Red Mosquito

cutuphalfdead wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't know, I think looking for meaning in rock lyrics is a fool's errand. I think of vocals as an instrument in themselves: the sounds being made by the voice is what really matters, not what words are being sung.

To me, one of the most cringe inducing things is listening to someone analyze rock lyrics.

More than the lyrics themselves, it's how they marry with the song. There are plenty of simple or maybe even wonky lyrics that I love because they work so well in the context of the song. The Beatles are guilty of this quite often.

There are exceptions, of course. What I should have said was: One of the most cringe inducing things is listening to someone analyze Pearl Jam lyrics.

LetMeSleep wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

WtOB? wrote:

harmless wrote:Ed has always self-referenced. I'm OK with it. I'd rather that than him trying to write something with a new subject. Johnny Guitar is the furthest he got.

and i don't want him to go there again. jg was awful. much worse than inside job.

Ed is too boring to be self referencing. Make some interesting shit up, I say.

He's "too boring" and yet you want him to make "interesting shit" up? Good luck with that.

If Ed self-references, he can only be as boring as the original songs imo. Anything that self-references my favourite PJ songs is at least worth giving a go. I also think Johnny Guitar was the best song on Backspacer, but it was most definitely a witty pop song and I wouldn't want it to represent Pearl Jam.

I'm not interested in a rich 50 year old family man's self references. I think the better choice would be to dream up some interesting things to say rather than Future Days type subject matter. Hopefully we get more of that...

What makes you think he'll suddenly come up with new and interesting things to say after the last two albums? I really wish people would stop bringing up the rich 50 year old family man crap.

He's boring an uninteresting to me as a person, that's all. Its not his fault. Younger Eddie was at least interesting. Its okay to fake it through some lyrics at 50 if it means we don't have to listen to love songs to his model wife and kids.

I don't give a shit whether he's 50 and rich, or his wife is a model. Being married and having kids is fucking wonderful and I don't mind if he sings about it. The experience isn't less true because he's rich and his wife is a model. Maybe you'd feel differently if you were a model.

Or maybe if I was one rolled up in blood.

Is that it? He's abandoned all his principles by marrying someone who models underwear for a living?

I don't care that hes married to someone hot and much taller than him, I just think its boring subject matter for a Pearl Jam song.

But she as a model has never been subject matter for him. He has always had love songs. Did Oceans or Wishlist bother you?

harmless wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't know, I think looking for meaning in rock lyrics is a fool's errand. I think of vocals as an instrument in themselves: the sounds being made by the voice is what really matters, not what words are being sung.

To me, one of the most cringe inducing things is listening to someone analyze rock lyrics.

More than the lyrics themselves, it's how they marry with the song. There are plenty of simple or maybe even wonky lyrics that I love because they work so well in the context of the song. The Beatles are guilty of this quite often.

We are obviously talking within a certain skill level with PJ lyrics. But it reached its peak at Vitalogy and stayed good till Riot Act. Rock is rock. As long as lyrics don't embarrass me they're OK.

verb_to_trust wrote:

stip wrote:i have no thoughts whatsoever about what any of these songs are going to sound like other than the three we've heard. One of these songs damn well better feature that awesome music from the tour vid, though

I don't get what why everyone is splooshing over that. Its just ambient noise. It will be a nice lead in to one of these tracks I'm thinking, maybe Sirens. If it is included, it will be a good sign for this album because its nowhere near cheesy sounding enough to fit on backspacer and sounded like it had too much depth for Avocado.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't know, I think looking for meaning in rock lyrics is a fool's errand. I think of vocals as an instrument in themselves: the sounds being made by the voice is what really matters, not what words are being sung.

To me, one of the most cringe inducing things is listening to someone analyze rock lyrics.

More than the lyrics themselves, it's how they marry with the song. There are plenty of simple or maybe even wonky lyrics that I love because they work so well in the context of the song. The Beatles are guilty of this quite often.

There are exceptions, of course. What I should have said was: One of the most cringe inducing things is listening to someone analyze Pearl Jam lyrics.

Birds in Hell wrote:The music of Inside Job isn't bad.

