Red Mosquito

stupidmop wrote:sometimes when I say 'man, backspacer sucks'.

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.

harmless wrote:Well, it doesn't help that at the moment, I'm both 1) depressed, and 2) addicted to the Internet, which is no pleasant combination. I just kind of appreciate it when certain members realise that other certain members (me) can only take shtick so far, know what I mean? I won't say I'm never as sarcastic and flippant as anyone here sometimes, but there are points where I completely slip out of character as I'm too tired to pretend. At those times, I just want to enjoy the music where it's enjoyable. Which sounds trite, because it is. But I don't want to apologise for it, know what I mean?

Lament wrote:

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.

A certain version of Pearl Jam ended with Riot Act. Since their third record, 1994′s Vitalogy, the band had continuously eschewed their mainstream success in favor of leaning more deliberately alternative, messing with their sound, and, speaking objectively about my favorites albums of theirs, simply making music that sounded uglier. I’m in a certain (but vocal) pseudo-minority of the fanbase that finds Yield, the middle of this process, to be a hidden masterpiece. I’m in a considerably smaller part of the fanbase that loves Riot Act. Sure, that album is all dulled burnt orange hues and wearied midnight wanderings, but even as many fans bemoaned the grayscale of Vedder’s delivery on it (pretty rightfully, though I’d argue it works for many of those songs) ironically it felt like the last moment Pearl Jam really gave us something. Each successive record has felt like some attempt at course correction, or a facsimile of what Pearl Jam imagined people expected them to be. Even when that approach works — as it does on most of Lightning Bolt — it still feels somehow removed from the band we’ve known and loved. They sounded best when they were striving and not always succeeding, their art-rock detours always more interesting than their middle-age rewrites of “Spin the Black Circle.”

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:Well, it doesn't help that at the moment, I'm both 1) depressed, and 2) addicted to the Internet, which is no pleasant combination. I just kind of appreciate it when certain members realise that other certain members (me) can only take shtick so far, know what I mean? I won't say I'm never as sarcastic and flippant as anyone here sometimes, but there are points where I completely slip out of character as I'm too tired to pretend. At those times, I just want to enjoy the music where it's enjoyable. Which sounds trite, because it is. But I don't want to apologise for it, know what I mean?

For what it's worth, I find it refreshingly surprising how well a lot of the regulars here seem to be able to toe the line between schtick/intelligent discourse, and that they tend to be shockingly accurate when gauging when to use each approach.

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:

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.

This is not artfully said, perhaps, but the review does basically say there is a period of pearl jam that tickles his fancy not because the songs were good but because of the approach used in the songs.

A certain version of Pearl Jam ended with Riot Act. Since their third record, 1994′s Vitalogy, the band had continuously eschewed their mainstream success in favor of leaning more deliberately alternative, messing with their sound, and, speaking objectively about my favorites albums of theirs, simply making music that sounded uglier. I’m in a certain (but vocal) pseudo-minority of the fanbase that finds Yield, the middle of this process, to be a hidden masterpiece. I’m in a considerably smaller part of the fanbase that loves Riot Act. Sure, that album is all dulled burnt orange hues and wearied midnight wanderings, but even as many fans bemoaned the grayscale of Vedder’s delivery on it (pretty rightfully, though I’d argue it works for many of those songs) ironically it felt like the last moment Pearl Jam really gave us something. Each successive record has felt like some attempt at course correction, or a facsimile of what Pearl Jam imagined people expected them to be. Even when that approach works — as it does on most of Lightning Bolt — it still feels somehow removed from the band we’ve known and loved. They sounded best when they were striving and not always succeeding, their art-rock detours always more interesting than their middle-age rewrites of “Spin the Black Circle.”

And so Tuolumne's comments about where he's coming from don't sound that crazy as a response to this, do they?

harmless wrote:

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.

Well, it doesn't help that at the moment, I'm both 1) depressed, and 2) addicted to the Internet, which is no pleasant combination. I just kind of appreciate it when certain members realise that other certain members (me) can only take shtick so far, know what I mean? I won't say I'm never as sarcastic and flippant as anyone here sometimes, but there are points where I completely slip out of character as I'm too tired to pretend. At those times, I just want to enjoy the music where it's enjoyable. Which sounds trite, because it is. But I don't want to apologise for it, know what I mean?

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:

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.

This is not artfully said, perhaps, but the review does basically say there is a period of pearl jam that tickles his fancy not because the songs were good but because of the approach used in the songs.

