Red Mosquito

Sure, but its like buying a car........if you don't like the base model, you should probably just shop for another vehicle, not convince yourself a few perks on the higher trim level is going to gloss over the fact that you don't really like the car in the first place.

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:I enjoyed lightning bolt pretty well, but it was a shitty video so its hard to tell, and future days didn't seem like much, but again it was a shitty video so im really not gonna hold any judgment of them until i hear better versions. Im still excited to see how the studio versions are, and im still excited for what ever that soundcheck song was

I don't get where you, harmless and maybe others are coming from with the line of thinking that an HQ Youtube vid or a studio recording is going to make an average at best song good. The psychology of Pearl Jam fans is pretty interesting. If this was a good song, the optimal reaction would be "I can't wait to hear the studio version"....."maybe it will be better" is just talking yourself off the ledge.

But "maybe it will be better" is a version of "I can't wait to hear the studio version." They're not mutually exclusive. Some people think a song lives or dies live, I don't. I think that the choices made in a studio setting are absolutely crucial to the success of a song. If I believed that a song is only good if it's good live, I would hate most of PJ's catalogue.

Give me an example of a Pearl Jam song you really enjoy on the album version but straight up dislike live. I'm struggling with this....

I don't need to, it's pretty much a blanket truth across all of their catalogue; various things about live PJ destroy the studio versions for me, and I rarely seek out live performances to listen to at home. I've enjoyed their live dvds, and I enjoyed the shows I went to because the atmosphere was electric. If I was going to attempt to put a date on it, they were a great live band until around 2006. After that they've been merely competent, and I really don't like the way Matt drums live. Considering I'm a drummer, that's skirted dangerously close to deal-breaker for the last few years. I've held onto this band because of my affection for them and for their fans who are my friends. My experience of PJ has always been about the enjoyment they give me day-to-day.

Don't get me wrong, I *enjoy* a live PJ song, but only because it's my favourite band of all time playing live. It's the romance attached to 'playing live', nothing more. As a thing, I much prefer a good studio version. Most songs, when played live, do not include my favourite things about them.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:I enjoyed lightning bolt pretty well, but it was a shitty video so its hard to tell, and future days didn't seem like much, but again it was a shitty video so im really not gonna hold any judgment of them until i hear better versions. Im still excited to see how the studio versions are, and im still excited for what ever that soundcheck song was

I don't get where you, harmless and maybe others are coming from with the line of thinking that an HQ Youtube vid or a studio recording is going to make an average at best song good. The psychology of Pearl Jam fans is pretty interesting. If this was a good song, the optimal reaction would be "I can't wait to hear the studio version"....."maybe it will be better" is just talking yourself off the ledge.

For me anyway, i can't hear the songs well enough to know how i feel about them, the sound distorts and the crowd voice gets in the way. Now since i posted that i have seen better videos and for future days it was clear enough for me to know i like the song, its just not a PJ song, its an ed solo song, and lightning bolt still distorts too much for me to know for sure.
So i haven heard the songs clearly to know exactly how i feel, so the studio versions will be the clear versions i get to hear

verb_to_trust wrote:Sure, but its like buying a car........if you don't like the base model, you should probably just shop for another vehicle, not convince yourself a few perks on the higher trim level is going to gloss over the fact that you don't really like the car in the first place.

There's a fundamental breakdown of communication here because you think that the studio just provides flourishes to what is essentially a live song. I don't. I think people make songs in the studio, and that live versions can't usually replicate that. That's basically the opposite of your philosophy, which is that songs start at the stage, and the studio hopes to approximate their effect.

It's conceivable that even if I were to prefer live versions, this isn't a good quality one so I'd still be waiting to make a judgment.

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:I enjoyed lightning bolt pretty well, but it was a shitty video so its hard to tell, and future days didn't seem like much, but again it was a shitty video so im really not gonna hold any judgment of them until i hear better versions. Im still excited to see how the studio versions are, and im still excited for what ever that soundcheck song was

I don't get where you, harmless and maybe others are coming from with the line of thinking that an HQ Youtube vid or a studio recording is going to make an average at best song good. The psychology of Pearl Jam fans is pretty interesting. If this was a good song, the optimal reaction would be "I can't wait to hear the studio version"....."maybe it will be better" is just talking yourself off the ledge.

