Page 9 of 16
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:02 pm
by stip
Birds in Hell wrote:Mike McCready wrote:But now that we're putting out a record on our own, we're taking on the responsibility of sinking or swimming ourselves. If that means writing a song that sounds like a mainstream radio hit, we're going to do that.
Release_Me wrote:Mike's quote about sinking or swimming probably has something to do with the appreciation of the album within the fanbase, which is really the only audience likely to pay money for their new music and hence decide the commercial success or failure of any new release.
That's absurd.
Mike's quote makes no sense if read as referring to the band's existing fans (unless you think Pearl Jam's fanbase at large is pining for the band to crank out "mainstream radio hits".)
Release_Me wrote:That said, it's less about being accessible than it is about being intentionally NOT accessible.
I genuinely don't the band has ever done this. They just started to write better songs during their middle period (and decided to engage less with the press at the same time).
I think it's bizarre to imagine the band putting their minds to making wilfully poor quality music in the hope of alienating their fans.
They have on many documented occasions said they were doing exactly what release me said. You're also twisting his words to get to willfully poor music
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:08 pm
by dimejinky99
all this? about a bare unfinished sketch of a song?
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:10 pm
by stip
new songs are the perfect excuse for old arguments
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:17 pm
by Birds in Hell
EDIT: I may come back to this; posting from my phone is kind of a pain.
Anyway, yes stip, that was something of an over-reach. I have more to say on that, however.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:18 pm
by dimejinky99
sorry. Forgot where I was for a second

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:22 pm
by Lament
Release_Me wrote:Lament wrote:THERE COULD BE ANYTHING IN THAT MYSTERY BOX. YOU DON'T KNOW. THERE MIGHT EVEN BE DIAPERS IN IT. OR ANOTHER, SMALL MYSTERY BOX. FILLED WITH SMALLER DIAPERS.
I live in a 3rd world country where Ten Club won't be shipping the mystery box anyway. Whatever I spend to renew my Ten Club annual membership is all they'll get from me. Call me a cheapskate but that's how it is!
If Ten Club sees this post they will start selling empty Ten Club boxes as special "Pearl Jam Houses" to third world countries.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:32 pm
by dimejinky99
You've hit weirdly near the real world mark.
Where do you think all the unsold clothing merch goes?
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:36 pm
by Lament
Well nowadays it goes into the Mystery Box and Ten Clubbers fall over themselves to buy it.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:39 pm
by Lament
I wish they sold decent buttons sets again. The Riot Act buttons are some of my favorite buttons I've ever owned. The two S/T sets were kinda lame, but they were still better than the PJ20 and 10C buttons.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:45 pm
by stip
Birds in Hell wrote:EDIT: I may come back to this; posting from my phone is kind of a pain.
Anyway, yes stip, that was something of an over-reach. I have more to say on that, however.
I sympathize. I do most of my posting from an iPad these days, and it is tedious
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:46 pm
by stip
Lament wrote:Release_Me wrote:Lament wrote:THERE COULD BE ANYTHING IN THAT MYSTERY BOX. YOU DON'T KNOW. THERE MIGHT EVEN BE DIAPERS IN IT. OR ANOTHER, SMALL MYSTERY BOX. FILLED WITH SMALLER DIAPERS.
I live in a 3rd world country where Ten Club won't be shipping the mystery box anyway. Whatever I spend to renew my Ten Club annual membership is all they'll get from me. Call me a cheapskate but that's how it is!
If Ten Club sees this post they will start selling empty Ten Club boxes as special "Pearl Jam Houses" to third world countries.
AL
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 11:01 pm
by Jorge
Birds in Hell wrote:EDIT: I may come back to this; posting from my phone is kind of a pain.
Anyway, yes stip, that was something of an over-reach. I have more to say on that, however.
I believe I read three very distinct versions of this post, including one where you call Stip a "cock face"
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 11:03 pm
by stip
he probably couldn't post pictures from his phone
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 12:12 am
by Coach
stip wrote:Birds in Hell wrote:EDIT: I may come back to this; posting from my phone is kind of a pain.
Anyway, yes stip, that was something of an over-reach. I have more to say on that, however.
I sympathize. I do most of my posting from an iPad these days, and it is tedious
Me too about the IPad....was thinking about getting a little Mac book or hp laptop. My current laptop is too big for my lap.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 10:58 am
by Release_Me
Birds in Hell wrote:Mike McCready wrote:But now that we're putting out a record on our own, we're taking on the responsibility of sinking or swimming ourselves. If that means writing a song that sounds like a mainstream radio hit, we're going to do that.
