Red Mosquito

verb_to_trust wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Let's be real, this thing is going to suck.

yeah probably

All signs point towards a big shiny rock album captained by a really rich guy singing about how happy he is. You guys into that?

Not every song needs to be about pain and suffering and frankly 50 year old celebrity multimillionaires sound disingenuous when singing about the struggles of our modern times. I would like an album that doesn't bore me at the live shows and has enough staying power to keep me listening to it after 6 months. I really like MYM and liked Future Days the other night , so I am cautiously optimistic on this one.

warehouse wrote:didn't they write half the record 2 years ago, and then wrote the other half this year? im not really sure what to expect, especially w/ the 3 songs ive heard. mym is awesome. i'm still not sold on LB. i've been trying to forget about the other one, so im not even gonna type the name. regardless, i have pit tickets for the 2nd philly show.

I do wonder if the songs we have heard are from 2 years ago or recently written songs, i wonder if they will be noticeably different or if the wrote half 2 years ago and then purposely tried to write the newer stuff to match up with the older stuff

broken iris wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Let's be real, this thing is going to suck.

yeah probably

All signs point towards a big shiny rock album captained by a really rich guy singing about how happy he is. You guys into that?

Not every song needs to be about pain and suffering and frankly 50 year old celebrity multimillionaires sound disingenuous when singing about the struggles of our modern times. I would like an album that doesn't bore me at the live shows and has enough staying power to keep me listening to it after 6 months. I really like MYM and liked Future Days the other night , so I am cautiously optimistic on this one.

There is a difference between songs about pain and suffering and songs that are at least interesting thematically. I need something I can relate to, especially if the music is going to sound fairly generic.

broken iris wrote:Not every song needs to be about pain and suffering and frankly 50 year old celebrity multimillionaires sound disingenuous when singing about the struggles of our modern times.

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

JimX6 wrote:

Release_Me wrote:But it's just so much cooler when the songs are sad, dark and brooding. Can't they just get angry at something?

It's not that it's much cooler, it's whats established. To me, the themes in LB are just cheesy and NOT Pearl Jam. FD has kind of grown on me with more listens, and I can accept it for what it is. Lightning Bolt on the other hand, sounds like the kind of crap Bon Jovi would be singing about. That's not pearl jam (IMHO). Pearl Jam's themes in the past have been deeper and more serious.

Maybe it's not the Pearl Jam you're holding on to?

I think any one of us could adjust to highly creative material that didn't necessarily agree with our notion of PJ. The problem is that this stuff isn't highly creative. So unless you're OK with that, there's not much to see here.

I don't think PJ was ever a very creative band. If anything, they are highly derivate of their influences which of course have changed over the years. They did experiment somewhat on occasions but they are a pretty straightforward rock band who are just extremely good at what they do. Expecting something highly creative 20+ years into their career when they haven't shown a huge penchant for it in previous years is unrealistic to me. This is probably where you would disagree with me and point to the No Code-Riot Act era as being creatively sublime. I just don't hear it.

I forgot to post this earlier in the thread when you made your debut, but welcome to the board

JimX6 wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

JimX6 wrote:

Release_Me wrote:But it's just so much cooler when the songs are sad, dark and brooding. Can't they just get angry at something?

It's not that it's much cooler, it's whats established. To me, the themes in LB are just cheesy and NOT Pearl Jam. FD has kind of grown on me with more listens, and I can accept it for what it is. Lightning Bolt on the other hand, sounds like the kind of crap Bon Jovi would be singing about. That's not pearl jam (IMHO). Pearl Jam's themes in the past have been deeper and more serious.

Maybe it's not the Pearl Jam you're holding on to?

I think any one of us could adjust to highly creative material that didn't necessarily agree with our notion of PJ. The problem is that this stuff isn't highly creative. So unless you're OK with that, there's not much to see here.

I don't think PJ was ever a very creative band. If anything, they are highly derivate of their influences which of course have changed over the years. They did experiment somewhat on occasions but they are a pretty straightforward rock band who are just extremely good at what they do. Expecting something highly creative 20+ years into their career when they haven't shown a huge penchant for it in previous years is unrealistic to me. This is probably where you would disagree with me and point to the No Code-Riot Act era as being creatively sublime. I just don't hear it.

