Red Mosquito

VinylGuy wrote:

digster wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

Hatfield wrote:

matt reeder wrote:I think every band reaches a point where they start losing a healthy portion of their fans. People change, and it's like a lot of friendships - sometimes you stick with it, and sometimes you grow apart. To me, PJ is like the friend who you still love to hang out with but you realize you are in a totally different place in life. Sometimes it works but sometimes it's awkward.

That is the difference for me. With Lightning Bolt, I feel like PJ and I are in the same place in life. More of these lyrics speak to me than any of their albums since No Code. As for the music, it is giving me that same unfettered feeling of bliss that I used to get from them regularly.

I get both points...for me, even if i dont like a song or an album, they always speak to me. i dont know why, but most of their songs speak to me. Maybe not now, but i know they will.
Thats why i keep coming back to them.

I think people are primed to give a band they love and have loved for a long time a lot of rope...I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, it's just kind of human. That's why I don't think it's insulting to say that you (or I) may like something more because it's Pearl Jam. It seems obvious to me that I'll give a song a bit more of a shot if it's coming from my favorite band.

Oh well maybe, but i wasnt talking about that. With them it might take me a while, maybe years to realize how good a song is. It happened with most of their albums. And they seem to have a song for different moments of my life there, just waiting....that´s why they are so powerful to me.

Example: Ghost is one of those songs i initially didnt care that hits me differently now.

Great post! They do have that quality of creating art that can hit you at different times and with different interpretations.

harmless wrote:

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.

Do you think you should maybe get a cup of tea? When did I insult Lightning Bolt?

What we learned: Harmless cracks Warehouse up alot.

EJ wrote:

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

I would guess moodier songs with more breathing room, a la Cold Confession.

I didn't want to argue what an interesting song exactly is. Could be all kinds of songs. I just wanted to say how I thought most people use "experiment" and then McParadigm already did that in a better way.

harmless wrote:

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.

Do you think you should maybe get a cup of tea? When did I insult Lightning Bolt?

LOL. you didnt. i was referring to the bold part. i never thought that, i just think its further stretching that you are giving it credit for.

warehouse wrote:

harmless wrote:

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.

Do you think you should maybe get a cup of tea? When did I insult Lightning Bolt?

LOL. you didnt. i was referring to the bold part. i never thought that, i just think its further stretching that you are giving it credit for.

I said it wasn't stretching very far, not that it wasn't stretching at all. I do indeed like it more than Backspacer because there's more interesting stuff going on. My only frustration is that they didn't push the boat out even further. If they can do this stuff here, the sky was the limit. The only reason I can think of for them having kept some of the material more safe is to not alienate the new fans they supposedly picked up with Backspacer. It makes commercial sense to lead them gradually towards something more interesting, rather than throwing them in the deep end.

Well there is a hole in the boat Harmless. I wouldn't do too far out either.

Mike wrote:

EJ wrote:

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

I would guess moodier songs with more breathing room, a la Cold Confession.

I didn't want to argue what an interesting song exactly is. Could be all kinds of songs. I just wanted to say how I thought most people use "experiment" and then McParadigm already did that in a better way.

interesting and experimental are words that are usually shorthand for 'more songs I like'. Describing a type of sound you want is usually more productive.

Are you guys still talking about Coldplay?

Thejambi wrote:Well there is a hole in the boat Harmless. I wouldn't do too far out either.

Yup. They did it right. I do hope they fix that hole for the next album, but more of the same would be OK by me.

stip wrote:
interesting and experimental are words that are usually shorthand for 'more songs I like'. Describing a type of sound you want is usually more productive.

Pretty much, yeah. Non-cringeworthy, too.

HDD Predictions for this week:

1. *Katy Perry (Capitol) 275-300k
2. Miley Cyrus (RCA) 40-45k
3. Drake (Young Money/Cash Money/Republic) 40-45k
4. Lorde (Lava/Republic) 40-45k
5. Pearl Jam (Monkeywrench/Republic) 35-40k
6. *Fifth Harmony (Syco/Epic) 30-35k

EJ wrote:

stip wrote:
interesting and experimental are words that are usually shorthand for 'more songs I like'. Describing a type of sound you want is usually more productive.

Pretty much, yeah. Non-cringeworthy, too.

Yup.

stip wrote:I think experiment may soon join cringe in the upper ranks of words I'm sick of hearing

Mine is the phrase "objectively better".

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

digster wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

Hatfield wrote:

matt reeder wrote:I think every band reaches a point where they start losing a healthy portion of their fans. People change, and it's like a lot of friendships - sometimes you stick with it, and sometimes you grow apart. To me, PJ is like the friend who you still love to hang out with but you realize you are in a totally different place in life. Sometimes it works but sometimes it's awkward.

