Red Mosquito

Awwwwwhhh'mmmuh ssaaaauureee aawwmuh Eddaaaaaaayyyyy ahuh.

stip wrote:TLDR version for chud:

I was gonna say...lots of words in this thread.

Stip, if you truly love the last three records, I am happy for you that you can get so much joy from them. I appreciate you taking the time to write about them. But personally, I cannot for the life of me hear what you are describing. It sounds like you have different records to the ones I have. The effort the band has gone to, to as you describe, 'recapture' some of feel of the early records has, to my ears, completely failed. They are bad songs, and worst of all, they sound forced. Not the real deal. Sucked of all surprise, excitement and joy. Bland and tired - I don't hear any of the excitement and joy you describe. And what were they trying to recapture exactly? The whole point of those first six records is that they are quite immediate, but they have substance and power and belief behind them. But they never sounded the same from record to record - all 6 sound very different from one another. Very different. The appeal to me was that they rocked out, could bring it down, and go off some where strange, often within the space of one song - and this was all done without reverting to really cheesy generic riffs and lyrics. I hear the return of the confident sounding lyrics you describe, but here they are rendered crass, obvious, cheesy and lacking in quality. Why do you need everything spelled out so obviously? It's hardly like it was hard to interpret his lyrics anyway! You can hear the bands progression from record to record up to binaural and it is perfect - maturing like a fine wine. Then suddenly it all stops and they start writing shit what you call 'immediate' (I would say awful) songs that literally sound stupid. I wouldn't even call it going backwards so much as I would completely regressing to pond life. Their songs were always quite immediate - that was part of their power, but they had so much substance and passion behind them, that you can't get sick of them. I immediately disliked nearly all their new rockers, my brain just went 'erm, this is fake bullshit'. This happened to MANY other people as well stip. It's very bizarre.

It sounds like someone trying to do an impression of what pearl jam sound like and not pulling it off. If they wanted to recapture the spirit of those early records, they should have tried to recapture the creativity and abandon and passion. Done something strange and rocking. Not pandered to anybody. The band never went for the obvious. But they can't write good riffs and lyrics anymore which is pretty important in a rock song. The key to a good rock song is a good riff or chord progression. Then good lyrics. Many of the new tracks just don't have any of this. Pearl jam were never overly intellectual - I always thought of them as fun, interesting rock music that filled me joy, I didn't need them to pink floyd. But frankly the new songs are for simpletons. The only link I can see between black and future days is that the cheesiness in black was kept just the right side of cheesiness. On future days it is just pure absolute cheese. Some people, cannot stand this amount of bullshit, even if the sentiment behind it is real. Some people have really negative reactions to this processed sounding, lyrically trite, musically schmaltzy garbage. It goes against everything I like about music. I'm not sure about your no code and yield argument either - you literally seem to be attacking no code for the takes time it takes to reveal itself, and the fact that there is lots going on, and that leash's lyrics aren't included. This doesn't make sense to me. All those things sound like good things to me. I get that it isn't as anthemic as the first three, but neither are the last three records. But it Is something different and deep - it's the one that is holding up the best through time, that's for goddamn sure. I don't see how yield was in anyway trying to look back to their early records. It sounds completely different, another progression, and it contains many of their best songs. It's like a happy, less experimental no code in terms of the type of arrangements used. I'm amazed that anyone could listen to the likes of severed hand, mind your manners etc, and think a brain of j, evolution or faithful is inferior. To me, that is nuts, it really is. I honestly think some people just can't tell the difference between a quality riff and a shit one. IMHO. It seems to me that you prefer pearl jam as an ethos or idea perhaps - anything that goes against that you don't seem to be able to appreciate. I think that is quite sad as it means you have put up barriers around liking such incredibly good rock records. Still, it takes different strokes as they say, even if it makes no sense to me. I just like good songs.

I like this guy.

