Red Mosquito

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:You guys sound like the middle period was a time of completely weird/difficult music, when it was mostly pop/rock songs with nothing overtly experimental about them. OMG some of it was a little more subdued than Ten! To think these albums required some high level of investment to be enjoyed is completely absurd.

Look, all of this is taking place within the boundaries of the pearl jam universe. But within that universe, I think Release_Me's point is broadly applicable.

That universe seems very stupid then.

Perhaps, but it's where we live, and just about every single poster here has made that comment about No Code or Binaural or Riot Act reflecting more interesting writing, revealing itself more slowly over time, etc. It's just that usually they're positive about it.

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:You guys sound like the middle period was a time of completely weird/difficult music, when it was mostly pop/rock songs with nothing overtly experimental about them. OMG some of it was a little more subdued than Ten! To think these albums required some high level of investment to be enjoyed is completely absurd.

Look, all of this is taking place within the boundaries of the pearl jam universe. But within that universe, I think Release_Me's point is broadly applicable.

That universe seems very stupid then.

Perhaps, but it's where we live, and just about every single poster here has made that comment about No Code or Binaural or Riot Act reflecting more interesting writing, revealing itself more slowly over time, etc. It's just that usually they're positive about it.

I'm pretty sure there aren't that many people here who thought these albums required that much work/investment to be enjoyed. Maybe the part of the PJ fanbase that overlaps with Bon Jovi's did but otherwise come on this isn't fucking musique concrète.

Birds in Hell wrote:

Heathen wrote:You guys sound like the middle period was a time of completely weird/difficult music, when it was mostly pop/rock songs with nothing overtly experimental about them. OMG some of it was a little more subdued than Ten! To think these albums required some high level of investment to be enjoyed is completely absurd.

Indeed; there's nothing remotely inaccessible on No Code compared to what other even mainstream rock bands were doing at the time (eg. Stone Temple Pilots, Smashing Pumpkins, etc.) or the band's influences such as Led Zeppelin or whomever else.

The impact of a record like No Code, or even Vitalogy, on their career doesn't come down to a question like "is it accessible." Rather, it's a matter of "is this the kind of album that will appeal to most of the people who hopped on board because of songs like Jeremy and Even Flow." And the answer is no.

In that regard, it's more akin to Neil Young's mid-70's work than it is Zeppelin...the same basic sound as before, the same basic type of songwriting...but Tonight's the Night isn't a record that's going to win over all four million people who bought Harvest so they could hear Heart of Gold. And Ten isn't a record whose primary audience consists of people who are going to stick around for nine minute tape loop games, pitchy near-spoken cornballery about you are who who you are, overly wordy tube amp crunch choruses, and vaguely Elvis-in-Hawaii nasal-voiced lullabies. It's a record that fits in better with Appetite for Destruction and the Black Album than it does anything from the band's 1994-2002 era, quite frankly.

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:You guys sound like the middle period was a time of completely weird/difficult music, when it was mostly pop/rock songs with nothing overtly experimental about them. OMG some of it was a little more subdued than Ten! To think these albums required some high level of investment to be enjoyed is completely absurd.

Look, all of this is taking place within the boundaries of the pearl jam universe. But within that universe, I think Release_Me's point is broadly applicable.

That universe seems very stupid then.

Perhaps, but it's where we live, and just about every single poster here has made that comment about No Code or Binaural or Riot Act reflecting more interesting writing, revealing itself more slowly over time, etc. It's just that usually they're positive about it.

I'm pretty sure there aren't that many people here who thought these albums required that much work/investment to be enjoyed. Maybe the part of the PJ fanbase that overlaps with Bon Jovi's did but otherwise come on this isn't fucking musique concrète.

do you actually read what people post here, where precisely zero people overlap with the bon jovi fan base? Because this comes up all the time, although again, the whole point is that they are comparatively more complex, challenging, slow reveal records than the albums flanking them. Within the confines of pearl jam.

Vitalogy was all that too, comparatively to Ten and Vs. It probably even had weirder bits than anything on No Code/Yield/Binaural/Riot Act.

McParadigm wrote: The impact of a record like No Code, or even Vitalogy, on their career doesn't come down to a question like "is it accessible." Rather, it's a matter of "is this the kind of album that will appeal to most of the people who hopped on board because of songs like Jeremy and Even Flow." And the answer is no.

It's often defined as "difficult" in absolute terms rather than relative (to Ten) though. Vitalogy is often grouped with the 1st 2 records even. As someone who got into PJ about 10 years a go with no knowledge of them or what are/where considered the absolute truths about them and their music, i must say a lot of what is usually labelled as things old-time fans just know to be a fact don't make much sense not even judging by the interviews the band gave starting with the notion that there was a purpose to loose fans with No Code. Vitalogy was when the big change occurred. Ten and Vs. sound like rock records written to easily preform well on the charts, Vitalogy and No Code don't but are far from being inaccessible. No Code ironically may be on of their catchier/easier to listen to records.

