Red Mosquito

Stip why are you so goddamn hung up on what "most people" think? What's this obsession with consensus?

We are a fringe (people who post on RM) within a fringe (Pearl Jam obsessives) within a fringe (Pearl Jam fans) within a fringe (music listeners); continuously bringing up that our tastes may not line up with the mainstream does NOTHING. It only makes you come off as insecure and in desperate need of validation. It changes no one's mind. It's Trump harping on about his electoral college win.

As Evenslow correctly pointed out recently, "The Fixer" is (what feels like) one of the most continuously derided songs on RM, yet it also has a large amount of ardent supporters. Shit, McParadigm and LoathedVermin72 both like "Future Days". I don't think the idea that RM fosters an anti-PRAMG environment, leading to a community-wide condemnation of their recent output, holds any water. Furthermore, you're sort of, in a way, implying that people should not be posting their honest opinions about the albums they dislike because it might dissuade others from giving them a fair shot? What?

Also: the notion that reviews are the unfailing barometer of what's good or not, posted without a hint of irony, is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever seen on this stupid, beautiful website. And I just saw a thread turn into "which Pearl Jam album is which Star Wars movie". Just today.

stip wrote:so how would we know if the last records really are that bad?

Do you like it? THEN IT IS GOOD.
THERE IS NO 'OBJECTIVE TRUTH' HERE.
THERE IS NO DEMONSTRABLE, QUANTIFIABLE TEST.
WE ARE EACH HOPELESSLY BOUND WITHIN THE CONFINES OF OUR OWN PERCEPTION, BIASES AND PREFERENCES.
YES EVEN REVIEWERS.
HAVE A FUCKING BACKBONE.
I LOVE YOU. LOOK AT ME. I LOVE YOU.
BUT PLEASE.

Rolling Stone in 1970, reviewing Neil Young's After the Goldrush:

Neil Young devotees will probably spend the next few weeks trying desperately to convince themselves that After The Gold Rush is good music. But they'll be kidding themselves. For despite the fact that the album contains some potentially first rate material, none of the songs here rise above the uniformly dull surface. In my listening, the problem appears to be that most of this music was simply not ready to be recorded at the time of the sessions. It needed time to mature. On the album the band never really gets behind the songs and Young himself has trouble singing many of them. Set before the buying public before it was done, this pie is only half-baked.

BurtReynolds wrote:Outside of Ed, there really isn't anything interesting about the other band members.

Mike used to shit himself a lot; that's not interesting?

theplatypus wrote:Stip why are you so goddamn hung up on what "most people" think? What's this obsession with consensus?

We are a fringe (people who post on RM) within a fringe (Pearl Jam obsessives) within a fringe (Pearl Jam fans) within a fringe (music listeners); continuously bringing up that our tastes may not line up with the mainstream does NOTHING. It only makes you come off as insecure and in desperate need of validation. It changes no one's mind. It's Trump harping on about his electoral college win.

As Evenslow correctly pointed out recently, "The Fixer" is (what feels like) one of the most continuously derided songs on RM, yet it also has a large amount of ardent supporters. Shit, McParadigm and LoathedVermin72 both like "Future Days". I don't think the idea that RM fosters an anti-PRAMG environment, leading to a community-wide condemnation of their recent output, holds any water. Furthermore, you're sort of, in a way, implying that people should not be posting their honest opinions about the albums they dislike because it might dissuade others from giving them a fair shot? What?

Also: the notion that reviews are the unfailing barometer of what's good or not, posted without a hint of irony, is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever seen on this stupid, beautiful website. And I just saw a thread turn into "which Pearl Jam album is which Star Wars movie". Just today.

stip wrote:so how would we know if the last records really are that bad?

Do you like it? THEN IT IS GOOD.
THERE IS NO 'OBJECTIVE TRUTH' HERE.
THERE IS NO DEMONSTRABLE, QUANTIFIABLE TEST.
WE ARE EACH HOPELESSLY BOUND WITHIN THE CONFINES OF OUR OWN PERCEPTION, BIASES AND PREFERENCES.
YES EVEN REVIEWERS.
HAVE A FUCKING BACKBONE.
I LOVE YOU. LOOK AT ME. I LOVE YOU.
BUT PLEASE.

