Song of the Moment: Let the Records Play

[harmless]

Some people already feel that 'glam' was an affront to the blues genre. It seems to have been a reaction to the heteronormative, 'masculine' stereotype of blues rock (hence the androgynous clothing etc.). But that might be me talking crap.

You and Stone Gossard in the recent interview.

He said this? Where?

in part 6. T-Rex is the main example he gives obviously.

Shit, and that's the one part I missed. I'll go back to it now. Is it OK that I feel pretty smug about this?

hell no

I saw it, realised I'd watched it before but hadn't remade the connection between LTRP, T.Rex and Bowie.

i read that "OK" as "wrong" in your post.

Well there you go!

[harmless]

I guess those "Jeepers Creepers" comparisons could work, considering the dude in the song is a cross-dresser. The whole thing is a big campfest.

[Release_Me]

An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

I couldn't fathom approaching music this way. I'd miss out on so much amazing stuff.

Prose delivered in spoken word, huh? Sounds horrible. Catchy spoken word is much better

Just making a point

I'm just failing to believe that anyone really, honestly, was attracted to PJ just because they were catchy. That's kind of like saying you're attracted to tarantulas just because they're furry, when in fact you could buy a cat instead. Even now, I would rather listen to Counting Crows or R.E.M than catchy Pearl Jam. I still listen to Pearl Jam, but "catchy" tunes aren't what I crave from them. There are so many great catchy bands and pop artists out there.

No one said just because they're catchy. We were talking about the contrast and interplay between the vocal melodies, music, delivery and themes, etc. That's what sets them apart. It's one thing to make catchy pop tunes. It's another to make rock songs like Corudory, Last Exit, Even Flow, Alive, Getaway, etc. catchy with great melodies. This band brings a lot of different elements to the table. They are very competent musicians individually. But I believe they're at their best when the songwriting and melodies are strong in addition to the musicianship. There are other bands I could listen to if I was just interested in the musicianship. No one else combines these elements together as well as Pearl Jam for me, when they're at their best.

[Release_Me]

An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

I couldn't fathom approaching music this way. I'd miss out on so much amazing stuff.

It's just my own approach to music simplified a great deal. I will listen to something occasionally if there's not much of a melody but some great musicianship, but it won't be that often and it won't be a favourite.

[Release_Me]

That's actually why I love Sirens. I don't find it catchy, and although I think it's overwrought emotionally, I would *much* rather that than more Big Waves or Supersonics. I want their music to matter to me emotionally and Sirens does.

Sirens isn't radio friendly catchy, but it does have a great melody. It doesn't reveal itself until a few listens in. That's because there is no easily identifiable part which repeats during the song that can be called a hook in the traditional sense. There are long sections of the song which do get stuck in your head after a few listens. I too prefer Sirens over said songs. It's not because it's more immediately catchy than those two but because it does have a great melody and beautiful delivery of lyrics that I identify with. It doesn't drone or plod along or sacrifice melody for musicianship.

The catchiness works well to offset some of the themes in their heavier songs. When the themes of the songs are silly or inane, it makes for a fun listen but nothing memorable. Big Wave and Supersonic are not terrible for me because they at least are fun to listen to. But they're not great songs.

The emotional connection is something that I can feel when there is something in the melody that makes me want to listen to the song on repeat. When it's a dry listen, even if I can identify with what Ed is singing, I don't feel that connection on a more than superficial level. On the first three albums, I feel an emotional connection to most songs. Some I don't really identify with even lyrically. But I can put myself in Ed's place and imagine myself feeling what he feels. That connection is enhanced by the songs' melodies. For example, Black I loved and felt a connection with before I was ever heartbroken. Same with Nothingman. On the flipside, take Binaural. Even though there are a few songs I would identify with thematically, I don't feel that connection because the songs are just too dry for me to really get into them.

[Release_Me]

An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

are there any pj songs like this u can think of?

There are plenty of examples of songs which I feel sound better when read on paper than actually listened to as songs. Sleight of Hand is a terrific piece of writing. But I just can't get into the song. It's not that there isn't a melody, it's just not the kind that would grab me or make a lasting impact. Nothing As It Seems is another one which kind of plods along. I do enjoy it for Mike's lead but Ed's delivery is very monotonous and that keeps the song from being great, for me. Rival is another one on that album which doesn't really have a great melody. Just to show you I'm not singling out Binaural alone, take Ten as an example. I like or love all the songs but Deep is the one which always stood out as lacking something. It has other things to recommend it but it is made immediately less memorable for me because it doesn't latch on to a great melody. On Vitalogy, which is my favourite album of all time, Tremor Christ is the one which I would point out. It's a repetitive and boring listen if not for Ed's intense delivery. I still like the song but I could have loved it more if there was a better melody.

