Red Mosquito

durdencommatyler wrote: Listen to Rod Stewart sing Downtown Train.

That's what we're talking about.

I don't think this is a good comparison, because 1) Tom Waits wrote "Downtown Train"-- I don't prefer his version just due to some sentimental attachment to his voice, and 2) even if RS was the original songwriter, the production and performance are different enough that it's perfectly reasonable to pick a preference based on aesthetics alone. My original point was, if this song came out as is, with a different singer's voice slapped on top, I don't believe most people here would give it a second thought. Even if everything else about it was the same. And this feels weird to me. When people do that, it feels like an unearned love for a song, based on some sort of perceived personal connection with the band.

stip wrote: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.

No, man. Absolutely not. Hand to my heart, there aren't. I don't think of music that way. I don't connect with the musician first, I connect with the music first. If the musician writes enough songs that become a huge part of my life, then the musician will become a huge part of my life-- but if they come out with a feeble piffle of a song, I won't enjoy it any more just 'cause it's them.

theplatypus wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote: Listen to Rod Stewart sing Downtown Train.

That's what we're talking about.

I don't think this is a good comparison, because 1) Tom Waits wrote "Downtown Train"-- I don't prefer his version just due to some sentimental attachment to his voice, and 2) even if RS was the original songwriter, the production and performance are different enough that it's perfectly reasonable to pick a preference based on aesthetics alone. My original point was, if this song came out as is, with a different singer's name slapped on top, I don't believe most people here would give it a second thought. Even if everything else about it was the same. And this feels weird to me. When people do that, it feels like an unearned love for a song, based on some sort of perceived personal connection with the band.

stip wrote: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.

No, man. Absolutely not. Hand to my heart, there aren't. I don't think of music that way. I don't connect with the musician first, I connect with the music first.

I believe that you believe this, for what it's worth.

Lightning Bolt is fun to say. It matches the artwork and MYM. Its all gloriously dumb. great success.

stip wrote:I believe that you believe this, for what it's worth.

I edited my post for clarity prior to your remark. Also, thanks for basically saying "that's cute, but you're wrong."

stip wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote: Listen to Rod Stewart sing Downtown Train.

That's what we're talking about.

I don't think this is a good comparison, because 1) Tom Waits wrote "Downtown Train"-- I don't prefer his version just due to some sentimental attachment to his voice, and 2) even if RS was the original songwriter, the production and performance are different enough that it's perfectly reasonable to pick a preference based on aesthetics alone. My original point was, if this song came out as is, with a different singer's name slapped on top, I don't believe most people here would give it a second thought. Even if everything else about it was the same. And this feels weird to me. When people do that, it feels like an unearned love for a song, based on some sort of perceived personal connection with the band.

stip wrote: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.

No, man. Absolutely not. Hand to my heart, there aren't. I don't think of music that way. I don't connect with the musician first, I connect with the music first.

I believe that you believe this, for what it's worth.

I do, too, but it's an impossible and bizarre hypothetical. Assume a song performed by pearl Jam and Eddie Vedder was actually performed by Foo Fighters/Band X ... I mean, wouldn't the reaction mostly be, "Wow, Dave Grohl/singer X really sounds like Eddie Vedder here?"

I should have said more in response to Platy. I don't consciously connect to music that way either. I'm just describing what I think is happening when i do listen. I'm pretty sure the brain processes information in such a way that you can't help but bring the positive or negative baggage of the artist with you. It's not the sole thing that determines what you'll like, and it may not even be dominant. But it's working on you. It's easy to see it play out when you're not invested. Everyone can recognize other people's folklore as folklore. it's a lot harder to identify your own.

This isn't just music, btw. This is all information and sensation. The context alters the perception.

also, I started typing this before I read your 'thanks for saying you're cute but you're wrong'. You were right. That was obnoxious. Not my intention.

VinylGuy wrote:

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.

Even if im sure they will like it more, you can also judge music beyond your fandom.

I think you're missing my point.

