Red Mosquito

Birds in Hell wrote:When I finally caught up with the band again, I thought every song on Binaural was terrible except for Evacuation.

I still love evacuation because of the connection i had on that first listen, i can agree that the chorus isn't the best, but that song is still fuckin great

I already have a space for this album planned out and I'm hoping I get to put it there.

Kevin Davis wrote:

stip wrote:I guess what I wonder about is whether or not you think this is an issue with this song, or something indicative of the larger sound (which is impossible to know until the album comes out or we at least hear a few more songs--but you can guess). Do you not want pearl jam to write these kinds of songs? They've always thrown them on their albums. Or, does MYM not really stack up to the similar songs they've written (i.e.--you can imagine the same frame of this song, but filled out much more effectively and interestingly)?

It's tough to say. I've never really taken issue with these kinds of songs in the past so I can understand where it would seem odd that I would start taking issue with them now, but I think I've just reached my saturation point with this particular facet of their sound, and how prevalent it's become in their repertoire. I'm not talking about the punk sound, necessarily, more the overall approach of the last few records--just that unsubtle modern rock sound, the same unchanging distorted guitar tones and the same one-dimensional sonic presentation. But no, I don't think "MYM" really stacks up to similar songs they've written--in my mind, its closest precedents are "Comatose" and "Ole," though "MYM" lacks the cool dissonances of the former and doesn't get the same free pass that I gave the latter for being a one-off novelty. But I also accept that that impression might just be the result of my own fatigue with where they've taken their music lately, even though I really do think that bridge sounds like the sort of sugary pop-punk that Eddie Vedder has mocked mercilessly in the past.

I'm not ready to make any unreasonable assumptions about what the album might be, and my disappointment with the single really is just that. But it has been one of the rare instances in Pearl Jam's catalog where virtually everything about a song has just conspired to leave the foulest taste in my mouth possible. Just a total miss for me.

I love that bridge. it's the best part of the song. I don't necessarily draw the connections to it that you are, but even if I was it might be an example of how pearl jam is pretty effective at drawing the best parts out a genre or style you might not otherwise care for--the essence of it that is worth building off of. Although, obviously, that wouldn't apply to you in this case.



I had an old roomate who was never a big pearl jam fan but didn't mind when I played them listen to MYM. He said he liked it. Had a west coast punk sound he thought was good.

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Best Pearl Jam single since "Given To Fly", no question. Anyone who thinks this is just another generic rocker needs to pull their head out of their ass. I don't give a shit if it sounds like The Offspring or The King's Nuts. It's fucking good.

It's a generic rocker, but a really good one. At this point I would be OK with an album full of generic everything... as long as they could get the good part right. Or they could something else.

I'm using this post as a jumping off point, not taking issue with Harmless.


When people say something sounds generic, what do they mean?

Derivative?
Familiar?
Uninspired?

I'd say a cocktail of uninspired (musically, not in the execution) + one-dimensional + lack of identity (it you heard that track without the vocals it could be any "punk"-ish band)

I use "generic" to mean formulaic and interchangeable with hundreds of thousands other songs from the same template

theplatypus wrote:I use "generic" to mean formulaic and interchangeable with hundreds of thousands other songs from the same template

That is still pretty vague I feel. Does this also mean "Verse/Chorus/Verse/Chorus/Bridge/Chorus" ?

Thats standard issue and PJ have been doing that for ages. There aren't really many unique PJ songs. I like how stip points out that Pearl Jam have never broken the mold but always done an incredible job working within the established parameters of rock music.

All of the above, really.

But Jorge, that definition fits a huge amount of 'classic' rock music.

As in advertising, I would use "generic" to mean "lacking brand." It can be formulaic (most generic products follow the exact same formula as their name-brand counterparts), but it lacks that individualized touch that elevates it to something beyond the formula itself.

harmless wrote:All of the above, really.

But Jorge, that definition fits a huge amount of 'classic' rock music.

That's true, which is why I modify it with "generic punk song", "generic dance song", "generic hardcore song" etc. Conforming to the tropes of each individual genre, in terms of aesthetics and musical language, while lacking an element of any real significance that sets it apart. It's not just about song structure as Strat suggests.

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Best Pearl Jam single since "Given To Fly", no question. Anyone who thinks this is just another generic rocker needs to pull their head out of their ass. I don't give a shit if it sounds like The Offspring or The King's Nuts. It's fucking good.

It's a generic rocker, but a really good one. At this point I would be OK with an album full of generic everything... as long as they could get the good part right. Or they could something else.

I'm using this post as a jumping off point, not taking issue with Harmless.


