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.
Considering it was their 1st album Epic probably made most of the money or at least a good chunk out of it. I think McP posted something about this things not long ago. They were rejecting media exposure and the kind of promotion you'd expect from them considering how many records they were selling but rejecting money is still a long way from that. This is still just Vs trough No Code. Yield was a concious attempt at selling more records. There probably isn't a interview Stone gave promoting it that doesn't have that implied. Selling more records is making more money. Having said that i think they were ultimately disappointed with how that worked out because even though it did outsell No Code it still didn't by a margin large enough to make it relevant. You're basically left with only one album (Binaural) that follows your logic. By Riot Act they were doing music videos again. Hardly a sign of going against the machine.
Why i don't buy the idea of them purposely trying to make more money and that being at the root of everything they do doesn't have anything to do with idealising them btw. I just think money hasn't been an issue for them for so long that they simply don't have to actually care about it partly because they were never really refusing it all that much.
OK, fair enough.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
Strat wrote:
Are you serious? You are so strange. Worst gimmick ever, maybe. The time changes, the tempo, the structure.....
Yes. It's not creative for PJ. Sorry.
Strat, it's posts like this which prove this guy to be a troll.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
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.
Different does not equate to creative, even for pearl jam. The Fixer was different for them, certainly not creative.
Yes, in my tree is good, but I haven't argued that binaural is a collection of better songs than no code (although I know there are some who would agree with this). I don't personally think there are any songs on binaural that are "better" than in my tree. But there certainly are more creative songs
We disagree. I consider different to be creative for Pearl Jam and for most people/bands.
My point all along was that In My Tree was creative AND good. Your response, there's no better songs on those albums, kinda sides with my underlying point.
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.
Considering it was their 1st album Epic probably made most of the money or at least a good chunk out of it. I think McP posted something about this things not long ago. They were rejecting media exposure and the kind of promotion you'd expect from them considering how many records they were selling but rejecting money is still a long way from that. This is still just Vs trough No Code. Yield was a concious attempt at selling more records. There probably isn't a interview Stone gave promoting it that doesn't have that implied. Selling more records is making more money. Having said that i think they were ultimately disappointed with how that worked out because even though it did outsell No Code it still didn't by a margin large enough to make it relevant. You're basically left with only one album (Binaural) that follows your logic. By Riot Act they were doing music videos again. Hardly a sign of going against the machine.
Why i don't buy the idea of them purposely trying to make more money and that being at the root of everything they do doesn't have anything to do with idealising them btw. I just think money hasn't been an issue for them for so long that they simply don't have to actually care about it partly because they were never really refusing it all that much.
OK, fair enough.
I would actually say they were in the weeds as much, if not more, on Riot Act than Binaural. I don't think the fact that they shot some live footage discounts the fact that it's a pretty un-commercial listen overall.
There's at least four songs on Binaural better than In My Tree. Which I guess makes them more creative; I think it's harder to divorce creativity and quality from each other than people seem to.
Last edited by digster on Tue November 05, 2013 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
You said:
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"
And to that I say - you're implying they could've been writing cookie-cutter songs like Jeremy. How else is this supposed to be read?
By that time, MORE songs that sounded like "Jeremy", "Alive" or "Black" *would* have been cookie-cutter, considering that by that time, other bands had latched onto the style. So they went to a conscious effort to change their style instead of writing more songs that people would've wanted them to. More recently, they write "Amongst The Waves", an attempt to remake those cookie-cutter "Pearl Jam anthem" songs. I like that song quite a bit, so I'm not dissing it, but I do know that it's formulaic.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
Strat wrote:
Are you serious? You are so strange. Worst gimmick ever, maybe. The time changes, the tempo, the structure.....
Yes. It's not creative for PJ. Sorry.
Strat, it's posts like this which prove this guy to be a troll.
Yes, I'm a troll because I don't consider Grievance to be very creative. Keep it comin'.
