Red Mosquito

IlluminEddie wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

digster wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:For those that hate Future Days or Just Breathe: how would you have reacted if you had heard Betterman or Small Town again for the first time?

Fine...they're much better songs.

Yeah, I see where you're going with that Tuolumne, but I think those songs are pretty different. A better comparison (in terms of style) would be "Thumbing My Way" or "Man of the Hour", both of which I think are so much better than either FD or JB.

Man of the Hour is about = Just Breathe, both of these are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Future Days which is > Thumbing My Way (which is fine, but the worst of the lot)

P.S. I don't think Man of the Hour should really be compared to the others because it's played on electric.

IlluminEddie wrote:Man of the Hour is about = Just Breathe

Tuolumne wrote:For those that hate Future Days or Just Breathe: how would you have reacted if you had heard Betterman or Small Town again for the first time?

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:I dont like how PJ feel they need to be relevant. Neil young doesnt give a shit. he puts out music as he does and every so often, it will strike a nerve in the media/music listening public. Makes for a far more interesting career. Seems as though BOB is all about "hey man, need a hit to stay relevant, he he he!!"

And most depressing about all that is PJ are in agreement with him.

Sad Face.

There is a reason Binaural is top shelf

I think the Neil Young comparison here is irrelevant and misplaced. He's a SOLO artist. Totally different beast. He can go from Crazy Horse, to Daniel Lanois, to his wife Peggy, to CSN, etc.

A better comparison would be to find a GROUP that's had a 20 plus year career. Also, a group that's had signficant commercial success (where the benchmark of appealing to mass/cult audiences are different). That would be comparable.

If you still really want to compare them to Neil Young, I'd look at the band members individually, and if you look at say, Ed. and combine his PJ output that he wrote himself with ITW and Uke songs, you'd have a fairer comparison to Neil. Solo artists are completely different animals. Apples and oranges.

Not at all. Neil had massive success with Crazy Horse multiple times. Whats your point? As a group they could all collectively agree on having a career "like a solo artist" as you put it.

PJ are trying to stay relevant and make music so they can still fill arenas. That does not make for as interesting of a career.

harmless wrote:I think we should sift through what we have and narrow down all the posts into a perfect commercial 12.

stupidmop wrote:

Thejambi wrote:This thread needs some producing .

To remind the people who liked the thread before why they liked the thread in the first place? Or maybe to invite people who've never read the thread to read it and like it?

stip wrote:

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:I dont like how PJ feel they need to be relevant. Neil young doesnt give a shit. he puts out music as he does and every so often, it will strike a nerve in the media/music listening public. Makes for a far more interesting career. Seems as though BOB is all about "hey man, need a hit to stay relevant, he he he!!"

And most depressing about all that is PJ are in agreement with him.

Sad Face.

There is a reason Binaural is top shelf

I think the Neil Young comparison here is irrelevant and misplaced. He's a SOLO artist. Totally different beast. He can go from Crazy Horse, to Daniel Lanois, to his wife Peggy, to CSN, etc.

A better comparison would be to find a GROUP that's had a 20 plus year career. Also, a group that's had signficant commercial success (where the benchmark of appealing to mass/cult audiences are different). That would be comparable.

If you still really want to compare them to Neil Young, I'd look at the band members individually, and if you look at say, Ed. and combine his PJ output that he wrote himself with ITW and Uke songs, you'd have a fairer comparison to Neil. Solo artists are completely different animals. Apples and oranges.

Not at all. Neil had massive success with Crazy Horse multiple times. Whats your point? As a group they could all collectively agree on having a career "like a solo artist" as you put it.

PJ are trying to stay relevant and make music so they can still fill arenas. That does not make for as interesting of a career.

I'm not sure they'd have trouble filling arenas regardless. The relevance may reflect a desire to have hits, but it may also just reflect a desire to have more people listening to your music.

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:I dont like how PJ feel they need to be relevant. Neil young doesnt give a shit. he puts out music as he does and every so often, it will strike a nerve in the media/music listening public. Makes for a far more interesting career. Seems as though BOB is all about "hey man, need a hit to stay relevant, he he he!!"

