Red Mosquito

Iowaska_Experience wrote:I'm really digging MYM more and more with each new listen. I don't really get the Bad Religion comparisons, but YMMV. Also, the argument about "well if this was the Foos playing it" doesn't resonate with me b/c I just really don't think many other current bands could credibly pull off a song like this. It's a "made for PJ" moment.

I will say, though, that, if I were ranking the first singles off the recent releases from the "era" bands, I'd have it: 'Hollow' > 'MYM' > 'Been Away Too Long'

VinylGuy wrote:

evenslow wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

theplatypus wrote:That, and I think the whole "any song is instantly better if it's Pearl Jam playing it" is a foolish way to approach music.

If you really like Pearl Jam, I think that's a perfectly valid approach.

(see my longer post on the previous page)

I don't think I can get past the first line of that post. Songwriting and performance will always be the main things I listen for and judge my music by, not unmeasurables and intangibles like "the feel of these 5 specific people playing music together".

Music is the ultimate intangible.

I'm going to make you a bookmark with that on it.

great post.

i still agree with Platypus and his original post. He had a point, most of you are missing by saying " hey i like it because its pearl jam". That is pretty obvious...Im guessing he was pointing about how a lot of people here ( me included and he included im sure ) seem to dismiss some other bands when they are making similar music, just because we dont like those bands for whatever reason.

Iowaska_Experience wrote:I'm really digging MYM more and more with each new listen. I don't really get the Bad Religion comparisons, but YMMV. Also, the argument about "well if this was the Foos playing it" doesn't resonate with me b/c I just really don't think many other current bands could credibly pull off a song like this. It's a "made for PJ" moment.

theplatypus wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

theplatypus wrote:That, and I think the whole "any song is instantly better if it's Pearl Jam playing it" is a foolish way to approach music.

If you really like Pearl Jam, I think that's a perfectly valid approach.

(see my longer post on the previous page)

I don't think I can get past the first line of that post. Songwriting and performance will always be the main things I listen for and judge my music by, not unmeasurables and intangibles like "the feel of these 5 specific people playing music together".

stip wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

evenslow wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

theplatypus wrote:That, and I think the whole "any song is instantly better if it's Pearl Jam playing it" is a foolish way to approach music.

If you really like Pearl Jam, I think that's a perfectly valid approach.

(see my longer post on the previous page)

I don't think I can get past the first line of that post. Songwriting and performance will always be the main things I listen for and judge my music by, not unmeasurables and intangibles like "the feel of these 5 specific people playing music together".

Music is the ultimate intangible.

I'm going to make you a bookmark with that on it.

great post.

i still agree with Platypus and his original post. He had a point, most of you are missing by saying " hey i like it because its pearl jam". That is pretty obvious...Im guessing he was pointing about how a lot of people here ( me included and he included im sure ) seem to dismiss some other bands when they are making similar music, just because we dont like those bands for whatever reason.

yeah, but the intangibles in music do the vast majority of the heavy lifting. It's no small thing to have the foo fighters and pearl jam perform the exact same song. It will still feel different.

VinylGuy wrote: And yet, by pointing that out you can still think, if this song was played and released by another band, most of these guys, maybe me included, wouldnt be so blown away.

stip wrote:Honestly, some of this is also about relationships, and many of us still have quite strong relationships with the music. Some of us are still happily married. Some of us feel like they've been cheating and want to be taken back, but the emotional connection you've established (at some point presumably on the strength of songwriting and performance) enhances the songs you like, and may make you turn against the ones you don't with greater vitriol (since it's not just a song you don't like. it's a betrayal).

This is a real thing. Your girlfriend will look more attractive to you than she probably 'objectively' is. I'm sure I think my daughter is more adorable than she objectively is. The objective standards don't matter. How you feel about the person obviously affects how you process who they are and what they do. But a lot of this is earned. Once you've made that commitment you never listen to songs in a vacuum. You hear them in the context of a career, and that adds all sorts of layers and dimensions to the experience that the simple writing can't account for.

I can't believe there aren't Elvis Costello songs you appreciate, even love, that would bore you if someone else wrote them. I'd say the same thing to McP about Tom Waits.

Birds in Hell wrote:

VinylGuy wrote: And yet, by pointing that out you can still think, if this song was played and released by another band, most of these guys, maybe me included, wouldnt be so blown away.

I don't think that's a very meaningful observation.

durdencommatyler wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

theplatypus wrote:That, and I think the whole "any song is instantly better if it's Pearl Jam playing it" is a foolish way to approach music.

If you really like Pearl Jam, I think that's a perfectly valid approach.

