Red Mosquito

before Pearl Jam, Stone, Jeff and Mike all looked like something out of a hair metal band ...... so .....

guitar_davey wrote:

Mike wrote:

stip wrote:

Mike wrote:I am now convinced this won't be their heaviest album in a while but their poppiest and most hook-laden album in a while.

Based on what we have heard/read my guess is that it is the most drum forward and the most mike forward, which may make it heavy for a certain value of heavy, but I suspect you're right about the hookiness of it. All the bits we've heard so far are catchy as fuck.

The difference between future days and something special (what we've heard so far) is that future days is never stuck in my head and something special won't leave, even if I kind of want it to

true.

and something special also refuses to leave my head

Something Special is going to end up being the latter day PJ ballad we all *want* to hate (a la Future Days or Sleeping By Myself) but won't be able to.

i have no issue hating future days

It’s Friday. Not given us a new clip on Friday is inhumane. I’m sure the Geneva convention has something to say about this kind of treatment.

stip wrote:

Fattie_Vedder wrote:One thing that baffles me about this band especially over the past few albums is how do they tend to follow the same pattern with types of songs and the order that they show up on the album. Always open with 2 to 3 rockers, slow down, longer mid tempo, then the obligatory fast, punky song followed by an incongruent vibe shift to a slow, and sometimes cheesy schmaltzy song. Why has this become the formula? Who told them they need to have one punky song and one cheesy schmaltzer on every album, often one after the other?

One thing that was delightful about Gigaton is that it partially broke out of that mold. WES, though a rocker, is a different kind of opener. They don’t have a single punky song (I don’t think ND counts as punky), and I actually really like buckle up following TTLW. Closing on several slower songs was interesting too.

So this 'formula' has been with them for a long long time. Look at the two rockers

Once-Even Flow
Go-Animal
Last Exit-STBC

No Code and Yield break it up

Breakerfall - God's Dice

Riot Act also an exception

Life Wasted - WWS

GSMF - Got Some

Getaway - MYM

WES - SBWM

That's pretty much their norm. And having a mix of faster songs, punkier songs, anthems, and ballads feels like, well, a rock album.

Even some of the things that feel newer, like that later in the album fun 'cool' down has always been there (Porch, Blood, Satan's Bed, Lukin, MFC). Really Binaural is the only album without one. They've gone for a more explicit punk or sometimes even pop punk style as they've gotten older, but that seems more like an artistic shift, for better or worse, within an already established formula.

I totally agree that generally that’s been the formula for a long time, but it’s felt even more formulaic in their modern era. Especially because they more consistently feature a more explicit punk song and seemingly out of place Eddie style acoustic number as the number 8 or 9 song on the album. Who says a rock album has to have those styles of songs? Who says a rock album can’t be only huge anthems? Or have 5 fast punk songs? Not that I want that, my point is that I wish they would break out of that formula.

Actually I think it raises a question about how the formula may or may not influence their creative process. For example, are they composing songs to fit the formula (hey guys, we need one punky number for this album). That would be terrible in my opinion. Or is it more a case of these are the songs that have been composed, and certain band members gravitate towards certain styles of songs, and those end up getting picked? Or some combination of the two? Or can we something else? (<< sorry couldn’t resist)

Yeah whats their plan here, releasing a clip every day next week? They hinted at 3-4 more Clips at least

Mike's favourite band is KISS

isn't Watt gay? the flamboyance is fine

Ms Harmless wrote:Mike's favourite band is KISS

no its not

Fattie_Vedder wrote:

stip wrote:

Fattie_Vedder wrote:One thing that baffles me about this band especially over the past few albums is how do they tend to follow the same pattern with types of songs and the order that they show up on the album. Always open with 2 to 3 rockers, slow down, longer mid tempo, then the obligatory fast, punky song followed by an incongruent vibe shift to a slow, and sometimes cheesy schmaltzy song. Why has this become the formula? Who told them they need to have one punky song and one cheesy schmaltzer on every album, often one after the other?

One thing that was delightful about Gigaton is that it partially broke out of that mold. WES, though a rocker, is a different kind of opener. They don’t have a single punky song (I don’t think ND counts as punky), and I actually really like buckle up following TTLW. Closing on several slower songs was interesting too.

So this 'formula' has been with them for a long long time. Look at the two rockers

Once-Even Flow
Go-Animal
Last Exit-STBC

No Code and Yield break it up

Breakerfall - God's Dice

Riot Act also an exception

Life Wasted - WWS

GSMF - Got Some

Getaway - MYM

WES - SBWM

That's pretty much their norm. And having a mix of faster songs, punkier songs, anthems, and ballads feels like, well, a rock album.

Even some of the things that feel newer, like that later in the album fun 'cool' down has always been there (Porch, Blood, Satan's Bed, Lukin, MFC). Really Binaural is the only album without one. They've gone for a more explicit punk or sometimes even pop punk style as they've gotten older, but that seems more like an artistic shift, for better or worse, within an already established formula.

I totally agree that generally that’s been the formula for a long time, but it’s felt even more formulaic in their modern era. Especially because they more consistently feature a more explicit punk song and seemingly out of place Eddie style acoustic number as the number 8 or 9 song on the album. Who says a rock album has to have those styles of songs? Who says a rock album can’t be only huge anthems? Or have 5 fast punk songs? Not that I want that, my point is that I wish they would break out of that formula.