And I mean, really, who cares about lyrics? They're just words.

philpritchard wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't know, I think looking for meaning in rock lyrics is a fool's errand. I think of vocals as an instrument in themselves: the sounds being made by the voice is what really matters, not what words are being sung.

To me, one of the most cringe inducing things is listening to someone analyze rock lyrics.

More than the lyrics themselves, it's how they marry with the song. There are plenty of simple or maybe even wonky lyrics that I love because they work so well in the context of the song. The Beatles are guilty of this quite often.

There are exceptions, of course. What I should have said was: One of the most cringe inducing things is listening to someone analyze Pearl Jam lyrics.

I think they have some lyrics that are genuinely worth analyzing.

verb_to_trust wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

WtOB? wrote:

harmless wrote:Ed has always self-referenced. I'm OK with it. I'd rather that than him trying to write something with a new subject. Johnny Guitar is the furthest he got.

and i don't want him to go there again. jg was awful. much worse than inside job.

Ed is too boring to be self referencing. Make some interesting shit up, I say.

He's "too boring" and yet you want him to make "interesting shit" up? Good luck with that.

If Ed self-references, he can only be as boring as the original songs imo. Anything that self-references my favourite PJ songs is at least worth giving a go. I also think Johnny Guitar was the best song on Backspacer, but it was most definitely a witty pop song and I wouldn't want it to represent Pearl Jam.

I'm not interested in a rich 50 year old family man's self references. I think the better choice would be to dream up some interesting things to say rather than Future Days type subject matter. Hopefully we get more of that...

What makes you think he'll suddenly come up with new and interesting things to say after the last two albums? I really wish people would stop bringing up the rich 50 year old family man crap.

He's boring an uninteresting to me as a person, that's all. Its not his fault. Younger Eddie was at least interesting. Its okay to fake it through some lyrics at 50 if it means we don't have to listen to love songs to his model wife and kids.

I don't give a shit whether he's 50 and rich, or his wife is a model. Being married and having kids is fucking wonderful and I don't mind if he sings about it. The experience isn't less true because he's rich and his wife is a model. Maybe you'd feel differently if you were a model.

Or maybe if I was one rolled up in blood.

Is that it? He's abandoned all his principles by marrying someone who models underwear for a living?

I don't care that hes married to someone hot and much taller than him, I just think its boring subject matter for a Pearl Jam song.

But she as a model has never been subject matter for him. He has always had love songs. Did Oceans or Wishlist bother you?

His wife and family seem to be the subject matter for future days. Wives and families, while nice, bore me as subject matter for Pearl Jam songs. Is this really such an offensive stance to take?

stip wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

stip wrote:i have no thoughts whatsoever about what any of these songs are going to sound like other than the three we've heard. One of these songs damn well better feature that awesome music from the tour vid, though

I don't get what why everyone is splooshing over that. Its just ambient noise. It will be a nice lead in to one of these tracks I'm thinking, maybe Sirens. If it is included, it will be a good sign for this album because its nowhere near cheesy sounding enough to fit on backspacer and sounded like it had too much depth for Avocado.

really cool ambient noise, though

stupidmop wrote:

WtOB? wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

stip wrote:i have no thoughts whatsoever about what any of these songs are going to sound like other than the three we've heard. One of these songs damn well better feature that awesome music from the tour vid, though

I don't get what why everyone is splooshing over that. Its just ambient noise. It will be a nice lead in to one of these tracks I'm thinking, maybe Sirens. If it is included, it will be a good sign for this album because its nowhere near cheesy sounding enough to fit on backspacer and sounded like it had too much depth for Avocado.

yeah, i'm thinking it was just something they noodled with in the studio and used it for a tour vid; like they always do with that kinda stuff. they never put it on the records. unfortunately.

But what if. WHAT IF? We're in that sweetspot before we start hearing snippets and descriptions, where anything is possible.

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

WtOB? wrote:

harmless wrote:Ed has always self-referenced. I'm OK with it. I'd rather that than him trying to write something with a new subject. Johnny Guitar is the furthest he got.

and i don't want him to go there again. jg was awful. much worse than inside job.

Ed is too boring to be self referencing. Make some interesting shit up, I say.

