Red Mosquito

Chris_H_2 wrote:Is it safe to say that Pearl Jam has entered "Dad-rock" territory?

Is that an insult though? Or a bad thing? Just curious of your meaning for it before I actually comment!

sward wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:Is it safe to say that Pearl Jam has entered "Dad-rock" territory?

Is that an insult though? Or a bad thing? Just curious of your meaning for it before I actually comment!

Nobody seems to be able to define it. It's just whatever I don't like, played by five 50 year-olds. I guess if you're much younger than that it's going to really be offensive.

Its definitely dadrock, but I stop short of calling them Train. I wouldn't say that to my worst enemy. No matter how AOR/MOR, safe, and hit seeking PJ becomes, they will never suck as much shit through a straw as Train.

BurtReynolds wrote:Its definitely dadrock, but I stop short of calling them Train. I wouldn't say that to my worst enemy. No matter how AOR/MOR, safe, and hit seeking PJ becomes, they will never suck as much shit through a straw as Train.

Hasn't BOB produced some of their albums?

Don't insult Tweedy with these dad rock comparisons, please.

Heathen wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:To me, this data really hammers home which album is the worst in the collection.

Which brings us back to the part where you're retardedly equaling sales with quality. Finally.

To pretend the two are unrelated is retarded.

Do you think The Who's worst selling album was the best? How about Pink Floyd's worst seller? Now, if you went to a random set of people and looked only at those who declared themselves as "fans" (nothing more, nothing less - no need for a fan club membership or spending hours of their day at a real cool website, they just said they are fans of Pink Floyd on a random survey they were given)... do you think that The Who or Pink Floyd's "fans" would rate their worst selling album as the best in terms of quality in aggregate? Do you think the worst sellers may end up at the bottom? I do - why - because I'm practical.

Sales are related to quality for ONE band's catalog. It doesn't work from band to band, or genre to genre... but, individually for one band from album to album it does.

Should that effect your thinking? No, but neither should the herd mentality of a website full of hipsters.

harmless wrote:

sward wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:Is it safe to say that Pearl Jam has entered "Dad-rock" territory?

Is that an insult though? Or a bad thing? Just curious of your meaning for it before I actually comment!

Nobody seems to be able to define it. It's just whatever I don't like, played by five 50 year-olds. I guess if you're much younger than that it's going to really be offensive.

Harm, you've really got to stop with all these "nobody can define it" arguments. You don't have to agree with somebody when they say that this is "dad rock," or that its "MOR," or that it doesn't have enough "badassery," but the whole "gosh, nobody in the whole world seems to know what dad rock is" thing is really just not cutting it.

Does the term Dad-Rock mean Neutered Rock?

If so, then I don't think they have become dad rock. I don't find a lot of similarities between PJ and those types of bands.

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:

sward wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:Is it safe to say that Pearl Jam has entered "Dad-rock" territory?

Is that an insult though? Or a bad thing? Just curious of your meaning for it before I actually comment!

Nobody seems to be able to define it. It's just whatever I don't like, played by five 50 year-olds. I guess if you're much younger than that it's going to really be offensive.

Harm, you've really got to stop with all these "nobody can define it" arguments. You don't have to agree with somebody when they say that this is "dad rock," or that its "MOR," or that it doesn't have enough "badassery," but the whole "gosh, nobody in the whole world seems to know what dad rock is" thing is really just not cutting it.

OK. But all I mean is that everyone defines these things for themselves, and it's always a subjective opinion, as you've said here. So it's not dad-rock unless you think it is. It's not great music unless you think it is. I guess people from both sides are trying to just lay down facts here, and it's all crap. It either hits you or it doesn't, I just prefer to read clarifications rather than subjective words like "dad-rock". To say it has no objective definition is not to say it doesn't have any meaning.

IlluminEddie wrote:

Heathen wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:To me, this data really hammers home which album is the worst in the collection.

Which brings us back to the part where you're retardedly equaling sales with quality. Finally.

To pretend the two are unrelated is retarded.

Do you think The Who's worst selling album was the best? How about Pink Floyd's worst seller? Now, if you went to a random set of people and looked only at those who declared themselves as "fans" (nothing more, nothing less - no need for a fan club membership or spending hours of their day at a real cool website, they just said they are fans of Pink Floyd on a random survey they were given)... do you think that The Who or Pink Floyd's "fans" would rate their worst selling album as the best in terms of quality in aggregate? Do you think the worst sellers may end up at the bottom? I do - why - because I'm practical.

Sales are related to quality for ONE band's catalog. It doesn't work from band to band, or genre to genre... but, individually for one band from album to album it does.

Should that effect your thinking? No, but neither should the herd mentality of a website full of hipsters.

According to sales, No Code is a little under two and a half times more awesome than Backspacer

I feel like that's low.

harmless wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:

sward wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:Is it safe to say that Pearl Jam has entered "Dad-rock" territory?

Is that an insult though? Or a bad thing? Just curious of your meaning for it before I actually comment!

