Red Mosquito

evenslow wrote:and everyone stop being mean to stip.

i brought it on myself. its not like i didnt know how this conversation ends

evenslow wrote:hey digster how come you don't post more often? sincerely like your posts come march madness time.

Too much negativity.


But thanks; I think I post more during March Madness cause it's a fun way to look at the catalog again (thanks stip ) and for whatever reason, I tend to find myself listening to PJ more in the spring than other times in the year anyway. I'm really familiar with the catalog, and as the days start warming up it's nice to kind of settle in with songs I know well.

stip wrote:

evenslow wrote:and everyone stop being mean to stip.

i brought it on myself. its not like i didnt know how this conversation ends

I'm with ya buddy.

digster wrote:

evenslow wrote:hey digster how come you don't post more often? sincerely like your posts come march madness time.

Too much negativity.


But thanks; I think I post more during March Madness cause it's a fun way to look at the catalog again (thanks stip ) and for whatever reason, I tend to find myself listening to PJ more in the spring than other times in the year anyway.

I look forward to your POV on the March Madness shit. Keep it going -

BurtReynolds wrote:Backspacer is almost 8 years old for chrissakes! When does the reappraisal start?

Oh my. 8 years. It feels like just yesterday The Fixer came out and everyone was complaining about it.

stip wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

stip wrote: Having said that, both Digster and Spenno seemed to imply in their posts that the last few albums were objectively not good. And so, if we are going to introduce the idea of there being some sort of objective barometer into the conversation
.

That's pretty much the antithesis of my point.

Then what did this mean?

Birds in Hell wrote:What if the last two records really are that bad?

I presumed it was implicit that I think all musical appreciation is subjective.

To rephrase, then: what if all of the posters who made those posts genuinely think those songs are that bad?

stip wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:Rolling Stone in 1970, reviewing Neil Young's After the Goldrush:

Neil Young devotees will probably spend the next few weeks trying desperately to convince themselves that After The Gold Rush is good music. But they'll be kidding themselves. For despite the fact that the album contains some potentially first rate material, none of the songs here rise above the uniformly dull surface. In my listening, the problem appears to be that most of this music was simply not ready to be recorded at the time of the sessions. It needed time to mature. On the album the band never really gets behind the songs and Young himself has trouble singing many of them. Set before the buying public before it was done, this pie is only half-baked.

I'm sure that's no longer how RS reviews After the Gold Rush, and that's kind of my point. RM is no longer (and has not been for a long while) an environment in which the kind of reconsideration of an album like this could easily take place. That's not to say it couldn't happen. But we sure do discourage people from even trying.

I don't doubt you perceive it that way, but I don't see this at all. How are people on RM discouraged from trying to like the band's recent albums?

It seems people have waaaay too much investment in defending to the death why they don't like Pearl Jam on a Pearl Jam message board. But what do I know.

tragabigzanda wrote:Pretty psyched I got through this without being quoted in stip's pyramid of hate. Guess I'm not so negative after all!

I was disappointed I was left out. I was sure one of my statements re: NAIS would make the cut.

I agree with Stip in pretty much everything he is saying....im not sure i care as much as him though, i still think rm is a good place to talk about pj even if he sure makes a good point with his previous post...a positive pj thought...I was listening to Toronto 2016 before and was shocked on how good it is. The setlist is insanely good.

wease wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Pretty psyched I got through this without being quoted in stip's pyramid of hate. Guess I'm not so negative after all!

I was disappointed I was left out. I was sure one of my statements re: NAIS would make the cut.

i was only quoting the last three albums.

VinylGuy wrote:I agree with Stip in pretty much everything he is saying....im not sure i care as much as him though.

This used to be a pretty warm and welcoming place to new posters, and thick skin was not required. So it is frustrating to see that change. Its also the teacher in me. This is a terrible classroom environment for learning and dialogue. It's salvaged by the fact that there are so many intelligent and insightful people here, but it could be so much more (and there would, I think, be even more of those posters here if this place felt different)

Birds in Hell wrote:

stip wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

stip wrote: Having said that, both Digster and Spenno seemed to imply in their posts that the last few albums were objectively not good. And so, if we are going to introduce the idea of there being some sort of objective barometer into the conversation
.

That's pretty much the antithesis of my point.

Then what did this mean?

Birds in Hell wrote:What if the last two records really are that bad?

I presumed it was implicit that I think all musical appreciation is subjective.

To rephrase, then: what if all of the posters who made those posts genuinely think those songs are that bad?

Oh, I'm sure they do. My point has been that we are discouraging the possibility of people coming back to reappraise this with an open mind. In the past there were songs and albums people thought were 'that bad' that they were nevertheless willing to go back and revisit at a later date and discover that perhaps they were wrong. They may not be, but they might look (as happened with Binaural, Riot Act, and to a lesser extend S/T).

