Red Mosquito

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:I read up to "anthemic songs that take off live". Sorry. That's not all I mean by a song that works live, and I wish it wasn't all Pearl Jam meant.

This tour has made it pretty clear what I think they mean. They are writing songs that will make for amazing live experiences once everyone knows the songs and are able to really commit to them as an audience. What will be the most fun for the audience to share with the band, which, frankly, is what makes the LIVE pearl jam experience so incredible (this is not just a sing along. It is also singing along). What makes this tricky in real time is people aren't necessarily as familiar or invested in the songs the first time they're played. When you've been sitting on a song for 10-20 years it'll just mean a lot more to the audience. So the songs from L-bolt that they're playing live will probably be great a tour or two from now, when they are old standbys for the audience. But right now the songs are written for audience participation and commitment while the audience doesn't actually know their part yet.

If that makes sense.

It does.[/quote

Edit: but if you're right, I still think they're thinking in the short-term, which in the end won't contribute a great deal to their lasting legacy.

Actually, given the way pjs rep is now built in part on the strength of the live shows they might be helping their legacy


Plus, there is no way albums like riot act or binaural are going to build a legacy either. Those are fans records

I think there are arguments on both sides. But personally, the effort they went to to make studio albums has been diminishing. Yes, they've cemented a legacy in terms of the live show, and they're currently building on it. But in my opinion, they won't be remembered for more than a few truly great studio records. They are obviously fine with this, and so are (most of) the fans.

I agree, and I'd love for them to make another 1-2undisputed classics, and it think they could. But yield, binaural, and riot act are going to be irrelevant for legacy purposes outside of their fan base

You agree? I think that answer proves that this whole middle-period / no middle-period argument is a non-starter, and there's more to it. We can all agree that whatever our favourite records, Pearl Jam are, to some extent, making functional albums now (reasons to tour), rather than trying to create albums that have memorable classic potential in their own right. That's kind of sad, but in the end, it doesn't put me off. Because I'm a sucker for punishment.

Well I still think these new albums are substantially better than those middle period records. Focusing only on making the best studio album you can won't necessarily make it great. Nor do I think the functionality precludes a classic. Probably makes if harder though

Release_Me wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:I read up to "anthemic songs that take off live". Sorry. That's not all I mean by a song that works live, and I wish it wasn't all Pearl Jam meant.

This tour has made it pretty clear what I think they mean. They are writing songs that will make for amazing live experiences once everyone knows the songs and are able to really commit to them as an audience. What will be the most fun for the audience to share with the band, which, frankly, is what makes the LIVE pearl jam experience so incredible (this is not just a sing along. It is also singing along). What makes this tricky in real time is people aren't necessarily as familiar or invested in the songs the first time they're played. When you've been sitting on a song for 10-20 years it'll just mean a lot more to the audience. So the songs from L-bolt that they're playing live will probably be great a tour or two from now, when they are old standbys for the audience. But right now the songs are written for audience participation and commitment while the audience doesn't actually know their part yet.

If that makes sense.

It does.[/quote

Edit: but if you're right, I still think they're thinking in the short-term, which in the end won't contribute a great deal to their lasting legacy.

Actually, given the way pjs rep is now built in part on the strength of the live shows they might be helping their legacy


Plus, there is no way albums like riot act or binaural are going to build a legacy either. Those are fans records

I think there are arguments on both sides. But personally, the effort they went to to make studio albums has been diminishing. Yes, they've cemented a legacy in terms of the live show, and they're currently building on it. But in my opinion, they won't be remembered for more than a few truly great studio records. They are obviously fine with this, and so are (most of) the fans.

I agree, and I'd love for them to make another 1-2undisputed classics, and it think they could. But yield, binaural, and riot act are going to be irrelevant for legacy purposes outside of their fan base

You agree? I think that answer proves that this whole middle-period / no middle-period argument is a non-starter, and there's more to it. We can all agree that whatever our favourite records, Pearl Jam are, to some extent, making functional albums now (reasons to tour), rather than trying to create albums that have memorable classic potential in their own right. That's kind of sad, but in the end, it doesn't put me off. Because I'm a sucker for punishment.

Well I still think these new albums are substantially better than those middle period records. Focusing only on making the best studio album you can won't necessarily make it great. Nor do I think the functionality precludes a classic. Probably makes if harder though

Personally, I feel this band has three memorable albums; the first three. The others range from ok to very good. Those first three came about from a combination of elements that probably will never happen again. If they make another memorable album, I'll be happily surprised. I think they're more likely to run into something great if they continue on the path they chose for LB. This so called functionality is less of a hindrance to them making a classic than them foregoing some of their biggest strengths. With LB, they've touched upon almost everything that they do well. Even the experiments are something I actually enjoy this time. I won't mind something further in this direction.

Kevin Davis wrote:Does "Lightning Bolt" really have any more "classic" potential than those middle period records? It seems like the first three records will always be the records that mattered to the world at large--what makes "Lightning Bolt" special to the world in a way that its six predecessors weren't?

Kevin Davis wrote:Does "Lightning Bolt" really have any more "classic" potential than those middle period records? It seems like the first three records will always be the records that mattered to the world at large--what makes "Lightning Bolt" special to the world in a way that its six predecessors weren't?

stip wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:Does "Lightning Bolt" really have any more "classic" potential than those middle period records? It seems like the first three records will always be the records that mattered to the world at large--what makes "Lightning Bolt" special to the world in a way that its six predecessors weren't?