He's "too boring" and yet you want him to make "interesting shit" up? Good luck with that.

If Ed self-references, he can only be as boring as the original songs imo. Anything that self-references my favourite PJ songs is at least worth giving a go. I also think Johnny Guitar was the best song on Backspacer, but it was most definitely a witty pop song and I wouldn't want it to represent Pearl Jam.

I'm not interested in a rich 50 year old family man's self references. I think the better choice would be to dream up some interesting things to say rather than Future Days type subject matter. Hopefully we get more of that...

What makes you think he'll suddenly come up with new and interesting things to say after the last two albums? I really wish people would stop bringing up the rich 50 year old family man crap.

He's boring an uninteresting to me as a person, that's all. Its not his fault. Younger Eddie was at least interesting. Its okay to fake it through some lyrics at 50 if it means we don't have to listen to love songs to his model wife and kids.

I don't give a shit whether he's 50 and rich, or his wife is a model. Being married and having kids is fucking wonderful and I don't mind if he sings about it. The experience isn't less true because he's rich and his wife is a model. Maybe you'd feel differently if you were a model.

Or maybe if I was one rolled up in blood.

Is that it? He's abandoned all his principles by marrying someone who models underwear for a living?

I don't care that hes married to someone hot and much taller than him, I just think its boring subject matter for a Pearl Jam song.

But she as a model has never been subject matter for him. He has always had love songs. Did Oceans or Wishlist bother you?

His wife and family seem to be the subject matter for future days. Wives and families, while nice, bore me as subject matter for Pearl Jam songs. Is this really such an offensive stance to take?

Not offensive, but maybe a bit naive.

stip wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:The music of Inside Job isn't bad.

And I mean, really, who cares about lyrics? They're just words.

sure, in the same way that music is just notes.

stupidmop wrote:Dumb get right/ big wave lyrics are fine with me. Its when they're either overly sentimental or trying to be deep and (to me)failing thats its a problem.

LetMeSleep wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:The music of Inside Job isn't bad.

And I mean, really, who cares about lyrics? They're just words.

hahaha too obvious.

It sounds flippant but I do genuinely mean it.

Lyrics rank somewhere below production choices, snare drum sounds and guitar tone in the things I care about in a song. Unless they're unavoidably terrible to the point where I can't help but notice them (which, admittedly, Inside Job is getting pretty close to) I really don't care that much. They're a pretty minor part of a song to me.

My apologies, it looked like Stip baiting.

PJs bad lyrics usually don't worry me too much.

durdencommatyler wrote:

stip wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:The music of Inside Job isn't bad.

And I mean, really, who cares about lyrics? They're just words.

sure, in the same way that music is just notes.

And when you hear people like Tom Waits or Leonard Cohen, you see how amazing rock lyrics can be. They can be more than just words.

harmless wrote:

WtOB? wrote:lyrics are also more important in some bands than others. in pearl jam, they're definitely an important factor.

Especially these days, because the band isn't a powerhouse anymore, so I wish the lyrics had got stronger to compensate. But it doesn't look like it.

stip wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

WtOB? wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

stip wrote:i have no thoughts whatsoever about what any of these songs are going to sound like other than the three we've heard. One of these songs damn well better feature that awesome music from the tour vid, though

I don't get what why everyone is splooshing over that. Its just ambient noise. It will be a nice lead in to one of these tracks I'm thinking, maybe Sirens. If it is included, it will be a good sign for this album because its nowhere near cheesy sounding enough to fit on backspacer and sounded like it had too much depth for Avocado.

yeah, i'm thinking it was just something they noodled with in the studio and used it for a tour vid; like they always do with that kinda stuff. they never put it on the records. unfortunately.

But what if. WHAT IF? We're in that sweetspot before we start hearing snippets and descriptions, where anything is possible.

Right now just about everyone has envisioned the perfect record in their head. This can only end well

durdencommatyler wrote:

stip wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:The music of Inside Job isn't bad.

And I mean, really, who cares about lyrics? They're just words.

sure, in the same way that music is just notes.

And when you hear people like Tom Waits or Leonard Cohen, you see how amazing rock lyrics can be. They can be more than just words.