The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
what does something that is organically catchy sound like?
*Something that I like and think is cooler because it was during a period of pearl jam i was more interested in. You know, the cool time before they cared about money etc..etc...etc...
what does something that is organically catchy sound like?
La Macarena.
Line-caught salmon.
_________________
RisingTides wrote:
There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
There is no reason to ever really doubt that pearl jam has not followed their creative instincts, although I don't really even know what the fuck that means. The fact that you like those records more is not because they are more creative. It explores an aspect of the bands sound you like more. One I would emphatically argue represents the low point of their creative drive and produced the least moving, least interesting, least inspired music of their career.
I'm not sure why this is such a bad thing to suggest, with the obvious caveat that it's always filtered through someone's opinions on the quality of the music. If I think they were writing great songs then and not-so-good songs now, I feel like it'd be weird if I didn't think they were being more creative at that prior point. I don't think that includes a knock on the other person's opinion.
Last edited by digster on Tue November 05, 2013 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Mon July 08, 2013 5:47 pm Posts: 3033 Location: Louisville, KY
IlluminEddie wrote:
hlniv wrote:
No. Not even close to their worst album. At the time it was released, yes. Now, a fair portion of PJ fans like it above No Code or maybe Vs. (I am not one of these). At the least, it is still clearly a more well done and better example of PJ than any of the last 3 records.
I disagree personally and I'm quite sure the heavy majority of those with Pearl Jam records would side with my take, sales certainly do. As for alternative measuring of best vs. worse - this place , here (or even PJ.com forum), is not an accurate representation of PJ fans whatsoever.
hlniv wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
There really is a bit of a common theme there, so let me explain...
The key to all of the above was the political spin on each record and during each tour. The worse it got (see Riot Act) the worse the album was. S/T was full of it, but less in your face. Binaural only dealt with it in certain areas and did have some singles that were not war-related at all, but it began with Binaural because that's when Ed was actively pushing for Nader.
......So, to me, the pinnacle was really reached at Yield. It was slowly melting into Ed's political OCD post Yield.
As for selling out, I'd say they began the process when they left Sony. They realized it was their time to make buck. And they've been doing it ever since. Target, Ten Club, etc.
All of the rest of this is accurate. It began shifting towards new ground and political expression (albeit a creative expression that I particularly enjoy) with the 2000 election, and that ultimately burnt itself out around the time they got back from the 2003 tour, reflected, left Sony, etc... Was it based largely on Ed's personality and viewpoints? Probably, but not completely.
Agree with this.
hlniv wrote:
It took a couple years for them to realize they had a cash machine, and they could be both respectable rock stars and provide the good life for their families.
I don't agree with this completely. I think they knew they had a cash machine with the release of Vs. I think they knew it with every subsequent release and were kinda surprised fans kept coming back. Towards the end of their deal with Sony, I think they didn't care too much about sales because they knew on the other side, there would be opportunity for them to make more loot.
G.R.E.E.D. and all.
hlniv wrote:
What i hope they come to understand is that the creative expression that fueled Binaural and Riot Act (not necessarily the political expression, but the creative fuel) is what still keeps many of their fans returning. I have rediscovered so much of their catalog just in the last year, and i just don't see me "re-discovering" the 2006-2013 output in 2023 like I have with their 1995-2003 output in 2013.
I think this is naive. It's not creativity. Maybe this place - but, broader it's not. Truth is, in the grand scheme of money making, this place and all who come here are largely irrelevant.
What keeps "the majority" of fans returning, if anything, is primarily Ed's voice. Of course, the music and lyrics are also relevant. But, I'd say, to the average fan (not super fans), it's most Ed's voice and the underlying piece of music under it.
For Binaural and Riot Act, I think what I see is terrible/average songs overshadowing any creativity. Sincerely, that's how I see it. I see a few terrible songs (God's Dice) and some moderately poor ones (Get Right), then a few decent songs. I know some may think whooooaaaaaa - nothing as it seems is sooooo creative (it's a few chords and solos - not creative, but I actually dig this). And so is sleight of hand.... woozer (cool lyrics set over an off-piece of music, actually once again one of the better ones)... bushleaguer is crazy inventive (spoken word)... you are - can i get a amen (the drum loop guitar, problem is this songs sucks).... help, help, what can you say - inventive? But, to me, I laugh at all this. I actually think a few of these are the better songs on these records, but the 'creativity' over song aspect loses me. Particularly, when the underlying song sucks - I'd toss You Are as an example there. Pearl Jam was once creative and made good songs, look at In My Tree for that. So, it's not impossible to be both. The problem is Binaural had songs like Evacuation on it and Riot Act had a bunch of ho hum songs on it with nothing earth shattering or even above average.
hlniv wrote:
Oh, and by the way, i was 21 in 2000 and voting in my 1st presidential election. Ed convinced me to vote for Nader. Without his political grandstanding, I certainly would not have done that. Of course, I probably just wouldn't have voted at all...
