Red Mosquito

so this is a thread huh

harmless wrote:IlluminEddie is a genius.

Someone had to say it. Glad it was harmless.

IlluminEddie wrote:

hlniv wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

digster wrote:There's at least four songs on Binaural better than In My Tree. Which I guess makes them more creative; I think it's harder to divorce creativity and quality from each other than people seem to.

Let's change the word - "experimental". That is what I'm saying. Trying something new.

No matter how much one likes Grievance, I'd argue it wasn't experimental. Since it was a new song, I'm sure one could engage in a circular argument about how revolutionary that or any new song is. Yet, I'd say Grievance in one way or another way elements of things they've tried in the past. Alternatively, I'd argue Who You Are and In My Tree were never tried before because of the new percussion sound.

The original point though was that In My Tree was both experimental AND good.

A rythym suited to the drummer's unique talents does not trump all other aspects of the song and demand the label "experimental". It is neither experimental nor creative. It is, however, good.

Here's where we disagree, I guess.

My point is back when No Code was released, that sound was NOT completely new in the overall sphere of music. It was completely new for THE BAND. Pearl Jam never sounded anything like that before. Call it creative, call it experimental. Say it was due to the new drummer. Whatever... it was different. They were moving in a "new direction" with those two ... and IMHO on those two songs, it worked.

Going back to my point, moving in a new direction worked with IN MY TREE and those who argue Binaural and Riot Act are also doing that... I'd say with Binaural or Riot Act 'that direction' didn't work.

Once again, and I will not make this point another time, it's getting repetitive -

"Different" is not the same as "creative". You can't substitute these words for one another. No Code had many elements that were certainly very different for Pearl Jam. But these elements were not all that creative taken away from the context of their previous work.

Binaural was not all that "different" - you are right, Grievance is not all that different than some of their previous compositions. Neither was NAIS, really, or even Of the Girl, or Rival. What these songs were, however, was "creative". They expressed the theme of the song in an artistically pleasing manner that wasn't meant for commerciality. They were trying to achieve something beyond pleasing their listeners. They were searching for (and achieving) and certain mood or atmosphere.

In my Tree was different, but for simple reasons with a simple structure. It was not creative like the bulk of Binaural and Riot Act. In My Tree was good, and better than most, if not all, of both of these albums.

Whether or not a "direction" works is a matter of opinion. You have yours, and don't like the "direction" of Binaural. Fine. I didn't at first, and now have grown to really enjoy it in the context of their other work.

I am reminded of this clip as I type that response. This seems appropriate-

bada wrote:

stip wrote:Experimental is like just a notch below cringe for me, at this point

Where does cheesy and corny fit in? Also need a ruling on generic and the new one cookie cutter.

I should start a formal list. I'll stick it in my sig. Cheesy is also annoying. Corny rarely gets said, so I've yet to develop any issues with it.

Generic is also bad.

McParadigm wrote:so this is a thread huh

Better than I ever could have imagined.

Thank you RM

stupidmop wrote:They should alternate between an album stip will love, and a album stip will hate*.That way everyones covered.

I trust you will file the necessary paperwork to make this happen stip.

*A la no code/ binaural, not pearl jam does gangster rap or something

I like No Code and Binaural. I think a pearl jam gangsta rap album would get just enough listens for me to trash it in a review.

stip wrote:There's nothing wrong with Binaural and Riot Act. They're good albums. but they're good albums from a band that can and often does release great albums. these are flat, dull, lifeless, and uninspired by comparison, with some interesting and warm production choices masking the lack of a soul at the core of too many of those songs. Imo.

Yes stip. It certainly sounds like you quite enjoy Binaural from the above post. Certainly an album that has a lack of a soul and is flat, dull, and lifeless by comparison sounds like one that would you would like.

I understand completely.

This seems like a stupid thread.

hlniv wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

hlniv wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

digster wrote:There's at least four songs on Binaural better than In My Tree. Which I guess makes them more creative; I think it's harder to divorce creativity and quality from each other than people seem to.