A certain version of Pearl Jam ended with Riot Act. Since their third record, 1994′s Vitalogy, the band had continuously eschewed their mainstream success in favor of leaning more deliberately alternative, messing with their sound, and, speaking objectively about my favorites albums of theirs, simply making music that sounded uglier. I’m in a certain (but vocal) pseudo-minority of the fanbase that finds Yield, the middle of this process, to be a hidden masterpiece. I’m in a considerably smaller part of the fanbase that loves Riot Act. Sure, that album is all dulled burnt orange hues and wearied midnight wanderings, but even as many fans bemoaned the grayscale of Vedder’s delivery on it (pretty rightfully, though I’d argue it works for many of those songs) ironically it felt like the last moment Pearl Jam really gave us something. Each successive record has felt like some attempt at course correction, or a facsimile of what Pearl Jam imagined people expected them to be. Even when that approach works — as it does on most of Lightning Bolt — it still feels somehow removed from the band we’ve known and loved. They sounded best when they were striving and not always succeeding, their art-rock detours always more interesting than their middle-age rewrites of “Spin the Black Circle.”

And so Tuolumne's comments about where he's coming from don't sound that crazy as a response to this, do they?

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

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.

Well, it doesn't help that at the moment, I'm both 1) depressed, and 2) addicted to the Internet, which is no pleasant combination. I just kind of appreciate it when certain members realise that other certain members (me) can only take shtick so far, know what I mean? I won't say I'm never as sarcastic and flippant as anyone here sometimes, but there are points where I completely slip out of character as I'm too tired to pretend. At those times, I just want to enjoy the music where it's enjoyable. Which sounds trite, because it is. But I don't want to apologise for it, know what I mean?

I get you. I'll try to keep my post out of 'WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME PEARL JAM?? ' territory more often.

Harry Lime wrote:It's not that special, but what's with the hate for "Let the Records Play"? I like its blusey groove. Cheesey, but fun. And the country sounding "Sleeping By Myself" might be my favorite so far.

Iowaska_Experience wrote:

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.

Lament wrote:

stupidmop wrote:sometimes when I say 'man, backspacer sucks'.

Every time you say this, stip sheds a single tear onto the paper he's grading. So think twice before you speak, next time.

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:

stupidmop wrote:sometimes when I say 'man, backspacer sucks'.

Every time you say this, stip sheds a single tear onto the paper he's grading. So think twice before you speak, next time.

i ran out of tears a long time ago, friend. Now I just give a single dry, shuddering sob.

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:

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.

This is not artfully said, perhaps, but the review does basically say there is a period of pearl jam that tickles his fancy not because the songs were good but because of the approach used in the songs.

A certain version of Pearl Jam ended with Riot Act. Since their third record, 1994′s Vitalogy, the band had continuously eschewed their mainstream success in favor of leaning more deliberately alternative, messing with their sound, and, speaking objectively about my favorites albums of theirs, simply making music that sounded uglier. I’m in a certain (but vocal) pseudo-minority of the fanbase that finds Yield, the middle of this process, to be a hidden masterpiece. I’m in a considerably smaller part of the fanbase that loves Riot Act. Sure, that album is all dulled burnt orange hues and wearied midnight wanderings, but even as many fans bemoaned the grayscale of Vedder’s delivery on it (pretty rightfully, though I’d argue it works for many of those songs) ironically it felt like the last moment Pearl Jam really gave us something. Each successive record has felt like some attempt at course correction, or a facsimile of what Pearl Jam imagined people expected them to be. Even when that approach works — as it does on most of Lightning Bolt — it still feels somehow removed from the band we’ve known and loved. They sounded best when they were striving and not always succeeding, their art-rock detours always more interesting than their middle-age rewrites of “Spin the Black Circle.”

And so Tuolumne's comments about where he's coming from don't sound that crazy as a response to this, do they?

I find it ironic and amusing when this reviewer writes "They sounded best when they were striving and not always succeeding." Is that not like... now? It partly sounds as if this reviewer would prefer they were just succeeding more at this point, and that the "striving and failing" was really cool, as long as you really liked the result. It's like when people say "PJ aren't challenging the listener anymore." Well, they are, it's just that this time, it's you being challenged, and it's not very nice is it?" No, the challenge isn't intellectual (I can hear the rebuttals already) or even artistic; it's the question of whether you'll follow the band into every direction and self-indulgence they want to take. And many of us answer "Fuck yeah!" until we hate what we're listening to.

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:

stupidmop wrote:sometimes when I say 'man, backspacer sucks'.

Every time you say this, stip sheds a single tear onto the paper he's grading. So think twice before you speak, next time.

i ran out of tears a long time ago, friend. Now I just give a single dry, shuddering sob.

When you read my review for album #11, you'll be pleased to know a certain Mr. Vedder is in a similar place.

Harry Lime wrote:It's not that special, but what's with the hate for "Let the Records Play"? I like its blusey groove. Cheesey, but fun. And the country sounding "Sleeping By Myself" might be my favorite so far.

stupidmop wrote: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.