Red Mosquito

evenslow wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

evenslow wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Here are the current predictions, based on early reports:

Pearl Jam (Republic) 160-180k
Paul McCartney (Hear Music) 70-80k
Avett Brothers (American/Republic) 60-65k
Scotty McCreery (19/Interscope) 40-45k
Head and the Heart (Sub Pop) 35-40k
Willie Nelson (Legacy) 27-30k
Gavin DeGraw (RCA) 25-28k
Trivium (Roadrunner) 14-17k
Mary J. Blige (Verve/Interscope) 12-14k

Wow - 160-180k would be way more than I was initially expecting. That's pretty damn good for an ancient rock band in today's climate.

It's pretty reasonable. It's a band with a feverishly cultish fanbase that is mostly between the ages of 30 and 40, they had a "remember these guys" documentary come out, they had actual and substantial radio success on the last album and moderate success on the lead-in single to this record, and reviews aren't plus or minus enough to sway people from their already-formed opinions.

Older bands do misleadingly well in terms of sales and chart positions these days, because they are far more likely to have fans who have both the disposable income and the inclination to buy their music. There's a reason careerist artists like Tom Waits are suddenly top 20 and top 10 material...their sales aren't suffering to the same degree that younger artists are.

Figure this: Madonna's Mdna album last year (I didn't know, either) was the 21st biggest selling album of the year worldwide. Rod Stewart's Christmas album was #18. Springsteen's Wrecking Ball was #16. It's not because that's how popular they were...it's because that's how old their fans are.

Having said that, yeah, Pearl Jam is currently doing pretty well relative to their peers. To some degree, that's the payoff of pushing their albums as "events" with media and radio pushes in 2006, 2009, and 2011. They're no longer in that "Pearl Jam? Who's that?" phase...they're back to a place where not media hyping an album can be a media strategy all its own.

Right, I agree with all that but I'm still somewhat surprised by that number in 2013. I say the Jamily all pitches in to outdo MDNA and we've done our job we can go home til 2017 (Boom's long-awaited solo record obviously keeping us going during the wait).

Dugg wrote:

evenslow wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

evenslow wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Here are the current predictions, based on early reports:

Pearl Jam (Republic) 160-180k
Paul McCartney (Hear Music) 70-80k
Avett Brothers (American/Republic) 60-65k
Scotty McCreery (19/Interscope) 40-45k
Head and the Heart (Sub Pop) 35-40k
Willie Nelson (Legacy) 27-30k
Gavin DeGraw (RCA) 25-28k
Trivium (Roadrunner) 14-17k
Mary J. Blige (Verve/Interscope) 12-14k

Wow - 160-180k would be way more than I was initially expecting. That's pretty damn good for an ancient rock band in today's climate.

It's pretty reasonable. It's a band with a feverishly cultish fanbase that is mostly between the ages of 30 and 40, they had a "remember these guys" documentary come out, they had actual and substantial radio success on the last album and moderate success on the lead-in single to this record, and reviews aren't plus or minus enough to sway people from their already-formed opinions.

Older bands do misleadingly well in terms of sales and chart positions these days, because they are far more likely to have fans who have both the disposable income and the inclination to buy their music. There's a reason careerist artists like Tom Waits are suddenly top 20 and top 10 material...their sales aren't suffering to the same degree that younger artists are.

Figure this: Madonna's Mdna album last year (I didn't know, either) was the 21st biggest selling album of the year worldwide. Rod Stewart's Christmas album was #18. Springsteen's Wrecking Ball was #16. It's not because that's how popular they were...it's because that's how old their fans are.

Having said that, yeah, Pearl Jam is currently doing pretty well relative to their peers. To some degree, that's the payoff of pushing their albums as "events" with media and radio pushes in 2006, 2009, and 2011. They're no longer in that "Pearl Jam? Who's that?" phase...they're back to a place where not media hyping an album can be a media strategy all its own.

Right, I agree with all that but I'm still somewhat surprised by that number in 2013. I say the Jamily all pitches in to outdo MDNA and we've done our job we can go home til 2017 (Boom's long-awaited solo record obviously keeping us going during the wait).

I always had a hunch that Boom has no idea how to play the organ and is just standing there each night waiting to be found out... I know I've felt that way myself in a few court hearings.

psychobain wrote:

warehouse wrote:

psychobain wrote:but it loses the kick after Pendulum

well yeah, thats the best song on the record

but what i mean is, the first 7 songs are better than the rest

darth_vedder wrote:I agree that this album kinda feels like a Backspacer meets Riot Act. Darker and more atmospheric than Backspacer, but not as much as RA, yet still kinda fun / catchy.

I really am liking the first 7 songs. It's after that where the album kinda derails for me.

Billboard wrote:Pearl Jam is on course for its fifth No. 1 album on the Billboard 200 chart. Industry sources suggest the band's latest album, "Lightning Bolt," will sell around 170,000 to 180,000 copies by the end of the tracking week on Sunday, Oct. 20.

