Red Mosquito

Thejambi wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

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?

Yes, a challenging record like the one that almost literally begged for the chance to suck you off.

I find Backspacer very challenging in reference to the rest of the Pearl Jam catalog. So as long as the band is making music that is weird, of kilter and not widely appealing it is consideted challenging. got it .

Yeah man, I think The Fixer was as much of an unexpected chance as Who You Are was back in the day. Threw the fans a curveball. I think Sirens did the same. Fuckin with people who don't think they can be fucked with.

Thejambi wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I'd prefer a samey awesome album over a shitty experimental one, if anyone gives a shit.

I give more shit than you will ever know.

thank you.

Lament wrote:It's too bad they don't make albums frequently enough to say "Hey, let's go into the studio and cut a record solely comprised of songs we write the bones of with everyone together in a room" or something like that.

Yup.

Tuolumne wrote:

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Heathen wrote:Le Noise was rather unexpected

It was. The point with pushing yourself isn't to completely redefine, but that record took Neil into some pretty wild places that were noticeably outside of his previous work. Parts of the album cut of Walk With Me are almost Foxymophandlemama-ish.

I just wonder how much of Neil Young is mythology

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.

Fuckin A man, I agree. First, people compare them to Neil, which is totally unfair cause it's a solo artist vs a band, apples and oranges, and then they go, "why can't they be adventuruous like that"? Well, they could, but there's also a very strong possibility that you'd hate it and you'd ditch them. Neil Young has about as many crappy albums as he does good ones. I mean, there is some really terrible stuff in his catalogue, but he gets this pass cause he's Neil Fuckin Young and he follows the muse.

As for the reviews, writers try to peg it as something and I'm not convinced they've ever known (collectively) what they're doing. They've always been wrong about them, they crapped on the middle years tagging them as irrelevant and useless, and now they've come around saying the middle period is relevant b/c of the fanbase that's been built around the deep cuts and live shows.

The media is always the last to come around. That goes for Rolling Stone, NYT, and Pitchfork. Only in retrospect do they make the correction. Same will probably go with LB.

I'm not aware of much coming around in the press regarding the middle period, but even if there is such a thing, the media is not just one mind and the people who ignored those records back then might simply not be the same people who are praising them now, don't you think?

Lament wrote:It's too bad they don't make albums frequently enough to say "Hey, let's go into the studio and cut a record solely comprised of songs we write the bones of with everyone together in a room" or something like that.

They said in some of the press that they feel the need to make a statement because they don't record often enough. It'd be nice if they dropped a record every year or two because they'd have the freedom to do that. They'd release a lot more shit, but probably more great songs too, and I measure my fandom by the number of songs I grow attached to, not the aggregate quality of the catalog.

That's in part why the 'they should retire now' arguments for bands never struck a chord with me.

BurtReynolds wrote:I'd prefer a samey awesome album over a shitty experimental one, if anyone gives a shit.

Except aren't many folks (not necessarily you) essentially saying that "samey-ness" precludes "awesomeness"?

Thejambi wrote:I find Backspacer very challenging in reference to the rest of the Pearl Jam catalog. So as long as the band is making music that is weird, of kilter and not widely appealing it is consideted challenging. got it .

Yes.

Jaeti wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I'd prefer a samey awesome album over a shitty experimental one, if anyone gives a shit.

Except aren't many folks (not necessarily you) essentially saying that "samey-ness" precludes "awesomeness"?

maybe, I dont know I don't read anyone else's posts.

BurtReynolds wrote:I'd prefer a samey awesome album over a shitty experimental one, if anyone gives a shit.

I give at least part of a shit, but only because it's you.

I'm confused. Are we into sweatpants now, or just pooping?

McParadigm wrote:I'm confused. Are we into sweatpants now, or just pooping?

WHY CANT IT BE BOTH!!!!??

you don't poop in your comfy sweatpants, mcp. Please pay attention.

I don't own any sweatpants.

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:It's too bad they don't make albums frequently enough to say "Hey, let's go into the studio and cut a record solely comprised of songs we write the bones of with everyone together in a room" or something like that.

They said in some of the press that they feel the need to make a statement because they don't record often enough. It'd be nice if they dropped a record every year or two because they'd have the freedom to do that. They'd release a lot more shit, but probably more great songs too, and I measure my fandom by the number of songs I grow attached to, not the aggregate quality of the catalog.

That's in part why the 'they should retire now' arguments for bands never struck a chord with me.

I feel like this approach worked a lot for Springsteen during his current renaissance. There's a lot less pressure on you to deliver something that appeals to the greatest number of fans possible if you're putting out albums frequently enough. In essence he's put out "traditional" records (The Rising, Magic, Wrecking Ball) nearly as frequently as Pearl Jam does, but has taken his detours in between them (Devils & Dust, We Shall Overcome, Working on a Dream). It makes the missteps easier to forgive because there's far less pressure on each record (if that makes sense).

Pearl Jam has definitely found themselves in the same trap U2 has (in my opinion). When you only put out a record every five years or so, the pressure is on to deliver for people who have been waiting for something specific. If you opt for a left turn that misses the mark for a segment of the fanbase completely, even if you "return to form" on the next record there's a chance that you haven't done anything said segment has enjoyed for a decade at that point. Subconsciously I think that often results in trying to please as many people as possible at once, as opposed to making a singular, great, cohesive statement.

Where do snuggies fit into this equation?

Lament wrote:Pearl Jam has definitely found themselves in the same trap U2 has (in my opinion). When you only put out a record every five years or so, the pressure is on to deliver for people who have been waiting for something specific. If you opt for a left turn that misses the mark for a segment of the fanbase completely, even if you "return to form" on the next record there's a chance that you haven't done anything said segment has enjoyed for a decade at that point. Subconsciously I think that often results in trying to please as many people as possible at once, as opposed to making a singular, great, cohesive statement.

It sounds like we agree on what the real problem is.

I mean you also think it's stip, right?

Lament wrote: I feel like this approach worked a lot for Springsteen during his current renaissance. There's a lot less pressure on you to deliver something that appeals to the greatest number of fans possible if you're putting out albums frequently enough. In essence he's put out "traditional" records (The Rising, Magic, Wrecking Ball) nearly as frequently as Pearl Jam does, but has taken his detours in between them (Devils & Dust, We Shall Overcome, Working on a Dream). It makes the missteps easier to forgive because there's far less pressure on each record (if that makes sense).

Pearl Jam has definitely found themselves in the same trap U2 has (in my opinion). When you only put out a record every five years or so, the pressure is on to deliver for people who have been waiting for something specific. If you opt for a left turn that misses the mark for a segment of the fanbase completely, even if you "return to form" on the next record there's a chance that you haven't done anything said segment has enjoyed for a decade at that point. Subconsciously I think that often results in trying to please as many people as possible at once, as opposed to making a singular, great, cohesive statement.

you got it.

I think stip is just a scapegoat. The real problem is thejambi.

McParadigm wrote:

Lament wrote:Pearl Jam has definitely found themselves in the same trap U2 has (in my opinion). When you only put out a record every five years or so, the pressure is on to deliver for people who have been waiting for something specific. If you opt for a left turn that misses the mark for a segment of the fanbase completely, even if you "return to form" on the next record there's a chance that you haven't done anything said segment has enjoyed for a decade at that point. Subconsciously I think that often results in trying to please as many people as possible at once, as opposed to making a singular, great, cohesive statement.

It sounds like we agree on what the real problem is.

that makes sense.


Can you imagine the pressure on Tool when they decide to release another album