Let's change the word - "experimental". That is what I'm saying. Trying something new.

No matter how much one likes Grievance, I'd argue it wasn't experimental. Since it was a new song, I'm sure one could engage in a circular argument about how revolutionary that or any new song is. Yet, I'd say Grievance in one way or another way elements of things they've tried in the past. Alternatively, I'd argue Who You Are and In My Tree were never tried before because of the new percussion sound.

The original point though was that In My Tree was both experimental AND good.

A rythym suited to the drummer's unique talents does not trump all other aspects of the song and demand the label "experimental". It is neither experimental nor creative. It is, however, good.

Here's where we disagree, I guess.

My point is back when No Code was released, that sound was NOT completely new in the overall sphere of music. It was completely new for THE BAND. Pearl Jam never sounded anything like that before. Call it creative, call it experimental. Say it was due to the new drummer. Whatever... it was different. They were moving in a "new direction" with those two ... and IMHO on those two songs, it worked.

Going back to my point, moving in a new direction worked with IN MY TREE and those who argue Binaural and Riot Act are also doing that... I'd say with Binaural or Riot Act 'that direction' didn't work.

Once again, and I will not make this point another time, it's getting repetitive -

"Different" is not the same as "creative". You can't substitute these words for one another. No Code had many elements that were certainly very different for Pearl Jam. But these elements were not all that creative taken away from the context of their previous work.

Binaural was not all that "different" - you are right, Grievance is not all that different than some of their previous compositions. Neither was NAIS, really, or even Of the Girl, or Rival. What these songs were, however, was "creative". They expressed the theme of the song in an artistically pleasing manner that wasn't meant for commerciality. They were trying to achieve something beyond pleasing their listeners. They were searching for (and achieving) and certain mood or atmosphere.

In my Tree was different, but for simple reasons with a simple structure. It was not creative like the bulk of Binaural and Riot Act. In My Tree was good, and better than most, if not all, of both of these albums.

Whether or not a "direction" works is a matter of opinion. You have yours, and don't like the "direction" of Binaural. Fine. I didn't at first, and now have grown to really enjoy it in the context of their other work.

I am reminded of this clip as I type that response. This seems appropriate-

Michael Jackson and the Beatles have had massive commercial success. Were they not creative?

And don't you find this 'creative' material pleasing? Or do you personally hate it but listen to it because you want to reward pearl jam for the effort they put into the music?

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote:There's nothing wrong with Binaural and Riot Act. They're good albums. but they're good albums from a band that can and often does release great albums. these are flat, dull, lifeless, and uninspired by comparison, with some interesting and warm production choices masking the lack of a soul at the core of too many of those songs. Imo.

Yes stip. It certainly sounds like you quite enjoy Binaural from the above post.

I understand completely.

It's a good album. It has 4-5 songs I enjoy a lot, few, if any, songs that I hate, and a bunch I don't care about.

It is not a great album. It is a 3.5/5 record for me.

hlniv wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:
Here's where we disagree, I guess.

My point is back when No Code was released, that sound was NOT completely new in the overall sphere of music. It was completely new for THE BAND. Pearl Jam never sounded anything like that before. Call it creative, call it experimental. Say it was due to the new drummer. Whatever... it was different. They were moving in a "new direction" with those two ... and IMHO on those two songs, it worked.

Going back to my point, moving in a new direction worked with IN MY TREE and those who argue Binaural and Riot Act are also doing that... I'd say with Binaural or Riot Act 'that direction' didn't work.

Once again, and I will not make this point another time, it's getting repetitive -

"Different" is not the same as "creative". You can't substitute these words for one another. No Code had many elements that were certainly very different for Pearl Jam. But these elements were not all that creative taken away from the context of their previous work.

I agree different is not the same word as creative, but it's a necessary condition. I disagree that In My Tree and Who You Are weren't creative for the band.

hlniv wrote:Binaural was not all that "different" - you are right, Grievance is not all that different than some of their previous compositions. Neither was NAIS, really, or even Of the Girl, or Rival. What these songs were, however, was "creative".

