Red Mosquito

Lament wrote:

digster wrote:it can just get frustrating when you keep hearing that you prefer PJ's past work to their current work not necessarily due to any songwriting deficiencies on their part, but because you have these biases that can't be penetrated.

Exactly. Look, we're not talking about someone who came on here and was like "NO CODE RULES FUCK THE LIGHTNING BOLT RIP PEARL JAM!" We're talking about a well thought out, well written critique of what the reviewer considers to be a source of the difference in quality between the Pearl Jam albums he loves and one he merely likes, and we still have people dismissing it as (to paraphrase digster) some impenetrable bias. The same way I wouldn't accuse someone like stip, who is very eloquent about WHY he loves S/T and Backspacer, of "forcing himself" to like those records, I think it's equally ridiculous to act like someone who is equally eloquent about things he DOESN'T like about those albums isn't being fair/genuine/sincere in his assessment.

The problem is that there are obvious (though subjective) weaknesses in mid-period Pearl Jam. And some board members, like stip, have voiced them. But they get laughed off, and we have excuses for that reaction. If Ed mumbles and sounds unconfident in Riot Act, it's *obviously* because the tired vocal delivery is appropriate, it's a lethargic stoner rock record, etc. etc. People who dislike the stuff have really valid reasons to find weaknesses, but some of us can run rings around their arguments. I personally think that if your vocabulary and writing skill was good enough, you could find a thousand reasons to defend latter-day Pearl Jam, as stip has done time and again. I'm in the camp that likes most PJ records for different reasons, so I can maybe see the irony of both sides thinking their "strongest material" is just so obviously stronger. It's about context, expectation and taste; if you set your context in writing well enough, you can convincingly argue for the strength of most of these albums. That's what this reviewer does. We are convinced by his argument if we're convinced by his eloquent premise.

harmless wrote:We (and I include myself) might find these "middle" records (whatever they are to us) fantastic for a number of reasons, yeah. I agree Lament. But it's that "fucking fantastic" that's subjective, obviously. I think that if you can appreciate a highly-polished pop-rock album as much as a low-fi, dark and "messy" mid-period album, you're in a good place to appreciate both sides of Pearl Jam. I for one find enjoyment from Lightning Bolt which is different to my enjoyment of the more subtle, idiosyncratic and profound Pearl Jam, but it's still palpable. But within that latter period, there are points where they're not quite reaching for what they try to. Regardless of how good these "pop PJ" albums become, they're going to have to work like shit off a stick if they ever want to produce a "fun" record as good as anything by R.E.M. There's still the sense in which they're attempting stuff I'm perfectly happy they attempt, but in a way that's been bettered by their peers. What are the defining marks of great "neo-PJ"? I don't even know, but there may be a few on Lightning Bolt. So I just hope they capitalise on those for the next album, instead of all the wrong things. It seems to me that they carried most of the best aspects of Backspacer forward, as well as dipping into the back catalogue.

But once again, these complaints seem to be leveled against some theoretical "Middle Period Pearl Jam" fan that doesn't really exist, and when someone who fits that definition loosely (like the stereogum dude) he gets dismissed as (once again), having an impenetrable bias. I love the so called "dark, messy" middle period records. I also don't think Yield is dark and messy. I probably love instant, accessible, big sounding pop-rock (the kinda stuff I frequently hear that Middle Period Pearl Jam fans can't appreciate) as much, if not more than anyone else on this board, so my lack of interest in S/T or Backspacer has nothing to do with an impenetrable bias, and I don't think anyone who has even tried to state a coherent case about their lack of interest in these records has ever done so. My problem with S/T or Backspacer is I don't think they're very good. I think plenty of other guitar rock bands have made better accessible, late career records (like Send Away The Tigers by Manic Street Preachers, Don't Believe The Truth by Oasis, Magic by Bruce Springsteen, Accelerate by R.E.M. to name a few). It's got nothing to do with some pre-conceived bias. I was thrilled in the lead up to Backspacer when I heard about Pearl Jam's new "approach" to the record, as it played on reference points that I could draw back to a lot of music that I absolutely love. But when the record came out, I found it to be, essentially, a failure to achieve not only any of those things, but anything of value to me whatsoever. I get that some people love it, and like I said, I would never begrudge someone who makes an intelligent case for their adoration of that record (like stip). At the same time, it's incredibly stupid to dismiss someone who loves the middle period records and not the later ones as doing so for some less than legitimate reason.