This is just how I perceive music when I listen to it. There are people who will listen more for musicianship and they will obviously not put as much stock in melody as I do. Their favourite songs would likely differ from mine.

[Release_Me]

That's one of the things I really like about the song. It has serious, dark lyrics that are really at odds with the upbeat, "sitcom-y" music. It really reflects the lyrical content, too, where the narrator is listening to music as an escape from life.

So meta.

If only that sitcom feel didn't put people off before they saw that, because I think most (if not all) of these songs are doing it.

Yep. I think there's a lot more going on in all of these songs than a lot of people are giving them credit for. I really don't get the claims that LTRP is lazily written or that they took the easy road. I actually think it's the opposite; it's a clever bit of songwriting where the interplay between the lyrics and music provide added depth to the song. The musical/lyrical interplay is one of the things I think Pearl Jam does really well (the crashing-waves sound on Given To Fly, the marching drums on WMA, the urgency in RVM) and this one seems particularly well executed.

Hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. This interplay you talk about isn't new. They've been doing it since Ten and Vs. I've been talking about it so much that I must sound like an idiot by now

Evenflow, Alive, Glorified G, Daughter, Last Exit, etc. A lot of these songs are so catchy that it's easy to not dig in to the lyrics and just assume something completely opposite to what they are about. PJ have been doing this since forever. If people are being put off by the feel of the songs on first listen, then they would have been put off the earlier songs too. I don't believe that's what is happening. I believe a lot of people have gotten so used to the lack of catchiness from the middle period that any sort of return to that songwriting style is putting them off. It's doing the complete opposite for me. I'm jumping around like a kid who just received his favourite candy.

I think the "return to catchiness" argument is too simplistic. If they're catchy now, it's a rather different kind of "catchy" than it used to be. Certainly, if you weren't generally in the "alternative" crowd that enjoyed generally harsh, abrasive music (with some exceptions), you weren't going to really enjoy Pearl Jam even then, no matter how "catchy" they were. I remember trying to argue that PJ were a really catchy band to some friends who just wouldn't buy it, because their whole grunge shtick put them off right away. These days, they've reduced almost everything that would've once been called alternative or subversive about them. Having said all of the above, I do think that people have become very used to the middle period, and it's that middle period that a lot of today's naysayers want back. It's too simplistic to say they want dark, "grungey" early-period-style stuff. But they do want uniqueness, subtlety and nuance, idiosyncrasies, and yeah, less of an effort to write "attention-grabbing" melodies and hooks.

PJ were my introduction to alternative and grunge. I never much liked any of their contemporaries to any great extent. Mostly because they weren't as catchy. Hah! They just dressed up like the others but had little in common with their music. Only common thread that binds the grunge bands together is that their themes were generally darker than those of other rock bands.

Well, PJ were my favourite band of that time by far, even if I listened to some of the others. But it was their power and instrumentation that got me. Subconsciously it may have been the "catchiness", but honestly, I mostly loved it when those musicians were at the top of their game. I just loved the sound of PJ musicians playing together, and still do. That's why I can cope with their crazy genre experiments, if I think they generally work. But I do think that people who want to argue for the new stuff generally exaggerate PJ's "catchiness" in the early stuff, and understate their musical depth, subversiveness and power. Ed said himself during Backspacer that they recently tried for quicker, more simple, immediately catchy stuff which may or may not end up being fairly superficial. Before Backspacer, Pearl Jam had never done that to the extent of a song like The Fixer (or several songs from Backspacer). I think you're in denial if you're not hearing a major difference in much of the newer PJ music... not just to the middle period, but to all of it. And much of that difference is PJ's head space right now, which is content and not "dark" in any way. My argument has always been that if they want to be that, I have no problem with it at all, but there are other bands who are better at it.

I'm talking mainly of the LB songs we've heard so far. BS took a completely different attitude to that same style of songwriting and made it something snappier, punkier, etc. The Fixer isn't the epitome of catchiness in any way. It's just a high profile example people use to contrast the middle period with present day PJ. There was only one 'The Fixer' and it's more the exception rather than the rule for that kind of song. Nothing about PJ's catchiness in the early era is exaggerated. They wrote great pop songs with a rock attitude. The mood was darker because of what Ed was going through and that is the major difference. The musical depth was there and I'd venture to say it's there on LB so far too, if not to the same extent. You might like that era better when it comes to musicianship. I do too. But this is much, much more reminiscent of the PJ I want to listen to.