I don't know what to say to this...
I couldn't care less if you know what to say about the last part. My 35 year old self doesn't know what to say about it either. 21 year old self was a much different person.
Regardless.
As to the above. What keeps the majority of fans returning is not particularly interesting to me. I am largely talking about the the fans that take the time to read all this bullshit.
And in my tree ain't creative. Put Ed and Jack in a room to write a song and you will get in my tree or something like it 75% of the time. I think it's a great song, one of my favs, but not all that surprising or creative. Verse chorus bridge chorus outro
I think LB is really moving in a good direction from Backspacer. The only song desperately trying to be "catchy" is LTRP (and to a lesser extent, LB). And that's a good thing, because there were several on Backspacer.
_________________
RisingTides wrote:
There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
It took a couple years for them to realize they had a cash machine
i think they had that figured out by 1992
Yeah. The disappointment isn't that they sold out, the disappointment is that they deliberately rejected the money and fame being thrown at them, and then when they felt better about the world, decided they wanted to fight to get it back again.
rejected what money? They were probably making more money back in the day and they could still be making considerably more money. Oh and they've been "fighting to get it back again" since Yield.
Since No Code, they were proverbially "rejecting" the money and fame they had generated during Ten, and could've been generating by writing cookie-cutter radio hits like "Jeremy" (or, hell, "The Fixer"). Each album post-Yield was making less and less money, and (in my opinion) getting more and more artistically interesting. The band appeared to want to follow their artistic, ethical and political drives over and above being part of the "machine". They don't have a label now, in effect they are still doing as much as they can to look like a "label" band, and even if they're still not making much money, many of the musical and peripheral decisions they've made in the past several years were clearly designed for that purpose. You know this. I'm teaching Grandma to suck eggs here. If you don't agree, you don't agree.
I think it was easy to reject fame and money when you had a shit ton of it already, when people knew you had a new album out without you having to do a shitton of interviews or promotion or whatever because the media was gonna talk about it regardless. Now that they aren't the biggest band in the universe, and album sales in general aren't what they once were theyve got to work a little harder. Target was a pretty big pr misstep imo, no matter how much they tell us it was a good deal it just looks bad for 'sponsored by no one pearl jam'. But I think theyve done ok with LB.
It took a couple years for them to realize they had a cash machine
i think they had that figured out by 1992
Yeah. The disappointment isn't that they sold out, the disappointment is that they deliberately rejected the money and fame being thrown at them, and then when they felt better about the world, decided they wanted to fight to get it back again.
rejected what money? They were probably making more money back in the day and they could still be making considerably more money. Oh and they've been "fighting to get it back again" since Yield.
Since No Code, they were proverbially "rejecting" the money and fame they had generated during Ten, and could've been generating by writing cookie-cutter radio hits like "Jeremy" (or, hell, "The Fixer"). Each album post-Yield was making less and less money, and (in my opinion) getting more and more artistically interesting. The band appeared to want to follow their artistic, ethical and political drives over and above being part of the "machine". They don't have a label now, in effect they are still doing as much as they can to look like a "label" band, and even if they're still not making much money, many of the musical and peripheral decisions they've made in the past several years were clearly designed for that purpose. You know this. I'm teaching Grandma to suck eggs here. If you don't agree, you don't agree.
Explain how Jeremy is cookie cutter. I honestly don't think they could write anything close to Jeremy or much of Ten again because truth be told, they don't write/play together much anymore. Jeremy isn't cookie cutter in any way.
I feel like you "hold them (PJ) high above too" a bit much. They do have a label, it's their label. They wanted it that way, so they could make the loot themselves and have more control. The idea that they now have the control and are turning a bit more pop-centric distorts all notions that they are doing this for some sort of noble rock pursuit. They want money and time to spend with their families and so on. But, mostly, they rejected fame and are now cashing in.
No. Not even close to their worst album. At the time it was released, yes. Now, a fair portion of PJ fans like it above No Code or maybe Vs. (I am not one of these). At the least, it is still clearly a more well done and better example of PJ than any of the last 3 records.
I disagree personally and I'm quite sure the heavy majority of those with Pearl Jam records would side with my take, sales certainly do. As for alternative measuring of best vs. worse - this place , here (or even PJ.com forum), is not an accurate representation of PJ fans whatsoever.
hlniv wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
There really is a bit of a common theme there, so let me explain...
The key to all of the above was the political spin on each record and during each tour. The worse it got (see Riot Act) the worse the album was. S/T was full of it, but less in your face. Binaural only dealt with it in certain areas and did have some singles that were not war-related at all, but it began with Binaural because that's when Ed was actively pushing for Nader.