But "maybe it will be better" is a version of "I can't wait to hear the studio version." They're not mutually exclusive. Some people think a song lives or dies live, I don't. I think that the choices made in a studio setting are absolutely crucial to the success of a song. If I believed that a song is only good if it's good live, I would hate most of PJ's catalogue.

Give me an example of a Pearl Jam song you really enjoy on the album version but straight up dislike live. I'm struggling with this....

I like the albums way more than live versions in most cases. I Got Id, betterman, rearviewmirror, pretty much Binaural-Backspacer ( with a few exceptions)

The whole Pearl Jam sucks in the studio is nothing but hyperbole in my book.

But I think verb_to_trust is saying (and I agree with him) that there's only so far production can go if the bare bones of a song are shoddy. I think production can elevate a song, but I'm not so sure it can make a bad song good.

Also, not sure if this goes with the discussion, but im not overly fond of getting songs live that I've never heard before, as cool as it is that i can say i was there the first time they ever played of the earth, i have a hard time enjoying songs i don't know even a little.

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:I enjoyed lightning bolt pretty well, but it was a shitty video so its hard to tell, and future days didn't seem like much, but again it was a shitty video so im really not gonna hold any judgment of them until i hear better versions. Im still excited to see how the studio versions are, and im still excited for what ever that soundcheck song was

I don't get where you, harmless and maybe others are coming from with the line of thinking that an HQ Youtube vid or a studio recording is going to make an average at best song good. The psychology of Pearl Jam fans is pretty interesting. If this was a good song, the optimal reaction would be "I can't wait to hear the studio version"....."maybe it will be better" is just talking yourself off the ledge.

But "maybe it will be better" is a version of "I can't wait to hear the studio version." They're not mutually exclusive. Some people think a song lives or dies live, I don't. I think that the choices made in a studio setting are absolutely crucial to the success of a song. If I believed that a song is only good if it's good live, I would hate most of PJ's catalogue.

Give me an example of a Pearl Jam song you really enjoy on the album version but straight up dislike live. I'm struggling with this....

I don't need to, it's pretty much a blanket truth across all of their catalogue; various things about live PJ destroy the studio versions for me, and I rarely seek out live performances to listen to at home. I've enjoyed their live dvds, and I enjoyed the shows I went to because the atmosphere was electric. If I was going to attempt to put a date on it, they were a great live band until around 2006. After that they've been merely competent, and I really don't like the way Matt drums live. Considering I'm a drummer, that's skirted dangerously close to deal-breaker for the last few years. I've held onto this band because of my affection for them and for their fans who are my friends. My experience of PJ has always been about the enjoyment they give me day-to-day.

Okay...I think the studio version of Given To Fly is far superior to what they play live (at least since they started stupidly playing it too fast). But if we went into a time machine back to 1998 and I saw them play a sped up GTF live before I heard the Yield album version, I would still be excited by what is at its core a good song.

This song seems to be creating more of a "well, maybe it will sound better on the album" response than "shit is gonna be 'hot fire' on the album"

digster wrote:But I think verb_to_trust is saying (and I agree with him) that there's only so far production can go if the bare bones of a song are shoddy. I think production can elevate a song, but I'm not so sure it can make a bad song good.

Pretty much

digster wrote:But I think verb_to_trust is saying (and I agree with him) that there's only so far production can go if the bare bones of a song are shoddy. I think production can elevate a song, but I'm not so sure it can make a bad song good.

Production can make an OK song good, though. And I don't think these are terrible songs. They're OK. Hopefully they'll sound good on the album. If they're good, they have a chance of becoming really good on subsequent listens. But after I've heard the studio version, any live versions which may appear will do nothing to improve my opinion of them.

Its not so much production, its having a recorded version to hear what is actually going on in the song.

