Red Mosquito

Monkey_Driven wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:I just don't see how there's enough information to form a reliable, informed opinion on this either way.

Trag, you at least have personal experience with SK to pull from. But I'm seeing too many strong opinions in general, all around, that it gives me pause and makes this whole thing feel weird and icky.

This is where I stand. From an outsider's perspective it seems pretty shitty of Janet to leave the band at this time, but there's probably much more there.

I mean, I guess a sub-question to all of this is... why do I need to pick a team/side anyway, y'know?

You dont need to pick a side joe.

The strong information we can base our opinions on is that this record is bad.

VinylGuy wrote:You dont need to pick a side joe.

I don't tell you I love you enough.

verb_to_trust wrote:The strong information we can base our opinions on is that this record is bad.

I liked the first two songs. Not really feeling the new one though.

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:You dont need to pick a side joe.

I don't tell you I love you enough.

verb_to_trust wrote:The strong information we can base our opinions on is that this record is bad.

I loved the first single, didnt care much for the second song and really liked the new one.

Even if its ¨bad¨, its such a cool departure im all in for this new side of the band.

VinylGuy wrote:I appreciate Carrie´s words. No bullshit. More truthful that Janet for sure.

Huh?

Janet's statement was professional but pretty direct as to her reasons.

Monkey_Driven wrote:This is where I stand. From an outsider's perspective it seems pretty shitty of Janet to leave the band at this time, but there's probably much more there.

I don't see how it's shitty at all.

Leaving during recording would've been much worse, given the costs the band would've already incurred in studio time (for recordings which would probably end up being scrapped) and the need to find a new band member in the middle of an existing creative process.

It seems to Janet's credit that she saw out the sessions, and even one promo appearance, before handing in her notice.

It's not a huge inconvenience on the band to find another drummer to learn a setlist of songs for the upcoming tour.

Birds in Hell wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:I appreciate Carrie´s words. No bullshit. More truthful that Janet for sure.

Huh?

Janet's statement was professional but pretty direct as to her reasons.

Monkey_Driven wrote:This is where I stand. From an outsider's perspective it seems pretty shitty of Janet to leave the band at this time, but there's probably much more there.

I don't see how it's shitty at all.

Leaving during recording would've been much worse, given the costs the band would've already incurred in studio time (for recordings which would probably end up being scrapped) and the need to find a new band member in the middle of an existing creative process.

It seems to Janet's credit that she saw out the sessions, and even one promo appearance, before handing in her notice.

It's not a huge inconvenience on the band to find another drummer to learn a setlist of songs for the upcoming tour.

True but there is also the marketing/optics of the thing. Again, I'm not taking sides. I think there's too much we don't know and I certainly don't fault Janet for walking away based on her comments/press release. From one angle she looks very professional and I admire her for doing what she did when she did it. But I'm just saying S-K is an entity/brand/business and one could argue that this looks really bad for everyone else involved. I'm sure someone on their team sees this as a lampooning and fears damage to album and ticket sales.

Again, not saying that will happen or that Janet intended to inflict any (let alone maximum) harm. But it's one aspect to this whole machine that's worth keeping in mind as we continue to examine it from all angles.

durdencommatyler wrote:True but there is also the marketing/optics of the thing.

durdencommatyler wrote:But I'm just saying S-K is an entity/brand/business and one could argue that this looks really bad for everyone else involved.

I don't think these should be important considerations.

In fact, I suspect it's actively harmful to a band's creative energy to conceptualise what they're doing in these terms.

Birds in Hell wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:True but there is also the marketing/optics of the thing.

durdencommatyler wrote:But I'm just saying S-K is an entity/brand/business and one could argue that this looks really bad for everyone else involved.

I don't think these should be important considerations.

In fact, I suspect it's actively harmful to a band's creative energy to conceptualise what they're doing in these terms.

Of course you do, you're a fan. I would tend to agree with you as a music fan. But that's just not the way the world works. And whether or not you and I want to think about that stuff, I'm sure there are people within the SK machine whose job is absolutely think about this stuff. It's just one more consideration/perspective that I think has to be thought about in the grand scheme of this whole thing if anyone is to look at it all honestly.

Dave Grohl should play drums for them

verb_to_trust wrote:Dave Grohl should play drums for them

Nah. Let Steve West do it since Malkmus's current band had Janet for a bit.

The girl from Warpaint is fucking awesome. But i want her on Warpaint so...

durdencommatyler wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:True but there is also the marketing/optics of the thing.

durdencommatyler wrote:But I'm just saying S-K is an entity/brand/business and one could argue that this looks really bad for everyone else involved.

I don't think these should be important considerations.

In fact, I suspect it's actively harmful to a band's creative energy to conceptualise what they're doing in these terms.

Of course you do, you're a fan. I would tend to agree with you as a music fan. But that's just not the way the world works. And whether or not you and I want to think about that stuff, I'm sure there are people within the SK machine whose job is absolutely think about this stuff. It's just one more consideration/perspective that I think has to be thought about in the grand scheme of this whole thing if anyone is to look at it all honestly.