You would.

mac wrote:Stip, if you truly love the last three records, I am happy for you that you can get so much joy from them. I appreciate you taking the time to write about them. But personally, I cannot for the life of me hear what you are describing. It sounds like you have different records to the ones I have. The effort the band has gone to, to as you describe, 'recapture' some of feel of the early records has, to my ears, completely failed. They are bad songs, and worst of all, they sound forced. Not the real deal. Sucked of all surprise, excitement and joy. Bland and tired - I don't hear any of the excitement and joy you describe. And what were they trying to recapture exactly? The whole point of those first six records is that they are quite immediate, but they have substance and power and belief behind them. But they never sounded the same from record to record - all 6 sound very different from one another. Very different. The appeal to me was that they rocked out, could bring it down, and go off some where strange, often within the space of one song - and this was all done without reverting to really cheesy generic riffs and lyrics. I hear the return of the confident sounding lyrics you describe, but here they are rendered crass, obvious, cheesy and lacking in quality. Why do you send everything spelled out so obviously? It's hardly like it was hard to intepret his lyrics anyway! You can hear the bands progression from record to record up to binaural and it is perfect - maturing like a fine wine. Then suddenly it all stops and they start writing shit what you call 'immediate' (I would say awful) songs that literally sound stupid. I wouldn't even call it going backwards so much as I would completely regressing to pond life. Their songs were always quite immediate - that was part of their power, but they had so much substance and passion behind them, that you can't get sick of them. I immediately disliked nearly all their new rockers, my brain just went 'erm, this is fake bullshit'. This happened to MANY other people as well stip. It's very bizarre.

You're clearly not alone. And these are all perfectly sensible reasons for not liking these records. They're not speaking to you. Some people call the life wasted riff cheesy and generic. It is one of my favorites in the catalog. Some people swear that Off he Goes and In Hiding are amazing songs. I've never liked the first (I think it is narcissistic tripe over pretty music) and became quickly bored with the second. I am embarrassed by the lyrics of soon forget and always have been. I've always found Sleight of Hand an interesting idea in theory that was boring in its execution. I used to really love Present Tense but now it feels a bit too much like high school poetry to me. Although clearly not to many others. It took me years to really appreciate a song like who you are because the lyrics were such a turn off.

Some of the lyrics on recent songs are hit or miss. But they've always been. The only album with high quality lyrics from start to finish are Vitalogy and Binaural (at least the songs Eddie wrote). But songs like Yellow Moon, Infallible, Force of Nature, Speed of Sound, Comatose, etc. can certainly sit alongside the best stuff they've done. I don't think there's a tremendous drop off (or much of one) in lyrical quality on the recent records. S/T may be the one exception. They're not bad, but the quality is not as good.

I get that you don't like the new stuff. That's fine. But comments like:

when suddenly it all stops and they start writing shit what you call 'immediate' (I would say awful) songs that literally sound stupid. I wouldn't even call it going backwards so much as I would completely regressing to pond life.

are more than a little hyperbolic, and, I would suggest, hardly reflect the larger reaction people have to this music. Just the really visceral response that you have. But to be clear, these records have, commercially (especially if you control for the decline in the industry) done as well as or better than anything since No Code. They're produced some very successful singles. And they've been well reviewed. So these songs are speaking to someone. Just not you (or many of the people who post here).

mac wrote: It sounds like someone trying to do an impression of what pearl jam sound like and not pulling it off. If they wanted to recapture the spirit of those early records, they should have tried to recapture the creativity and abandon and passion. Done something strange and rocking. Not pandered to anybody. The band never went for the obvious. But they can't write good riffs and lyrics anymore which is pretty importing in a rock song.

the first 3 songs on S/T are quite possibly my favorite stretch of 3 songs in the catalog

mac wrote: The key to a good rock song is a good riff or chord progression. Then good lyrics. Many of the new tracks just don't have any of this. Pearl jam were never overly intellectual - I always thought of them as fun, interesting rock music that filled me joy, I didn't need them to pink floyd. But frankly the new songs are for simpletons

well.I AM pretty much a simpleton. So that explains that.

mac wrote: I'm not sure about your no code and yield argument either - you literally seem to be attacking no code for the takes time it takes to reveal itself, and the fact that there is lots going on, and that leash's lyrics aren't included.

