Red Mosquito

Awwwwwwwwwww-Huuhhhhhhhhhhh

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

hlniv wrote:

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:So PJ just want to be liked?

I liked them better when they didn't want to be liked.

Me, too.

I think the band as you see them now is how they were originally. Relieved of the pressure of suffocating fame, they feel free to want success. When you see/read what they did to promote Ten, before it got really crazy around the summer of '92, they were pretty naively unabashedly enjoying trying to get people to like them and they got excited about it. It just got crazy out of control and they flipped out. Now, life is back to normal. Am I saying anything new here? We all know this, right?

You are exactly right. I'm sure they money-grabbed the shit out of those first two years from the fall of 1990 to the fall of 1992.

I tend to think of my idealistic Pearl Jam in the terms of when I really got into them, which was 93-95. My first experiences with them were during their "pull-back" period, and I really fell in love with that. They were just about the music and the live show. Even when they went back to Ticketmaster tours in 2000/2003 and expanded the political element of their music, they still didn't start to lose the core of what attracted me until 2006 or so. And there's still a lot that remains, but I know I never could have become the fan i have off of the last ten years' output alone.

There is little reason, I think, to doubt that their primary concern is the music and the live show. It just pulls in a direction you, and many, find less interesting. These years aren't anyone's favorites (and, it is worth pointing out, that the riot act and binaural records are fairly divisive too. Not to the same degree, but perhaps they were in their early years. Riot act probably was). I think their most vital years are behind them as well. I just draw that line at 1995. If anything I think they are reinvigorated, but still they are a band past their prime. Still good, often very good, sometimes great, bit past their prime.

But still, the fact that there is a different approach to songwriting, with a band that may have said its most important things, is really the central issue. Not that the music matters less. It is different, and for many not as good.

Why can't you entertain the idea that it might matter less?

because the reasons people are offering are weak, and seem to primarily revolve around not liking the music they are making now more than music they were making 10 years ago. Since I like the music they are making now more than the music they were making 10 years ago, I find myself unpersuaded. I think many of the 'moneygrab' arguments that go hand in hand with the caring less claim are mostly tendentious, based on the mythologiziation of three-four years of band history, and imagined band dynamics and fantasies passed off as reality. And some are just dumb.

If you want to argue that the band is less of a priority I wouldn't disagree, but by all accounts they are all still quite prolific musicians, seem to really enjoy playing together, and I see no reason to doubt they aren't working hard when they are together.

If you want to argue that the band just has fewer good ideas, or may have exhausted what they can do as a unit, I'd disagree,, but I don't think that's wrong in the way I think these other things are wrong. It's a judgement about the quality of the art as opposed to groundless and occasionally contradictory post hoc storytelling looking to justify why someone doesn't like the music anymore.

When records like No Code, or Riot Act, or Binaural came out I didn't try and convince myself that pearl jam didn't care (although I did worry a bit given Eddie's RA vocals). I just accepted that they weren't writing to my tastes, enjoyed the stuff that struck a chord, and hoped that someday they'd return.

In the end I think this all comes down to the approach to writing--songs that will play well live, and songs that feel more immediate. I think the reason they're doing that is because they want to preserve the flavor of the live shows, and because they want to write songs that might draw in new listeners and introduce them to the bands legacy. At this point, in their less modest moments, they might think of Pearl Jam as a musical institution--the last of the classic rock bands--and writing to the present with that past in mind is not crazy. Wanting people to hear your art seems pretty reasonable. Wanting to have a certain degree of visibility to amplify a political voice makes sense. When Bruce Springsteen or Bono speak it carries more weight then when Michael Stipe does.

It's also possible (this is crazy, I know) that they really like their new songs and are proud of them because they think they're good.

That they are making choices because they don't care about music and care about money is just fucking dumb. They make hundreds of thousands of dollars per show. They can consistently sell out the venues in the places they like playing the most. They don't need to rush a new album to keep touring (which they've demonstrated). They don't make much money off of record sales anymore. How many fucking dog collars and 7 inch single sets do you think they need to equal the revenue of one show.