Lament wrote:So McParadigm is Billboard?

Tj wrote:

Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:

Tj wrote:I read a Huffington Post interview yesterday. Eddie seemed to be teasing this as a concept album. So I started trying to look at in that way and find the story if there is one. So would it be typical of Ed to write a concept album, then not tell anyone outright? Would Ed write it as a riddle? I think the answers to both these may be yes. So in looking at each song , and the booklet I came up with this. First look at the last page of the booklet five images to me this became a key. It has to be there for a reason. What is it? Is it the proper order?. Lightningbolt, Siren/Future days, Let the Record Play, Swallowed Whole, and Yellow Moon as the frame work with the others adding color to the land scape. What if Lightning Bolt was love, being in love/falling in love? I think Lightning Bolt could be about anything that strikes. So being about love is not a stretch. Then we have two love letters. The lovers are not together. There seperated with one of them being in a war torn shit whole. Let The Records Play"when the kindom come" think of the saying bombed to kingdom come. How would one keep ones sanity at night while your town is being shelled? Swallowed Whole he is dead, free from the physical. Yellow moon the conclusion.
So the songs Getaway, MYM, Infallable paint the image of the war torn city , battlefield, or town. Sleeping By Myself work on accident , They are appart so it doesn't need to be much more than that but it works really well. Pendilums themes fit as a well. My Fathers Son well the gene pool that left this person in bad place. Like being born in to a religion or military service.

pretty cool
a lot of us wanted a concept album, and it would be hilarious if ed really did make it one with out telling anyone

Tj wrote:

Tj wrote:

Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:

Tj wrote:I read a Huffington Post interview yesterday. Eddie seemed to be teasing this as a concept album. So I started trying to look at in that way and find the story if there is one. So would it be typical of Ed to write a concept album, then not tell anyone outright? Would Ed write it as a riddle? I think the answers to both these may be yes. So in looking at each song , and the booklet I came up with this. First look at the last page of the booklet five images to me this became a key. It has to be there for a reason. What is it? Is it the proper order?. Lightningbolt, Siren/Future days, Let the Record Play, Swallowed Whole, and Yellow Moon as the frame work with the others adding color to the land scape. What if Lightning Bolt was love, being in love/falling in love? I think Lightning Bolt could be about anything that strikes. So being about love is not a stretch. Then we have two love letters. The lovers are not together. There seperated with one of them being in a war torn shit whole. Let The Records Play"when the kindom come" think of the saying bombed to kingdom come. How would one keep ones sanity at night while your town is being shelled? Swallowed Whole he is dead, free from the physical. Yellow moon the conclusion.
So the songs Getaway, MYM, Infallable paint the image of the war torn city , battle field, or town. Sleeping By Myself worsk on accident , They are appart so it doesn't need to be much more than that but it works really well. Pendilums themes fit as a well. My Fathers Son well the gene pool that left this person in bad place. Like being born in to a religion or military service.

pretty cool
a lot of us wanted a concept album, and it would be hilarious if ed really did make it one with out telling anyone

I will try to find the Huffington Post interview this evening.[/quote
From the Huffington post interview.
This certainly would explain the somewhat odd track order. Ed also mildly hinted at concept albums in the huffington post interview:

"...At some point, while making the Avocado record [2006's "Pearl Jam"], I kind of had the songs on a bulletin board, and I started scribbling ideas and patching them together. I thought, "It would be really easy" ... I'm not going to jinx myself, but it would be easy [to make a whole piece]! That album really could have been a story about two brothers who were soldiers. It could be a fucking play. It's too bad, because that would have been the time to do it. Because now there's a lot of that going on, and I hope it's all good, but I think that would be jumping on the bandwagon to write a musical at this point. I think what you could do is just write it and have the story be there and not tell anybody. In fact, we might have even done that.

Did you do that on this one?
Let me think on that one. It was all easy until that question. Maybe we'll get back to that one."

theplatypus wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Release_Me wrote:One thing I never understand is people's hate for Pearl Jam's best choruses. A chorus is the part of the song which is supposed to be most melodic. Something that get's imprinted into the listener's head. You don't cram the most difficult words into a chorus or try to make it musically 'complex'. When you do, you end up with forgettable songs.

I suppose some people hate Pearl Jam's "best choruses" because they don't think they're Pearl Jam's best choruses. I love a good pop chorus, but I don't think Pearl Jam are particularly good pop songwriters. Save for a few notable exceptions ("Betterman" being the first one that comes to mind), I think their most outright pop songs fall flat. "Infallible" is a song with a very ordinary chorus melody. It's not about darkness or complexity. It's just kind of hackneyed.

Furthermore, why do you approach songs like TV adverts? A chorus isn't a sales pitch. It doesn't have to be the most melodic part of a song, it just often is. Shooting for earworm usually results in lightweight dreck, and that's not what interests me about Pearl Jam. Their strengths are elsewhere.