And most depressing about all that is PJ are in agreement with him.

Sad Face.

There is a reason Binaural is top shelf

I think the Neil Young comparison here is irrelevant and misplaced. He's a SOLO artist. Totally different beast. He can go from Crazy Horse, to Daniel Lanois, to his wife Peggy, to CSN, etc.

A better comparison would be to find a GROUP that's had a 20 plus year career. Also, a group that's had signficant commercial success (where the benchmark of appealing to mass/cult audiences are different). That would be comparable.

If you still really want to compare them to Neil Young, I'd look at the band members individually, and if you look at say, Ed. and combine his PJ output that he wrote himself with ITW and Uke songs, you'd have a fairer comparison to Neil. Solo artists are completely different animals. Apples and oranges.

Not at all. Neil had massive success with Crazy Horse multiple times. Whats your point? As a group they could all collectively agree on having a career "like a solo artist" as you put it.

PJ are trying to stay relevant and make music so they can still fill arenas. That does not make for as interesting of a career.

Yeah, go ahead and compare Neil WITH Crazy Horse. Do it. Then you have a band with a distinctive "sloppy" style. And you'd also have decades-long gaps and which he went off into various cool or awful tangents, BY HIMSELF. My point is that it's apples and oranges. Like comparing a space shuttle with a jet ski. Groups are their own thing with their own pros and cons.

LOL, what?

If you can't understand the difference between a solo artist and a group, I can't help you. My awkward attempt and explaining it to you aside. LOL DUDE!

This isn't about the differences between a solo artist and a band. It's about the differences between the choices a solo artist might make, and the choices a band might make. And apart from the relative difficulty of a band making a unanimous choice about anything, there really is no difference. Both band and solo artist could choose to do whatever they chose, which honoured the integrity of their artistic drives, or to outsource everything because of a need to make it palatable and "commercial" to some imagined new demographic. In PJ's case, these two things might not be mutually exclusive, though, which is why nobody will ever win this argument.

digster wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:I dont like how PJ feel they need to be relevant. Neil young doesnt give a shit. he puts out music as he does and every so often, it will strike a nerve in the media/music listening public. Makes for a far more interesting career. Seems as though BOB is all about "hey man, need a hit to stay relevant, he he he!!"

And most depressing about all that is PJ are in agreement with him.

Sad Face.

There is a reason Binaural is top shelf

I think the Neil Young comparison here is irrelevant and misplaced. He's a SOLO artist. Totally different beast. He can go from Crazy Horse, to Daniel Lanois, to his wife Peggy, to CSN, etc.

A better comparison would be to find a GROUP that's had a 20 plus year career. Also, a group that's had signficant commercial success (where the benchmark of appealing to mass/cult audiences are different). That would be comparable.

If you still really want to compare them to Neil Young, I'd look at the band members individually, and if you look at say, Ed. and combine his PJ output that he wrote himself with ITW and Uke songs, you'd have a fairer comparison to Neil. Solo artists are completely different animals. Apples and oranges.

Not at all. Neil had massive success with Crazy Horse multiple times. Whats your point? As a group they could all collectively agree on having a career "like a solo artist" as you put it.

PJ are trying to stay relevant and make music so they can still fill arenas. That does not make for as interesting of a career.

Yeah, go ahead and compare Neil WITH Crazy Horse. Do it. Then you have a band with a distinctive "sloppy" style. And you'd also have decades-long gaps and which he went off into various cool or awful tangents, BY HIMSELF. My point is that it's apples and oranges. Like comparing a space shuttle with a jet ski. Groups are their own thing with their own pros and cons.

I am sympathetic to this argument; I don't think you can really compare bands to solo artists. That being said, I do have to admit that there are bands that are making good, solid work at an equal point in their career to PJ (or longer!) I'm not asking PJ to equal Yield or Vitalogy, although I'd certainly welcome it. But I still think they should be on the hook for captivating, good albums.

