Red Mosquito

Metal-door leak snippets are worming their way back into my head. Haven't listened to it in weeks. Need this goddamn album already.

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

EBowie wrote:

stip wrote:Future Days is quiet, lovely little song that is especially poignant when you think about how it's the Eddie of Ten/Vs/Vitalogy who is singing it - that he ends up here is a victory

Yep. It's like some people fault Ed for not being pissed off all the time like he was in the early/mid 90s. That's on them though, not Ed.

There really isn't some complex psychological underpinning to all of this; most people who don't like it do so because they think it's a bad song.

But unpacking WHY people think it's a bad song is interesting.

I think my main point was I don't think people dislike Future Days because they secretly hate that Eddie's happy.

not that baldly, but i do think for many fans the ‘happier’ songs require a greater conceptual leap - they don’t intrinsically sound like what pearl jam is supposed to be. I mean its right there in a lot of the discourse around sirens, just breath, future days.

it would be reductive to say that is all it is, but i wouldn’t pretend its not a factor either.

I don't know, isn't your favorite period the first few years of the band, when that intrinsic sound you're talking about was forged? Despite that, you don't have any issue liking the new stuff despite it being happier, I don't see why everyone else wouldn't be able to do the same if they felt the songs were worth it.

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

EBowie wrote:

stip wrote:Future Days is quiet, lovely little song that is especially poignant when you think about how it's the Eddie of Ten/Vs/Vitalogy who is singing it - that he ends up here is a victory

Yep. It's like some people fault Ed for not being pissed off all the time like he was in the early/mid 90s. That's on them though, not Ed.

There really isn't some complex psychological underpinning to all of this; most people who don't like it do so because they think it's a bad song.

But unpacking WHY people think it's a bad song is interesting.

I think my main point was I don't think people dislike Future Days because they secretly hate that Eddie's happy.

not that baldly, but i do think for many fans the ‘happier’ songs require a greater conceptual leap - they don’t intrinsically sound like what pearl jam is supposed to be. I mean its right there in a lot of the discourse around sirens, just breath, future days.

it would be reductive to say that is all it is, but i wouldn’t pretend its not a factor either.

That is one of the biggest problems with us…not Ed. Its like calling him out on things he did 25 years ago and now thinks differently about, the man has changed, became happier, good for him, if that translates to the songs its as truthful as it was when he was angry, “we” might not like it, but he was always an emotional guy. Its all dissected to the fucking core with him, do this not that..should sang like A not B…too many lyrics, not good lyrics…the man cant win, because he is racing agaist the imagination of a seriously disfuctional fan base.

Riot Act was trashed by everybody when it came out, No Code the same, Backspacer (none of these albums sounds remotely the same, but he was the target, always)…he does not give a fuck anymore, the guy is 60 years old, and will sing and write about whatever ticks with him…some will like it, some dont.

a good post

digster wrote:

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

EBowie wrote:

stip wrote:Future Days is quiet, lovely little song that is especially poignant when you think about how it's the Eddie of Ten/Vs/Vitalogy who is singing it - that he ends up here is a victory

Yep. It's like some people fault Ed for not being pissed off all the time like he was in the early/mid 90s. That's on them though, not Ed.

There really isn't some complex psychological underpinning to all of this; most people who don't like it do so because they think it's a bad song.

But unpacking WHY people think it's a bad song is interesting.

I think my main point was I don't think people dislike Future Days because they secretly hate that Eddie's happy.

not that baldly, but i do think for many fans the ‘happier’ songs require a greater conceptual leap - they don’t intrinsically sound like what pearl jam is supposed to be. I mean its right there in a lot of the discourse around sirens, just breath, future days.

it would be reductive to say that is all it is, but i wouldn’t pretend its not a factor either.

I don't know, isn't your favorite period the first few years of the band, when that intrinsic sound you're talking about was forged? Despite that, you don't have any issue liking the new stuff despite it being happier, I don't see why everyone else wouldn't be able to do the same if they felt the songs were worth it.

look, I am not saying future days is a masterpiece. But there is not a ton of daylight between sirens and black and the reaction from folks who cant hear the sirens seems (to me) to be grounded at least partially in problems with the thematic shifts - one is hopeless and one is sentimental. both are incredibly melodramatic songs, but one is acceptable in the conventional pearl jam narrative. these posts reinforcing that happen all the time.

RMers like to declare that there taste exists in a vacumn completely unfettered and unencumbered by the history and expectations we bring to the music. expectations that are deep and nuanced and formative and powerful and real. Thats how brains work. its how we use hurestics to form initial opinoons (which we cannovercome but it takes time and effort. I think this is one of the big ones, and Ive watched people manifest it on RM for twenty years (as well as the attendant denial - the fiction that we can ever approach pearl jam with a blank slate)

Its not a simple 1-1 ratio. a great song will help you overcome this, and a less great song that confirms expectations will be elevated. taste, craft, etc still matter, and probably matter at least a bit more.


In my own journey happy ed has never been a problem for a bunch of reasons. I struggled with this same phenomena in two areas. I have a block that makes me immediately skeptical of songs Eddie didnt write lyrics for. thats an unconscious and sometimes conscious bias i have to work through. And fun/playful pearl jam i struggle with too. My pearl jam can be happy or sad, angry or content, but i want it to be serious! and there are songs like who you, get right, no way, that I like or love now that took me a long time to accept and engage with on their terms

McParadigm wrote:a good post

agreed

I mean, most fanbases that are intense have a toxic element to it. Mostly because of expectations and people care intensely. Could be toxic Star Wars fans which is a whole unpacking of societal ills. We’re just pissed the band didn’t go in the exact direction we envisioned (as “we” I am making a larger generalization that doesn’t even really apply to me).

