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.
I think comfort, or 'resting on your laurels' is less a question of the sound of a record, and more the drive you have in terms of making that record. It just seems pretty clear, at least to me, that if a band doesn't really try to stretch themselves and are content remaking the same thing, they're going to atrophy. Sure, it's a cliche that you experiment and branch out to keep yourself vital, but there's a reason it's a cliche.
I should say that, while I think Pearl Jam has been guilty of this in their past, I'm not so sure Lightning Bolt is necessarily guilty of it.
wait? guilty of which part?
I like the mix that's struck here. A bunch of songs that sound a bit different from what we've heard before, but that still play to their core strengths as artists 20+ years into their career, and a few new, but effective, takes on the ideas we've seen before.
What bands, 20 years into their careers, are still exploring new sounds (serious question)? That's not the same thing as putting out good new music. The most accurate recurring comment I've seen in these reviews is that any band 20+ years doesn't need to demonstrate that they have to say something new (although it's great if they can), but that the old message still has the capacity to resonate. And I think this record passes that test with flying colors. Mostly reds and blacks. Some yellow accents.
Lament wrote:The best part is his handle is from a song whose strengths are derived less from the chorus than possibly any other song in the entire Pearl Jam catalog.
The chorus in release is probably the best part of that song, but all the parts are great so why argue?
I don't think I've ever heard someone say the chorus is the best part of that song. It's always been all about the verses for me and everyone I know. I think the song would be every bit as strong if there weren't a chorus (as in it were just instrumental, since we're talking about melodies). It's one of my favorite Pearl Jam songs, but it's always been about the atmosphere, the gentle guitar lines, the way the vocals in the verses build to a crescendo. I don't know that the added "release me!"s over the chord changes in the chorus add anything to the song that the music shifting off of the one chord it's been sitting on for the entire verse doesn't more than take of on its own. And I say this from a point of loving this song as well (this is one of two songs from Ten I regularly revisit).
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.
In Rainbows=The most overrated piece of sh1t album since Kid A, dont get me wrong im a fan of RH but there stuff after Ok Computer is pretty weak, def weaker than PJs catalogue after Vitalogy if we count both bands first 3 albums..If any band has fallen off its them...but its cool/hip to like radiohead and lame to be a pearl jam fan...I laugh at anyone magazine that calls Kid A the album of the decade (that title belongs to Moon and Antartica), most of that album is schizo noise.....
i dont care what anyone says but Radiohead pushes themselves as much as PJ pushes themselves. I dont care that they "experiment" with non traditional sounds or guitars, it still fucking sounds like radiohead all the time. It hasn't felt like a departure in 10 years.
That doesnt mean there aren't some great songs though...
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.
I think comfort, or 'resting on your laurels' is less a question of the sound of a record, and more the drive you have in terms of making that record. It just seems pretty clear, at least to me, that if a band doesn't really try to stretch themselves and are content remaking the same thing, they're going to atrophy. Sure, it's a cliche that you experiment and branch out to keep yourself vital, but there's a reason it's a cliche.
I should say that, while I think Pearl Jam has been guilty of this in their past, I'm not so sure Lightning Bolt is necessarily guilty of it.
wait? guilty of which part?
I like the mix that's struck here. A bunch of songs that sound a bit different from what we've heard before, but that still play to their core strengths as artists 20+ years into their career, and a few new, but effective, takes on the ideas we've seen before.
What bands, 20 years into their careers, are still exploring new sounds (serious question)? That's not the same thing as putting out good new music. The most accurate recurring comment I've seen in these reviews is that any band 20+ years doesn't need to demonstrate that they have to say something new (although it's great if they can), but that the old message still has the capacity to resonate. And I think this record passes that test with flying colors. Mostly reds and blacks. Some yellow accents.
Hm....I mean, you have the big names, Radiohead, Wilco, R.E.M. was doing it. Sonic Youth continued to bridge out into new areas until their breakup. But like I said, I'm not trying to talk about sound. I'm not saying PJ has to go electronica or do anything drastic. I think more than giving us new messages or supporting old messages, a band's task is to make great music. My point was that that is much harder to do in a complacent mind state, in a state where you don't feel a need to challenge yourself. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that strikes me as a pretty fair generalization.
Lament wrote:The best part is his handle is from a song whose strengths are derived less from the chorus than possibly any other song in the entire Pearl Jam catalog.
The chorus in release is probably the best part of that song, but all the parts are great so why argue?
I don't think I've ever heard someone say the chorus is the best part of that song. It's always been all about the verses for me and everyone I know. I think the song would be every bit as strong if there weren't a chorus (as in it were just instrumental, since we're talking about melodies). It's one of my favorite Pearl Jam songs, but it's always been about the atmosphere, the gentle guitar lines, the way the vocals in the verses build to a crescendo. I don't know that the added "release me!"s over the chord changes in the chorus add anything to the song that the music shifting off of the one chord it's been sitting on for the entire verse doesn't more than take of on its own. And I say this from a point of loving this song as well (this is one of two songs from Ten I regularly revisit).
The verses leading into the chorus and the chorus it's self are my favorite moments. I see them as great examples of the raw emotion eddie used to belt out.
There's the dog. You can't fake that stuff. Confess with your mouth.
