Red Mosquito

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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 wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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?

harmless wrote:

Mike wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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?

Yes! And you get mates' rates.

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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.

I will say that when I first head Binaural, and hated the whole thing (except for Light Years, even though I wanted MOAR from it, like Stip), it was because PJ weren't making any vast, sweeping, loud, emotional statements on it. Every song in Binaural is pared back from what it could have been (Ten, basically) into a much shier and less assuming record with subtleties and nuances playing a bigger part than the grand gestures of earlier work. That's both why many people don't like it, and why other people absolutely love it. It's why I hated it at first but love it now. It needed those years for me to grow up a bit and appreciate the finer / smaller things in life.

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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.

I will say that when I first head Binaural, and hated the whole thing (except for Light Years, even though I wanted MOAR from it, like Stip), it was because PJ weren't making any vast, sweeping, loud, emotional statements on it. Every song in Binaural is pared back from what it could have been (Ten, basically) into a much shier and less assuming record with subtleties and nuances playing a bigger part than the grand gestures of earlier work. That's both why many people don't like it, and why other people absolutely love it. It's why I hated it at first but love it now. It needed those years for me to grow up a bit and appreciate the finer / smaller things in life.

I'm only a fairly recent fan, so I heard ten for the first time the same time I heard everything else for the first time. At first I discounted everything other than ten, because vs and vitalogy didn't have enough groove or solos or something and ed changed the way he was singing and I thought they got kinda mellow and boring, what a shame. But the more I listened, and got over the fact that they weren't the ten band for long the more other albums clawed thier way back in, I think somehow binaural was the album I deemed worthy of buying next. I thought the sound and the mood of it was awesome, even if I wished ed was singing louder.
Now mostly I think there was a time and a place for all those big sweeping gestures as you call them, cause a lot of the time they come of as cheesy or overwrought but that's easier to forgive when they were younger. If they hadn't moved away from that I don't think I'd be as into them as I am now. Them moving back towards that just feels like they're regressing in maturity musically or something to me.

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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.

I will say that when I first head Binaural, and hated the whole thing (except for Light Years, even though I wanted MOAR from it, like Stip), it was because PJ weren't making any vast, sweeping, loud, emotional statements on it. Every song in Binaural is pared back from what it could have been (Ten, basically) into a much shier and less assuming record with subtleties and nuances playing a bigger part than the grand gestures of earlier work. That's both why many people don't like it, and why other people absolutely love it. It's why I hated it at first but love it now. It needed those years for me to grow up a bit and appreciate the finer / smaller things in life.

I'm only a fairly recent fan, so I heard ten for the first time the same time I heard everything else for the first time. At first I discounted everything other than ten, because vs and vitalogy didn't have enough groove or solos or something and ed changed the way he was singing and I thought they got kinda mellow and boring, what a shame. But the more I listened, and got over the fact that they weren't the ten band for long the more other albums clawed thier way back in, I think somehow binaural was the album I deemed worthy of buying next. I thought the sound and the mood of it was awesome, even if I wished ed was singing louder.
Now mostly I think there was a time and a place for all those big sweeping gestures as you call them, cause a lot of the time they come of as cheesy or overwrought but that's easier to forgive when they were younger. If they hadn't moved away from that I don't think I'd be as into them as I am now. Them moving back towards that just feels like they're regressing in maturity musically or something to me.

Yeah, I think a lot of people have that feeling and it's understandable. I feel like that a bit as well. The more I hear about it from Pearl Jam (which isn't much, let's be honest), the more I think they're just going back to a time when they were fully confident to be loved and appreciated by fans. And that's when they were making simpler "big gesture" music. It's like, when they're in a good place, that's what they want to make. It's more an emotional rather than an aesthetic choice, I guess. Some people will make another readjustment, just as they've made those readjustments before. Others won't. But I think fundamentally they probably see themselves as a "big gesture" band that shrunk back a bit for a while. Some of us are very grateful for that shrinking back, but I'm not sure that's how the general public (or Pearl Jam themselves) views it. Maybe I'm wrong.

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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.

I will say that when I first head Binaural, and hated the whole thing (except for Light Years, even though I wanted MOAR from it, like Stip), it was because PJ weren't making any vast, sweeping, loud, emotional statements on it. Every song in Binaural is pared back from what it could have been (Ten, basically) into a much shier and less assuming record with subtleties and nuances playing a bigger part than the grand gestures of earlier work. That's both why many people don't like it, and why other people absolutely love it. It's why I hated it at first but love it now. It needed those years for me to grow up a bit and appreciate the finer / smaller things in life.

