Red Mosquito

I'm failing to see any comparison at all between NAIS and Infallible.

Yeah, I can tolerate a solo but I rarely get excited about them. The NAIS solos are way OTT, but I really like the song so I just shrug them off.

I personally think the "sing-along anthemic chorus trying to be sing-along anthemic" theory is wrong because... well, because it doesn't work. It's not very sing-along anthemic at all. Which makes it very comparable to something from Binaural or Riot Act (like NAIS). The people who dislike those songs dislike them because they hear "failed anthems" that don't quite lift the way they're (apparently) trying to. The people who love those songs, though, say that their quirky "failure" to properly lift into a sing-along chorus is what makes them special. "Infallible" is no different -- if you don't like it, it'll be "trying to be an anthem", but if you do like it, it'll just be good. This chorus is no more (and no less) an anthem than "Love boat captain, take the reins and steer us toward the clear." Which was a cheesy, horrible anthem in itself. The fact that Ed sings it in the lower register might make all the difference to the ear, perhaps.

When I say "horrible anthem" I don't mean that I dislike it. I love the song. But its failure to be a Ten anthem is part of its charm.

harmless wrote:The people who dislike those songs dislike them because they hear "failed anthems" that don't quite lift the way they're (apparently) trying to.

I hope to high heaven that's not the summation of what you got out of my post

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:The people who dislike those songs dislike them because they hear "failed anthems" that don't quite lift the way they're (apparently) trying to.

I hope to high heaven that's not the summation of what you got out of my post

Well, no, because no single line of my post was a summation of your post. But the overall gist of what I'm saying is a response to what I felt was the overall gist of what you were saying: this song tries for something it doesn't achieve (the same thing people said about ATW; if it slightly reminds you of something else, but doesn't reach those highs, it's just a tired rehash -- in the case of ATW). The reasons I like "Infallible" are many of the same reasons I like Riot Act songs. I haven't addressed the percussion point because I can just hear lots of it.

harmless wrote:But the overall gist of what I'm saying is a response to what I felt was the overall gist of what you were saying: this song tries for something it doesn't achieve

Goodness, no. It's entirely likely that it is exactly the song they were trying to achieve.

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:The people who dislike those songs dislike them because they hear "failed anthems" that don't quite lift the way they're (apparently) trying to.

I hope to high heaven that's not the summation of what you got out of my post

Reading your post almost makes me glad to be largely ignorant of recording techniques and production jibber jabber. I just hear a song that I like, and since my expectations were through the floor coming into this album I'm just happy to want to hear a few new PJ tunes for the first time in a long time.

Let The Records Play is shite though. That's my considered opinion after two listens

theplatypus wrote:Goddamn "Infallible" sucks.

good post

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:But the overall gist of what I'm saying is a response to what I felt was the overall gist of what you were saying: this song tries for something it doesn't achieve

Goodness, no. It's entirely likely that it is exactly the song they were trying to achieve.

Ah, OK. Because I think it's a successful blend of the downbeat groove of "You Are" and "Help, Help" with a more uplifting chorus (jarring because the lyrics aren't upbeat). But I get that people aren't liking the upbeat chorus. Damn that soundcheck. It sounded deep, dark and dirty.

Goddamn "Infallible" is Great

Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:Goddamn "Infallible" is Great

Sarah. wrote:Let The Records Play is shite though. That's my considered opinion after two listens

This wasn't the song that was going to wreck our marriage, so you're OK.

harmless wrote:Yeah, I can tolerate a solo but I rarely get excited about them. The NAIS solos are way OTT, but I really like the song so I just shrug them off.

I personally think the "sing-along anthemic chorus trying to be sing-along anthemic" theory is wrong because... well, because it doesn't work. It's not very sing-along anthemic at all. Which makes it very comparable to something from Binaural or Riot Act (like NAIS). The people who dislike those songs dislike them because they hear "failed anthems" that don't quite lift the way they're (apparently) trying to. The people who love those songs, though, say that their quirky "failure" to properly lift into a sing-along chorus is what makes them special. "Infallible" is no different -- if you don't like it, it'll be "trying to be an anthem", but if you do like it, it'll just be good. This chorus is no more (and no less) an anthem than "Love boat captain, take the reins and steer us toward the clear." Which was a cheesy, horrible anthem in itself. The fact that Ed sings it in the lower register might make all the difference to the ear, perhaps.

When I say "horrible anthem" I don't mean that I dislike it. I love the song. But its failure to be a Ten anthem is part of its charm.

Yeah, i had to youtube LBC to remind myself what i think about it. Meh generally, but its better than i remember. Parts of it are really good, but other parts ...are not.

I don't even think infallible is trying to be a ten anthem. Not in a big emotional release kind of way. Just in a pull out your lighters and sing along kinda way. I dunno. meeeeehhhhh.

harmless wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:But the overall gist of what I'm saying is a response to what I felt was the overall gist of what you were saying: this song tries for something it doesn't achieve

Goodness, no. It's entirely likely that it is exactly the song they were trying to achieve.

