Red Mosquito

harmless wrote:

hlniv wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

hlniv wrote: No. Not even close to their worst album. At the time it was released, yes. Now, a fair portion of PJ fans like it above No Code or maybe Vs. (I am not one of these). At the least, it is still clearly a more well done and better example of PJ than any of the last 3 records.

I disagree personally and I'm quite sure the heavy majority of those with Pearl Jam records would side with my take, sales certainly do. As for alternative measuring of best vs. worse - this place , here (or even PJ.com forum), is not an accurate representation of PJ fans whatsoever.

hlniv wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:There really is a bit of a common theme there, so let me explain...

The key to all of the above was the political spin on each record and during each tour. The worse it got (see Riot Act) the worse the album was. S/T was full of it, but less in your face. Binaural only dealt with it in certain areas and did have some singles that were not war-related at all, but it began with Binaural because that's when Ed was actively pushing for Nader.

......So, to me, the pinnacle was really reached at Yield. It was slowly melting into Ed's political OCD post Yield.

As for selling out, I'd say they began the process when they left Sony. They realized it was their time to make buck. And they've been doing it ever since. Target, Ten Club, etc.

All of the rest of this is accurate. It began shifting towards new ground and political expression (albeit a creative expression that I particularly enjoy) with the 2000 election, and that ultimately burnt itself out around the time they got back from the 2003 tour, reflected, left Sony, etc... Was it based largely on Ed's personality and viewpoints? Probably, but not completely.

Agree with this.

hlniv wrote:It took a couple years for them to realize they had a cash machine, and they could be both respectable rock stars and provide the good life for their families.

I don't agree with this completely. I think they knew they had a cash machine with the release of Vs. I think they knew it with every subsequent release and were kinda surprised fans kept coming back. Towards the end of their deal with Sony, I think they didn't care too much about sales because they knew on the other side, there would be opportunity for them to make more loot.

G.R.E.E.D. and all.

hlniv wrote:What i hope they come to understand is that the creative expression that fueled Binaural and Riot Act (not necessarily the political expression, but the creative fuel) is what still keeps many of their fans returning. I have rediscovered so much of their catalog just in the last year, and i just don't see me "re-discovering" the 2006-2013 output in 2023 like I have with their 1995-2003 output in 2013.

I think this is naive. It's not creativity. Maybe this place - but, broader it's not. Truth is, in the grand scheme of money making, this place and all who come here are largely irrelevant.

What keeps "the majority" of fans returning, if anything, is primarily Ed's voice. Of course, the music and lyrics are also relevant. But, I'd say, to the average fan (not super fans), it's most Ed's voice and the underlying piece of music under it.

For Binaural and Riot Act, I think what I see is terrible/average songs overshadowing any creativity. Sincerely, that's how I see it. I see a few terrible songs (God's Dice) and some moderately poor ones (Get Right), then a few decent songs. I know some may think whooooaaaaaa - nothing as it seems is sooooo creative (it's a few chords and solos - not creative, but I actually dig this). And so is sleight of hand.... woozer (cool lyrics set over an off-piece of music, actually once again one of the better ones)... bushleaguer is crazy inventive (spoken word)... you are - can i get a amen (the drum loop guitar, problem is this songs sucks).... help, help, what can you say - inventive? But, to me, I laugh at all this. I actually think a few of these are the better songs on these records, but the 'creativity' over song aspect loses me. Particularly, when the underlying song sucks - I'd toss You Are as an example there. Pearl Jam was once creative and made good songs, look at In My Tree for that. So, it's not impossible to be both. The problem is Binaural had songs like Evacuation on it and Riot Act had a bunch of ho hum songs on it with nothing earth shattering or even above average.

hlniv wrote:Oh, and by the way, i was 21 in 2000 and voting in my 1st presidential election. Ed convinced me to vote for Nader. Without his political grandstanding, I certainly would not have done that. Of course, I probably just wouldn't have voted at all...