Wow. Yeah, that's the only reason alright.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
harmless wrote:
By that time, MORE songs that sounded like "Jeremy", "Alive" or "Black" *would* have been cookie-cutter, considering that by that time, other bands had latched onto the style. So they went to a conscious effort to change their style instead of writing more songs that people would've wanted them to. More recently, they write "Amongst The Waves", an attempt to remake those cookie-cutter "Pearl Jam anthem" songs. I like that song quite a bit, so I'm not dissing it, but I do know that it's formulaic.
In PJ's defense, I don't think any of their new stuff sounds like a remake of Ten, even S/T (which was kind of how it was advertised to the press). I don't think the general public had been clamoring to hear PJ do pop music.
Last edited by digster on Tue November 05, 2013 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
harmless wrote:
By that time, MORE songs that sounded like "Jeremy", "Alive" or "Black" *would* have been cookie-cutter, considering that by that time, other bands had latched onto the style. So they went to a conscious effort to change their style instead of writing more songs that people would've wanted them to. More recently, they write "Amongst The Waves", an attempt to remake those cookie-cutter "Pearl Jam anthem" songs. I like that song quite a bit, so I'm not dissing it, but I do know that it's formulaic.
In PJ's defense, I don't think any of their new stuff sounds like a remake of Ten, even S/T (which was kind of how it was advertised to the press). I don't think the general public had been clamoring to hear PJ do pop music.
No, they hadn't. But PJ knows they can make more money imitating radio pop than playing classic rock. If they can fuse the two, then hey presto, a winning formula! I don't think they're "giving people what they want" (certainly not the hardcore fans, anyway) but I do think they're trying to give people what they don't know they want, but will lap up given the opportunity. Essentially, I think they're at the point where if the music works for someone, it's worked, whether that someone has been in your fanbase since 1991, or last week. That means that, theoretically, they could sound like Shania Twain if they wanted to. Oh wait...
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
Also, I do think that while Lightning Bolt doesn't *sound* like Ten, it shares certain similarities that make it an attempt at something similar, aesthetically.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
harmless wrote:
If PJ carry that instinct forward, as well as the instinct to write "Pendulum" et al, we might see better future days after all.
Or we may end up dying of boredom. Seriously, i don't dislike Pendulum at all but it's a risky area for them. I think i get why Yellow Moon almost didn't make the album. This songs benefit from being an exception rather than the rule. Especially with PJ because they really don't know how the explore the possibilities a song like this gives. You could really go anywhere musically from that intro.
I will try to explain my point with something that people who really like it tend to say - i wish it was longer. I doubt that means repeating a certain a couple of different bars 4 times. I don't think they're capable of writing more of this kind of songs without relying on clichés or citing themselves or both. How many people posted that Yellow Moon reminds them of Low Light?
Who cares? Low Light was awesome. I don't need Pearl Jam to be original, I just want them to be interesting, and "LTRP" and "Future Days" are not that in any way whatsoever. The thing about Pendulum and Yellow Moon is that no, they aren't boring, but neither are they superficially / artificially "catchy", as if everyone wants that kind of thing. They're not perfect, but they are among the best songs on this album.
Pendulum and Yellow Moon are exactly superficially/artificially catchy given the audience their intended too. Does that make them bad by default? No.
Seriously? We're talking about degrees here; they may not be classical pieces with 47 movements (and all of them deliberately-off-putting), but they're not "LTRP" either.
stip wrote:what does something that is organically catchy sound like?
*Something that I like and think is cooler because it was during a period of pearl jam i was more interested in. You know, the cool time before they cared about money etc..etc...etc...
harmless wrote:Also, I do think that while Lightning Bolt doesn't *sound* like Ten, it shares certain similarities that make it an attempt at something similar, aesthetically.
