Red Mosquito

cutuphalfdead wrote:That pitchfork review is pretty spot on.

Dugg wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:That pitchfork review is pretty spot on.

I don't know, as a review of where the band is 22 years into their career it's pretty good. As a review of LB itself, I think it's pretty weak.

digster wrote:And they broke up after those two albums; there was no long career following those records. Isn't that kind of proving the point? I think they've said they felt good about that last one being a comfortable retrospective because they knew that was going to be it.

Jaeti wrote:The Pitchfork review was kind of odd. Seemed a fair and honest account of how that person felt about the album, not an attempt to bash on Pearl Jam for kicks. But it also seemed to disregard the number of songs that really are interesting or different. There aren't any sonic U-turns on the album, but if you accept that just about every band will put out albums that in many ways sound like that band did previously, I think there are at least five songs on LB that are departures from what one might expect from Pearl Jam. One could argue that more than half the album qualifies as such, even if you don't believe each attempt is successful. The sweatpants line was pretty funny, but I'm not quite sure it's on solid ground.

stip wrote:

digster wrote:And they broke up after those two albums; there was no long career following those records. Isn't that kind of proving the point? I think they've said they felt good about that last one being a comfortable retrospective because they knew that was going to be it.

pearl jam could have felt like they could have broken up probably at any point after No Code. They said what needed to be said. U2 did not have to make their 3 2000 era records, but I suspect fans are glad they did (the first two, anyway). REM could have broken up after collapse into now, but it also would have been perfectly fine with me if they kept going.

What is more important within the music is not what it means to the artist, but how it affects the audience, I think. And as long as the music is investing fans in it it is probably worth continuing.

Strat wrote:

harmless wrote:Also, LTRP isn't that enjoyable. The fact that Stone has acknowledged that will be funny one day. At the moment it's just frustrating. Of course I take it to heart, just as you have taken to heart everything I've said about less than great choruses. I've been a fan since the beginning, so I don't like the fact that the band admits to some songs being average on the day of an album's release.

When did stone say it wasnt enjoyable?

stip wrote:

Strat wrote:

harmless wrote:Also, LTRP isn't that enjoyable. The fact that Stone has acknowledged that will be funny one day. At the moment it's just frustrating. Of course I take it to heart, just as you have taken to heart everything I've said about less than great choruses. I've been a fan since the beginning, so I don't like the fact that the band admits to some songs being average on the day of an album's release.

When did stone say it wasnt enjoyable?

he didn't.

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Release_Me wrote:One thing I never understand is people's hate for Pearl Jam's best choruses. A chorus is the part of the song which is supposed to be most melodic. Something that get's imprinted into the listener's head. You don't cram the most difficult words into a chorus or try to make it musically 'complex'. When you do, you end up with forgettable songs.

I suppose some people hate Pearl Jam's "best choruses" because they don't think they're Pearl Jam's best choruses. I love a good pop chorus, but I don't think Pearl Jam are particularly good pop songwriters. Save for a few notable exceptions ("Betterman" being the first one that comes to mind), I think their most outright pop songs fall flat. "Infallible" is a song with a very ordinary chorus melody. It's not about darkness or complexity. It's just kind of hackneyed.

Furthermore, why do you approach songs like TV adverts? A chorus isn't a sales pitch. It doesn't have to be the most melodic part of a song, it just often is. Shooting for earworm usually results in lightweight dreck, and that's not what interests me about Pearl Jam. Their strengths are elsewhere.

I think they are great songwriters and the albums I love all have great pop songwriting. Like this one. I am not a fan of when they stepped away from this and tried to be 'difficult'. I love Infallible. It's in my top ten ever PJ songs so I just disagree with your assessment. A chorus isn't a sales pitch if it's melodic. It's just good. I don't like sonic torture ala Binaural and Riot Act. Good songwriting for me is all about the melodies. PJ's strengths are their marrying of great melodies with non-pop themes and Ed's vocals. LB has this and that's why I feel it's a great PJ album.

My biggest problem with "Infallible" at this point is not the chorus, but the part where the chorus fizzles out and you just have Ed going yeah yeah yeah over it. The song is two slow, the rhythm too sluggish, to yeah yeah yeah; there's too much space left. I feel as if they need another chorus, almost like the "Ben, the two of us..." refrain of Rats. At this point the song is good, but not great, because that chorus isn't quite getting up there with the rest of the song.

I think the outro is classic PJ/Ed and actually makes the song jump from very good to great. It's like the culmination of everything the song was building up to. Without it, I would have a feeling of being left high and dry. I've always loved Ed's vocalisations and yeah yeahs.

The "Infallible" chorus sounds like a squashed version of Procol Harum's "Whiter Shade of Pale". It's a decent enough chorus but it was better when it was called WSOP. That's my main beef with it; good enough, but derivative. I don't think that any reasons you could find to praise this vocal melody would take away from that, nor the fact that the chorus melody and the verses just do not gel well together.

I'm never one to be put off by the term 'derivative', especially when it comes to Pearl Jam. I don't care what it reminds anyone of. It sounds great when Ed is delivering it and the band is playing, that's it. I didn't care that the vocal melody of GTF sounded like Going to California because I never cared much for the original and PJ does it better. Again, and I've stated it a million times, the uplifting chorus where Ed is trying to exhort us to action goes very well with the uneasy sounding verses where he's pointing out the follies of our ways. If the song carried on completely in the direction the verses were taking it, I wouldn't be here talking about it.