The acoustic guitars sound like shit on this album

harmless wrote:The problem is that there are obvious (though subjective) weaknesses in mid-period Pearl Jam. And some board members, like stip, have voiced them. But they get laughed off, and we have excuses for that reaction. If Ed mumbles and sounds unconfident in Riot Act, it's *obviously* because the tired vocal delivery is appropriate, it's a lethargic stoner rock record, etc. etc. People who dislike the stuff have really valid reasons to find weaknesses, but some of us can run rings around their arguments. I personally think that if your vocabulary and writing skill was good enough, you could find a thousand reasons to defend latter-day Pearl Jam, as stip has done time and again. I'm in the camp that likes most PJ records for different reasons, so I can maybe see the irony of both sides thinking their "strongest material" is just so obviously stronger. It's about context, expectation and taste; if you set your context in writing well enough, you can convincingly argue for the strength of most of these albums. That's what this reviewer does. We are convinced by his argument if we're convinced by his eloquent premise.

But this is once again my point. Whatever someone's opinion is about anything in the catalog, if it's presented as eloquently and well-thought out as a stip post or a Kevin Davis post or the stereogum review, it's fucking stupid to dismiss it as being the result of some sort of bias/hipsterdom/irrationality.

Heathen wrote:

harmless wrote:I think that if you can appreciate a highly-polished pop-rock album as much as a low-fi, dark and "messy" mid-period album, you're in a good place to appreciate both sides of Pearl Jam [...] There's still the sense in which they're attempting stuff I'm perfectly happy they attempt, but in a way that's been bettered by their peers.

And that's the thing right here, you could appreciate immediate, accessible pop-rock music AND still find that Pearl Jam is not very good at it lately. And that wouldn't have anything to do with being stuck on some vague idea of middle-era approach/sound.

Right. But I personally I find that PJ *is* good at it on Lightning Bolt, and on some of Backspacer. Do I think they're great at it? No. But because I've followed them for this long, I'm still on board. I only need to like it. I don't need to think it's their strongest material ever, and 23 years in, I'd be naive to expect that it would be. A lighter style of music deserves a lighter style of appreciation. If they were pretending to be as intense and thought-through as they used to be, I would probably be out. It would appear phoney to me. But they appear every bit the pop-rock band they sound like now, and they're also really good guys. So I buy it. They've adjusted their "brand" along with their music. If they were selling themselves as dark, moody, clever Pearl Jam, yet making this, I'd be less happy.

I always thought the Middle Years fans were those who prefer the albums from Vitalogy - Riot Act. That was their most interesting period musically, but their least commercial.

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:The problem is that there are obvious (though subjective) weaknesses in mid-period Pearl Jam. And some board members, like stip, have voiced them. But they get laughed off, and we have excuses for that reaction. If Ed mumbles and sounds unconfident in Riot Act, it's *obviously* because the tired vocal delivery is appropriate, it's a lethargic stoner rock record, etc. etc. People who dislike the stuff have really valid reasons to find weaknesses, but some of us can run rings around their arguments. I personally think that if your vocabulary and writing skill was good enough, you could find a thousand reasons to defend latter-day Pearl Jam, as stip has done time and again. I'm in the camp that likes most PJ records for different reasons, so I can maybe see the irony of both sides thinking their "strongest material" is just so obviously stronger. It's about context, expectation and taste; if you set your context in writing well enough, you can convincingly argue for the strength of most of these albums. That's what this reviewer does. We are convinced by his argument if we're convinced by his eloquent premise.

But this is once again my point. Whatever someone's opinion is about anything in the catalog, if it's presented as eloquently and well-thought out as a stip post or a Kevin Davis post or the stereogum review, it's fucking stupid to dismiss it as being the result of some sort of bias/hipsterdom/irrationality.

