Red Mosquito

Gigaton also got the 4/5 from Mojo, Spin and Rolling Stone. But I agree that the reviews themselves sound pretty positive. It just seems like the rating every record gets

Ok, not quite true for Lightning Bolt which was rated worse, but the same for Pearl Jam and Backspacer pretty much

"Not as good as their best stuff from 1991-1994, but pretty good! 4/5!"

Mike wrote:"Not as good as their best stuff from 1991-1994, but pretty good! 4/5!"

I mean that's an accurate assessment of every album since Vitalogy

Mike wrote:Gigaton also got the 4/5 from Mojo, Spin and Rolling Stone. But I agree that the reviews themselves sound pretty positive. It just seems like the rating every record gets

It is, for the most part. Even when the star ratings are different, a lot of the language and feel is the same.

I truly believe I have heard or read some variant of the "return to form," "hearkens back to the sound of Ten and Vs.," "this is a band reclaiming their sound," etc. spiel as part of every album cycle going back to and including No Code, as unfounded or baseless as it may have been, even for albums that we don't think that way about now. The band's complicity in that narrative has varied from album to album, and it may not have always been the dominant message, but I feel like I've heard it at least once every time out. I always get the sense that, for most of these general-interest reviewers, that Ten/Vs. sound is perpetually what they're hoping to hear and is quite possibly their only frame of reference for the band, so they fish for it where they can, and then they kinda just say things.

It's always nice to see the band get positive press, and I have enjoyed reading these reviews for some surface level descriptions of what the songs sound like (thanks for sharing and for starting the thread!), but I take the inflated scores with a grain of salt, and would absolutely not expect them to accurately predict how the record will be received here.

Certainly not predictive of RM’s reaction I agree

stip wrote:Certainly not predictive of RM’s reaction I agree

And that isn't meant to be a jab at RM for being negative -- I just don't think these reviewers are writing from the same perspective as more lifelong, nuance-obsessed fans, and they're likely not coming from a place of real tempered experience with the music. These are supercharged first impressions, written on a deadline. And reviewers, especially if they have any interest in the band at all, are every bit as prone to knee-jerk overreaction, excitement about being the first to tell everyone how great this new thing is, etc., as anyone. And while that excitement is certainly real at the time (and totally justifiable -- it's one of the great joys of music appreciation), it fades, yet the words written under its spell nevertheless go on to become the standing critical assessment of the record.

That doesn't mean that everything these writers have to say is worthless, just that the reviews should be taken for the first impressions that they are, with the understanding that first impressions are notoriously deceptive.

I can remember the reviews of No Code being positive, like 4 stars, but more relating to the band turning away from their signature sound. Definitely returns to form from Yield on though.

Kevin Davis wrote:

stip wrote:Certainly not predictive of RM’s reaction I agree

And that isn't meant to be a jab at RM for being negative -- I just don't think these reviewers are writing from the same perspective as more lifelong, nuance-obsessed fans, and they're likely not coming from a place of real tempered experience with the music. These are supercharged first impressions, written on a deadline. And reviewers, especially if they have any interest in the band at all, are every bit as prone to knee-jerk overreaction, excitement about being the first to tell everyone how great this new thing is, etc., as anyone. And while that excitement is certainly real at the time (and totally justifiable -- it's one of the great joys of music appreciation), it fades, yet the words written under its spell nevertheless go on to become the standing critical assessment of the record.

That doesn't mean that everything these writers have to say is worthless, just that the reviews should be taken for the first impressions that they are, with the understanding that first impressions are notoriously deceptive.

I think this is why the stereogum review is great and worthwhile. It seems to avoid a lot of that whole being written by a long term fan

That is a really good review; I hadn't read that one yet. Definitely credible context, not least because the publication rightly categorizes the article as a "premature evaluation."

Music Journalism is pretty fucked up these days anyway. But to be fair albums reviews always sucked hard.

Kevin Davis wrote:

stip wrote:Certainly not predictive of RM’s reaction I agree

And that isn't meant to be a jab at RM for being negative -- I just don't think these reviewers are writing from the same perspective as more lifelong, nuance-obsessed fans, and they're likely not coming from a place of real tempered experience with the music. These are supercharged first impressions, written on a deadline. And reviewers, especially if they have any interest in the band at all, are every bit as prone to knee-jerk overreaction, excitement about being the first to tell everyone how great this new thing is, etc., as anyone. And while that excitement is certainly real at the time (and totally justifiable -- it's one of the great joys of music appreciation), it fades, yet the words written under its spell nevertheless go on to become the standing critical assessment of the record.

That doesn't mean that everything these writers have to say is worthless, just that the reviews should be taken for the first impressions that they are, with the understanding that first impressions are notoriously deceptive.

I didn’t take it that way. As you say, a super fan’s relationship with new music is incredibly complex

tragabigzanda wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:That is a really good review; I hadn't read that one yet. Definitely credible context, not least because the publication rightly categorizes the article as a "premature evaluation."

This is a regular “column” that ten run, it’s just their latest highlighted review

Nice, I appreciate that they frame it that way

Kevin Davis wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:That is a really good review; I hadn't read that one yet. Definitely credible context, not least because the publication rightly categorizes the article as a "premature evaluation."

This is a regular “column” that ten run, it’s just their latest highlighted review

Nice, I appreciate that they frame it that way

To be clear this is a column they run for pre-release records. It does not mean the review is premature. This is the review. They just got the record before us.

I think KD gets it, and is simply appreciating that the website appears to acknowledge (through the cheeky column title) that new album reviews are, by their very nature, premature evaluations; most music is best assessed with time and distance

Jorge wrote:I think KD gets it, and is simply appreciating that the website appears to acknowledge (through the cheeky column title) that new album reviews are, by their very nature, premature evaluations; most music is best assessed with time and distance

But… they don’t typically revisit albums for a decade. Premature evaluation or otherwise. This is the review. To say the site will treat it like a decanted wine is false.

That said: great review. Stereogum is an excellent source and the honest delivery has me excited for the record.

Aunt_Claire_Foy wrote:But… they don’t typically revisit albums for a decade. Premature evaluation or otherwise. This is the review.

I know.

We're just showing appreciation for the fact that a publication acknowledges the inherent folly of quick-first-impression reviews, even if just through the column title.

Strat wrote:https://www.stereogum.com/2257306/premature-evaluation-pearl-jam-dark-matter/reviews/premature-evaluation/?fbclid=IwAR2LegWz7s3gyRV0Grcg1pEbLDV4_8XWfFcZxGSgSJskTE4nkZMCV2gtT90_aem_AZpiUaicCIIkdxFEMJrY_QerbiUwMhOMpPAenkSWjyqH3dJ8HF6BebHxuBpwu6UwJxQ

Indeed. This was a good one.

While I personally really like Dark Matter and enjoy Running more than most here, the review saying that these tracks are not the standouts is reassuring. He's almost mocking them the way he calls them the obligatory hard rocking songs on latter day PJ albums which I don't agree with, because I think these songs are at least good to very good, but it bodes well for the rest of the album