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:You guys sound like the middle period was a time of completely weird/difficult music, when it was mostly pop/rock songs with nothing overtly experimental about them. OMG some of it was a little more subdued than Ten! To think these albums required some high level of investment to be enjoyed is completely absurd.

Look, all of this is taking place within the boundaries of the pearl jam universe. But within that universe, I think Release_Me's point is broadly applicable.

That universe seems very stupid then.

Perhaps, but it's where we live, and just about every single poster here has made that comment about No Code or Binaural or Riot Act reflecting more interesting writing, revealing itself more slowly over time, etc. It's just that usually they're positive about it.

I'm pretty sure there aren't that many people here who thought these albums required that much work/investment to be enjoyed. Maybe the part of the PJ fanbase that overlaps with Bon Jovi's did but otherwise come on this isn't fucking musique concrète.

do you actually read what people post here, where precisely zero people overlap with the bon jovi fan base? Because this comes up all the time, although again, the whole point is that they are comparatively more complex, challenging, slow reveal records than the albums flanking them. Within the confines of pearl jam.

The reason why there is no overlap with PJ and BJ is because Bon Jovi is essentially a pop band which comes from having mainstream songwriters writing their music. There is (or was) a different target audience to begin with.

Mine wrote:Ten and Vs. sound like rock records written to easily preform well on the charts, Vitalogy and No Code don't but are far from being inaccessible. No Code ironically may be on of their catchier/easier to listen to records.

A lot of artist's stories are changed by retrospection, especially where their more creative work is concerned. From 1995-1998, the basic reaction you would get if the subject of Pearl Jam came up was "why do they suck now? that last album was fucking awful." Or, sometimes, "I used to like them. They really fell apart, though."

After that, it mostly became "I remember them," and by 2002 it was "oh, are they still together?" No matter how they look to us fifteen years later, at the time those records were fanbase melting oddities that did nothing for most of the people who had bought the earlier records. Just like Nirvana fans wanted nothing to do with In Utero, until Kurt died and suddenly everybody had a copy.

Mine wrote:

McParadigm wrote: The impact of a record like No Code, or even Vitalogy, on their career doesn't come down to a question like "is it accessible." Rather, it's a matter of "is this the kind of album that will appeal to most of the people who hopped on board because of songs like Jeremy and Even Flow." And the answer is no.

It's often defined as "difficult" in absolute terms rather than relative (to Ten) though. Vitalogy is often grouped with the 1st 2 records even. As someone who got into PJ about 10 years a go with no knowledge of them or what are/where considered the absolute truths about them and their music, i must say a lot of what is usually labelled as things old-time fans just know to be a fact don't make much sense not even judging by the interviews the band gave starting with the notion that there was a purpose to loose fans with No Code. Vitalogy was when the big change occurred. Ten and Vs. sound like rock records written to easily preform well on the charts, Vitalogy and No Code don't but are far from being inaccessible. No Code ironically may be on of their catchier/easier to listen to records.

For the most part, each record seems to build upon its predecessor. You can still hear a bit of Ten on Vs, and a bit of Vs on Vitalogy etc. It seemed to grow and mature in a very natural way, building upon what they knew and expanding at small doses so that it never felt like more of the same but it didn't feel like a 180 either. RA to S/T is the first real drastic change IMO, one where instead of growing they went backwards and tried to recapture something they were not capable to pull off anymore. But I agree that Vitalogy was relatively weird and probably different enough from Ten and Vs to confuse these early fans. If you were still on board after that then the supposed difficulty of what came after seems way overstated.

McParadigm wrote:

Mine wrote:Ten and Vs. sound like rock records written to easily preform well on the charts, Vitalogy and No Code don't but are far from being inaccessible. No Code ironically may be on of their catchier/easier to listen to records.

A lot of artist's stories are changed by retrospection, especially where their more creative work is concerned. From 1995-1998, the basic reaction you would get if the subject of Pearl Jam came up was "why do they suck now? that last album was fucking awful." Or, sometimes, "I used to like them. They really fell apart, though."

Put simply i think it was a case of people preferring and expecting apples who got oranges instead.

McParadigm wrote:After that, it mostly became "I remember them," and by 2002 it was "oh, are they still together?" No matter how they look to us fifteen years later, at the time those records were fanbase melting oddities that did nothing for most of the people who had bought the earlier records. Just like Nirvana fans wanted nothing to do with In Utero, until Kurt died and suddenly everybody had a copy.

Yeah it's related - similarly superficial. Death does PR wonders that regularly translate into a huge commercial success. It shows how most music buyers are superficial and manipulable.

Heathen wrote:

Mine wrote:

McParadigm wrote: The impact of a record like No Code, or even Vitalogy, on their career doesn't come down to a question like "is it accessible." Rather, it's a matter of "is this the kind of album that will appeal to most of the people who hopped on board because of songs like Jeremy and Even Flow." And the answer is no.