Lots of bands do this. Pearl Jam stays together for basically these reasons exclusively, and look at all the joy they've provided us over the last 15 years.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:True but there is also the marketing/optics of the thing.

durdencommatyler wrote:But I'm just saying S-K is an entity/brand/business and one could argue that this looks really bad for everyone else involved.

I don't think these should be important considerations.

In fact, I suspect it's actively harmful to a band's creative energy to conceptualise what they're doing in these terms.

Of course you do, you're a fan. I would tend to agree with you as a music fan. But that's just not the way the world works. And whether or not you and I want to think about that stuff, I'm sure there are people within the SK machine whose job is absolutely think about this stuff. It's just one more consideration/perspective that I think has to be thought about in the grand scheme of this whole thing if anyone is to look at it all honestly.

Maybe we're looking at this through a different lens but I don't agree that the world necessarily works that way, it's a deliberate choice - and to S-K's credit, they haven't seemed to take a "protect the brand" approach here either.

I'm not sure what other options would've been available to Janet in this circumstance that would've resulted in less "damage to the brand": does she stick it out in the band even though she hates the new music? Does she still leave but provide some bland, smokescreen reason? I don't see how either of those is preferable on a personal or professional level.

Birds in Hell wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:True but there is also the marketing/optics of the thing.

durdencommatyler wrote:But I'm just saying S-K is an entity/brand/business and one could argue that this looks really bad for everyone else involved.

I don't think these should be important considerations.

In fact, I suspect it's actively harmful to a band's creative energy to conceptualise what they're doing in these terms.

Of course you do, you're a fan. I would tend to agree with you as a music fan. But that's just not the way the world works. And whether or not you and I want to think about that stuff, I'm sure there are people within the SK machine whose job is absolutely think about this stuff. It's just one more consideration/perspective that I think has to be thought about in the grand scheme of this whole thing if anyone is to look at it all honestly.

Maybe we're looking at this through a different lens but I don't agree that the world necessarily works that way, it's a deliberate choice - and to S-K's credit, they haven't seemed to take a "protect the brand" approach here either.

I'm not sure what other options would've been available to Janet in this circumstance that would've resulted in less "damage to the brand": does she stick it out in the band even though she hates the new music? Does she still leave but provide some bland, smokescreen reason? I don't see how either of those is preferable on a personal or professional level.

Again, I agree with you. My point was never that those voices were "right" or "valid." Just that I'm sure they exist and from that point of view (not the only point of view, not the correct point of view, necessarily) it's really fucking bad timing. I wouldn't be surprised if these discussions were happening, is all I'm saying. Even WITHOUT Carrie and Corinne.

It's just one other angle to consider, not the answer. And if one subscribes to that POV or takes time to consider it, there's an argument that the move is super shitty on that scale.

Again, not saying I agree with that. Just looking at various possible angles.

I wish I could be in a band with new music i hate but still go out on tour and rock the house with an extensive back catalog.

From Janet's POV, this thing seems like lose/lose for her. Like you said, what's better? And I just don't know if leaving during recording is better or worse. But each is something interesting to analyse and consider, to me.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:True but there is also the marketing/optics of the thing.

durdencommatyler wrote:But I'm just saying S-K is an entity/brand/business and one could argue that this looks really bad for everyone else involved.

I don't think these should be important considerations.

In fact, I suspect it's actively harmful to a band's creative energy to conceptualise what they're doing in these terms.

Of course you do, you're a fan. I would tend to agree with you as a music fan. But that's just not the way the world works. And whether or not you and I want to think about that stuff, I'm sure there are people within the SK machine whose job is absolutely think about this stuff. It's just one more consideration/perspective that I think has to be thought about in the grand scheme of this whole thing if anyone is to look at it all honestly.

Maybe we're looking at this through a different lens but I don't agree that the world necessarily works that way, it's a deliberate choice - and to S-K's credit, they haven't seemed to take a "protect the brand" approach here either.

I'm not sure what other options would've been available to Janet in this circumstance that would've resulted in less "damage to the brand": does she stick it out in the band even though she hates the new music? Does she still leave but provide some bland, smokescreen reason? I don't see how either of those is preferable on a personal or professional level.

Again, I agree with you. My point was never that those voices were "right" or "valid." Just that I'm sure they exist and from that point of view (not the only point of view, not the correct point of view, necessarily) it's really fucking bad timing. I wouldn't be surprised if these discussions were happening, is all I'm saying. Even WITHOUT Carrie and Corinne.

It's just one other angle to consider, not the answer. And if one subscribes to that POV or takes time to consider it, there's an argument that the move is super shitty on that scale.

Again, not saying I agree with that. Just looking at various possible angles.

I think it also could be less about branding and more just a feeling of this decision defining a piece of art you've made, and something that may be very important to you. If on top of feeling like they've been left in the lurch on the tour, Carrie may feel that this album that she may love and wants to define on her/their own terms is now going to be defined by something completely out of her control, and maybe completely out of the blue. I'm sure she understands that this is going to define the record to fans, to the band and even to herself. I think it's completely understandable to feel frustrated and angry about that, just as it's completely understandable for Janet to leave the band if that's what she feels like she has to do.