Red Mosquito

You should feel right at home with the mediocrity we're celebrating up in here.

mastaflatch wrote:a cool rock song with throwbacks to Huey Lewis and The News

Huey Lewis and the News may be the most spot-on comparison I've heard for this song, and I feel thankful that I didn't come to this song with a lot of the other baggage you describe (the "THIS ISN'T WHAT PEARL JAM IS SUPPOSED TO SOUND LIKE!" and whatnot). I remember driving up to the first Chicago show in 2009 and trying to describe this song to a carload of people who hadn't heard it, and I remember the only phrase I could come up with was, "It's kind of like bubblegum pop." Having only heard it once on their MySpace page, I had a feeling my memory must have been deceiving me at least a little, but hearing them play it later that night at the show laid that feeling pretty swiftly to rest.

I liked this song a lot then and I like it a lot now. The lyrics are trite, sure, but like a lot of pop songs of this ilk, I don't think their aim is to stun you on their own individual merits; they are there to surround and lay the tracks for the ultimate point of the song ("If something's lost, I want to fight to get it back again") which, though laid out in plain and unsophisticated language, is not a trite sentiment--just like "she loves you" or "I want you" or "you make me feel so young," it's an uncomplicated stand-in for a network of feelings which are probably far more complex than the lyric reveals, and the (obvious) reason pop songs are written that way is because too much complexity serves as an obstacle to what the song seeks to achieve, which is zero in on a point of juncture for dozens of people's different potential life situations by using language vague enough to apply to each one of them, but by framing it with an energy that invites people to believe the song was written for them and them alone. When this song first came out, I was in the middle of a silly argument with some close friends, so to me the notion of "fighting to get it back again" was prudent--and Eddie certainly delivered the song with enough gusto to convince me that singing along with him might do me a little good towards getting there. I can understand seeing this kind of manipulative writing as phony, but I choose to see it as artful in its own way, if not something Pearl Jam had given us any reason to expect. At the very least, it's certainly no more trite than hundreds of other pop songs that we'd all rush to call masterpieces in the field (which isn't to put "The Fixer" immediately on par with those, of course, just to say that vapid lyrics unto themselves shouldn't be a dealbreaker).

In the end, it's unreasonable to assume that any of the above babble should convince someone to change their mind about the song, because even if all of the above is true, the simple execution of the song might be enough to just leave a sour taste in your mouth. Personally, I grew up around this sort of tripe (i.e. Huey Lewis and the News), so I have a kind of dormant affinity for it. It could never be all I listen to, but I like how Pearl Jam incorporated it here.

I'm not opposed to the song in theory, but Pearl Jam doesn't do a very convincing job in the end of pulling it off (in my opinion). A song like this would have been much better in the hands of a band like Oasis. I wish the performance were a little bit looser, and the attitude in the vocals a bit more brash and confident.

Yeah, I still like this song. I still really like the way it's produced, especially the claps and other percussive noises in the verses. The guitar tones and little decorative bits are nice, the 'patterns' My biggest complaint against this song is that whenever I listen to it, I wonder what it would sound like if Michael Stipe had written it, and then I don't enjoy it as much. PJ are too sincere to inject it with any 'shiny happy people' irony, and the Target video just makes that even worse.

I'm AL to Backspacer. I'm really enjoying it but I might skip Supersonic.

This poll is a joke, where's the 0 star option?

harmless wrote:I'm AL to Backspacer

We all are.

I decided to brave it through Supersonic. Man, I wish it wasn't covered in bullshit lyrics. I stopped the rhythm but my cock was full yeah! I even like the yeah yeah yeah ending... just blah.

I quite like the studio version, it's a shame much of the fanbase too easily dismisses the song as simple corny pop because there are some great quirky things going on, particular Matt's drumming.

Burned into my brain however is the image of watching Mike and Jeff singing the 'yeah yeah yeah yeahs' like a couple of sad carstrated clowns when I saw them play it live in 2009. Somehow seeing Stone singing it didn't bother me so much.

theplatypus wrote:

Farmer John wrote:And then someone slow it down 300% and let's listen to that.

Not quite 300%, BUT

This one doesn't sound evil like the speed of sound one did, but it is a very interesting listen

I'm now ALing to Backspacer sped up to 200%. It's better.

Im a fan of this song

Another vote for 'objectively solid song that I like a lot, but not really what I wish PJ were doing'. Basically, that is how the majority of Backspacer feels to me. Huey Lewis and the News, indeed.

Kevin Davis wrote:
I liked this song a lot then and I like it a lot now. The lyrics are trite, sure, but like a lot of pop songs of this ilk, I don't think their aim is to stun you on their own individual merits; they are there to surround and lay the tracks for the ultimate point of the song ("If something's lost, I want to fight to get it back again") which, though laid out in plain and unsophisticated language, is not a trite sentiment--just like "she loves you" or "I want you" or "you make me feel so young," it's an uncomplicated stand-in for a network of feelings which are probably far more complex than the lyric reveals, and the (obvious) reason pop songs are written that way is because too much complexity serves as an obstacle to what the song seeks to achieve, which is zero in on a point of juncture for dozens of people's different potential life situations by using language vague enough to apply to each one of them, but by framing it with an energy that invites people to believe the song was written for them and them alone.

I think it is something of a trite statement, but that is because I can't look at the lyric separated from the music and melody that accompanies it. That's my issue when comparing the simplistic phrases in this song to something like "she loves you;" yes, they're both simplistic pop songs, but there is so much more going on in the melody, music, and most of all in the character of the song and performance of the latter example. I agree with you wholeheartedly that simplicity is paramount in a song like The Fixer, but simplicity need not surrender to blandness, which I think this song and lyric does.

