Red Mosquito

LikeLukin wrote:Regarding cool, what exactly would be considered cool in the music biz these days?

You want me to give you a list or...?

Heathen wrote:

Lament wrote:I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. They get so constantly lauded by their fans for being so "experimental," but at the end of the day when you compare their back catalog to that of other artists/bands who span over a decade, there isn't a vast amount of ground being covered. For the most part, just about anything they've ever done could've realistically come from any album session and not seemed out of place. That's not a bad thing; for the most part you could say the same thing about Bruce Springsteen or Oasis or Tom Petty or Morrissey or any other number of artists with fantastic collections of work.

I really disagree with the bolded part. I do think most Riot Act or Binaural songs, for instance, don't sound like they would belong on Backspacer or s/t. Nor do I think that the glossy sound of the last few albums would feel in its place on the early records.

The glossy sound is part of the production. I'm talking about the songwriting and instrumentation. Everything on S/T and Riot Act and Binaural could have conceivably come from the same exact writing period. Gloss up Grievance or Insignificance and they could replace Worldwide Suicide and Marker In The Sand in a heartbeat. Rough up Life Wasted and it could easily take Save You's place. Put a little shine on Ghost or Get Right and they could take the place of Got Some & Supersonic without being glaringly out of place from the rest of the record. The production is pretty much the ONLY thing beyond the intricacies that only dedicated fans would know that marks one album's era to another.

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:Regarding cool, what exactly would be considered cool in the music biz these days?

You want me to give you a list or...?

2 or 3 modern "cool" artists should be suffice.

LikeLukin wrote:

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:Regarding cool, what exactly would be considered cool in the music biz these days?

You want me to give you a list or...?

2 or 3 modern "cool" artists should be suffice.

You mean you literally have no idea about the bands that would be considered 'cool' now, and / or that PJ aren't? I find this hard to believe.

LikeLukin wrote:

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:Regarding cool, what exactly would be considered cool in the music biz these days?

You want me to give you a list or...?

2 or 3 modern "cool" artists should be suffice.

Double post.

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:Regarding cool, what exactly would be considered cool in the music biz these days?

You want me to give you a list or...?

2 or 3 modern "cool" artists should be suffice.

You mean you literally have no idea about the bands that would be considered 'cool' now, and / or that PJ aren't? I find this hard to believe.

Not really. Do you?

I guess I could take a stab at Mumford and Sons?? They're popular, but are they cool??

Mikal Cronin?? He got mad reviews for his latest album, but isn't really popular. Is he cool by the modern standards???

LikeLukin wrote:

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:Regarding cool, what exactly would be considered cool in the music biz these days?

You want me to give you a list or...?

2 or 3 modern "cool" artists should be suffice.

You mean you literally have no idea about the bands that would be considered 'cool' now, and / or that PJ aren't? I find this hard to believe.

Not really. Do you?

I guess I could take a stab at Mumford and Sons?? They're popular, but are they cool??

Mikal Cronin?? He got mad reviews for his latest album, but isn't really popular. Is he cool by the modern standards???

I'm kind of bored. I don't know what you're not getting about what I said.

Lament wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Lament wrote:I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. They get so constantly lauded by their fans for being so "experimental," but at the end of the day when you compare their back catalog to that of other artists/bands who span over a decade, there isn't a vast amount of ground being covered. For the most part, just about anything they've ever done could've realistically come from any album session and not seemed out of place. That's not a bad thing; for the most part you could say the same thing about Bruce Springsteen or Oasis or Tom Petty or Morrissey or any other number of artists with fantastic collections of work.

I really disagree with the bolded part. I do think most Riot Act or Binaural songs, for instance, don't sound like they would belong on Backspacer or s/t. Nor do I think that the glossy sound of the last few albums would feel in its place on the early records.