When people say something sounds generic, what do they mean?

Derivative?
Familiar?
Uninspired?

I'd say a cocktail of uninspired (musically, not in the execution) + one-dimensional + lack of identity (it you heard that track without the vocals it could be any "punk"-ish band)

This may reflect my own limitations as a listener but for basically every band I need the singer to help me differentiate who the band is, and in the cases where I can tell them apart it would be because the song features the standard hallmarks of that band. Rem sounding like rem. radio head sounding like radio head. Which might make those songs generic.


Again that might be totally onnme

You leave Onnme out of this.

theplatypus wrote:

harmless wrote:All of the above, really.

But Jorge, that definition fits a huge amount of 'classic' rock music.

That's true, which is why I modify it with "generic punk song", "generic dance song", "generic hardcore song" etc. Conforming to the tropes of each individual genre, in terms of aesthetics and musical language, while lacking an element of any real significance that sets it apart. It's not just about song structure as Strat suggests.

I didnt want to suggest that, I was just asking if thats was what you were getting at, or something more.

As KD says above "...but it lacks that individualized touch that elevates it to something beyond the formula itself."

I think, for most of us, Eddie Vedder is that element that elevates Pearl Jams rather standard approach to writing into something greater.

Kevin Davis wrote:As in advertising, I would use "generic" to mean "lacking brand." It can be formulaic (most generic products follow the exact same formula as their name-brand counterparts), but it lacks that individualized touch that elevates it to something beyond the formula itself.

Gotta admit, that strikes a chord given PJ's recent output. Good technically but no PJ stamp.

Strat wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

harmless wrote:All of the above, really.

But Jorge, that definition fits a huge amount of 'classic' rock music.

That's true, which is why I modify it with "generic punk song", "generic dance song", "generic hardcore song" etc. Conforming to the tropes of each individual genre, in terms of aesthetics and musical language, while lacking an element of any real significance that sets it apart. It's not just about song structure as Strat suggests.

I didnt want to suggest that, I was just asking if thats was what you were getting at, or something more.

As KD says above "...but it lacks that individualized touch that elevates it to something beyond the formula itself."

I think, for most of us, Eddie Vedder is that element that elevates Pearl Jams rather standard approach to writing into something greater.

Yup. Which is why the "If you took Eddie Vedder away, you'd just get..." arguments are pretty silly.

If you took Kurt Cobain away from Nirvana Unplugged, that album would likely become fairly boring, and if not boring, certainly 'generic'.

Eddie Vedder should just record himself doing karaoke versions of his favorite songs. It'd be a huge hit.

As long as he is shit faced and wearing zubas as any good Karaoke circuit champ would be...

theplatypus wrote:Eddie Vedder should just record himself doing karaoke versions of his favorite songs. It'd be a huge hit.

Incidentally, this is why I go on so much about Dave A. He was anything but 'generic', and Matt is pretty much as generic as it's possible to be as a rich musician. Now there is one member in PJ with some personality, and it's Ed. I'm sure they have plenty of personality as people, but where is it??? And I think a lot of people have been asking this of PJ even in reference to what we fans think of as their best albums. I've heard plenty of people call PJ generic, and long before Backspacer. So I'm not sure it's an issue you can just pin on new material. Or at least, you can but it's a subjective judgment.

And everyone knows how much I hate subjective judgments. They're morally wrong.

harmless wrote:

Strat wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

harmless wrote:All of the above, really.

But Jorge, that definition fits a huge amount of 'classic' rock music.

That's true, which is why I modify it with "generic punk song", "generic dance song", "generic hardcore song" etc. Conforming to the tropes of each individual genre, in terms of aesthetics and musical language, while lacking an element of any real significance that sets it apart. It's not just about song structure as Strat suggests.

I didnt want to suggest that, I was just asking if thats was what you were getting at, or something more.

As KD says above "...but it lacks that individualized touch that elevates it to something beyond the formula itself."

I think, for most of us, Eddie Vedder is that element that elevates Pearl Jams rather standard approach to writing into something greater.

Yup. Which is why the "If you took Eddie Vedder away, you'd just get..." arguments are pretty silly.

If you took Kurt Cobain away from Nirvana Unplugged, that album would likely become fairly boring, and if not boring, certainly 'generic'.

Surely it's not silly to think bands sometimes have a style or something in the way they make music that relies on a bit more than just how one particular element sounds? Which isn't saying that EV is not a big part of what makes PJ PJ. Still, I don't know, I feel like their songs weren't that much derivative like today and that they weren't just EV doing his thing over 4 random guys playing rock standards. But maybe that's exactly what they were and I'm just looking at this with rose-tinted glasses.