Once again, in order to be creative, it needs to be different. If you are saying Grievance, NAIS, Of the Girl, Rival weren't different (which I agree with) for the band, then how are they creative exactly?

hlniv wrote:They expressed the theme of the song in an artistically pleasing manner that wasn't meant for commerciality. They were trying to achieve something beyond pleasing their listeners. They were searching for (and achieving) and certain mood or atmosphere.

So, if it's not pleasing to the masses, it's "creative"? If that's true - I probably don't like creative.

hlniv wrote:In my Tree was different, but for simple reasons with a simple structure. It was not creative like the bulk of Binaural and Riot Act. In My Tree was good, and better than most, if not all, of both of these albums.

What do you consider a structure? I think it was creative of the band to center songs around the percussion. That was unique. I would even say it altered the typical structure PJ used. And, therefore, was creative.

hlniv wrote:Whether or not a "direction" works is a matter of opinion. You have yours, and don't like the "direction" of Binaural. Fine. I didn't at first, and now have grown to really enjoy it in the context of their other work.


I am reminded of this clip as I type that response. This seems appropriate-

You're right. It reminds me of the hipsters around here who love albums/songs (Binaural and Riot Act) because the masses don't.

stip wrote:

stupidmop wrote:They should alternate between an album stip will love, and a album stip will hate*.That way everyones covered.

I trust you will file the necessary paperwork to make this happen stip.

*A la no code/ binaural, not pearl jam does gangster rap or something

I like No Code and Binaural. I think a pearl jam gangsta rap album would get just enough listens for me to trash it in a review.

Fiiiine ones that you like less.

It would be stone rapping though, so it has a chance.

stip wrote: Michael Jackson and the Beatles have had massive commercial success. Were they not creative?

And don't you find this 'creative' material pleasing? Or do you personally hate it but listen to it because you want to reward pearl jam for the effort they put into the music?

I never said creativity is exclusive from commercial success. I am implying that if commercial success is the driving force behind the writing, then creativity is unlikely.

MJ and the Beatles are probably one of the few exceptions to this. And most of the Beatles catalog was certainly not written with commercial success as the priority (although some of it definitely was).

Creative material is pleasing if it's good, whether or not it is written to please a listener. Material written for the primary purpose of mass appeal and pleasing the listener is rarely all that creative, and in my opinion, rarely all that good.

Certainly there are exceptions. But I don't think anyone believes for a second that PJ has the same ability to write good/creative music primarily for mass appeal the way MJ or the Beatles had

Leatherhead wrote:This seems like a stupid thread.

Yes. Quite idiotic.

It was intended to be a little sarcastic. But apparently, some nerves have been struck

IlluminEddie wrote: .

Good. Great.

This is just an argument about the subjective meanings of words.

Leatherhead wrote:This is just an argument about the subjective meanings of words.

I don't think the meaning of words is "subjective". Words have meanings that are in the dictionary. Duh

Once again, I would like to move this thread back to how/when the band sold out-

I'll put out another one-

Pearl Jam sold out when they appeared on another artist's album solely for the money.

Leatherhead wrote:This is just an argument about the subjective meanings of words.

Yup. The part on "experimental" vs. "creative" vs. "different" for PJ certainly is.

hlniv wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:This is just an argument about the subjective meanings of words.

I don't think the meaning of words is "subjective". Words have meanings that are in the dictionary. Duh

Once again, I would like to move this thread back to how/when the band sold out-

I'll put out another one-

Pearl Jam sold out when they appeared on another artist's album solely for the money.

Maybe this?

stip wrote:

stupidmop wrote:They should alternate between an album stip will love, and a album stip will hate*.That way everyones covered.

I trust you will file the necessary paperwork to make this happen stip.

*A la no code/ binaural, not pearl jam does gangster rap or something

I like No Code and Binaural. I think a pearl jam gangsta rap album would get just enough listens for me to trash it in a review.

They did do that jam with Cypress Hill back in the day. So, any aspirations to do another song of this ilk would make it uncreative, not different, nor experimental, and therefore no good.