Other choices were possible. Maybe they would have been better. Maybe the ones they currently made could be better executed. These are interesting conversations to have . This one is not. I'm just an asshole who can't walk away from an argument.

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

hlniv wrote:

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:So PJ just want to be liked?

I liked them better when they didn't want to be liked.

Me, too.

I think the band as you see them now is how they were originally. Relieved of the pressure of suffocating fame, they feel free to want success. When you see/read what they did to promote Ten, before it got really crazy around the summer of '92, they were pretty naively unabashedly enjoying trying to get people to like them and they got excited about it. It just got crazy out of control and they flipped out. Now, life is back to normal. Am I saying anything new here? We all know this, right?

You are exactly right. I'm sure they money-grabbed the shit out of those first two years from the fall of 1990 to the fall of 1992.

I tend to think of my idealistic Pearl Jam in the terms of when I really got into them, which was 93-95. My first experiences with them were during their "pull-back" period, and I really fell in love with that. They were just about the music and the live show. Even when they went back to Ticketmaster tours in 2000/2003 and expanded the political element of their music, they still didn't start to lose the core of what attracted me until 2006 or so. And there's still a lot that remains, but I know I never could have become the fan i have off of the last ten years' output alone.

There is little reason, I think, to doubt that their primary concern is the music and the live show. It just pulls in a direction you, and many, find less interesting. These years aren't anyone's favorites (and, it is worth pointing out, that the riot act and binaural records are fairly divisive too. Not to the same degree, but perhaps they were in their early years. Riot act probably was). I think their most vital years are behind them as well. I just draw that line at 1995. If anything I think they are reinvigorated, but still they are a band past their prime. Still good, often very good, sometimes great, bit past their prime.

But still, the fact that there is a different approach to songwriting, with a band that may have said its most important things, is really the central issue. Not that the music matters less. It is different, and for many not as good.

Why can't you entertain the idea that it might matter less?

If you want to argue that the band is less of a priority I wouldn't disagree

this thread's a fuckin' novel

bodysnatcher wrote:this thread's a fuckin' novel

I'm hoping it catches the Lightning Bolt thread before its over.

BurtReynolds wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:this thread's a fuckin' novel

I'm hoping it catches the Lightning Bolt thread before its over.

The Sex thread will be longer than this one by Sunday.

LetMeSleep wrote:

EJ wrote:

hlniv wrote: The decision to not include Sad on Binaural was precisely due to the leadership that I am referring to, i.e. it would have been to much of a "hit". Undone or Down would have made Riot Act even more political, and didn't really fit the tone of the album. The reasons these songs were left off had more to do with unifying leadership, than a lack of it. Even if Binaural or Riot Act would have been better with a couple of those b-sides, I understand and respect the thoughtful reason for most of the omissions.

How were these decisions any different than:
Let It Ride & Cold Concession left off of S/T
Pendulum left off of Backspacer
Of The Earth off of Lightning Bolt

Was their leadership involved in those ommissions?

Maybe Of The Earth hasn't been recorded satisfactorily. It has been tried at least twice. I don't think any other the mentioned tracks fit those albums anyway.

I think BOB said they recorded Of The Earth in the studio and it didn't come out well.

stip wrote: What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

In defense of the binaural artwork: the space pictures demonstrated depth. You have a naturally occurring infinity symbol, with an unknown eyeball made of gas in the middle, floating out there in outerspace. not drawn by some computer. natural beauty. that's powerful.

Per Jeff: "The reason that we went with Tchad [Blake] is because he provides an amazing atmosphere to songs....So, I think we wanted the artwork to represent that....One of the themes that we've been exploring...is just realizing that in the big scheme of things, even the music that we make when we come together, no matter how powerful it is, it's still pretty minuscule [sic]. I think for me the whole space theme has a lot to do with scale. You know, you look at some of those pictures, and there are thirteen light years in four inches in that picture."

