Red Mosquito

bodysnatcher wrote:Is it Betterman, or Betterman (live)?

Live debut of Betterman (live)

I think the reality is that people want to be pleased, not challenged. When people come on here and say "I want something challenging!", I think what they really mean is they them selves want to be pleased by the band's product, but they want **other** people to be challenged.
As long as other people are challenged,
Fine. I say lets just be honest.

I dunno you sound pretty challenged

Thats rude.

Tuolumne wrote:I think the reality is that people want to be pleased, not challenged. When people come on here and say "I want something challenging!", I think what they really mean is they them selves want to be pleased by the band's product, but they want **other** people to be challenged.
As long as other people are challenged,
Fine. I say lets just be honest.

Dude. That's the human condition, you can apply that everywhere. "I want to be satisfied but everyone else can go screw themselves."

All that said, I think that since Clinch and the band are steeped in rock history, they know what style documentaries have been done and not done. Also, the band knows they've already done the "Live at the ...." enough. Personally I think Live at the Showbox is useless in their filmography and I'd guess they want to do something that gives the old doc a different twist. To my knowledge I don't think anyone's ever done a rock doc like this, which is think is the whole reason they are doing it. In that way, I think they really are soul twins with Jack White.

The movie may be great, I don't really know. The Corduroy performance seemed pretty great. I just think people completely understandably don't see a PJ clip show interspersed with the team that won the World Series last year in what is one of the most well-known American sports stories in recent history is a particularly hard sell to people.

How many people were wearing "Vedder 23" jerseys at the premier?

Give me a percentage.

*Vedder 10

Tuolumne wrote:To my knowledge I don't think anyone's ever done a rock doc like this, which is think is the whole reason they are doing it.

That's a pretty bad reason to do anything.

Tuolumne wrote:In that way, I think they really are soul twins with Jack White.

I guess they both love dumb gimmicks.

CopperTom wrote:*Vedder 10

That number, too. I see a lot of 23s.

take your hen-trance back

Birds in Hell wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:To my knowledge I don't think anyone's ever done a rock doc like this, which is think is the whole reason they are doing it.

That's a pretty bad reason to do anything.

Tuolumne wrote:In that way, I think they really are soul twins with Jack White.

I guess they both love dumb gimmicks.

Just the artist mindset, I guess. I totally get that. The whole point of art is to add a new perspective, your own view, contribute a new take on something.

Gimmick or not, that's what JW does. Put something g out that's new or something that is obsolete and bring it back to life so it exists again in the world. Anytime I see that happening, there's usually a "huh, what is this?" moment. But 15 years later it's often "I'm glad they did that cause it added something and is different from everything else." I feel like that might be happening here.

Bill Murray may play Joe Maddon in an upcoming movie about the Cubs. Will EV play EV?

CopperTom wrote:Bill Murray may play Joe Maddon in an upcoming movie about the Cubs. Will EV play EV?

Tuolumne wrote:I think the reality is that people want to be pleased, not challenged. When people come on here and say "I want something challenging!", I think what they really mean is they them selves want to be pleased by the band's product, but they want **other** people to be challenged.
As long as other people are challenged,
Fine. I say lets just be honest.

To me, wanting something "challenging" has more to do with wanting the artist to explore new musical avenues than it does with hoping for something that's going to provoke specific knee-jerk reactions from specific people. I don't care if the band produces something that ends up being the most broadly beloved thing they've ever done, but I'd still like it to engage my senses and my intellect in a way that I'm not expecting (and there are certainly plenty of occasions where art and popular appeal cross paths in just this way). I think you're being willfully obtuse by suggesting that the band adding call-response stadium cliches to the same songs they've been flogging to death since 1991 fits the description of being musically "challenging" just because some people think it sucks. There is no artistic engagement with this process; it's just a dumb thing they do now.

I also don't think people who've lobbied for the band to challenge them have ever meant that they'd like them to intersperse rote live versions of familiar material with clips of baseball games, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, but the Wrigley version of MoW could be the GOAT. A full, pro shot, maybe even Clinch filmed version of that makes the sportsing parts forgivable. It doesn’t make up for 8 covers in one show, but it’s still an amazing PJ moment

Bi_3 wrote:Yeah, but the Wrigley version of MoW could be the GOAT. A full, pro shot, maybe even Clinch filmed version of that makes the sportsing parts forgivable. It doesn’t make up for 8 covers in one show, but it’s still an amazing PJ moment

yeah agreed, that version was the best thing the band has done in years

bodysnatcher wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Yeah, but the Wrigley version of MoW could be the GOAT. A full, pro shot, maybe even Clinch filmed version of that makes the sportsing parts forgivable. It doesn’t make up for 8 covers in one show, but it’s still an amazing PJ moment

yeah agreed, that version was the best thing the band has done in years

I agree. Watching the Boston version on YouTube the next day blew me away. Didn't know the band had that intensity and focus anymore.

dunno if this was ever posted.