Anyway, I don't think anyone was implying generic couldn't be good. Society is a fairly generic song but I like it a lot. Partly because I like this kind of song as a whole and partly because I like what EV is doing with this kind of songs.

apart from Eddie, the two musicians that stand out for me on MYM are Matt and Mike who are probably the ones that i think drag down this band most of the time (not a question of talent, mind you, more because they sound ill-suited to many songs - to my ears) and that speaks volumes about how pleasantly surprised i am with this song.

Blenheim Augustine wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

malice wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

malice wrote: ummm, how about the particular brand of over intellectualized analysis that goes on around here about music in general and about Pearl Jam particularly?

I like to over-intellectualize music. I try not to do it to Pearl Jam too often, but it's hard not to get caught in the conversations. I'm sorry you have to read through it.

don't worry about it, chap. you guys don't need to apologize for your perceptions, and certainly not to me. I only made the comment because it's difficult for me being about the only representative of gen-x here ...I know doug (and a couple others) is about my age, but he's much more mellow than me anyway - I told someone here awhile back that there's times I'd like to tell you guys to shut the fuck up because you didn't grow up when I did and don't know what you're talking about regarding the music of my generation, but I really can't ignore the level of intelligence all of you exhibit, and therefore can't really exclude your opinions, nor dismiss them as immature because I don't think I had that level of intellectual prowess in my 20s at all.

I wouldn't give you a hard time at all about what any of you have to say if I didn't appreciate your ability to articulate it well. really, I wish I was able to articulate what music of my 20s really did mean to me (or maybe to 'us' as a generation, but I don't have much of a consensus to draw from on that front) - back then, in the 90s especially, it was just different for me. it felt important and intense, and was about finally having an outlet musically that was representative of my 'generational' experience of the time - it just didn't exist before Pearl Jam and the rest of them of that era - I keep reminding myself, gen-x was gen-x because we were inconsequential in a lot of different ways - you guys aren't. I just want you (all) to be aware of your fortune at being this age... right now... with this amount of musical background to draw from, and the hindsight of why.

ugh, I simply can't make short, concise statements and convey what I think. - anyway - I'm cool with RMer's opinions, but imma still rag on you when I can.

I have no idea how old you are, but I'm 33 and absolutely understand what you're saying about the 90s and what it meant. That was my music. That was the decade that decided everything else for me as far as my musical tastes -- or really my voice, my connection, my feeling a part of things. I grew up listening to Classic Rock (Zep, the Beatles, Eagles, Boston, CCR, CSN, etc). But it was that movement, that shift in the 90s that really changed everything for me.

I'm pretty sure I'm Gen X. I was a teenager for the release of the first four albums. However, I'm not one of these people that think music has been terrible since the 90s and that grunge or whatever was this once in a millennium movement. I even have numerous friends who for them the 90s was about big changes in hip hop or electronic music. I also know from my nephews that music will always be an important part of teenage years and "mean" something, but they have different bands they like just like the generations that came before me.

every definition I've heard of "Generation X" marks DOB as early/mid 1960s to early 1980s. It's drawn from the idea that this is the generation just after the Baby Boomers, with DOB from directly after WWII to the lat 1950s - a time of tremendous prosperity in which the children were raised in much (much much) better circumstances than their parents (mainly Depression era babies, themselves) and who rebelled by becoming hippys (rather than hippies, or hipsters - as in the Peace and Love, put flowers in the soldier's gun barrel kids) - in general, if you were in your 20s during the 90s - then Gen X, if you were a teen, probably more Generation Y - with general indicators of having parents who were/are Baby Boomers.

I also saw that Kevin Davis said he though Millennials was a term used to describe people in the 'in between' times of Gen X to Y - which could be correct, although I've assumed Millennial to hold the same set of reference points as Generation Y- so what do I know, anyway?

If you were in your teens for the release of the first four albums, I guess you'd be more that 'in between' group than Gen X - but then in the best of cases, it's all just stupid labels that mean close to nothing most of the time - it's more a convenient way to categorize what a large-ish group of people who are all in the same peer group have in common...

I think I'm safe in noting that it doesn't matter much what age you are now - or for a lot of people, what age you were when this music exploded onto the scene - as from what I gather here, many many people, regardless of their age, had very similar reactions to the music, and what it meant to them at the time -
I use these terms because they seem to have defined a great deal of my own views and reactions to the world back then, and since Pearl Jam is thought of (usually in a derogatory way) as the quintessential Gen-X band (other than Nirvana) - and since I'm the same age as them, I'm as Gen X as I can get...