Release_Me wrote:Mike's quote about sinking or swimming probably has something to do with the appreciation of the album within the fanbase, which is really the only audience likely to pay money for their new music and hence decide the commercial success or failure of any new release.
That's absurd.
Mike's quote makes no sense if read as referring to the band's existing fans (unless you think Pearl Jam's fanbase at large is pining for the band to crank out "mainstream radio hits".)
Release_Me wrote:That said, it's less about being accessible than it is about being intentionally NOT accessible.
I genuinely don't the band has ever done this. They just started to write better songs during their middle period (and decided to engage less with the press at the same time).
I think it's bizarre to imagine the band putting their minds to making wilfully poor quality music in the hope of alienating their fans.
I think a lot of PJ's existing fanbase, perhaps even a majority, includes people outside of RM who have tastes similar to mine and Stip's. Which is to say, we don't really like the middle period albums. We've learned to live with them because we had to. But we'd rather they make records in the vein of LB or Backspacer than have to sit through another Binaural or Riot Act. In fact, a few of us might have jumped ship if we had received another Binaural or Riot Act. As far as I'm concerned, PJ is at their best being an in your face straight up rock band who wear their hearts on their sleeves. The middle period albums are in general too introspective and suppress some of the band's biggest strengths. They demand a lot of investement and provide little reward in return, as a listener. You might think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I don't and many others don't either.
When Mike talks about sinking or swimming, only he know what he means. We are just speculating. Your interpretation is no more or less absurd than mine. Consider the fact that their first three albums were their most successful not just in the mainstream but also amongst the fanbase. These albums were also much more accessible than the middle period and had more 'mainstream radio hits'. The songs from these albums dominate most of their setlists. I tend to think it's because they were superior and the band knows it too. Their best songs tend to be accessible, not experimental or weird. There are other bands I'd listen to if I was into that kind of music. You may think otherwise but don't disregard my opinion as if it matters less than yours.
I think they alienated fans starting with No Code by intentionally trying to be something they weren't, or at least something they weren't as good at. It wasn't willfully poor quality music but it was intentionally less accessible music. The style change wasn't just a coincidence and they didn't just happen to transition from creating Better Man to something like Who You Are. It was a conscious decision, mainly by Ed. One that I respect and resent at the same time. I think there are quotes about how Dave A was fired because he wanted them to continue to be the biggest band in the world while Ed wanted to pull back. Whatever they did was their prerogative. I just didn't like the direction they ended up taking.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 11:12 am
by stip
Just to be clear, I do like the middle period records. I like them a lot. Just a fair bit less than the other albums.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 11:15 am
by Release_Me
stip wrote:Just to be clear, I do like the middle period records. I like them a lot. Just a fair bit less than the other albums.
Sorry, Stip. I should speak for myself. Even though I didn't imply (or I think I didn't) that you hate the middle period albums. Just that you prefer them less to others. It's similar with me though I might not like the albums as much as you do.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 11:29 am
by Birds in Hell
Release_Me wrote:I think a lot of PJ's existing fanbase, perhaps even a majority, includes people outside of RM who have tastes similar to mine and Stip's. Which is to say, we don't really like the middle period albums. We've learned to live with them because we had to. But we'd rather they make records in the vein of LB or Backspacer than have to sit through another Binaural or Riot Act.
My impression from lurking The Pit, which is my only other insight into the Pearl Jam fanbase at large, is that the last two records aren't any more well-loved there than here.
The general consensus, as far as I'm able to tell, is that the band's 90s records (all of them) are held in higher esteem than anything that came after.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 11:30 am
by Release_Me
stip wrote:digster wrote:I think that's might just be reading what you want to into that quote, more than is there. He's not saying they're going to not shy away from releasing a song like Just Breathe anymore. He says that if putting out records on their own means writing a song as accessible and mainstream as Just Breathe to raise their stature, they'll do it. Which is pretty much exactly what it means to change your songwriting to be more mainstream.
Like I said before, I don't think that makes it automatically inferior, or that someone can't prefer it to their other records; a lot of the best records made were done to get a paycheck. I would say that it seems like ever since they've tried to be more accessible in the past decade, their music has significantly suffered, but not everyone's going to agree with me on that.
True, but it also reads way too much into what's there to assume that this constitutes an absolute shift in songwriting - that everything is written to try and be a potential hit and maximize 'mainstream' appeal
I'm also with you, in the end I don't care what the motivation is as long as the song is good.
Yes, and the fact that PJ's songwriting HAD been very accessible until Vitalogy. There was an edginess and darkness to their music from that era but there was almost always a strong melody underneath. Some of their songs were downright great pop tunes. So if they were making a decision to be more accessible, it was not something completely new to them.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 11:31 am
by dimejinky99
Glory days...well they'll pass you by, glory days...