Right. Yeah, that's totally true.

harmless wrote:

Lament wrote:

digster wrote:it can just get frustrating when you keep hearing that you prefer PJ's past work to their current work not necessarily due to any songwriting deficiencies on their part, but because you have these biases that can't be penetrated.

Exactly. Look, we're not talking about someone who came on here and was like "NO CODE RULES FUCK THE LIGHTNING BOLT RIP PEARL JAM!" We're talking about a well thought out, well written critique of what the reviewer considers to be a source of the difference in quality between the Pearl Jam albums he loves and one he merely likes, and we still have people dismissing it as (to paraphrase digster) some impenetrable bias. The same way I wouldn't accuse someone like stip, who is very eloquent about WHY he loves S/T and Backspacer, of "forcing himself" to like those records, I think it's equally ridiculous to act like someone who is equally eloquent about things he DOESN'T like about those albums isn't being fair/genuine/sincere in his assessment.

The problem is that there are obvious (though subjective) weaknesses in mid-period Pearl Jam. And some board members, like stip, have voiced them. But they get laughed off, and we have excuses for that reaction. If Ed mumbles and sounds unconfident in Riot Act, it's *obviously* because the tired vocal delivery is appropriate, it's a lethargic stoner rock record, etc. etc. People who dislike the stuff have really valid reasons to find weaknesses, but some of us can run rings around their arguments. I personally think that if your vocabulary and writing skill was good enough, you could find a thousand reasons to defend latter-day Pearl Jam, as stip has done time and again. I'm in the camp that likes most PJ records for different reasons, so I can maybe see the irony of both sides thinking their "strongest material" is just so obviously stronger. It's about context, expectation and taste; if you set your context in writing well enough, you can convincingly argue for the strength of most of these albums. That's what this reviewer does. We are convinced by his argument if we're convinced by his eloquent premise.

I dunno, I see a lot of people who enjoy the records acknowledging that binaural has production issues, or that certain songs on riot act would be improved with a more energetic performace. I rag on atw for being a hippie mess, but I say the same about present tense on no code.

Fuzzcharger wrote:I always thought the Middle Years fans were those who prefer the albums from Vitalogy - Riot Act. That was their most interesting period musically, but their least commercial.

The middle years are for the fans who have decent taste....

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:We (and I include myself) might find these "middle" records (whatever they are to us) fantastic for a number of reasons, yeah. I agree Lament. But it's that "fucking fantastic" that's subjective, obviously. I think that if you can appreciate a highly-polished pop-rock album as much as a low-fi, dark and "messy" mid-period album, you're in a good place to appreciate both sides of Pearl Jam. I for one find enjoyment from Lightning Bolt which is different to my enjoyment of the more subtle, idiosyncratic and profound Pearl Jam, but it's still palpable. But within that latter period, there are points where they're not quite reaching for what they try to. Regardless of how good these "pop PJ" albums become, they're going to have to work like shit off a stick if they ever want to produce a "fun" record as good as anything by R.E.M. There's still the sense in which they're attempting stuff I'm perfectly happy they attempt, but in a way that's been bettered by their peers. What are the defining marks of great "neo-PJ"? I don't even know, but there may be a few on Lightning Bolt. So I just hope they capitalise on those for the next album, instead of all the wrong things. It seems to me that they carried most of the best aspects of Backspacer forward, as well as dipping into the back catalogue.