No, I'm explaining why I don't like No Code (which is still an album I like a lot, btw. I like all of pearl jam's albums a great deal) as much as the other albums. I don't care that the tracks take a while to reveal themselves. I think what they ultimately reveal is not as emotionally or intellectually compelling as you do. I think other artists do this better. I don't think anyone does the stuff I highlighted in my first post better than pearl jam.

Also, I compared Black and Sirens, not Black and Future Days. I compared Future Days to Thumbing my Way (although these are both somewhat superficial comparisons)

mac wrote:
This doesn't make sense to me. All those things sound like good things to me. I get that it isn't as anthemic as the first three, but neither are the last three records. But it Is something different and deep - it's the one that is holding up the best through time, that's for goddamn sure.

I guess I am not easily impressed by its alleged 'deepness', and I certainly don't enjoy it as much, but it is also entirely possible I'm just too simple to really understand it. I've tried though.

mac wrote:
I don't see how yield was in anyway trying to look back to their early records. It sounds completely different, another progression, and it contains many of their best songs. It's like a happy, less experimental no code in terms of the type of arrangements used.

you mean the album full of anthems that everyone, including themselves, billed as their first 'return to form'?

mac wrote:
I'm amazed that anyone could listen to the likes of severed hand, mind your manners etc, and think a brain of j, evolution or faithful is inferior.

Well, Do the Evolution is certainly better than those songs. I think Faithful is incredibly overrated. Not especially impressed with the riff, I think the chorus is kinda silly, and I don't like the vaguely nasally quality to Eddie's voice. Severed Hand is a solid song, but hardly a favorite. I do think Mind Your Manners is fantastic. I probably prefer it to Brain of J.

mac wrote:
To me, that is nuts, it really is. I honestly think some people just can't tell the difference between a quality riff and a shit one.

Could be...if you could put together some sort of instructional video or diagram or just in some way lay out how I can tell the difference it will no doubt enhance my future ability to appreciate music.

mac wrote:
IMHO. It seems to me that you prefer pearl jam as an ethos or idea perhaps - anything that goes against that you don't seem to be able to appreciate. I think that is quite sad as it means you have put up barriers around liking such incredibly good rock records. Still, it takes different strokes as they say, even if it makes no sense to me. I just like good songs.

I don't know. I've mostly managed to not get too angry or frazzled by the songs I don't like. They're just songs I don't like. Sometimes I'm disappointed. I certainly don't think the ones that don't fit into my preconceived notions of what pearl jam are 'literally sound stupid' and assume that people who don't agree with my tastes simply lack the ability to understand objectively what good music is.

Hey Stip here's your monthly reminder that I have absolutely no respect for your opinions on Pearl Jam. But I appreciate you as a person.

theplatypus wrote:Hey Stip here's your monthly reminder that I have absolutely no respect for your opinions on Pearl Jam. But I appreciate you as a person.

what I don't understand is how the lack of respect people have for my taste in music translated into movies. I think that's mostly just the result of extensive McParadigming. He's still pissed that I kind of enjoyed watching Harrison Ford revisit the Indiana Jones character in Crystal Skull.

Stip is living an eternal opposite day.

mac wrote:I honestly think some people just can't tell the difference between a quality riff and a shit one.

Can you rate the following riffs for me on a scale of 1 to 100 please? Also provide a paragraph or so of description explaining your rating.

Led Zeppelin, ''Black Dog''
Van Halen, ''Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love''
Pearl Jam, ''Given to Fly''
Rage Against the Machine, ''Bombtrack''
Metallica, ''King Nothing''
The Beatles, ''Day Tripper''
Michael Jackson, ''Beat It''
Nirvana, ''Breed''
Dave Brubeck, ''Take Five''
Johnny Cash, ''Ghost Riders in the Sky''

Kevin Davis wrote:

mac wrote:I honestly think some people just can't tell the difference between a quality riff and a shit one.

Can you rate the following riffs for me on a scale of 1 to 100 please? Also provide a paragraph or so of description explaining your rating.

