General Pearl Jam Bitching

[bodysnatcher]

So what if the scenario went down like this:
- his membership expired November 30 2012, and its renewed sometime in January
- it still expires on November 30 2013
- 10c says anyone who is a member as of December 15 gets the 2013 single

it would expire one year from the date the person renews, not their old end date.

My membership is due in mid-November. the last two years, I've renewed in January. My due date is still November.

[Tass Man]

So what if the scenario went down like this:
- his membership expired November 30 2012, and its renewed sometime in January
- it still expires on November 30 2013
- 10c says anyone who is a member as of December 15 gets the 2013 single

it would expire one year from the date the person renews, not their old end date.

My membership is due in mid-November. the last two years, I've renewed in January. My due date is still November.

exactly..
that's what i'm saying, if you renew late, you don't get 12 months, they backdate it to your original expiry date... so it's completely possible for someone to pay a membership fee but not get the items that they are promised with a membership...

that's all i'm saying... again, this doesn't even apply to me, so it's not like i'm broken up by this... just seems like a flaw in their system (insert joke about the many flaws of the 10 Club)..

[AndySlash]

So what if the scenario went down like this:
- his membership expired November 30 2012, and its renewed sometime in January
- it still expires on November 30 2013
- 10c says anyone who is a member as of December 15 gets the 2013 single

it would expire one year from the date the person renews, not their old end date.

My membership is due in mid-November. the last two years, I've renewed in January. My due date is still November.

huh. i just renewed after letting mine lapse (only for about a week- it took the "your membership has expired" email for me to remember) and my renew date is one year from that date, april 5, and not the march 29th that it was previously. a few years ago i had an exp. date in early march and let my subscription lapse a few weeks, and upon renewal i got the 3/29 date as expiration.

strange.

[@SkitchP]

I cant remember when my membership lapsed.

[McParadigm]

I cant remember when my membership lapsed.

I'm pretty sure Clinton was still in office, for me.

[surfndestroy]

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that we're waiting a long time for a new album.

The only thing that bugs me is the expectations the general audience places on an album the longer it takes to make. The length of time between albums doesn't bother me personally, I'd rather any band take their time to conceive something they're genuinely proud of. But I think for a lot of people, the more time that passes, the more they expect an album to be a masterpiece.

I don't think there's any correlation between length of time to make an album and it's quality. The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin could churn out amazing albums at a pace that just puts bands to shame now adays. In fact, I'd guess that far more albums are ruined by taking too long in their making, overthinking them, sucking all the creative genius out of them than are made great by the additional time taken. Not that every album needs to sound like fun was had but I can't think of a single album that was a long time in making that has that fun element about it.

[Lament]

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that we're waiting a long time for a new album.

The only thing that bugs me is the expectations the general audience places on an album the longer it takes to make. The length of time between albums doesn't bother me personally, I'd rather any band take their time to conceive something they're genuinely proud of. But I think for a lot of people, the more time that passes, the more they expect an album to be a masterpiece.

I don't think there's any correlation between length of time to make an album and it's quality. The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin could churn out amazing albums at a pace that just puts bands to shame now adays. In fact, I'd guess that far more albums are ruined by taking too long in their making, overthinking them, sucking all the creative genius out of them than are made great by the additional time taken. Not that every album needs to sound like fun was had but I can't think of a single album that was a long time in making that has that fun element about it.

The other thing to take into consideration is that how long "we wait" is sometimes very different than how long a band actually spends on making a record.

[McParadigm]

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that we're waiting a long time for a new album.

The only thing that bugs me is the expectations the general audience places on an album the longer it takes to make. The length of time between albums doesn't bother me personally, I'd rather any band take their time to conceive something they're genuinely proud of. But I think for a lot of people, the more time that passes, the more they expect an album to be a masterpiece.

I don't think there's any correlation between length of time to make an album and it's quality. The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin could churn out amazing albums at a pace that just puts bands to shame now adays. In fact, I'd guess that far more albums are ruined by taking too long in their making, overthinking them, sucking all the creative genius out of them than are made great by the additional time taken. Not that every album needs to sound like fun was had but I can't think of a single album that was a long time in making that has that fun element about it.

