Red Mosquito

Strat wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

Strat wrote:They aren't stretching their wings much anymore.

It's just a bit of rock music. It's not like they were ever that groundbreaking.

I get the arguments people make, but it is what it is. They get in a room and hammer out some songs. The people and the process would *have* to change after 20+ years. How could it not, and who are we to judge what it has changed to? I'd say they've aged pretty well personally.

im talking even how they go about their business as a band, how they track their records, and contrary to popular belief....their set lists aren't that huge of a surprise these days.

You know what would be a surprise? A tour where they just made one setlist with a select few variations from night to night, and rehearsed the fuck out of it.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Strat wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

Strat wrote:They aren't stretching their wings much anymore.

It's just a bit of rock music. It's not like they were ever that groundbreaking.

I get the arguments people make, but it is what it is. They get in a room and hammer out some songs. The people and the process would *have* to change after 20+ years. How could it not, and who are we to judge what it has changed to? I'd say they've aged pretty well personally.

im talking even how they go about their business as a band, how they track their records, and contrary to popular belief....their set lists aren't that huge of a surprise these days.

You know what would be a surprise? A tour where they just made one setlist with a select few variations from night to night, and rehearsed the fuck out of it.

or, you know, maybe NOT tour the NE?

I listened fully to the Calgary show. Betterman is an abortion. McCreadys guitar is out of tune and he knows it but he just keeps on barreling though it!

Strat wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

Strat wrote:They aren't stretching their wings much anymore.

It's just a bit of rock music. It's not like they were ever that groundbreaking.

I get the arguments people make, but it is what it is. They get in a room and hammer out some songs. The people and the process would *have* to change after 20+ years. How could it not, and who are we to judge what it has changed to? I'd say they've aged pretty well personally.

im talking even how they go about their business as a band, how they track their records, and contrary to popular belief....their set lists aren't that huge of a surprise these days.

I do get what you're saying. I'm thinking you want Neil Young. You want them to be totally unpredicatable, go out and jam improvisationally one night, next night do a long acoustic show, then play a whole album the following night, and then one night just fart into a microphone for an hour straight or whatever. I get that, and it can be exciting. But man, it is PAINFUL and it's hard to be willing to do that. Neil has sent plenty an audience member heading for the exits. He doesn't give a rats ass. PJ aint that band. Not now atleast. They want to unite people and get some fists pumping. They are diong that quite successfully now.

Tuolumne wrote:
And it's not simply about album sales, it's about capital. They had the capital in 1994 to do Vitalogy and then follow it up with No Code. They don't have that capital in 2006. By the time you got to Riot Act, they were fully in the wilderness as far as relevancy goes. They had used up all of their capital. It was either continue shrinking or get direct again and they didn't want to ride off into the sunset. Call it Bono or Bruce level egotism if you want, but they are a band that wants to engage. I think they've built themselves up at this arena mainstay/festival headliner level where maybe they may want to go back and do more sort of selfish artistic stuff down the line as they get into their 50s.....

I've said this before, but this notion of having 'capital' to use or not use makes very little sense to me. As pithy as the phrase may be, "world's biggest cult band" was an oft-used descriptor of the band 10 years ago, and it still pretty much matches where they are today. There's nothing to suggest that they wouldn't have gone in exactly the same career trajectory if they hadn't made their past few records, especially when none of them have been runaway critical hits or commercial blockbusters. They're not U2; it's not an 'event' when they release an album anymore than it was ten years ago.

I don't deny that perhaps it was their intention to be more like U2 when they made their new stuff, and if that floats people's boats more than what they did before, so be it. But there's absolutely nothing to suggest that doing so was actually necessary for them to retain their popularity.

You know what, no matter what they could change I don't think it would stop Ed from sucking.

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

Strat wrote:They aren't stretching their wings much anymore.

It's just a bit of rock music. It's not like they were ever that groundbreaking.

I get the arguments people make, but it is what it is. They get in a room and hammer out some songs. The people and the process would *have* to change after 20+ years. How could it not, and who are we to judge what it has changed to? I'd say they've aged pretty well personally.

im talking even how they go about their business as a band, how they track their records, and contrary to popular belief....their set lists aren't that huge of a surprise these days.

I do get what you're saying. I'm thinking you want Neil Young. You want them to be totally unpredicatable, go out and jam improvisationally one night, next night do a long acoustic show, then play a whole album the following night, and then one night just fart into a microphone for an hour straight or whatever. I get that, and it can be exciting. But man, it is PAINFUL and it's hard to be willing to do that. Neil has sent plenty an audience member heading for the exits. He doesn't give a rats ass. PJ aint that band. Not now atleast.

Or they could find a happy medium. Maybe tour a little more frequently with even less dates? maybe sometimes do a theater tour? There are things that could be done but they have this idea of needing to be the worlds biggest rock band. They already are. They have the opportunity to do what they want but they are too comfortable.

Tuolumne wrote:just fart into a microphone for an hour straight or whatever.

Is microphone fart edging near the hour mark, this tour? I hope there's more audience participation to keep it fresh.

digster wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:
And it's not simply about album sales, it's about capital. They had the capital in 1994 to do Vitalogy and then follow it up with No Code. They don't have that capital in 2006. By the time you got to Riot Act, they were fully in the wilderness as far as relevancy goes. They had used up all of their capital. It was either continue shrinking or get direct again and they didn't want to ride off into the sunset. Call it Bono or Bruce level egotism if you want, but they are a band that wants to engage. I think they've built themselves up at this arena mainstay/festival headliner level where maybe they may want to go back and do more sort of selfish artistic stuff down the line as they get into their 50s.....

