Red Mosquito

stip wrote:

mattyv1908 wrote:

stip wrote:Even an album like REM's collapse into now, which was maybe the first REM album that felt like it was retreading old ideas, never felt like it wasn't the record REM wanted to make, or that they were chasing anything other than their muse. There were just fewer new ideas, but still a bunch of killer songs.

Even if some new things remind us of the old, Pearl Jam hasn't really repeated themselves much within the broad parameters of their brand of rock music. Even if something feels like it is chasing Animal, it's not like there are 30 versions of animal and animal adjacent songs out there already. There is room for a variation on a theme thirty years later

Maybe you don't like the songs, and that's obviously fine. But the larger meta narrative about WHY someone may not like a song is baggage that people carry into a conversation

I think it’s a fair criticism to point out that Eddie at this point has become a caricature of everything he used to abhor. As the person who wrestled creative control of the band into more of his vision, it’s safe to assume the directions the band has taken have his fingerprints all over them. It’s antithetical to the ethos that was ingrained in this band’s earlier work.

As an example of complete juxtaposition, I think Painted Shield’s records have been some of the most creative and refreshing albums of the last several years with Stone at the helm of it all. The fact that numerous songs/riffs/ideas that found their way onto Painted Shield Albums were originally intended as PJ songs rejected by Eddie is a travesty.

We can argue over the subjectivity in the word authentic, but Pearl Jam the band has morphed into Pearl Jam the brand.

Vitalogy is probably Pearl Jam's high water mark, and it is the most Eddie of all the records. But this caricature argument has never held very much water to me. You don't like it, that's fine. You want to blame the fact that you don't like the direction it has gone in is also fine. Eddie is the dominant creative voice in the work (and again, has been going on about 30 years at this point). He gets the praise when things go well, it's fair to take the heat if they don't. But to call the fact that you don't like the music is a violation of their ethos is a little solipsistic. It reduces the meaning of Pearl Jam to your personal preference.

I like the real Pearl Jam
I don't like this
This is not the Pearl Jam

It also, intentionally or not, delegitimates the experience of people who DO like the music, because what they like is a pale reflection of the real thing - a truth only you can tap into.

I'm directing this response at your post, but it's not an uncommon thread here (going back decades), or in other corners of the fandom when people don't like what the band puts out. It's not unique to Pearl Jam.

There are plenty of bands I lost interest in over time. I used to love the Smashing Pumpkins and Metallica. I checked after Load and Machina. I could tell myself that these bands changed, and their just facsimilies or sell-out versions of a once great band (which enables me to hold onto a purer version of what they are in my mind and my relationship with them. This isn't the real Metallica. Or it could be that artists I once loved have just drifted away from what I am looking for, and the relationship is ending. Parting Ways is the theme song for a good chunk of RM a good chunk of the time

I do agree it's a travesty when great songs make it onto side projects only because Pearl Jam should record much more than they do. They are all prolific writers. Every time someone praises a song on a solo project I get slightly annoyed because it should be a Pearl Jam song.

mattyv1908 wrote:

stip wrote:

mattyv1908 wrote:

stip wrote:Even an album like REM's collapse into now, which was maybe the first REM album that felt like it was retreading old ideas, never felt like it wasn't the record REM wanted to make, or that they were chasing anything other than their muse. There were just fewer new ideas, but still a bunch of killer songs.

Even if some new things remind us of the old, Pearl Jam hasn't really repeated themselves much within the broad parameters of their brand of rock music. Even if something feels like it is chasing Animal, it's not like there are 30 versions of animal and animal adjacent songs out there already. There is room for a variation on a theme thirty years later

Maybe you don't like the songs, and that's obviously fine. But the larger meta narrative about WHY someone may not like a song is baggage that people carry into a conversation

I think it’s a fair criticism to point out that Eddie at this point has become a caricature of everything he used to abhor. As the person who wrestled creative control of the band into more of his vision, it’s safe to assume the directions the band has taken have his fingerprints all over them. It’s antithetical to the ethos that was ingrained in this band’s earlier work.

As an example of complete juxtaposition, I think Painted Shield’s records have been some of the most creative and refreshing albums of the last several years with Stone at the helm of it all. The fact that numerous songs/riffs/ideas that found their way onto Painted Shield Albums were originally intended as PJ songs rejected by Eddie is a travesty.

We can argue over the subjectivity in the word authentic, but Pearl Jam the band has morphed into Pearl Jam the brand.

Vitalogy is probably Pearl Jam's high water mark, and it is the most Eddie of all the records. But this caricature argument has never held very much water to me. You don't like it, that's fine. You want to blame the fact that you don't like the direction it has gone in is also fine. Eddie is the dominant creative voice in the work (and again, has been going on about 30 years at this point). He gets the praise when things go well, it's fair to take the heat if they don't. But to call the fact that you don't like the music is a violation of their ethos is a little solipsistic. It reduces the meaning of Pearl Jam to your personal preference.

