Red Mosquito

Fuzzcharger wrote:I do find it funny that some people are so insecure in their own tastes.

Truer words have not been spoken.

Release_Me wrote:

Lament wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Release_Me wrote:I don't know what to say other than the polls show more people like the song than those who don't. There's no other point.

Uh, cool...?

I still can't fathom what relevance that has to the discussion at hand but I doubt there's much to be gained by chewing it over further.

It feels as though you're countering an argument nobody is making.

That makes 2 of us.

Guys, we're just wrong for not liking Sirens.

I'm gonna go listen to Crown of Thorns and think about how wrong I am. Enjoy the Sirens, guys.

I made a general statement about people either coming around to liking it or not accepting it as a Pearl Jam song, based on the reactions I read here. Suddenly, all those who despise the song get defensive and start explaining how they don't like it because it's just not good. Well, my post wasn't directed at you then. I'm talking about those who despise it just because it's a Pearl Jam song and something they didn't want or expect Pearl Jam to do. If you don't like it, feel secure in your reasons for not liking it. Not a big deal.

The argument started precisely because you said people were going to either a) come around or b) not accept it as a Pearl Jam song. That just makes it look like those are the only two options, and that it's impossible to c) accept it and still not like it.

Release_Me wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:There are many people who would only know Alive, Jeremy, Betterman and Last Kiss. Maybe Even Flow and Daughter and at a stretch Given To Fly, The Fixer and Just Breathe.

So maybe 4 songs, maybe 8or9 tracks. Sirens actually fits in with either bunch. It's earnest, palatable middle of the road rock.

Sirens doesn't fit in, actually. Not at all aside from the generalizations you just made. You could say that for any song which you don't care for and the actual songs would be completely different. It's a more apt description for what you feel about it rather than what it sounds like compared to the others.

I think you're inferring that I don't like the track which isn't so. I do like it quite a lot regardless of what I feel are it's weak points. I also believe that production aside there is not that much un-Pearl Jam about it.

Plus I do think that if someone heard this on the radio who had only heard Alive, Betterman, Last Kiss and Just Breathe then this would fit perfectly with the image those previous tracks created. More so than Just Breathe, this is the perfect track for PJ to release now to "get it back again" (if the it is mass appeal).

Fuzzcharger wrote:

stip wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I still don't see what's apparently so un-Pearl Jam about the song.

Neither do I. I remember reading one post on here which said that this song is probably how most people who don't listen to Pearl Jam imagine the band would sound like and I agree.

except we've always argued that this isn't true and that people's perceptions of what pearl jam's music was are wrong.

How can you have always argued it when Sirens has only been out for a few days?

but like Release_Me said, the initial responses in this thread, the negative ones and the WTF ones, were not people being shocked or pissed that pearl jam wrote a song they thought sucked. It was that they never expected pearl jam to write a song that sounded like this and many of us defined their sound in opposition to songs like this. It just happens that 'this' is what much of the rest of the world has always thought pearl jam was.

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I still don't see what's apparently so un-Pearl Jam about the song.

Neither do I. I remember reading one post on here which said that this song is probably how most people who don't listen to Pearl Jam imagine the band would sound like and I agree. I think it seems like an natural progression from Backspacer and the Pink Floyd cover they were doing last year.

Agreed (and that's an excellent, and accurate, point about the perception of the band among non-fans).

Non-fans generally remember Jeremy or something off of Ten. I don't see how Pearl Jam is perceived to be a band that could write Sirens. I guess that's a perception about the non-fans here, more than anything else.

Just my experience obviously but I haven't seen anyone outside of this fanbase think this song is a left turn for the band. I've heard people say it's classic pearl jam, I've heard others say it's the typical bland stuff that middle-aged rock band come up with, but I haven't seen anyone shocked at this being a Pearl Jam as some people seem to be around here.

no one outside the fanbase would think that. We've spent 20 years post 10 listening to pearl jam music that doesn't sound like this and getting frustrated that the rest of the world thinks they sound like sirens

Turns out they were right all along

Again, RM is assuming how people outside perceive Pearl Jam. Even if they only listened to Ten, Sirens would be a shock.