I actually don't obsess about what other people think per se. I like reading reviews in general because I like hearing people who understand something talk about it, in the same way I like reading posts from some of the more insightful people on the board. Even when I disagree I feel like I learn something.

Having said that, both Digster and Spenno seemed to imply in their posts that the last few albums were objectively not good. And so, if we are going to introduce the idea of there being some sort of objective barometer into the conversation

Birds in Hell wrote:What if the last two records really are that bad?

Maybe I misinterpreted what they meant, but it was how I took it. And while I don't think there is any such thing as whether or not something is objectively good or bad, if we are going to make grand sweeping judgements I think there are worse places to start than what a relatively neutral, relatively informed body of thoughtful people, in aggregate, thought of something. Just like album sales, how singles track, etc. are not the worst way to measure how a general body perceives something. If a piece of art is an abject failure, it would probably be reflected in at least one of those two measures (something can, of course, be critically acclaimed and a financial failure, or vice versa. But if it hits both of those marks it's probably pretty good, even if you don't like it personally).

My larger point, before that tangent, is that the context in which we think/learn/consider/experiment with art or with an idea does have an influence on how we perceive it. I wouldn't think that's a particularly radical idea (that environments influence perceptions) but apparently it is around here. And so, in a place that is as unrelentingly snarky and negative as RM can get, the music isn't given the opportunity it needs to be fairly considered, especially over the long term. And this does matter to me, because while it doesn't necessarily impact my own enjoyment of this music on a personal level, it means that this is a shitty place to go to try and explore it, think about it, talk about it, experiment and grow with it, and all the rest.

Around the Bend and Pilate are great examples of a song I had once dismissed but took the time to come back to because people I respect on this board sang its praises. I didn't like them because they did (exhibit A: In the Moonlight) but I went back and reconsidered them (and many other songs) because of that. I doubt I would have given either of those songs another chance if people talked No Code the way they talk about Lightning Bolt. But we don't, and so I did, and my appreciation for pearl jam, and my fandom, is a bit richer for it.

But once you get past Riot Act it's just not very fun being a pearl jam fan around here, and I don't think it's because of the music.


And to reduce all of this to 'you can't share your opinion if you don't like it' is reductionist nonsense, and you're too smart to draw that conclusion from what I'm saying. But there is a difference between say, wanting to explore whether or not there is a problem with a secretary of state using a private e-mail server and just chanting 'Lock Her Up' as often and as loud as you can when someone tries to start that conversation. That long list of quotes I had on the other page wasn't an interesting discussion of people's considered opinions about music that's important to people. It was basically trolling, but trolling that has reached such a pervasive level that it is hard to see it that way anymore. And sometimes it's funny, but it does take up an awful lot of space

What's interesting to me is that there is no real consensus as to which recent songs are 'good' or 'bad'. Even with listeners whose taste usually align there seems to be clashes post RA.

A couple points that we seem to agree on is that the production is often lacklustre, claustrophobic, lifeless. Another is musically there seems to be less musical interplay. Neither of these lead to 'bad' music but it can certainly hinder the enthusiasm to delve deeper or to simply 'live with the music' for a period of time.

This time of constant appraisal and constant feedback from others certainly changes how we digest music. But I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't enjoy music anymore so why is this the case with PJ, a band we all like/love enough to be board members here.

Also, a bands live show is often indicative of how said band feels about their work. And for PJ recent history says that they haven't felt strongly about an album since Avocado.

stip wrote: Having said that, both Digster and Spenno seemed to imply in their posts that the last few albums were objectively not good. And so, if we are going to introduce the idea of there being some sort of objective barometer into the conversation
.

Not at all. I don't think there's any objective barometer. I think the last few records are far poorer than past ones, and I'm sure people disagree with me. What I disagree with are when people say that I don't like these records because 'they're not doing what I want them to do', or they're not playing darker music, or whatever. I'm not a big fan of the last few records because I think the songwriting took a nosedive. But no, I don't think there's ever any consensus on Pearl Jam besides the most basic things, like the fact that it'd be dumb to argue that Ten is not their most popular record.