Whilst I'm sympathetic with this argument and agree with it to an extent, PJ were not a dumb rock band. Bon Jovi was. PJ was not a dumb rock band when they made Vitalogy, No Code, Yield, Binaural or Riot Act. There is interest and creativity in all of these albums. I'm not asking for avant-garde innovation. I'm not really asking for anything. I'm just wondering what made them start wanting to write less substantial, more free-and-easy songs.

THIS! Nailed it.

free and easy does not mean insipid, btw.

I think lightning bolt is the song supersonic, big wave, leatherman, etc. always wanted to be. This is hardly going to be one of my favorites, but I like it fine for what it is, or I think I will, at any rate. It's often difficult to tell from a live song if you don't know the studio version first. And this song makes a lot of sense to debut in this context. Immediately catchy, fast paced, easy to digest on a live listen, not challenging in a way that will disrupt the flow of a concert (this is a debut, after all), nice jam at the end. Future Days is less impressive on first listen, but around the bend or thumbing my way would have bored me to tears on a first live listen. This may not get better (the end and speed of sound had more impressive debuts), but this is also a song that is really screaming to be judged by what they do to it in the studio.

I also like mind your manners more and more as I settle into it. That's a quality song

Release_Me wrote:

JimX6 wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

JimX6 wrote:

Release_Me wrote:But it's just so much cooler when the songs are sad, dark and brooding. Can't they just get angry at something?

It's not that it's much cooler, it's whats established. To me, the themes in LB are just cheesy and NOT Pearl Jam. FD has kind of grown on me with more listens, and I can accept it for what it is. Lightning Bolt on the other hand, sounds like the kind of crap Bon Jovi would be singing about. That's not pearl jam (IMHO). Pearl Jam's themes in the past have been deeper and more serious.

Maybe it's not the Pearl Jam you're holding on to?

It absolutely isn't. It's hard to just accept that and move on though. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Since I was 8, Pearl Jam has been my favorite band. I had all their cassettes, went to shows, learned everything they did on guitar. They influenced me to play and write my own music. They got me through tough times.

Now, I find myself listening to the back catalog. Not because of nostalgia, but because since Just Breathe most of their new stuff isn't what I personally like. I always held onto Pearl Jam because while other favorites (Metallica, Weezer, etc) were falling behind when it came to new output, Pearl Jam was still releasing things that were interesting. Now, sadly, they're in danger of becoming something they were against only 10 years ago.

I can understand that what they are doing now may not click or resonate with you. I don't agree that they've suddenly become some sort of mainstream pop band either, if that's what you mean by what they were against 10 years ago. They wrote difficult, inaccessible music from 96-02 and have gone back to songs with more hooks, except this time the themes aren't as dark. The first three albums had their fair share of hooks and poppy songs but the mood was generally dark. That resonated with me too back in the day and I still enjoy listening to those songs. I recognize the first three albums as PJ at their best. The era after that did nothing for me. I am genuinely enjoying what they have been putting out from S/T onwards.

I would also just like to take this moment to make it clear that this is not my second account

harmless wrote:Riot Act is much more interesting than Binaural. *cough*

true, but these are sitting at the bottom of the catalog for me. They are such joyless albums. If a pearl jam album starts to feel like a slog something went wrong.

OmegaprimeVKM wrote:Admittedly, I don't like the way things have gone for the past few years, but I do note there was a similar quantity of complaining and resentment back when I joined this forums in 2005 regarding Riot Act. At the time I was still a teenager and getting used to the fanbase opinion on here. Riot Act was the strongest album the band had made, in my opinion. It was a passionate, patient and proactive record. I eventually settled on Binaural being my favourite record but Riot Act is in my top 3.

I won't buy in to the Backspacer and S/T positivity - it's abundantly clear that there's a true lack of complexity and conflict in the songwriting and construction process resulting is simplistic and formulaic output with pop overtones and a stock rock n roll riff. Since things have gone digital, Pearl Jam have taken an increasingly back seat towards writing, recording, production, marketing, perhaps even touring (5 shows in Italy, 1 in the UK, what's that all about?). When they guys who do enjoy newer material do (and you are more than entitled to do so) I don't really read many valid justifications for that. It's more of a stronger sense of nostalgia (I feel too young for that) or perhaps accessibility. I still reckon if Vedder had written Johnny Guitar back in '96, it wouldn't even have made it onto a Christmas single.