Well Lbolt isn't, in the end, that record, but like release_me I believe that the performances and writing play to their inherent strengths (debatable) and feature the kind of writing and songs that people want from them. L

durdencommatyler wrote:

stip wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:Does "Lightning Bolt" really have any more "classic" potential than those middle period records? It seems like the first three records will always be the records that mattered to the world at large--what makes "Lightning Bolt" special to the world in a way that its six predecessors weren't?

Well Lbolt isn't, in the end, that record, but like release_me I believe that the performances and writing play to their inherent strengths (debatable) and feature the kind of writing and songs that people want from them. L

Most of the people that I know or talk to outside this board like S/T and Backspacer more than Lightning Bolt.

Kevin Davis wrote:Does "Lightning Bolt" really have any more "classic" potential than those middle period records? It seems like the first three records will always be the records that mattered to the world at large--what makes "Lightning Bolt" special to the world in a way that its six predecessors weren't?

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:I read up to "anthemic songs that take off live". Sorry. That's not all I mean by a song that works live, and I wish it wasn't all Pearl Jam meant.

This tour has made it pretty clear what I think they mean. They are writing songs that will make for amazing live experiences once everyone knows the songs and are able to really commit to them as an audience. What will be the most fun for the audience to share with the band, which, frankly, is what makes the LIVE pearl jam experience so incredible (this is not just a sing along. It is also singing along). What makes this tricky in real time is people aren't necessarily as familiar or invested in the songs the first time they're played. When you've been sitting on a song for 10-20 years it'll just mean a lot more to the audience. So the songs from L-bolt that they're playing live will probably be great a tour or two from now, when they are old standbys for the audience. But right now the songs are written for audience participation and commitment while the audience doesn't actually know their part yet.

If that makes sense.

digster wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:I read up to "anthemic songs that take off live". Sorry. That's not all I mean by a song that works live, and I wish it wasn't all Pearl Jam meant.

This tour has made it pretty clear what I think they mean. They are writing songs that will make for amazing live experiences once everyone knows the songs and are able to really commit to them as an audience. What will be the most fun for the audience to share with the band, which, frankly, is what makes the LIVE pearl jam experience so incredible (this is not just a sing along. It is also singing along). What makes this tricky in real time is people aren't necessarily as familiar or invested in the songs the first time they're played. When you've been sitting on a song for 10-20 years it'll just mean a lot more to the audience. So the songs from L-bolt that they're playing live will probably be great a tour or two from now, when they are old standbys for the audience. But right now the songs are written for audience participation and commitment while the audience doesn't actually know their part yet.

If that makes sense.

The only thing about this is that I don't think 'new' songs can ever have a big importance in a live performance (at least in the specific manner you're talking about, that requires a lot of audience participation). To keep drawing comparisons, no matter what Springsteen does, he's not going to have a new song that people react to in the way they react to Born to Run. I think it's something similar to PJ and a song like Alive, Jeremy, Corduroy, etc. If they're chasing that as a means to make their songs work live, they may be waiting a while.

As for tuning down, I don't really have an issue with it, unless it makes the song sound not-so-good live. The problem is that a fair amount of the time for PJ it does. I can see why they kept Getaway on the shelf for a while, though; even on the LB special it sounded kind of dull and lethargic for whatever reason. Some songs just don't take off, I guess.

digster wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:I read up to "anthemic songs that take off live". Sorry. That's not all I mean by a song that works live, and I wish it wasn't all Pearl Jam meant.

This tour has made it pretty clear what I think they mean. They are writing songs that will make for amazing live experiences once everyone knows the songs and are able to really commit to them as an audience. What will be the most fun for the audience to share with the band, which, frankly, is what makes the LIVE pearl jam experience so incredible (this is not just a sing along. It is also singing along). What makes this tricky in real time is people aren't necessarily as familiar or invested in the songs the first time they're played. When you've been sitting on a song for 10-20 years it'll just mean a lot more to the audience. So the songs from L-bolt that they're playing live will probably be great a tour or two from now, when they are old standbys for the audience. But right now the songs are written for audience participation and commitment while the audience doesn't actually know their part yet.

If that makes sense.

The only thing about this is that I don't think 'new' songs can ever have a big importance in a live performance (at least in the specific manner you're talking about, that requires a lot of audience participation). To keep drawing comparisons, no matter what Springsteen does, he's not going to have a new song that people react to in the way they react to Born to Run. I think it's something similar to PJ and a song like Alive, Jeremy, Corduroy, etc. If they're chasing that as a means to make their songs work live, they may be waiting a while.

As for tuning down, I don't really have an issue with it, unless it makes the song sound not-so-good live. The problem is that a fair amount of the time for PJ it does. I can see why they kept Getaway on the shelf for a while, though; even on the LB special it sounded kind of dull and lethargic for whatever reason. Some songs just don't take off, I guess.

digster wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:Does "Lightning Bolt" really have any more "classic" potential than those middle period records? It seems like the first three records will always be the records that mattered to the world at large--what makes "Lightning Bolt" special to the world in a way that its six predecessors weren't?

Nothing at all....it likely won't be remembered in a decade in the same manner that an album like Riot Act will likely not be remembered outside the fanbase. I don't think it's really different than any other band; you have your period when you're most in the public eye for whatever reason and the other records get lost to time. No one in twenty years, even people who listen to R.E.M., would likely be able to name a record after Automatic For the People.

dimejinky99 wrote:Sounds weird dropped down
http://youtu.be/QBghySrZT6E

Leatherhead wrote:I hope they nail this live some time on the tour. Looking forward to a "Black Market Lightning Bolt" compilation. Since BoB sucks and all.