The glossy sound is part of the production. I'm talking about the songwriting and instrumentation. Everything on S/T and Riot Act and Binaural could have conceivably come from the same exact writing period. Gloss up Grievance or Insignificance and they could replace Worldwide Suicide and Marker In The Sand in a heartbeat. Rough up Life Wasted and it could easily take Save You's place. Put a little shine on Ghost or Get Right and they could take the place of Got Some & Supersonic without being glaringly out of place from the rest of the record. The production is pretty much the ONLY thing beyond the intricacies that only dedicated fans would know that marks one album's era to another.

The way I see it, the production, the way a song sounds, that's part of the song itself. If you make Grievance sound like WWS it's no longer Grievance. If Ed sounded on Riot Act like he does on s/t I wouldn't like this album as much, or maybe at all.

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:Regarding cool, what exactly would be considered cool in the music biz these days?

You want me to give you a list or...?

2 or 3 modern "cool" artists should be suffice.

You mean you literally have no idea about the bands that would be considered 'cool' now, and / or that PJ aren't? I find this hard to believe.

Not really. Do you?

I guess I could take a stab at Mumford and Sons?? They're popular, but are they cool??

Mikal Cronin?? He got mad reviews for his latest album, but isn't really popular. Is he cool by the modern standards???

I'm kind of bored. I don't know what you're not getting about what I said.

I'm nitpicking your definition of "cool," as you nitpicked my use of "experimental." I am being 100% honest though, I do not know what is considered cool today. I don't know why you can't just give me an example or two. If you just mean popular, then I can check out the hit lists I guess.

Heathen wrote:

Lament wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Lament wrote:I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. They get so constantly lauded by their fans for being so "experimental," but at the end of the day when you compare their back catalog to that of other artists/bands who span over a decade, there isn't a vast amount of ground being covered. For the most part, just about anything they've ever done could've realistically come from any album session and not seemed out of place. That's not a bad thing; for the most part you could say the same thing about Bruce Springsteen or Oasis or Tom Petty or Morrissey or any other number of artists with fantastic collections of work.

I really disagree with the bolded part. I do think most Riot Act or Binaural songs, for instance, don't sound like they would belong on Backspacer or s/t. Nor do I think that the glossy sound of the last few albums would feel in its place on the early records.

The glossy sound is part of the production. I'm talking about the songwriting and instrumentation. Everything on S/T and Riot Act and Binaural could have conceivably come from the same exact writing period. Gloss up Grievance or Insignificance and they could replace Worldwide Suicide and Marker In The Sand in a heartbeat. Rough up Life Wasted and it could easily take Save You's place. Put a little shine on Ghost or Get Right and they could take the place of Got Some & Supersonic without being glaringly out of place from the rest of the record. The production is pretty much the ONLY thing beyond the intricacies that only dedicated fans would know that marks one album's era to another.

The way I see it, the production, the way a song sounds, that's part of the song itself. If you make Grievance sound like WWS it's no longer Grievance. If Ed sounded on Riot Act like he does on s/t I wouldn't like this album as much, or maybe at all.

that can still be true without changing his point though. The fundamentals of the song haven't changed in a way that, say, you could differentiate U2's Lemon from Pride.

LikeLukin wrote:

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:

harmless wrote:

LikeLukin wrote:Regarding cool, what exactly would be considered cool in the music biz these days?

You want me to give you a list or...?

2 or 3 modern "cool" artists should be suffice.

You mean you literally have no idea about the bands that would be considered 'cool' now, and / or that PJ aren't? I find this hard to believe.

Not really. Do you?

I guess I could take a stab at Mumford and Sons?? They're popular, but are they cool??

Mikal Cronin?? He got mad reviews for his latest album, but isn't really popular. Is he cool by the modern standards???

I'm kind of bored. I don't know what you're not getting about what I said.

I'm nitpicking your definition of "cool," as you nitpicked my use of "experimental." I am being 100% honest though, I do not know what is considered cool today. I don't know why you can't just give me an example or two. If you just mean popular, then I can check out the hit lists I guess.