Ah, OK. Because I think it's a successful blend of the downbeat groove of "You Are" and "Help, Help" with a more uplifting chorus (jarring because the lyrics aren't upbeat). But I get that people aren't liking the upbeat chorus. Damn that soundcheck. It sounded deep, dark and dirty.

And we're right back to

McParadigm wrote:"Should be darker!" is just about the last thing on my mind when I'm going over all the reasons that song sucks.

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:Yeah, I can tolerate a solo but I rarely get excited about them. The NAIS solos are way OTT, but I really like the song so I just shrug them off.

I personally think the "sing-along anthemic chorus trying to be sing-along anthemic" theory is wrong because... well, because it doesn't work. It's not very sing-along anthemic at all. Which makes it very comparable to something from Binaural or Riot Act (like NAIS). The people who dislike those songs dislike them because they hear "failed anthems" that don't quite lift the way they're (apparently) trying to. The people who love those songs, though, say that their quirky "failure" to properly lift into a sing-along chorus is what makes them special. "Infallible" is no different -- if you don't like it, it'll be "trying to be an anthem", but if you do like it, it'll just be good. This chorus is no more (and no less) an anthem than "Love boat captain, take the reins and steer us toward the clear." Which was a cheesy, horrible anthem in itself. The fact that Ed sings it in the lower register might make all the difference to the ear, perhaps.

When I say "horrible anthem" I don't mean that I dislike it. I love the song. But its failure to be a Ten anthem is part of its charm.

Yeah, i had to youtube LBC to remind myself what i think about it. Meh generally, but its better than i remember. Parts of it are really good, but other parts ...are not.

I don't even think infallible is trying to be a ten anthem. Not in a big emotional release kind of way. Just in a pull out your lighters and sing along kinda way. I dunno. meeeeehhhhh.

What's the difference? One is the description of a song you think is obviously great, and the other is the description of something you think is a bit meh, an anthem for an anthem's sake. But they're both essentially the same thing, no? What stops this being a "pull out your lighters" anthem is that apart from the chorus talking about "we", and philosophising a bit, the lyrics are pretty unexciting and unemotional. It's pretty dry social commentary, not very emotionally cathartic, etc.

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:But the overall gist of what I'm saying is a response to what I felt was the overall gist of what you were saying: this song tries for something it doesn't achieve

Goodness, no. It's entirely likely that it is exactly the song they were trying to achieve.

Ah, OK. Because I think it's a successful blend of the downbeat groove of "You Are" and "Help, Help" with a more uplifting chorus (jarring because the lyrics aren't upbeat). But I get that people aren't liking the upbeat chorus. Damn that soundcheck. It sounded deep, dark and dirty.

And we're right back to

McParadigm wrote:"Should be darker!" is just about the last thing on my mind when I'm going over all the reasons that song sucks.

Right. But then, I still don't understand your issue with the song. Because the percussion point is moot. But you know, if you don't like it you don't like it

"By thinking we're infallible, we are tempting fate instead" is kind of shitty lyrically, for an intended anthem. Maybe that's why I like it.

harmless wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:But the overall gist of what I'm saying is a response to what I felt was the overall gist of what you were saying: this song tries for something it doesn't achieve

Goodness, no. It's entirely likely that it is exactly the song they were trying to achieve.

Ah, OK. Because I think it's a successful blend of the downbeat groove of "You Are" and "Help, Help" with a more uplifting chorus (jarring because the lyrics aren't upbeat). But I get that people aren't liking the upbeat chorus. Damn that soundcheck. It sounded deep, dark and dirty.

And we're right back to

McParadigm wrote:"Should be darker!" is just about the last thing on my mind when I'm going over all the reasons that song sucks.

Right. But then, I still don't understand your issue with the song. Because the percussion point is moot. But you know, if you don't like it you don't like it

He thinks it isn't interesting and that any part of it that had potential was ruined by BoB's desire to polish the turd to a shine.

I think as unhip as Rolling Stone mag is these days, they did the best review of the album. It's pretty clear that writer is a level above the blogs I've been reading. And he described elements of the album that captured it in a way I haven't seen anywhere else.

4/5 wrote:

harmless wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:But the overall gist of what I'm saying is a response to what I felt was the overall gist of what you were saying: this song tries for something it doesn't achieve

Goodness, no. It's entirely likely that it is exactly the song they were trying to achieve.

Ah, OK. Because I think it's a successful blend of the downbeat groove of "You Are" and "Help, Help" with a more uplifting chorus (jarring because the lyrics aren't upbeat). But I get that people aren't liking the upbeat chorus. Damn that soundcheck. It sounded deep, dark and dirty.

And we're right back to

McParadigm wrote:"Should be darker!" is just about the last thing on my mind when I'm going over all the reasons that song sucks.

Right. But then, I still don't understand your issue with the song. Because the percussion point is moot. But you know, if you don't like it you don't like it

He thinks it isn't interesting and that any part of it that had potential was ruined by BoB's desire to polish the turd to a shine.

Is that it? OK. It's certainly shiny. There are fuzzy guitars but they're too far into the background.