Red Mosquito

I'm basically seeing a hundred variations of "the band is not coming out with records as fast I'd want them to" while referring to other older artists and their various periods of ebbs and flows. I wonder if it's just perhaps that we are witnessing these periods in real time. Referenced above is Bob Dylan and Miles Davis and Neil Young and others and their various lulls. What I don't see acknowledged is that we did not witness those periods in real time (cause we aren't old enough). We didn't feel the impatience, the antsiness, or disappointment of either waiting for material that didn't come fast enough or being a little frustrated when it did finally come.

I personally try to take this stuff into account. I ask myself, how did other similarly successful bands (especially ones that big success in the "alternative" era) go about this when they were at the 20+ year mark? The answer I find is that MOST of the bands simply broke up or washed out and couldn't keep it together. Then, there's the ones that went into oblivion or ended up trying to get on MTV and appeal to the latest pop fluff market. Where was REM at the 20 year mark? RHCP? Aerosmith? Metallica? Green Day? U2? NIN? What about the Who/Led Zep/Jane's Addiction/The Clash/Beatles/Soundgarden/Nirvana/Black Sabbath/Van Halen/AIC - Oh, they ALL broke up or changed singers or imploded b/c of death. And I do not make the comparison of the solo artist (totally different ballgame). Overall, I think PJ stack up pretty darn well. For me, there's always something worthwhile in each of their albums. Not one album has truly disappointed me, and I attribute that to their unique choice of having all 5 members be songwriters.

All that said, LB initally fell into my "middle of the pack" of PJ albums and it's pretty much stayed there. I still like most of the songs. A few of them deserve to be setlist mainstays. My main gripe about it is song sequence. It's just an album I have trouble playing top to bottom all the way without stopping. It's turning out like Vs or Binaural for me where I go back to a few songs and replay them over and over. There's not enough flow between the rockers and ballads so I have trouble sticking with a single vibe. Some individual songs are stronger than the previous 2 albums but I could play Avocado and Backspacer without having to repeat or skip songs. I still have alot of trouble with LTRP but SBM has worn me down and i can tolerate it cause it's melodically pretty. I'm of the opinion that, if anything, they worked TOO hard on their last 3 albums. They wanted each chorus and verse and bridge to hit with maximum immediate impact and sometimes just didn't let the song be. They clearly have been scrutinizing each second of every song where sometimes they should have just kept the song in it's original vision.

My only hope and expectation for what is next is that whatever they put out from here on is something that they feel like the want to put out. I don't want them releasing something if they are not feeling it.

Hey tuolumne!

Nice to see you r back.

McParadigm wrote:
The only thing I'll note is that, with Dylan, Neil Young or Miles Davis...the "it's my job to make a record" moments (good or bad) are bookended by substantial runs of music

Dylan for sure. Miles however went to his grave on what is almost universally regarded as the worst music of his career, a span of work that lasted a decade (of course, for Miles, a decade meant 8-10 records, not 3). Neil is kind of beyond reproach -- I suppose "Freedom" through "Mirror Ball" was a pretty focused run of quality work following a lengthy period of questionable commercial and aesthetic choices, but deep down I feel like his entire career from 1980-present has been a series of one-off impulses seen through to completion once and then abandoned. The difference with Neil, I think, is that his impulse works have the potential to approach significance in a way that most artists' similar projects don't, because even when it's "just another day on the job" for Neil, he makes it a point to change the nature of what his job entails. Same for Elvis Costello, I would say. But anyway.

The fact that Pearl Jam are asking rote, workmanlike releases to stand in for significant stretches of time is not lost on me, and I do think that in an academic sense it lessens the durability of the music in real time; when Miles or Neil would release a record of similar canonical import to "LB," a new release would be along in 9 months to replace it (in related news, "Storytone" is due out November 4). That said, once the discs are on my shelf, that sense of time fades away a bit, unless something happens aesthetically within the music itself that makes the time lapse impossible to ignore. At some point, it just becomes a sequence of records to me. In historical time, Pearl Jam's career lasts 23 years. But for purposes of my own life, it lasts about 10 hours.

I realize I am on a post-show high, and that six months from now I could feel differently about all this. But you know, to everything there is a season and all that.

Kevin Davis wrote:

McParadigm wrote:
The only thing I'll note is that, with Dylan, Neil Young or Miles Davis...the "it's my job to make a record" moments (good or bad) are bookended by substantial runs of music

Dylan for sure. Miles however went to his grave on what is almost universally regarded as the worst music of his career, a span of work that lasted a decade (of course, for Miles, a decade meant 8-10 records, not 3). Neil is kind of beyond reproach -- I suppose "Freedom" through "Mirror Ball" was a pretty focused run of quality work following a lengthy period of questionable commercial and aesthetic choices, but deep down I feel like his entire career from 1980-present has been a series of one-off impulses seen through to completion once and then abandoned. The difference with Neil, I think, is that his impulse works have the potential to approach significance in a way that most artists' similar projects don't, because even when it's "just another day on the job" for Neil, he makes it a point to change the nature of what his job entails. Same for Elvis Costello, I would say. But anyway.