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:I dont like how PJ feel they need to be relevant. Neil young doesnt give a shit. he puts out music as he does and every so often, it will strike a nerve in the media/music listening public. Makes for a far more interesting career. Seems as though BOB is all about "hey man, need a hit to stay relevant, he he he!!"

And most depressing about all that is PJ are in agreement with him.

Sad Face.

There is a reason Binaural is top shelf

I think the Neil Young comparison here is irrelevant and misplaced. He's a SOLO artist. Totally different beast. He can go from Crazy Horse, to Daniel Lanois, to his wife Peggy, to CSN, etc.

A better comparison would be to find a GROUP that's had a 20 plus year career. Also, a group that's had signficant commercial success (where the benchmark of appealing to mass/cult audiences are different). That would be comparable.

If you still really want to compare them to Neil Young, I'd look at the band members individually, and if you look at say, Ed. and combine his PJ output that he wrote himself with ITW and Uke songs, you'd have a fairer comparison to Neil. Solo artists are completely different animals. Apples and oranges.

Not at all. Neil had massive success with Crazy Horse multiple times. Whats your point? As a group they could all collectively agree on having a career "like a solo artist" as you put it.

PJ are trying to stay relevant and make music so they can still fill arenas. That does not make for as interesting of a career.

Yeah, go ahead and compare Neil WITH Crazy Horse. Do it. Then you have a band with a distinctive "sloppy" style. And you'd also have decades-long gaps and which he went off into various cool or awful tangents, BY HIMSELF. My point is that it's apples and oranges. Like comparing a space shuttle with a jet ski. Groups are their own thing with their own pros and cons.

LOL, what?

If you can't understand the difference between a solo artist and a group, I can't help you. My awkward attempt and explaining it to you aside. LOL DUDE!

This isn't about the differences between a solo artist and a band. It's about the differences between the choices a solo artist might make, and the choices a band might make. And apart from the relative difficulty of a band making a unanimous choice about anything, there really is no difference. Both band and solo artist could choose to do whatever they chose, which honoured the integrity of their artistic drives, or to outsource everything because of a need to make it palatable and "commercial" to some imagined new demographic. In PJ's case, these two things might not be mutually exclusive, though, which is why nobody will ever win this argument.

I think his whole point is about the relative difficulty involved, though. The creative vision of a solo artist (even one who chooses to play with others) is really just a question of how much creativity that person has. The group dynamic is not just a question of your personal creativity and drive--it is figuring out how to get it to work in conjunction with other people who have different visions and varying levels of commitment, and getting everyone on the same page at the same time

Strat wrote:

stip wrote:

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:I dont like how PJ feel they need to be relevant. Neil young doesnt give a shit. he puts out music as he does and every so often, it will strike a nerve in the media/music listening public. Makes for a far more interesting career. Seems as though BOB is all about "hey man, need a hit to stay relevant, he he he!!"

And most depressing about all that is PJ are in agreement with him.

Sad Face.

There is a reason Binaural is top shelf

I think the Neil Young comparison here is irrelevant and misplaced. He's a SOLO artist. Totally different beast. He can go from Crazy Horse, to Daniel Lanois, to his wife Peggy, to CSN, etc.

A better comparison would be to find a GROUP that's had a 20 plus year career. Also, a group that's had signficant commercial success (where the benchmark of appealing to mass/cult audiences are different). That would be comparable.

If you still really want to compare them to Neil Young, I'd look at the band members individually, and if you look at say, Ed. and combine his PJ output that he wrote himself with ITW and Uke songs, you'd have a fairer comparison to Neil. Solo artists are completely different animals. Apples and oranges.

Not at all. Neil had massive success with Crazy Horse multiple times. Whats your point? As a group they could all collectively agree on having a career "like a solo artist" as you put it.

PJ are trying to stay relevant and make music so they can still fill arenas. That does not make for as interesting of a career.