I'm only a fairly recent fan, so I heard ten for the first time the same time I heard everything else for the first time. At first I discounted everything other than ten, because vs and vitalogy didn't have enough groove or solos or something and ed changed the way he was singing and I thought they got kinda mellow and boring, what a shame. But the more I listened, and got over the fact that they weren't the ten band for long the more other albums clawed thier way back in, I think somehow binaural was the album I deemed worthy of buying next. I thought the sound and the mood of it was awesome, even if I wished ed was singing louder.
Now mostly I think there was a time and a place for all those big sweeping gestures as you call them, cause a lot of the time they come of as cheesy or overwrought but that's easier to forgive when they were younger. If they hadn't moved away from that I don't think I'd be as into them as I am now. Them moving back towards that just feels like they're regressing in maturity musically or something to me.

Yeah, I think a lot of people have that feeling and it's understandable. I feel like that a bit as well. The more I hear about it from Pearl Jam (which isn't much, let's be honest), the more I think they're just going back to a time when they were fully confident to be loved and appreciated by fans. And that's when they were making simpler "big gesture" music. It's like, when they're in a good place, that's what they want to make. It's more an emotional rather than an aesthetic choice, I guess. Some people will make another readjustment, just as they've made those readjustments before. Others won't. But I think fundamentally they probably see themselves as a "big gesture" band that shrunk back a bit for a while. Some of us are very grateful for that shrinking back, but I'm not sure that's how the general public (or Pearl Jam themselves) views it. Maybe I'm wrong.

No I definitely get that feeling too. Im pretty sure, or well not sure but I have a feeling, that had they not gotten huge and freaked the hell out, that they wouldn't have moved far at all from creating those kinda songs. I may be crazy but if you watch/ read interviews with ed now and watch some from waaay back when, I'm talking like 91 before everything hit, there's more of a similarity than if you compare to any interviews from in between, its like it took him 20 years to get that happy/ relaxed again.

I think we both had this conversation before lol, but its that whole too punk to be punk thing again. I think they're just happy and don't give a fuck how they're perceived anymore. Which is good for them, I just hope I like more of the music to come in the future.

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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 wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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.

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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.

I will say that when I first head Binaural, and hated the whole thing (except for Light Years, even though I wanted MOAR from it, like Stip), it was because PJ weren't making any vast, sweeping, loud, emotional statements on it. Every song in Binaural is pared back from what it could have been (Ten, basically) into a much shier and less assuming record with subtleties and nuances playing a bigger part than the grand gestures of earlier work. That's both why many people don't like it, and why other people absolutely love it. It's why I hated it at first but love it now. It needed those years for me to grow up a bit and appreciate the finer / smaller things in life.

I'm only a fairly recent fan, so I heard ten for the first time the same time I heard everything else for the first time. At first I discounted everything other than ten, because vs and vitalogy didn't have enough groove or solos or something and ed changed the way he was singing and I thought they got kinda mellow and boring, what a shame. But the more I listened, and got over the fact that they weren't the ten band for long the more other albums clawed thier way back in, I think somehow binaural was the album I deemed worthy of buying next. I thought the sound and the mood of it was awesome, even if I wished ed was singing louder.
Now mostly I think there was a time and a place for all those big sweeping gestures as you call them, cause a lot of the time they come of as cheesy or overwrought but that's easier to forgive when they were younger. If they hadn't moved away from that I don't think I'd be as into them as I am now. Them moving back towards that just feels like they're regressing in maturity musically or something to me.

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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.

I will say that when I first head Binaural, and hated the whole thing (except for Light Years, even though I wanted MOAR from it, like Stip), it was because PJ weren't making any vast, sweeping, loud, emotional statements on it. Every song in Binaural is pared back from what it could have been (Ten, basically) into a much shier and less assuming record with subtleties and nuances playing a bigger part than the grand gestures of earlier work. That's both why many people don't like it, and why other people absolutely love it. It's why I hated it at first but love it now. It needed those years for me to grow up a bit and appreciate the finer / smaller things in life.

I'm only a fairly recent fan, so I heard ten for the first time the same time I heard everything else for the first time. At first I discounted everything other than ten, because vs and vitalogy didn't have enough groove or solos or something and ed changed the way he was singing and I thought they got kinda mellow and boring, what a shame. But the more I listened, and got over the fact that they weren't the ten band for long the more other albums clawed thier way back in, I think somehow binaural was the album I deemed worthy of buying next. I thought the sound and the mood of it was awesome, even if I wished ed was singing louder.
Now mostly I think there was a time and a place for all those big sweeping gestures as you call them, cause a lot of the time they come of as cheesy or overwrought but that's easier to forgive when they were younger. If they hadn't moved away from that I don't think I'd be as into them as I am now. Them moving back towards that just feels like they're regressing in maturity musically or something to me.