Some of that will, I think, happen gradually when (if?) there is more music and an album is able to stand on its own as a moment in time, rather than need to embody the present and future of the band But there still needs to be at least some sense that there is something worth going back to discover. And an environment where the pervasive background (and foreground) noise is telling you that the band is full of money grubbing hacks that are no longer capable of making good music why even bother trying. And there is a long history here of people liking an album when it first comes out, then becoming skeptical, then revisiting it later to discover it at a later date as they take the time to come back to it fresh and appreciate it on their own terms.

Things are different now. Either the music is such shit that there's nothing worth looking to find, or the environment is so unrelentingly negative and dismissive (in a way that it has never been) that there's no reason to go look. But since every single one of these songs has posters of varying tastes and interests defending them, just never a critical mass, it suggests to me that if people could quiet the noise and sit down with the music as something worth unlocking - an investment, rather than a chore, there is something they'd find worthwhile.

Birds in Hell wrote:

stip wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:Rolling Stone in 1970, reviewing Neil Young's After the Goldrush:

Neil Young devotees will probably spend the next few weeks trying desperately to convince themselves that After The Gold Rush is good music. But they'll be kidding themselves. For despite the fact that the album contains some potentially first rate material, none of the songs here rise above the uniformly dull surface. In my listening, the problem appears to be that most of this music was simply not ready to be recorded at the time of the sessions. It needed time to mature. On the album the band never really gets behind the songs and Young himself has trouble singing many of them. Set before the buying public before it was done, this pie is only half-baked.

I'm sure that's no longer how RS reviews After the Gold Rush, and that's kind of my point. RM is no longer (and has not been for a long while) an environment in which the kind of reconsideration of an album like this could easily take place. That's not to say it couldn't happen. But we sure do discourage people from even trying.

I don't doubt you perceive it that way, but I don't see this at all. How are people on RM discouraged from trying to like the band's recent albums?

I'm not going to cite articles and studies because they're all boxed up at work (I haven't had to teach this in a few years) but the following things are well documented in education, communications, and psychology:

1. A public space that is defined by dismissive and reflexive negativity discourages thoughtful reflection and reappraisal of received wisdom
2. It makes it harder to introduce and discuss ideas that run counter to the perceived wisdom of the crowd
3. It shuts out the people who would introduce those ideas
4. People's opinions subconsciously orient themselves to the common assessment of the group
5. The way an idea is framed impacts your assessment of it (so if a song you aren't sure about is on an album people tell you is brilliant you are more likely to respond favorably towards that song, and vice versa)
6. The people responsible for creating an environment that chills more robust dialogue and conversation will not be aware of the fact that they are doing it, in part because the larger environment reflects their own opinions
7. People believe they are not impacted by these factors nearly as much as they are

None of this makes it impossible to have an open mind, or to revisit, reassess, and reappraise. But it makes it much harder. And in the case of the last few records it is also entirely possible people won't find things they care about. But a good faith effort is much less likely to happen, and the conversation surrounding the attempt will certainly be diminished. Hell, my love for a lot of these songs, many of which rank at the top of the catalog for me, is no secret, and yet they almost all lack that aura that earlier songs I like less have, precisely because of how they are received in the community through which I process, experience, and live the music. A sub par song on Vitalogy (not that there is such a thing!) or No Code or Yield is enhanced by its association with those albums, and takes on some of the power and mystique of those albums, whereas a song like Parachutes has to overcome its association with S/T to be seen as special.

These are the most divisive albums in the catalog, where there is seemingly no consensus on any given song, and a complicated mosaic of opinions and loyalties to particular songs that don't seem classifiable in any discernible way. Some of us have been talking about this stupid band together for over a decade, and there are a lot of smart and insightful and articulate people on this board. In terms of interesting things to talk about this should have been a gift. There is so much here to unpack in terms of what went right, what may have gone wrong, and where people find the throughlines that connect them to a song (and what blocks other people from making that connection). Even an articulate discussion of why things don't work is interesting. Instead we're stuck with the crap I quoted on the previous page.

And that sucks.

Now I feel really bad about my dog pooping gif in the Parachutes thread....

Welcome to the board

I've been around long enough to know that you are a very good man and to appreciate your efforts, not only with March Madness, but with RM generally stip.

I love your unbridled passion for this band and appreciate your views and various write ups.

You, sir, are a very good egg.

stip wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:I agree with Stip in pretty much everything he is saying....im not sure i care as much as him though.

This used to be a pretty warm and welcoming place to new posters, and thick skin was not required. So it is frustrating to see that change. Its also the teacher in me. This is a terrible classroom environment for learning and dialogue. It's salvaged by the fact that there are so many intelligent and insightful people here, but it could be so much more (and there would, I think, be even more of those posters here if this place felt different)

yeah, also true.

stip wrote:Maybe I misinterpreted what they meant, but it was how I took it. And while I don't think there is any such thing as whether or not something is objectively good or bad, if we are going to make grand sweeping judgements I think there are worse places to start than what a relatively neutral, relatively informed body of thoughtful people, in aggregate, thought of something. Just like album sales, how singles track, etc. are not the worst way to measure how a general body perceives something. If a piece of art is an abject failure, it would probably be reflected in at least one of those two measures (something can, of course, be critically acclaimed and a financial failure, or vice versa. But if it hits both of those marks it's probably pretty good, even if you don't like it personally).