The new album artwork? The quote would be like:

"The reason that we went with Brendan [O'Brien] is because we wanted to be popular again.... So, I think we wanted the artwork to represent that. We haven't been exploring any themes; its just that after years of trying to get the public spotlight out of his face, Ed succeeded; and woke up one morning and realized "oh shit, what have I done". So we penciled off a couple of weeks over a 4 year period, had BOB select the most commercially viable songs possible, and then farmed out the artwork to someone who would make it look catchy. So the whole farming out the artwork theme has a lot to do with us phoning it in artistically. Its not about musical expression anymore, it's about what people will like; which is conveniently positively correlated with making money, although making money is not the goal, it's just a convenient byproduct of wanting to be popular again."

so they goggled pictures of space, right? Because space has atmosphere?

I always thought that the pictures of space were meant to tie into the themes of Light Years & Insignificance.

sure, you can make a connection.

It doesn't make it any less lazy.

Really this is time people could better spend by lets actually listening to Vs.

stip wrote:so they goggled pictures of space, right? Because space has atmosphere?

that, and the other part of the bassist's quote which focused on the theme of "scale"

but it was early 2000, so they might have used Alta Vista

or maybe Stone has a print subscription to Scientific American

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

hlniv wrote:

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:So PJ just want to be liked?

I liked them better when they didn't want to be liked.

Me, too.

I think the band as you see them now is how they were originally. Relieved of the pressure of suffocating fame, they feel free to want success. When you see/read what they did to promote Ten, before it got really crazy around the summer of '92, they were pretty naively unabashedly enjoying trying to get people to like them and they got excited about it. It just got crazy out of control and they flipped out. Now, life is back to normal. Am I saying anything new here? We all know this, right?

You are exactly right. I'm sure they money-grabbed the shit out of those first two years from the fall of 1990 to the fall of 1992.

I tend to think of my idealistic Pearl Jam in the terms of when I really got into them, which was 93-95. My first experiences with them were during their "pull-back" period, and I really fell in love with that. They were just about the music and the live show. Even when they went back to Ticketmaster tours in 2000/2003 and expanded the political element of their music, they still didn't start to lose the core of what attracted me until 2006 or so. And there's still a lot that remains, but I know I never could have become the fan i have off of the last ten years' output alone.

There is little reason, I think, to doubt that their primary concern is the music and the live show. It just pulls in a direction you, and many, find less interesting. These years aren't anyone's favorites (and, it is worth pointing out, that the riot act and binaural records are fairly divisive too. Not to the same degree, but perhaps they were in their early years. Riot act probably was). I think their most vital years are behind them as well. I just draw that line at 1995. If anything I think they are reinvigorated, but still they are a band past their prime. Still good, often very good, sometimes great, bit past their prime.

But still, the fact that there is a different approach to songwriting, with a band that may have said its most important things, is really the central issue. Not that the music matters less. It is different, and for many not as good.

Why can't you entertain the idea that it might matter less?

because the reasons people are offering are weak, and seem to primarily revolve around not liking the music they are making now more than music they were making 10 years ago. Since I like the music they are making now more than the music they were making 10 years ago, I find myself unpersuaded. I think many of the 'moneygrab' arguments that go hand in hand with the caring less claim are mostly tendentious, based on the mythologiziation of three-four years of band history, and imagined band dynamics and fantasies passed off as reality. And some are just dumb.

If you want to argue that the band is less of a priority I wouldn't disagree, but by all accounts they are all still quite prolific musicians, seem to really enjoy playing together, and I see no reason to doubt they aren't working hard when they are together.

If you want to argue that the band just has fewer good ideas, or may have exhausted what they can do as a unit, I'd disagree,, but I don't think that's wrong in the way I think these other things are wrong. It's a judgement about the quality of the art as opposed to groundless and occasionally contradictory post hoc storytelling looking to justify why someone doesn't like the music anymore.

When records like No Code, or Riot Act, or Binaural came out I didn't try and convince myself that pearl jam didn't care (although I did worry a bit given Eddie's RA vocals). I just accepted that they weren't writing to my tastes, enjoyed the stuff that struck a chord, and hoped that someday they'd return.