That is the difference for me. With Lightning Bolt, I feel like PJ and I are in the same place in life. More of these lyrics speak to me than any of their albums since No Code. As for the music, it is giving me that same unfettered feeling of bliss that I used to get from them regularly.

I get both points...for me, even if i dont like a song or an album, they always speak to me. i dont know why, but most of their songs speak to me. Maybe not now, but i know they will.
Thats why i keep coming back to them.

I think people are primed to give a band they love and have loved for a long time a lot of rope...I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, it's just kind of human. That's why I don't think it's insulting to say that you (or I) may like something more because it's Pearl Jam. It seems obvious to me that I'll give a song a bit more of a shot if it's coming from my favorite band.

Oh well maybe, but i wasnt talking about that. With them it might take me a while, maybe years to realize how good a song is. It happened with most of their albums. And they seem to have a song for different moments of my life there, just waiting....that´s why they are so powerful to me.

Example: Ghost is one of those songs i initially didnt care that hits me differently now.

It's the same for me. That's why I don't get why "Listen to it more times and let it sink in" has become such a joke around here. It's how I've always experienced Pearl Jam. The only albums I loved right away were Ten and Vs.

I totally agree. I've set aside quite a few songs that later on down the road and for whatever reason become more well liked than the time of initial listens. This current album is full of many short term growers for me and a couple that have and will take time to enjoy. SBM and Future Days are already tolerable to me after being very put off by each early on.

Anyway, neither here nor there. I love this fact and I love that there really isn't a Pearl Jam song that is truly discarded by me. Simply because I don't think I need to be that serious about the music! If I don't like it enough, I don't listen to it. If I fancy checking it out again..I do..and I do this frequently because more often than not, it is fruitful. Anyway the whole process of discarding it reminds me of when people decide to cull their facebook friends list like its a life or death situation that THEY.MUST.PARE.DOWN.THEIR.FRIENDS!!

Lots of songs to choose from, choose the ones you want to interact with.

**Caveat. This does not include removing them from a storage device where they may actually be taking up space I'm talking purely in enjoyment terms!

stip wrote:

Mike wrote:

EJ wrote:

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

I would guess moodier songs with more breathing room, a la Cold Confession.

I didn't want to argue what an interesting song exactly is. Could be all kinds of songs. I just wanted to say how I thought most people use "experiment" and then McParadigm already did that in a better way.

interesting and experimental are words that are usually shorthand for 'more songs I like'. Describing a type of sound you want is usually more productive.

Yeah, saying I want interesting songs probably wouldn't help anybody understanding what I exactly want. The problem is I'm not even sure myself what is it that I want from Pearl Jam because there isn't something specific that I would find interesting. I can't really put into words what I want Pearl Jam to sound like so I fall back on easy shorthands like "interesting" because there's a vast amount of types of sound that would work for me/that I would find interesting. I could name some examples but that would only cover a tiny procentage. All I can say that "modern Pearl Jam" most of the times falls into the "enjoyable but not really interesting" category.

theplatypus wrote:

stip wrote:I think experiment may soon join cringe in the upper ranks of words I'm sick of hearing

Mine is the phrase "objectively better".

yeah that's a bad one. I'm guilty of it on occasion, even though I don't really believe it's possible to say

I guess you could say Backspacer was experimental, but i would like some effort and pain with my experimental.

McParadigm wrote:HDD Predictions for this week:

1. *Katy Perry (Capitol) 275-300k
2. Miley Cyrus (RCA) 40-45k
3. Drake (Young Money/Cash Money/Republic) 40-45k
4. Lorde (Lava/Republic) 40-45k
5. Pearl Jam (Monkeywrench/Republic) 35-40k
6. *Fifth Harmony (Syco/Epic) 30-35k

you may have said this, but how much did Miley Cyrus (who presumably is a peer to Katy Perry) sell in her first week?

Sales, YouTube views and metacritic lay things out pretty clearly guys.

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:HDD Predictions for this week:

1. *Katy Perry (Capitol) 275-300k
2. Miley Cyrus (RCA) 40-45k
3. Drake (Young Money/Cash Money/Republic) 40-45k
4. Lorde (Lava/Republic) 40-45k
5. Pearl Jam (Monkeywrench/Republic) 35-40k
6. *Fifth Harmony (Syco/Epic) 30-35k

you may have said this, but how much did Miley Cyrus (who presumably is a peer to Katy Perry) sell in her first week?

Over 200. I forget exactly