So I finally have the album (on itunes and physical copy) and I can enjoy it in a more natural habitat (ie in my car) and already Swallowed Whole - a song I haven't been 'getting' is taking a turn for the better. There's quite a few things going on in the song, particularly the bridge, that is starting to bring something home for me. Right now, certain songs fit better when I'm in motion (car, running) like Getaway, MY, MFS and certain songs fit better when I'm working at my desk (Infallible, SBM, Pendulum). As usual, this is definitely a keeper which I'll be playing in various sequences, so it's already met my expectation as being another good to very good album.
Lament wrote:The best part is his handle is from a song whose strengths are derived less from the chorus than possibly any other song in the entire Pearl Jam catalog.
The chorus in release is probably the best part of that song, but all the parts are great so why argue?
I don't think I've ever heard someone say the chorus is the best part of that song. It's always been all about the verses for me and everyone I know. I think the song would be every bit as strong if there weren't a chorus (as in it were just instrumental, since we're talking about melodies). It's one of my favorite Pearl Jam songs, but it's always been about the atmosphere, the gentle guitar lines, the way the vocals in the verses build to a crescendo. I don't know that the added "release me!"s over the chord changes in the chorus add anything to the song that the music shifting off of the one chord it's been sitting on for the entire verse doesn't more than take of on its own. And I say this from a point of loving this song as well (this is one of two songs from Ten I regularly revisit).
the last lyrical couplet in each verse into the RELEASE ME is just incredible.
I think the Judd Apatow interview had a great moment where Stone soprt of scoffed at the cliche of rock bands always coming back and saying "rejuvenated!" and "reinvented!". That shit can be cliched and boring and predictable too. How many artists, especially pop artists these days, come out with their records and talk about it being those things? Stone turned it on it's head and said, "yeah, it's more of the same in that we're digging in". I think that's a very strong sober assessment. They're simply trying out different combination of 5 different songwriters and musicians, not mapping out a world takeover but just reveling in having this creative association where they can give basic guitar/drums/bass rock n roll it's own take.
Tuolumne wrote: They're simply trying out different combination of 5 different songwriters and musicians, not mapping out a world takeover but just reveling in having this creative association where they can give basic guitar/drums/bass rock n roll it's own take.
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.
I think comfort, or 'resting on your laurels' is less a question of the sound of a record, and more the drive you have in terms of making that record. It just seems pretty clear, at least to me, that if a band doesn't really try to stretch themselves and are content remaking the same thing, they're going to atrophy. Sure, it's a cliche that you experiment and branch out to keep yourself vital, but there's a reason it's a cliche.
I should say that, while I think Pearl Jam has been guilty of this in their past, I'm not so sure Lightning Bolt is necessarily guilty of it.
wait? guilty of which part?
I like the mix that's struck here. A bunch of songs that sound a bit different from what we've heard before, but that still play to their core strengths as artists 20+ years into their career, and a few new, but effective, takes on the ideas we've seen before.
What bands, 20 years into their careers, are still exploring new sounds (serious question)? That's not the same thing as putting out good new music. The most accurate recurring comment I've seen in these reviews is that any band 20+ years doesn't need to demonstrate that they have to say something new (although it's great if they can), but that the old message still has the capacity to resonate. And I think this record passes that test with flying colors. Mostly reds and blacks. Some yellow accents.
Hm....I mean, you have the big names, Radiohead, Wilco, R.E.M. was doing it. Sonic Youth continued to bridge out into new areas until their breakup. But like I said, I'm not trying to talk about sound. I'm not saying PJ has to go electronica or do anything drastic. I think more than giving us new messages or supporting old messages, a band's task is to make great music. My point was that that is much harder to do in a complacent mind state, in a state where you don't feel a need to challenge yourself. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that strikes me as a pretty fair generalization.
20 years into their career REM has Around the Sun, Accelerate, and Collapse into now.
And I agree if you fee complacent it might be harder to do. but, as someone who thought the last two PJ records were very strong, and that the last one showcases a broad array of directions and sounds, I'm not sure I'd categorize them as being complacent. That's not the same thing as being comfortable.
There is a haunted quality, subtle, but present, to quite a few of the songs on the record, a nervous tenuousness to it. I wonder how much of that reflects the internal artistic feel of the band.
McParadigm wrote:I've long thought that 'challenging yourself' is overrated
do you climb mountains because they are there?
Is your pursuit of knowledge and understanding in your field limited to what fits into your coursework?
No. Are Pearl Jam's musical interests limited to the obvious inspirations for their records?
At this point we're just firing off quasi-rhetorical questions that have kind of lost the point.
My point is that an artist does not need to challenge themselves just for the sake of doing it. If you still have interesting or moving things to say within your old familiar spaces that's not necessarily of any less value than branching out because you think staying in the same space is inherently bad.
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.
Agreed. They didn't even mention Infallible or Pendulum which are two songs where PJ are actually trying something different and succeeding. My Father's Son is another one which they mentioned in passing and merely used it to pass a snide remark about how Jeff has been sidelined. It's like when they listen to the albums, their mind is already made up about the band. They just have to figure out which songs to talk about in the review to best reinforce their perception of Pearl Jam.
I agree with this. I always find this generally true of reviewing in general.
Yep. It's all about what narrative the publication is following. Pitchfork is generally writing that I can hardly stomach. It's usually such a chore to read through them.
Here's what I feel about a review - anytime the writer spends a paragraph or two on "context" - going into their past, talking about the so-called narrative of the band, it blatantly goes in the way of arriving to the conclusion first and filling in the details later. It's lazy writing. I want to know how the writer FEELS. What images and emotions is the music evoking? They could learn alot from stip, actually.
Oh well, tastes. Which songs do you like?