(see my longer post on the previous page)

I don't think I can get past the first line of that post. Songwriting and performance will always be the main things I listen for and judge my music by, not unmeasurables and intangibles like "the feel of these 5 specific people playing music together".

Listen to Rod Stewart sing Downtown Train.

That's what we're talking about.

stip wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

evenslow wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

theplatypus wrote:That, and I think the whole "any song is instantly better if it's Pearl Jam playing it" is a foolish way to approach music.

If you really like Pearl Jam, I think that's a perfectly valid approach.

(see my longer post on the previous page)

I don't think I can get past the first line of that post. Songwriting and performance will always be the main things I listen for and judge my music by, not unmeasurables and intangibles like "the feel of these 5 specific people playing music together".

Music is the ultimate intangible.

I'm going to make you a bookmark with that on it.

great post.

i still agree with Platypus and his original post. He had a point, most of you are missing by saying " hey i like it because its pearl jam". That is pretty obvious...Im guessing he was pointing about how a lot of people here ( me included and he included im sure ) seem to dismiss some other bands when they are making similar music, just because we dont like those bands for whatever reason.

yeah, but the intangibles in music do the vast majority of the heavy lifting. It's no small thing to have the foo fighters and pearl jam perform the exact same song. It will still feel different.

VinylGuy wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

VinylGuy wrote: And yet, by pointing that out you can still think, if this song was played and released by another band, most of these guys, maybe me included, wouldnt be so blown away.

I don't think that's a very meaningful observation.

Why?

stip wrote:regarding the Lightning bolt title:

1. When I was wondering earlier if there were worse titles than Lightning Bolt I forgot all about King Animal. that's much worse. They both still suck though.


2. I said I had a theory about where they might be going with the lightning bolt stuff. This could be totally wrong, and I am extrapolating out of what i think is going on in MYM, so I guess we'll find out if this is a huge reach or not once we get the album.

I think the broad theme of the album is going to be that epiphanal moment of inspiration when you start to understand that you're not trapped and that things can not only change, but that you're the one who has to do it. The bridge in MYM gets at this. And so think of a lightning bolt in that context. It's a brief flash in the darkness that really illuminates everything, and even though it just lasts for a split second, the images linger. It's powerful energy that, when harnessed, moves mountains. It's dangerous for its power.


Or it could be about surfboards. But my take makes me dislike a terrible title slightly less.

stip wrote:regarding the Lightning bolt title:

1. When I was wondering earlier if there were worse titles than Lightning Bolt I forgot all about King Animal. that's much worse. They both still suck though.

Birds in Hell wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

VinylGuy wrote: And yet, by pointing that out you can still think, if this song was played and released by another band, most of these guys, maybe me included, wouldnt be so blown away.

I don't think that's a very meaningful observation.

Why?

For the reasons I've already talked about on the last few pages. I think it's fairly self-evident that a bunch of Pearl Jam fans will enjoy this song as performed by Pearl Jam more than they would if it were performed by another band who they don't enjoy listening to as much.

VinylGuy wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

VinylGuy wrote: And yet, by pointing that out you can still think, if this song was played and released by another band, most of these guys, maybe me included, wouldnt be so blown away.

I don't think that's a very meaningful observation.

Why?

stip wrote:

yeah, but the intangibles in music do the vast majority of the heavy lifting. It's no small thing to have the foo fighters and pearl jam perform the exact same song. It will still feel different.

Birds in Hell wrote:

stip wrote:regarding the Lightning bolt title:

1. When I was wondering earlier if there were worse titles than Lightning Bolt I forgot all about King Animal. that's much worse. They both still suck though.

I think they're both great titles.

*shrug*

stip wrote:regarding the Lightning bolt title:

1. When I was wondering earlier if there were worse titles than Lightning Bolt I forgot all about King Animal. that's much worse. They both still suck though.


2. I said I had a theory about where they might be going with the lightning bolt stuff. This could be totally wrong, and I am extrapolating out of what i think is going on in MYM, so I guess we'll find out if this is a huge reach or not once we get the album.

I think the broad theme of the album is going to be that epiphanal moment of inspiration when you start to understand that you're not trapped and that things can not only change, but that you're the one who has to do it. The bridge in MYM gets at this. And so think of a lightning bolt in that context. It's a brief flash in the darkness that really illuminates everything, and even though it just lasts for a split second, the images linger. It's powerful energy that, when harnessed, moves mountains. It's dangerous for its power.


Or it could be about surfboards. But my take makes me dislike a terrible title slightly less.

Birds in Hell wrote:The general disappointment with the title is baffling.