I don't care what the reasons were for the mood being darker and deeper then. I'm just saying that it was, and so trying to argue that because the songs were sometimes also "catchy", we should be appreciating their catchy efforts now, is kind of ridiculous. They're very different. A lizard and a plant can both be green, but they're entirely different organisms.

Edit: however, I'm happier that the LB songs have some of their roots set in earlier PJ than I was for the Backspacer songs.

The songs from LB so far are also 'dark'. Dark doesn't have to mean depressed or sad or tortured. Themes talking about religion, the world's problems, etc. are not 'light. They're just not very personal and more on the lines of social commentary. There's the major difference with the first three albums. Those were mostly Ed's own personal narratives. I don't think the LB songs are any less deep or dark. They're just talking about something different. Those songs contrasted catchiness with darkness and these are doing the same. That's why I like both. When it's just doom and gloom and nothing to offset that or little melodic reward in listening to the songs, I just don't like it as much.

[stip]

Release_me, it is time you got yourself an avatar

[Release_Me]

Hmm. I'll work on that today.

[harmless]

An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

I couldn't fathom approaching music this way. I'd miss out on so much amazing stuff.

Prose delivered in spoken word, huh? Sounds horrible. Catchy spoken word is much better

Just making a point

I'm just failing to believe that anyone really, honestly, was attracted to PJ just because they were catchy. That's kind of like saying you're attracted to tarantulas just because they're furry, when in fact you could buy a cat instead. Even now, I would rather listen to Counting Crows or R.E.M than catchy Pearl Jam. I still listen to Pearl Jam, but "catchy" tunes aren't what I crave from them. There are so many great catchy bands and pop artists out there.

No one said just because they're catchy. We were talking about the contrast and interplay between the vocal melodies, music, delivery and themes, etc. That's what sets them apart. It's one thing to make catchy pop tunes. It's another to make rock songs like Corudory, Last Exit, Even Flow, Alive, Getaway, etc. catchy with great melodies. This band brings a lot of different elements to the table. They are very competent musicians individually. But I believe they're at their best when the songwriting and melodies are strong in addition to the musicianship. There are other bands I could listen to if I was just interested in the musicianship. No one else combines these elements together as well as Pearl Jam for me, when they're at their best.

I agree with all this. And yet, there is something about post-Riot Act Pearl Jam that is nothing at all like pre-No Code Pearl Jam, and that's what we seem to disagree on. We can agree to disagree, I don't mind.

[harmless]

That's actually why I love Sirens. I don't find it catchy, and although I think it's overwrought emotionally, I would *much* rather that than more Big Waves or Supersonics. I want their music to matter to me emotionally and Sirens does.

Sirens isn't radio friendly catchy, but it does have a great melody. It doesn't reveal itself until a few listens in. That's because there is no easily identifiable part which repeats during the song that can be called a hook in the traditional sense. There are long sections of the song which do get stuck in your head after a few listens. I too prefer Sirens over said songs. It's not because it's more immediately catchy than those two but because it does have a great melody and beautiful delivery of lyrics that I identify with. It doesn't drone or plod along or sacrifice melody for musicianship.

The catchiness works well to offset some of the themes in their heavier songs. When the themes of the songs are silly or inane, it makes for a fun listen but nothing memorable. Big Wave and Supersonic are not terrible for me because they at least are fun to listen to. But they're not great songs.

The emotional connection is something that I can feel when there is something in the melody that makes me want to listen to the song on repeat. When it's a dry listen, even if I can identify with what Ed is singing, I don't feel that connection on a more than superficial level. On the first three albums, I feel an emotional connection to most songs. Some I don't really identify with even lyrically. But I can put myself in Ed's place and imagine myself feeling what he feels. That connection is enhanced by the songs' melodies. For example, Black I loved and felt a connection with before I was ever heartbroken. Same with Nothingman. On the flipside, take Binaural. Even though there are a few songs I would identify with thematically, I don't feel that connection because the songs are just too dry for me to really get into them.

