Red Mosquito

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

We got a review that a few people agreed with, then a post saying of course you liked the review, the author is one of those "middle period" fans. Like the " middle period fans" and "present day fans" are two rival 1950s gangs.

I don't really get the point of analysing someone's preference for something though. "I like this" " let me tell you why you like it"

I realise I've probably diluted and exaggerated everyone's posts but yeah.

stip wrote: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.

The specific post that led to my complaint about dismissing criticisms based on an irrational attachment/impenetrable bias was the one criticizing the stereogum review for being merely an extended "I wish they made the kind of music they used to make when I liked them" and alluded to the author not being able to appreciate latter day Pearl Jam because he wasn't ok with them "moving on." As I stated before, I found that be every bit as lazy a response to a well articulated, complex set of thoughts as someone replying to your LB review with "nah dude, it just sucks."

I'm not arguing that the approach doesn't have anything to do with the outcome. But the approach is being made out to be something people have an emotional attachment to, and I don't think that's the case at all. There's nothing about the "approach" to writing that speaks to me. The outcome does. The material is still being judged on its merits (and lack thereof) the same way the middle period records were. The idea that the "approach" had fundamentally changed is something that (for me at least), came after the fact, when trying to think about things that might explain why the amount of engagement their records were able to elicit from me seemed to drop very sharply, very quickly. It had nothing to do with my initial assessment of any of their records, so I don't see it as a reasonable to accuse someone like the stereogum author as having an impenetrable bias.

stupidmop wrote:

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.

Well, there have been a lot of people being very "vocal" about the new stuff being completely awful, and demeaning those who liked it. Call it shtick, whatever you want. But it's happened. There's a correlation between the vitriol offered by lovers of the more subtle Pearl Jam stuff, and the music itself: subtlety. Passive aggression for fun is the hallmark of the anti-Backspacer people. In the run-up to Lightning Bolt I was finding all that very unenjoyable, and said so, but as soon as people had music to actually comment on, I began to find it easier. I cannot abide people angrily dismissing music they haven't heard yet, but if we are both listening to the same song, I'm very happy to engage in a debate about it, even if you're angry. (By you I mean "one", not you specifically.)

I'm about to start listening to this and I'll take care of the verdict, mmk?

Noaheb wrote:

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...

I guess that was my point. To the extent they continue to make albums (I lean toward the camp that says they should STOP doing that), hopefully each one incrementally improves on this one.

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

Tuolumne wrote:I dunno, that Stereogum review is alot like RM, where there's some people that go, "I wish they were making the style from Binaural/Riot Act", which sounds alot like in the No Code era most of us heard from ex-fans "I wish they made music like Ten". It's just the nature of a band changing and not meeting you where you're at in a particular moment. Sure there's some songs that miss or could have been executed or included differently, but it's very reminiscent of that No Code era. I consider many members of this board to be "middle era" PJ fans, just like there are devotees (to this day) of "early" PJ. We're currently in "late era" PJ. It's just the changing nature of any band that goes this long. Over the several years I've been reading this and other boards, I've not been convinced it's anything otherwise.

Lament wrote:

stip wrote: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.

The specific post that led to my complaint about dismissing criticisms based on an irrational attachment/impenetrable bias was the one criticizing the stereogum review for being merely an extended "I wish they made the kind of music they used to make when I liked them" and alluded to the author not being able to appreciate latter day Pearl Jam because he wasn't ok with them "moving on." As I stated before, I found that be every bit as lazy a response to a well articulated, complex set of thoughts as someone replying to your LB review with "nah dude, it just sucks."

I'm not arguing that the approach doesn't have anything to do with the outcome. But the approach is being made out to be something people have an emotional attachment to, and I don't think that's the case at all. There's nothing about the "approach" to writing that speaks to me. The outcome does. The material is still being judged on its merits (and lack thereof) the same way the middle period records were. The idea that the "approach" had fundamentally changed is something that (for me at least), came after the fact, when trying to think about things that might explain why the amount of engagement their records were able to elicit from me seemed to drop very sharply, very quickly. It had nothing to do with my initial assessment of any of their records, so I don't see it as a reasonable to accuse someone like the stereogum author as having an impenetrable bias.

