Red Mosquito

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:
I'm not sure it qualifies, because it really sounds like it wants to make money. From us? Probably not, but let's be honest and say that there is a large demographic ready to swallow that shit whole.

I partially agree with this. Case in point Grey's Anatomy. I'm not sure what demographic you had in mind though. I think it's too understated to have any success in a country ballad context. Generally speaking though if there is a song on LB that has a sentimental ballad moneygrabing feel it has to be Sirens. The fact that B'OB likes it and it was released as a single, oh and did i mention B'OB likes it seems to suggest it's the one picked to help with the whole monegrabying affair.

Well yes (not the song "Sirens" itself, I'd argue, but the treatment -- the acoustic version on the EPK sounded very different and more Pearl Jam-esque), but we don't have to choose between FD and Sirens. The fact that FD was a no-brainer for Grey's Anatomy proves my point. I don't care whether it *could* have been more bombastic and cheesy, it's pretty bombastic and cheesy. BoB has made decisions all over this album that render them more "accessible" to the ears of indifferent or casual fans... not fans of Pearl Jam, but fans of vaguely decent, unoffensive-sounding music. And that's the demographic I'm talking about. If that sounds too wide and generic a demographic, that's because it is -- and BoB knows it. Make it big with the lowest (and widest) common denominator, and you get the bigger bucks and the bigger reputation as a producer.

Well the money grabbing band or who ever for them made the choice about which song was most likely to grab more money. And that song is Sirens and it seems to be aimed at that demographic more than a FD. I guess it ended on Grey's Anatomy because it fit a specific episode's script and it was likeable enough but it's still far from being a big money grabbing project.

But you're saying all that because you don't like Sirens, right? I mean, they are different songs; one is soft and acoustic, and the other is more overtly "rock ballad". But they are very obviously built and adorned in a similar, very cheesy way. They're different kinds of songs given the same kind of shlock production, arguably with the same demographic in mind. I don't think it's a given that "Sirens" is THE song doing that, and FD isn't. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I mean, as someone who likes it, I would say that "Sirens" has redeeming qualities that lift it away from awfully trite, sentimental shlock, into a song which actually has an impact. FD really does not. It's just a mediocre, inoffensive song with a mediocre, inoffensive production.

How's that supposed to bring the more money than any other song on the album?
And no i don't dislike Sirens.

I don't understand the question. Many decisions across the album are designed to bring in money. That's true with all albums. If you don't want to bring in money, make an album which appeals to the ears of no one. I'm only talking about how some production decisions are designed to bring in more money than some others. I'm pretty convinced that "Future Days", having been scrubbed up to become suitable for Grey's Anatomy, will bring in more money this year than anything by Jandek.

But how is mediocre and inoffensive production of FD designed to bring "above average" money? Especially coming from someone in PJ. What's the logic behind it? Is a mediocre country ballad with an acoustic arrangement and an intrusive piano the epitome of "wants to make money"? Sirens is what I'd think someone in a rock band would consider a potential big money maker...and not because of it's depth.

If you don't get it now, you won't get it ever. I'm running out of ways to explain it.

Mine wrote:

stip wrote:can we please stop equating 'reaching an audience' with 'making money', even if the former does lead to the later

honesty stip, i have no idea what we're arguing about or what a PJ song that isn't a blatant money making vehicle by design sounds like, if there ever was such a thing

Yawn. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about what I've said, but never mind; any comment about the sound of a Pearl Jam song which is any way negative is going to put your hackles up.

stip wrote:can we please stop equating 'reaching an audience' with 'making money', even if the former does lead to the later

*latter, professor.

Can we stop having "Can we stop..." posts from stip?

stupidmop wrote:Mikes even stealing his moves from bon jovi. HAVE THEY NO SHAME.


When he's pointing at the crowd, in his head he's thinking 'I have your money, and your money, yours too...'

nomorecrackpipes wrote: I hope they snap out of it and fall into a Neil Young "don't give a damn" phase.

I hope they become dream bros again.

OK. We will change it to the "Post-Riot Act Moneygrab from any Audience"

Is that better? I will gladly re-title the thread.

"And then Mike showed his tits and asked the guy in the front row for some beads!!! I told him afterward - NO - we want money from the audience, not beads !!!!""

hlniv wrote:OK. We will change it to the "Post-Riot Act Moneygrab from any Audience"

Is that better? I will gladly re-title the thread.

So you don't believe that appealing outside of the fan club will make them more money?

I just thought tte band saw the need to grow their audience post Riot Act or they'd end up playing smaller audiences and being entirely a nostalgic act. So they pimped their first three albums, are sure to include lots of Ten live, put out some questionable ballady syrop in an attempt to get some crossover success and continue to play arenas. Aersomith used this formula quite successfully.

