Red Mosquito

That Eddie Vedder.

He sure does love running away from problems.

Also, Joey is right about the first three songs.

Man, I've agreed with Verm AND McP in the same thread in the same day!



I should just quit forever. It won't get better than this feeling.

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:This album is much better and enjoyable to listen to if you just don't listen that close. I think most big PJ fans have grown accustomed to listening very closely and forming opinions based off of those intricate listens.

The avocado album is a great car listening album. It's great to have on the outside speakers while your staining the deck. Or gardening. Etc... Etc...

The songs are, for the most part, very good tunes. Outside of Life Wasted, Gone and Inside Job, the actual songwriting and musical structures are some of my favorites of any PJ album. And I'll even find myself enjoying the three exceptions when I'm not focused.

The problem with this album is that there is nothing intricate (except maybe Parachutes), and focused listening generates enough distraction that enjoyment is compromised. The production, the recording, some lyrics, the performances, it all contributes.

So, basically, just put it on and only half listen to it, and you will find yourself really enjoying it. It's like the polar opposite of Binaural.

Lyrically I think it is grappling with some complex stuff, although the very loose narrative running through it gets in the way of that a bit. But you're right musically. S/T really needs to be understood as a reaction to Binaural and especially Riot Act--an album of loud, straightforward, immediately accessible songs meant to appeal to fans who were less satisfied with the dour, intricate, restrained performances on those albums.

Agreed . Wow. That's so crazy to agree with you

durdencommatyler wrote:

stip wrote:S/T really needs to be understood as a reaction to Binaural and especially Riot Act--an album of loud, straightforward, immediately accessible songs meant to appeal to fans who were less satisfied with the dour, intricate, restrained performances on those albums.

Seems to me both Binaural and Riot Act -- but especially Riot Act are on the same level. Look at metacritic (which I know you use a lot) and the scores are about even. All three albums were certified Gold in the US and Platinum in Australia, if I'm not mistaken.

So, I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. Maybe YOU feel that way about S/T and that context gives you some greater understanding. But I'm not sure who all these fans are that were so dissatisfied. What are you saying exactly? I feel like I'm confused.

I wasn't making any comment about their intrinsic worth as albums, or even their critical reception. But at the time the message boards (RM especially) had a large vocal number of fans disappointed in how restrained those albums were. No anger, Eddie sounded tired, he didn't care anymore, etc. There's been an amazing rehabilitation of those two records on RM today--When I started posting here on and off (2003-2004) those albums were treated fairly similarly to the way the last 3 are treated today.

And S/T was more successful than Riot Act initially. Other than Australia it peaked much higher almost everywhere, and WWS was a vastly more succesful first single than NAIS or I Am Mine.

The whole marketing around S/T was that it was a return to form for pearl jam. And we've seen that kind of language before, but what it meant at that time was a rejection of the kind of song writing and performances we had gotten on the last two albums. Lead singles that were Nothing As It Seems or I Am Mine instead of Given to Fly. Songs that lacked the same kind of (over) committed go for broke engagement that Eddie was known for. Stuff that was closer, if not in sound then at least in feeling, to a record like Ten (which is still what the people want).

I think my favorite moment, vocally, on Riot Act is that moment at the end of Save You where Eddie finally seems to wake up (the let me help you help yourself moment) and screams out that line with righteous and impotent but still fighting fury. If you're like me (and I think my tastes are more in line with the 'standard' pearl jam fan (perhaps not the message board fan and certainly not the RM fan) you spent the rest of Riot Act wondering where that was. S/T basically takes that moment and decides to build an entire album around it--at times to great effect, and at times in ways that are not at all appropriate. But it felt like breath of fresh air at the time. Think of a song like Life Wasted. After how layered and dense so much of the previous albums was, Life Wasted feels like scaffolding. it's a huge riff, and has a large, loud sound, but it also feels skeletal--full of empty spaces you expect to be filled in with all these extra details but are left vacant--the space gets filled in with the lingering echo of the main riff. But it was refreshing after albums that felt overdesigned to the point that the layering was smothering the songs. And you have an extremely aggressive, in your face vocal performance, a ferocious guitar solo that seems to exist to channel a kind of aggressive energy---everything Riot Act was lacking