Yup. most of Ten was written in 1989 and Sirens sounds like it was written in 1989
harmless wrote:
By that time, MORE songs that sounded like "Jeremy", "Alive" or "Black" *would* have been cookie-cutter, considering that by that time, other bands had latched onto the style. So they went to a conscious effort to change their style instead of writing more songs that people would've wanted them to. More recently, they write "Amongst The Waves", an attempt to remake those cookie-cutter "Pearl Jam anthem" songs. I like that song quite a bit, so I'm not dissing it, but I do know that it's formulaic.
In PJ's defense, I don't think any of their new stuff sounds like a remake of Ten, even S/T (which was kind of how it was advertised to the press). I don't think the general public had been clamoring to hear PJ do pop music.
No, they hadn't. But PJ knows they can make more money imitating radio pop than playing classic rock. If they can fuse the two, then hey presto, a winning formula! I don't think they're "giving people what they want" (certainly not the hardcore fans, anyway) but I do think they're trying to give people what they don't know they want, but will lap up given the opportunity. Essentially, I think they're at the point where if the music works for someone, it's worked, whether that someone has been in your fanbase since 1991, or last week. That means that, theoretically, they could sound like Shania Twain if they wanted to. Oh wait...
I'm just throwing this one out there. Maybe, in a band of comfortable millionaires, they are less interested in making money off of these albums (I think McP has well documented that albums aren't going to make money, and it's not like the live shows that do need a huge influx of new fans), and more interested in writing songs that they think people will want to listen to...
digster wrote:There's at least four songs on Binaural better than In My Tree. Which I guess makes them more creative; I think it's harder to divorce creativity and quality from each other than people seem to.
Let's change the word - "experimental". That is what I'm saying. Trying something new.
No matter how much one likes Grievance, I'd argue it wasn't experimental. Since it was a new song, I'm sure one could engage in a circular argument about how revolutionary that or any new song is. Yet, I'd say Grievance in one way or another way elements of things they've tried in the past. Alternatively, I'd argue Who You Are and In My Tree were never tried before because of the new percussion sound.
The original point though was that In My Tree was both experimental AND good.
harmless wrote:Also, I do think that while Lightning Bolt doesn't *sound* like Ten, it shares certain similarities that make it an attempt at something similar, aesthetically.
Yup. most of Ten was written in 1989 and Sirens sounds like it was written in 1989
harmless wrote:
If PJ carry that instinct forward, as well as the instinct to write "Pendulum" et al, we might see better future days after all.
Or we may end up dying of boredom. Seriously, i don't dislike Pendulum at all but it's a risky area for them. I think i get why Yellow Moon almost didn't make the album. This songs benefit from being an exception rather than the rule. Especially with PJ because they really don't know how the explore the possibilities a song like this gives. You could really go anywhere musically from that intro.
I will try to explain my point with something that people who really like it tend to say - i wish it was longer. I doubt that means repeating a certain a couple of different bars 4 times. I don't think they're capable of writing more of this kind of songs without relying on clichés or citing themselves or both. How many people posted that Yellow Moon reminds them of Low Light?
Who cares? Low Light was awesome. I don't need Pearl Jam to be original, I just want them to be interesting, and "LTRP" and "Future Days" are not that in any way whatsoever. The thing about Pendulum and Yellow Moon is that no, they aren't boring, but neither are they superficially / artificially "catchy", as if everyone wants that kind of thing. They're not perfect, but they are among the best songs on this album.
Pendulum and Yellow Moon are exactly superficially/artificially catchy given the audience their intended too. Does that make them bad by default? No.
Seriously? We're talking about degrees here; they may not be classical pieces with 47 movements (and all of them deliberately-off-putting), but they're not "LTRP" either.
Because they're "sad" ballads?
You don't think they're of a higher quality in any way whatsoever? I'm not arguing they're better just because they're sad. I actually think "Pendulum", at least lyrically, is a pretty calculated attempt at a "depressing song" that doesn't sound very depressing. It's got a lot more going for it than LTRP for other reasons.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