Heathen wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

Lament wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Release_Me wrote:I don't know what to say other than the polls show more people like the song than those who don't. There's no other point.

Uh, cool...?

I still can't fathom what relevance that has to the discussion at hand but I doubt there's much to be gained by chewing it over further.

It feels as though you're countering an argument nobody is making.

That makes 2 of us.

Guys, we're just wrong for not liking Sirens.

I'm gonna go listen to Crown of Thorns and think about how wrong I am. Enjoy the Sirens, guys.

I made a general statement about people either coming around to liking it or not accepting it as a Pearl Jam song, based on the reactions I read here. Suddenly, all those who despise the song get defensive and start explaining how they don't like it because it's just not good. Well, my post wasn't directed at you then. I'm talking about those who despise it just because it's a Pearl Jam song and something they didn't want or expect Pearl Jam to do. If you don't like it, feel secure in your reasons for not liking it. Not a big deal.

The argument started precisely because you said people were going to either a) come around or b) not accept it as a Pearl Jam song. That just makes it look like those are the only two options, and that it's impossible to c) accept it and still not like it.

I do think it's pretty fair to say, based on a lot of evidence in this thread, that it may take a few listens to know for sure that it is C, and not B, however.

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I still don't see what's apparently so un-Pearl Jam about the song.

Neither do I. I remember reading one post on here which said that this song is probably how most people who don't listen to Pearl Jam imagine the band would sound like and I agree.

except we've always argued that this isn't true and that people's perceptions of what pearl jam's music was are wrong.

They probably see Pearl Jam as a band that plays emotional songs and they wouldn't be wrong about that. And in a way that applies to Sirens. The Fixer might have been a shock because it sounded light-hearted, but not this one.

Apparently this thread gets much more reasonable before 7am EST. I bet a lot of the shock over Sirens is fans getting upset over the idea that they like an "arena dad-rock band" and not "the last standing Gods of Grunge". I wonder if it's more about their self identity being disrupted than the song being that bad.

Release_Me wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I still don't see what's apparently so un-Pearl Jam about the song.

Neither do I. I remember reading one post on here which said that this song is probably how most people who don't listen to Pearl Jam imagine the band would sound like and I agree. I think it seems like an natural progression from Backspacer and the Pink Floyd cover they were doing last year.

Agreed (and that's an excellent, and accurate, point about the perception of the band among non-fans).

Non-fans generally remember Jeremy or something off of Ten. I don't see how Pearl Jam is perceived to be a band that could write Sirens. I guess that's a perception about the non-fans here, more than anything else.

Just my experience obviously but I haven't seen anyone outside of this fanbase think this song is a left turn for the band. I've heard people say it's classic pearl jam, I've heard others say it's the typical bland stuff that middle-aged rock band come up with, but I haven't seen anyone shocked at this being a Pearl Jam as some people seem to be around here.

no one outside the fanbase would think that. We've spent 20 years post 10 listening to pearl jam music that doesn't sound like this and getting frustrated that the rest of the world thinks they sound like sirens

Turns out they were right all along

Again, RM is assuming how people outside perceive Pearl Jam. Even if they only listened to Ten, Sirens would be a shock.

In the Let the Records Play you're arguing that this is what Pearl Jam has always been. I'd say there are more reasons to be shocked by Ten -> LTPR than by Ten -> Sirens.

Heathen wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I still don't see what's apparently so un-Pearl Jam about the song.

Neither do I. I remember reading one post on here which said that this song is probably how most people who don't listen to Pearl Jam imagine the band would sound like and I agree. I think it seems like an natural progression from Backspacer and the Pink Floyd cover they were doing last year.

Agreed (and that's an excellent, and accurate, point about the perception of the band among non-fans).

Non-fans generally remember Jeremy or something off of Ten. I don't see how Pearl Jam is perceived to be a band that could write Sirens. I guess that's a perception about the non-fans here, more than anything else.