I don't know what to say to this...

I couldn't care less if you know what to say about the last part. My 35 year old self doesn't know what to say about it either. 21 year old self was a much different person.

Regardless.

As to the above. What keeps the majority of fans returning is not particularly interesting to me. I am largely talking about the the fans that take the time to read all this bullshit.

And in my tree ain't creative. Put Ed and Jack in a room to write a song and you will get in my tree or something like it 75% of the time. I think it's a great song, one of my favs, but not all that surprising or creative. Verse chorus bridge chorus outro

Now make the argument that "In My Tree" is no more creative than "The Fixer".

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

hlniv wrote: It took a couple years for them to realize they had a cash machine

i think they had that figured out by 1992

Yeah. The disappointment isn't that they sold out, the disappointment is that they deliberately rejected the money and fame being thrown at them, and then when they felt better about the world, decided they wanted to fight to get it back again.

rejected what money? They were probably making more money back in the day and they could still be making considerably more money.
Oh and they've been "fighting to get it back again" since Yield.

Since No Code, they were proverbially "rejecting" the money and fame they had generated during Ten, and could've been generating by writing cookie-cutter radio hits like "Jeremy" (or, hell, "The Fixer"). Each album post-Yield was making less and less money, and (in my opinion) getting more and more artistically interesting. The band appeared to want to follow their artistic, ethical and political drives over and above being part of the "machine". They don't have a label now, in effect they are still doing as much as they can to look like a "label" band, and even if they're still not making much money, many of the musical and peripheral decisions they've made in the past several years were clearly designed for that purpose. You know this. I'm teaching Grandma to suck eggs here. If you don't agree, you don't agree.

Explain how Jeremy is cookie cutter. I honestly don't think they could write anything close to Jeremy or much of Ten again because truth be told, they don't write/play together much anymore. Jeremy isn't cookie cutter in any way.

I feel like you "hold them (PJ) high above too" a bit much. They do have a label, it's their label. They wanted it that way, so they could make the loot themselves and have more control. The idea that they now have the control and are turning a bit more pop-centric distorts all notions that they are doing this for some sort of noble rock pursuit. They want money and time to spend with their families and so on. But, mostly, they rejected fame and are now cashing in.

Strat wrote:In my tree is a bunch of power chords. The drums are cool but its not that far outside the proverbial wheelhouse. The arrangement is pretty straight forward. The drums are really the only creative aspect of it.


Thats not saying I dont love the song, cause I do.

Coach wrote:"All Pearl Jam sounds the same," says the casual PJ fan.

IlluminEddie wrote:

Strat wrote:In my tree is a bunch of power chords. The drums are cool but its not that far outside the proverbial wheelhouse. The arrangement is pretty straight forward. The drums are really the only creative aspect of it.


Thats not saying I dont love the song, cause I do.

You don't get it. I raised it as an example that was creative (in some way - you're saying drums, and I agree) AND good. In My Tree fits, you just basically said it.

Now, compare that with any song on Riot Act or Binaural. We could argue the "creative" aspects on those albums, but all in all, I bet the example chosen doesn't fall into the "good" aspect. Which, once again, was the point.

harmless wrote:

Coach wrote:"All Pearl Jam sounds the same," says the casual PJ fan.

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

hlniv wrote: It took a couple years for them to realize they had a cash machine

i think they had that figured out by 1992

Yeah. The disappointment isn't that they sold out, the disappointment is that they deliberately rejected the money and fame being thrown at them, and then when they felt better about the world, decided they wanted to fight to get it back again.

rejected what money? They were probably making more money back in the day and they could still be making considerably more money.
Oh and they've been "fighting to get it back again" since Yield.

