Red Mosquito

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:They are around 50. Who the hell in their right mind would respect and take seriously them if their records were angry/heavy and depressed?

Everyone, if they were good. Have you heard Johnny Cash's American Recordings?

How the hell does that compare with PJ? You know perfectly well that if they put out anything similar they'd get a hell of a lot more shit than they do now.

harmless wrote:But yeah, more albums like Backspacer will get them more serious respect.

Spoiler: show

YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:They are around 50. Who the hell in their right mind would respect and take seriously them if their records were angry/heavy and depressed?

Everyone, if they were good. Have you heard Johnny Cash's American Recordings?

How the hell does that compare with PJ? You know perfectly well that if they put out anything similar they'd get a hell of a lot more shit than they do now.

What are you talking about? What makes you know that "perfectly well"? They've already put out Benaroya Hall and hundreds of acoustic songs, all of which garnered more respect than Backspacer.

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:They are around 50. Who the hell in their right mind would respect and take seriously them if their records were angry/heavy and depressed?

Everyone, if they were good. Have you heard Johnny Cash's American Recordings?

How the hell does that compare with PJ? You know perfectly well that if they put out anything similar they'd get a hell of a lot more shit than they do now.

What are you talking about? What makes you know that "perfectly well"? They've already put out Benaroya Hall and hundreds of acoustic songs, all of which garnered more respect than Backspacer.

But are those heavy and angry by PJ standards or what the average PJ fan has in mind with hard and heavy?

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:They are around 50. Who the hell in their right mind would respect and take seriously them if their records were angry/heavy and depressed?

Everyone, if they were good. Have you heard Johnny Cash's American Recordings?

How the hell does that compare with PJ? You know perfectly well that if they put out anything similar they'd get a hell of a lot more shit than they do now.

What are you talking about? What makes you know that "perfectly well"? They've already put out Benaroya Hall and hundreds of acoustic songs, all of which garnered more respect than Backspacer.

But are those heavy and angry by PJ standards or what the average PJ fan has in mind with hard and heavy?

Hard / loud is not the same as "heavy", "deep", whatever you want to call it. Those records have a depth and a weight to them that no PJ material has since Riot Act. I've liked bits and pieces of it since then, but personally (and I can't speak for "the average PJ fan" as I'm not sure one exists), they haven't altogether been growing old very gracefully. People have rightfully compared their newer direction to someone like Neil Young (who, again, is a "heavy" artist, thematically) and been like eh, wouldn't it be cool if PJ had continued down *that* road? The average fan might enjoy the shiny Backspacer, but I'm not sure it did them many favours on a much larger scale. And I liked it enough, so I'm not even trying to slag it off.

In fact, for all that you're arguing they shouldn't be trying to be hard and aggressive, there are more attempts to be that on S/T, BS and LB than there would be with what I'm suggesting. So I'm hardly needing them to be loud; I'm actually suggesting it would be cool if they didn't feel the need to be loud. It sounds more and more contrived. I still like it here and there, but still.

harmless wrote:In fact, for all that you're arguing they shouldn't be trying to be hard and aggressive, there are more attempts to be that on S/T, BS and LB than there would be with what I'm suggesting. So I'm hardly needing them to be loud; I'm actually suggesting it would be cool if they didn't feel the need to be loud. It sounds more and more contrived. I still like it here and there, but still.

Riot Act came 10 years too soon and it spooked them. It will return.

Thejambi wrote:

harmless wrote:In fact, for all that you're arguing they shouldn't be trying to be hard and aggressive, there are more attempts to be that on S/T, BS and LB than there would be with what I'm suggesting. So I'm hardly needing them to be loud; I'm actually suggesting it would be cool if they didn't feel the need to be loud. It sounds more and more contrived. I still like it here and there, but still.

Riot Act came 10 years too soon and it spooked them. It will return.

I would love that. I have no huge problem with the current music, but I do secretly pine for a more low-fi effort.

OK maybe not so secretly.

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:They are around 50. Who the hell in their right mind would respect and take seriously them if their records were angry/heavy and depressed?

Everyone, if they were good. Have you heard Johnny Cash's American Recordings?

How the hell does that compare with PJ? You know perfectly well that if they put out anything similar they'd get a hell of a lot more shit than they do now.

What are you talking about? What makes you know that "perfectly well"? They've already put out Benaroya Hall and hundreds of acoustic songs, all of which garnered more respect than Backspacer.

But are those heavy and angry by PJ standards or what the average PJ fan has in mind with hard and heavy?

