Red Mosquito

E.H. Ruddock wrote:At this point I don't care. I have so much fucking fun at their concerts I'd be good with them just touring

I feel like this is exactly how they feel. And that's okay.

durdencommatyler wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:At this point I don't care. I have so much fucking fun at their concerts I'd be good with them just touring

I feel like this is exactly how they feel. And that's okay.

Nah fuck that. Without the lifeblood of new music, future concerts eventually become a series of diminishing returns. Even if it's not groundbreaking, new music is, at the very least, a new chapter that gives context to the career of the band.

For instance, if all we got out of Lightning Bolt was two consistently great live numbers (MYM, LB), then it was worth it to release the album. Makes the shows more interesting and expands the catalogue.

I certainly like having new music. But my enjoyment of a Pearl Jam concert has absolutely zero to do with new music.

tragabigzanda wrote: Anyway, I'm all for the three-chords-and-the-truth approach of many punk bands. Hell, I LOVE the Dead Boys ...

Uh, Sonic Reducer has FOUR chords.

Just saying...

evenslow wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:At this point I don't care. I have so much fucking fun at their concerts I'd be good with them just touring

I feel like this is exactly how they feel. And that's okay.

Nah fuck that. Without the lifeblood of new music, future concerts eventually become a series of diminishing returns. Even if it's not groundbreaking, new music is, at the very least, a new chapter that gives context to the career of the band.

For instance, if all we got out of Lightning Bolt was two consistently great live numbers (MYM, LB), then it was worth it to release the album. Makes the shows more interesting and expands the catalogue.

Well, we're on year 4 of the Lightning Bolt tour and all seems well.

I challenge the idea Lightning Bolt is a good live number.

wease wrote:I challenge the idea Lightning Bolt is a good live number.

I saw it when they debuted it at the first Wrigley show years ago and came away thinking it was an atrocity. The album version is merely "pretty good." But they somehow turned it into a stirring live number over time. And the outro really cooks. I remember seeing it on Fallon and realizing they had transformed it into something better.

Well 'great' these days in every sense just means how well it's marketed and how big the budget is. I listened to backspacer recently and realised it's an oddly formed but worthwhile gang of great songs. Takes time to love some records.

At this point I think PJ putting out something brilliant will only be recognised as great years after the fact.

tragabigzanda wrote:

wease wrote:I challenge the idea Lightning Bolt is a good live number.

On the record, it's a terribly-executed attempt at a solid song. But it doesn't soar any higher in a live setting.

Now this is an idea I can get behind.

dimejinky99 wrote: Takes time to love some records..

Agreed. I only just recently realized what an amazing album Riot Act is.

durdencommatyler wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:At this point I don't care. I have so much fucking fun at their concerts I'd be good with them just touring

I feel like this is exactly how they feel. And that's okay.

New albums now days are just to promote tours for bands at PJ's level, unlike say 25 years ago when the tours were to promote record sales for the major labels. The new music doesn't really matter but if they get a couple of keepers out of it then that's a bonus.

lighting bolt (the song) has improved dramatically over time as a live number

I never expected this to happen; but I have felt compelled to rock and/or roll upon its performancing in some of the recent performances

Which is your favorite of these recent performancings?

i dunno

something on the 2016 tour

not a song i would ever request tho

What if these last two records are the records loved by fans who lost interest in the band with Vitalogy, No Code, Binaural, and now rediscovering them? I probably feel a lot like they did when they put No Code on for the first time.

It just seems like the band is making music for the fans, and not themselves. Which is evident in some of the members talking about how songs will sound live. Which is fine,l if that's what they want to do, I just think it's a different focus from previous albums. And let's face it, if you averaged out the general PJ fan, they probably have a pretty bland taste in music. So if The band wants to write tunes that cater to that, they realize they need to make music that everyone will like, not just niche corners of an arena.

I'm not sure it has to be so black and white though. I agree with what you're saying, bodysnatcher, but I think if that's really the way they think, it's fallacious reasoning.

They could make "an art" record, or a niche record, something for those people in the corners, something that is a great piece of art to listen to but maybe doesn't translate well live AND still put on their massive, inclusive live shows. They just wouldn't play a lot of those niche songs necessarily or they could record new songs and have new "standium" songs that they only play live and never record.

I don't know. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be one or the other. It would be a bummer if they thought otherwise.

durdencommatyler wrote:I'm not sure it has to be so black and white though. I agree with what you're saying, bodysnatcher, but I think if that's really the way they think, it's fallacious reasoning.

They could make "an art" record, or a niche record, something for those people in the corners, something that is a great piece of art to listen to but maybe doesn't translate well live AND still put on their massive, inclusive live shows. They just wouldn't play a lot of those niche songs necessarily or they could record new songs and have new "standium" songs that they only play live and never record.

I don't know. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be one or the other. It would be a bummer if they thought otherwise.

It is interesting (assuming we're right in how we read their motives) that the idea that you could record music and NOT play it live doesn't seem to be an option on the table.

stip wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:I'm not sure it has to be so black and white though. I agree with what you're saying, bodysnatcher, but I think if that's really the way they think, it's fallacious reasoning.

They could make "an art" record, or a niche record, something for those people in the corners, something that is a great piece of art to listen to but maybe doesn't translate well live AND still put on their massive, inclusive live shows. They just wouldn't play a lot of those niche songs necessarily or they could record new songs and have new "standium" songs that they only play live and never record.

I don't know. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be one or the other. It would be a bummer if they thought otherwise.

It is interesting (assuming we're right in how we read their motives) that the idea that you could record music and NOT play it live doesn't seem to be an option on the table.

Totally. Why limit yourselves as artists? The Beatles didn't play most of their songs live. Didn't hurt their legacy one goddamn bit.