I just think trying to find some objective consensus can run into problems when it turns into trying the argue that the fact that a 3-minute pop song from this band charted better than a 5-minute dirge they didn't even bother trying to promote is some kind of evidence that the two songs are equally as good.

Birds in Hell wrote:Rolling Stone in 1970, reviewing Neil Young's After the Goldrush:

Neil Young devotees will probably spend the next few weeks trying desperately to convince themselves that After The Gold Rush is good music. But they'll be kidding themselves. For despite the fact that the album contains some potentially first rate material, none of the songs here rise above the uniformly dull surface. In my listening, the problem appears to be that most of this music was simply not ready to be recorded at the time of the sessions. It needed time to mature. On the album the band never really gets behind the songs and Young himself has trouble singing many of them. Set before the buying public before it was done, this pie is only half-baked.

I'm sure that's no longer how RS reviews After the Gold Rush, and that's kind of my point. RM is no longer (and has not been for a long while) an environment in which the kind of reconsideration of an album like this could easily take place. That's not to say it couldn't happen. But we sure do discourage people from even trying.

LetMeSleep wrote:What's interesting to me is that there is no real consensus as to which recent songs are 'good' or 'bad'. Even with listeners whose taste usually align there seems to be clashes post RA.

A couple points that we seem to agree on is that the production is often lacklustre, claustrophobic, lifeless. Another is musically there seems to be less musical interplay. Neither of these lead to 'bad' music but it can certainly hinder the enthusiasm to delve deeper or to simply 'live with the music' for a period of time.

This time of constant appraisal and constant feedback from others certainly changes how we digest music. But I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't enjoy music anymore so why is this the case with PJ, a band we all like/love enough to be board members here.

Also, a bands live show is often indicative of how said band feels about their work. And for PJ recent history says that they haven't felt strongly about an album since Avocado.

it also says they don't feel particularly strong about No Code, Riot Act, or Binaural either.


Your first point is kind of my point. It's fascinating (for a certain value of fascinating, anyway) how little consensus there is with this stuff, and how widely divergent opinions are given the widespread consensus surrounding the music prior to this. There is a common base, and a common vocabulary, and it goes in wildly different directions. But instead of exploring that, or taking it is an invitation to look deeper and invest the time it takes to see what else may be there, what other people are hearing that you aren't, we just shit all over whatever we happen to not like as often and as loudly as we can.

digster wrote:

stip wrote: Having said that, both Digster and Spenno seemed to imply in their posts that the last few albums were objectively not good. And so, if we are going to introduce the idea of there being some sort of objective barometer into the conversation
.

Not at all. I don't think there's any objective barometer. I think the last few records are far poorer than past ones, and I'm sure people disagree with me. What I disagree with are when people say that I don't like these records because 'they're not doing what I want them to do', or they're not playing darker music, or whatever. I'm not a big fan of the last few records because I think the songwriting took a nosedive. But no, I don't think there's ever any consensus on Pearl Jam besides the most basic things, like the fact that it'd be dumb to argue that Ten is not their most popular record.

I just think trying to find some objective consensus can run into problems when it turns into trying the argue that the fact that a 3-minute pop song from this band charted better than a 5-minute dirge they didn't even bother trying to promote is some kind of evidence that the two songs are equally as good.

I don't disagree. But I do think it could be evidence that something isn't a disaster either, when someone is making that claim beyond their personal opinions (and I do think that happens here). And I do think that the atmosphere here discourages (obviously it doesn't forbid) the time and consideration needed to really explore whether or not there are deeper layers or alternate perspectives on the songwriting you think took a nosedive.

stip wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:What's interesting to me is that there is no real consensus as to which recent songs are 'good' or 'bad'. Even with listeners whose taste usually align there seems to be clashes post RA.

A couple points that we seem to agree on is that the production is often lacklustre, claustrophobic, lifeless. Another is musically there seems to be less musical interplay. Neither of these lead to 'bad' music but it can certainly hinder the enthusiasm to delve deeper or to simply 'live with the music' for a period of time.

This time of constant appraisal and constant feedback from others certainly changes how we digest music. But I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't enjoy music anymore so why is this the case with PJ, a band we all like/love enough to be board members here.