Hard / loud is not the same as "heavy", "deep", whatever you want to call it. Those records have a depth and a weight to them that no PJ material has since Riot Act. I've liked bits and pieces of it since then, but personally (and I can't speak for "the average PJ fan" as I'm not sure one exists), they haven't altogether been growing old very gracefully. People have rightfully compared their newer direction to someone like Neil Young (who, again, is a "heavy" artist, thematically) and been like eh, wouldn't it be cool if PJ had continued down *that* road? The average fan might enjoy the shiny Backspacer, but I'm not sure it did them many favours on a much larger scale. And I liked it enough, so I'm not even trying to slag it off.

I agree with all of this. I'm not trying to argue about what they should or should not record. I however believe that the most bitching/10C membership revoking fans do equate heavy/deep with hard/loud. I may be generalising and exaggerating but i don't think it affects the point I'm trying to make in a relevant manner.

harmless wrote:In fact, for all that you're arguing they shouldn't be trying to be hard and aggressive, there are more attempts to be that on S/T, BS and LB than there would be with what I'm suggesting. So I'm hardly needing them to be loud; I'm actually suggesting it would be cool if they didn't feel the need to be loud. It sounds more and more contrived. I still like it here and there, but still.

Agreed and people who bitch about them mellowing down usually don't have much issues with S/T and the most aggressive parts of the last 3 records.

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:They are around 50. Who the hell in their right mind would respect and take seriously them if their records were angry/heavy and depressed?

Everyone, if they were good. Have you heard Johnny Cash's American Recordings?

How the hell does that compare with PJ? You know perfectly well that if they put out anything similar they'd get a hell of a lot more shit than they do now.

What are you talking about? What makes you know that "perfectly well"? They've already put out Benaroya Hall and hundreds of acoustic songs, all of which garnered more respect than Backspacer.

But are those heavy and angry by PJ standards or what the average PJ fan has in mind with hard and heavy?

Hard / loud is not the same as "heavy", "deep", whatever you want to call it. Those records have a depth and a weight to them that no PJ material has since Riot Act. I've liked bits and pieces of it since then, but personally (and I can't speak for "the average PJ fan" as I'm not sure one exists), they haven't altogether been growing old very gracefully. People have rightfully compared their newer direction to someone like Neil Young (who, again, is a "heavy" artist, thematically) and been like eh, wouldn't it be cool if PJ had continued down *that* road? The average fan might enjoy the shiny Backspacer, but I'm not sure it did them many favours on a much larger scale. And I liked it enough, so I'm not even trying to slag it off.

I agree with all of this. I'm not trying to argue about what they should or should not record. I however believe that the most bitching/10C membership revoking fans do equate heavy/deep with hard/loud. I may be generalising and exaggerating but i don't think it affects the point I'm trying to make in a relevant manner.

That may be true, I'm not sure. But I'm not finding that on RM. Here, the people who are most disappointed with the new stuff tend to be those that love the middle period, specifically Binaural and Riot Act. Very little of that material was as heavy as the early stuff, and that period was really when PJ had come into their own as an acoustic band, among plenty of other things. What they want is the depth and creativity.

depth and creativity imply that these songs lack depth and have little of interest to say. Perhaps the word you want is complexity, but even then I'm not sure. Most of riot act hardly strikes me as complex.

I've argued this lots of times, but I think the real difference here more than anything else is tone. How immediate the songs feel vs. how removed they are. The distance you may have to cross to reach the songs might give the illusion of depth and creativity, but I don't think they are intrinsically in more possession of either. The best songs are, the worst songs aren't. Same as now.

Yeah, I dunno. I think you're more likely to reach depth and creativity (or more justified in calling something "deep" or "creative") if you're reaching further to find it, and avoiding cliche along the way. A lot of Backspacer absolutely embraced the cliched "hook" as its basic methodology, which meant that it was going to please the ear in a very sudden and fleeting way. And I don't think you can call that objectively more creative, if creative implies uniqueness, innovation, experimentation. If you're relying heavily on old tropes and ideas (which Backspacer does) you're not creating, as much as just constructing. In my opinion. It's the difference between functional design and fine art. They both have their place, and often the best examples of both cross over into the other. But I'm not sure Backspacer did, for me. That said, it was enjoyable for what it was and there's no accounting for taste, which largely escapes critique.

Or, like children that clearly werent hugged enough as a child, it all has to be screaming and anger and attention, your favourite band have moved on and you can't take that step with them via they don't do that anger thing anymore(and haven't in over fifteen years). It's nice having options and a broad spectrum or musical buffet if you will. Try the cheese. You might like it. Despite yourself.

Yes, dime, it's definitely a choice between one or the other.

harmless wrote:Yeah, I dunno. I think you're more likely to reach depth and creativity (or more justified in calling something "deep" or "creative") if you're reaching further to find it, and avoiding cliche along the way. A lot of Backspacer absolutely embraced the cliched "hook" as its basic methodology, which meant that it was going to please the ear in a very sudden and fleeting way. And I don't think you can call that objectively more creative, if creative implies uniqueness, innovation, experimentation. If you're relying heavily on old tropes and ideas (which Backspacer does) you're not creating, as much as just constructing. In my opinion. It's the difference between functional design and fine art. They both have their place, and often the best examples of both cross over into the other. But I'm not sure Backspacer did, for me. That said, it was enjoyable for what it was and there's no accounting for taste, which largely escapes critique.

