Red Mosquito

worldwithyourheart wrote:even flowish lyrics......

And there the comparison ends

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:Lazy would be sticking to that riff with only minor changes as opposite to doing that chorus.

Agreed. And that's what most of these blues songs do, doo-be-doo, all the way through, doo-be-doo.

Give me Chicago blues over a track like this one anyday, thanks.

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:Lazy would be sticking to that riff with only minor changes as opposite to doing that chorus.

Agreed. And that's what most of these blues songs do, doo-be-doo, all the way through, doo-be-doo.

Give me Chicago blues over a track like this one anyday, thanks.

I can't

but

but i

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:Lazy would be sticking to that riff with only minor changes as opposite to doing that chorus.

Agreed. And that's what most of these blues songs do, doo-be-doo, all the way through, doo-be-doo.

Give me Chicago blues over a track like this one anyday, thanks.

Yup. You think they could make a decent blues out of that riff? I have my doubts.

philpritchard wrote:

harmless wrote:

philpritchard wrote:That's one of the things I really like about the song. It has serious, dark lyrics that are really at odds with the upbeat, "sitcom-y" music. It really reflects the lyrical content, too, where the narrator is listening to music as an escape from life.

So meta.

If only that sitcom feel didn't put people off before they saw that, because I think most (if not all) of these songs are doing it.

Yep. I think there's a lot more going on in all of these songs than a lot of people are giving them credit for. I really don't get the claims that LTRP is lazily written or that they took the easy road. I actually think it's the opposite; it's a clever bit of songwriting where the interplay between the lyrics and music provide added depth to the song. The musical/lyrical interplay is one of the things I think Pearl Jam does really well (the crashing-waves sound on Given To Fly, the marching drums on WMA, the urgency in RVM) and this one seems particularly well executed.

Hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. This interplay you talk about isn't new. They've been doing it since Ten and Vs. I've been talking about it so much that I must sound like an idiot by now

Evenflow, Alive, Glorified G, Daughter, Last Exit, etc. A lot of these songs are so catchy that it's easy to not dig in to the lyrics and just assume something completely opposite to what they are about. PJ have been doing this since forever. If people are being put off by the feel of the songs on first listen, then they would have been put off the earlier songs too. I don't believe that's what is happening. I believe a lot of people have gotten so used to the lack of catchiness from the middle period that any sort of return to that songwriting style is putting them off. It's doing the complete opposite for me. I'm jumping around like a kid who just received his favourite candy.

Guys, people who dont like this chorus (or just me), dislike it not because its catchy but rather that its bad catchy.

Release_Me wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

harmless wrote:

philpritchard wrote:That's one of the things I really like about the song. It has serious, dark lyrics that are really at odds with the upbeat, "sitcom-y" music. It really reflects the lyrical content, too, where the narrator is listening to music as an escape from life.

So meta.

If only that sitcom feel didn't put people off before they saw that, because I think most (if not all) of these songs are doing it.

Yep. I think there's a lot more going on in all of these songs than a lot of people are giving them credit for. I really don't get the claims that LTRP is lazily written or that they took the easy road. I actually think it's the opposite; it's a clever bit of songwriting where the interplay between the lyrics and music provide added depth to the song. The musical/lyrical interplay is one of the things I think Pearl Jam does really well (the crashing-waves sound on Given To Fly, the marching drums on WMA, the urgency in RVM) and this one seems particularly well executed.

Hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. This interplay you talk about isn't new. They've been doing it since Ten and Vs. I've been talking about it so much that I must sound like an idiot by now

Evenflow, Alive, Glorified G, Daughter, Last Exit, etc. A lot of these songs are so catchy that it's easy to not dig in to the lyrics and just assume something completely opposite to what they are about. PJ have been doing this since forever. If people are being put off by the feel of the songs on first listen, then they would have been put off the earlier songs too. I don't believe that's what is happening. I believe a lot of people have gotten so used to the lack of catchiness from the middle period that any sort of return to that songwriting style is putting them off. It's doing the complete opposite for me. I'm jumping around like a kid who just received his favourite candy.