I agree completely with all of this. I'd say that, in a case like this, the amount of time drastically reduces my expectations. When the reason it's taking so long to make your new album is because you can't be bothered to make your new album, or because you prioritize touring over creation to the point of not WANTING to have a new album ready unless you can schedule a tour around it....then you're simply not guided by muse or by passion any longer. And if that's the case, what are you really?

[harmless]

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that we're waiting a long time for a new album.

The only thing that bugs me is the expectations the general audience places on an album the longer it takes to make. The length of time between albums doesn't bother me personally, I'd rather any band take their time to conceive something they're genuinely proud of. But I think for a lot of people, the more time that passes, the more they expect an album to be a masterpiece.

I don't think there's any correlation between length of time to make an album and it's quality. The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin could churn out amazing albums at a pace that just puts bands to shame now adays. In fact, I'd guess that far more albums are ruined by taking too long in their making, overthinking them, sucking all the creative genius out of them than are made great by the additional time taken. Not that every album needs to sound like fun was had but I can't think of a single album that was a long time in making that has that fun element about it.

I agree completely with all of this. I'd say that, in a case like this, the amount of time drastically reduces my expectations. When the reason it's taking so long to make your new album is because you can't be bothered to make your new album, or because you prioritize touring over creation to the point of not WANTING to have a new album ready unless you can schedule a tour around it....then you're simply not guided by muse or by passion any longer. And if that's the case, what are you really?

Nothingman.

[bodysnatcher]

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that we're waiting a long time for a new album.

The only thing that bugs me is the expectations the general audience places on an album the longer it takes to make. The length of time between albums doesn't bother me personally, I'd rather any band take their time to conceive something they're genuinely proud of. But I think for a lot of people, the more time that passes, the more they expect an album to be a masterpiece.

I don't think there's any correlation between length of time to make an album and it's quality. The Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin could churn out amazing albums at a pace that just puts bands to shame now adays. In fact, I'd guess that far more albums are ruined by taking too long in their making, overthinking them, sucking all the creative genius out of them than are made great by the additional time taken. Not that every album needs to sound like fun was had but I can't think of a single album that was a long time in making that has that fun element about it.

I agree completely with all of this. I'd say that, in a case like this, the amount of time drastically reduces my expectations. When the reason it's taking so long to make your new album is because you can't be bothered to make your new album, or because you prioritize touring over creation to the point of not WANTING to have a new album ready unless you can schedule a tour around it....then you're simply not guided by muse or by passion any longer. And if that's the case, what are you really?

Nothingman.

[B]

I hate when Pearl Jam announces tours on the weekend.

[Birds in Hell]

Interesting thread on the Pit:

http://community.pearljam.com/viewtopic ... 4&t=208463

Hi Guys - I just purchased the FLAC HD bootlegs for Sao Paulo, Atlanta Midtown, and Missoula. According to the info pages on each album the FLAC HD version is supposed to be 24 bit / 96 kHz. After downloading the files I opened a few from each album in Adobe Audition to run a frequency analysis. All of the files are 24 bit. However, all of the files appear to be upsampled from 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz to 96 kHz rather than original 96 kHz HD recordings.

I've included a link to an image below of the analysis showing what I'm talking about. These FLAC HD downloads are not original 24/96 HD files.

http://images.computeraudiophile.com/ca/PJ/pj.png

Chris Connaker

Founder
Computer Audiophile

How odd. It's still worth buying the HD as they're less compressed than the regular FLAC files but it's pretty shoddy if they're not true 24/96.

[Norah]

That's pretty fucking lame.

[Birds in Hell]

That's pretty fucking lame.

Indeed, I really hope there's some kind of follow up from 10C soon.

[bodysnatcher]

surprised? nope. i'm actually impressed they know was flac is, much less do it correctly.

[Mine]

I'd be surprised they're the ones doing the flacs.
It's possible that they record at 48 and mix at 96 khz.

[WtOB?]

They just can't get it right, can they?

[McParadigm]

Any Pearl Jam sellable that uses the word 'audiophile' should be setting off alarm bells, guys.

[bodysnatcher]

more like audiopile

[McParadigm]

more like audiopile

Spoiler: show