But once again, these complaints seem to be leveled against some theoretical "Middle Period Pearl Jam" fan that doesn't really exist, and when someone who fits that definition loosely (like the stereogum dude) he gets dismissed as (once again), having an impenetrable bias. I love the so called "dark, messy" middle period records. I also don't think Yield is dark and messy. I probably love instant, accessible, big sounding pop-rock (the kinda stuff I frequently hear that Middle Period Pearl Jam fans can't appreciate) as much, if not more than anyone else on this board, so my lack of interest in S/T or Backspacer has nothing to do with an impenetrable bias, and I don't think anyone who has even tried to state a coherent case about their lack of interest in these records has ever done so. My problem with S/T or Backspacer is I don't think they're very good. I think plenty of other guitar rock bands have made better accessible, late career records (like Send Away The Tigers by Manic Street Preachers, Don't Believe The Truth by Oasis, Magic by Bruce Springsteen, Accelerate by R.E.M. to name a few). It's got nothing to do with some pre-conceived bias. I was thrilled in the lead up to Backspacer when I heard about Pearl Jam's new "approach" to the record, as it played on reference points that I could draw back to a lot of music that I absolutely love. But when the record came out, I found it to be, essentially, a failure to achieve not only any of those things, but anything of value to me whatsoever. I get that some people love it, and like I said, I would never begrudge someone who makes an intelligent case for their adoration of that record (like stip). At the same time, it's incredibly stupid to dismiss someone who loves the middle period records and not the later ones as doing so for some less than legitimate reason.

I'm with all this as well.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:I always thought the Middle Years fans were those who prefer the albums from Vitalogy - Riot Act. That was their most interesting period musically, but their least commercial.

The middle years are for the fans who have decent taste....

verb_to_trust wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:I always thought the Middle Years fans were those who prefer the albums from Vitalogy - Riot Act. That was their most interesting period musically, but their least commercial.

The middle years are for the fans who have decent taste....

I was trying not to say that so explicitly

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

Lament wrote:

digster wrote:it can just get frustrating when you keep hearing that you prefer PJ's past work to their current work not necessarily due to any songwriting deficiencies on their part, but because you have these biases that can't be penetrated.

Exactly. Look, we're not talking about someone who came on here and was like "NO CODE RULES FUCK THE LIGHTNING BOLT RIP PEARL JAM!" We're talking about a well thought out, well written critique of what the reviewer considers to be a source of the difference in quality between the Pearl Jam albums he loves and one he merely likes, and we still have people dismissing it as (to paraphrase digster) some impenetrable bias. The same way I wouldn't accuse someone like stip, who is very eloquent about WHY he loves S/T and Backspacer, of "forcing himself" to like those records, I think it's equally ridiculous to act like someone who is equally eloquent about things he DOESN'T like about those albums isn't being fair/genuine/sincere in his assessment.

The problem is that there are obvious (though subjective) weaknesses in mid-period Pearl Jam. And some board members, like stip, have voiced them. But they get laughed off, and we have excuses for that reaction. If Ed mumbles and sounds unconfident in Riot Act, it's *obviously* because the tired vocal delivery is appropriate, it's a lethargic stoner rock record, etc. etc. People who dislike the stuff have really valid reasons to find weaknesses, but some of us can run rings around their arguments. I personally think that if your vocabulary and writing skill was good enough, you could find a thousand reasons to defend latter-day Pearl Jam, as stip has done time and again. I'm in the camp that likes most PJ records for different reasons, so I can maybe see the irony of both sides thinking their "strongest material" is just so obviously stronger. It's about context, expectation and taste; if you set your context in writing well enough, you can convincingly argue for the strength of most of these albums. That's what this reviewer does. We are convinced by his argument if we're convinced by his eloquent premise.

I dunno, I see a lot of people who enjoy the records acknowledging that binaural has production issues, or that certain songs on riot act would be improved with a more energetic performace. I rag on atw for being a hippie mess, but I say the same about present tense on no code.

Fair enough, but none of those flaws ruin the records for you, whereas they might for someone else. For people who like an energised, passionate full-bodied Vedder, Riot Act is a non-starter. And that's not my opinion, I'm just trying to say that what others view as "flaws", we can view as "idiosyncrasies", "charming quirks", whatever. I view Binaural's production issues or tracking issues as what makes it a flawed masterpiece. Some people are justified in thinking it makes it a mess, though. And that's what I thought of it for years. I once heaped the same hot coals of condemnation on Binaural as some people have done on Lightning Bolt. At the end of the day, it depends what will break the deal for you.