I think the "return to catchiness" argument is too simplistic. If they're catchy now, it's a rather different kind of "catchy" than it used to be. Certainly, if you weren't generally in the "alternative" crowd that enjoyed generally harsh, abrasive music (with some exceptions), you weren't going to really enjoy Pearl Jam even then, no matter how "catchy" they were. I remember trying to argue that PJ were a really catchy band to some friends who just wouldn't buy it, because their whole grunge shtick put them off right away. These days, they've reduced almost everything that would've once been called alternative or subversive about them. Having said all of the above, I do think that people have become very used to the middle period, and it's that middle period that a lot of today's naysayers want back. It's too simplistic to say they want dark, "grungey" early-period-style stuff. But they do want uniqueness, subtlety and nuance, idiosyncrasies, and yeah, less of an effort to write "attention-grabbing" melodies and hooks.

You may not like the song on it's merits, that's perfectly understandable. I've met people who don't like the aforementioned songs and I'll gladly admit that those are superior. There is never universal agreement on anything. What I'm trying to say is, some folk find it 'bad' catchy because the middle period now sounds 'good' catchy to them. And they want more of the same. Going back to 'catchy' catchy is a letdown for these folk. This is just my observation. I maybe wrong.

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

harmless wrote:

philpritchard wrote:That's one of the things I really like about the song. It has serious, dark lyrics that are really at odds with the upbeat, "sitcom-y" music. It really reflects the lyrical content, too, where the narrator is listening to music as an escape from life.

So meta.

If only that sitcom feel didn't put people off before they saw that, because I think most (if not all) of these songs are doing it.

Yep. I think there's a lot more going on in all of these songs than a lot of people are giving them credit for. I really don't get the claims that LTRP is lazily written or that they took the easy road. I actually think it's the opposite; it's a clever bit of songwriting where the interplay between the lyrics and music provide added depth to the song. The musical/lyrical interplay is one of the things I think Pearl Jam does really well (the crashing-waves sound on Given To Fly, the marching drums on WMA, the urgency in RVM) and this one seems particularly well executed.

Hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. This interplay you talk about isn't new. They've been doing it since Ten and Vs. I've been talking about it so much that I must sound like an idiot by now

Evenflow, Alive, Glorified G, Daughter, Last Exit, etc. A lot of these songs are so catchy that it's easy to not dig in to the lyrics and just assume something completely opposite to what they are about. PJ have been doing this since forever. If people are being put off by the feel of the songs on first listen, then they would have been put off the earlier songs too. I don't believe that's what is happening. I believe a lot of people have gotten so used to the lack of catchiness from the middle period that any sort of return to that songwriting style is putting them off. It's doing the complete opposite for me. I'm jumping around like a kid who just received his favourite candy.

I think the "return to catchiness" argument is too simplistic. If they're catchy now, it's a rather different kind of "catchy" than it used to be. Certainly, if you weren't generally in the "alternative" crowd that enjoyed generally harsh, abrasive music (with some exceptions), you weren't going to really enjoy Pearl Jam even then, no matter how "catchy" they were. I remember trying to argue that PJ were a really catchy band to some friends who just wouldn't buy it, because their whole grunge shtick put them off right away. These days, they've reduced almost everything that would've once been called alternative or subversive about them. Having said all of the above, I do think that people have become very used to the middle period, and it's that middle period that a lot of today's naysayers want back. It's too simplistic to say they want dark, "grungey" early-period-style stuff. But they do want uniqueness, subtlety and nuance, idiosyncrasies, and yeah, less of an effort to write "attention-grabbing" melodies and hooks.

PJ were my introduction to alternative and grunge. I never much liked any of their contemporaries to any great extent. Mostly because they weren't as catchy. Hah! They just dressed up like the others but had little in common with their music. Only common thread that binds the grunge bands together is that their themes were generally darker than those of other rock bands.

An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

Release_Me wrote:An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

I couldn't fathom approaching music this way. I'd miss out on so much amazing stuff.

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

harmless wrote:

philpritchard wrote:That's one of the things I really like about the song. It has serious, dark lyrics that are really at odds with the upbeat, "sitcom-y" music. It really reflects the lyrical content, too, where the narrator is listening to music as an escape from life.

So meta.

If only that sitcom feel didn't put people off before they saw that, because I think most (if not all) of these songs are doing it.

Yep. I think there's a lot more going on in all of these songs than a lot of people are giving them credit for. I really don't get the claims that LTRP is lazily written or that they took the easy road. I actually think it's the opposite; it's a clever bit of songwriting where the interplay between the lyrics and music provide added depth to the song. The musical/lyrical interplay is one of the things I think Pearl Jam does really well (the crashing-waves sound on Given To Fly, the marching drums on WMA, the urgency in RVM) and this one seems particularly well executed.

Hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. This interplay you talk about isn't new. They've been doing it since Ten and Vs. I've been talking about it so much that I must sound like an idiot by now

Evenflow, Alive, Glorified G, Daughter, Last Exit, etc. A lot of these songs are so catchy that it's easy to not dig in to the lyrics and just assume something completely opposite to what they are about. PJ have been doing this since forever. If people are being put off by the feel of the songs on first listen, then they would have been put off the earlier songs too. I don't believe that's what is happening. I believe a lot of people have gotten so used to the lack of catchiness from the middle period that any sort of return to that songwriting style is putting them off. It's doing the complete opposite for me. I'm jumping around like a kid who just received his favourite candy.

I think the "return to catchiness" argument is too simplistic. If they're catchy now, it's a rather different kind of "catchy" than it used to be. Certainly, if you weren't generally in the "alternative" crowd that enjoyed generally harsh, abrasive music (with some exceptions), you weren't going to really enjoy Pearl Jam even then, no matter how "catchy" they were. I remember trying to argue that PJ were a really catchy band to some friends who just wouldn't buy it, because their whole grunge shtick put them off right away. These days, they've reduced almost everything that would've once been called alternative or subversive about them. Having said all of the above, I do think that people have become very used to the middle period, and it's that middle period that a lot of today's naysayers want back. It's too simplistic to say they want dark, "grungey" early-period-style stuff. But they do want uniqueness, subtlety and nuance, idiosyncrasies, and yeah, less of an effort to write "attention-grabbing" melodies and hooks.

PJ were my introduction to alternative and grunge. I never much liked any of their contemporaries to any great extent. Mostly because they weren't as catchy. Hah! They just dressed up like the others but had little in common with their music. Only common thread that binds the grunge bands together is that their themes were generally darker than those of other rock bands.

Well, PJ were my favourite band of that time by far, even if I listened to some of the others. But it was their power and instrumentation that got me. Subconsciously it may have been the "catchiness", but honestly, I mostly loved it when those musicians were at the top of their game. I just loved the sound of PJ musicians playing together, and still do. That's why I can cope with their crazy genre experiments, if I think they generally work. But I do think that people who want to argue for the new stuff generally exaggerate PJ's "catchiness" in the early stuff, and understate their musical depth, subversiveness and power. Ed said himself during Backspacer that they recently tried for quicker, more simple, immediately catchy stuff which may or may not end up being fairly superficial. Before Backspacer, Pearl Jam had never done that to the extent of a song like The Fixer (or several songs from Backspacer). I think you're in denial if you're not hearing a major difference in much of the newer PJ music... not just to the middle period, but to all of it. And much of that difference is PJ's head space right now, which is content and not "dark" in any way. My argument has always been that if they want to be that, I have no problem with it at all, but there are other bands who are better at it.

theplatypus wrote:

Release_Me wrote:An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

I couldn't fathom approaching music this way. I'd miss out on so much amazing stuff.

Man, what are you gonna say when you've had enough of knuckleheads?

Strat wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Release_Me wrote:An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

I couldn't fathom approaching music this way. I'd miss out on so much amazing stuff.

Man, what are you gonna say when you've had enough of knuckleheads?

"Oh... meh"

theplatypus wrote:

Release_Me wrote:An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

I couldn't fathom approaching music this way. I'd miss out on so much amazing stuff.

Prose delivered in spoken word, huh? Sounds horrible. Catchy spoken word is much better

harmless wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Release_Me wrote:An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

I couldn't fathom approaching music this way. I'd miss out on so much amazing stuff.

Prose delivered in spoken word, huh? Sounds horrible. Catchy spoken word is much better

Just making a point

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Release_Me wrote:An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

I couldn't fathom approaching music this way. I'd miss out on so much amazing stuff.

Prose delivered in spoken word, huh? Sounds horrible. Catchy spoken word is much better

Just making a point

I'm just failing to believe that anyone really, honestly, was attracted to PJ just because they were catchy. That's kind of like saying you're attracted to tarantulas just because they're furry, when in fact you could buy a cat instead. Even now, I would rather listen to Counting Crows or R.E.M than catchy Pearl Jam. I still listen to Pearl Jam, but "catchy" tunes aren't what I crave from them. There are so many great catchy bands and pop artists out there.

harmless wrote:There are so many great catchy bands and pop artists out there.

Then why are you listening to the Counting Crows?

I'm kidding!