What are the creative tour de force moments on riot act. A few songs here and there, but it is also a very long record, and for every cant keep you'll have a green disease. And a few songs here and there is what you'll get on most of the records.

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:Yeah, I dunno. I think you're more likely to reach depth and creativity (or more justified in calling something "deep" or "creative") if you're reaching further to find it, and avoiding cliche along the way. A lot of Backspacer absolutely embraced the cliched "hook" as its basic methodology, which meant that it was going to please the ear in a very sudden and fleeting way. And I don't think you can call that objectively more creative, if creative implies uniqueness, innovation, experimentation. If you're relying heavily on old tropes and ideas (which Backspacer does) you're not creating, as much as just constructing. In my opinion. It's the difference between functional design and fine art. They both have their place, and often the best examples of both cross over into the other. But I'm not sure Backspacer did, for me. That said, it was enjoyable for what it was and there's no accounting for taste, which largely escapes critique.

What are the creative tour de force moments on riot act. A few songs here and there, but it is also a very long record, and for every cant keep you'll have a green disease. And a few songs here and there is what you'll get on most of the records.

Fair points. You're right, there is poppier, more "catchy" stuff on Riot Act along with the deeper cuts, but it's the general avoidance of the obvious hook, cliched chord structure etc. that I find appealing about Riot Act. It sounds like they reached further for something which had more of a lasting impact, which is helped by the very roomy production and instrumentation. None of it sounds like it was quickly polished, branded and handed out to reach a demographic. And however good I find the current music sometimes, I do think it's products marketed to demographics more than it was. I find it more emotionally manipulative / contrived than anything on Binaural and Riot act, as just one example. And that's not helped by BoB's equally manipulative production, which makes everything sound very pretty in very tried-and-tested ways. None of this should take away my enjoyment of it, but that enjoyment is quite different to the rewards I get from pre-S/T stuff (that album wasn't fully there but heading there). All of this is of course subjective and what I love about Riot Act is the same thing that others hate about it: it doesn't try so hard to attract the listener first time. There's more to dig underneath, and I find those efforts are rewarded. You've said before that you don't agree and I respect that.

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:Yeah, I dunno. I think you're more likely to reach depth and creativity (or more justified in calling something "deep" or "creative") if you're reaching further to find it, and avoiding cliche along the way. A lot of Backspacer absolutely embraced the cliched "hook" as its basic methodology, which meant that it was going to please the ear in a very sudden and fleeting way. And I don't think you can call that objectively more creative, if creative implies uniqueness, innovation, experimentation. If you're relying heavily on old tropes and ideas (which Backspacer does) you're not creating, as much as just constructing. In my opinion. It's the difference between functional design and fine art. They both have their place, and often the best examples of both cross over into the other. But I'm not sure Backspacer did, for me. That said, it was enjoyable for what it was and there's no accounting for taste, which largely escapes critique.

What are the creative tour de force moments on riot act. A few songs here and there, but it is also a very long record, and for every cant keep you'll have a green disease. And a few songs here and there is what you'll get on most of the records.

Fair points. You're right, there is poppier, more "catchy" stuff on Riot Act along with the deeper cuts, but it's the general avoidance of the obvious hook, cliched chord structure etc. that I find appealing about Riot Act. It sounds like they reached further for something which had more of a lasting impact, which is helped by the very roomy production and instrumentation. None of it sounds like it was quickly polished, branded and handed out to reach a demographic. And however good I find the current music sometimes, I do think it's products marketed to demographics more than it was. I find it more emotionally manipulative / contrived than anything on Binaural and Riot act, as just one example. And that's not helped by BoB's equally manipulative production, which makes everything sound very pretty in very tried-and-tested ways. None of this should take away my enjoyment of it, but that enjoyment is quite different to the rewards I get from pre-S/T stuff (that album wasn't fully there but heading there). All of this is of course subjective and what I love about Riot Act is the same thing that others hate about it: it doesn't try so hard to attract the listener first time. There's more to dig underneath, and I find those efforts are rewarded. You've said before that you don't agree and I respect that.

I'm not questioning that, just taking issue with the distance implies depth where immediacy doesn't angle

Having said all that, so far I'm finding the stuff on LB to have a good mix between the catchiness of Backspacer and the thicker / weightier feel of Binaural and Riot Act. I can hear Riot Act or Binaural in Getaway and I can even hear them in Lightning Bolt. Which is good; there's something for everyone, possibly. So these *instant* songs are proving deeper on further listens, which is ideal at this point really.