Just my experience obviously but I haven't seen anyone outside of this fanbase think this song is a left turn for the band. I've heard people say it's classic pearl jam, I've heard others say it's the typical bland stuff that middle-aged rock band come up with, but I haven't seen anyone shocked at this being a Pearl Jam as some people seem to be around here.

no one outside the fanbase would think that. We've spent 20 years post 10 listening to pearl jam music that doesn't sound like this and getting frustrated that the rest of the world thinks they sound like sirens

Turns out they were right all along

Again, RM is assuming how people outside perceive Pearl Jam. Even if they only listened to Ten, Sirens would be a shock.

In the Let the Records Play you're arguing that this is what Pearl Jam has always been. I'd say there are more reasons to be shocked by Ten -> LTPR than by Ten -> Sirens.

Well said and exactly how I feel.

broken iris wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I still don't see what's apparently so un-Pearl Jam about the song.

Neither do I. I remember reading one post on here which said that this song is probably how most people who don't listen to Pearl Jam imagine the band would sound like and I agree.

except we've always argued that this isn't true and that people's perceptions of what pearl jam's music was are wrong.

They probably see Pearl Jam as a band that plays emotional songs and they wouldn't be wrong about that. And in a way that applies to Sirens. The Fixer might have been a shock because it sounded light-hearted, but not this one.

Apparently this thread gets much more reasonable before 7am EST. I bet a lot of the shock over Sirens is fans getting upset over the idea that they like an "arena dad-rock band" and not "the last standing Gods of Grunge". I wonder if it's more about their self identity being disrupted than the song being that bad.

hey, it's one damn song. Lets just say that the last standing Gods of Grunge wrote a (pretty good) arena dad-rock band song.

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

Lament wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Release_Me wrote:I don't know what to say other than the polls show more people like the song than those who don't. There's no other point.

Uh, cool...?

I still can't fathom what relevance that has to the discussion at hand but I doubt there's much to be gained by chewing it over further.

It feels as though you're countering an argument nobody is making.

That makes 2 of us.

Guys, we're just wrong for not liking Sirens.

I'm gonna go listen to Crown of Thorns and think about how wrong I am. Enjoy the Sirens, guys.

I made a general statement about people either coming around to liking it or not accepting it as a Pearl Jam song, based on the reactions I read here. Suddenly, all those who despise the song get defensive and start explaining how they don't like it because it's just not good. Well, my post wasn't directed at you then. I'm talking about those who despise it just because it's a Pearl Jam song and something they didn't want or expect Pearl Jam to do. If you don't like it, feel secure in your reasons for not liking it. Not a big deal.

The argument started precisely because you said people were going to either a) come around or b) not accept it as a Pearl Jam song. That just makes it look like those are the only two options, and that it's impossible to c) accept it and still not like it.

I do think it's pretty fair to say, based on a lot of evidence in this thread, that it may take a few listens to know for sure that it is C, and not B, however.

If I thought this was a very un-Pearl Jam song I would agree. But I've watched Pearl Jam go a less dark, more radio-friendly road for years now, so there is nothing about them making this song that surprises me.

LetMeSleep wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:There are many people who would only know Alive, Jeremy, Betterman and Last Kiss. Maybe Even Flow and Daughter and at a stretch Given To Fly, The Fixer and Just Breathe.

So maybe 4 songs, maybe 8or9 tracks. Sirens actually fits in with either bunch. It's earnest, palatable middle of the road rock.

Sirens doesn't fit in, actually. Not at all aside from the generalizations you just made. You could say that for any song which you don't care for and the actual songs would be completely different. It's a more apt description for what you feel about it rather than what it sounds like compared to the others.

I think you're inferring that I don't like the track which isn't so. I do like it quite a lot regardless of what I feel are it's weak points. I also believe that production aside there is not that much un-Pearl Jam about it.

Plus I do think that if someone heard this on the radio who had only heard Alive, Betterman, Last Kiss and Just Breathe then this would fit perfectly with the image those previous tracks created. More so than Just Breathe, this is the perfect track for PJ to release now to "get it back again" (if the it is mass appeal).

Fair enough if said person has heard Just Breathe. I just don't think the average non-PJ fan has heard it.

