Red Mosquito

stip wrote: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.

digster wrote: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.

bodysnatcher 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."

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.

stip wrote:

digster wrote: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.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

Mine wrote:

stip wrote:

digster wrote: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.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

It is but i think this is a simplified view of the creative process. Many great albums were written in very short times. One could argue that a lot of hard work was put in all those things people don't like about the recent albums.

BurtReynolds wrote:

digster wrote:blablabla

hlniv wrote:blablabla

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

stip wrote:

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.

stip wrote:

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

stip wrote: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.

stip wrote:

digster wrote: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.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

stip wrote:There is little reason, I think, to doubt that their primary concern is the music and the live show.

AskPearlJam: Brendan says: Why so long since the last album?

Stone: Has it been a year and a half?

Eddie: I think that's Brendan O'Brien asking the question and I want to tell Brendan that we can't employ him full-time.

http://pearljamhistory.no.sapo.pt/PJArt ... s_chat.htm

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote: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.

stip wrote:

digster wrote: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.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

You still just don't get it, man. I fault myself for failing to lead you.

The only thing that the Pearl Jam organization is working hard at is commercial success (I've settled on this phrase, as I think it depicts the full range of the moneygrab, the audiencegrab, the accessibility goal, etc...). The individuals in the band are working hard at other things, just not Pearl Jam. This has been the obvious strategic direction for this decade in question. Don't see how that is even questionable.

I like the LB/new/newer music, just not as much as some of the prior stuff. Still like it, though, just don't love it. And haven't loved it for quite a while. What i really don't like is how strikingly different everything around the music has become compared to the time when I first became hooked. I understand it, just don't like it.

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote: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.

stip wrote:

digster wrote: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.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

You still just don't get it, man. I fault myself for failing to lead you.

The only thing that the Pearl Jam organization is working hard at is commercial success (I've settled on this phrase, as I think it depicts the full range of the moneygrab, the audiencegrab, the accessibility goal, etc...). The individuals in the band are working hard at other things, just not Pearl Jam. This has been the obvious strategic direction for this decade in question. Don't see how that is even questionable.

I like the LB/new/newer music, just not as much as some of the prior stuff. Still like it, though, just don't love it. And haven't loved it for quite a while. What i really don't like is how strikingly different everything around the music has become compared to the time when I first became hooked. I understand it, just don't like it.

the year is 1998. There has been a rapid decline in commercial success over the last two albums--the previous one barely made it to 1 million copies, a number that only two albums and 3 years prior they were able to pull off in a week. The band self-consciously sets out to write a rock record that everyone, including, I believe, the band deems a 'return to form'. The first single is easily the most commercially viable and easily accessible song on the album. Commercials are made and aired to advertise the upcoming album. The band goes back on its now well established and famous no video policy. They end their celebrated boycott of ticketmaster venues because it was making it harder for fans to see them. And on top of this their corporate record label is doing whatever it is record labels do to help promote acts like this. All of this in a climate where pearl jam had embedded cultural cache, the musical climate was generally favorable to this kind of music, extensive radio play of a lead single was pretty guaranteed, and the lead singer was still something of a household name.

And the name of that album is Lighting Bolt Backspacer S/T Yield.

stip wrote:I basically agree with all that. Even though I'm a big fan of their current output if they spent even more time working on stuff I have no doubt it would be even better, that tours would be improved by making them longer, and that they in general have less time to invest in the band, or less time they are willing to invest. But, again, this is not exactly the same thing as not caring about the outcome, or even caring less, in the sense that I suspect many in this thread (and in similar conversations) are using it.

I also get how this raises the stakes for each album, and I'm lucky there. The records I was less enamored with were only 2 years apart.

And you aren't imagining that BoB comment.

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote:I basically agree with all that. Even though I'm a big fan of their current output if they spent even more time working on stuff I have no doubt it would be even better, that tours would be improved by making them longer, and that they in general have less time to invest in the band, or less time they are willing to invest. But, again, this is not exactly the same thing as not caring about the outcome, or even caring less, in the sense that I suspect many in this thread (and in similar conversations) are using it.

I also get how this raises the stakes for each album, and I'm lucky there. The records I was less enamored with were only 2 years apart.

And you aren't imagining that BoB comment.

Who in this thread has said the that they don't care ( or care less ) about the outcome ?

I, for one, certainly believe they care about the outcome, it's just that the specific outcome that they care about has shifted full-on towards a commercial outcome.

Mine wrote:

stip wrote:

digster wrote: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.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

It is but i think this is a simplified view of the creative process. Many great albums were written in very short times. One could argue that a lot of hard work was put in all those things people don't like about the recent albums.

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote: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.

stip wrote:

digster wrote: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.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

You still just don't get it, man. I fault myself for failing to lead you.

The only thing that the Pearl Jam organization is working hard at is commercial success (I've settled on this phrase, as I think it depicts the full range of the moneygrab, the audiencegrab, the accessibility goal, etc...). The individuals in the band are working hard at other things, just not Pearl Jam. This has been the obvious strategic direction for this decade in question. Don't see how that is even questionable.

I like the LB/new/newer music, just not as much as some of the prior stuff. Still like it, though, just don't love it. And haven't loved it for quite a while. What i really don't like is how strikingly different everything around the music has become compared to the time when I first became hooked. I understand it, just don't like it.

the year is 1998. There has been a rapid decline in commercial success over the last two albums--the previous one barely made it to 1 million copies, a number that only two albums and 3 years prior they were able to pull off in a week. The band self-consciously sets out to write a rock record that everyone, including, I believe, the band deems a 'return to form'. The first single is easily the most commercially viable and easily accessible song on the album. Commercials are made and aired to advertise the upcoming album. The band goes back on its now well established and famous no video policy. They end their celebrated boycott of ticketmaster venues because it was making it harder for fans to see them. And on top of this their corporate record label is doing whatever it is record labels do to help promote acts like this. All of this in a climate where pearl jam had embedded cultural cache, the musical climate was generally favorable to this kind of music, extensive radio play of a lead single was pretty guaranteed, and the lead singer was still something of a household name.

And the name of that album is Lighting Bolt Backspacer S/T Yield.