The fact that Pearl Jam are asking rote, workmanlike releases to stand in for significant stretches of time is not lost on me, and I do think that in an academic sense it lessens the durability of the music in real time; when Miles or Neil would release a record of similar canonical import to "LB," a new release would be along in 9 months to replace it (in related news, "Storytone" is due out November 4). That said, once the discs are on my shelf, that sense of time fades away a bit, unless something happens aesthetically within the music itself that makes the time lapse impossible to ignore. At some point, it just becomes a sequence of records to me. In historical time, Pearl Jam's career lasts 23 years. But for purposes of my own life, it lasts about 10 hours.

I realize I am on a post-show high, and that six months from now I could feel differently about all this. But you know, to everything there is a season and all that.

These are all SOLO artists you're comparing PJ to. Name a BAND that kept it going at an "acceptable" pace of output (whatever that is to you) all the way past the 20+ year mark. Totally different animal in getting 3-5 individuals and their evolving visions lined up to write, record, and release something.

Way to ignore the McParadigm's main point.

Tuolumne, I am not comparing Pearl Jam to those artists because I think they should be working at the same pace as them; I am just trying to draw a parallel for how I process the work, the actual albums on my shelf. I don't listen to (or at least haven't given meaningful consideration to) half the bands you listed, so they would not really be credible comparisons for me to make. Furthermore, I don't think McP is objecting to the length of time between records; it is that the band is producing unremarkable work and overestimating its shelf life.

That said, to answer your question, Sonic Youth, The Flaming Lips, and The Roots are all bands that produced creatively engaged work for 20+ years, without ever hitting any significant lulls. Of course, Sonic Youth didn't make it to 30, but then again we don't know if PJ will either.

Also, not to entertain the tangent, but what you termed Pearl Jam's "acceptable" pace of output actually ended after Riot Act, which was 11 years into their career, not "20+."

Kevin Davis wrote:That said, to answer your question, Sonic Youth, The Flaming Lips, and The Roots are all bands that produced creatively engaged work for 20+ years, without ever hitting any significant lulls.

Public Enemy, The Cure, Depeche Mode, Pet Shop Boys, Manic Street Preachers...

Lament wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:That said, to answer your question, Sonic Youth, The Flaming Lips, and The Roots are all bands that produced creatively engaged work for 20+ years, without ever hitting any significant lulls.

Public Enemy, The Cure, Depeche Mode, Pet Shop Boys, Manic Street Preachers...

NO. THOSE BANDS DON'T ALL HAVE 5 AND A HALF MEMBERS SO THE DYNAMIC ISN'T THE SAME AND YOUR POINT IS INVALID!

I defy you to name one band from Seattle who rose from the ashes of Mother Love Bone and had a better 10th album than Pearl Jam.

The RM "clique" - killin it everyday.

Seriously, are all the accounts that mention this alleged RM "clique" all controlled by the same person?

Can we get an official roster for the "clique"?

Seconded. I'd LOVE to see one.

All the clique-deniers are in the clique. All the clique-decriers are outside the clique.

I dunno. I feel like whether it exists or not, it shouldn't be used as a "get out of thread free" card when somebody points out a hole in your argument.

I'm my own clique

I am Clique

Cliqueory

Satans Clique

Cliqueduster

aRMinal

Haha ... no, the 5 posts right above this one in no way suggest that a 'clique' exists in here, do they? Lol

Did you notice how I didn't say there wasn't one? I encouraged the conversation to continue. I'm interested in what you have to say.

Tuolumne wrote:Haha ... no, the 5 posts right above this one in no way suggest that a 'clique' exists in here, do they? Lol

Do they? How? I'm seriously trying to understand this thing and no one wants to begin to try to explain it.

theplatypus wrote:Did you notice how I didn't say there wasn't one? I encouraged the conversation to continue. I'm interested what you have to say.

I am, too. Very much so.

theplatypus wrote:Did you notice how I didn't say there wasn't one? I encouraged the conversation to continue. I'm interested in what you have to say.

Dude, with all due respect, I'm not engaging. I know my "argument" and already it's headed in a direction I simply do not have the time or inclination to proceed in. I've made whatever point I wanted to make, go ahead and poke all the holes in the "argument" that you desire. Already 10 people have piled on, I have no chance here whatsoever. You win, (and I win too cause it's giving me a laugh).