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:Guys, I'm not saying that the middle period records are superior for everyone. I'm arguing against the idea of this theoretical "Middle Period Pearl Jam Fan." Look, people can't even AGREE what "Middle Period Pearl Jam" is. Even in stip's assessment of the run of records in question, he refers to Vitalogy and Yield (perhaps the two most generally beloved records in that run) as being "outliers." That's 40% of the "period" in question. For those who don't consider Binaural or Riot Act part of the period, that jumps to 66%. You could argue that there's an approach that changed at some point, but no one is a fan of the "approach." We're fans of the actual material. If in the eyes of a listener the material takes a noticeable dip in quality that seems to be explained by a change in approach, we might bemoan the change in the approach, but that's because of the outcome. The actual OUTCOMES from the approach in question are rather varied. If the outcome of latter day Pearl Jam's "new" approach was consistently resulting in material that we found to be captivating, the approach would be of very little concern to any of us. Do you really believe that these records are so important to some of us because they all share a common approach, as opposed to because they're all very interesting, engaging, yet diverse records? The common approach may have resulted in the string of records we loved emerging in the way that they did, but that's not the reason we love these records. We love them because some of us think they're really fucking fantastic.

sure, but they may be fantastic because of the approach that is used--that this style of writing is more likely to produce outcomes that are more likely to accentuate what you care about.

That very well may be the case, but once again, the only significant shared trait of these records is once again what we perceive to be the quality. If a different approach fed that quality, that's fine and dandy, but since that's not an actual "trait" of the finished project (in the way something like Ed's vocal quality or the amount of Mike solos on the album is), I don't see it as a reason to act like these albums are linked by some aspect of Pearl Jam that we've become irrationally attached to and can't let go of and are letting destroy our view of latter day Pearl Jam.

Look man, I'm a social scientist. I like classifying things.


And are people really accusing you of being irrationally attached? If I can put on my Badmusic hat for a moment, I'm not sure where those posts are. I think what people are arguing (and maybe this is my argument and I'm inaccurately softening obnoxious things other people are saying) is that what made these songs great is an approach to writing that speaks to you. Yes, the final product is what matters, but this is one of the reasons why you'll find that final project more compelling. And a different approach means you're less likely to find something compelling in that approach.


It's not like these are walls or anything. There are tons of songs I love from the periods/approaches that I find less compelling, and songs i don't care about from the periods I do. But in general an approach to songwriting is more likely to produce results I'll like, given the fact that the core variable here (the guys in the band) are a constant.

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:We (and I include myself) might find these "middle" records (whatever they are to us) fantastic for a number of reasons, yeah. I agree Lament. But it's that "fucking fantastic" that's subjective, obviously. I think that if you can appreciate a highly-polished pop-rock album as much as a low-fi, dark and "messy" mid-period album, you're in a good place to appreciate both sides of Pearl Jam. I for one find enjoyment from Lightning Bolt which is different to my enjoyment of the more subtle, idiosyncratic and profound Pearl Jam, but it's still palpable. But within that latter period, there are points where they're not quite reaching for what they try to. Regardless of how good these "pop PJ" albums become, they're going to have to work like shit off a stick if they ever want to produce a "fun" record as good as anything by R.E.M. There's still the sense in which they're attempting stuff I'm perfectly happy they attempt, but in a way that's been bettered by their peers. What are the defining marks of great "neo-PJ"? I don't even know, but there may be a few on Lightning Bolt. So I just hope they capitalise on those for the next album, instead of all the wrong things. It seems to me that they carried most of the best aspects of Backspacer forward, as well as dipping into the back catalogue.

But once again, these complaints seem to be leveled against some theoretical "Middle Period Pearl Jam" fan that doesn't really exist, and when someone who fits that definition loosely (like the stereogum dude) he gets dismissed as (once again), having an impenetrable bias. I love the so called "dark, messy" middle period records. I also don't think Yield is dark and messy. I probably love instant, accessible, big sounding pop-rock (the kinda stuff I frequently hear that Middle Period Pearl Jam fans can't appreciate) as much, if not more than anyone else on this board, so my lack of interest in S/T or Backspacer has nothing to do with an impenetrable bias, and I don't think anyone who has even tried to state a coherent case about their lack of interest in these records has ever done so. My problem with S/T or Backspacer is I don't think they're very good. I think plenty of other guitar rock bands have made better accessible, late career records (like Send Away The Tigers by Manic Street Preachers, Don't Believe The Truth by Oasis, Magic by Bruce Springsteen, Accelerate by R.E.M. to name a few). It's got nothing to do with some pre-conceived bias. I was thrilled in the lead up to Backspacer when I heard about Pearl Jam's new "approach" to the record, as it played on reference points that I could draw back to a lot of music that I absolutely love. But when the record came out, I found it to be, essentially, a failure to achieve not only any of those things, but anything of value to me whatsoever. I get that some people love it, and like I said, I would never begrudge someone who makes an intelligent case for their adoration of that record (like stip). At the same time, it's incredibly stupid to dismiss someone who loves the middle period records and not the later ones as doing so for some less than legitimate reason.

