Lament wrote:Guys, Vitalogy, No Code, Yield, Binaural, and Riot Act are all pretty different records. This idea that there's some "Middle-Period Pearl Jam Fan" who is longing for them to return to the "sound" from this era is silly. They covered a decent bit of ground in these years, and the reason so many of us are attached to these is records isn't because they sound a certain way, it's because THEY'RE REALLY FUCKING GOOD. SOMETIMES EVEN GREAT. I don't know why it's so easy to dismiss the idea that people like these albums because they're of a higher quality than other albums.
[/quote]
Aren't people questioning what makes people find those albums of higher quality? I mean I think 3 of those records are my 8,9, and 10. And Yield barely avoids being 7. So the interesting thing to talk about is what makes them great, or doesn't.
Lament, I would totally go with your point except for the fact that not everyone feels the "middle records" (I know, disingenuous term) were superior to anything. I do, but... yeah. I'd love to pretend that this is objective, but it isn't.
I don't think it's that...it can just get frustrating when you keep hearing that you prefer PJ's past work to their current work not necessarily due to any songwriting deficiencies on their part, but because you have these biases that can't be penetrated. I think PJ writes weaker songs than they did during that middle period. Tulomone may feel differently, but it doesn't really have anything to do with PJ not writing 'how I want them to write', or that they're really writing great songs that I'm just not willing to follow them down the road on.
BurtReynolds wrote:Which one of you guys works for Stereogum?
The one that likes Let the Records Play
Clearly a red herring designed to throw us off.
Written by ryan leas. Here's a quote from him in the comments section -
ryan leas | Posted at 12:52pm +3
On the other hand, I feel like there’s also tons of enthusiasm from fans (I’m gleaning this primarily from being at concerts and lurking on their forums) right when a new one is released, and then somewhere along the line they turn on it. “Well the last one was no good, but now they’re back on track!”…and then it’s the same thing four years later.
Lament, I would totally go with your point except for the fact that not everyone feels the "middle records" (I know, disingenuous term) were superior to anything. I do, but... yeah. I'd love to pretend that this is objective, but it isn't.
I don't think it's that...it can just get frustrating when you keep hearing that you prefer PJ's past work to their current work not necessarily due to any songwriting deficiencies on their part, but because you have these biases that can't be penetrated. I think PJ writes weaker songs than they did during that middle period. Tulomone may feel differently, but it doesn't really have anything to do with PJ not writing 'how I want them to write', or that they're really writing great songs that I'm just not willing to follow them down the road on.
what are the song writing deficiencies, and what happens when other people don't see them as deficiencies, and see your perceived strengths as a weakness? Again, this conversation is about what constitutes a strength or weakness.
Then they would probably feel that PJ's current work is stronger, which plenty of people do. No one has to agree with me that they were writing stronger songs then, but that opinion is not coming from something along the lines of "the band is just in a different place, and they're writing songs that just won't speak to you." I don't know, I feel like that's a pretty straightforward differentiation.
Lament, I would totally go with your point except for the fact that not everyone feels the "middle records" (I know, disingenuous term) were superior to anything. I do, but... yeah. I'd love to pretend that this is objective, but it isn't.
I don't think it's that...it can just get frustrating when you keep hearing that you prefer PJ's past work to their current work not necessarily due to any songwriting deficiencies on their part, but because you have these biases that can't be penetrated. I think PJ writes weaker songs than they did during that middle period. Tulomone may feel differently, but it doesn't really have anything to do with PJ not writing 'how I want them to write', or that they're really writing great songs that I'm just not willing to follow them down the road on.
I agree. Many of us have intelligent reasons for thinking what we think, even if we all arrive at different conclusions. The belittling of one another is tiring. /pitpost
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.
It's not insulting or anything, I was just saying that it doesn't really have anything to do with PJ taking chances that I (or whoever) is unwilling to follow them on, besides questions of quality.
digster wrote:Then they would probably feel that PJ's current work is stronger, which plenty of people do. No one has to agree with me that they were writing stronger songs then, but that opinion is not coming from something along the lines of "the band is just in a different place, and they're writing songs that just won't speak to you." I don't know, I feel like that's a pretty straightforward differentiation.
I think it's an attempt to operationalize 'song writing deficiencies', isn't it?