Led Zeppelin, ''Black Dog''
Van Halen, ''Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love''
Pearl Jam, ''Given to Fly''
Rage Against the Machine, ''Bombtrack''
Metallica, ''King Nothing''
The Beatles, ''Day Tripper''
Michael Jackson, ''Beat It''
Nirvana, ''Breed''
Dave Brubeck, ''Take Five''
Johnny Cash, ''Ghost Riders in the Sky''

Of course I will - it's my pleasure!

Black dog - 100/100. One of the best songs of all time, cleverly featuring not just one, but three great riffs. And what perculiar riffs they are! A military-esque call and response verse section, with a weird, snakey riff that sort of staggers and grinds along, all the while providing maximum head banging opportunities. The live version from 'how the west was won' is far superior, with heavier guitar, and insane drums. A big thumbs up!

Ain't talking bout love - 50/100. This track is directly responsible for lots of shit. It's ok I guess, and everyone loves it, but I find it a bit annoying. It's a catchy intro riff that goes into a very boring verse riff - i prefer jump which isn't what I should be saying. I like the drums on this, but the most exciting bit is the first 10 seconds then it goes bad.

Given to fly - 85/100. This is pretty good, but it's actually the vocals that make this song - what a great chorus! It's a wonderful track. They tried to explore similar territory with amongst the waves but didn't do it as good. This song is very reminiscent of a led zep track called 'going to california'.

Bomb track - 90/100 (in terms of individual riffs, 91 as a song). Well, this one just jumps right out of the speakers! Cheeky build up and then blamo! My cousin made me buy this when I was a kid and I'm glad he did. This track also boasts a massive zeppelin influence - you can really appreciate the influence that group had, they are running through so much music it's nuts. However, I prefer several other tracks on this record.

King nothing - 70/100. An underrated track in the metallica catalog for sure, great groove when the drums kick in. I have to be in the right mood for Metallica or they just make me laugh for some reason, they try to sound more angry than they are and I can't take them seriously, but when i'm in the mood they are great fun!

Day tripper - 85/100. Fantastic riff. Catchy as fuck. I don't always want to listen to it though, I have others in the catalog that I prefer you see. This is a very famous song. The beatles are very good - lot's of people enjoy this group, I must say!

Beat it - 98/100. This is more like it - a stone cold classic. Brilliant in it's simplicity, and rather moody for a pop track. I fucking love this track actually. It's a shame I never want to listen to it any more.

Breed - 100/100. In many ways a perfect song. Both the riffs are excellent, and it has a truly visceral energy. It sounds amazingly alive, and is filled with great perfomances. Amazing drumming - with loud hard rock, this is the difference between a good band and a great band - the drums. The only thing I don't like about the recording is that the guitar and bass have been hard panned left and right like on the first ramones record. Not a huge fan of that mixing choice personally. But still, one of the best songs of the 90's. I got nevermind on my 9th birthday, and I'm still not sick of it. Utterly timeless, kids will still be going mental to this in generations to come. Lets rock!

Take five - 100/100. Amazing melody. It actually makes me feel funny when I listen to it, it has a calming, focusing effect on me. They make 5/4 timing feel very comfortable. Excellent performances all round, actually not written by Dave but the saxophonist.

Ghost riders in the sky - 60/100. This is all about the singing and arrangement, but it's a very doomy riff when it kicks in about a minute and half in. It's a good riff (pretty standard country fair really), but the song is not a particular favourite of mine to be honest. I find it a bit histrionic. Not sure why you picked this. It's Cash's singing that makes this, he had a very strange voice.