Well yeah, we'll go with popular, bands / artists with street cred. Demographic doesn't matter; there's a thousand genres and bands considered cool and lame within each one. PJ largely circumvents the lot of it.

stip wrote:
that can still be true without changing his point though. The fundamentals of the song haven't changed in a way that, say, you could differentiate U2's Lemon from Pride.

I don't know if they've gone quite that far, but I think there's a pretty strong contrast between, for example, a Ten song, a Binaural song and a Backspacer song, to use beginning, middle and end that goes beyond the production of the songs alone.

As for PJ being 'experimental', I think it's a fine word to use, because I really think the only good way to use that word is in context of a band's catalog; how have they strived to expand their sound? If we take experimental to literally mean 'doing something that hasn't been done in music before', then the list of actual experimental records would be infinitesimally tiny. I think when judging if PJ has been an experimental band, it's best to judge them against themselves.

digster wrote:As for PJ being 'experimental', I think it's a fine word to use, because I really think the only good way to use that word is in context of a band's catalog

Thing is, you can think what you like, but that's not what "experimental" really means in a wider arts context. Anyway, it doesn't matter does it; it's just a bunch of bullshit and PJ are just a rock band.

harmless wrote:

digster wrote:As for PJ being 'experimental', I think it's a fine word to use, because I really think the only good way to use that word is in context of a band's catalog

Thing is, you can think what you like, but that's not what "experimental" really means in a wider arts context. Anyway, it doesn't matter does it; it's just a bunch of bullshit and PJ are just a rock band.

Or I'm just okay with using a shorthand that has been commonly accepted as being usable in the context of a rock band. I'm impressed by your certainty on what 'experimental' means in the arts; I'd think it'd be one of the most debated phrases in terms of its usage.

digster wrote:

harmless wrote:

digster wrote:As for PJ being 'experimental', I think it's a fine word to use, because I really think the only good way to use that word is in context of a band's catalog

Thing is, you can think what you like, but that's not what "experimental" really means in a wider arts context. Anyway, it doesn't matter does it; it's just a bunch of bullshit and PJ are just a rock band.

Or I'm just okay with using a shorthand that has been commonly accepted as being usable in the context of a rock band. I'm impressed by your certainty on what 'experimental' means in the arts; I'd think it'd be one of the most debated phrases in terms of its usage.

It's definitely a debated word. So I'm assuming it's OK that we have different definitions, and I don't think "making it up as you go along" is good enough? Good.

You would really have to be a fanboi to buy Shadow vinyl...

digster wrote:

stip wrote:
that can still be true without changing his point though. The fundamentals of the song haven't changed in a way that, say, you could differentiate U2's Lemon from Pride.

I don't know if they've gone quite that far, but I think there's a pretty strong contrast between, for example, a Ten song, a Binaural song and a Backspacer song, to use beginning, middle and end that goes beyond the production of the songs alone.

As for PJ being 'experimental', I think it's a fine word to use, because I really think the only good way to use that word is in context of a band's catalog; how have they strived to expand their sound? If we take experimental to literally mean 'doing something that hasn't.

could you describe the differences you hear in the ten/Binaural/Backspacer songs? (serious question--not looking to argue)


Like you, I think the way I use experimental refers more to how the bands stretch their own sound. But even there I can't help but feel pearl jam's movement is significantly less than U2, REM, or Radiohead, for instance. Maybe they just push farther. I think Pearl Jam does more than, say, Tool or NIN (maybe I just don't know their music well enough)

stupidmop wrote:Has anyone here read five against one by Kim Neely? I'm aware its a little biased against the band/ Eddie but I was wondering if it was worth picking up, second hand most likely.