Also, a bands live show is often indicative of how said band feels about their work. And for PJ recent history says that they haven't felt strongly about an album since Avocado.

it also says they don't feel particularly strong about No Code, Riot Act, or Binaural either.


Your first point is kind of my point. It's fascinating (for a certain value of fascinating, anyway) how little consensus there is with this stuff, and how widely divergent opinions are given the widespread consensus surrounding the music prior to this. There is a common base, and a common vocabulary, and it goes in wildly different directions. But instead of exploring that, or taking it is an invitation to look deeper and invest the time it takes to see what else may be there, what other people are hearing that you aren't, we just shit all over whatever we happen to not like as often and as loudly as we can.

True but they did feel strongly about them initially. Maybe the songs didn't work live or weren't well received so they were dropped. BS and LB didn't get out of the gate. 5 tracks off a new album per show isn't what I'd call believing in it. Maybe I'm an exception but I want a new album to feature quite heavily.

stip wrote: Having said that, both Digster and Spenno seemed to imply in their posts that the last few albums were objectively not good. And so, if we are going to introduce the idea of there being some sort of objective barometer into the conversation
.

That's pretty much the antithesis of my point.

stip wrote:But I do think it could be evidence that something isn't a disaster either.

nope. it's not evidence of that at all.

The idea that there isn't a general consensus around PJ's music is overstated, too. Most of it, no one cares about.

But yeah, the reason people still don't like Amongst the Waves is because they won't look deeper or invest more time in it. Utterly absurd.

Stip is incorrigible.

Were it not for the false consciousness fostered by membership of this debased forum, we would all recognise Backspacer and Lightning Bolt for the rich and satisfying works they are.

Backspacer is almost 8 years old for chrissakes! When does the reappraisal start?

LetMeSleep wrote:

stip wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:What's interesting to me is that there is no real consensus as to which recent songs are 'good' or 'bad'. Even with listeners whose taste usually align there seems to be clashes post RA.

A couple points that we seem to agree on is that the production is often lacklustre, claustrophobic, lifeless. Another is musically there seems to be less musical interplay. Neither of these lead to 'bad' music but it can certainly hinder the enthusiasm to delve deeper or to simply 'live with the music' for a period of time.

This time of constant appraisal and constant feedback from others certainly changes how we digest music. But I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't enjoy music anymore so why is this the case with PJ, a band we all like/love enough to be board members here.

Also, a bands live show is often indicative of how said band feels about their work. And for PJ recent history says that they haven't felt strongly about an album since Avocado.

it also says they don't feel particularly strong about No Code, Riot Act, or Binaural either.


Your first point is kind of my point. It's fascinating (for a certain value of fascinating, anyway) how little consensus there is with this stuff, and how widely divergent opinions are given the widespread consensus surrounding the music prior to this. There is a common base, and a common vocabulary, and it goes in wildly different directions. But instead of exploring that, or taking it is an invitation to look deeper and invest the time it takes to see what else may be there, what other people are hearing that you aren't, we just shit all over whatever we happen to not like as often and as loudly as we can.

True but they did feel strongly about them initially. Maybe the songs didn't work live or weren't well received so they were dropped. BS and LB didn't get out of the gate. 5 tracks off a new album per show isn't what I'd call believing in it. Maybe I'm an exception but I want a new album to feature quite heavily.

Well they used to play all of ten, but they had a lot less to choose from. I believe (but could very well be wrong) that on the last few new album tours the new songs were featured more prominently than any other song

Birds in Hell wrote:Were it not for the false consciousness fostered by membership of this debased forum, we would all recognise Backspacer and Lightning Bolt for the rich and satisfying works they are.

No, but we'd probably have more interesting conversations about them

BurtReynolds wrote:Backspacer is almost 8 years old for chrissakes! When does the reappraisal start?

Given their current productivity probably at least 6 more years

Birds in Hell wrote:

stip wrote: Having said that, both Digster and Spenno seemed to imply in their posts that the last few albums were objectively not good. And so, if we are going to introduce the idea of there being some sort of objective barometer into the conversation
.

That's pretty much the antithesis of my point.

Then what did this mean?

Birds in Hell wrote:What if the last two records really are that bad?

hey digster how come you don't post more often? sincerely like your posts come march madness time.

and everyone stop being mean to stip.