Lightning Bolt: the official album thread

[harmless]

I know this is very cynical of me, but I can't help but think that some people are kind of forcing themselves to like this song. I think if you presented this same song with a different singer (say a Bob Mould or a Greg? Graffin) to a bunch of Pearl Jam fans, most of them would go "meh."

Jorge, you of all people should acknowledge that this non-argument is ridiculous. Because if you replaced the guitars on STBC with jazz piano and presented it to PJ fans, most of them would go "Meh". I don't get that removing the vocals ON A PJ SONG proves anything. If I took Ed off most of PJ's catalogue I would like it less.

The fallacy inherent to Jorge's position is that, putting the song in the hands of, say, Bob Mould, does not put it on some kind of neutral plane where a listener would therefore be able to assess the song as a piece of work on its objective merits; all putting it in Mould's hands would do would create an entirely new set of subjective circumstances that could be just as offputting to a Pearl Jam fan as Eddie Vedder's voice could be attractive to them. The fact that a Pearl Jam fan might not like the Bob Mould version of "Mind Your Manners" doesn't necessarily signify that "MYM" is any better or worse of a song than any given fan's perception of it might dictate; all it signifies is that it works for them less in that context, in which case you have to pose the question all over again, rendering a kind of circular tail-chase with no logical answer.

The problem is that songs don't exist as objective free-standing entities, sans interpreter. I suppose you could say that the sheet music for a song reflects its base elements in a non-contextual way, but I would also suspect that even the most profound sight readers wouldn't be so foolish as to assign a value judgment to a piece of music based on what it is on a piece of paper, without having heard it. Once you turn written notes into tangible sounds that fill the air, you're putting it into some kind of interpretive context, even if all it is is a midi file--in some way, these notes are being interpreted in a manner that somehow could be different, thereby provoking a different response. So the argument ultimately boils down to, "Well, if something about this were different, you would probably feel differently about it," which to me is self-evident and not really reflective of anything, though it can be an interesting thought to ponder if kept in perspective.

In a lot of ways our initial reactions to music are our most honest ones, regardless of what biases may cloud them. Since there is no objective way to appreciate music, it seems reasonable that our subjective reactions to it could (and should) be influenced by other entirely subjective factors (how much we like the band, for instance). This does not signal a dulling of our critical faculties by any stretch of the imagination, and the notion that "criticism" should somehow be immune from bias and personal investment is almost assuredly the number one reason why most people who write about music are extremely bad at it. Good criticism is determined by how well a writer is able to convey his subjective experience in a meaningful way, no matter how prominent his biases or how scientifically sound his methods; it is not determined by how well he is able to adhere to a systematic process for determining whether something is really as objectively good as he thinks it is.

Several bands have been mentioned as influences in this song: The Replacements, Dead Kennedies, Bad Religion, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Husker Du, Black Flag, etc. Maybe it's a rip-off, I don't know. But I'm not a punk fan, really, and I'm not a fan of any of those bands. My first thought to this song was "Meh, it's punk." I liked it a bit, but I've had to listen to it a lot to find its merits. Those merits might lead me back to those other (apparently better) punk bands, but they probably won't turn me off this song and make me decide it's shit. It is what it is. As for this not being PJ's genre, well, what is their genre now? It's whatever they want to do at the time, and has been for ages. We'll get a hotch-potch of styles on the new album, as always. Pearl Jam have always been jacks of all trades, masters of none. The only style they ever mastered was "Grunge", which may not even exist as a genre anyway, being an amalgamation of several rock styles. Nirvana thought of themselves as a punk band, among other things. And I loved them, even though they never turned me towards listening to punk. I still hated punk, whatever they called themselves and whatever traditions they said they were from. It coloured their music, which was "Nirvana" to me. So yeah, whatever it's called that PJ plays, I like it because it's PJ.