Again, that's all well and good, even if we don't agree necessarily on which songs do which job well. We don't have to agree, this stuff is subjective. We also feel the same way about Sirens, even though when you say "It doesn't drone or plod along or sacrifice melody for musicianship", I'm thinking that some of the songs you're implicating here would be some of my favourite Pearl Jam songs for other reasons. Words like "drone" and "plod along" are being used dismissively, when these types of songs *do* have an emotional effect, you just don't necessarily like, or identify with, the effect it's having. A "drone" and a "plod", even a flat-out "dirge", is a song with a specific emotional effect, just as Sirens is. It's just that not everyone wants that effect evoked during their music-listening binges.

[harmless]

That's one of the things I really like about the song. It has serious, dark lyrics that are really at odds with the upbeat, "sitcom-y" music. It really reflects the lyrical content, too, where the narrator is listening to music as an escape from life.

So meta.

If only that sitcom feel didn't put people off before they saw that, because I think most (if not all) of these songs are doing it.

Yep. I think there's a lot more going on in all of these songs than a lot of people are giving them credit for. I really don't get the claims that LTRP is lazily written or that they took the easy road. I actually think it's the opposite; it's a clever bit of songwriting where the interplay between the lyrics and music provide added depth to the song. The musical/lyrical interplay is one of the things I think Pearl Jam does really well (the crashing-waves sound on Given To Fly, the marching drums on WMA, the urgency in RVM) and this one seems particularly well executed.

Hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. This interplay you talk about isn't new. They've been doing it since Ten and Vs. I've been talking about it so much that I must sound like an idiot by now

Evenflow, Alive, Glorified G, Daughter, Last Exit, etc. A lot of these songs are so catchy that it's easy to not dig in to the lyrics and just assume something completely opposite to what they are about. PJ have been doing this since forever. If people are being put off by the feel of the songs on first listen, then they would have been put off the earlier songs too. I don't believe that's what is happening. I believe a lot of people have gotten so used to the lack of catchiness from the middle period that any sort of return to that songwriting style is putting them off. It's doing the complete opposite for me. I'm jumping around like a kid who just received his favourite candy.

I think the "return to catchiness" argument is too simplistic. If they're catchy now, it's a rather different kind of "catchy" than it used to be. Certainly, if you weren't generally in the "alternative" crowd that enjoyed generally harsh, abrasive music (with some exceptions), you weren't going to really enjoy Pearl Jam even then, no matter how "catchy" they were. I remember trying to argue that PJ were a really catchy band to some friends who just wouldn't buy it, because their whole grunge shtick put them off right away. These days, they've reduced almost everything that would've once been called alternative or subversive about them. Having said all of the above, I do think that people have become very used to the middle period, and it's that middle period that a lot of today's naysayers want back. It's too simplistic to say they want dark, "grungey" early-period-style stuff. But they do want uniqueness, subtlety and nuance, idiosyncrasies, and yeah, less of an effort to write "attention-grabbing" melodies and hooks.

PJ were my introduction to alternative and grunge. I never much liked any of their contemporaries to any great extent. Mostly because they weren't as catchy. Hah! They just dressed up like the others but had little in common with their music. Only common thread that binds the grunge bands together is that their themes were generally darker than those of other rock bands.

Well, PJ were my favourite band of that time by far, even if I listened to some of the others. But it was their power and instrumentation that got me. Subconsciously it may have been the "catchiness", but honestly, I mostly loved it when those musicians were at the top of their game. I just loved the sound of PJ musicians playing together, and still do. That's why I can cope with their crazy genre experiments, if I think they generally work. But I do think that people who want to argue for the new stuff generally exaggerate PJ's "catchiness" in the early stuff, and understate their musical depth, subversiveness and power. Ed said himself during Backspacer that they recently tried for quicker, more simple, immediately catchy stuff which may or may not end up being fairly superficial. Before Backspacer, Pearl Jam had never done that to the extent of a song like The Fixer (or several songs from Backspacer). I think you're in denial if you're not hearing a major difference in much of the newer PJ music... not just to the middle period, but to all of it. And much of that difference is PJ's head space right now, which is content and not "dark" in any way. My argument has always been that if they want to be that, I have no problem with it at all, but there are other bands who are better at it.

I'm talking mainly of the LB songs we've heard so far. BS took a completely different attitude to that same style of songwriting and made it something snappier, punkier, etc. The Fixer isn't the epitome of catchiness in any way. It's just a high profile example people use to contrast the middle period with present day PJ. There was only one 'The Fixer' and it's more the exception rather than the rule for that kind of song. Nothing about PJ's catchiness in the early era is exaggerated. They wrote great pop songs with a rock attitude. The mood was darker because of what Ed was going through and that is the major difference. The musical depth was there and I'd venture to say it's there on LB so far too, if not to the same extent. You might like that era better when it comes to musicianship. I do too. But this is much, much more reminiscent of the PJ I want to listen to.