Guys, I'm not saying that the middle period records are superior for everyone. I'm arguing against the idea of this theoretical "Middle Period Pearl Jam Fan." Look, people can't even AGREE what "Middle Period Pearl Jam" is. Even in stip's assessment of the run of records in question, he refers to Vitalogy and Yield (perhaps the two most generally beloved records in that run) as being "outliers." That's 40% of the "period" in question. For those who don't consider Binaural or Riot Act part of the period, that jumps to 66%. You could argue that there's an approach that changed at some point, but no one is a fan of the "approach." We're fans of the actual material. If in the eyes of a listener the material takes a noticeable dip in quality that seems to be explained by a change in approach, we might bemoan the change in the approach, but that's because of the outcome. The actual OUTCOMES from the approach in question are rather varied. If the outcome of latter day Pearl Jam's "new" approach was consistently resulting in material that we found to be captivating, the approach would be of very little concern to any of us. Do you really believe that these records are so important to some of us because they all share a common approach, as opposed to because they're all very interesting, engaging, yet diverse records? The common approach may have resulted in the string of records we loved emerging in the way that they did, but that's not the reason we love these records. We love them because some of us think they're really fucking fantastic.
digster wrote:It's not insulting or anything, I was just saying that it doesn't really have anything to do with PJ taking chances that I (or whoever) is unwilling to follow them on, besides questions of quality.
Yeah, I mean, I like Lightning Bolt. But if it takes any chance at all, it's treading in the middle of the road. That middle of the road may represent "accessible / extroverted", or "sanitised / lazy", but people are hearing the same music and interpreting it via their own experiential and aesthetic biases.
Edit: no, I'm being unfair. Backspacer treads the middle of the road more than this album. Lightning Bolt is a step back in the right direction imo, even if just one step.
Last edited by harmless on Tue October 08, 2013 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
Lament wrote:Guys, I'm not saying that the middle period records are superior for everyone. I'm arguing against the idea of this theoretical "Middle Period Pearl Jam Fan." Look, people can't even AGREE what "Middle Period Pearl Jam" is. Even in stip's assessment of the run of records in question, he refers to Vitalogy and Yield (perhaps the two most generally beloved records in that run) as being "outliers." That's 40% of the "period" in question. For those who don't consider Binaural or Riot Act part of the period, that jumps to 66%. You could argue that there's an approach that changed at some point, but no one is a fan of the "approach." We're fans of the actual material. If in the eyes of a listener the material takes a noticeable dip in quality that seems to be explained by a change in approach, we might bemoan the change in the approach, but that's because of the outcome. The actual OUTCOMES from the approach in question are rather varied. If the outcome of latter day Pearl Jam's "new" approach was consistently resulting in material that we found to be captivating, the approach would be of very little concern to any of us. Do you really believe that these records are so important to some of us because they all share a common approach, as opposed to because they're all very interesting, engaging, yet diverse records? The common approach may have resulted in the string of records we loved emerging in the way that they did, but that's not the reason we love these records. We love them because some of us think they're really fucking fantastic.
sure, but they may be fantastic because of the approach that is used--that this style of writing is more likely to produce outcomes that are more likely to accentuate what you care about.
digster wrote:it can just get frustrating when you keep hearing that you prefer PJ's past work to their current work not necessarily due to any songwriting deficiencies on their part, but because you have these biases that can't be penetrated.
Exactly. Look, we're not talking about someone who came on here and was like "NO CODE RULES FUCK THE LIGHTNING BOLT RIP PEARL JAM!" We're talking about a well thought out, well written critique of what the reviewer considers to be a source of the difference in quality between the Pearl Jam albums he loves and one he merely likes, and we still have people dismissing it as (to paraphrase digster) some impenetrable bias. The same way I wouldn't accuse someone like stip, who is very eloquent about WHY he loves S/T and Backspacer, of "forcing himself" to like those records, I think it's equally ridiculous to act like someone who is equally eloquent about things he DOESN'T like about those albums isn't being fair/genuine/sincere in his assessment.