[digster]

I think Plat's argument (I can't speak for him obviously, and I may be getting his point wrong) makes more sense if you're talking about Mind Your Manners specifically rather than trying to make any larger claim. I know others feel it springs from metal, etc. but IMO the song and very particularly Ed's singing style on the verses, is derivative of a certain punk vocal style. Ed really sounds like he's trying to play a role in those verses, rather than sing like he normally would (I feel like he usually does the latter even when they try songs in other styles, he doesn't tend to put on massive affectations). I would say it would be a little strange if someone thought that type of music was crap and was loving Mind Your Manners, cause more than usual Ed feels like he's aping a specific style.

I don't know if that makes much sense, but I can at least see that side of it.

[Jorge]

In a lot of ways our initial reactions to music are our most honest ones, regardless of what biases may cloud them. Since there is no objective way to appreciate music, it seems reasonable that our subjective reactions to it could (and should) be influenced by other entirely subjective factors (how much we like the band, for instance). This does not signal a dulling of our critical faculties by any stretch of the imagination, and the notion that "criticism" should somehow be immune from bias and personal investment is almost assuredly the number one reason why most people who write about music are extremely bad at it. Good criticism is determined by how well a writer is able to convey his subjective experience in a meaningful way, no matter how prominent his biases or how scientifically sound his methods; it is not determined by how well he is able to adhere to a systematic process for determining whether something is really as objectively good as he thinks it is.

Right on. I think this is pretty much was stip was trying to communicate to me last night, and I think it's right. My comment was clumsy and born out of exasperation for what I perceived to be the hypocrisy of a few specific Pearl Jam fans who are spamming MYM all over their social media outlets and celebrating it as The Rockingest Rock Song That Ever Rocked, but were whining about having to endure Bad Religion's opening sets in 2009. I shouldn't have extrapolated that to the entirety of Pearl Jam fandom or created such a bizarre hypothetical.

[evenslow]

In a lot of ways our initial reactions to music are our most honest ones, regardless of what biases may cloud them. Since there is no objective way to appreciate music, it seems reasonable that our subjective reactions to it could (and should) be influenced by other entirely subjective factors (how much we like the band, for instance). This does not signal a dulling of our critical faculties by any stretch of the imagination, and the notion that "criticism" should somehow be immune from bias and personal investment is almost assuredly the number one reason why most people who write about music are extremely bad at it. Good criticism is determined by how well a writer is able to convey his subjective experience in a meaningful way, no matter how prominent his biases or how scientifically sound his methods; it is not determined by how well he is able to adhere to a systematic process for determining whether something is really as objectively good as he thinks it is.

Right on. I think this is pretty much was stip was trying to communicate to me last night, and I think it's right. My comment was clumsy and born out of exasperation for what I perceived to be the hypocrisy of a few specific Pearl Jam fans who are spamming MYM all over their social media outlets and celebrating it as The Rockingest Rock Song That Ever Rocked, but were whining about having to endure Bad Religion's opening sets in 2009. I shouldn't have extrapolated that to the entirety of Pearl Jam fandom or created such a bizarre hypothetical.

[McParadigm]

In a lot of ways our initial reactions to music are our most honest ones, regardless of what biases may cloud them. Since there is no objective way to appreciate music, it seems reasonable that our subjective reactions to it could (and should) be influenced by other entirely subjective factors (how much we like the band, for instance). This does not signal a dulling of our critical faculties by any stretch of the imagination, and the notion that "criticism" should somehow be immune from bias and personal investment is almost assuredly the number one reason why most people who write about music are extremely bad at it. Good criticism is determined by how well a writer is able to convey his subjective experience in a meaningful way, no matter how prominent his biases or how scientifically sound his methods; it is not determined by how well he is able to adhere to a systematic process for determining whether something is really as objectively good as he thinks it is.

I know plat's cleared this up, and it's over, but I do think you built your argument on a wrong assumption.

The line of thinking that births posts like his isn't that subjective factors should never influence your opinion of the product. It's that the influence of those subjective factors should not be unlimited.

If my appreciation of the band becomes such that it ultimately supersedes all other determiners of my enjoyment of the music, then in fact I'm not appreciating music at all. I'm appreciating an idea, or a familiarity, or perhaps a cult of personality.

