Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:I'm generally very sick of conventional song structures; it's got to be done VERY well to capture my attention these days.

I can understand this -- I wouldn't say I'm necessarily sick of conventional song structures, but I think most of why I've found myself increasingly drawn to jazz and other forms of instrumental music as I've gotten older (in addition to just enjoying the total freedom to feel and experience the music entirely based on my own headspace, without the interference of lyrics, or some intended "message" from the songwriter) is that a lot of the way the music hits me emotionally still feels mysterious to me in ways that are beyond my explanation, even though I know they're not beyond everyone's. I've learned some jazz theory over the years and have found it edifying, but there are still many levels to it that are above my head, and move too fast for me to process in real time while listening. This is a lot different than my experience with a lot of rock, folk, etc., where I feel my brain sort of naturally pieces together what is going on. Which isn't to say I can't enjoy it, only that the experience is different -- as you say, the bar for surprise is higher.

Which probably adds another layer of complexity to the whole thing. When Eddie was writing songs like "Not For You" and "Immortality," not only was he coming from a place of somewhat (seemingly) rudimentary musical knowledge, but his audience was too -- probably more so! That's a piece that frequently gets omitted from these analyses; we're happy go back and recast EV as a novice songwriter in 1994, but it's rarer that we go back and recast ourselves as novice listeners. And the demystifying definitely happens on both sides of the equation.

I love all this chit chat about structures and whatever but you gotta also feel the music. Thats why i love jazz for example, for all its glorious non structure format, i feel drawn to it because it makes me feel something.

Gigaton was as important to me as lets say, No Code, because it struck a nerve and talked to me in a way LB didnt for example. And then i saw PJ live in Belgium again after so long and they sing Alive and fuuuck, thats it, thats what i needed.

Thats why PJ is so important to me and relevant and whataver you need to call it

there are still nuggets of things that make Pearl Jam, Pearl Jam; they're much more dispersed across many songs now instead of highly concentrated into every single one, turning everything to gold; but one thing that still makes me go to Pearl Jam over other bands is that lack of expected song structure: no chorus in SBWM, that great bridge that shouldn't belong in Running, so that both parts are more interesting because of the juxtaposition... and those are arguably near the bottom of the barrel; near the top (I'd argue), DOTC has no chorus, ND has an unexpected outro that sounds like it should be seguing into another song, but never does; and DM pulls back into a chill Riot Act bridge, when you might expect it to build further, so that Matt can have full attention and build into Mike's solo

say what you want about modern Pearl Jam's weaknesses (and I don't deny any of them in 2024), I still don't get this from other "meat and potatoes" rock bands

I definitely see Pearl Jam still looking to be creative in new ways; it's perhaps more of an uphill battle than it used to be, and they do fall back on familiar tropes (who doesn't after 30 years?) and perhaps follow a few more errant muses than they used to, but they're not making the same record over and over. They're not AC/DC, or even -- despite the Andrew Watt thing -- the Stones, and they deserve credit for that.

Ms Harmless wrote:there are still nuggets of things that make Pearl Jam, Pearl Jam; they're much more dispersed across many songs now instead of highly concentrated into every single one, turning everything to gold; but one thing that still makes me go to Pearl Jam over other bands is that lack of expected song structure: no chorus in SBWM, that great bridge that shouldn't belong in Running, so that both parts are more interesting because of the juxtaposition... and those are arguably near the bottom of the barrel; near the top (I'd argue), DOTC has no chorus, ND has an unexpected outro that sounds like it should be seguing into another song, but never does; and DM pulls back into a chill Riot Act bridge, when you might expect it to build further, so that Matt can have full attention and build into Mike's solo

say what you want about modern Pearl Jam's weaknesses (and I don't deny any of them in 2024), I still don't get this from other "meat and potatoes" rock bands

yeah - well said. and I expect to hear glimpses of the old PJ (and I don't really want more than that) while most of the material on DM is a newer sound.

That's really what I always want, granted there are hooks, ed doesn't strain and stays within his natural register, and there is enough good guitar work for me to keep uncovering and falling in love with certain parts over the course of a couple months.

my needs are basic.

