this? Where?

in part 6. T-Rex is the main example he gives obviously.

Shit, and that's the one part I missed. I'll go back to it now. Is it OK that I feel pretty smug about this?

hell no

[harmless]

Some people already feel that 'glam' was an affront to the blues genre. It seems to have been a reaction to the heteronormative, 'masculine' stereotype of blues rock (hence the androgynous clothing etc.). But that might be me talking crap.

You and Stone Gossard in the recent interview.

He said this? Where?

in part 6. T-Rex is the main example he gives obviously.

Shit, and that's the one part I missed. I'll go back to it now. Is it OK that I feel pretty smug about this?

hell no

I saw it, realised I'd watched it before but hadn't remade the connection between LTRP, T.Rex and Bowie.

[Mine]

Some people already feel that 'glam' was an affront to the blues genre. It seems to have been a reaction to the heteronormative, 'masculine' stereotype of blues rock (hence the androgynous clothing etc.). But that might be me talking crap.

You and Stone Gossard in the recent interview.

He said this? Where?

in part 6. T-Rex is the main example he gives obviously.

Shit, and that's the one part I missed. I'll go back to it now. Is it OK that I feel pretty smug about this?

hell no

I saw it, realised I'd watched it before but hadn't remade the connection between LTRP, T.Rex and Bowie.

i read that "OK" as "wrong" in your post.