When people talk about scenarios like this one, where they believe a band's fanbase has become too defensive, or forgiving, or overly determined to like anything that band releases, they're certainly not saying "that singer's voice or that band's approach shouldn't influence your enjoyment of the music." They're asking a question: "is that really all that matters to you?"

It can be, under circumstances, a reasonable question.

[harmless]

What if I enjoyed the aping of the style more than I enjoyed the style itself? I don't like punk (much, with some exceptions) but I do like psychobilly, which is a mashup of two styles and definitely not 'purist'. And personally, I feel as if this is a witty, energetic and enthusiastic vocal style that suits Ed's age and ability much better than the screeching. It gives his vocal delivery personality which he'll hopefully be able to deliver on, and capitalises on the 'warbling' in his voice he has now. He can't hold one note for a long time as he used to, his voice goes all over the place, and this vocal style allows him to use all those variations, purposeful and accidental. So yeah, there are reasons to think it works. Plus, I just think every rock band sounds like every other rock band to some extent. All music is recycled, and PJ has always recycled off other stuff.

[stupidmop]

"I think getting away from them and taking the time to do it, and discussing with Brendan O'Brien who is producing it, having many meetings between ourselves about these things, yet keeping it fresh while recording it

This sounds like a sentence thats been google translated 50 times.

[harmless]

In a lot of ways our initial reactions to music are our most honest ones, regardless of what biases may cloud them. Since there is no objective way to appreciate music, it seems reasonable that our subjective reactions to it could (and should) be influenced by other entirely subjective factors (how much we like the band, for instance). This does not signal a dulling of our critical faculties by any stretch of the imagination, and the notion that "criticism" should somehow be immune from bias and personal investment is almost assuredly the number one reason why most people who write about music are extremely bad at it. Good criticism is determined by how well a writer is able to convey his subjective experience in a meaningful way, no matter how prominent his biases or how scientifically sound his methods; it is not determined by how well he is able to adhere to a systematic process for determining whether something is really as objectively good as he thinks it is.

Right on. I think this is pretty much was stip was trying to communicate to me last night, and I think it's right. My comment was clumsy and born out of exasperation for what I perceived to be the hypocrisy of a few specific Pearl Jam fans who are spamming MYM all over their social media outlets and celebrating it as The Rockingest Rock Song That Ever Rocked, but were whining about having to endure Bad Religion's opening sets in 2009. I shouldn't have extrapolated that to the entirety of Pearl Jam fandom or created such a bizarre hypothetical.

I love that you wrote this post, Jorge. I just... *wipes away tear*

[Thejambi]

"I think getting away from them and taking the time to do it, and discussing with Brendan O'Brien who is producing it, having many meetings between ourselves about these things, yet keeping it fresh while recording it

This sounds like a sentence thats been google translated 50 times.

I'm behind the past hour. Where is that from?

[stupidmop]

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/ ... olt-580058

"If you're a Pearl Jam fan you're going to love it," says a proud Mike of the album, "and even if you're not, maybe it'll turn you into one!"Mike explained that the writing process for the album before recording began with longtime friend and producer Brendan O'Brien was a drawn-out affair even by the Seattle legends' standards."We started it two years ago," says Mike, "then we had to pull back. We finished seven songs two years ago and we had to take some time to figure out what we wanted to do. And write some more songs. So about four months ago we started up again with a brand new batch of songs to go along with those."I think getting away from them and taking the time to do it, and discussing with Brendan O'Brien who is producing it, having many meetings between ourselves about these things, yet keeping it fresh while we were recording it."And the guitarist believes that taking their time has definitely paid off."I think it's helped. I think it's going to be really cool record and I'm very excited about it. Every artist says that about their new thing but I feel like we've been through a long journey to get there and it was totally worth it."For more on Mike McCready read the full feature on his role in supergroup Mad Season in issue 243 of Total Guitar.