In a truly, non-nostalgic sense, I'd be shocked if the band could produce another All Those Yesterdays or You Are. Instead we're stuck with plodders like Come Back and Future Days that make me want to listen to bands that can actually try and still care. I think the lack of self-doubt in the band is making things far too easy now. Perhaps, with age, there's a submission to redundancy.

the important thing is that you've established such a firm and objective basis for your opinion, while chalking up disagreements to the self delusions of others.

Walker Bait wrote:I don't know if I'm in the minority here but i think its gonna be great! I've been trying to think of a description for my feelings towards it so far from what we've heard and I couldn't until now and.... EUREKA IVE GOT IT! ! "Organic" it feels much more organic to me...Backspacer felt very polished....too polished and structures. ..this feels organic to me which I love.

YOU'RE DOING THIS WRONG

Now is the time where we all pull together and decide we're going to hate this record no matter what.

Contrarians unite.

digster wrote:

harmless wrote:I don't think I listen to anything for nostalgic reasons. I listen if I like it, even a little bit. If I don't like something I'll go off it and not listen, like plenty of bands from my childhood, and like most of S/T and Backspacer. I guess if the nostalgia argument held up, I'd still be listening to Green Jelly or Ugly Kid Joe.

I don't know if there's a nostalgia aspect, but I definitely am sure I give PJ a pass due to them being such an important band to me. I pop in Backspacer or S/T every once in a while; I just can't see me ever listening to those records if it wasn't this band, or another band that has a similar stature for me.

I made this argument to platy when MYM first came out. There are DEFINTIELY pearl jam albums I feel that way about. Not those two, but others. But the fact that they are pearl jam albums is not an insignificant thing, since the music, even music you may not appreciate on its merits, is enriched by the context of the larger catalog and your relationship to it. That's not an insubstantial thing

Release_Me wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:

Lament wrote:

Thejambi wrote:I love the fall back to "they aren't trying and they don't care" observation because they haven't made music that you like. Let's all stop fooling ourselves that Pearl Jam music was ever really that complicated or innovative. They were never a band looking to redefine or push the boundary's of rock and to think that they should be now and criticize them for it is asinine.

I think it's emotionally easier for people to tell themselves "They're not awesome because they don't want to be awesome" than to accept that they may just not be as good of a band as they were ten years ago. People want to hold on to the idea that they could make an album like Yield if they REALLY wanted to, but they just don't.

Don't or can't? You seem to be wanting to say 'can't' here.

No, I mean "don't." It probably would have been clearer if I had said "but they just don't want to." It's still in the context of what the theoretical fan in question wants to believe.

This is kind of where I get lost. The album which they supposedly can't make now is Yield? To me, that's kind of absurd because that's the album LB most reminds me of. Yield is probably PJ's earliest attempt to make poppier, more anthemic songs with positive or at least uplifting themes. I just don't think they did a very good job of it overall, a few great songs notwithstanding. Even those were very basic songs, nothing out of the ordinary as far as song structures are concerned. Vitalogy, Vs and Ten are the albums they probably can't make now. Or at least not make with any degree of artistic integrity.

It's like everyone wants them to make darker songs, but then the album name they throwaround is Yield? I'm just trying to understand this, forgive my repetition.

I love you. I'm so glad you're here

evenslow wrote:

Walker Bait wrote:I don't know if I'm in the minority here but i think its gonna be great! I've been trying to think of a description for my feelings towards it so far from what we've heard and I couldn't until now and.... EUREKA IVE GOT IT! ! "Organic" it feels much more organic to me...Backspacer felt very polished....too polished and structures. ..this feels organic to me which I love.

YOU'RE DOING THIS WRONG

Now is the time where we all pull together and decide we're going to hate this record no matter what.

Contrarians unite.

Im pretty sure i hate the 9 songs i don't know yet

digster wrote:

Release_Me wrote:
This is kind of where I get lost. The album which they supposedly can't make now is Yield? To me, that's kind of absurd because that's the album LB most reminds me of. Yield is probably PJ's earliest attempt to make poppier, more anthemic songs with positive or at least uplifting themes. I just don't think they did a very good job of it overall, a few great songs notwithstanding. Even those were very basic songs, nothing out of the ordinary as far as song structures are concerned. Vitalogy, Vs and Ten are the albums they probably can't make now. Or at least not make with any degree of artistic integrity.