Good post, stip. One that I hope you didn't type on a phone

Also, to be fair, my problem with Sirens is the soundscape suggests the possibility of a more psychedelic and atmospheric tune (which they did with Pendulum to a degree), but they instead slapped a misfitting ballad on top. I actually appreciate Ed’s lyrics and the theme, but the balladry doesn’t fit the music in my head. It’s almost a less offensive bait and switch that we get from the Infallible verse to the chorus.

oneway23 wrote:Good post, stip. One that I hope you didn't type on a phone

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:a good post

agreed

Thirded

liebzz wrote:Also, to be fair, my problem with Sirens is the soundscape suggests the possibility of a more psychedelic and atmospheric tune (which they did with Pendulum to a degree), but they instead slapped a misfitting ballad on top. I actually appreciate Ed’s lyrics and the theme, but the balladry doesn’t fit the music in my head. It’s almost a less offensive bait and switch that we get from the Infallible verse to the chorus.

To me the lyrics are transcendent, the way he sings them is at times frustrating (I like where it goes, but those highs are arguably too high), and the song itself is exactly as you say- a weird mismatch of ballad and Floydy exploration. But hey, it's Pearl Jam, and I'll take it all.

oneway23 wrote:Good post, stip. One that I hope you didn't type on a phone

you better believe that was a phone post. Once it got going I was committed and didn't want to go to my computer. The opportunity costs went up with every word

I still feel like we haven't heard this album's 4 or 5 best songs, which is kind of awesome.

Also, it's Thursday and in a little over 3 days I'll be hearing the whole damn thing surrounded by fans. Happy thought.

I can’t believe they haven’t given us anything today!

liebzz wrote:Also, to be fair, my problem with Sirens is the soundscape suggests the possibility of a more psychedelic and atmospheric tune (which they did with Pendulum to a degree), but they instead slapped a misfitting ballad on top. I actually appreciate Ed’s lyrics and the theme, but the balladry doesn’t fit the music in my head. It’s almost a less offensive bait and switch that we get from the Infallible verse to the chorus.

and that's all perfectly legit. The unconscious bias element of this is only one part of how we interact with a song. But what you describe is also kind of my point. If you get the idea that Sirens should have a psychedelic base, it'll be that much harder to engage with the song on its own terms. it's not Sirens fault it's not the song you want it to be, and once you're past that it becomes easier to engage with the song that exists and that the artist probably intended it to be. And it still may not meet the expectations you have that align with your taste, or your assessment of craft.

This is one of the reasons that certain songs we go back to at a later date sometimes just click for us. At some point we may be in a mental space to appreciate the song on its own terms. But this requires a willingness to go back with an actual open mind. Not always easy.

Val wrote:I can’t believe they haven’t given us anything today!

monsters.

I have been thinking a lot lately about the transition from fanatic to critic. One might say that The Pit is more of a fanatic forum and RM is more of a critic forum. Fanaticism is generally associated with youth and criticism with age. So I have always found it interesting that Star Wars and Pearl Jam have a kind of similar toxicity as someone mentioned earlier. They both cover multiple generations, eras, and producers.

The more art you can consume the more ability you have to fairly critique the artist. The point of entrance into a catalog of art also matters. If Riot Act was your first Pearl Jam album how do you reflect on what came after? Is that different from someone whose first album was Ten? I think there is a sort of spectrum between these two extremes and it is interesting to me what pushes and pulls people either way. Nostalgia, emotion, experience, taste, age, technology, etc. for both the artist and the consumer.

I am still more of a fanatic when it comes to the live shows, but the last album I was fanatical about was Yield. I am much less fanatical about the band members. So I find myself with lots of passes for their show mistakes, and much less for their recorded ones.

This may be the only musician I have this duality with because for most other bands I do not have this kind of history with 20 shows over 18 years and soon to be 12 albums.

stip wrote:This is one of the reasons that certain songs we go back to at a later date sometimes just click for us. At some point we may be in a mental space to appreciate the song on its own terms. But this requires a willingness to go back with an actual open mind. Not always easy.

I'm pretty sure "All or None" wasn't always my slam dunk favorite PJ song of them all. One day, I realized it was one of several waltzes by them, and that raised its stock. Then I went through phases of life that raised its stock some more, and then one day it just clicked that the song has everything I have ever wanted from the band.

Ledbetterdays wrote:I have been thinking a lot lately about the transition from fanatic to critic. One might say that The Pit is more of a fanatic forum and RM is more of a critic forum. Fanaticism is generally associated with youth and criticism with age. So I have always found it interesting that Star Wars and Pearl Jam have a kind of similar toxicity as someone mentioned earlier. They both cover multiple generations, eras, and producers.

The more art you can consume the more ability you have to fairly critique the artist. The point of entrance into a catalog of art also matters. If Riot Act was your first Pearl Jam album how do you reflect on what came after? Is that different from someone whose first album was Ten? I think there is a sort of spectrum between these two extremes and it is interesting to me what pushes and pulls people either way. Nostalgia, emotion, experience, taste, age, technology, etc. for both the artist and the consumer.

I hear you, but I also feel like this tracks the typical descent into bitterness that is very common as people get older, and I don't think that needs to be a given. I also feel like the more bitter/cynical a person has become, the less likely they are to connect with a sappy, earnest ballad from one Mr. Ed Severson III.

For me personally, as a lifelong fan of Star Wars and a fan of PJ for their entire career, I find that the toxic fan part of me comes out a bit with SW but not much for PJ, and I think to some here that translates as an unwillingness to be critical of this band or see faults.