Nobody seems to be able to define it. It's just whatever I don't like, played by five 50 year-olds. I guess if you're much younger than that it's going to really be offensive.

Harm, you've really got to stop with all these "nobody can define it" arguments. You don't have to agree with somebody when they say that this is "dad rock," or that its "MOR," or that it doesn't have enough "badassery," but the whole "gosh, nobody in the whole world seems to know what dad rock is" thing is really just not cutting it.

OK. But all I mean is that everyone defines these things for themselves, and it's always a subjective opinion, as you've said here. So it's not dad-rock unless you think it is. It's not great music unless you think it is. I guess people from both sides are trying to just lay down facts here, and it's all crap. It either hits you or it doesn't, I just prefer to read clarifications rather than subjective words like "dad-rock". To say it has no objective definition is not to say it doesn't have any meaning.

I agree about subjectivity, but when people use those terms they are using them to communicate a feeling...and that feeling or opinion is not hard to suss. The context of their other statements makes it pretty clear.

I'm just saying disagree with the opinion instead.

McParadigm wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

Heathen wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:To me, this data really hammers home which album is the worst in the collection.

Which brings us back to the part where you're retardedly equaling sales with quality. Finally.

To pretend the two are unrelated is retarded.

Do you think The Who's worst selling album was the best? How about Pink Floyd's worst seller? Now, if you went to a random set of people and looked only at those who declared themselves as "fans" (nothing more, nothing less - no need for a fan club membership or spending hours of their day at a real cool website, they just said they are fans of Pink Floyd on a random survey they were given)... do you think that The Who or Pink Floyd's "fans" would rate their worst selling album as the best in terms of quality in aggregate? Do you think the worst sellers may end up at the bottom? I do - why - because I'm practical.

Sales are related to quality for ONE band's catalog. It doesn't work from band to band, or genre to genre... but, individually for one band from album to album it does.

Should that effect your thinking? No, but neither should the herd mentality of a website full of hipsters.

According to sales, No Code is a little under two and a half times more awesome than Backspacer

I feel like that's low.

i like the technicality of it all though

Bieber.

IlluminEddie wrote:

Heathen wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:To me, this data really hammers home which album is the worst in the collection.

Which brings us back to the part where you're retardedly equaling sales with quality. Finally.

To pretend the two are unrelated is retarded.

Do you think The Who's worst selling album was the best? How about Pink Floyd's worst seller? Now, if you went to a random set of people and looked only at those who declared themselves as "fans" (nothing more, nothing less - no need for a fan club membership or spending hours of their day at a real cool website, they just said they are fans of Pink Floyd on a random survey they were given)... do you think that The Who or Pink Floyd's "fans" would rate their worst selling album as the best in terms of quality in aggregate? Do you think the worst sellers may end up at the bottom? I do - why - because I'm practical.

Sales are related to quality for ONE band's catalog. It doesn't work from band to band, or genre to genre... but, individually for one band from album to album it does.

Should that effect your thinking? No, but neither should the herd mentality of a website full of hipsters.

can you at least find a new insult to use? I'm getting hipster overload from your posts, friend.

Cause God knows if there's one thing the hipsters love, it's Pearl Jam.

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

harmless wrote:

sward wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:Is it safe to say that Pearl Jam has entered "Dad-rock" territory?

Is that an insult though? Or a bad thing? Just curious of your meaning for it before I actually comment!

Nobody seems to be able to define it. It's just whatever I don't like, played by five 50 year-olds. I guess if you're much younger than that it's going to really be offensive.

Harm, you've really got to stop with all these "nobody can define it" arguments. You don't have to agree with somebody when they say that this is "dad rock," or that its "MOR," or that it doesn't have enough "badassery," but the whole "gosh, nobody in the whole world seems to know what dad rock is" thing is really just not cutting it.

OK. But all I mean is that everyone defines these things for themselves, and it's always a subjective opinion, as you've said here. So it's not dad-rock unless you think it is. It's not great music unless you think it is. I guess people from both sides are trying to just lay down facts here, and it's all crap. It either hits you or it doesn't, I just prefer to read clarifications rather than subjective words like "dad-rock". To say it has no objective definition is not to say it doesn't have any meaning.

I agree about subjectivity, but when people use those terms they are using them to communicate a feeling...and that feeling or opinion is not hard to suss. The context of their other statements makes it pretty clear.

I'm just saying disagree with the opinion instead.

OK. That's fair!

digster wrote:Cause God knows if there's one thing the hipsters love, it's Pearl Jam.

And songs that make them tear up about their kids.

digster wrote:Cause God knows if there's one thing the hipsters love, it's Pearl Jam.

and Riot Act

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/6206-riot-act/

McParadigm wrote:

digster wrote:Cause God knows if there's one thing the hipsters love, it's Pearl Jam.

And songs that make them tear up about their kids.

can we get illumineddie to use the term dad-rockers instead maybe? i could deal with that for a good 20-30 posts anyway