Pearl Jam has always been derivative of their favourite bands, sure. I realise that. The general difference now, more often than not, is that they're no longer taking the ingredients they derive from those bands and traditions and making something at least three times as interesting to my ears. Apparently they always derived from The Who, for example. But I've never liked The Who; I've always liked Pearl Jam. So, whether derivative is acceptable or not will entirely depend on whether you think that what was made with the ingredients is worth the derivation. And I (personally) don't think that stealing melodies from great songs in order to write merely good songs is... as great listening as it could be.

But "Infallible" isn't even the best example of this. LTRP is by far the most derivative song on the album, along with FD. And I think that a few pages ago, I clicked on a link to an interview in which Stone said that LTRP is alright, it's not bad, but it's really not his favourite on the record. And I'm just not sure how a comment like that, on this album's release date, from the guy who wrote the songs, is going to inspire anyone's confidence if they're trying to decide whether or not they like it. In fact, Stone has decided it for me. I feel that I now have his full permission to think it's average for all the same reasons he himself thinks it's average.

I have no idea what Procol Harum's "Whiter Shade of Pale" is. I wonder if people on that board are arguing it's derivative of something else. there's a lot of music out there. I suspect most everything can reference something already out there if you look hard enough.

You should Youtube it now. The "Infallible" chorus doesn't sound exactly the same, but the similarity is pretty hard to ignore. It's also a great song, and its use of organ is something that none of these songs can hope to emulate. I would have no issue with any organ melodies like the one in this song.

I like PJ's versions better and that's really all that matters to me. In this case, I don't hear any real similarity. GTF was more derivative of GTC than Infallible is of WSOP. If you hadn't pointed it out, I would never have connected them. There's a part where he sings higher than the rest of the chorus but that's such a common hook in so many songs. Both GTF and Infallible are much better songs than the songs they are supposedly derived from in my view. You can hear all sorts of similarities in music and you can let it affect you, or you can ignore it. I'm in the former camp. It makes listening to music much more enjoyable and less of a pain.

LTRP may be derivative but I couldn't care less. I really don't let that affect my enjoyment of songs I listen to. It serves a purpose on this album, thematically and stylistically and does it very well. It's a nice break from the seriousness of the previous songs and it succeeds entirely as being the 'fun' song on the album (despite dealing with the end of the world). They haven't had one like that which worked so well in a long time. FD is one I don't care much for. That's usual with every PJ album including the ones I rate highest. The good thing is, despite not liking it much, I don't feel it's a clunker. I won't seek it out but won't be sad if I ever got to hear it on radio.

I feel you're taking Stone's comments to heart. He doesn't think it's the best song on the album and it really isn't because there are better ones. Every song can't claim to be the best song. There will be songs which are top tier, middle tier and bottom tier on most albums. When even the bottom tier ones are enjoyable, it says something about the album quality. Each one of them would have brought songs to studio which they thought were good enough to be finished and make it onto the album but not good enough to be the centrepiece.

Sorry, I stopped reading when you said "Infallible" was a much better song than "Whiter Shade of Pale". You think everything that PJ turns into a new song makes it a better song. I used to agree. I don't now. I wish I did, but I don't. With those caveats, I like "Infallible" just fine. If it had been to "Whiter Shade of Pale" what GTF is to "Going to California", I would have been more than happy. It isn't, so I'm just OK with it.

stip wrote:

Jaeti wrote:The Pitchfork review was kind of odd. Seemed a fair and honest account of how that person felt about the album, not an attempt to bash on Pearl Jam for kicks. But it also seemed to disregard the number of songs that really are interesting or different. There aren't any sonic U-turns on the album, but if you accept that just about every band will put out albums that in many ways sound like that band did previously, I think there are at least five songs on LB that are departures from what one might expect from Pearl Jam. One could argue that more than half the album qualifies as such, even if you don't believe each attempt is successful. The sweatpants line was pretty funny, but I'm not quite sure it's on solid ground.

I thought in rainbows was an entirely familiar sweatpants sounding record from radiohead, but people liked the songs.

Hypnosomnia wrote:
Underwhelmed.

Jaeti wrote:

Dugg wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:That pitchfork review is pretty spot on.

I don't know, as a review of where the band is 22 years into their career it's pretty good. As a review of LB itself, I think it's pretty weak.

Well said.

McParadigm wrote:I've long thought that 'challenging yourself' is overrated

stip wrote:

Jaeti wrote:The Pitchfork review was kind of odd. Seemed a fair and honest account of how that person felt about the album, not an attempt to bash on Pearl Jam for kicks. But it also seemed to disregard the number of songs that really are interesting or different. There aren't any sonic U-turns on the album, but if you accept that just about every band will put out albums that in many ways sound like that band did previously, I think there are at least five songs on LB that are departures from what one might expect from Pearl Jam. One could argue that more than half the album qualifies as such, even if you don't believe each attempt is successful. The sweatpants line was pretty funny, but I'm not quite sure it's on solid ground.

I thought in rainbows was an entirely familiar sweatpants sounding record from radiohead, but people liked the songs.

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I've long thought that 'challenging yourself' is overrated

do you climb mountains because they are there?

stip wrote:

Hypnosomnia wrote:
Underwhelmed.

i like how much angrier and raw the song sounds (although I prefer the more polished studio). The fake start at the beginning was cool Eddie doesn't sound good though