[stip]

In a lot of ways our initial reactions to music are our most honest ones, regardless of what biases may cloud them. Since there is no objective way to appreciate music, it seems reasonable that our subjective reactions to it could (and should) be influenced by other entirely subjective factors (how much we like the band, for instance). This does not signal a dulling of our critical faculties by any stretch of the imagination, and the notion that "criticism" should somehow be immune from bias and personal investment is almost assuredly the number one reason why most people who write about music are extremely bad at it. Good criticism is determined by how well a writer is able to convey his subjective experience in a meaningful way, no matter how prominent his biases or how scientifically sound his methods; it is not determined by how well he is able to adhere to a systematic process for determining whether something is really as objectively good as he thinks it is.

I know plat's cleared this up, and it's over, but I do think you built your argument on a wrong assumption.

The line of thinking that births posts like his isn't that subjective factors should never influence your opinion of the product. It's that the influence of those subjective factors should not be unlimited.

If my appreciation of the band becomes such that it ultimately supersedes all other determiners of my enjoyment of the music, then in fact I'm not appreciating music at all. I'm appreciating an idea, or a familiarity, or perhaps a cult of personality.

When people talk about scenarios like this one, where they believe a band's fanbase has become too defensive, or forgiving, or overly determined to like anything that band releases, they're certainly not saying "that singer's voice or that band's approach shouldn't influence your enjoyment of the music." They're asking a question: "is that really all that matters to you?"

It can be, under circumstances, a reasonable question.

It can be. But it is also not a predetermined one (which you may not be saying). I really could care less about those 3 tracks you posted earlier (bad religion, buzz clocks, clash). I thought the br song was kinda boring, not a fan of the clash, and I flat out dislike the buzz clock sound. Yet I can still hear those influences in mym, which I prefer by orders of magnitude, and not because it has the name pj. I suspect many of the 'this is the only band in the world for me' fans have the same response, and just do not know how to articulate or defend it. They don't like it because of the label. They are highly likely to enjoy the song because of the performance that is attatched to the label

[Jorge]

buzz clocks

Stip.

[stip]

Sorry. On an iPad and not typing carefully

[@SkitchP]

Man, lot a heartache on the internet lately.

[harmless]

Man, lot a heartache on the internet lately.

Also a whole lotta shakin goin on.

[Coach]

I really do like all the RMers on this board, whether I agree with them or not.

As online communities go, I think we have a really good one here with decent honest folks who disagree, but at least disagree like adults.

[doug rr]

I really do like all the RMers on this board, whether I agree with them or not.

As online communities go, I think we have a really good one here with decent honest folks who disagree, but at least disagree like adults.

[LostDog1079]

I really do like all the RMers on this board, whether I agree with them or not.

As online communities go, I think we have a really good one here with decent honest folks who disagree, but at least disagree like adults.

Well said, dude.

[Jorge]

I really do like all the RMers on this board, whether I agree with them or not.

As online communities go, I think we have a really good one here with decent honest folks who disagree, but at least disagree like adults.

No YOU smell bad!

[Kevin Davis]

I know plat's cleared this up, and it's over, but I do think you built your argument on a wrong assumption.

The line of thinking that births posts like his isn't that subjective factors should never influence your opinion of the product. It's that the influence of those subjective factors should not be unlimited.

What else is there, though? What factors, apart from subjective factors, would you propose ought to influence one's opinion of the product?

I think a lot of what bugs me about this approach is that, tangled up somewhere in it, there's this notion that "accurate critical assessment" is ultimately a more legitimate end goal than simply enjoying a piece of music, which is absurd to me--as if someone who is excited and enthusiastic because their OMG-favorite-best-band-in-the-world-ever just put out a new song ought to take a more serious tone, temper their enthusiasm, and try to see things from a more objective standpoint. Some people enjoy music more when they subject it to that kind of analysis--I'm one of them--but others find it silly, so for them adopting that approach would have no payoff apart from possibly having someone on the internet laud their critical thinking abilities. Obviously if someone is blindly idolizing the band, that can be unhealthy on a personal level, but if it's just whirlwind excitement, chances are it will cool off over time and the new material will eventually take its place in the person's pantheon of preferences. I guess I just don't understand what you would reasonably expect someone like this to do differently, which isn't simply you imposing your own equally subjective music appreciation methods on theirs.

Just carrying this out for the sake of the conversation, by the way--I noticed Jorge's post earlier.