Release_Me wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I still don't see what's apparently so un-Pearl Jam about the song.

Neither do I. I remember reading one post on here which said that this song is probably how most people who don't listen to Pearl Jam imagine the band would sound like and I agree. I think it seems like an natural progression from Backspacer and the Pink Floyd cover they were doing last year.

Agreed (and that's an excellent, and accurate, point about the perception of the band among non-fans).

Non-fans generally remember Jeremy or something off of Ten. I don't see how Pearl Jam is perceived to be a band that could write Sirens. I guess that's a perception about the non-fans here, more than anything else.

Just my experience obviously but I haven't seen anyone outside of this fanbase think this song is a left turn for the band. I've heard people say it's classic pearl jam, I've heard others say it's the typical bland stuff that middle-aged rock band come up with, but I haven't seen anyone shocked at this being a Pearl Jam as some people seem to be around here.

no one outside the fanbase would think that. We've spent 20 years post 10 listening to pearl jam music that doesn't sound like this and getting frustrated that the rest of the world thinks they sound like sirens

Turns out they were right all along

Again, RM is assuming how people outside perceive Pearl Jam. Even if they only listened to Ten, Sirens would be a shock.

There are people who have no idea that alive is about lies and incest and consider it an annoying life affirming song. 'Heyy I'm still alive, good for you.mother Fucker' .

Those people.

I assume you'd agree with me if I say that most people zero in on ed when hearing a pearl jam song, and I don't think there's much difference hearing him sing 'hey I'm still alive' 'why can't it be, can it be mine' ' want you to know I always loved you, held you high above too'

stip wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

stip wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I still don't see what's apparently so un-Pearl Jam about the song.

Neither do I. I remember reading one post on here which said that this song is probably how most people who don't listen to Pearl Jam imagine the band would sound like and I agree.

except we've always argued that this isn't true and that people's perceptions of what pearl jam's music was are wrong.

How can you have always argued it when Sirens has only been out for a few days?

but like Release_Me said, the initial responses in this thread, the negative ones and the WTF ones, were not people being shocked or pissed that pearl jam wrote a song they thought sucked. It was that they never expected pearl jam to write a song that sounded like this and many of us defined their sound in opposition to songs like this. It just happens that 'this' is what much of the rest of the world has always thought pearl jam was.

Really? My reading was that the people that disliked it just thought it was a genuinely bad song. A cheesy song. I don't really care if other people like it or not. But it seems ridiculous that someone thinks they can tell me that the only reason I don't like it is because I've only heard it a handful of times and that I haven't come to accept that Pearl Jam have written a song like this and that I should listen to it incessantly until I have some 'light bulb' revelatory moment about it's emotional power and join the majority in a forum poll.

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

Lament wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Release_Me wrote:I don't know what to say other than the polls show more people like the song than those who don't. There's no other point.

Uh, cool...?

I still can't fathom what relevance that has to the discussion at hand but I doubt there's much to be gained by chewing it over further.

It feels as though you're countering an argument nobody is making.

That makes 2 of us.

Guys, we're just wrong for not liking Sirens.

I'm gonna go listen to Crown of Thorns and think about how wrong I am. Enjoy the Sirens, guys.

I made a general statement about people either coming around to liking it or not accepting it as a Pearl Jam song, based on the reactions I read here. Suddenly, all those who despise the song get defensive and start explaining how they don't like it because it's just not good. Well, my post wasn't directed at you then. I'm talking about those who despise it just because it's a Pearl Jam song and something they didn't want or expect Pearl Jam to do. If you don't like it, feel secure in your reasons for not liking it. Not a big deal.

The argument started precisely because you said people were going to either a) come around or b) not accept it as a Pearl Jam song. That just makes it look like those are the only two options, and that it's impossible to c) accept it and still not like it.

I do think it's pretty fair to say, based on a lot of evidence in this thread, that it may take a few listens to know for sure that it is C, and not B, however.

If I thought this was a very un-Pearl Jam song I would agree. But I've watched Pearl Jam go a less dark, more radio-friendly road for years now, so there is nothing about them making this song that surprises me.

even if thematically it is easy to connect the dots I still see a pretty large gulf musically between a song like this and, say,amongst the waves. Which is why this one took a while to settle.