In the end I think this all comes down to the approach to writing--songs that will play well live, and songs that feel more immediate. I think the reason they're doing that is because they want to preserve the flavor of the live shows, and because they want to write songs that might draw in new listeners and introduce them to the bands legacy. At this point, in their less modest moments, they might think of Pearl Jam as a musical institution--the last of the classic rock bands--and writing to the present with that past in mind is not crazy. Wanting people to hear your art seems pretty reasonable. Wanting to have a certain degree of visibility to amplify a political voice makes sense. When Bruce Springsteen or Bono speak it carries more weight then when Michael Stipe does.

It's also possible (this is crazy, I know) that they really like their new songs and are proud of them because they think they're good.

That they are making choices because they don't care about music and care about money is just fucking dumb. They make hundreds of thousands of dollars per show. They can consistently sell out the venues in the places they like playing the most. They don't need to rush a new album to keep touring (which they've demonstrated). They don't make much money off of record sales anymore. How many fucking dog collars and 7 inch single sets do you think they need to equal the revenue of one show.


Other choices were possible. Maybe they would have been better. Maybe the ones they currently made could be better executed. These are interesting conversations to have . This one is not. I'm just an asshole who can't walk away from an argument.

blah blah ba bittle lawbbity blahh

I'm not reading all that. you lost me after the first statement in the previous reply where you somehow still avoid recognizing the desire for commercial success was their primary concern. i recognize you are referring to me, but i just dont care.

And there cant be two primary concerns

96583UP wrote:

stip wrote: What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

In defense of the binaural artwork: the space pictures demonstrated depth. You have a naturally occurring infinity symbol, with an unknown eyeball made of gas in the middle, floating out there in outerspace. not drawn by some computer. natural beauty. that's powerful.

Per Jeff: "The reason that we went with Tchad [Blake] is because he provides an amazing atmosphere to songs....So, I think we wanted the artwork to represent that....One of the themes that we've been exploring...is just realizing that in the big scheme of things, even the music that we make when we come together, no matter how powerful it is, it's still pretty minuscule [sic]. I think for me the whole space theme has a lot to do with scale. You know, you look at some of those pictures, and there are thirteen light years in four inches in that picture."

The new album artwork? The quote would be like:

"The reason that we went with Brendan [O'Brien] is because we wanted to be popular again.... So, I think we wanted the artwork to represent that. We haven't been exploring any themes; its just that after years of trying to get the public spotlight out of his face, Ed succeeded; and woke up one morning and realized "oh shit, what have I done". So we penciled off a couple of weeks over a 4 year period, had BOB select the most commercially viable songs possible, and then farmed out the artwork to someone who would make it look catchy. So the whole farming out the artwork theme has a lot to do with us phoning it in artistically. Its not about musical expression anymore, it's about what people will like; which is conveniently positively correlated with making money, although making money is not the goal, it's just a convenient byproduct of wanting to be popular again."

The cover of Binaural always visually represented the binaural recording technique and listening experience to me. Two spheres of sound coming into each ear, and meeting in the middle (ie. middle of the head) to create the whole.

96583UP wrote:

stip wrote: What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

In defense of the binaural artwork: the space pictures demonstrated depth. You have a naturally occurring infinity symbol, with an unknown eyeball made of gas in the middle, floating out there in outerspace. not drawn by some computer. natural beauty. that's powerful.

Per Jeff: "The reason that we went with Tchad [Blake] is because he provides an amazing atmosphere to songs....So, I think we wanted the artwork to represent that....One of the themes that we've been exploring...is just realizing that in the big scheme of things, even the music that we make when we come together, no matter how powerful it is, it's still pretty minuscule [sic]. I think for me the whole space theme has a lot to do with scale. You know, you look at some of those pictures, and there are thirteen light years in four inches in that picture."