I'm not sure they'd have trouble filling arenas regardless. The relevance may reflect a desire to have hits, but it may also just reflect a desire to have more people listening to your music.

i dont know. The fact they kind of skip over certain markets on a regular basis, tells me that they could have trouble filling arenas....

Strat wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:I dont like how PJ feel they need to be relevant. Neil young doesnt give a shit. he puts out music as he does and every so often, it will strike a nerve in the media/music listening public. Makes for a far more interesting career. Seems as though BOB is all about "hey man, need a hit to stay relevant, he he he!!"

And most depressing about all that is PJ are in agreement with him.

Sad Face.

There is a reason Binaural is top shelf

I think the Neil Young comparison here is irrelevant and misplaced. He's a SOLO artist. Totally different beast. He can go from Crazy Horse, to Daniel Lanois, to his wife Peggy, to CSN, etc.

A better comparison would be to find a GROUP that's had a 20 plus year career. Also, a group that's had signficant commercial success (where the benchmark of appealing to mass/cult audiences are different). That would be comparable.

If you still really want to compare them to Neil Young, I'd look at the band members individually, and if you look at say, Ed. and combine his PJ output that he wrote himself with ITW and Uke songs, you'd have a fairer comparison to Neil. Solo artists are completely different animals. Apples and oranges.

Not at all. Neil had massive success with Crazy Horse multiple times. Whats your point? As a group they could all collectively agree on having a career "like a solo artist" as you put it.

PJ are trying to stay relevant and make music so they can still fill arenas. That does not make for as interesting of a career.

Yeah, go ahead and compare Neil WITH Crazy Horse. Do it. Then you have a band with a distinctive "sloppy" style. And you'd also have decades-long gaps and which he went off into various cool or awful tangents, BY HIMSELF. My point is that it's apples and oranges. Like comparing a space shuttle with a jet ski. Groups are their own thing with their own pros and cons.

LOL, what?

If you can't understand the difference between a solo artist and a group, I can't help you. My awkward attempt and explaining it to you aside. LOL DUDE!

This isn't about the differences between a solo artist and a band. It's about the differences between the choices a solo artist might make, and the choices a band might make. And apart from the relative difficulty of a band making a unanimous choice about anything, there really is no difference. Both band and solo artist could choose to do whatever they chose, which honoured the integrity of their artistic drives, or to outsource everything because of a need to make it palatable and "commercial" to some imagined new demographic. In PJ's case, these two things might not be mutually exclusive, though, which is why nobody will ever win this argument.

I think his whole point is about the relative difficulty involved, though. The creative vision of a solo artist (even one who chooses to play with others) is really just a question of how much creativity that person has. The group dynamic is not just a question of your personal creativity and drive--it is figuring out how to get it to work in conjunction with other people who have different visions and varying levels of commitment, and getting everyone on the same page at the same time

Of course, but the entire band has always touted Neils vision as inspiring and how much they have learned from him. i think PJ are just too precious and its evident about how they feel they need to "fire the whole thing up" with every album release. Im sure that is overwhelming for them and perhaps why they choose to release albums every 4-5 years now. but it doesnt need to be that way. it doesnt need to be such a huge event. That is where they go the u2 route instead, which is very unfortunate.

igotworms wrote:I've been lurking around this board like a rapist for the past few weeks and have finally decided to register as I have some (minor) news regarding LB. UK-based music magazine Q is a pretty well regarded rag over these parts, and while its official review of LB hasn't been published yet, earlier today its reviews editor Niall Doherty tweeted that LB is amongst his favourite albums of the year. So while we don't actually have the first official review of the album as yet, we do know that it's going to be very favourable. Thought this little nugget might be of interest to some. I'll get back to my lurking again now.

igotworms wrote:I've been lurking around this board like a rapist for the past few weeks and have finally decided to register as I have some (minor) news regarding LB. UK-based music magazine Q is a pretty well regarded rag over these parts, and while its official review of LB hasn't been published yet, earlier today its reviews editor Niall Doherty tweeted that LB is amongst his favourite albums of the year. So while we don't actually have the first official review of the album as yet, we do know that it's going to be very favourable. Thought this little nugget might be of interest to some. I'll get back to my lurking again now.

stip wrote:

Strat wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:I dont like how PJ feel they need to be relevant. Neil young doesnt give a shit. he puts out music as he does and every so often, it will strike a nerve in the media/music listening public. Makes for a far more interesting career. Seems as though BOB is all about "hey man, need a hit to stay relevant, he he he!!"

