Furthermore, show me an instance where fans are saying "As long as it's Pearl Jam, I'll be happy." I tend to like most of what the band releases, but that doesn't mean I'm satisfied with a track like Ole, or Whale Song, or any number of songs that I personally find to be crappy.
You are confusing a difference in musical taste between you and other fans with a lowering of standards on their part. It is as if you see a woman you think is beautiful, and a woman you think is not. Someone else thinks the second woman is beautiful, and you say they have lower standards than you. Nope, not lower. Different.
Wretched? Get out. Better yet, get over yourself.
There's the dog. You can't fake that stuff. Confess with your mouth.
Fuck this place is so cynical. I saw them in October for the sixth or seventh time. They're excellent. We're all gonna get older and lose a step, but this band is STILL amazing.
This is hardly the reason for the cynicism.
There is an entirely different kind of cynicism inherent to devaluing past success in order to justify the moment you're in. It's the kind of cynicism that says "As long as it's Pearl Jam, I'll be happy." It's the kind that says "I had low expectations, so I was pleasantly surprised." It's the kind that feeds surface-glitter Hollywood remakes and uninspired "play it safe" record releases. It has the intention of communicating an appreciation for what's left to be received. It wants to recognize that perfection is not necessary in order for enjoyment to occur. And those feelings can certainly be understood to have value...but the message itself cannot pervade without also feeding the idea that past peaks simply weren't all that necessary, because anything above the plainest of adequacies is all that's really asked or needed.
Has there ever been a band that was able to sustain a so-called "peak level" for 20 years? I honestly can't think of any band that has come closer to doing that than Pearl Jam. Maybe Neil Young. I don't know the Rolling Stones catalog well enough to say on that.
aurynsdad wrote:That newspaper thing is pretty funny.
Has there ever been a band that was able to sustain a so-called "peak level" for 20 years? I honestly can't think of any band that has come closer to doing that than Pearl Jam. Maybe Neil Young. I don't know the Rolling Stones catalog well enough to say on that.
I'm going to skip the part where I try to come up with a list of bands that I think 20 years in still make music that stands on its own and not just on nostalgia and I'm-just-happy-they're-still-together bullshit and instead go straight to what someone who has already decided that PJ is the only acceptable answer to that question would answer to said list:
- they've never been good to begin with
- who?
- solo artists don't count!
-
- come on we're talking about greatest American rock band level here, not some fucking niche act only RM hipsters care about
cutuphalfdead wrote:so glad i don't see signatures
This is a weird song for me because I really like the vibe but is it me or is it about twice as long as it needs to be?
I start out digging it, but the chorus (A couple PJ songs have this problem) is boring compared to the verse and kills some of the vibe the song had set up. And then it drones on and on and on and on and on and on
My point is I like what they were going for but think if they cut it in like half it would be much better