I think they are great songwriters and the albums I love all have great pop songwriting. Like this one. I am not a fan of when they stepped away from this and tried to be 'difficult'. I love Infallible. It's in my top ten ever PJ songs so I just disagree with your assessment. A chorus isn't a sales pitch if it's melodic. It's just good. I don't like sonic torture ala Binaural and Riot Act. Good songwriting for me is all about the melodies. PJ's strengths are their marrying of great melodies with non-pop themes and Ed's vocals. LB has this and that's why I feel it's a great PJ album.

"Good songwriting is all about the melodies" strikes me as such a weird thing to say. From the start your thing has been "melody melody melody" and I get that, it's what I gravitate towards as well-- I played the cello for eight years and my favorite pieces to play were always things like Shostakovich's sonatas or Bach's suites, pieces where the instrument was allowed to soar with the melodies instead of carrying the burden of the bass line in a quartet. But unlike you, I don't equate "melodic" with "bright and catchy". I enjoy all kinds of melodies- from the obscure and serpentine ones that require some grappling-with to fully make sense of, to the bounciest and catchiest and sugariest hooks of pop songcraft, through the broken and malformed ones that don't really make sense until you've listened to them twelve times. Binaural and Riot Act aren't avant-garde Ornette Coleman noise-jazz freak-outs, they're collections of very melodic rock songs, with many shades to them, that experiment with texture and space in a way PJ have shied away from. It's not about being "difficult", it's about exploring a broader sonic palette for the joy of it. To suggest that you're only interested in bright, catchy melodies (which is what it sounds like you're saying) is, to me, deliberately turning a blind eye (or, uh, a deaf ear) to a lot of beauty, depth and nuance. That sounds awful to me.

--- wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Release_Me wrote:One thing I never understand is people's hate for Pearl Jam's best choruses. A chorus is the part of the song which is supposed to be most melodic. Something that get's imprinted into the listener's head. You don't cram the most difficult words into a chorus or try to make it musically 'complex'. When you do, you end up with forgettable songs.

I suppose some people hate Pearl Jam's "best choruses" because they don't think they're Pearl Jam's best choruses. I love a good pop chorus, but I don't think Pearl Jam are particularly good pop songwriters. Save for a few notable exceptions ("Betterman" being the first one that comes to mind), I think their most outright pop songs fall flat. "Infallible" is a song with a very ordinary chorus melody. It's not about darkness or complexity. It's just kind of hackneyed.

Furthermore, why do you approach songs like TV adverts? A chorus isn't a sales pitch. It doesn't have to be the most melodic part of a song, it just often is. Shooting for earworm usually results in lightweight dreck, and that's not what interests me about Pearl Jam. Their strengths are elsewhere.

I think they are great songwriters and the albums I love all have great pop songwriting. Like this one. I am not a fan of when they stepped away from this and tried to be 'difficult'. I love Infallible. It's in my top ten ever PJ songs so I just disagree with your assessment. A chorus isn't a sales pitch if it's melodic. It's just good. I don't like sonic torture ala Binaural and Riot Act. Good songwriting for me is all about the melodies. PJ's strengths are their marrying of great melodies with non-pop themes and Ed's vocals. LB has this and that's why I feel it's a great PJ album.

"Good songwriting is all about the melodies" strikes me as such a weird thing to say. From the start your thing has been "melody melody melody" and I get that, it's what I gravitate towards as well-- I played the cello for eight years and my favorite pieces to play were always things like Shostakovich's sonatas or Bach's suites, pieces where the instrument was allowed to soar with the melodies instead of carrying the burden of the bass line in a quartet. But unlike you, I don't equate "melodic" with "bright and catchy". I enjoy all kinds of melodies- from the obscure and serpentine ones that require some grappling-with to fully make sense of, to the bounciest and catchiest and sugariest hooks of pop songcraft, through the broken and malformed ones that don't really make sense until you've listened to them twelve times. Binaural and Riot Act aren't avant-garde Ornette Coleman noise-jazz freak-outs, they're collections of very melodic rock songs, with many shades to them, that experiment with texture and space in a way PJ have shied away from. It's not about being "difficult", it's about exploring a broader sonic palette for the joy of it. To suggest that you're only interested in bright, catchy melodies (which is what it sounds like you're saying) is, to me, deliberately turning a blind eye (or, uh, a deaf ear) to a lot of beauty, depth and nuance. That sounds awful to me.

i enjoyed this post

blueviper wrote:I ripped my LB CD to my windows media player library.

It didn't recognize Future Days as the 12th song.

Is Windows Media Player trying to tell me something?

Walker Bait wrote:Okay....so I'm sitting in my car listening to the whole album in a parking lot...yellow moon just came on and I realized something. Now nobody freak out I know I'm COMPLETELY alone here and that's fine but. ..this is my favorite pearl jam album. I love all of them but there are always one or two songs that I'm like. ..eh its alright. And there are songs on other albums I like more...as songs. But as a collection of songs. .this is my favorite. I like/love every single song.