Since No Code, they were proverbially "rejecting" the money and fame they had generated during Ten, and could've been generating by writing cookie-cutter radio hits like "Jeremy" (or, hell, "The Fixer"). Each album post-Yield was making less and less money, and (in my opinion) getting more and more artistically interesting. The band appeared to want to follow their artistic, ethical and political drives over and above being part of the "machine". They don't have a label now, in effect they are still doing as much as they can to look like a "label" band, and even if they're still not making much money, many of the musical and peripheral decisions they've made in the past several years were clearly designed for that purpose. You know this. I'm teaching Grandma to suck eggs here. If you don't agree, you don't agree.

Explain how Jeremy is cookie cutter. I honestly don't think they could write anything close to Jeremy or much of Ten again because truth be told, they don't write/play together much anymore. Jeremy isn't cookie cutter in any way.

I feel like you "hold them (PJ) high above too" a bit much. They do have a label, it's their label. They wanted it that way, so they could make the loot themselves and have more control. The idea that they now have the control and are turning a bit more pop-centric distorts all notions that they are doing this for some sort of noble rock pursuit. They want money and time to spend with their families and so on. But, mostly, they rejected fame and are now cashing in.

OK, so what exactly is it that you're disagreeing with about what I said? It sounds like you're in agreement, because I never said "Jeremy" was cookie-cutter. But "Ten" is archetypally PJ in terms of what the lowest-denominator-public expects of them. Nickelback and Creed, whatever you think of them, perfectly distilled everything about Ten-era PJ which was going to continually sell albums. After No Code, PJ went in another direction... until S/T, when they apparently decided they had been wrong to do so.

Strat wrote:In my tree is a bunch of power chords. The drums are cool but its not that far outside the proverbial wheelhouse. The arrangement is pretty straight forward. The drums are really the only creative aspect of it.


Thats not saying I dont love the song, cause I do.

Strat wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

Strat wrote:In my tree is a bunch of power chords. The drums are cool but its not that far outside the proverbial wheelhouse. The arrangement is pretty straight forward. The drums are really the only creative aspect of it.


Thats not saying I dont love the song, cause I do.

You don't get it. I raised it as an example that was creative (in some way - you're saying drums, and I agree) AND good. In My Tree fits, you just basically said it.

Now, compare that with any song on Riot Act or Binaural. We could argue the "creative" aspects on those albums, but all in all, I bet the example chosen doesn't fall into the "good" aspect. Which, once again, was the point.

What did you just say?

Grievance, creatively and on all other level, blows most PJ songs out of the water.

Dig it.

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

hlniv wrote: It took a couple years for them to realize they had a cash machine

i think they had that figured out by 1992

Yeah. The disappointment isn't that they sold out, the disappointment is that they deliberately rejected the money and fame being thrown at them, and then when they felt better about the world, decided they wanted to fight to get it back again.

rejected what money? They were probably making more money back in the day and they could still be making considerably more money.
Oh and they've been "fighting to get it back again" since Yield.

Since No Code, they were proverbially "rejecting" the money and fame they had generated during Ten, and could've been generating by writing cookie-cutter radio hits like "Jeremy" (or, hell, "The Fixer"). Each album post-Yield was making less and less money, and (in my opinion) getting more and more artistically interesting. The band appeared to want to follow their artistic, ethical and political drives over and above being part of the "machine". They don't have a label now, in effect they are still doing as much as they can to look like a "label" band, and even if they're still not making much money, many of the musical and peripheral decisions they've made in the past several years were clearly designed for that purpose. You know this. I'm teaching Grandma to suck eggs here. If you don't agree, you don't agree.

Explain how Jeremy is cookie cutter. I honestly don't think they could write anything close to Jeremy or much of Ten again because truth be told, they don't write/play together much anymore. Jeremy isn't cookie cutter in any way.

I feel like you "hold them (PJ) high above too" a bit much. They do have a label, it's their label. They wanted it that way, so they could make the loot themselves and have more control. The idea that they now have the control and are turning a bit more pop-centric distorts all notions that they are doing this for some sort of noble rock pursuit. They want money and time to spend with their families and so on. But, mostly, they rejected fame and are now cashing in.