hey, I'm one of these 'the middle period exists' people and I think the sterogum guy wote a marvelous review, and one of the things that makes it so great is that he lays out precisely why he believes what he believes, what his expectations are for it, what sorts of things move him. i disagree with parts of his conclusion based on my personal tastes, but that was a great piece of writing. Quite seriously one of the best reviews i ever read.

harmless wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:The problem is that there are obvious (though subjective) weaknesses in mid-period Pearl Jam. And some board members, like stip, have voiced them. But they get laughed off, and we have excuses for that reaction. If Ed mumbles and sounds unconfident in Riot Act, it's *obviously* because the tired vocal delivery is appropriate, it's a lethargic stoner rock record, etc. etc. People who dislike the stuff have really valid reasons to find weaknesses, but some of us can run rings around their arguments. I personally think that if your vocabulary and writing skill was good enough, you could find a thousand reasons to defend latter-day Pearl Jam, as stip has done time and again. I'm in the camp that likes most PJ records for different reasons, so I can maybe see the irony of both sides thinking their "strongest material" is just so obviously stronger. It's about context, expectation and taste; if you set your context in writing well enough, you can convincingly argue for the strength of most of these albums. That's what this reviewer does. We are convinced by his argument if we're convinced by his eloquent premise.

But this is once again my point. Whatever someone's opinion is about anything in the catalog, if it's presented as eloquently and well-thought out as a stip post or a Kevin Davis post or the stereogum review, it's fucking stupid to dismiss it as being the result of some sort of bias/hipsterdom/irrationality.

Right. Yeah, that's totally true.

who is actually DISMISSING this stuff as bias, rather than trying to understand a preference

I'm still on the proverbial fence right now about LB, but it has made me realize how straight forward and linear my PJ album appreciation has been. At the time of and in the months following each respective album release, I've basically liked every album released since Ten slightly less than the album preceding it. Binaural was actually the first where I started skipping tracks, and that has continued all the way through BS.

At some point that changed for me, and I found a new appreciation for No Code that vaulted it into my top spot over the first three albums, I think in large part b/c of the burnout factor with the early albums, combined with less of an appreciation for the later albums. It kind of hit the sweet spot for me.

But No Code aside, LB is actually the first album, based on initial listens, to surpass it's predecessor album for me. That's a pretty huge first, and while one instance does not a trend set, it's a positive step in the right direction.

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

Lament wrote:

digster wrote:it can just get frustrating when you keep hearing that you prefer PJ's past work to their current work not necessarily due to any songwriting deficiencies on their part, but because you have these biases that can't be penetrated.

Exactly. Look, we're not talking about someone who came on here and was like "NO CODE RULES FUCK THE LIGHTNING BOLT RIP PEARL JAM!" We're talking about a well thought out, well written critique of what the reviewer considers to be a source of the difference in quality between the Pearl Jam albums he loves and one he merely likes, and we still have people dismissing it as (to paraphrase digster) some impenetrable bias. The same way I wouldn't accuse someone like stip, who is very eloquent about WHY he loves S/T and Backspacer, of "forcing himself" to like those records, I think it's equally ridiculous to act like someone who is equally eloquent about things he DOESN'T like about those albums isn't being fair/genuine/sincere in his assessment.

