Red Mosquito

warehouse wrote:

harmless wrote:

warehouse wrote:

harmless wrote:

warehouse wrote:

harmless wrote:

digster wrote:I think I'd argue that there are a few things on here that don't really sound like anything PJ has done before. It may not be as treading quite as much new ground as some of their past records, but there's still some unexpected stuff here.

I agree. I wasn't saying this is the same old, same old, not at all. A lot of the difficulties people are having is that PJ are sounding very new in a lot of ways people don't like. But in the wider context of experimentation, it's... not really. But we have admittedly had this conversation to death.

no one is talking about the "wider context of experimentation" we're talking about pearl jam.

OK. But which songs truly break out of PJ's sound though? And I'm not talking production bells-and-whistles.

how many songs have they made that sound like pendulum? swallowed whole? infallible? the ed solo song they turned into a country song? the entire album has more keys than any previous album.

You're answering a question with a question, which is weird, because in the back of my mind when I asked you my question, my answer to yours was "Plenty." I can look back and find the origins of all these songs, in earlier songs. That isn't a bad thing, and to an extent it was always true of Pearl Jam, but I don't deny that it's there.

you crack me up. we're talking about a rock n roll band, you can find the "origins" of these songs all over the place, even in other peoples songs. and i totally disagree w. your explanation of infallible, its really not like anything they've written before. the verses have a creepy pop vibe, while the chrous takes a motown/r&b turn. sure, they've written creepy pop n r&b type stuff, but not like this, nor in the same song.

Spoiler: show

Imo

Mike wrote:Maybe "unique" and "memorable" are better words than interesting.

people talking about experimenting are really just talking about a greater deviation from convention than the typical song provides.

McParadigm wrote:

people talking about experimenting are really just talking about a greater deviation from convention than the typical song provides.

stip wrote:Do you mean you want them to write darker, slower, more airy and atmospheric songs?

VinylGuy wrote:oh i love Sirens.

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

people talking about experimenting are really just talking about a greater deviation from convention than the typical song provides.

Was that Winston Churchill?

Mike wrote:Maybe "unique" and "memorable" are better words than interesting.

harmless wrote:

warehouse wrote:

harmless wrote:

warehouse wrote:

harmless wrote:

warehouse wrote:

harmless wrote:

digster wrote:I think I'd argue that there are a few things on here that don't really sound like anything PJ has done before. It may not be as treading quite as much new ground as some of their past records, but there's still some unexpected stuff here.

I agree. I wasn't saying this is the same old, same old, not at all. A lot of the difficulties people are having is that PJ are sounding very new in a lot of ways people don't like. But in the wider context of experimentation, it's... not really. But we have admittedly had this conversation to death.

no one is talking about the "wider context of experimentation" we're talking about pearl jam.

OK. But which songs truly break out of PJ's sound though? And I'm not talking production bells-and-whistles.

how many songs have they made that sound like pendulum? swallowed whole? infallible? the ed solo song they turned into a country song? the entire album has more keys than any previous album.

You're answering a question with a question, which is weird, because in the back of my mind when I asked you my question, my answer to yours was "Plenty." I can look back and find the origins of all these songs, in earlier songs. That isn't a bad thing, and to an extent it was always true of Pearl Jam, but I don't deny that it's there.

you crack me up. we're talking about a rock n roll band, you can find the "origins" of these songs all over the place, even in other peoples songs. and i totally disagree w. your explanation of infallible, its really not like anything they've written before. the verses have a creepy pop vibe, while the chrous takes a motown/r&b turn. sure, they've written creepy pop n r&b type stuff, but not like this, nor in the same song.

I agree with you on that last part; they mash up two different kinds of song. It's nice, and I like it, even if I don't think it's entirely successful. But what you haven't demolished is my point that this song has its origins in earlier Pearl Jam songs. So I'm not sure why I "crack you up" at all, sorry. You're resorting to being condescending because you don't really have a point. You seem to think that I'm arguing that LB is awful and uninteresting just because it's not stretching very far. I don't really care whether PJ is a rock band, they've certainly stretched themselves more than this before. It doesn't mean I don't like the new album, so relax. But honestly, have you heard the new Arcade Fire album? That's full of experimentation. It's not a choice between Mozart or "rock band".

McParadigm wrote:

people talking about experimenting are really just talking about a greater deviation from convention than the typical song provides.

Do you mean you want them to write darker, slower, more airy and atmospheric songs?

Thejambi wrote:I don't find Lightning Bolt overly derivative just as I don't find it particularly daring.

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

people talking about experimenting are really just talking about a greater deviation from convention than the typical song provides.

Was that Winston Churchill?

Chairry, from Pee Wee's Playhouse.

warehouse wrote:

harmless wrote:

warehouse wrote:

harmless wrote:

warehouse wrote:

harmless wrote:

warehouse wrote:

harmless wrote:

digster wrote:I think I'd argue that there are a few things on here that don't really sound like anything PJ has done before. It may not be as treading quite as much new ground as some of their past records, but there's still some unexpected stuff here.

I agree. I wasn't saying this is the same old, same old, not at all. A lot of the difficulties people are having is that PJ are sounding very new in a lot of ways people don't like. But in the wider context of experimentation, it's... not really. But we have admittedly had this conversation to death.

no one is talking about the "wider context of experimentation" we're talking about pearl jam.

OK. But which songs truly break out of PJ's sound though? And I'm not talking production bells-and-whistles.

how many songs have they made that sound like pendulum? swallowed whole? infallible? the ed solo song they turned into a country song? the entire album has more keys than any previous album.

You're answering a question with a question, which is weird, because in the back of my mind when I asked you my question, my answer to yours was "Plenty." I can look back and find the origins of all these songs, in earlier songs. That isn't a bad thing, and to an extent it was always true of Pearl Jam, but I don't deny that it's there.

you crack me up. we're talking about a rock n roll band, you can find the "origins" of these songs all over the place, even in other peoples songs. and i totally disagree w. your explanation of infallible, its really not like anything they've written before. the verses have a creepy pop vibe, while the chrous takes a motown/r&b turn. sure, they've written creepy pop n r&b type stuff, but not like this, nor in the same song.

I agree with you on that last part; they mash up two different kinds of song. It's nice, and I like it, even if I don't think it's entirely successful. But what you haven't demolished is my point that this song has its origins in earlier Pearl Jam songs. So I'm not sure why I "crack you up" at all, sorry. You're resorting to being condescending because you don't really have a point. You seem to think that I'm arguing that LB is awful and uninteresting just because it's not stretching very far. I don't really care whether PJ is a rock band, they've certainly stretched themselves more than this before. It doesn't mean I don't like the new album, so relax. But honestly, have you heard the new Arcade Fire album? That's full of experimentation. It's not a choice between Mozart or "rock band".

you crack me up b/c it seems like you are constantly looking to argue on here. im not sure where you get this idea that im vigorously defending LB from your terrible insults. i just think its more different than you are giving it credit for. siting 4 separate songs for 1 doesnt really disprove anything.

Thejambi wrote:Chairry is a cunt.