Kevin Davis wrote:I definitely see Pearl Jam still looking to be creative in new ways; it's perhaps more of an uphill battle than it used to be, and they do fall back on familiar tropes (who doesn't after 30 years?) and perhaps follow a few more errant muses than they used to, but they're not making the same record over and over. They're not AC/DC, or even -- despite the Andrew Watt thing -- the Stones, and they deserve credit for that.

absolutely

even where I don't like something, I can figure out what the attempt was

DDWJMUVW wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:there are still nuggets of things that make Pearl Jam, Pearl Jam; they're much more dispersed across many songs now instead of highly concentrated into every single one, turning everything to gold; but one thing that still makes me go to Pearl Jam over other bands is that lack of expected song structure: no chorus in SBWM, that great bridge that shouldn't belong in Running, so that both parts are more interesting because of the juxtaposition... and those are arguably near the bottom of the barrel; near the top (I'd argue), DOTC has no chorus, ND has an unexpected outro that sounds like it should be seguing into another song, but never does; and DM pulls back into a chill Riot Act bridge, when you might expect it to build further, so that Matt can have full attention and build into Mike's solo

say what you want about modern Pearl Jam's weaknesses (and I don't deny any of them in 2024), I still don't get this from other "meat and potatoes" rock bands

yeah - well said. and I expect to hear glimpses of the old PJ (and I don't really want more than that) while most of the material on DM is a newer sound.

That's really what I always want, granted there are hooks, ed doesn't strain and stays within his natural register, and there is enough good guitar work for me to keep uncovering and falling in love with certain parts over the course of a couple months.

my needs are basic.

same, and sometimes I think my Pearl Jam needs were always basic, even when they frequently exceeded them (and then some)

this is a really interesting conversation with some great insight. I keep
coming back to the idea of playing and writing together, rather than finishing each other’s compositions. pearl jam has exceptional live chemistry, and they are so much more exploratory in the moment of a performance than they usually are in their writing. even some of the examples KD shared about eddie’s writing on vitalogy. Immortality is colored in in such a way that it feels like the song is unfolding in real time, and these songs are all written on the road, where the presence of the rest of the band, their physical proximity to the songs, is so much greater. look at how betterman gets completed.

That is what Im hoping Watt’s approach brought to their writing, which we havent seen in a very long time. Not spontaneity, per se, but collaboration at the generation point of an idea

This conversation is reminding me how important it is to have Jeff and Stone fully engaged in the process, as they seem to follow jazzier, funkier, looser styles. Put differently, they put the Jam in Pearl Jam.

This has been one of the most fascinating conversations about modern music I've read in a while.

You guys are the best. RM is the best fucking board on the internet.

Val wrote:This has been one of the most fascinating conversations about modern music I've read in a while.

You guys are the best. RM is the best fucking board on the internet.

as long as you avoid N&D

there is a reason none of their solo work has struck a chord for me. I think in almost all cases (into the wild and earthlings the only major exceptions) they each bring an important element to the mix, but when they are fully responsible for the song in its entire something is lost. they are greater as a sum of their parts (as is the case with most great bands)

that post was not interesting enough to follow val’s compliment

Val wrote:This has been one of the most fascinating conversations about modern music I've read in a while.

You guys are the best. RM is the best fucking board on the internet.

YES WE ARE

stip wrote:there is a reason none of their solo work has struck a chord for me. I think in almost all cases (into the wild and earthlings the only major exceptions) they each bring an important element to the mix, but when they are fully responsible for the song in its entire something is lost. they are greater as a sum of their parts (as is the case with most great bands)

There is some bay leaf and brad that I enjoy. Sorry to say, I’ve never been able to get into Jeff’s work.

I genuinely enjoyed ITW, Uke Songs, and Earthling.

It’s odd bc I have always enjoyed stone, Matt, and Mike’s contributions in terms of writing in PJ the most.

stip wrote:there is a reason none of their solo work has struck a chord for me. I think in almost all cases (into the wild and earthlings the only major exceptions) they each bring an important element to the mix, but when they are fully responsible for the song in its entire something is lost. they are greater as a sum of their parts (as is the case with most great bands)

I agree with this; the only solo work I consistently like is Ed's, even if he brings some weaknesses to PJ... go figure!

Val wrote:This has been one of the most fascinating conversations about modern music I've read in a while.

You guys are the best. RM is the best fucking board on the internet.

Yeah, shit has really come together this afternoon, if perhaps only for this afternoon.

DDWJMUVW wrote:

stip wrote:there is a reason none of their solo work has struck a chord for me. I think in almost all cases (into the wild and earthlings the only major exceptions) they each bring an important element to the mix, but when they are fully responsible for the song in its entire something is lost. they are greater as a sum of their parts (as is the case with most great bands)

There is some bay leaf and brad that I enjoy. Sorry to say, I’ve never been able to get into Jeff’s work.

I genuinely enjoyed ITW, Uke Songs, and Earthling.

It’s odd bc I have always enjoyed stone, Matt, and Mike’s contributions in terms of writing in PJ the most.

same