The problem is that there are obvious (though subjective) weaknesses in mid-period Pearl Jam. And some board members, like stip, have voiced them. But they get laughed off, and we have excuses for that reaction. If Ed mumbles and sounds unconfident in Riot Act, it's *obviously* because the tired vocal delivery is appropriate, it's a lethargic stoner rock record, etc. etc. People who dislike the stuff have really valid reasons to find weaknesses, but some of us can run rings around their arguments. I personally think that if your vocabulary and writing skill was good enough, you could find a thousand reasons to defend latter-day Pearl Jam, as stip has done time and again. I'm in the camp that likes most PJ records for different reasons, so I can maybe see the irony of both sides thinking their "strongest material" is just so obviously stronger. It's about context, expectation and taste; if you set your context in writing well enough, you can convincingly argue for the strength of most of these albums. That's what this reviewer does. We are convinced by his argument if we're convinced by his eloquent premise.

I dunno, I see a lot of people who enjoy the records acknowledging that binaural has production issues, or that certain songs on riot act would be improved with a more energetic performace. I rag on atw for being a hippie mess, but I say the same about present tense on no code.

Fair enough, but none of those flaws ruin the records for you, whereas they might for someone else. For people who like an energised, passionate full-bodied Vedder, Riot Act is a non-starter. And that's not my opinion, I'm just trying to say that what others view as "flaws", we can view as "idiosyncrasies", "charming quirks", whatever. I view Binaural's production issues or tracking issues as what makes it a flawed masterpiece. Some people are justified in thinking it makes it a mess, though. And that's what I thought of it for years. I once heaped the same hot coals of condemnation on Binaural as some people have done on Lightning Bolt. At the end of the day, it depends what will break the deal for you.

Definitely. But I don't think I've ever actually seen a poster attack someone for not liking binaural or something. 'You might get a 'no way! The production on binaural makes it awesome! Backspacer sounds like ass' But that's an opinion. I've never seen a 'take your backspacer loving ass somewhere else'. Some people make it sound like there's this gang of people on the board trying to iron out any love for the later albums and blindly assume everyone feels the way they do. That's not my experience at all.

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:The problem is that there are obvious (though subjective) weaknesses in mid-period Pearl Jam. And some board members, like stip, have voiced them. But they get laughed off, and we have excuses for that reaction. If Ed mumbles and sounds unconfident in Riot Act, it's *obviously* because the tired vocal delivery is appropriate, it's a lethargic stoner rock record, etc. etc. People who dislike the stuff have really valid reasons to find weaknesses, but some of us can run rings around their arguments. I personally think that if your vocabulary and writing skill was good enough, you could find a thousand reasons to defend latter-day Pearl Jam, as stip has done time and again. I'm in the camp that likes most PJ records for different reasons, so I can maybe see the irony of both sides thinking their "strongest material" is just so obviously stronger. It's about context, expectation and taste; if you set your context in writing well enough, you can convincingly argue for the strength of most of these albums. That's what this reviewer does. We are convinced by his argument if we're convinced by his eloquent premise.

But this is once again my point. Whatever someone's opinion is about anything in the catalog, if it's presented as eloquently and well-thought out as a stip post or a Kevin Davis post or the stereogum review, it's fucking stupid to dismiss it as being the result of some sort of bias/hipsterdom/irrationality.

Right. Yeah, that's totally true.

who is actually DISMISSING this stuff as bias, rather than trying to understand a preference

Usually trolls and people who wander over from the Pit. But there have been plenty of them.

Iowaska_Experience wrote:I'm still on the proverbial fence right now about LB, but it has made me realize how straight forward and linear my PJ album appreciation has been. At the time of and in the months following each respective album release, I've basically liked every album released since Ten slightly less than the album preceding it. Binaural was actually the first where I started skipping tracks, and that has continued all the way through BS.

At some point that changed for me, and I found a new appreciation for No Code that vaulted it into my top spot over the first three albums, I think in large part b/c of the burnout factor with the early albums, combined with less of an appreciation for the later albums. It kind of hit the sweet spot for me.

But No Code aside, LB is actually the first album, based on initial listens, to surpass it's predecessor album for me. That's a pretty huge first, and while one instance does not a trend set, it's a positive step in the right direction.

Or Backspacer was rock bottom so now...