The new album artwork? The quote would be like:

"The reason that we went with Brendan [O'Brien] is because we wanted to be popular again.... So, I think we wanted the artwork to represent that. We haven't been exploring any themes; its just that after years of trying to get the public spotlight out of his face, Ed succeeded; and woke up one morning and realized "oh shit, what have I done". So we penciled off a couple of weeks over a 4 year period, had BOB select the most commercially viable songs possible, and then farmed out the artwork to someone who would make it look catchy. So the whole farming out the artwork theme has a lot to do with us phoning it in artistically. Its not about musical expression anymore, it's about what people will like; which is conveniently positively correlated with making money, although making money is not the goal, it's just a convenient byproduct of wanting to be popular again."

You win this thread.

Shut it down. It's all over, folks. This guy has earned the crown.

But, somehow i still like it..... hmm....

Just to add another meaningless two cents in, if someone feels that the band has been making substandard work for going on a decade now, I don't think it's crazy for them to suggest that it's because they're not working as hard at it. It's speculative, but so is everything here.

digster wrote:blablabla

hlniv wrote:blablabla

i dont listen to people that dont have avatars for me to put santa hats on.

The Binaural inner booklet artwork >>>>>>> Ten artwork >>>> a drawing of a random bird >>>> an empty drawing >>>>>> the Pearl Jam (Avocado) inner booklet artwork.

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

hlniv wrote:

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:So PJ just want to be liked?

I liked them better when they didn't want to be liked.

Me, too.

I think the band as you see them now is how they were originally. Relieved of the pressure of suffocating fame, they feel free to want success. When you see/read what they did to promote Ten, before it got really crazy around the summer of '92, they were pretty naively unabashedly enjoying trying to get people to like them and they got excited about it. It just got crazy out of control and they flipped out. Now, life is back to normal. Am I saying anything new here? We all know this, right?

You are exactly right. I'm sure they money-grabbed the shit out of those first two years from the fall of 1990 to the fall of 1992.

I tend to think of my idealistic Pearl Jam in the terms of when I really got into them, which was 93-95. My first experiences with them were during their "pull-back" period, and I really fell in love with that. They were just about the music and the live show. Even when they went back to Ticketmaster tours in 2000/2003 and expanded the political element of their music, they still didn't start to lose the core of what attracted me until 2006 or so. And there's still a lot that remains, but I know I never could have become the fan i have off of the last ten years' output alone.

There is little reason, I think, to doubt that their primary concern is the music and the live show. It just pulls in a direction you, and many, find less interesting. These years aren't anyone's favorites (and, it is worth pointing out, that the riot act and binaural records are fairly divisive too. Not to the same degree, but perhaps they were in their early years. Riot act probably was). I think their most vital years are behind them as well. I just draw that line at 1995. If anything I think they are reinvigorated, but still they are a band past their prime. Still good, often very good, sometimes great, bit past their prime.

But still, the fact that there is a different approach to songwriting, with a band that may have said its most important things, is really the central issue. Not that the music matters less. It is different, and for many not as good.

Why can't you entertain the idea that it might matter less?

because the reasons people are offering are weak, and seem to primarily revolve around not liking the music they are making now more than music they were making 10 years ago. Since I like the music they are making now more than the music they were making 10 years ago, I find myself unpersuaded. I think many of the 'moneygrab' arguments that go hand in hand with the caring less claim are mostly tendentious, based on the mythologiziation of three-four years of band history, and imagined band dynamics and fantasies passed off as reality. And some are just dumb.

If you want to argue that the band is less of a priority I wouldn't disagree, but by all accounts they are all still quite prolific musicians, seem to really enjoy playing together, and I see no reason to doubt they aren't working hard when they are together.

If you want to argue that the band just has fewer good ideas, or may have exhausted what they can do as a unit, I'd disagree,, but I don't think that's wrong in the way I think these other things are wrong. It's a judgement about the quality of the art as opposed to groundless and occasionally contradictory post hoc storytelling looking to justify why someone doesn't like the music anymore.

