Red Mosquito

digster wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote: I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly and no one but phatj is backing me up on that

Musically I agree. Not lyrically. LB has some clunkers thrown in. If Ed tightened up the lyrics it could have been.

Such as? The lyrics seem pretty on point and there are some great lines

There are some fabulous lines. "Crashing stormy waves" through the end of the song are great. The first few lines of the song are cringeworthy though. Pretty much as soon as the rest of the band starts to kick in it becomes a 5 star song for me.

The 'she's your rock and roll, she's your lightning bolt' as well. I love that last verse, too, and there are some good lines throughout, but it's lyrically spotty. Nothing that's the end of the world or anything, but yeah.

harmless wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote: I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly and no one but phatj is backing me up on that

Musically I agree. Not lyrically. LB has some clunkers thrown in. If Ed tightened up the lyrics it could have been.

Such as? The lyrics seem pretty on point and there are some great lines

There are some fabulous lines. "Crashing stormy waves" through the end of the song are great. The first few lines of the song are cringeworthy though. Pretty much as soon as the rest of the band starts to kick in it becomes a 5 star song for me.

I think if you're interpreting "she" as nature itself, mother Earth maybe, the lyrics fit into place and the cheesy stuff becomes less so. And I like that the song begins in a friendly, safe and inviting way (Mother Earth saying "Hey you, surf here, it's safe!") but then becomes more dark, ominous and eventually about nature being the ultimate killer as well as sustainer. The casualness is fitting to begin with.

LooseGroove927 wrote:

harmless wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote: I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly and no one but phatj is backing me up on that

Musically I agree. Not lyrically. LB has some clunkers thrown in. If Ed tightened up the lyrics it could have been.

Such as? The lyrics seem pretty on point and there are some great lines

There are some fabulous lines. "Crashing stormy waves" through the end of the song are great. The first few lines of the song are cringeworthy though. Pretty much as soon as the rest of the band starts to kick in it becomes a 5 star song for me.

I think if you're interpreting "she" as nature itself, mother Earth maybe, the lyrics fit into place and the cheesy stuff becomes less so. And I like that the song begins in a friendly, safe and inviting way (Mother Earth saying "Hey you, surf here, it's safe!") but then becomes more dark, ominous and eventually about nature being the ultimate killer as well as sustainer. The casualness is fitting to begin with.

Musically, I like the way it begins as well. Like you said, it invites you in before it takes off.

she come on like a stone
but you don't know where from she was thrown
like a burning meteor
from miles high
looking for a place to land
She said have you got yourself some sand

That whole run of lyrics is just bad to me. I see the picture he's trying to paint and the woman he's trying to describe, I just don't think it was Ed's best lyrical execution. Especially with the picture I have in my head by the end of the song and the joyous feeling I get from the song.

Jaeti wrote:

stip wrote:I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly

I wouldn't go that far, but it's grown on me more than any other song we've gotten so far (excluding my 40-minute Sirens conversion, as that's an entirely different beast). I think it's pretty great. Looking forward to blasting it on the highway someday, whenever I find myself behind the wheel of a car again.

stip wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote: I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly and no one but phatj is backing me up on that

Musically I agree. Not lyrically. LB has some clunkers thrown in. If Ed tightened up the lyrics it could have been.

Such as? The lyrics seem pretty on point and there are some great lines

guitar_davey wrote:

stip wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote: I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly and no one but phatj is backing me up on that

Musically I agree. Not lyrically. LB has some clunkers thrown in. If Ed tightened up the lyrics it could have been.

Such as? The lyrics seem pretty on point and there are some great lines

I'm not an apologist by any stretch, but I think the lyrics to this song are beautiful, top to bottom.

BDB wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

stip wrote:

LooseGroove927 wrote:

stip wrote: I think lighting bolt is the second coming of given to fly and no one but phatj is backing me up on that

Musically I agree. Not lyrically. LB has some clunkers thrown in. If Ed tightened up the lyrics it could have been.