I don't care what the reasons were for the mood being darker and deeper then. I'm just saying that it was, and so trying to argue that because the songs were sometimes also "catchy", we should be appreciating their catchy efforts now, is kind of ridiculous. They're very different. A lizard and a plant can both be green, but they're entirely different organisms.

Edit: however, I'm happier that the LB songs have some of their roots set in earlier PJ than I was for the Backspacer songs.

The songs from LB so far are also 'dark'. Dark doesn't have to mean depressed or sad or tortured. Themes talking about religion, the world's problems, etc. are not 'light. They're just not very personal and more on the lines of social commentary. There's the major difference with the first three albums. Those were mostly Ed's own personal narratives. I don't think the LB songs are any less deep or dark. They're just talking about something different. Those songs contrasted catchiness with darkness and these are doing the same. That's why I like both. When it's just doom and gloom and nothing to offset that or little melodic reward in listening to the songs, I just don't like it as much.

I didn't say everything needs to be depressing to be dark enough. When I say everything was too light, I'm mostly talking about Backspacer and a few songs from S/T. These "deliberately light" songs weren't so calculated in Pearl Jam's early work. They just weren't. Pop melodies turned up, but we didn't have these efforts deliberately designed to put smiles on the faces of the crowd. We just didn't. To the ears, Backspacer was a *much* lighter and airier record than Lightning Bolt will be. And as such, I'm looking forward to Lightning Bolt a lot and I think I'll much prefer it on a long-term basis. I agree, the interplay between dark and light was what always set Pearl Jam apart from other bands: "Last Kiss", for all that it gets berated a lot by fans, is the perfect marriage between light and dark. But it didn't seem calculated in any way. My feeling is just that a lot of newer songs have: it's like Ed has been trying to find that perfect formula to rouse the crowd. And that's not something he'd have given a shit about early on. So all I'm saying is, again, I see a difference between the current music, on the whole, than the early music. You don't, and that's fine. Perhaps this difference will be something elusive that we can't put our finger on, but I'm not the only one hearing this difference, and other people are far more turned off it than me. I feel as though, if Pearl Jam wanted to go pop, this is the album they should've written, so I'm excited to hear it and remain open-minded.

[warehouse]

An attention grabbing melody is a good melody. A droning, plodding song without a catchy melody might as well be prose delivered in spoken word for all I care.

are there any pj songs like this u can think of?

There are plenty of examples of songs which I feel sound better when read on paper than actually listened to as songs. Sleight of Hand is a terrific piece of writing. But I just can't get into the song. It's not that there isn't a melody, it's just not the kind that would grab me or make a lasting impact. Nothing As It Seems is another one which kind of plods along. I do enjoy it for Mike's lead but Ed's delivery is very monotonous and that keeps the song from being great, for me. Rival is another one on that album which doesn't really have a great melody. Just to show you I'm not singling out Binaural alone, take Ten as an example. I like or love all the songs but Deep is the one which always stood out as lacking something. It has other things to recommend it but it is made immediately less memorable for me because it doesn't latch on to a great melody. On Vitalogy, which is my favourite album of all time, Tremor Christ is the one which I would point out. It's a repetitive and boring listen if not for Ed's intense delivery. I still like the song but I could have loved it more if there was a better melody.

This is just how I perceive music when I listen to it. There are people who will listen more for musicianship and they will obviously not put as much stock in melody as I do. Their favourite songs would likely differ from mine.

great response, thanks. i asked b/c im trying to figure out if i like 'catchy' pearl jam or not lol

[stupidmop]

Wow. Sleight of hand, nothing as it seems, rival, deep, fucking tremor christ, aaaaallllll 5 star songs to me. I can understand sleight of hand though, melody wise.

[Mike]

Wow. Sleight of hand, nothing as it seems, rival, deep, fucking tremor christ, aaaaallllll 5 star songs to me. I can understand sleight of hand though, melody wise.

It's not really "great musicianship" that gets me in these songs. Aside from melody and musicianship there's also intensity, emotion, atmosphere etc. Well, if you define musicianship as the thing that is responsible for these things then it is the musicianship I love in these songs. There are just so many factors aside from vocal melodies that I enjoy in music. Sonic Youth for example aren't really masters of great vocal melodies but I love them a lot.