As an aside I wonder if its this book that put Dave A on the bands shitlist for life? Not because of what he says necessarily but that he did it at all

This was ok, entertaining up until dave got fired and the author ran out of people actually in the band to talk to anyway. It'd be really interesting to hear the other band members version of events at some point, the way dave describes the bands/eddies disdain for him is almost comical at some points. Lot's of one sided stories and the authors own interpretations of things. Stone is barely existant and it would have been cool to hear about the vitalogy sessions. Eds stepdad comes off as a bit of a "nice guy". And Ed himself comes of as melodramatic and a tad emotionally unstable, so par for the course, and apparently a nutcase as a teen.

stip wrote:
could you describe the differences you hear in the ten/Binaural/Backspacer songs? (serious question--not looking to argue)

Like you, I think the way I use experimental refers more to how the bands stretch their own sound. But even there I can't help but feel pearl jam's movement is significantly less than U2, REM, or Radiohead, for instance. Maybe they just push farther. I think Pearl Jam does more than, say, Tool or NIN (maybe I just don't know their music well enough)

With the caveat that I'm not great at talking technicially about it, I'll give it a try. The Ten songs are unique in that they are almost entirely riff-oriented in a way that their other records are not. It's most likely Stone's Zeppelin and funk influences coming to the forefront, where the song's choruses and changes come in the way instruments shift around a central riff. Eddie came into the picture musically on the next record and he (although not without exception), writes songs more in a folk or pop style, in terms of chord progressions, verses and choruses. There's also not much overt punk influence on this record, though it undoubtedly informed the way they played.

The Binaural and Backspacer songs are perhaps a little closer. There is a space and a willingness to let the songs stretch and breathe on the former record (it's hard to imagine things like NAIS, Parting Ways, or Sleight of Hand on Backspacer). The songs on the latter are pretty airtight, even on the songs like See My Friend and Got Some. They sound polished in their performances in a manner that similar songs like Breakerfall and Gods' Dice are not. They seem less willing to make a mess on Backspacer, for lack of a better term.

As for the second part, I'd agree that they haven't come close to U2, R.E.M. and Radiohead in that regard, but I also think those are probably the three bands on PJ's level that have been both the most extreme and the most successful in their musical shifts. So I think the fact that PJ hasn't gotten to their level doesn't mean that they haven't done into to a significant degree.

digster wrote:

stip wrote:
could you describe the differences you hear in the ten/Binaural/Backspacer songs? (serious question--not looking to argue)

Like you, I think the way I use experimental refers more to how the bands stretch their own sound. But even there I can't help but feel pearl jam's movement is significantly less than U2, REM, or Radiohead, for instance. Maybe they just push farther. I think Pearl Jam does more than, say, Tool or NIN (maybe I just don't know their music well enough)

With the caveat that I'm not great at talking technicially about it, I'll give it a try. The Ten songs are unique in that they are almost entirely riff-oriented in a way that their other records are not. It's most likely Stone's Zeppelin and funk influences coming to the forefront, where the song's choruses and changes come in the way instruments shift around a central riff. Eddie came into the picture musically on the next record and he (although not without exception), writes songs more in a folk or pop style, in terms of chord progressions, verses and choruses. There's also not much overt punk influence on this record, though it undoubtedly informed the way they played.

The Binaural and Backspacer songs are perhaps a little closer. There is a space and a willingness to let the songs stretch and breathe on the former record (it's hard to imagine things like NAIS, Parting Ways, or Sleight of Hand on Backspacer). The songs on the latter are pretty airtight, even on the songs like See My Friend and Got Some. They sound polished in their performances in a manner that similar songs like Breakerfall and Gods' Dice are not. They seem less willing to make a mess on Backspacer, for lack of a better term.

As for the second part, I'd agree that they haven't come close to U2, R.E.M. and Radiohead in that regard, but I also think those are probably the three bands on PJ's level that have been both the most extreme and the most successful in their musical shifts. So I think the fact that PJ hasn't gotten to their level doesn't mean that they haven't done into to a significant degree.

Fair point