Red Mosquito

Thejambi wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:I don't see the step down. They may be a bit more obvious in imagery but that's ok considering how complicated iconic and symbolic art can be. Gives a little grounding. The content of the song still plays a big part.

They're not at all bad, but the first four images had a place or two with more detail. The "Getaway" one particularly was very big block shapes without much finer work. It's no big deal. Maybe the final reveal of this one will have some details that are revealing. The change from the two big faces on FD to the figures was really something.

OK, now I have some context for the perceived drop in quality. Fair point.

For your notes: if none of the images are intended to work with each other (montage, layers, overlapping, etc.) this will all be a massive disappointment . I've have unintentionally and probably unfairly raised my expectations.

I can't imagine they did a conceptual record and we've yet to hear anybody mention a word of it, if only because it would build a lot of additional hype. If this *is* a concept record and they're just going to let us find out by ourselves, then it's pretty hard to paint them as the corporate whores some people make them out to be.

guitar_davey wrote:

stip wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Lament wrote:I miss keeponjamming89 already, guys.

Not as much as I miss nightmareblack0206 though. I wish that dude would come back. I want to know what he thinks of the artwork reveal.

nightmareblack0206 will ALWAYS BE WITH US.

RIGHT STIP? BACK ME UP!

(making my way through 15 pages of thread)

The newbie here is to blame for a page or two of that.

So here's something interesting... I flipped directly from reading this thread to a Blue Jays blog where I immediately saw a post by guitar_davey.

philpritchard wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

stip wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Lament wrote:I miss keeponjamming89 already, guys.

Not as much as I miss nightmareblack0206 though. I wish that dude would come back. I want to know what he thinks of the artwork reveal.

nightmareblack0206 will ALWAYS BE WITH US.

RIGHT STIP? BACK ME UP!

(making my way through 15 pages of thread)

The newbie here is to blame for a page or two of that.

So here's something interesting... I flipped directly from reading this thread to a Blue Jays blog where I immediately saw a post by guitar_davey.

Are you a DrunkJaysFan perchance?

I have to bow out and pick up a young Pearl Jam fan at daycare. Thanks for the warm welcome and we shall all chat later.

Peace!

6 minutes!

guitar_davey wrote:Are you a DrunkJaysFan perchance?

That seems like a really weird coincidence to me.

PJ has never made an album where every song fits the same overachieving theme, even when the artwork is striving to reach some common theme. Look at Vitalogy, No Code, Yield, etc. There are plenty of songs on those albums that probably had Stip ripping his hair out as he was trying to write his review of each album and its themes.

Not only has PJ not done it yet, but very few bands have managed to pull this off successfully. So I'm not expecting it. But the artwork is much more thematic than the BS artwork, so who knows? Maybe they did make a concerted effort to make it all fit together. Either way, each day this goes on, the less I feel they are just making shit up as they go.

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:I don't see the step down. They may be a bit more obvious in imagery but that's ok considering how complicated iconic and symbolic art can be. Gives a little grounding. The content of the song still plays a big part.

They're not at all bad, but the first four images had a place or two with more detail. The "Getaway" one particularly was very big block shapes without much finer work. It's no big deal. Maybe the final reveal of this one will have some details that are revealing. The change from the two big faces on FD to the figures was really something.

OK, now I have some context for the perceived drop in quality. Fair point.

For your notes: if none of the images are intended to work with each other (montage, layers, overlapping, etc.) this will all be a massive disappointment . I've have unintentionally and probably unfairly raised my expectations.

The images absolutely do all of that, for sure. Whether they go any way towards describing the actual songs is another matter. Part of me is still thinking that the songs were such an incoherent mess that the artist worked extra hard to tie them together in some way.

Well the images are cohesive in style and content. I have found compositional similarities that are there either by some grand design or they are just formulaic.

No, this has been thought out well

guitar_davey wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:I don't see the step down. They may be a bit more obvious in imagery but that's ok considering how complicated iconic and symbolic art can be. Gives a little grounding. The content of the song still plays a big part.

They're not at all bad, but the first four images had a place or two with more detail. The "Getaway" one particularly was very big block shapes without much finer work. It's no big deal. Maybe the final reveal of this one will have some details that are revealing. The change from the two big faces on FD to the figures was really something.

OK, now I have some context for the perceived drop in quality. Fair point.

For your notes: if none of the images are intended to work with each other (montage, layers, overlapping, etc.) this will all be a massive disappointment . I've have unintentionally and probably unfairly raised my expectations.