Big Wave (sorry, i love it) - If I heard a shitty audience bootleg version of it id chalk it off as a throw away punk song. But with a studio version I can hear the impressive guitar interchange between mike and stone, the bass lines, the quick time changes etc.. These all make the song what it is and what i find enjoyable and I may not have been able to hear those intricacies by a shitty camera recording.

Thats not production, thats just being able to really hear the song.

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:I enjoyed lightning bolt pretty well, but it was a shitty video so its hard to tell, and future days didn't seem like much, but again it was a shitty video so im really not gonna hold any judgment of them until i hear better versions. Im still excited to see how the studio versions are, and im still excited for what ever that soundcheck song was

I don't get where you, harmless and maybe others are coming from with the line of thinking that an HQ Youtube vid or a studio recording is going to make an average at best song good. The psychology of Pearl Jam fans is pretty interesting. If this was a good song, the optimal reaction would be "I can't wait to hear the studio version"....."maybe it will be better" is just talking yourself off the ledge.

But "maybe it will be better" is a version of "I can't wait to hear the studio version." They're not mutually exclusive. Some people think a song lives or dies live, I don't. I think that the choices made in a studio setting are absolutely crucial to the success of a song. If I believed that a song is only good if it's good live, I would hate most of PJ's catalogue.

Give me an example of a Pearl Jam song you really enjoy on the album version but straight up dislike live. I'm struggling with this....

I don't need to, it's pretty much a blanket truth across all of their catalogue; various things about live PJ destroy the studio versions for me, and I rarely seek out live performances to listen to at home. I've enjoyed their live dvds, and I enjoyed the shows I went to because the atmosphere was electric. If I was going to attempt to put a date on it, they were a great live band until around 2006. After that they've been merely competent, and I really don't like the way Matt drums live. Considering I'm a drummer, that's skirted dangerously close to deal-breaker for the last few years. I've held onto this band because of my affection for them and for their fans who are my friends. My experience of PJ has always been about the enjoyment they give me day-to-day.

Okay...I think the studio version of Given To Fly is far superior to what they play live (at least since they started stupidly playing it too fast). But if we went into a time machine back to 1998 and I saw them play a sped up GTF live before I heard the Yield album version, I would still be excited by what is at its core a good song.

This song seems to be creating more of a "well, maybe it will sound better on the album" response than "shit is gonna be 'hot fire' on the album"

Yes, but is that because the song is the biggest heap of trash you've ever heard, or is it because live PJ is not likely to turn you onto a song these days? Is it because no live version can possibly live up to a well-produced studio version in your mind? If it's the latter two, then it's conceivable that you'd say 'Well maybe it's worse here because it's live and it'll be better in the studio.' They've not been the band that sells songs live for a very long time. The fact that they don't sell them on the album very often either these days is neither here nor there. They're just as likely to bomb as to soar in the studio.

Pearl Jam are on the verge of self parody at this point.

Strat wrote:Its not so much production, its having a recorded version to hear what is actually going on in the song.

Big Wave (sorry, i love it) - If I heard a shitty audience bootleg version of it id chalk it off as a throw away punk song. But with a studio version I can hear the impressive guitar interchange between mike and stone, the bass lines, the quick time changes etc.. These all make the song what it is and what i find enjoyable and I may not have been able to hear those intricacies by a shitty camera recording.

Thats not production, thats just being able to really hear the song.

Or, to put it another way, it is production -- but only in as much as production allows you to clearly hear a song's intentions.

BurtReynolds wrote:Pearl Jam are on the verge of self parody at this point.

Who ever it was that first said "shits hot fire" about MYM, i love them

Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:Also, not sure if this goes with the discussion, but im not overly fond of getting songs live that I've never heard before, as cool as it is that i can say i was there the first time they ever played of the earth, i have a hard time enjoying songs i don't know even a little.

Me too.

theplatypus wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Pearl Jam are on the verge of self parody at this point.

I thought Pearl Jam were on the verge of self parody on my first listens to Yield and Binaural. I'm quite used to feeling that way.