So, some good choices there, but rather obvious hits - go deeper next time! Hope this helps!

stip wrote:

mac wrote:Stip, if you truly love the last three records, I am happy for you that you can get so much joy from them. I appreciate you taking the time to write about them. But personally, I cannot for the life of me hear what you are describing. It sounds like you have different records to the ones I have. The effort the band has gone to, to as you describe, 'recapture' some of feel of the early records has, to my ears, completely failed. They are bad songs, and worst of all, they sound forced. Not the real deal. Sucked of all surprise, excitement and joy. Bland and tired - I don't hear any of the excitement and joy you describe. And what were they trying to recapture exactly? The whole point of those first six records is that they are quite immediate, but they have substance and power and belief behind them. But they never sounded the same from record to record - all 6 sound very different from one another. Very different. The appeal to me was that they rocked out, could bring it down, and go off some where strange, often within the space of one song - and this was all done without reverting to really cheesy generic riffs and lyrics. I hear the return of the confident sounding lyrics you describe, but here they are rendered crass, obvious, cheesy and lacking in quality. Why do you send everything spelled out so obviously? It's hardly like it was hard to intepret his lyrics anyway! You can hear the bands progression from record to record up to binaural and it is perfect - maturing like a fine wine. Then suddenly it all stops and they start writing shit what you call 'immediate' (I would say awful) songs that literally sound stupid. I wouldn't even call it going backwards so much as I would completely regressing to pond life. Their songs were always quite immediate - that was part of their power, but they had so much substance and passion behind them, that you can't get sick of them. I immediately disliked nearly all their new rockers, my brain just went 'erm, this is fake bullshit'. This happened to MANY other people as well stip. It's very bizarre.

You're clearly not alone. And these are all perfectly sensible reasons for not liking these records. They're not speaking to you. Some people call the life wasted riff cheesy and generic. It is one of my favorites in the catalog. Some people swear that Off he Goes and In Hiding are amazing songs. I've never liked the first (I think it is narcissistic tripe over pretty music) and became quickly bored with the second. I am embarrassed by the lyrics of soon forget and always have been. I've always found Sleight of Hand an interesting idea in theory that was boring in its execution. I used to really love Present Tense but now it feels a bit too much like high school poetry to me. Although clearly not to many others. It took me years to really appreciate a song like who you are because the lyrics were such a turn off.

Some of the lyrics on recent songs are hit or miss. But they've always been. The only album with high quality lyrics from start to finish are Vitalogy and Binaural (at least the songs Eddie wrote). But songs like Yellow Moon, Infallible, Force of Nature, Speed of Sound, Comatose, etc. can certainly sit alongside the best stuff they've done. I don't think there's a tremendous drop off (or much of one) in lyrical quality on the recent records. S/T may be the one exception. They're not bad, but the quality is not as good.

I get that you don't like the new stuff. That's fine. But comments like:

when suddenly it all stops and they start writing shit what you call 'immediate' (I would say awful) songs that literally sound stupid. I wouldn't even call it going backwards so much as I would completely regressing to pond life.

are more than a little hyperbolic, and, I would suggest, hardly reflect the larger reaction people have to this music. Just the really visceral response that you have. But to be clear, these records have, commercially (especially if you control for the decline in the industry) done as well as or better than anything since No Code. They're produced some very successful singles. And they've been well reviewed. So these songs are speaking to someone. Just not you (or many of the people who post here).

mac wrote: It sounds like someone trying to do an impression of what pearl jam sound like and not pulling it off. If they wanted to recapture the spirit of those early records, they should have tried to recapture the creativity and abandon and passion. Done something strange and rocking. Not pandered to anybody. The band never went for the obvious. But they can't write good riffs and lyrics anymore which is pretty importing in a rock song.

the first 3 songs on S/T are quite possibly my favorite stretch of 3 songs in the catalog

mac wrote: The key to a good rock song is a good riff or chord progression. Then good lyrics. Many of the new tracks just don't have any of this. Pearl jam were never overly intellectual - I always thought of them as fun, interesting rock music that filled me joy, I didn't need them to pink floyd. But frankly the new songs are for simpletons

well.I AM pretty much a simpleton. So that explains that.

mac wrote: I'm not sure about your no code and yield argument either - you literally seem to be attacking no code for the takes time it takes to reveal itself, and the fact that there is lots going on, and that leash's lyrics aren't included.

No, I'm explaining why I don't like No Code (which is still an album I like a lot, btw. I like all of pearl jam's albums a great deal) as much as the other albums. I don't care that the tracks take a while to reveal themselves. I think what they ultimately reveal is not as emotionally or intellectually compelling as you do. I think other artists do this better. I don't think anyone does the stuff I highlighted in my first post better than pearl jam.