And most depressing about all that is PJ are in agreement with him.

Sad Face.

There is a reason Binaural is top shelf

I think the Neil Young comparison here is irrelevant and misplaced. He's a SOLO artist. Totally different beast. He can go from Crazy Horse, to Daniel Lanois, to his wife Peggy, to CSN, etc.

A better comparison would be to find a GROUP that's had a 20 plus year career. Also, a group that's had signficant commercial success (where the benchmark of appealing to mass/cult audiences are different). That would be comparable.

If you still really want to compare them to Neil Young, I'd look at the band members individually, and if you look at say, Ed. and combine his PJ output that he wrote himself with ITW and Uke songs, you'd have a fairer comparison to Neil. Solo artists are completely different animals. Apples and oranges.

Not at all. Neil had massive success with Crazy Horse multiple times. Whats your point? As a group they could all collectively agree on having a career "like a solo artist" as you put it.

PJ are trying to stay relevant and make music so they can still fill arenas. That does not make for as interesting of a career.

Yeah, go ahead and compare Neil WITH Crazy Horse. Do it. Then you have a band with a distinctive "sloppy" style. And you'd also have decades-long gaps and which he went off into various cool or awful tangents, BY HIMSELF. My point is that it's apples and oranges. Like comparing a space shuttle with a jet ski. Groups are their own thing with their own pros and cons.

LOL, what?

If you can't understand the difference between a solo artist and a group, I can't help you. My awkward attempt and explaining it to you aside. LOL DUDE!

This isn't about the differences between a solo artist and a band. It's about the differences between the choices a solo artist might make, and the choices a band might make. And apart from the relative difficulty of a band making a unanimous choice about anything, there really is no difference. Both band and solo artist could choose to do whatever they chose, which honoured the integrity of their artistic drives, or to outsource everything because of a need to make it palatable and "commercial" to some imagined new demographic. In PJ's case, these two things might not be mutually exclusive, though, which is why nobody will ever win this argument.

I think his whole point is about the relative difficulty involved, though. The creative vision of a solo artist (even one who chooses to play with others) is really just a question of how much creativity that person has. The group dynamic is not just a question of your personal creativity and drive--it is figuring out how to get it to work in conjunction with other people who have different visions and varying levels of commitment, and getting everyone on the same page at the same time

Of course, but the entire band has always touted Neils vision as inspiring and how much they have learned from him. i think PJ are just too precious and its evident about how they feel they need to "fire the whole thing up" with every album release. Im sure that is overwhelming for them and perhaps why they choose to release albums every 4-5 years now. but it doesnt need to be that way. it doesnt need to be such a huge event. That is where they go the u2 route instead, which is very unfortunate.

perhaps. But look at how much we've crucified them for not promoting the album enough this time around. Imagine pearl jam says 'we've just about got an album done, and you'll hear it in a few months. See you later' that's not going to go over too well.


And at least pearl jam does seem to be quite good at these large build ups. that art thing was great, the trickle of information from the listening parties, the little vignettes. Look at how we respond to them...

And all of this is without a second single, any real band interviews, no EPK--none of the obvious stuff.


If you count the MYM thread and the album art thread I think we're at about 1000 pages in 3 months

igotworms wrote:I like to focus on either lurking, crying or masturbating. I'm not much of a multi-tasker. Plus I'd be worried about using the wrong tissue to wipe my eyes.

igotworms wrote:I like to focus on either lurking, crying or masturbating. I'm not much of a multi-tasker. Plus I'd be worried about using the wrong tissue to wipe my eyes.