Actually I think it raises a question about how the formula may or may not influence their creative process. For example, are they composing songs to fit the formula (hey guys, we need one punky number for this album). That would be terrible in my opinion. Or is it more a case of these are the songs that have been composed, and certain band members gravitate towards certain styles of songs, and those end up getting picked? Or some combination of the two? Or can we something else? (<< sorry couldn’t resist)

This is another thing I'd love to know about their process, which they never really talk about. I assume there's not a template (shit, we forgot to write a punk song, lets bang one out). I suspect it's either:

A: They are looking for a diversity of styles on an album, so that each album has some representation of all the corners of the pearl jam universe

or

B: Someone may write a bunch of a certain type of songs, but they don't want them overepresented on the album - we already have one acoustic number on the record, lets not overdo it, so we're just picking our favorite

I guess there's not a huge difference between A and B

Mike wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:Mike's favourite band is KISS

no its not

It is UFO!

No problem at all with how anyone looks.
I’ve had classmates turn up at school wearing skirts because they loved Grateful Dead.
It’s an extremely backwards stance to judge people’s looks.

Man, trag would not have liked how I looked in high school in the late 80's and early 90's.

I adored baggy Girbauds and checkered flannel shirts

My first ten or so concerts:

Metallica/Ozzy
Boston
AC/DC
Poison
Cinderella/Judas Priest
Ratt
Loverboy
Kix
Stryper
Dokken

Then I found Soundgarden and "grunge" in 91/92. But before that you can imagine how douchey I looked.

stip wrote:

Fattie_Vedder wrote:

stip wrote:

Fattie_Vedder wrote:One thing that baffles me about this band especially over the past few albums is how do they tend to follow the same pattern with types of songs and the order that they show up on the album. Always open with 2 to 3 rockers, slow down, longer mid tempo, then the obligatory fast, punky song followed by an incongruent vibe shift to a slow, and sometimes cheesy schmaltzy song. Why has this become the formula? Who told them they need to have one punky song and one cheesy schmaltzer on every album, often one after the other?

One thing that was delightful about Gigaton is that it partially broke out of that mold. WES, though a rocker, is a different kind of opener. They don’t have a single punky song (I don’t think ND counts as punky), and I actually really like buckle up following TTLW. Closing on several slower songs was interesting too.

So this 'formula' has been with them for a long long time. Look at the two rockers

Once-Even Flow
Go-Animal
Last Exit-STBC

No Code and Yield break it up

Breakerfall - God's Dice

Riot Act also an exception

Life Wasted - WWS

GSMF - Got Some

Getaway - MYM

WES - SBWM

That's pretty much their norm. And having a mix of faster songs, punkier songs, anthems, and ballads feels like, well, a rock album.

Even some of the things that feel newer, like that later in the album fun 'cool' down has always been there (Porch, Blood, Satan's Bed, Lukin, MFC). Really Binaural is the only album without one. They've gone for a more explicit punk or sometimes even pop punk style as they've gotten older, but that seems more like an artistic shift, for better or worse, within an already established formula.

I totally agree that generally that’s been the formula for a long time, but it’s felt even more formulaic in their modern era. Especially because they more consistently feature a more explicit punk song and seemingly out of place Eddie style acoustic number as the number 8 or 9 song on the album. Who says a rock album has to have those styles of songs? Who says a rock album can’t be only huge anthems? Or have 5 fast punk songs? Not that I want that, my point is that I wish they would break out of that formula.

Actually I think it raises a question about how the formula may or may not influence their creative process. For example, are they composing songs to fit the formula (hey guys, we need one punky number for this album). That would be terrible in my opinion. Or is it more a case of these are the songs that have been composed, and certain band members gravitate towards certain styles of songs, and those end up getting picked? Or some combination of the two? Or can we something else? (<< sorry couldn’t resist)

This is another thing I'd love to know about their process, which they never really talk about. I assume there's not a template (shit, we forgot to write a punk song, lets bang one out). I suspect it's either:

A: They are looking for a diversity of styles on an album, so that each album has some representation of all the corners of the pearl jam universe

or

B: Someone may write a bunch of a certain type of songs, but they don't want them overepresented on the album - we already have one acoustic number on the record, lets not overdo it, so we're just picking our favorite

I guess there's not a huge difference between A and B

I can totally see that. I too would love the inside scoop on how they run their process and would love to hear from the members how they perceive themselves. I suspect it’s more B than A, although they are two sides of the same coin. I can see a world where B was more true initially and then it habituated or instilled the ethos of having a diverse sounding album as a foundational element for their records, and then that perpetuates A.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Val wrote:No problem at all with how anyone looks.
I’ve had classmates turn up at school wearing skirts because they loved Grateful Dead.
It’s an extremely backwards stance to judge people’s looks.

I don’t think so. I think sometimes what you see is what you get with a person.

And what you see can be primarily driven by whatever biases or judgements you’ve made about the look.

Mike wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:Mike's favourite band is KISS

no its not

tragabigzanda wrote:

Val wrote:No problem at all with how anyone looks.
I’ve had classmates turn up at school wearing skirts because they loved Grateful Dead.
It’s an extremely backwards stance to judge people’s looks.

I don’t think so. I think sometimes what you see is what you get with a person.

watt do you "get" with a person who looks like watt?