I like the real Pearl Jam
I don't like this
This is not the Pearl Jam

It also, intentionally or not, delegitimates the experience of people who DO like the music, because what they like is a pale reflection of the real thing - a truth only you can tap into.

I'm directing this response at your post, but it's not an uncommon thread here (going back decades), or in other corners of the fandom when people don't like what the band puts out. It's not unique to Pearl Jam.

There are plenty of bands I lost interest in over time. I used to love the Smashing Pumpkins and Metallica. I checked after Load and Machina. I could tell myself that these bands changed, and their just facsimilies or sell-out versions of a once great band (which enables me to hold onto a purer version of what they are in my mind and my relationship with them. This isn't the real Metallica. Or it could be that artists I once loved have just drifted away from what I am looking for, and the relationship is ending. Parting Ways is the theme song for a good chunk of RM a good chunk of the time

I do agree it's a travesty when great songs make it onto side projects only because Pearl Jam should record much more than they do. They are all prolific writers. Every time someone praises a song on a solo project I get slightly annoyed because it should be a Pearl Jam song.

I think you’re misinterpreting my caricature reference, as that was intended to imply that Ed is now the elite, multiple mansions in prime locales, celebrity wife, four figure ticket price, etc. individual who for a long period of time he railed against.

I’m not upset at him for turning into the guy he once hated, but I think it undercuts what seemed like earnestness in the persona he portrayed.

As a teenager in the 90’s who’s appreciation for music will forever be entwined with Pearl Jam and Eddie Vedder, seeing him now makes me understand how Ralphie must’ve felt when he spent all those nights listening to Little Orphan Annie radio shows only to find out the secret message was some mediocre marketing campaign.

Ms Harmless wrote:he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

mattyv1908 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

The fact is that the Eddie that wrote Soon Forget could used his current self as the reference to that song.

tragabigzanda wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

stip wrote:allegations of authenticity always feel like a backwards read of preference into process and denigrates their agency as artists. What makes this 'inauthentic', which is not the same thing as bad or bland

(I lost this post somehow while multitasking, but...)

The recent statement by Wotman to the effect of "We wanted to make a Pearl Jam album that we thought the fans would love" undermines the notion that this music was created from a place of need, rather than want.

KD spoke to this issue (eloquently) yesterday or maybe the day before, the idea of enjoying lesser albums by artists as part of their overall "story." It's a perfectly sane way to enjoy music. But it's not the PJ I fell in love with, and the blandness is the result of that artistic intention.

I hope the irony of "I don't like them making something they think the fans will like, I want them to make something I like" isn't lost on you

true, this is just a tantrum Trag has because they didnt gave what he wants

Maybe. Or maybe I just like when this band makes music that doesn't sound like a tired facsimile of music they've already made.

stip wrote: I like the real Pearl Jam
I don't like this
This is not the Pearl Jam

Oh the crap we're getting now is definitely the real Pearl Jam, I just don't care for it.

stip wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

stip wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

stip wrote:allegations of authenticity always feel like a backwards read of preference into process and denigrates their agency as artists. What makes this 'inauthentic', which is not the same thing as bad or bland

(I lost this post somehow while multitasking, but...)

The recent statement by Wotman to the effect of "We wanted to make a Pearl Jam album that we thought the fans would love" undermines the notion that this music was created from a place of need, rather than want.

KD spoke to this issue (eloquently) yesterday or maybe the day before, the idea of enjoying lesser albums by artists as part of their overall "story." It's a perfectly sane way to enjoy music. But it's not the PJ I fell in love with, and the blandness is the result of that artistic intention.

I don't see why it would. You can sit down to say 'I want to write an album that certain types of people would enjoy' or aim for a sound that appeals to a 'certain type of listener' or write songs that speak to a moment in history, or tell a story.

There is some bullshit romanticism (I subscribe to it too) that true art comes from a place of burning need. It can, and sometimes it's great as a result. It can, and sometimes it can suck if what you need to share just isn't of interest or compelling to you. But art is also work. And working with an end in mind is not intrinsically inauthentic, especially if the artists are proud of the results, which they seem to be.

I was referring more to the need to sit in a room together with your friends and make music because it's fun.

It's wild fun to make noises together, to explore new sonic territories by playing parts and turning knobs and having conversations about where things can go, then trying to explore those avenues.

And I get the strong impression this band doesn't have that need at all. They need to go on tour, because I think they love it. So they want to make the record as quickly and effectively as possible, because they seem to dislike doing that part together.

I'd take an album of Sweet Lews that felt spontaneous and live any day over an album of "We checked the boxes, we followed the roadmap, we didn't even have to use amps! We were in-and-out without a single headache."