Thinking politically (and RA and S/T are easily the two albums in the catalog most influenced by the politics of their time), S/T is also a response to the politics of Riot Act, or more accurately an evolution of the way the American left was able to talk and think about Bush's america. Riot Act doesn't know how to understand what happened and can't really figure out a way to respond. It mourns, and it wanders, but it rarely engages, and it rarely understands what is happening. That's what makes it interesting. In 2006 opposition to Bush is ascending, and if you spoke out against him people would understand. It was an empowering time, and S/T is an album full of songs that are trying to convey that feeling.

Again, I'm not saying that S/T is better than Riot Act (though I like it more). Just that S/T is, in almost every way, set up to be the anti-Riot Act.

hlniv wrote:This album is much better and enjoyable to listen to if you just don't listen that close. I think most big PJ fans have grown accustomed to listening very closely and forming opinions based off of those intricate listens.

The avocado album is a great car listening album. It's great to have on the outside speakers while your staining the deck. Or gardening. Etc... Etc...

The songs are, for the most part, very good tunes. Outside of Life Wasted, Gone and Inside Job, the actual songwriting and musical structures are some of my favorites of any PJ album. And I'll even find myself enjoying the three exceptions when I'm not focused.

The problem with this album is that there is nothing intricate (except maybe Parachutes), and focused listening generates enough distraction that enjoyment is compromised. The production, the recording, some lyrics, the performances, it all contributes.

So, basically, just put it on and only half listen to it, and you will find yourself really enjoying it. It's like the polar opposite of Binaural.

This is pretty much spot on.

stip wrote: And S/T was more successful than Riot Act initially. Other than Australia it peaked much higher almost everywhere, and WWS was a vastly more succesful first single than NAIS or I Am Mine.

The whole marketing around S/T was that it was a return to form for pearl jam. And we've seen that kind of language before, but what it meant at that time was a rejection of the kind of song writing and performances we had gotten on the last two albums. Lead singles that were Nothing As It Seems or I Am Mine instead of Given to Fly. Songs that lacked the same kind of (over) committed go for broke engagement that Eddie was known for. Stuff that was closer, if not in sound then at least in feeling, to a record like Ten (which is still what the people want).

That's certainly true, though I don't think it's accurate to say that we had heard it from the band before. Every press article, every interview seemed to talk about albums like Binaural and Riot Act as 'the time when they rock again' or 'back to Ten.' Which is completely ridiculous, and thankfully so. It's not surprising, though; it's an easy hook when you have one album that so overwhelms the rest of a catalog, at least in the mind of the broader public. So the press would call each album a return to Ten.

S/T was the first, and arguably only time, when the band pushed that line of thinking as well. I think, more so than a rejection of Riot Act, they wanted to be back in the conversation again. I think, for lack of better analogies, they wanted their version of All You Can't Leave Behind or The Rising, whether because they wanted a bigger platform for a comparatively political album to their past or they just wanted to be U2. And what's more, S/T ended up not having that impact, nor have any of the albums that followed.

But S/T seemed to be the moment when they wanted it; you can see it in the amount of press they did (which could be another reason why the singles were more successful, besides the simple fact that a song like WWS is an easier sell than something like NAIS); they did so much more press for that record than in the two albums preceding it.

You can look at it any way you want. Most of the songs are shitty by PJ standards and there is nothing more to it than that. What some people view as a "return to form", I view as an obvious descent into mediocrity that they still haven't recovered from.

digster wrote:

stip wrote: And S/T was more successful than Riot Act initially. Other than Australia it peaked much higher almost everywhere, and WWS was a vastly more succesful first single than NAIS or I Am Mine.