OK, so what exactly is it that you're disagreeing with about what I said? It sounds like you're in agreement, because I never said "Jeremy" was cookie-cutter. But "Ten" is archetypally PJ in terms of what the lowest-denominator-public expects of them. Nickelback and Creed, whatever you think of them, perfectly distilled everything about Ten-era PJ which was going to continually sell albums. After No Code, PJ went in another direction... until S/T, when they apparently decided they had been wrong to do so.

No, take out a basic guitar. Play Ten. Then play Nickleback or Creed. You'll notice the difference immediately. But, to put it in words, the difference was many of the underlying songs by PJ were more musically synced, more diverse and often much, much more complicated. I'm quite sure modern day Pearl Jam couldn't write an album like Ten. Creed and Nickleback never could. What they did was steal a vocal style and genre of music. They can't replicate in a new way the music itself or even the intensity Ed had in his delivery. They tried though. And since PJ wasn't doing it anymore, they did OK (sales wise) with their attempts.

And in my tree ain't creative. Put Ed and Jack in a room to write a song and you will get in my tree or something like it 75% of the time. I think it's a great song, one of my favs, but not all that surprising or creative. Verse chorus bridge chorus outro

It was creative for "them" because it was different. But, also, it was good.

Name a song that is creative off Binaural or Riot Act? I bet In My Tree is better. And that, there, is my point.

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

hlniv wrote: It took a couple years for them to realize they had a cash machine

i think they had that figured out by 1992

Yeah. The disappointment isn't that they sold out, the disappointment is that they deliberately rejected the money and fame being thrown at them, and then when they felt better about the world, decided they wanted to fight to get it back again.

rejected what money? They were probably making more money back in the day and they could still be making considerably more money.
Oh and they've been "fighting to get it back again" since Yield.

Since No Code, they were proverbially "rejected" the money and fame they had generated during Ten, and could've been making by creating cookie-cutter radio hits like "Jeremy" (or, hell, "The Fixer"). Each album post-Yield was making less and less money, and (in my opinion) getting more and more artistically interesting. The band appeared to want to follow their artistic, ethical and political drives over and above being part of the "machine". They don't have a label now, in effect they are still doing as much as they can to look like a "label" band, and even if they're still not making much money, many of the musical and peripheral decisions they've made in the past several years were clearly designed for that purpose. You know this. I'm teaching Grandma to suck eggs here. If you don't agree, you don't agree.

IlluminEddie wrote:

Strat wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

Strat wrote:In my tree is a bunch of power chords. The drums are cool but its not that far outside the proverbial wheelhouse. The arrangement is pretty straight forward. The drums are really the only creative aspect of it.


Thats not saying I dont love the song, cause I do.

You don't get it. I raised it as an example that was creative (in some way - you're saying drums, and I agree) AND good. In My Tree fits, you just basically said it.

Now, compare that with any song on Riot Act or Binaural. We could argue the "creative" aspects on those albums, but all in all, I bet the example chosen doesn't fall into the "good" aspect. Which, once again, was the point.

What did you just say?

Grievance, creatively and on all other level, blows most PJ songs out of the water.

Dig it.

How was this creative exactly? By having a similar anthemic outro other songs in the 8 or 9th slot in albums prior to it? Grievance was one of the better songs on Binaural, but it wasn't creative. Musically, it was Pearl Jam as Pearl Jam always is.

P.S. Not only was In My Tree more creative, In My Tree > Grievance

harmless wrote:
And still... I'm pretty sure you've missed the fact that I never said "Jeremy" was cookie-cutter. Obviously Ten is better than Nickelback or Creed, or I wouldn't still be listening to this band now.

Strat wrote:
Are you serious? You are so strange. Worst gimmick ever, maybe. The time changes, the tempo, the structure.....