Red Mosquito

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

Probably. Your post was dead on though.

Thejambi wrote:Where do snuggies fit into this equation?

Snuggies match perfectly with sweatpants.

Although the surprising amount of side projects in between records doesn't seem to satisfy PJ fans the same way. On the other hand, those are solo projects and pearl jam is a band.

I wonder how the other guys in pearl jam would feel if eddie released a solo record without them. An honest solo record, not a record with a particular gimmick.

McParadigm wrote:I don't own any sweatpants.

HIPSTER!

stip wrote:Although the surprising amount of side projects in between records doesn't seem to satisfy PJ fans the same way. On the other hand, those are solo projects and pearl jam is a band.

I wonder how the other guys in pearl jam would feel if eddie released a solo record without them. An honest solo record, not a record with a particular gimmick.

To what extent do you think the side projects are the result of wanting to protect the Pearl Jam "brand"?

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I don't own any sweatpants.

HIPSTER!

I don't own any hipsters, either.

Tool will be fine, they only ever had one style anyway *hides*

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I don't own any sweatpants.

HIPSTER!

I don't own any hipsters, either.

They're cuddly and just great for kids.

stip wrote:

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

Hey, Chinese Democracy was amazing, so there's hope for them.

Heathen wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I don't own any sweatpants.

HIPSTER!

I don't own any hipsters, either.

They're cuddly and just great for kids.

Ooh! I do own some kids!

McParadigm wrote:

Heathen wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I don't own any sweatpants.

HIPSTER!

I don't own any hipsters, either.

They're cuddly and just great for kids.

Ooh! I do own some kids!

You must really like Sirens

McParadigm wrote:I don't own any sweatpants.

now you have a reason to get a pair of them

Heathen wrote:

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?

I don't believe that's the case. There's exceptions, but there's a certain politics to the media. No one wants to be the one that is out of step. There's a rat race where publications report on a story, and if someone else reports very differently, credibility is seriously as stake and people's jobs are on the line. Consequently, writers took to the sticky narrative in the late-90s/middle years that PJ were has-beens, until it became quite apparent that there was this patch of people that were loyal in a cult-like way. A few people came around and now everyone pretty much builds in the "cult-like" fanbase into the narrative and thus give those albums and songs a little more analytical weight. Yeah, writers change and come and go, but the media monolith is a machine unto itself. Jon Stewart picks this situation apart quite effectively. It's where things are free from that rat-race like scrutiny that the truth of the matter exists. Amongst fans who don't have journalistic credbility on the line, people are freer in offering their opinions. The media sometimes comes around to this if eyes are open enough. They did with PJ to a certain extent.

Heathen wrote:You must really like Sirens

Google searching that word brings up an unexpected amount of boobage.

McParadigm wrote:

Heathen wrote:You must really like Sirens

Google searching that word brings up an unexpected amount of boobage.

Try it with 'boobage' now

Heathen wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Heathen wrote:You must really like Sirens

Google searching that word brings up an unexpected amount of boobage.

Try it with 'boobage' now

I've done it. You get nothing but police cars and ambulances.

harmless wrote:

Heathen wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Heathen wrote:You must really like Sirens

Google searching that word brings up an unexpected amount of boobage.

Try it with 'boobage' now

I've done it. You get nothing but police cars and ambulances.

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I don't own any sweatpants.

HIPSTER!

I don't own any hipsters, either.

then what do you poop in?

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:Although the surprising amount of side projects in between records doesn't seem to satisfy PJ fans the same way. On the other hand, those are solo projects and pearl jam is a band.

I wonder how the other guys in pearl jam would feel if eddie released a solo record without them. An honest solo record, not a record with a particular gimmick.

To what extent do you think the side projects are the result of wanting to protect the Pearl Jam "brand"?

I don't, for the most part. Speculation, obviously, but I tend to think they're a response to the band not being able to get everyone together to record, that spiral out of control (they make everyone busier and exacerbate the problem). Stone has alluded (I think) to some songs he writes not being pearl jam songs and so they are probably an outlet for that, but if they recorded more there might be a more flexible understanding of what PJ is.

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I don't own any sweatpants.

HIPSTER!

I don't own any hipsters, either.

then what do you poop in?

I mostly go to the neighbor's house