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

Lament wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Release_Me wrote:I don't know what to say other than the polls show more people like the song than those who don't. There's no other point.

Uh, cool...?

I still can't fathom what relevance that has to the discussion at hand but I doubt there's much to be gained by chewing it over further.

It feels as though you're countering an argument nobody is making.

That makes 2 of us.

Guys, we're just wrong for not liking Sirens.

I'm gonna go listen to Crown of Thorns and think about how wrong I am. Enjoy the Sirens, guys.

I made a general statement about people either coming around to liking it or not accepting it as a Pearl Jam song, based on the reactions I read here. Suddenly, all those who despise the song get defensive and start explaining how they don't like it because it's just not good. Well, my post wasn't directed at you then. I'm talking about those who despise it just because it's a Pearl Jam song and something they didn't want or expect Pearl Jam to do. If you don't like it, feel secure in your reasons for not liking it. Not a big deal.

The argument started precisely because you said people were going to either a) come around or b) not accept it as a Pearl Jam song. That just makes it look like those are the only two options, and that it's impossible to c) accept it and still not like it.

I do think it's pretty fair to say, based on a lot of evidence in this thread, that it may take a few listens to know for sure that it is C, and not B, however.

If I thought this was a very un-Pearl Jam song I would agree. But I've watched Pearl Jam go a less dark, more radio-friendly road for years now, so there is nothing about them making this song that surprises me.

Less dark and more radio friendly are such broad terms that they encompass a huge chunk of music. Sirens is almost a 6 minutes long ballad reminiscent of the 80s but without some of the elements which made those songs so popular, namely a singable chorus. Pearl Jam have not combined the elements to make such a song before. It starts to sound like Pearl Jam once you've heard it a few times. Initial listens do not evoke any sense of familiarity. Their attempts at pop have been short, sharp and not fully realised like this.

Fuzzcharger wrote:

stip wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

stip wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I still don't see what's apparently so un-Pearl Jam about the song.

Neither do I. I remember reading one post on here which said that this song is probably how most people who don't listen to Pearl Jam imagine the band would sound like and I agree.

except we've always argued that this isn't true and that people's perceptions of what pearl jam's music was are wrong.

How can you have always argued it when Sirens has only been out for a few days?

but like Release_Me said, the initial responses in this thread, the negative ones and the WTF ones, were not people being shocked or pissed that pearl jam wrote a song they thought sucked. It was that they never expected pearl jam to write a song that sounded like this and many of us defined their sound in opposition to songs like this. It just happens that 'this' is what much of the rest of the world has always thought pearl jam was.

Really? My reading was that the people that disliked it just thought it was a genuinely bad song. A cheesy song. I don't really care if other people like it or not. But it seems ridiculous that someone thinks they can tell me that the only reason I don't like it is because I've only heard it a handful of times and that I haven't come to accept that Pearl Jam have written a song like this and that I should listen to it incessantly until I have some 'light bulb' revelatory moment about it's emotional power and join the majority in a forum poll.

All I need to tell you is, read the initial responses from some of the posters. And then read what they think now. That was the whole point of my initial post.

Sirens is the best song they've put out since anything on Yield.

No one's telling you to do anything, by the way. Be secure in your likes and dislikes. I was sharing an observation which wasn't a one off but reflective of the general reaction to the song here. If you don't fall in that category, you are not being addressed.

stip wrote:

broken iris wrote:
Apparently this thread gets much more reasonable before 7am EST. I bet a lot of the shock over Sirens is fans getting upset over the idea that they like an "arena dad-rock band" and not "the last standing Gods of Grunge". I wonder if it's more about their self identity being disrupted than the song being that bad.

hey, it's one damn song. Lets just say that the last standing Gods of Grunge wrote a (pretty good) arena dad-rock band song.

Oh I totally agree but for Pearl Jam Fans™ may be having an issue with a song that is not structurally and thematically standard Pearl Jam becuase they see it as the band betraying them and their fandom by by making a song that "those people" might like.