[stip]

That's actually why I love Sirens. I don't find it catchy, and although I think it's overwrought emotionally, I would *much* rather that than more Big Waves or Supersonics. I want their music to matter to me emotionally and Sirens does.

Sirens isn't radio friendly catchy, but it does have a great melody. It doesn't reveal itself until a few listens in. That's because there is no easily identifiable part which repeats during the song that can be called a hook in the traditional sense. There are long sections of the song which do get stuck in your head after a few listens. I too prefer Sirens over said songs. It's not because it's more immediately catchy than those two but because it does have a great melody and beautiful delivery of lyrics that I identify with. It doesn't drone or plod along or sacrifice melody for musicianship.

The catchiness works well to offset some of the themes in their heavier songs. When the themes of the songs are silly or inane, it makes for a fun listen but nothing memorable. Big Wave and Supersonic are not terrible for me because they at least are fun to listen to. But they're not great songs.

The emotional connection is something that I can feel when there is something in the melody that makes me want to listen to the song on repeat. When it's a dry listen, even if I can identify with what Ed is singing, I don't feel that connection on a more than superficial level. On the first three albums, I feel an emotional connection to most songs. Some I don't really identify with even lyrically. But I can put myself in Ed's place and imagine myself feeling what he feels. That connection is enhanced by the songs' melodies. For example, Black I loved and felt a connection with before I was ever heartbroken. Same with Nothingman. On the flipside, take Binaural. Even though there are a few songs I would identify with thematically, I don't feel that connection because the songs are just too dry for me to really get into them.

Again, that's all well and good, even if we don't agree necessarily on which songs do which job well. We don't have to agree, this stuff is subjective. We also feel the same way about Sirens, even though when you say "It doesn't drone or plod along or sacrifice melody for musicianship", I'm thinking that some of the songs you're implicating here would be some of my favourite Pearl Jam songs for other reasons. Words like "drone" and "plod along" are being used dismissively, when these types of songs *do* have an emotional effect, you just don't necessarily like, or identify with, the effect it's having. A "drone" and a "plod", even a flat-out "dirge", is a song with a specific emotional effect, just as Sirens is. It's just that not everyone wants that effect evoked during their music-listening binges.

there are times the drone and dirge hit the spot. But there was a relentlessness in the way PJ applied that approach on some of those records. A song like light years is a good example (for me). Puzzles and Games aside, it SHOULD be a very moving song, but the obtuseness of the music strips it of all its emotional weight and presence. It makes the song feel calculated in a way it shouldn't.

[Mike]

Light Years is one of my absolute favorite Pearl Jam songs. The drony weird quality of the song makes it only more impactful for me.

[harmless]

That's actually why I love Sirens. I don't find it catchy, and although I think it's overwrought emotionally, I would *much* rather that than more Big Waves or Supersonics. I want their music to matter to me emotionally and Sirens does.

Sirens isn't radio friendly catchy, but it does have a great melody. It doesn't reveal itself until a few listens in. That's because there is no easily identifiable part which repeats during the song that can be called a hook in the traditional sense. There are long sections of the song which do get stuck in your head after a few listens. I too prefer Sirens over said songs. It's not because it's more immediately catchy than those two but because it does have a great melody and beautiful delivery of lyrics that I identify with. It doesn't drone or plod along or sacrifice melody for musicianship.

The catchiness works well to offset some of the themes in their heavier songs. When the themes of the songs are silly or inane, it makes for a fun listen but nothing memorable. Big Wave and Supersonic are not terrible for me because they at least are fun to listen to. But they're not great songs.

The emotional connection is something that I can feel when there is something in the melody that makes me want to listen to the song on repeat. When it's a dry listen, even if I can identify with what Ed is singing, I don't feel that connection on a more than superficial level. On the first three albums, I feel an emotional connection to most songs. Some I don't really identify with even lyrically. But I can put myself in Ed's place and imagine myself feeling what he feels. That connection is enhanced by the songs' melodies. For example, Black I loved and felt a connection with before I was ever heartbroken. Same with Nothingman. On the flipside, take Binaural. Even though there are a few songs I would identify with thematically, I don't feel that connection because the songs are just too dry for me to really get into them.