Wait, hold on a second:

I don't think there is any such thing as whether or not something is objectively good or bad

But if it hits both of those marks it's probably pretty good, even if you don't like it personally

These don't compute. You either don't believe there is an objective barometer for quality or you do. "If it's both financially and critically successful, it's probably pretty good" isn't just a silly and kind of fucked up thing to say, it also implies that there is some universal measure of quality, and it puts that measure entirely on the shoulders of the masses. You're equating widespread appeal with an objective merit. Which is silly and fucked up.

theplatypus wrote:

stip wrote:Maybe I misinterpreted what they meant, but it was how I took it. And while I don't think there is any such thing as whether or not something is objectively good or bad, if we are going to make grand sweeping judgements I think there are worse places to start than what a relatively neutral, relatively informed body of thoughtful people, in aggregate, thought of something. Just like album sales, how singles track, etc. are not the worst way to measure how a general body perceives something. If a piece of art is an abject failure, it would probably be reflected in at least one of those two measures (something can, of course, be critically acclaimed and a financial failure, or vice versa. But if it hits both of those marks it's probably pretty good, even if you don't like it personally).

Wait, hold on a second:

I don't think there is any such thing as whether or not something is objectively good or bad

But if it hits both of those marks it's probably pretty good, even if you don't like it personally

These don't compute. You either don't believe there is an objective barometer for quality or you do. "If it's both financially and critically successful, it's probably pretty good" isn't just a silly and kind of fucked up thing to say, it also implies that there is some universal measure of quality, and it puts that measure entirely on the shoulders of the masses. You're equating widespread appeal with an objective merit. Which is silly and fucked up.

ill respond in more detail later, but let me throw this back to you (or whoever wants to respond). if our conversations are more than solipsistic monologues taking place in a shared space then what are we talking aboit? what are we referencing? what is the basis for our common vocabulary?

when we say something is good or bad, when we praise or critique a performance, we are referencing our opinions and personal tastes, but is that really all?

Your point that some of us have been here for 10+ years strikes a chord with me. I've found myself less compelled to contribute to March Madness this year just because I feel like we've had these same conversations so many times; I feel like I'm just regurgitating the same things I've said about these songs in years past, and I feel like by now I more or less already know everyone else's take on them as well. I am sure there is some collective sense of this, and no doubt it lowers the level of discourse a bit.

I also agree that RM probably overdramatizes the weaknesses of PJ's recent records, though I think this is pretty common in fan communities; fans tend to speak of their chosen artists' lesser works as though they represent the nadir of all recorded sound since the beginning of time (this of course of exempting the delusional few who say things like, "Well, it's PJ's worst album, but even their worst is still better than everyone else's best!"). We simply speak louder about the things which are meaningful to us, and it goes both ways -- just as we hold "LB" to a harsher standard than your average less-invested listener does, so too do we elevate records like "No Code" and "Binaural" to a level that would likely seem absurd to that same listener. I do agree that there is a lot of reflexive cynicism in regards to present-day Pearl Jam music; RM definitely has a tendency toward gratuitous cheap shots, toward employing flippant criticism of zero substance, toward nitpicking every little insignificant extramusical detail, in regards to this era of the band's career. People who claim this doesn't exist at all are being willfully obtuse. That said, it's not fair to dismiss the opinions as ill-gotten or misinformed simply because of what ultimately amounts to peer pressure (if we're doing that, it's equally fair to say that many of us have positive feelings from our early days of fandom which were possibly driven by similar environmental factors and are therefore equally inauthentic). It's just not a verifiable enough assertion on which to hinge any credible argument.

Lastly, I think we live in a culture where the kind of reappraisal that "Binaural" and "Riot Act" experienced is becoming less and less likely (and believe me, I remember how much people hated those records). Those two albums were arguably PJ's last albums of the physical media age, where immersive reappraisal was simply more common in general; Napster had fired its first shots, but there was still investment in the physical product, which I believe made consumers less eager to so flippantly write an album off as a result of initial misgivings. By the time of "S/T," the way people explored and consumed music had changed considerably, more so still by the time of "Backspacer," and so on, to the point where now there is no instinctive reason to continually subject yourself to an album that doesn't hit the spot the first few times. The environment is competitive and people have easy access to endless alternatives, and albums like "LB" end up falling victim to basic Darwinism. This bodes poorly for these albums receiving the same kind of retroactive revisionism enjoyed by "Binaural" and "Riot Act," I think, however well (or poorly) these albums may hold up to such scrutiny. That, and there is no new music coming out to recontextualize everything else; when an artist is active, they're putting out material that is constantly causing the relationship between the artist and the listener to evolve. When the current becomes still, everything settles. That's pretty much where we are now.