When records like No Code, or Riot Act, or Binaural came out I didn't try and convince myself that pearl jam didn't care (although I did worry a bit given Eddie's RA vocals). I just accepted that they weren't writing to my tastes, enjoyed the stuff that struck a chord, and hoped that someday they'd return.

In the end I think this all comes down to the approach to writing--songs that will play well live, and songs that feel more immediate. I think the reason they're doing that is because they want to preserve the flavor of the live shows, and because they want to write songs that might draw in new listeners and introduce them to the bands legacy. At this point, in their less modest moments, they might think of Pearl Jam as a musical institution--the last of the classic rock bands--and writing to the present with that past in mind is not crazy. Wanting people to hear your art seems pretty reasonable. Wanting to have a certain degree of visibility to amplify a political voice makes sense. When Bruce Springsteen or Bono speak it carries more weight then when Michael Stipe does.

It's also possible (this is crazy, I know) that they really like their new songs and are proud of them because they think they're good.

That they are making choices because they don't care about music and care about money is just fucking dumb. They make hundreds of thousands of dollars per show. They can consistently sell out the venues in the places they like playing the most. They don't need to rush a new album to keep touring (which they've demonstrated). They don't make much money off of record sales anymore. How many fucking dog collars and 7 inch single sets do you think they need to equal the revenue of one show.


Other choices were possible. Maybe they would have been better. Maybe the ones they currently made could be better executed. These are interesting conversations to have . This one is not. I'm just an asshole who can't walk away from an argument.

blah blah ba bittle lawbbity blahh

I'm not reading all that. you lost me after the first statement in the previous reply where you somehow still avoid recognizing the desire for commercial success was their primary concern. i recognize you are referring to me, but i just dont care.

And there cant be two primary concerns

It is important to stop reading as soon as you discover someone disagrees with you. That requires real leadership, the kind we all wish pearl jam still had. Now, lets check out your follow through.

hlniv wrote:

96583UP wrote:

stip wrote: What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

In defense of the binaural artwork: the space pictures demonstrated depth. You have a naturally occurring infinity symbol, with an unknown eyeball made of gas in the middle, floating out there in outerspace. not drawn by some computer. natural beauty. that's powerful.

Per Jeff: "The reason that we went with Tchad [Blake] is because he provides an amazing atmosphere to songs....So, I think we wanted the artwork to represent that....One of the themes that we've been exploring...is just realizing that in the big scheme of things, even the music that we make when we come together, no matter how powerful it is, it's still pretty minuscule [sic]. I think for me the whole space theme has a lot to do with scale. You know, you look at some of those pictures, and there are thirteen light years in four inches in that picture."

The new album artwork? The quote would be like:

"The reason that we went with Brendan [O'Brien] is because we wanted to be popular again.... So, I think we wanted the artwork to represent that. We haven't been exploring any themes; its just that after years of trying to get the public spotlight out of his face, Ed succeeded; and woke up one morning and realized "oh shit, what have I done". So we penciled off a couple of weeks over a 4 year period, had BOB select the most commercially viable songs possible, and then farmed out the artwork to someone who would make it look catchy. So the whole farming out the artwork theme has a lot to do with us phoning it in artistically. Its not about musical expression anymore, it's about what people will like; which is conveniently positively correlated with making money, although making money is not the goal, it's just a convenient byproduct of wanting to be popular again."

You win this thread.

Shut it down. It's all over, folks. This guy has earned the crown.

But, somehow i still like it..... hmm....

not bad. if you had put an LOL in there somewhere it would have been better. Still, lets celebrate his (and your) victory in this thread by enjoying some alternative binaural artwork.



I had to look through two other space pictures to find it. But I wanted to find something that perfectly captured that in the big scheme of things, even the music that pearl jam makes when they come together, no matter how powerful it is, it's still pretty minuscule [sic]. I think for me the whole space theme has a lot to do with scale. You know, you look at some of those pictures, and there are thirteen light years in four inches in that picture.

I kinda wanted to use this picture



but I think it works better with the original tracklisting