Such as? The lyrics seem pretty on point and there are some great lines

I'm not an apologist by any stretch, but I think the lyrics to this song are beautiful, top to bottom.

its growing....especialy as the memory of the butch job at wrigley fades. i have my doubts about this song living up live.

Birds in Hell wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:I'm fairly ignorant of pre-1970's Floyd (despite AndySlash's thoughtful guidance in the PF thread I'm yet to take the plunge into the pre-"Meddle" portion of their catalog), but from a pretty exhaustive knowledge of (and lifelong appreciation for) everything thereafter, I think any lasting image of them as a band given to "excess" or "overproduction" likely stems from the scope and ambition of their work--the concept albums, the rock operas, the track lengths, etc.--more than the actual sound production, which was certainly intricate, layered, and rewarding to attentive listening, but almost the direct opposite of the types of accusations people are leveling against "Sirens." Pink Floyd are some of the early poster boys for using the recording the studio as a tool for sonic experimentation--adding peripheral effects to help tell a story, manipulating the angles and directions of the sound--but in the end I think their records sound like a reasonable approximation of what all those things actually sound like--for example, that middle section in "Money" while the sax solo is wailing away, those cash register sound effects are clinking away in the background, and the band is romping through that wonderfully rhythmically askew rhythm, while those keyboard vibratos ring out--there's a lot going on there, but none of it by itself feels unduly altered in any way. Their "excess"--which I suppose is a linguistically accurate description of it--simply amounts to the consideration and application of a lot of details. What's happening in "Sirens," for better or for worse, is basically just applying artificial grandiosity and studio gloss to very little detail, in effect obscuring what little of it there is.

I suspect that's why there were so many people, in the beginning, who said, "I really like this song but can't wait to hear a live version," because there's an obvious recognition that those base elements are going to sound markedly different once they get out from under Brendan O'Brien's blanket of pretty. With Pink Floyd's stuff, provided you can get enough people onstage to make all the sounds, it really isn't going to suffer from being in a live setting as opposed to a studio setting, despite the largesse of the work--the sounds are what they are and speak for themselves. One of the many components of their genius.

Posts like this.

Indeed.

BDB wrote:
its growing....especialy as the memory of the butch job at wrigley fades. i have my doubts about this song living up live.

Kevin Davis wrote:
Thanks guys. And I appreciate you overlooking the phrase "rhythmically askew rhythm," which was some pretty linguistically askew language.

theplatypus wrote:

Cleverman wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Cleverman wrote:

Heathen wrote:

bluestate wrote:

Jaeti wrote:Disclaimer: I have nothing invested in reviews of this song, be they positive or negative. Just putting this here for the heck of it. Guess I found it a bit surprising that a piece this long was written about just this one song.

http://www.antiquiet.com/news/2013/09/p ... th-sirens/

So you think this guys a Pearl Jam fan or not?

This guy has Binaural as #2 best album of the decade so he's probably a hipster

He posts here, or at least on the old board. Great writer and big PJ fan.

He used to yell at us a lot.

Haha, really?

Yeah. And he lambasted me on Twitter and said I was no match for his "monstrous encyclopedic Pearl Jam knowledge" because I suggested Matt wasn't the only reason they play fast. He's kind of a dick, honestly.

Dugg wrote:Can't keep up - so what's the consensus, is it a good thing or a bad thing that Sirens sounds nothing the fuck like Pink Floyd?

Thejambi wrote:I'm still curious what the "wankery" is that O'Brien adds to the studio version that remotely compares to what Pink Floyd has done.

Thejambi wrote:I'm still curious what the "wankery" is that O'Brien adds to the studio version that remotely compares to what Pink Floyd has done.

AllNiteThing wrote:

Thejambi wrote:I'm still curious what the "wankery" is that O'Brien adds to the studio version that remotely compares to what Pink Floyd has done.

Cash register sounds.