R.E.M. was brought up before, but there, for example, is a band that could write something as catchy and accessible as The Fixer, if not more so, and fill it with enough personality that it could draw you back despite its' candy center.

This wasn't as hideous as i recalled. The musics ok, i love the 'aaah ahh ahh' harmonies and i like the last verse/bridge. The problem is Eddie went full retard on the verses and chorus. You never go full retard.

digster wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:
I liked this song a lot then and I like it a lot now. The lyrics are trite, sure, but like a lot of pop songs of this ilk, I don't think their aim is to stun you on their own individual merits; they are there to surround and lay the tracks for the ultimate point of the song ("If something's lost, I want to fight to get it back again") which, though laid out in plain and unsophisticated language, is not a trite sentiment--just like "she loves you" or "I want you" or "you make me feel so young," it's an uncomplicated stand-in for a network of feelings which are probably far more complex than the lyric reveals, and the (obvious) reason pop songs are written that way is because too much complexity serves as an obstacle to what the song seeks to achieve, which is zero in on a point of juncture for dozens of people's different potential life situations by using language vague enough to apply to each one of them, but by framing it with an energy that invites people to believe the song was written for them and them alone.

I think it is something of a trite statement, but that is because I can't look at the lyric separated from the music and melody that accompanies it. That's my issue when comparing the simplistic phrases in this song to something like "she loves you;" yes, they're both simplistic pop songs, but there is so much more going on in the melody, music, and most of all in the character of the song and performance of the latter example. I agree with you wholeheartedly that simplicity is paramount in a song like The Fixer, but simplicity need not surrender to blandness, which I think this song and lyric does.

R.E.M. was brought up before, but there, for example, is a band that could write something as catchy and accessible as The Fixer, if not more so, and fill it with enough personality that it could draw you back despite its' candy center.

'She loves you, yeah yeah yeah' isn't bland? Really?

harmless wrote:

digster wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:
I liked this song a lot then and I like it a lot now. The lyrics are trite, sure, but like a lot of pop songs of this ilk, I don't think their aim is to stun you on their own individual merits; they are there to surround and lay the tracks for the ultimate point of the song ("If something's lost, I want to fight to get it back again") which, though laid out in plain and unsophisticated language, is not a trite sentiment--just like "she loves you" or "I want you" or "you make me feel so young," it's an uncomplicated stand-in for a network of feelings which are probably far more complex than the lyric reveals, and the (obvious) reason pop songs are written that way is because too much complexity serves as an obstacle to what the song seeks to achieve, which is zero in on a point of juncture for dozens of people's different potential life situations by using language vague enough to apply to each one of them, but by framing it with an energy that invites people to believe the song was written for them and them alone.

I think it is something of a trite statement, but that is because I can't look at the lyric separated from the music and melody that accompanies it. That's my issue when comparing the simplistic phrases in this song to something like "she loves you;" yes, they're both simplistic pop songs, but there is so much more going on in the melody, music, and most of all in the character of the song and performance of the latter example. I agree with you wholeheartedly that simplicity is paramount in a song like The Fixer, but simplicity need not surrender to blandness, which I think this song and lyric does.

R.E.M. was brought up before, but there, for example, is a band that could write something as catchy and accessible as The Fixer, if not more so, and fill it with enough personality that it could draw you back despite its' candy center.

'She loves you, yeah yeah yeah' isn't bland? Really?

She loves you, yeah yeah yeah' on the page is bland, I guess. I kind of feel like the whole point of pop songs like this is that you can't divorce the lyrics from the song. There's certainly nothing bland about how they sing that chorus.

I think another thing about The Fixer that has never sat right with me is that, contrary to others, it doesn't really feel fun to me, or light-hearted. It sounds like it's working really, really hard to be that kind of song it wants to be.

BurtReynolds wrote:This thread is pissing me off.

You should put a little fixin' on it

Nothing about Eddie or the band would lead you to believe he can write a great song like this, they seem purpose built for the exact opposite in nearly every way, and the Fixer proves it. Its like mixing cool colors with warm and getting mud. On the one hand you could give them credit for experimenting, but they are merely tourists here. Bands that do this for a living make them look like amateurs, but by all means make it your lead single anyway!

digster wrote:I think another thing about The Fixer that has never sat right with me is that, contrary to others, it doesn't really feel fun to me, or light-hearted. It sounds like it's working really, really hard to be that kind of song it wants to be.

I don't think it is light-hearted, necessarily--I think, at the core of the song, the singer has been forced to lose something that he didn't want to lose, and the song (the chorus especially) is kind of the breaking point at which he decides to do something about it. It's not a dark song, or a complex one necessarily, but it does have some tension in it--in fact I would argue that the whole point of the song is to try and resolve its own tension, to replace a sense of loss with that surge of empowerment one gets upon mustering enough of a sense of self-efficacy to believe that one has the power to affect change in one's own life. I can see viewing that as syrupy or trite, but I think some songs just go for the jugular in that regard, and end up such that they make a simple point that ends up overriding the artistic merits of its individual pieces.

But again, it probably just comes down to whether the song works for you as music. I think it's a catchy song with a good melody and a convincing performance--you don't seem to as much. I wouldn't put it in the same league as early Beatles, mind you, but I like it for a lot of the same reasons.

History has granted this track a sexy, sexy level of irony that you are all overlooking.

"I WANNA FIGHT TO GET IT BACK AGAIN" (takes three years off)

Seriously works in its benefit.