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

stip wrote:can we please stop equating 'reaching an audience' with 'making money', even if the former does lead to the later

honesty stip, i have no idea what we're arguing about or what a PJ song that isn't a blatant money making vehicle by design sounds like, if there ever was such a thing

Yawn. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about what I've said, but never mind; any comment about the sound of a Pearl Jam song which is any way negative is going to put your hackles up.

oh no i can talk shit about more than a few PJ songs, hell i thought i had a bad reputation here because i tend to express not very enthusiastic opinions about certain fan favourites. I didn't even take anything as particularly negative in your posts. Stip summed up my opinion well.

surfndestroy wrote:I just thought tte band saw the need to grow their audience post Riot Act or they'd end up playing smaller audiences and being entirely a nostalgic act. So they pimped their first three albums, are sure to include lots of Ten live, put out some questionable ballady syrop in an attempt to get some crossover success and continue to play arenas. Aersomith used this formula quite successfully.

so they became a nostalgia act that plays arenas.

surfndestroy wrote:I just thought tte band saw the need to grow their audience post Riot Act or they'd end up playing smaller audiences and being entirely a nostalgic act. So they pimped their first three albums, are sure to include lots of Ten live, put out some questionable ballady syrop in an attempt to get some crossover success and continue to play arenas. Aersomith used this formula quite successfully.

Well yes, but they're Aerosmith.

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

stip wrote:can we please stop equating 'reaching an audience' with 'making money', even if the former does lead to the later

honesty stip, i have no idea what we're arguing about or what a PJ song that isn't a blatant money making vehicle by design sounds like, if there ever was such a thing

Yawn. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about what I've said, but never mind; any comment about the sound of a Pearl Jam song which is any way negative is going to put your hackles up.

oh no i can talk shit about more than a few PJ songs, hell i thought i had a bad reputation here because i tend to express not very enthusiastic opinions about certain fan favourites. I didn't even take anything as particularly negative in your posts. Stip summed up my opinion well.

Yes but even stip's post is a meaningless simplification of what I'm actually doing, which is not just talking about PJ "directing songs to an audience" (something they've always done), but doing it with much more commercial success in mind. Stip thinks some of Pearl Jam's best music to date is some of Pearl Jam's worst, so I completely understand why he's undermining what I thought was a perfectly reasonable point, but still. Certain audiences will make more money; in this case, a broader, less discerning one -- and in the case of giving away many of your songs to baseball and TV shows, one that only gives a shit about what effect the songs have on your adrenaline whilst watching said TV shows. I listened to that basketball spot in which Ed was interviewed, and LTRP was playing behind someone taking a slam dunk. I'll be honest, I thought "Man, that's where this kind of song belongs."

surfndestroy wrote:I just thought tte band saw the need to grow their audience post Riot Act or they'd end up playing smaller audiences and being entirely a nostalgic act. So they pimped their first three albums, are sure to include lots of Ten live, put out some questionable ballady syrop in an attempt to get some crossover success and continue to play arenas. Aersomith used this formula quite successfully.

You can't really compare them. Aerosmith did that by having Dianne Warren write that ballad.

harmless wrote:

hlniv wrote:OK. We will change it to the "Post-Riot Act Moneygrab from any Audience"

Is that better? I will gladly re-title the thread.

So you don't believe that appealing outside of the fan club will make them more money?

Eh? Of course it will, that was the point. It's kind of the same thing - audiencegrab=moneygrab

And just to be clear, I've never really said there's anything wrong with it, we are simply acknowledging it

hlniv wrote:

harmless wrote:

hlniv wrote:OK. We will change it to the "Post-Riot Act Moneygrab from any Audience"

Is that better? I will gladly re-title the thread.

So you don't believe that appealing outside of the fan club will make them more money?

Eh? Of course it will, that was the point. It's kind of the same thing - audiencegrab=moneygrab

And just to be clear, I've never really said there's anything wrong with it, we are simply acknowledging it

Ah, OK.

BurtReynolds wrote: so they became a nostalgia act that plays arenas.

I told my wife before this tour, that I was kind of looking at the this tour and the two shows I was going to as the swan song of my 20 years of dedication. I've got a 2 year old and another on the way, and I really believe a "nostalgia act" is effectively what PJ will be from here on out. I'll catch them if i can or when it's convenient, probably won't expect too much out of any future releases, and will just generally look at them from here on out as the band of my youth. I'm fine with that

BurtReynolds wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:I just thought tte band saw the need to grow their audience post Riot Act or they'd end up playing smaller audiences and being entirely a nostalgic act. So they pimped their first three albums, are sure to include lots of Ten live, put out some questionable ballady syrop in an attempt to get some crossover success and continue to play arenas. Aersomith used this formula quite successfully.

so they became a nostalgia act that plays arenas.

More or less. I think to them it beats being a nostalgic act playing theatres.

Mine wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:I just thought tte band saw the need to grow their audience post Riot Act or they'd end up playing smaller audiences and being entirely a nostalgic act. So they pimped their first three albums, are sure to include lots of Ten live, put out some questionable ballady syrop in an attempt to get some crossover success and continue to play arenas. Aersomith used this formula quite successfully.

You can't really compare them. Aerosmith did that by having Dianne Warren write that ballad.

When you have a songwiter that can write Just Breathe, you don't need Dianne Warren.