Ironically, if there was one word that sums up everything we've heard about the process thus far it's probably spontaneity.

-Show up with no songs
-Don't bring any of the gear you're comfortable with
-Plug in and see what comes out

That they found the process enjoyable and stress free could equally speak to how organic everything felt to them. Having a very active producer could also just as easily helped someone like Eddie relinquish some control over the process to make things more democratic.

Of course that's somewhat speculative, but it's supported by textual evidence

You're equating spontaneity of process with the output of that process. Spontaneity in the studio can lead to really fresh and exciting places. It can also lead to very familiar habits.

Oh the crap we're getting now is definitely the real Pearl Jam, I just don't care for it.

scrub12 wrote:The Dark Matter thread has turned into the Wreckage thread and vice versa

scrub12 wrote:The Dark Matter thread has turned into the Wreckage thread and vice versa

mattyv1908 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

The fact is that the Eddie that wrote Soon Forget could’ve used his current self as the reference to that song.

Ms Harmless wrote:he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

tragabigzanda wrote:

digster wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote: I was referring more to the need to sit in a room together with your friends and make music because it's fun.

It's wild fun to make noises together, to explore new sonic territories by playing parts and turning knobs and having conversations about where things can go, then trying to explore those avenues.

And I get the strong impression this band doesn't have that need at all. They need to go on tour, because I think they love it. So they want to make the record as quickly and effectively as possible, because they seem to dislike doing that part together.

I'd take an album of Sweet Lews that felt spontaneous and live any day over an album of "We checked the boxes, we followed the roadmap, we didn't even have to use amps! We were in-and-out without a single headache."

This thing, the speed and efficiency aspect of how they think about records, it's something that feels like it's been around ever since I've been plugged into the band's album rollouts, and it's something I've never really understood. You can see it in some of the interviews they've done for this album, as with albums in the past, where they talk about the speed with which they made the record as if that in and of itself is a positive attribute of the record, in the same way saying the rhythm section or Eddie really pushed themselves hard when making an album.

Doing albums quickly could be a good thing, or it could be bad, but the mere fact that the record didn't take them long to record (even if there's a long period of time between albums) doesn't really mean anything. Maybe it's a Neil Young kind of thing, where they want to be responsive to striking while the iron is hot, but they don't really take any of Neil's other lessons when it comes to taking that kind of approach.

Exactly.

These guys seem like they want to be in Pearl Jam six weeks out of the year.

stip wrote:

mattyv1908 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

The fact is that the Eddie that wrote Soon Forget could’ve used his current self as the reference to that song.

The problem with Soon Forget is that Eddie could have used 2000s era Eddie as a reference. Already a millionaire many many many times over. It was an inauthentic song from jump. I've never really liked it. You probably helped me figure out why.

When you sell 10 million copies of your record in 1992, by 1993 you are part of the elite.

VinylGuy wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

yeah, after all these years and people dont really understand what the fight with Ticketmaster was about

stip wrote:

mattyv1908 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

The fact is that the Eddie that wrote Soon Forget could’ve used his current self as the reference to that song.

The problem with Soon Forget is that Eddie could have used 2000s era Eddie as a reference. Already a millionaire many many many times over. It was an inauthentic song from jump. I've never really liked it. You probably helped me figure out why.

When you sell 10 million copies of your record in 1992, by 1993 you are part of the elite.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

yeah, after all these years and people dont really understand what the fight with Ticketmaster was about

Given the current state of tickets and Ticketmaster, I’m not sure Pearl Jam does either

Strat wrote:

stip wrote:

mattyv1908 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

The fact is that the Eddie that wrote Soon Forget could’ve used his current self as the reference to that song.

The problem with Soon Forget is that Eddie could have used 2000s era Eddie as a reference. Already a millionaire many many many times over. It was an inauthentic song from jump. I've never really liked it. You probably helped me figure out why.

When you sell 10 million copies of your record in 1992, by 1993 you are part of the elite.

Also that song, and many of Ed's issues, were not really as simple as "you have money you're bad"

VinylGuy wrote:

stip wrote:

mattyv1908 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

The fact is that the Eddie that wrote Soon Forget could’ve used his current self as the reference to that song.

The problem with Soon Forget is that Eddie could have used 2000s era Eddie as a reference. Already a millionaire many many many times over. It was an inauthentic song from jump. I've never really liked it. You probably helped me figure out why.

When you sell 10 million copies of your record in 1992, by 1993 you are part of the elite.

2024 Eddie is still a guy who really helps a lot. Jeff builds fucking skateparks for poor communities.

Soon Forget is mockin another type of millionaire guys....maybe in the 2000 was Bill Gates, now it could Jeff Bezos or whoever. It still tracks.

Why is that people are so touchy feely with this stuff?