I can't imagine they did a conceptual record and we've yet to hear anybody mention a word of it, if only because it would build a lot of additional hype. If this *is* a concept record and they're just going to let us find out by ourselves, then it's pretty hard to paint them as the corporate whores some people make them out to be.

I didn't say anything relating to a concept album.

Thejambi wrote:

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:I don't see the step down. They may be a bit more obvious in imagery but that's ok considering how complicated iconic and symbolic art can be. Gives a little grounding. The content of the song still plays a big part.

They're not at all bad, but the first four images had a place or two with more detail. The "Getaway" one particularly was very big block shapes without much finer work. It's no big deal. Maybe the final reveal of this one will have some details that are revealing. The change from the two big faces on FD to the figures was really something.

OK, now I have some context for the perceived drop in quality. Fair point.

For your notes: if none of the images are intended to work with each other (montage, layers, overlapping, etc.) this will all be a massive disappointment . I've have unintentionally and probably unfairly raised my expectations.

The images absolutely do all of that, for sure. Whether they go any way towards describing the actual songs is another matter. Part of me is still thinking that the songs were such an incoherent mess that the artist worked extra hard to tie them together in some way.

Well the images are cohesive in style and content. I have found compositional similarities that are there either by some grand design or they are just formulaic.

'Grand design' or 'formulaic' will depend on the songs. How much evidence do we have from the titles that they pertain to the images? Well, not a lot. But hopefully a little bit.

philpritchard wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:Are you a DrunkJaysFan perchance?

That seems like a really weird coincidence to me.

mind blowing

bluestate wrote:PJ has never made an album where every song fits the same overachieving theme, even when the artwork is striving to reach some common theme. Look at Vitalogy, No Code, Yield, etc. There are plenty of songs on those albums that probably had Stip ripping his hair out as he was trying to his review of each album and its themes.

some songs are a struggle

Lounge Lizard wrote:No, this has been thought out well

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:I don't see the step down. They may be a bit more obvious in imagery but that's ok considering how complicated iconic and symbolic art can be. Gives a little grounding. The content of the song still plays a big part.

They're not at all bad, but the first four images had a place or two with more detail. The "Getaway" one particularly was very big block shapes without much finer work. It's no big deal. Maybe the final reveal of this one will have some details that are revealing. The change from the two big faces on FD to the figures was really something.

OK, now I have some context for the perceived drop in quality. Fair point.

For your notes: if none of the images are intended to work with each other (montage, layers, overlapping, etc.) this will all be a massive disappointment . I've have unintentionally and probably unfairly raised my expectations.

The images absolutely do all of that, for sure. Whether they go any way towards describing the actual songs is another matter. Part of me is still thinking that the songs were such an incoherent mess that the artist worked extra hard to tie them together in some way.

Well the images are cohesive in style and content. I have found compositional similarities that are there either by some grand design or they are just formulaic.

'Grand design' or 'formulaic' will depend on the songs. How much evidence do we have from the titles that they pertain to the images? Well, not a lot. But hopefully a little bit.

Ill clarify that I am talking purely on how the artwork relates to the artwork.

Thejambi wrote:

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:I don't see the step down. They may be a bit more obvious in imagery but that's ok considering how complicated iconic and symbolic art can be. Gives a little grounding. The content of the song still plays a big part.

They're not at all bad, but the first four images had a place or two with more detail. The "Getaway" one particularly was very big block shapes without much finer work. It's no big deal. Maybe the final reveal of this one will have some details that are revealing. The change from the two big faces on FD to the figures was really something.

OK, now I have some context for the perceived drop in quality. Fair point.

For your notes: if none of the images are intended to work with each other (montage, layers, overlapping, etc.) this will all be a massive disappointment . I've have unintentionally and probably unfairly raised my expectations.

The images absolutely do all of that, for sure. Whether they go any way towards describing the actual songs is another matter. Part of me is still thinking that the songs were such an incoherent mess that the artist worked extra hard to tie them together in some way.

Well the images are cohesive in style and content. I have found compositional similarities that are there either by some grand design or they are just formulaic.

'Grand design' or 'formulaic' will depend on the songs. How much evidence do we have from the titles that they pertain to the images? Well, not a lot. But hopefully a little bit.

Ill clarify that I am talking purely on how the artwork relates to the artwork.

Well then we're on the same graphics tablet.

I'm nervous, fingernails gone

Thejambi wrote: Ill clarify that I am talking purely on how the artwork relates to the artwork.

erm...

bluestate wrote:I'm nervous, fingernails gone

Everyone hold onto your butts.

bluestate wrote:I'm nervous, fingernails gone

Your lips are shaking, your nails are bit off