I'm interested: did your love of any of the records come after the fact, too?

i'm listening to the stream right now.

as much as i would have liked a completely new song. i like what Sleeping By Myself turned into.

my ranking of the tracks:
Yellow Moon
Pendulum
Infallible
My Father's Son
Getaway
Let the Records Play
Sirens
Sleeping By Myself
Mind Your Manners
Lightening Bolt
Swallowed Whole
Future Days

i feel it's safe to say that, yet again, these guys have no idea which songs to pick as singles.

harmless wrote:

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.

None of any real consequence though. Pretty easily ignored stuff.

The stuff that I criticize is when people are lazy in their critique and rehash the same tired tropes year after year after year (keyword, to troll). If there's nothing new to be said you may as well spend your time in the Other Bands thread with something you find more worthy or challenging, be it good or bad.

I'm happy to hear an interesting negative take on PJ, the operative word being "interesting". Out of the hipsters McP and user theplatypus have done that. There are others who shan't be named that need to retire or rework the schtick.

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.

evenslow wrote:

harmless wrote:

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.

None of any real consequence though. Pretty easily ignored stuff.

The stuff that I criticize is when people are lazy in their critique and rehash the same tired tropes year after year after year (keyword, to troll). If there's nothing new to be said you may as well spend your time in the Other Bands thread with something you find more worthy or challenging, be it good or bad.

I'm happy to hear an interesting negative take on PJ, the operative word being "interesting". Out of the hipsters McP and user theplatypus have done that. There are others who shan't be named that need to retire or rework the schtick.

Yes, but this ISN'T easily ignored. If it's from friends, or people whose opinions you usually respect highly, and they're happily engaging in trolling behaviour due to how awful everything is without respectfully engaging in argument, it can be really quite depressing. So I was just answering stip; generally I agree with you about how certain people can take it too far, but I was including them in "trolls". I really don't like it when people I usually enjoy engaging with become trolls. It's off-putting and if it wasn't for my addiction to this site, I might have just left when I felt it was happening.

elliseamos wrote:i'm listening to the stream right now.

as much as i would have liked a completely new song. i like what Sleeping By Myself turned into.

my ranking of the tracks:
Yellow Moon
Pendulum
Infallible
My Father's Son
Getaway
Let the Records Play
Sirens
Sleeping By Myself
Mind Your Manners
Lightening Bolt
Swallowed Whole
Future Days

i feel it's safe to say that, yet again, these guys have no idea which songs to pick as singles.

I think the only person who's concerned about singles at all is BoB.

harmless wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote: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.

The specific post that led to my complaint about dismissing criticisms based on an irrational attachment/impenetrable bias was the one criticizing the stereogum review for being merely an extended "I wish they made the kind of music they used to make when I liked them" and alluded to the author not being able to appreciate latter day Pearl Jam because he wasn't ok with them "moving on." As I stated before, I found that be every bit as lazy a response to a well articulated, complex set of thoughts as someone replying to your LB review with "nah dude, it just sucks."

I'm not arguing that the approach doesn't have anything to do with the outcome. But the approach is being made out to be something people have an emotional attachment to, and I don't think that's the case at all. There's nothing about the "approach" to writing that speaks to me. The outcome does. The material is still being judged on its merits (and lack thereof) the same way the middle period records were. The idea that the "approach" had fundamentally changed is something that (for me at least), came after the fact, when trying to think about things that might explain why the amount of engagement their records were able to elicit from me seemed to drop very sharply, very quickly. It had nothing to do with my initial assessment of any of their records, so I don't see it as a reasonable to accuse someone like the stereogum author as having an impenetrable bias.

I'm interested: did your love of any of the records come after the fact, too?

No. I'm one of those kids who was instantly enamored with Binaural and Riot Act. Riot Act's flaws were obvious, but it's strengths spoke to me in high volume at the time. It was a record that I didn't need to be the best they'd ever done, but wanted to connect to in a unique way, and it delivered on those expectations for me.

