Red Mosquito

I'm not sure what I think about this song yet. I was all into "Getaway" yesterday, but it was LB that got stuck in my head and I kept saying "Lightning Bolt!" all the time.

This disturbs me, because the song reminds me of Unthought Known in that the openings of both make me think of Neil Diamond. I won't even get started on gems and rhinestones.

Anyway, I imagine Eddie and Neil doing a show at some Las Vegas casino one day, and they'll rock these songs and I'll probably like them and that makes me feel conflicted. And old.

simonsc wrote:I'm not sure what I think about this song yet. I was all into "Getaway" yesterday, but it was LB that got stuck in my head and I kept saying "Lightning Bolt!" all the time.

This disturbs me, because the song reminds me of Unthought Known in that the openings of both make me think of Neil Diamond. I won't even get started on gems and rhinestones.

Anyway, I imagine Eddie and Neil doing a show at some Las Vegas casino one day, and they'll rock these songs and I'll probably like them and that makes me feel conflicted. And old.

This song is structurally much more interesting than Unthought Known.

This one is becoming tricky for me. It's aces one day, balls the next.

harmless wrote: This song is structurally much more interesting than Unthought Known.

Oh, I definitely agree. It's just the first part that gets me thinking Diamond. And I must like it because I keep singing it to myself.

stip wrote: I still love the fixer, but I think this is the song it should have been

I do too, but it's like the Fixer was just flirting with being an anthem. LB goes all in with huge guitar solos by Mike and soaring vocals by Ed and the rest of the band driving it in just the right direction at every turn.

Thejambi wrote:This one is becoming tricky for me. It's aces one day, balls the next.

It sounds balls next to Sirens, but that's a compliment to Sirens, not a dig at this song. It does what it does but no more...

I'll take LB over sirens any day of the week, but they're also different songs trying to do different sings, and stuff like LB is more likely to appeal to me these days.

stip wrote:I'll take LB over sirens any day of the week, but they're also different songs trying to do different sings, and stuff like LB is more likely to appeal to me these days.

Stip...I was wrong. PLEASE bring back Backspacer. LB looks like it's beyond embarrassing right now. You are a visionary.

When folks say this song is structurally interesting, what do they mean?

theplatypus wrote:When folks say this song is structurally interesting, what do they mean?

Not structurally complex, but interesting because it curiously avoids some of the hallmarks (pun intended) of a ready-for-radio ballad; it's too long, it has a long "chorus" that isn't really a chorus because it has no annoying repeatable lyrical "hook", which then goes into another bit added onto that chorus which, by now, can't be part of the chorus because it's too long. So it's mostly just verse, which rises, until the solo, then it just sort of ends. So it's "interesting" for what it avoids (or lacks, if that's your feeling) to make it the full-on "80s power ballad" it was cracked up to be.

Edit: wait, sorry, I thought we were talking about Sirens still. This is getting confusing. LB has a different answer.

harmless wrote:

theplatypus wrote:When folks say this song is structurally interesting, what do they mean?

Not structurally complex, but interesting because it curiously avoids some of the hallmarks (pun intended) of a ready-for-radio ballad; it's too long, it has a long "chorus" that isn't really a chorus because it has no annoying repeatable lyrical "hook", which then goes into another bit added onto that chorus which, by now, can't be part of the chorus because it's too long. So it's mostly just verse, which rises, until the solo, then it just sort of ends. So it's "interesting" for what it avoids (or lacks, if that's your feeling) to make it the full-on "80s power ballad" it was cracked up to be.

LLIIIIEEENNAAAAAAIIIIIIINNNNN BBBBBOOOWWWWWWWLLLLLLt ?

i like that bit though.

I edited the post; for some reason I was still talking about Sirens. It's going to take me a while to get over this.

It goes Verse - Chorus - Instrumental Part which isn't repeated the next chorus - Bridge/Different Verse instead of repeating the verse - Pre Chorus that wasn't there before - Chorus - Verse - More energetic Verse - Outro

It's not super interesting but not a standard structure either. The place of the bridge makes people think it's kind of interesting for example I would think.

And all of that is really well-performed. There are some great rhythm section stuff going on, interesting guitar layering, I like Stone's extra harmonising riff on the chorus (it saves it actually), Mike's little solo coming out of the chorus, and then his lead heading towards the fadeout. Ed's chorus is better than it was at Wrigley, more committed and well-timed over the angular riff. I like the part with the big toms, while acknowledging it's very U2-esque. And I like that those are repeated on the outro. I also like that the extra percussion, like shakers and tambourines, help to make this song feel groovy and danceable in a way that U2... well, yeah.

harmless wrote:And all of that is really well-performed. There are some great rhythm section stuff going on, interesting guitar layering, I like Stone's extra harmonising riff on the chorus (it saves it actually), Mike's little solo coming out of the chorus, and then his lead heading towards the fadeout. Ed's chorus is better than it was at Wrigley, more committed and well-timed over the angular riff. I like the part with the big toms, while acknowledging it's very U2-esque. And I like that those are repeated on the outro. I also like that the extra percussion, like shakers and tambourines, help to make this song feel groovy and danceable in a way that U2... well, yeah.

not to nitpick, but i believe that mike plays that harmonizing part in the chorus, possibly with the ebow, while stone and i guess eddie play the power chords. and that's stone with the lead at the end.

dprival78 wrote:

harmless wrote:And all of that is really well-performed. There are some great rhythm section stuff going on, interesting guitar layering, I like Stone's extra harmonising riff on the chorus (it saves it actually), Mike's little solo coming out of the chorus, and then his lead heading towards the fadeout. Ed's chorus is better than it was at Wrigley, more committed and well-timed over the angular riff. I like the part with the big toms, while acknowledging it's very U2-esque. And I like that those are repeated on the outro. I also like that the extra percussion, like shakers and tambourines, help to make this song feel groovy and danceable in a way that U2... well, yeah.

not to nitpick, but i believe that mike plays that harmonizing part in the chorus, possibly with the ebow, while stone and i guess eddie play the power chords. and that's stone with the lead at the end.

Yeah, you're right, I was reverting to typical band roles there.

A friend told me that Ed said this was one of the greatest songs they had ever written, if not the greatest.

Do you think they believe their own bullshit?

Has Harmless had any sleep yet?

15showsandcounting wrote:A friend told me that Ed said this was one of the greatest songs they had ever written, if not the greatest.

Do you think they believe their own bullshit?

Maybe there's a scentless gas leaking into pj hq making everyone stupid.

BurtReynolds wrote:Has Harmless had any sleep yet?

No