Also, I compared Black and Sirens, not Black and Future Days. I compared Future Days to Thumbing my Way (although these are both somewhat superficial comparisons)

mac wrote:
This doesn't make sense to me. All those things sound like good things to me. I get that it isn't as anthemic as the first three, but neither are the last three records. But it Is something different and deep - it's the one that is holding up the best through time, that's for goddamn sure.

I guess I am not easily impressed by its alleged 'deepness', and I certainly don't enjoy it as much, but it is also entirely possible I'm just too simple to really understand it. I've tried though.

mac wrote:
I don't see how yield was in anyway trying to look back to their early records. It sounds completely different, another progression, and it contains many of their best songs. It's like a happy, less experimental no code in terms of the type of arrangements used.

you mean the album full of anthems that everyone, including themselves, billed as their first 'return to form'?

mac wrote:
I'm amazed that anyone could listen to the likes of severed hand, mind your manners etc, and think a brain of j, evolution or faithful is inferior.

Well, Do the Evolution is certainly better than those songs. I think Faithful is incredibly overrated. Not especially impressed with the riff, I think the chorus is kinda silly, and I don't like the vaguely nasally quality to Eddie's voice. Severed Hand is a solid song, but hardly a favorite. I do think Mind Your Manners is fantastic. I probably prefer it to Brain of J.

mac wrote:
To me, that is nuts, it really is. I honestly think some people just can't tell the difference between a quality riff and a shit one.

Could be...if you could put together some sort of instructional video or diagram or just in some way lay out how I can tell the difference it will no doubt enhance my future ability to appreciate music.

mac wrote:
IMHO. It seems to me that you prefer pearl jam as an ethos or idea perhaps - anything that goes against that you don't seem to be able to appreciate. I think that is quite sad as it means you have put up barriers around liking such incredibly good rock records. Still, it takes different strokes as they say, even if it makes no sense to me. I just like good songs.

I don't know. I've mostly managed to not get too angry or frazzled by the songs I don't like. They're just songs I don't like. Sometimes I'm disappointed. I certainly don't think the ones that don't fit into my preconceived notions of what pearl jam are 'literally sound stupid' and assume that people who don't agree with my tastes simply lack the ability to understand objectively what good music is.

I find the popular opinion on RM to be very helpful, personally. Literally every song which is received negatively here will be something I really, really like. I can almost bank on it. Very few of the songs which are praised to the skies here will ever receive more than a few (intentional) plays from me. There are some songs on which our opinions may shockingly match. But even when they do, it's usually for different reasons. This is the primary reason I stick around (lurk).

It's a credit to Pearl Jam that they've won over fans with such diverse musical tastes. It's a discredit to the fans if they can't appreciate the fact that the same music they perceive to be 'good' might actually be boring/unengaging for others.

I love lamp.

Nice write up mac. I agree for the most part, but I'd put Day Tripper higher, and Ain't Talking Bout Love too. The latter isn't one of my favorites, but it may be more like a 65 of 100 for me. I think David Lee Roth Van Halen is a guilty pleasure of mine, as is Bon Scott AC/DC (killer riffs there).

let's rank the albums

Alex wrote:let's rank the albums

No.

Or we could something else

stip wrote:I think Pearl Jam is at its best when they are defiant, forceful, exploding outwards.

stip wrote:But from No Code on they songs are more inward looking, thoughtful, reflective.

stip wrote:The songs have some of the old fighting spirit on S/T, and all the records have a confidence, an outward focus, an expansive quality, that reminds me of those first few albums.

stip wrote:Even an off-kilter song like Parachutes had those same outward and expansive qualities I was looking for

I think I've finally figured it out. Stip really prefers outward focused, extroverted, come with me Pearl Jam, while I (and others, I imagine) really prefer inward focused, introverted, reflective Pearl Jam. There certainly are exceptions, but I think this cuts to the core of it.

Which leads me to think, Stip must have one of these -