It's like everyone wants them to make darker songs, but then the album name they throwaround is Yield? I'm just trying to understand this, forgive my repetition.

For the first point, is it possible for Lightning Bolt to be similar to any album yet? I mean, I'd say they seem a little like Backspacer, but who knows what the rest of the record will be like. That being said, I don't hear anything so far matching the quality of Yield, but I don't necessarily need that. They made GREAT records in the career, and it's unfair to view each album as a failure if it doesn't measure up to them. But I don't think it's too much to ask for a quality record.

this has been my attitude for every record after the first 3.

I might be wrong, but I don't see a lot of people saying they want something "darker," and then pointing to "Yield" as an example of what they would expect that to sound like. To a degree, I think you're kind of consolidating everyone's individual quibbles with Pearl Jam's new music into one catch-all platform and then acting surprised when that platform is inconsistent with itself.

What admirers of Pearl Jam's middle period miss isn't the "darkness," I don't think; it's an attention to sonic detail and nuance, an interest in putting slightly sideways spins on the more or less, as you say, "basic song structures" that they've been peddling since the beginning, regardless of whether or not they end up positive and optimistic like "Yield" or inward and claustrophobic like "Binaural." I think what you hear as "difficult and inaccessible" is the same thing that other people hear as multi-layered and stylistically diverse, a genuine curiosity over just how far the basic format of the group can stretch without breaking, or turning into something different altogether. While I've liked the last couple records for what they are, that sense of inquisitiveness is largely gone for me. These three new songs represent the first time I've ever felt just flat-out indifferent to new Pearl Jam. There's just no creative spark to them.

Kevin Davis wrote:I think you're kind of consolidating everyone's individual quibbles with Pearl Jam's new music into one catch-all platform and then acting surprised when that platform is inconsistent with itself.

That's what people have been doing to the naysayers around here for years.

Kevin Davis wrote: What admirers of Pearl Jam's middle period miss isn't the "darkness," I don't think; it's an attention to sonic detail and nuance, an interest in putting slightly sideways spins on the more or less, as you say, "basic song structures" that they've been peddling since the beginning, regardless of whether or not they end up positive and optimistic like "Yield" or inward and claustrophobic like "Binaural." I think what you hear as "difficult and inaccessible" is the same thing that other people hear as multi-layered and stylistically diverse, a genuine curiosity over just how far the basic format of the group can stretch without breaking, or turning into something different altogether. While I've liked the last couple records for what they are, that sense of inquisitiveness is largely gone for me. These three new songs represent the first time I've ever felt just flat-out indifferent to new Pearl Jam. There's just no creative spark to them.

And yeah, so much this.

Kevin Davis wrote:I might be wrong, but I don't see a lot of people saying they want something "darker," and then pointing to "Yield" as an example of what they would expect that to sound like. To a degree, I think you're kind of consolidating everyone's individual quibbles with Pearl Jam's new music into one catch-all platform and then acting surprised when that platform is inconsistent with itself.

What admirers of Pearl Jam's middle period miss isn't the "darkness," I don't think; it's an attention to sonic detail and nuance, an interest in putting slightly sideways spins on the more or less, as you say, "basic song structures" that they've been peddling since the beginning, regardless of whether or not they end up positive and optimistic like "Yield" or inward and claustrophobic like "Binaural." I think what you hear as "difficult and inaccessible" is the same thing that other people hear as multi-layered and stylistically diverse, a genuine curiosity over just how far the basic format of the group can stretch without breaking, or turning into something different altogether. While I've liked the last couple records for what they are, that sense of inquisitiveness is largely gone for me. These three new songs represent the first time I've ever felt just flat-out indifferent to new Pearl Jam. There's just no creative spark to them.

Kevin Davis wrote:I might be wrong, but I don't see a lot of people saying they want something "darker," and then pointing to "Yield" as an example of what they would expect that to sound like. To a degree, I think you're kind of consolidating everyone's individual quibbles with Pearl Jam's new music into one catch-all platform and then acting surprised when that platform is inconsistent with itself.