What I'm getting at isn't particularly related to stip's position that a fan often carries the weight of their personal history with that artist with them when approaching new material. My point is simply that you could get Foo Fighters and Pearl Jam (if those are the two bands we're saddled with for this exercise) to vamp on an A chord for 10 minutes and it's still going to sound different. Same tempo, same notes but the end result is discernibly not the same. I can quite happily listen to the rehearsals and offcuts from bands I really love and get more enjoyment out of them than I do another band's most outstanding work. I just like the noise they make.

My preference for a particular artist or musician will earn them goodwill and I'll be willing to follow them paths I wouldn't normally take, but that's where it stops for me. Saying "this piece of music is inherently more enjoyable because it's this guy whose records I buy all the time" is strange to me.

theplatypus wrote: If the musician writes enough songs that become a huge part of my life, then the musician will become a huge part of my life-- but if they come out with a feeble piffle of a song, I won't enjoy it any more just 'cause it's them.

nor will most people here. Remember Ole. And the people who did like Ole have plenty of other recent PJ stuff they can point too that they don't like. It's not enough for it to be PJ to like it. But something you might have kind of liked you're more likely to like. Something you might have liked you'd love.

theplatypus wrote:My preference for a particular artist or musician will earn them goodwill and I'll be willing to follow them paths I wouldn't normally take, but that's where it stops for me. Saying "this piece of music is inherently better because it's this guy whose records I buy all the time" is strange to me.

Strawman.

theplatypus wrote:My preference for a particular artist or musician will earn them goodwill and I'll be willing to follow them paths I wouldn't normally take, but that's where it stops for me. Saying "this piece of music is inherently better because it's this guy whose records I buy all the time" is strange to me.

I don't think anyone's saying it's inherently better, they're saying it's more enjoyable. There's nothing so subjective as musical taste.

theplatypus wrote:My preference for a particular artist or musician will earn them goodwill and I'll be willing to follow them paths I wouldn't normally take, but that's where it stops for me. Saying "this piece of music is inherently more enjoyable because it's this guy whose records I buy all the time" is strange to me.

i never said inherently.

In the end im always going to find enjoyment out of listening to Eddie Vedders voice. Im a fan of his. i cant help that. That does not mean i think every song is genius and amazing but it does mean i will find enjoyment out of it in some regard.

BurtReynolds wrote:Lightning Bolt is fun to say. It matches the artwork and MYM. Its all gloriously dumb. great success.

This.

theplatypus wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote: Listen to Rod Stewart sing Downtown Train.

That's what we're talking about.

I don't think this is a good comparison, because 1) Tom Waits wrote "Downtown Train"-- I don't prefer his version just due to some sentimental attachment to his voice, and 2) even if RS was the original songwriter, the production and performance are different enough that it's perfectly reasonable to pick a preference based on aesthetics alone. My original point was, if this song came out as is, with a different singer's voice slapped on top, I don't believe most people here would give it a second thought. Even if everything else about it was the same. And this feels weird to me. When people do that, it feels like an unearned love for a song, based on some sort of perceived personal connection with the band.

Even if you're right, what's wrong with that?

I can't speak for others, but as for myself, I like the song. I'm positive that if any other band released it AS IS, I'd still like it. However, I will say that I enjoy Ed's voice a lot. The voice is important to me. As is how an individual phrases a vocal. I hate Rod Stewarts voice. If this song were released exactly as it is except with Rod Stewart singing it, I'd like it less. That's absolutely true. That's part of aesthetic, which you just said is perfectly reasonable to preference.

That must've been a lightning fast edit, Jorge.

theplatypus wrote:

stip wrote:I believe that you believe this, for what it's worth.

I edited my post for clarity prior to your remark. Also, thanks for basically saying "that's cute, but you're wrong."

It's kinda what you've been doing to others in this thread, friend.

theplatypus wrote:My preference for a particular artist or musician will earn them goodwill and I'll be willing to follow them paths I wouldn't normally take.

Doesn't that at least in part explain why this song might draw in listeners who would normally stay clear of the genres that influenced it?

durdencommatyler wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

stip wrote:I believe that you believe this, for what it's worth.

I edited my post for clarity prior to your remark. Also, thanks for basically saying "that's cute, but you're wrong."

It's kinda what you've been doing to others in this thread, friend.

*every thread since the beginning of the internet