I've said this before, but this notion of having 'capital' to use or not use makes very little sense to me. As pithy as the phrase may be, "world's biggest cult band" was an oft-used descriptor of the band 10 years ago, and it still pretty much matches where they are today. There's nothing to suggest that they wouldn't have gone in exactly the same career trajectory if they hadn't made their past few records, especially when none of them have been runaway critical hits or commercial blockbusters. They're not U2; it's not an 'event' when they release an album anymore than it was ten years ago.

I don't deny that perhaps it was their intention to be more like U2 when they made their new stuff, and if that floats people's boats more than what they did before, so be it. But there's absolutely nothing to suggest that doing so was actually necessary for them to retain their popularity.

I understand that. The last 3 albums haven't been breakway hits, but they've all been moderately successful. The other direction of that is shrinking from Riot Act. To put numbers to it, proportionally speaking, Riot Act would have sold 200k-250k max in 2014. Shrinking from that, they've be well below that if the "stuck to their guns". So, I'd argue that the last 3 albums, holding to my "moderately successful" assumption, has 'come back' fairly well. They're much more on a Bruce track right now, rather than like a late-Black Crowes or later-REM or later Jackson Browne track.

Strat wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Strat wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

Strat wrote:They aren't stretching their wings much anymore.

It's just a bit of rock music. It's not like they were ever that groundbreaking.

I get the arguments people make, but it is what it is. They get in a room and hammer out some songs. The people and the process would *have* to change after 20+ years. How could it not, and who are we to judge what it has changed to? I'd say they've aged pretty well personally.

im talking even how they go about their business as a band, how they track their records, and contrary to popular belief....their set lists aren't that huge of a surprise these days.

I do get what you're saying. I'm thinking you want Neil Young. You want them to be totally unpredicatable, go out and jam improvisationally one night, next night do a long acoustic show, then play a whole album the following night, and then one night just fart into a microphone for an hour straight or whatever. I get that, and it can be exciting. But man, it is PAINFUL and it's hard to be willing to do that. Neil has sent plenty an audience member heading for the exits. He doesn't give a rats ass. PJ aint that band. Not now atleast.

Or they could find a happy medium. Maybe tour a little more frequently with even less dates? maybe sometimes do a theater tour? There are things that could be done but they have this idea of needing to be the worlds biggest rock band. They already are. They have the opportunity to do what they want but they are too comfortable.

They are still one of the biggest rock bands today partly because of the decision they've made from 2006-2013. If they kept on the Riot Act trajectory, they've be REM circa 1998-2006.

I just want the songs to stop sucking. I don't fucking care what they sound like.

Tuolumne wrote:
I understand that. The last 3 albums haven't been breakway hits, but they've all been moderately successful. The other direction of that is shrinking from Riot Act. To put numbers to it, proportionally speaking, Riot Act would have sold 200k-250k max in 2014. Shrinking from that, they've be well below that if the "stuck to their guns". So, I'd argue that the last 3 albums, holding to my "moderately successful" assumption, has 'come back' fairly well. They're much more on a Bruce track right now, rather than like a late-Black Crowes or later-REM or later Jackson Browne track.

I think you may be looking at what they're trying to be vs. what they actually are. On this dead period of PJ's existence, they sold out MSG two nights in a row. As I said, there's nothing to suggest that they were on a 'downhill' course in terms of their popularity or fanbase; does anyone really think if they had maintained the popularity they had with Riot Act, they'd have trouble filling arenas today? There's also no evidence that they've had this massive explosion of popularity. There's still playing the same places about the same amount overall.

Lament wrote:I just want the songs to stop sucking. I don't fucking care what they sound like.

I think in general there's always far too much conversation about people's neuroses or their biases or whatever in these conversations. I think for most people here that are critical, it is as simple as you put it.

stip wrote:sacred cow

digster wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:
I understand that. The last 3 albums haven't been breakway hits, but they've all been moderately successful. The other direction of that is shrinking from Riot Act. To put numbers to it, proportionally speaking, Riot Act would have sold 200k-250k max in 2014. Shrinking from that, they've be well below that if the "stuck to their guns". So, I'd argue that the last 3 albums, holding to my "moderately successful" assumption, has 'come back' fairly well. They're much more on a Bruce track right now, rather than like a late-Black Crowes or later-REM or later Jackson Browne track.

I think you may be looking at what they're trying to be vs. what they actually are. On this dead period of PJ's existence, they sold out MSG two nights in a row. As I said, there's nothing to suggest that they were on a 'downhill' course in terms of their popularity or fanbase; does anyone really think if they had maintained the popularity they had with Riot Act, they'd have trouble filling arenas today? There's also no evidence that they've had this massive explosion of popularity. There's still playing the same places about the same amount overall.

I think they would have. The Riot Act tour was not as successful as you may think. They've been much more successful now then they were around that time.

cutuphalfdead wrote:You know what, no matter what they could change I don't think it would stop Ed from sucking.

Man, what a dick comment. I'm sure (ok, I'm not sure) it's meant tongue-in-cheek, but man, really?

McParadigm wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:just fart into a microphone for an hour straight or whatever.

Is microphone fart edging near the hour mark, this tour? I hope there's more audience participation to keep it fresh.

And hand gestures? hehe.

Lament wrote:I just want the songs to stop sucking. I don't fucking care what they sound like.

Which is your opinion.

guitar_davey wrote:

Lament wrote:I just want the songs to stop sucking. I don't fucking care what they sound like.

Which is your opinion.

That's your opinion, pal!

guitar_davey wrote:

Lament wrote:I just want the songs to stop sucking. I don't fucking care what they sound like.

Which is your opinion.

This is a post.