Again, that's all well and good, even if we don't agree necessarily on which songs do which job well. We don't have to agree, this stuff is subjective. We also feel the same way about Sirens, even though when you say "It doesn't drone or plod along or sacrifice melody for musicianship", I'm thinking that some of the songs you're implicating here would be some of my favourite Pearl Jam songs for other reasons. Words like "drone" and "plod along" are being used dismissively, when these types of songs *do* have an emotional effect, you just don't necessarily like, or identify with, the effect it's having. A "drone" and a "plod", even a flat-out "dirge", is a song with a specific emotional effect, just as Sirens is. It's just that not everyone wants that effect evoked during their music-listening binges.

there are times the drone and dirge hit the spot. But there was a relentlessness in the way PJ applied that approach on some of those records. A song like light years is a good example (for me). Puzzles and Games aside, it SHOULD be a very moving song, but the obtuseness of the music strips it of all its emotional weight and presence. It makes the song feel calculated in a way it shouldn't.

See, that's interesting. I like the fact that something like Light Years holds back from being a bigger, more "emotional" song. I find that's the subtlety (shyness, almost) that I used to enjoy from Pearl Jam. They almost went there but didn't quite go there. As well as a song about celebrating someone's life, it's also a dirge about mourning. You might see that as contrivance, a deliberate effort not to go there so as not to appear "uncool" (I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's how I'm interpreting you). Whereas for me, that pared back feeling, that feeling where it *almost* went there but didn't, lends the song (and other songs like it) a real subtlety that to me sounds even more heartfelt, honest, sincere, all those kinds of things. Light Years could've become like "Sirens", if that emotion had been ramped up, if Ed had belted it out instead of shying back, but "Sirens" for me is just shy of very dangerous sentimental territory (but somehow, it still works because Pearl Jam don't take it all the way). So I think it's just different interpretations on what we're hearing. What you're hearing as contrivance, I'm hearing as more realistic. And vice versa. I think.

[stupidmop]

That's actually why I love Sirens. I don't find it catchy, and although I think it's overwrought emotionally, I would *much* rather that than more Big Waves or Supersonics. I want their music to matter to me emotionally and Sirens does.

Sirens isn't radio friendly catchy, but it does have a great melody. It doesn't reveal itself until a few listens in. That's because there is no easily identifiable part which repeats during the song that can be called a hook in the traditional sense. There are long sections of the song which do get stuck in your head after a few listens. I too prefer Sirens over said songs. It's not because it's more immediately catchy than those two but because it does have a great melody and beautiful delivery of lyrics that I identify with. It doesn't drone or plod along or sacrifice melody for musicianship.

The catchiness works well to offset some of the themes in their heavier songs. When the themes of the songs are silly or inane, it makes for a fun listen but nothing memorable. Big Wave and Supersonic are not terrible for me because they at least are fun to listen to. But they're not great songs.

The emotional connection is something that I can feel when there is something in the melody that makes me want to listen to the song on repeat. When it's a dry listen, even if I can identify with what Ed is singing, I don't feel that connection on a more than superficial level. On the first three albums, I feel an emotional connection to most songs. Some I don't really identify with even lyrically. But I can put myself in Ed's place and imagine myself feeling what he feels. That connection is enhanced by the songs' melodies. For example, Black I loved and felt a connection with before I was ever heartbroken. Same with Nothingman. On the flipside, take Binaural. Even though there are a few songs I would identify with thematically, I don't feel that connection because the songs are just too dry for me to really get into them.

Again, that's all well and good, even if we don't agree necessarily on which songs do which job well. We don't have to agree, this stuff is subjective. We also feel the same way about Sirens, even though when you say "It doesn't drone or plod along or sacrifice melody for musicianship", I'm thinking that some of the songs you're implicating here would be some of my favourite Pearl Jam songs for other reasons. Words like "drone" and "plod along" are being used dismissively, when these types of songs *do* have an emotional effect, you just don't necessarily like, or identify with, the effect it's having. A "drone" and a "plod", even a flat-out "dirge", is a song with a specific emotional effect, just as Sirens is. It's just that not everyone wants that effect evoked during their music-listening binges.

there are times the drone and dirge hit the spot. But there was a relentlessness in the way PJ applied that approach on some of those records. A song like light years is a good example (for me). Puzzles and Games aside, it SHOULD be a very moving song, but the obtuseness of the music strips it of all its emotional weight and presence. It makes the song feel calculated in a way it shouldn't.