The whole marketing around S/T was that it was a return to form for pearl jam. And we've seen that kind of language before, but what it meant at that time was a rejection of the kind of song writing and performances we had gotten on the last two albums. Lead singles that were Nothing As It Seems or I Am Mine instead of Given to Fly. Songs that lacked the same kind of (over) committed go for broke engagement that Eddie was known for. Stuff that was closer, if not in sound then at least in feeling, to a record like Ten (which is still what the people want).

That's certainly true, though I don't think it's accurate to say that we had heard it from the band before. Every press article, every interview seemed to talk about albums like Binaural and Riot Act as 'the time when they rock again' or 'back to Ten.' Which is completely ridiculous, and thankfully so. It's not surprising, though; it's an easy hook when you have one album that so overwhelms the rest of a catalog, at least in the mind of the broader public. So the press would call each album a return to Ten.

S/T was the first, and arguably only time, when the band pushed that line of thinking as well. I think, more so than a rejection of Riot Act, they wanted to be back in the conversation again. I think, for lack of better analogies, they wanted their version of All You Can't Leave Behind or The Rising, whether because they wanted a bigger platform for a comparatively political album to their past or they just wanted to be U2. And what's more, S/T ended up not having that impact, nor have any of the albums that followed.

But S/T seemed to be the moment when they wanted it; you can see it in the amount of press they did (which could be another reason why the singles were more successful, besides the simple fact that a song like WWS is an easier sell than something like NAIS); they did so much more press for that record than in the two albums preceding it.

Wasn't there quite a bit of that with Yield (the return to form, relevancy, etc). The relevancy stuff is a good point as well, btw.

Eh, to a degree, but not nearly as much as S/T. It was still mostly from the press, who for some reason seemed to think that when the band made No Code, they'd ended up with some avant-garde bizarro record instead of a pretty logical evolution from where the band had gone on Vitalogy.

Thanks for you reply Stip.

digster wrote:Eh, to a degree, but not nearly as much as S/T. It was still mostly from the press, who for some reason seemed to think that when the band made No Code, they'd ended up with some avant-garde bizarro record instead of a pretty logical evolution from where the band had gone on Vitalogy.

I agree less than S/T for sure with the press, but I think we tend to give a pass to what happened with Yield. Going from Who You Are to GTF as your lead single speaks volumes. Yield sees the return to Ticketmaster venues, a video, a commercial for the album. You actually have PJ directly walking back most of the strong positions they had adopted a few years prior.


Plus an album that is basically full of anthems and traditional pearl jam style songs for the most part (though lacking some of the bombast of the first two albums)

I'm not giving them a pass on Yield; I'm just acknowledging the fact that there were different situations, and they wanted to be at the top with S/T in a way that may have been a bit different than Yield (and I should mention I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing).

With Yield you had them walking back a way of touring that I'm pretty sure you yourself has argued was untenable for the band and fans, a video in which the band wasn't even featured, a Letterman performance, and a commercial. With S/T, in addition to the consistent drop in to Letterman, you had a SNL performance, Jools Holland, an AOL performance, at least two videos that I can recall, a Rolling Stone cover story (something they hadn't done since 1993), and a worldwide tour, and that's only the stuff I remember.

I also think classifying Yield as a record full of anthems and traditional PJ songs misses the mark, but that may be slightly subjective. I think in terms of sound No Code and Yield are relatively similar.

I agree that yield was also an album with them going on a more "commercial" route. But guys this is pj...they do whatever they feel.
Even with backspacer Target wanted them to do more press and they said no.

I really like avocado; even with that substellar second half.

digster wrote:I'm not giving them a pass on Yield; I'm just acknowledging the fact that there were different situations, and they wanted to be at the top with S/T in a way that may have been a bit different than Yield (and I should mention I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing).