Lament wrote:Guys, I'm not saying that the middle period records are superior for everyone. I'm arguing against the idea of this theoretical "Middle Period Pearl Jam Fan." Look, people can't even AGREE what "Middle Period Pearl Jam" is. Even in stip's assessment of the run of records in question, he refers to Vitalogy and Yield (perhaps the two most generally beloved records in that run) as being "outliers." That's 40% of the "period" in question. For those who don't consider Binaural or Riot Act part of the period, that jumps to 66%. You could argue that there's an approach that changed at some point, but no one is a fan of the "approach." We're fans of the actual material. If in the eyes of a listener the material takes a noticeable dip in quality that seems to be explained by a change in approach, we might bemoan the change in the approach, but that's because of the outcome. The actual OUTCOMES from the approach in question are rather varied. If the outcome of latter day Pearl Jam's "new" approach was consistently resulting in material that we found to be captivating, the approach would be of very little concern to any of us. Do you really believe that these records are so important to some of us because they all share a common approach, as opposed to because they're all very interesting, engaging, yet diverse records? The common approach may have resulted in the string of records we loved emerging in the way that they did, but that's not the reason we love these records. We love them because some of us think they're really fucking fantastic.
sure, but they may be fantastic because of the approach that is used--that this style of writing is more likely to produce outcomes that are more likely to accentuate what you care about.
That very well may be the case, but once again, the only significant shared trait of these records is once again what we perceive to be the quality. If a different approach fed that quality, that's fine and dandy, but since that's not an actual "trait" of the finished project (in the way something like Ed's vocal quality or the amount of Mike solos on the album is), I don't see it as a reason to act like these albums are linked by some aspect of Pearl Jam that we've become irrationally attached to and can't let go of and are letting destroy our view of latter day Pearl Jam.
flannelking wrote:So future days is about 4 1/2 mins long. That was surprising. How did they stretch this simple tune out so far? Are there some instrumental parts to it or what?
Indulgent BoB piano intro + indulgent BoB piano outro. What are the chance he gets songwriting credits on this?...
Lament wrote:Guys, I'm not saying that the middle period records are superior for everyone. I'm arguing against the idea of this theoretical "Middle Period Pearl Jam Fan." Look, people can't even AGREE what "Middle Period Pearl Jam" is. Even in stip's assessment of the run of records in question, he refers to Vitalogy and Yield (perhaps the two most generally beloved records in that run) as being "outliers." That's 40% of the "period" in question. For those who don't consider Binaural or Riot Act part of the period, that jumps to 66%. You could argue that there's an approach that changed at some point, but no one is a fan of the "approach." We're fans of the actual material. If in the eyes of a listener the material takes a noticeable dip in quality that seems to be explained by a change in approach, we might bemoan the change in the approach, but that's because of the outcome. The actual OUTCOMES from the approach in question are rather varied. If the outcome of latter day Pearl Jam's "new" approach was consistently resulting in material that we found to be captivating, the approach would be of very little concern to any of us. Do you really believe that these records are so important to some of us because they all share a common approach, as opposed to because they're all very interesting, engaging, yet diverse records? The common approach may have resulted in the string of records we loved emerging in the way that they did, but that's not the reason we love these records. We love them because some of us think they're really fucking fantastic.
sure, but they may be fantastic because of the approach that is used--that this style of writing is more likely to produce outcomes that are more likely to accentuate what you care about.
We (and I include myself) might find these "middle" records (whatever they are to us) fantastic for a number of reasons, yeah. I agree Lament. But it's that "fucking fantastic" that's subjective, obviously. I think that if you can appreciate a highly-polished pop-rock album as much as a low-fi, dark and "messy" mid-period album, you're in a good place to appreciate both sides of Pearl Jam. I for one find enjoyment from Lightning Bolt which is different to my enjoyment of the more subtle, idiosyncratic and profound Pearl Jam, but it's still palpable. But within that latter period, there are points where they're not quite reaching for what they try to. Regardless of how good these "pop PJ" albums become, they're going to have to work like shit off a stick if they ever want to produce a "fun" record as good as anything by R.E.M. There's still the sense in which they're attempting stuff I'm perfectly happy they attempt, but in a way that's been bettered by their peers. What are the defining marks of great "neo-PJ"? I don't even know, but there may be a few on Lightning Bolt. So I just hope they capitalise on those for the next album, instead of all the wrong things. It seems to me that they carried most of the best aspects of Backspacer forward, as well as dipping into the back catalogue.
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.
harmless wrote:I think that if you can appreciate a highly-polished pop-rock album as much as a low-fi, dark and "messy" mid-period album, you're in a good place to appreciate both sides of Pearl Jam [...] There's still the sense in which they're attempting stuff I'm perfectly happy they attempt, but in a way that's been bettered by their peers.
And that's the thing right here, you could appreciate immediate, accessible pop-rock music AND still find that Pearl Jam is not very good at it lately. And that wouldn't have anything to do with being stuck on some vague idea of middle-era approach/sound.
cutuphalfdead wrote:so glad i don't see signatures