Yeah, I think a lot of people have that feeling and it's understandable. I feel like that a bit as well. The more I hear about it from Pearl Jam (which isn't much, let's be honest), the more I think they're just going back to a time when they were fully confident to be loved and appreciated by fans. And that's when they were making simpler "big gesture" music. It's like, when they're in a good place, that's what they want to make. It's more an emotional rather than an aesthetic choice, I guess. Some people will make another readjustment, just as they've made those readjustments before. Others won't. But I think fundamentally they probably see themselves as a "big gesture" band that shrunk back a bit for a while. Some of us are very grateful for that shrinking back, but I'm not sure that's how the general public (or Pearl Jam themselves) views it. Maybe I'm wrong.

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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.

Not an uncoolness thing. I have a hard time really envisioning that as a motive, although this was still the high water mark of the 'we can't sound like pearl jam and keep the pearl jammy stuff off the record' (see puzzles and games/sad). I think it was a choice to make the songs more dense to make them different, but not for the motives you mention.

And yeah, I think a lot of this comes down to whether or you not you see these songs as organic statements (which you seem to) or less successful attempts to sound other than yourself because you are reluctant to actually speak in an authentic voice.

And it's a caveat I've made before, but I like Binarual quite a bit. I like all Pearl Jam's records. Even the ones at the bottom (which Binaural is) still has a good 5-6 songs I think are quite strong. So it's not an all or nothing statement I am trying to make. I just think Pearl Jam is at its best when it is embracing its strengths, rather than running away from them. Others found the tension in the 'we ARE pearl jam but we're going to try and not BE pearl jam' really compelling. I get the appeal, even if I don't share it to nearly the same degree.

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote: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.

I will say that when I first head Binaural, and hated the whole thing (except for Light Years, even though I wanted MOAR from it, like Stip), it was because PJ weren't making any vast, sweeping, loud, emotional statements on it. Every song in Binaural is pared back from what it could have been (Ten, basically) into a much shier and less assuming record with subtleties and nuances playing a bigger part than the grand gestures of earlier work. That's both why many people don't like it, and why other people absolutely love it. It's why I hated it at first but love it now. It needed those years for me to grow up a bit and appreciate the finer / smaller things in life.

I'm only a fairly recent fan, so I heard ten for the first time the same time I heard everything else for the first time. At first I discounted everything other than ten, because vs and vitalogy didn't have enough groove or solos or something and ed changed the way he was singing and I thought they got kinda mellow and boring, what a shame. But the more I listened, and got over the fact that they weren't the ten band for long the more other albums clawed thier way back in, I think somehow binaural was the album I deemed worthy of buying next. I thought the sound and the mood of it was awesome, even if I wished ed was singing louder.
Now mostly I think there was a time and a place for all those big sweeping gestures as you call them, cause a lot of the time they come of as cheesy or overwrought but that's easier to forgive when they were younger. If they hadn't moved away from that I don't think I'd be as into them as I am now. Them moving back towards that just feels like they're regressing in maturity musically or something to me.

Yeah, I think a lot of people have that feeling and it's understandable. I feel like that a bit as well. The more I hear about it from Pearl Jam (which isn't much, let's be honest), the more I think they're just going back to a time when they were fully confident to be loved and appreciated by fans. And that's when they were making simpler "big gesture" music. It's like, when they're in a good place, that's what they want to make. It's more an emotional rather than an aesthetic choice, I guess. Some people will make another readjustment, just as they've made those readjustments before. Others won't. But I think fundamentally they probably see themselves as a "big gesture" band that shrunk back a bit for a while. Some of us are very grateful for that shrinking back, but I'm not sure that's how the general public (or Pearl Jam themselves) views it. Maybe I'm wrong.

No I definitely get that feeling too. Im pretty sure, or well not sure but I have a feeling, that had they not gotten huge and freaked the hell out, that they wouldn't have moved far at all from creating those kinda songs. I may be crazy but if you watch/ read interviews with ed now and watch some from waaay back when, I'm talking like 91 before everything hit, there's more of a similarity than if you compare to any interviews from in between, its like it took him 20 years to get that happy/ relaxed again.

I think we both had this conversation before lol, but its that whole too punk to be punk thing again. I think they're just happy and don't give a fuck how they're perceived anymore. Which is good for them, I just hope I like more of the music to come in the future.

harmless wrote:Even bits and pieces of Lightning Bolt so far (all of which I like) sound as if they're "bottling" their strengths, manufacturing it, rendering it less organic than it sounded when these strengths were first utilized.