Binaural was in some ways the most pivotal Pearl Jam record for me. I had burned out on the band pretty hard from 1994-1999, so by the time Binaural came out I really needed it to be a great record that appealed to me solely on its own merits, because there wasn't the option a lot of my friends had of reacting in a "Hey, it made me put on the old records and realize how great they were, and now I'm on a huge Pearl Jam kick!" way. I was in a really dark headspace (I'd spent the previous few months drowning my self in Primal Scream's XTRMNTR), and Binaural presented a universe it was very easy for me to slip into and be completely transfixed with. The album stayed in very regular rotation for a solid year for me, and a for sizable chunks of that period I really believed it might ultimately prove to be an even better record than Vitalogy (my favorite PJ album and one of my favorite albums ever).

Yield was instant for me like it was for a lot of people. My Pearl Jam love was high and in full bloom at that time. No Code wasn't difficult for me to permeate either (In My Tree knocked me out), and Vitalogy made me fall head over heels in love with the band.

ridleybradout wrote:

flannelking wrote:So future days is about 4 1/2 mins long. That was surprising. How did they stretch this simple tune out so far? Are there some instrumental parts to it or what?

Indulgent BoB piano intro + indulgent BoB piano outro. What are the chance he gets songwriting credits on this?...

No, can't be. They wouldn't be that long anyway. There's surely a Sabbath type jam at the root of this. Or at least a jam reminiscent of live PJ Ten era songs. This albums is return to form. I'm in the no leak club with great expectations. Don't kid me.

This is definitely the first record since No Code that's left me completely bewildered. It's only been a day and hopefully this means it'll reveal itself slowly.

I like the parts but not the total, as it stands. Yet, at least.
But it's a brave record. I never got the whole idea of comparing records to previous ones. Usually there's no relatuonship really, outside the personal, and that's going to be different for us all individually. But it's a bold step and I hope I can take it with them, given time.

harmless wrote:

evenslow wrote:

harmless wrote:

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.

None of any real consequence though. Pretty easily ignored stuff.

The stuff that I criticize is when people are lazy in their critique and rehash the same tired tropes year after year after year (keyword, to troll). If there's nothing new to be said you may as well spend your time in the Other Bands thread with something you find more worthy or challenging, be it good or bad.

I'm happy to hear an interesting negative take on PJ, the operative word being "interesting". Out of the hipsters McP and user theplatypus have done that. There are others who shan't be named that need to retire or rework the schtick.

Yes, but this ISN'T easily ignored. If it's from friends, or people whose opinions you usually respect highly, and they're happily engaging in trolling behaviour due to how awful everything is without respectfully engaging in argument, it can be really quite depressing. So I was just answering stip; generally I agree with you about how certain people can take it too far, but I was including them in "trolls". I really don't like it when people I usually enjoy engaging with become trolls. It's off-putting and if it wasn't for my addiction to this site, I might have just left when I felt it was happening.

I 100% agree with you.

The "easily ignored" I was referring to were the people you mention who briefly come over from the Pit.

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote: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.

The specific post that led to my complaint about dismissing criticisms based on an irrational attachment/impenetrable bias was the one criticizing the stereogum review for being merely an extended "I wish they made the kind of music they used to make when I liked them" and alluded to the author not being able to appreciate latter day Pearl Jam because he wasn't ok with them "moving on." As I stated before, I found that be every bit as lazy a response to a well articulated, complex set of thoughts as someone replying to your LB review with "nah dude, it just sucks."

I'm not arguing that the approach doesn't have anything to do with the outcome. But the approach is being made out to be something people have an emotional attachment to, and I don't think that's the case at all. There's nothing about the "approach" to writing that speaks to me. The outcome does. The material is still being judged on its merits (and lack thereof) the same way the middle period records were. The idea that the "approach" had fundamentally changed is something that (for me at least), came after the fact, when trying to think about things that might explain why the amount of engagement their records were able to elicit from me seemed to drop very sharply, very quickly. It had nothing to do with my initial assessment of any of their records, so I don't see it as a reasonable to accuse someone like the stereogum author as having an impenetrable bias.

I'm interested: did your love of any of the records come after the fact, too?