What admirers of Pearl Jam's middle period miss isn't the "darkness," I don't think; it's an attention to sonic detail and nuance, an interest in putting slightly sideways spins on the more or less, as you say, "basic song structures" that they've been peddling since the beginning, regardless of whether or not they end up positive and optimistic like "Yield" or inward and claustrophobic like "Binaural." I think what you hear as "difficult and inaccessible" is the same thing that other people hear as multi-layered and stylistically diverse, a genuine curiosity over just how far the basic format of the group can stretch without breaking, or turning into something different altogether. While I've liked the last couple records for what they are, that sense of inquisitiveness is largely gone for me. These three new songs represent the first time I've ever felt just flat-out indifferent to new Pearl Jam. There's just no creative spark to them.

was that directed at me?

well even if it wasn't I'll respond because I need something to do until the laundry is ready to go into the dryer.

I certainly do often make blanket summation posts of what I think the general thrust of something is, and so that will definitely not capture all the nuance in an opinion, and may collapse seemingly different things into each other.

Having said that, there are definitely a number of posts (or maybe it is just a few people posting it a lot) that seem to really be down on new material because it isn't dark enough---that if it isn't tortured it somehow isn't pearl jam. And yet many of those posters are also highlighting yield as an example of a record that they really love. It's sometimes hard to picture Yield and Ten being by the same band, thematically, especially if you really shackle what pearl jam music has to be to the dark brooding early albums.

Now if you don't like this new stuff because you don't think the songs are sonically interesting that's very different (and not what I was responding to). it's a separate line of criticism, and one that I (personally) think is a lot more valid, even if I don't necessarily share it. And I suspect many people who make the above argument are really just not happy with the way the songs sound and are looking to complicate that fact for whatever reason.


Regarding your second point, that makes total sense. There was an approach to the song writing on the mid period albums (the vitalogy through Binaural run) that often highlighted more nuance and complexity. Not in every song (and earlier and later records can also have this), and if that's what you're looking for then the newer stuff can be harder to appreciate. As for me, I think this is often when pearl jam is at their weakest. I think their strength is often in the clarity of vision. There are some wonderful songs that came out of this period, but a lot of stuff that is just a slog for me to listen to. And it's not that I don't like more demanding music or things like that. I just don't think it is where they are at their best.


I am NOT saying that these two live tracks we have are superior songs. I don't really want to judge until we have a studio version regardless, but I'm certainly not expecting these songs to go down as all time classics.


But as others have said elsewhere, I am perfectly okay with pearl jam's best days being behind them. All I want from them are quality albums with a few songs I love. I don't need to fall in love again. I just need to be reminded why I love. Maybe that's the married man in me talking. But I'd say that about all the artists I really care about. Plus i'm a hard sell. I can't name an album for the perfect album thread in OB.

Kevin Davis wrote:I might be wrong, but I don't see a lot of people saying they want something "darker," and then pointing to "Yield" as an example of what they would expect that to sound like. To a degree, I think you're kind of consolidating everyone's individual quibbles with Pearl Jam's new music into one catch-all platform and then acting surprised when that platform is inconsistent with itself.

What admirers of Pearl Jam's middle period miss isn't the "darkness," I don't think; it's an attention to sonic detail and nuance, an interest in putting slightly sideways spins on the more or less, as you say, "basic song structures" that they've been peddling since the beginning, regardless of whether or not they end up positive and optimistic like "Yield" or inward and claustrophobic like "Binaural." I think what you hear as "difficult and inaccessible" is the same thing that other people hear as multi-layered and stylistically diverse, a genuine curiosity over just how far the basic format of the group can stretch without breaking, or turning into something different altogether. While I've liked the last couple records for what they are, that sense of inquisitiveness is largely gone for me. These three new songs represent the first time I've ever felt just flat-out indifferent to new Pearl Jam. There's just no creative spark to them.

For someone admittedly so smart you show an amazing lack of restraint based on 3 songs - 2 of which were heard for the first time in a live setting only two nights ago. Your pessimism (and cutups subsequent ball licking) may end up ringing true, but I've got 11 studio tracks left to hear before I get righteous about anything other than the fact that we should, you know, wait til the record comes out before making any grand pronouncements about a large batch of unheard songs let alone context.