Red Mosquito

harmless wrote:
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:

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.

Mine wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

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.

Writing something that did so poorly as JB would end her career. With that i mean made so little money.

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:
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."

Commercial success was always in mind, even back in the day where MLB was not in ash form yet. They haven't released one album to date where they didn't care about audience reception. Especially as far as the "founding fathers" are concerned. I don't think any audience makes a difference for them because the numbers are roughly the same.

BurtReynolds wrote:I don't usually say this, but harmless is making a lot of good posts today.

harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I don't usually say this, but harmless is making a lot of good posts today.

You're just saying that because Thursday is one of the two days of the week in which I hate Pearl Jam.

BurtReynolds wrote:

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.

BurtReynolds wrote:

harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I don't usually say this, but harmless is making a lot of good posts today.

You're just saying that because Thursday is one of the two days of the week in which I hate Pearl Jam.

whats the other day? I'll try to only visit PJchat on those days.

hlniv wrote:

harmless wrote:

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."

stip wrote:maybe i'm just insulted that, if eddie vedder is going to go out there and write a song designed to make him as much money as possible, that you don't think he can do better than Future Days

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:
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."

Commercial success was always in mind, even back in the day where MLB was not in ash form yet. They haven't released one album to date where they didn't care about audience reception. Especially as far as the "founding fathers" are concerned. I don't think any audience makes a difference for them because the numbers are roughly the same.

There's a huge spectrum between 'not caring' and 'clawing for cash'. I wouldn't say they're quite doing the latter now, but they're veering further towards it than they were pre-S/T (barring, possibly, the pre-No Code stuff and Yield).

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

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."

I just have a lot of trouble that eddie vedder, who is worth tens of millions of dollars, is writing Future Days because he thinks this is going to be a cash cow for him.

stip wrote:maybe i'm just insulted that, if eddie vedder is going to go out there and write a song designed to make him as much money as possible, that you don't think he can do better than Future Days