Red Mosquito

Ms Harmless wrote:maybe I should change my name to Ms. Hwourmless

First do no hwourm

She's a multi-award winning Brand Consultant. Perhaps she should advise NME on ways to revive their credibility by first hiring competent writers.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:I heard this lady's husband recently got fired for sleeping on the job.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:I heard this lady's husband recently got fired for sleeping on the job.

Was he the Researcher assigned to the NME review, or the Editor?

FlatSideofaDog wrote:Yes there is helpful stuff in there but the tone is so mean that she'd have to be a pretty big person to thank you for it.

His tone wasn't mean in the slightest.

Ms Harmless wrote:to be fair, her editor should have done that job

Her editor should be responsible for some of it, but a lot of it is just her not having a clue what she's talking about. That's not someone else's fault.

FlatSideofaDog wrote:Yes there is helpful stuff in there but the tone is so mean that she'd have to be a pretty big person to thank you for it.

Did she write the review for charity? Is she an unpaid Intern? I wouldn't have a job after three days with work of that quality.

tree_ wrote:stfu sarge

yeah call me a jerk and then go on being yourself all the time. Hypocritical much?

by the way, i don't mind coming across as a 'jerk' here, and why should I? How do you get paid to review an album and then write this garbage?

You are exhausting.

tree_ wrote:I'm not asking for her gratitude. I just want her to know she fucked up and that there are people actually paying attention.

In fairness she messed up so much. I don't blame you for contacting her (she won't get back to you though).

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:stfu sarge

yeah call me a jerk and then go on being yourself all the time. Hypocritical much?

by the way, i don't mind coming across as a 'jerk' here, and why should I? How do you get paid to review an album and then write this garbage?

You are exhausting.

Sigh... So Sarge calls me a jerk and I'm not allowed to retaliate without "exhausting" you? So sorry dude. So sorry.

Haven't gotten through the whole thing, but not cause it sucks, just cause I want to hear it in better quality. I'm excited and liked what I've heard so far, shit Superblood sounds better to me in the context of an album.

super nintendo chalmers wrote:Haven't gotten through the whole thing, but not cause it sucks, just cause I want to hear it in better quality. I'm excited and liked what I've heard so far, shit Superblood sounds better to me in the context of an album.

philpritchard wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:to be fair, her editor should have done that job

Her editor should be responsible for some of it, but a lot of it is just her not having a clue what she's talking about. That's not someone else's fault.

relax, I'm not absolving her of that responsibility; I'm saying that Tree's email is only as bad as the editor's comments would have been if they'd been doing their job properly; of course the writer herself should have done a good first-pass proof read

Yeah, it's not like I cursed her out and called her a fat ugly slob. You guys calling me a mean jerk have got your own problems.

I don't think you were mean, just to the point and matter-of-fact, but what do I know, I have BPD

I've lived with the leak for several days now, and have listened through five or six times. Much less than many, more than some. I figured I'd add some more thoughts to the sea of opinions put forth on here.

The band seem ambitious on this album, something that I didn't feel was the case for the last dozen years or so. "Who Ever Said" announces this from the word 'go,' a song that twists and turns, taking on new ideas even as the final seconds tick by on the clock. It's got some of the modern day Vedderisms that most of us have come to loathe, but it manages to soar despite them.

"Seven O'Clock" is similarly ambitious, but it's constructed in a more overtly reaching and 'epic' fashion, which we now know can be attributed to the two year gestation and careful assemblage by the band, Josh Evans, and the other engineers. I'm not totally sold on its effectiveness or success, but I do like quite a bit of it. I can see why everyone wanted it as the album centerpiece, but I honestly think it might work better later in the sequence.

That brings up a leading thought I've had over the last couple of days about the album structure. The sequencing seems off and somewhat haphazard with long stretches of similar material. Look at the final three: they could all function as closing pieces, and schlepped together as they are, it's 17 minutes of the record winding down. That works for some artists, but I don't think it serves Pearl Jam well. I'm not a big fan of retracking most of the time, but I think I might put together a different sequence at some point.

Many of the songs contain parts that have reminded me of the band I fell in love with. The chorus of "Who Ever Said", the transitional parts of "Never Destination" and its ending detour, pretty much all of "Quick Escape" and "Alright," the spirit of "Buckle Up." That's helped me to warm up to some songs that didn't sit right at first, such as the aforementioned "Never Destination."

The one that has risen the highest since first listen is "Take the Long Way." I initially brushed it off as a forgettable fast-paced song that was a disappointment because I was expecting another chunky, complex Cameron beast like "Cropduster," "In the Moonlight," or "You Are." It's closer to "Evacuation," though, another Matt song that repelled me at first, but then opened up into a multifaceted piece that engages both the head and the heart.

My favorites from the first listen are still top notch and what I most look forward to when I listen. The Zeppelin style romp of "Quick Escape," the now legendarily left- field ”Dance of the Clairvoyants," the No Code/Yield throwback of "Alright," and the quirk pop masterpiece, "Buckle Up." Joined by "Who Ever Said," "Take the Long Way," and "Comes Then Goes," that's seven songs in the very good to great territory, which is still astounding to me.

I hate 90% of what tree_has been about around here but that email was 100% acceptable.

Ms Harmless wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:to be fair, her editor should have done that job

Her editor should be responsible for some of it, but a lot of it is just her not having a clue what she's talking about. That's not someone else's fault.

relax, I'm not absolving her of that responsibility; I'm saying that Tree's email is only as bad as the editor's comments would have been if they'd been doing their job properly; of course the writer herself should have done a good first-pass proof read

What about what I said suggests I need to "relax"?

philpritchard wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:to be fair, her editor should have done that job

Her editor should be responsible for some of it, but a lot of it is just her not having a clue what she's talking about. That's not someone else's fault.

relax, I'm not absolving her of that responsibility; I'm saying that Tree's email is only as bad as the editor's comments would have been if they'd been doing their job properly; of course the writer herself should have done a good first-pass proof read

What about what I said suggests I need to "relax"?

"that's not someone else's fault"

I didn't need correcting on anything I said and your comment was a correction

Thejambi wrote:I hate 90% of what tree_has been about around here but that email was 100% acceptable.

You might want to crunch those numbers again. Pretty sure I'm not 90% hate-worthy.