Red Mosquito

Release_Me wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Most of these reviews insist on summarizing PJ's entire career and then fitting LB into that, not just Pitchfork. I don't get it either, but few music critics are very good at their jobs, IMO.

Though in their defense, saying an album as a whole is "more of the same" while ignoring the few outliers isn't that bad (that's why they are outliers). The majority of the album is more of the same. You wouldn't claim My Father's Son is representative of the album.

The problem is, no one song on LB is representative of the album.

pnjguy wrote:

stip wrote: This seems like a really weird thing to speculate about an artist you admit to not knowing.

true believers usually don't see their mythology as mythology. I was wondering if this was the case. I have only heard scattered songs here and there, but for someone credited for always following his muse no matter where it leads, they all sounded of a piece to me. But maybe I just get fed the introductory material.

We also tend to be far more respectful of our musical heroes in the other bands threads than we do pearl jam. I know I could subject REM or Tom Waits or Mark Lanegan or another one of my sacred cows to the kind of nitpicky micro criticisms (and the macro ones) that we do here (myself included), but we don't. We tend to focus on what we love and ignore what we don't. And so the way someone like Neil Young gets used here could reflect an idealized Neil Young more than the reality.

But maybe not. that's why I asked.

The main and larger point is that Neil doesn't really give a shit about anything or anybody regardless of the music he makes. It's just the way he rolls. That mentality gives you a lot of freedom. Ed seems locked by many different things.

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:We also tend to be far more respectful of our musical heroes in the other bands threads than we do pearl jam.

If it makes you feel any better I got chased out of the Pearl Jam thread in the Other Bands section of the Manics site for being too negative/critical of them.

STOP BEING SUCH A DICK!

harmless wrote:He can't be free with what's locked inside of him.

Release_Me wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Most of these reviews insist on summarizing PJ's entire career and then fitting LB into that, not just Pitchfork. I don't get it either, but few music critics are very good at their jobs, IMO.

Though in their defense, saying an album as a whole is "more of the same" while ignoring the few outliers isn't that bad (that's why they are outliers). The majority of the album is more of the same. You wouldn't claim My Father's Son is representative of the album.

The problem is, no one song on LB is representative of the album.

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:We also tend to be far more respectful of our musical heroes in the other bands threads than we do pearl jam.

If it makes you feel any better I got chased out of the Pearl Jam thread in the Other Bands section of the Manics site for being too negative/critical of them.

STOP BEING SUCH A DICK!

stip wrote:pearl jam can't really operate that way because it's 5 guys, and 5 songwriters to boot. If nothing else they need to figure out a way to navigate each other

southp wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Most of these reviews insist on summarizing PJ's entire career and then fitting LB into that, not just Pitchfork. I don't get it either, but few music critics are very good at their jobs, IMO.

Though in their defense, saying an album as a whole is "more of the same" while ignoring the few outliers isn't that bad (that's why they are outliers). The majority of the album is more of the same. You wouldn't claim My Father's Son is representative of the album.

The problem is, no one song on LB is representative of the album.

Yet it all sounds like Pearl Jam (except maybe LTRP)
You could make the same argument for Vitalogy or No Code

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:We also tend to be far more respectful of our musical heroes in the other bands threads than we do pearl jam.

If it makes you feel any better I got chased out of the Pearl Jam thread in the Other Bands section of the Manics site for being too negative/critical of them.

STOP BEING SUCH A DICK!

Some dudes were talking about how great Backspacer was. That was when I was like "eh, fuck it. I'll just hang out over at RM."

Thejambi wrote:Would anyone really be any happier if they released a "challenging" album that they still thought sounded like shit?

Thejambi wrote:Would anyone really be any happier if they released a "challenging" album that they still thought sounded like shit?

BurtReynolds wrote:I'd prefer the challenging sounding shit.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Most of these reviews insist on summarizing PJ's entire career and then fitting LB into that, not just Pitchfork. I don't get it either, but few music critics are very good at their jobs, IMO.

Though in their defense, saying an album as a whole is "more of the same" while ignoring the few outliers isn't that bad (that's why they are outliers). The majority of the album is more of the same. You wouldn't claim My Father's Son is representative of the album.

The problem is, no one song on LB is representative of the album.

I don't think this album is as all over the place as people think. Sirens, Lightning Bolt, Infallible, and Yellow Moon are fairly similar, and many of the others are dragged into their orbit with similar sheen and ...those choruses.

Any of those are representative.

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:pearl jam can't really operate that way because it's 5 guys, and 5 songwriters to boot. If nothing else they need to figure out a way to navigate each other

I agree with this. We're getting such inconsistent records (stylistically and in terms of quality) because there are 4 guys (5, on a good day - Matt) all writing their own songs, then bringing them to the studio for Ed and BoB to play around with. So all the songs are sounding like 5 different voices. That used to be their strength; I'm not sure it is anymore.

Lament wrote:

Thejambi wrote:Would anyone really be any happier if they released a "challenging" album that they still thought sounded like shit?

No. But some people see the drop in quality as being simultaneous with the decline in "challenge."

I think some of us would be more forgiving of a "challenging" album that missed the mark, though.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Thejambi wrote:Would anyone really be any happier if they released a "challenging" album that they still thought sounded like shit?

If they both sounded like shit, I'd prefer the challenging sounding shit.

Thejambi wrote:

Lament wrote:

Thejambi wrote:Would anyone really be any happier if they released a "challenging" album that they still thought sounded like shit?

No. But some people see the drop in quality as being simultaneous with the decline in "challenge."

I think some of us would be more forgiving of a "challenging" album that missed the mark, though.

Like Backspacer?