With Yield you had them walking back a way of touring that I'm pretty sure you yourself has argued was untenable for the band and fans, a video in which the band wasn't even featured, a Letterman performance, and a commercial. With S/T, in addition to the consistent drop in to Letterman, you had a SNL performance, Jools Holland, an AOL performance, at least two videos that I can recall, a Rolling Stone cover story (something they hadn't done since 1993), and a worldwide tour, and that's only the stuff I remember.

I also think classifying Yield as a record full of anthems and traditional PJ songs misses the mark, but that may be slightly subjective. I think in terms of sound No Code and Yield are relatively similar.

DING DING DING

stip wrote:I agree less than S/T for sure with the press, but I think we tend to give a pass to what happened with Yield. Going from Who You Are to GTF as your lead single speaks volumes. Yield sees the return to Ticketmaster venues, a video, a commercial for the album. You actually have PJ directly walking back most of the strong positions they had adopted a few years prior.

Plus an album that is basically full of anthems and traditional pearl jam style songs for the most part (though lacking some of the bombast of the first two albums)

Yield was pushed by the band a little bit because it was an excellent album full of excellent songs, and in those days you could sell an album that way. S/T was pushed to the max because the songs are weak and they wanted to drill it into people's heads and move units, which sort of worked, despite the poor quality of the songs they were pushing. I don't know a single person who saw the "Life Wasted" video on MTV and didn't think that it was a major decline in song quality. I can't imagine that people ran to the stores in droves to buy it until the promotional $$$ machine went into overdrive. I don't see it as any coincidence that the albums that PJ promoted the hardest are their worst ones.

durdencommatyler wrote:

digster wrote:I'm not giving them a pass on Yield; I'm just acknowledging the fact that there were different situations, and they wanted to be at the top with S/T in a way that may have been a bit different than Yield (and I should mention I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing).

With Yield you had them walking back a way of touring that I'm pretty sure you yourself has argued was untenable for the band and fans, a video in which the band wasn't even featured, a Letterman performance, and a commercial. With S/T, in addition to the consistent drop in to Letterman, you had a SNL performance, Jools Holland, an AOL performance, at least two videos that I can recall, a Rolling Stone cover story (something they hadn't done since 1993), and a worldwide tour, and that's only the stuff I remember.

I also think classifying Yield as a record full of anthems and traditional PJ songs misses the mark, but that may be slightly subjective. I think in terms of sound No Code and Yield are relatively similar.

DING DING DING

To be clear, I'm not criticizing any of this. I was thrilled to see them in MSG and to this day I show the DTE video in some of my classes. These were sensible positions. But they were a more dramatic walking back of core principles (albiet in some cases ones that were perhaps untenable) of anything that happened in S/T or afterwards.

Yield also had a major tour, and while S/T had 3 musical performances, Yield had an actual commercial for the record.

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:

stip wrote:I agree less than S/T for sure with the press, but I think we tend to give a pass to what happened with Yield. Going from Who You Are to GTF as your lead single speaks volumes. Yield sees the return to Ticketmaster venues, a video, a commercial for the album. You actually have PJ directly walking back most of the strong positions they had adopted a few years prior.

Plus an album that is basically full of anthems and traditional pearl jam style songs for the most part (though lacking some of the bombast of the first two albums)

Yield was pushed by the band a little bit because it was an excellent album full of excellent songs, and in those days you could sell an album that way. S/T was pushed to the max because the songs are weak and they wanted to drill it into people's heads and move units, which sort of worked, despite the poor quality of the songs they were pushing. I don't know a single person who saw the "Life Wasted" video on MTV and didn't think that it was a major decline in song quality. I can't imagine that people ran to the stores in droves to buy it until the promotional $$$ machine went into overdrive. I don't see it as any coincidence that the albums that PJ promoted the hardest are their worst ones.

Life Wasted wasn't the lead single, and came out after the promotional machine had basically stopped. Not when it went into overdrive.

stip wrote:Life Wasted wasn't the lead single, and came out after the promotional machine had basically stopped. Not when it went into overdrive.

No, it wasn't the first single, but wasn't there a promo video released to promote the album?

yeah. It was pretty awesome.