See, that's interesting. I like the fact that something like Light Years holds back from being a bigger, more "emotional" song. I find that's the subtlety (shyness, almost) that I used to enjoy from Pearl Jam. They almost went there but didn't quite go there. As well as a song about celebrating someone's life, it's also a dirge about mourning. You might see that as contrivance, a deliberate effort not to go there so as not to appear "uncool" (I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's how I'm interpreting you). Whereas for me, that pared back feeling, that feeling where it *almost* went there but didn't, lends the song (and other songs like it) a real subtlety that to me sounds even more heartfelt, honest, sincere, all those kinds of things. Light Years could've become like "Sirens", if that emotion had been ramped up, if Ed had belted it out instead of shying back, but "Sirens" for me is just shy of very dangerous sentimental territory (but somehow, it still works because Pearl Jam don't take it all the way). So I think it's just different interpretations on what we're hearing. What you're hearing as contrivance, I'm hearing as more realistic. And vice versa. I think.

I'm so happy lightyears isn't a spectacular cheesefest.

[Mike]

That's actually why I love Sirens. I don't find it catchy, and although I think it's overwrought emotionally, I would *much* rather that than more Big Waves or Supersonics. I want their music to matter to me emotionally and Sirens does.

Sirens isn't radio friendly catchy, but it does have a great melody. It doesn't reveal itself until a few listens in. That's because there is no easily identifiable part which repeats during the song that can be called a hook in the traditional sense. There are long sections of the song which do get stuck in your head after a few listens. I too prefer Sirens over said songs. It's not because it's more immediately catchy than those two but because it does have a great melody and beautiful delivery of lyrics that I identify with. It doesn't drone or plod along or sacrifice melody for musicianship.

The catchiness works well to offset some of the themes in their heavier songs. When the themes of the songs are silly or inane, it makes for a fun listen but nothing memorable. Big Wave and Supersonic are not terrible for me because they at least are fun to listen to. But they're not great songs.

The emotional connection is something that I can feel when there is something in the melody that makes me want to listen to the song on repeat. When it's a dry listen, even if I can identify with what Ed is singing, I don't feel that connection on a more than superficial level. On the first three albums, I feel an emotional connection to most songs. Some I don't really identify with even lyrically. But I can put myself in Ed's place and imagine myself feeling what he feels. That connection is enhanced by the songs' melodies. For example, Black I loved and felt a connection with before I was ever heartbroken. Same with Nothingman. On the flipside, take Binaural. Even though there are a few songs I would identify with thematically, I don't feel that connection because the songs are just too dry for me to really get into them.

Again, that's all well and good, even if we don't agree necessarily on which songs do which job well. We don't have to agree, this stuff is subjective. We also feel the same way about Sirens, even though when you say "It doesn't drone or plod along or sacrifice melody for musicianship", I'm thinking that some of the songs you're implicating here would be some of my favourite Pearl Jam songs for other reasons. Words like "drone" and "plod along" are being used dismissively, when these types of songs *do* have an emotional effect, you just don't necessarily like, or identify with, the effect it's having. A "drone" and a "plod", even a flat-out "dirge", is a song with a specific emotional effect, just as Sirens is. It's just that not everyone wants that effect evoked during their music-listening binges.

there are times the drone and dirge hit the spot. But there was a relentlessness in the way PJ applied that approach on some of those records. A song like light years is a good example (for me). Puzzles and Games aside, it SHOULD be a very moving song, but the obtuseness of the music strips it of all its emotional weight and presence. It makes the song feel calculated in a way it shouldn't.

See, that's interesting. I like the fact that something like Light Years holds back from being a bigger, more "emotional" song. I find that's the subtlety (shyness, almost) that I used to enjoy from Pearl Jam. They almost went there but didn't quite go there. As well as a song about celebrating someone's life, it's also a dirge about mourning. You might see that as contrivance, a deliberate effort not to go there so as not to appear "uncool" (I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's how I'm interpreting you). Whereas for me, that pared back feeling, that feeling where it *almost* went there but didn't, lends the song (and other songs like it) a real subtlety that to me sounds even more heartfelt, honest, sincere, all those kinds of things. Light Years could've become like "Sirens", if that emotion had been ramped up, if Ed had belted it out instead of shying back, but "Sirens" for me is just shy of very dangerous sentimental territory (but somehow, it still works because Pearl Jam don't take it all the way). So I think it's just different interpretations on what we're hearing. What you're hearing as contrivance, I'm hearing as more realistic. And vice versa. I think.

Can I hire you to put my feelings into words?