No. I'm one of those kids who was instantly enamored with Binaural and Riot Act. Riot Act's flaws were obvious, but it's strengths spoke to me in high volume at the time. It was a record that I didn't need to be the best they'd ever done, but wanted to connect to in a unique way, and it delivered on those expectations for me.

Binaural was in some ways the most pivotal Pearl Jam record for me. I had burned out on the band pretty hard from 1994-1999, so by the time Binaural came out I really needed it to be a great record that appealed to me solely on its own merits, because there wasn't the option a lot of my friends had of reacting in a "Hey, it made me put on the old records and realize how great they were, and now I'm on a huge Pearl Jam kick!" way. I was in a really dark headspace (I'd spent the previous few months drowning my self in Primal Scream's XTRMNTR), and Binaural presented a universe it was very easy for me to slip into and be completely transfixed with. The album stayed in very regular rotation for a solid year for me, and a for sizable chunks of that period I really believed it might ultimately prove to be an even better record than Vitalogy (my favorite PJ album and one of my favorite albums ever).

Yield was instant for me like it was for a lot of people. My Pearl Jam love was high and in full bloom at that time. No Code wasn't difficult for me to permeate either (In My Tree knocked me out), and Vitalogy made me fall head over heels in love with the band.[/quote]



This:

Lament wrote:I had burned out on the band pretty hard from 1994-1999, so by the time Binaural came out I really needed it to be a great record that appealed to me solely on its own merits, because there wasn't the option a lot of my friends had of reacting in a "Hey, it made me put on the old records and realize how great they were, and now I'm on a huge Pearl Jam kick!" way. I was in a really dark headspace... and Binaural presented a universe it was very easy for me to slip into and be completely transfixed with.

is what I think Lightning Bolt might well represent for me, now. I didn't need it to be a great record, I just needed it to connect with where I am. It does.

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

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.

Well, there have been a lot of people being very "vocal" about the new stuff being completely awful, and demeaning those who liked it. Call it shtick, whatever you want. But it's happened. There's a correlation between the vitriol offered by lovers of the more subtle Pearl Jam stuff, and the music itself: subtlety. Passive aggression for fun is the hallmark of the anti-Backspacer people. In the run-up to Lightning Bolt I was finding all that very unenjoyable, and said so, but as soon as people had music to actually comment on, I began to find it easier. I cannot abide people angrily dismissing music they haven't heard yet, but if we are both listening to the same song, I'm very happy to engage in a debate about it, even if you're angry. (By you I mean "one", not you specifically.)

I guess I'm just used to the 'passive aggression for fun' thing. I'm pretty sure I do that with a lot of stuff I can see how that can be annoying if you're trying to stay positive though. I don't know about other people, but since no one in real life gives two shits about what I think about pearl jam, I use this place to vent and talk about pearl jam for the sake of talking about pearl jam. I kinda assumed no one really takes anything they read here to heart.

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

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.

Well, there have been a lot of people being very "vocal" about the new stuff being completely awful, and demeaning those who liked it. Call it shtick, whatever you want. But it's happened. There's a correlation between the vitriol offered by lovers of the more subtle Pearl Jam stuff, and the music itself: subtlety. Passive aggression for fun is the hallmark of the anti-Backspacer people. In the run-up to Lightning Bolt I was finding all that very unenjoyable, and said so, but as soon as people had music to actually comment on, I began to find it easier. I cannot abide people angrily dismissing music they haven't heard yet, but if we are both listening to the same song, I'm very happy to engage in a debate about it, even if you're angry. (By you I mean "one", not you specifically.)

I guess I'm just used to the 'passive aggression for fun' thing. I'm pretty sure I do that with a lot of stuff I can see how that can be annoying if you're trying to stay positive though. I don't know about other people, but since no one in real life gives two shits about what I think about pearl jam, I use this place to vent and talk about pearl jam for the sake of talking about pearl jam. I kinda assumed no one really takes anything they read here to heart.

Stip would beg to differ with you on this.

Though sometimes when I say 'man, backspacer sucks'. It's cause I really think it sucks that day. I don't know why I have to justify it everytime for it not to be seen as trolling.