It's often defined as "difficult" in absolute terms rather than relative (to Ten) though. Vitalogy is often grouped with the 1st 2 records even. As someone who got into PJ about 10 years a go with no knowledge of them or what are/where considered the absolute truths about them and their music, i must say a lot of what is usually labelled as things old-time fans just know to be a fact don't make much sense not even judging by the interviews the band gave starting with the notion that there was a purpose to loose fans with No Code. Vitalogy was when the big change occurred. Ten and Vs. sound like rock records written to easily preform well on the charts, Vitalogy and No Code don't but are far from being inaccessible. No Code ironically may be on of their catchier/easier to listen to records.

For the most part, each record seems to build upon its predecessor. You can still hear a bit of Ten on Vs, and a bit of Vs on Vitalogy etc. It seemed to grow and mature in a very natural way, building upon what they knew and expanding at small doses so that it never felt like more of the same but it didn't feel like a 180 either. RA to S/T is the first real drastic change IMO, one where instead of growing they went backwards and tried to recapture something they were not capable to pull off anymore. But I agree that Vitalogy was relatively weird and probably different enough from Ten and Vs to confuse these early fans. If you were still on board after that then the supposed difficulty of what came after seems way overstated.

Agreed. The big change, for me, came with Yield though. After that is a mess. Yield was, what some here would define as, something i should have liked but couldn't, in fact it never managed to get my attention. It bores me. Binaural is in a way a more logical successor to No Code than Yield was.

Mine wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Mine wrote:Ten and Vs. sound like rock records written to easily preform well on the charts, Vitalogy and No Code don't but are far from being inaccessible. No Code ironically may be on of their catchier/easier to listen to records.

A lot of artist's stories are changed by retrospection, especially where their more creative work is concerned. From 1995-1998, the basic reaction you would get if the subject of Pearl Jam came up was "why do they suck now? that last album was fucking awful." Or, sometimes, "I used to like them. They really fell apart, though."

Put simply i think it was a case of people preferring and expecting apples who got oranges instead.

Exactly. But if you try to put your finger on what the difference is between the apples and the oranges you'll probably end up utilizing the same ideas and categories that Release_Me was using.

I have to admit, I don't really see comparisons between the first three records and the last three. They don't really sound all that similar, and the comparisons of accessibility seem to make sense only in hindsight of the fact that the first records were so big. I mean, PJ's first big single was about a child's suicide, was five minutes long, and half of it was wordless moaning. None of this really screams mainstream radio hit; the fact that it ended up being a hit doesn't really change that. There seems to have been more of an attempt in the past few records to apply mainstream, more pop tropes to their songwriting. I think that's a change from what they've done in the past, including their earliest work.

McParadigm wrote:

Mine wrote:Ten and Vs. sound like rock records written to easily preform well on the charts, Vitalogy and No Code don't but are far from being inaccessible. No Code ironically may be on of their catchier/easier to listen to records.

A lot of artist's stories are changed by retrospection, especially where their more creative work is concerned. From 1995-1998, the basic reaction you would get if the subject of Pearl Jam came up was "why do they suck now? that last album was fucking awful." Or, sometimes, "I used to like them. They really fell apart, though."

After that, it mostly became "I remember them," and by 2002 it was "oh, are they still together?" No matter how they look to us fifteen years later, at the time those records were fanbase melting oddities that did nothing for most of the people who had bought the earlier records. Just like Nirvana fans wanted nothing to do with In Utero, until Kurt died and suddenly everybody had a copy.

Yes and yes. That's why I don't see it as a big deal if a certain portion of the base doesn't dig the last 3 records. That's just part of any long career. It's not some alarming backslide, it's a stage you either like or don't. I've been hearing "PJ's lost it" for for 19-20 years now. It's only after the fact that you hear the strong voice emerging from the believers of a certain period what the value of it all was. I think Backspacer is a breezy easygoing going little oddity in their catalogue that balances out the heavy-handidness of alot of their other stuff.

For me the middle period was driven by a very determined aversion to writing anything anthemic or radio friendly or at least less accessible and it says more about the fan base that we bemoan that decision than it does about the band.
The binaural debate backs this up. fatal etc are all very very easy on the ear and were dumped for that reason.
Pj fans just don't like it when Pj don't take the obvious route.
Did they ever take the obvious route after Ten? i don't think so.

stop listening to all that Bon Jovi, Dime

It's my liiiiiife

Turning into a nostalgia act isn't the obvious route for an aging rock band?

Who's touting the nostalgia though? fans going in expecting to hear 'the hits'? or the band pushing it on them?

we know ed and stone have spoken about being dragged back to the middle in setlists by fans, so who's responsible?
if they played nothing but the lesser known/unexpected stuff all the time, they'd get no end of shit for it.

It's a lose lose.

Yeah I'm sure the fans put a gun to the band's head