......So, to me, the pinnacle was really reached at Yield. It was slowly melting into Ed's political OCD post Yield.
As for selling out, I'd say they began the process when they left Sony. They realized it was their time to make buck. And they've been doing it ever since. Target, Ten Club, etc.
All of the rest of this is accurate. It began shifting towards new ground and political expression (albeit a creative expression that I particularly enjoy) with the 2000 election, and that ultimately burnt itself out around the time they got back from the 2003 tour, reflected, left Sony, etc... Was it based largely on Ed's personality and viewpoints? Probably, but not completely.
Agree with this.
hlniv wrote:
It took a couple years for them to realize they had a cash machine, and they could be both respectable rock stars and provide the good life for their families.
I don't agree with this completely. I think they knew they had a cash machine with the release of Vs. I think they knew it with every subsequent release and were kinda surprised fans kept coming back. Towards the end of their deal with Sony, I think they didn't care too much about sales because they knew on the other side, there would be opportunity for them to make more loot.
G.R.E.E.D. and all.
hlniv wrote:
What i hope they come to understand is that the creative expression that fueled Binaural and Riot Act (not necessarily the political expression, but the creative fuel) is what still keeps many of their fans returning. I have rediscovered so much of their catalog just in the last year, and i just don't see me "re-discovering" the 2006-2013 output in 2023 like I have with their 1995-2003 output in 2013.
I think this is naive. It's not creativity. Maybe this place - but, broader it's not. Truth is, in the grand scheme of money making, this place and all who come here are largely irrelevant.
What keeps "the majority" of fans returning, if anything, is primarily Ed's voice. Of course, the music and lyrics are also relevant. But, I'd say, to the average fan (not super fans), it's most Ed's voice and the underlying piece of music under it.
For Binaural and Riot Act, I think what I see is terrible/average songs overshadowing any creativity. Sincerely, that's how I see it. I see a few terrible songs (God's Dice) and some moderately poor ones (Get Right), then a few decent songs. I know some may think whooooaaaaaa - nothing as it seems is sooooo creative (it's a few chords and solos - not creative, but I actually dig this). And so is sleight of hand.... woozer (cool lyrics set over an off-piece of music, actually once again one of the better ones)... bushleaguer is crazy inventive (spoken word)... you are - can i get a amen (the drum loop guitar, problem is this songs sucks).... help, help, what can you say - inventive? But, to me, I laugh at all this. I actually think a few of these are the better songs on these records, but the 'creativity' over song aspect loses me. Particularly, when the underlying song sucks - I'd toss You Are as an example there. Pearl Jam was once creative and made good songs, look at In My Tree for that. So, it's not impossible to be both. The problem is Binaural had songs like Evacuation on it and Riot Act had a bunch of ho hum songs on it with nothing earth shattering or even above average.
hlniv wrote:
Oh, and by the way, i was 21 in 2000 and voting in my 1st presidential election. Ed convinced me to vote for Nader. Without his political grandstanding, I certainly would not have done that. Of course, I probably just wouldn't have voted at all...
I don't know what to say to this...
I couldn't care less if you know what to say about the last part. My 35 year old self doesn't know what to say about it either. 21 year old self was a much different person.
Regardless.
As to the above. What keeps the majority of fans returning is not particularly interesting to me. I am largely talking about the the fans that take the time to read all this bullshit.
And in my tree ain't creative. Put Ed and Jack in a room to write a song and you will get in my tree or something like it 75% of the time. I think it's a great song, one of my favs, but not all that surprising or creative. Verse chorus bridge chorus outro
Now make the argument that "In My Tree" is no more creative than "The Fixer".
_________________
RisingTides wrote:
There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
No. Not even close to their worst album. At the time it was released, yes. Now, a fair portion of PJ fans like it above No Code or maybe Vs. (I am not one of these). At the least, it is still clearly a more well done and better example of PJ than any of the last 3 records.
I disagree personally and I'm quite sure the heavy majority of those with Pearl Jam records would side with my take, sales certainly do. As for alternative measuring of best vs. worse - this place , here (or even PJ.com forum), is not an accurate representation of PJ fans whatsoever.
hlniv wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
There really is a bit of a common theme there, so let me explain...
The key to all of the above was the political spin on each record and during each tour. The worse it got (see Riot Act) the worse the album was. S/T was full of it, but less in your face. Binaural only dealt with it in certain areas and did have some singles that were not war-related at all, but it began with Binaural because that's when Ed was actively pushing for Nader.
......So, to me, the pinnacle was really reached at Yield. It was slowly melting into Ed's political OCD post Yield.
As for selling out, I'd say they began the process when they left Sony. They realized it was their time to make buck. And they've been doing it ever since. Target, Ten Club, etc.
All of the rest of this is accurate. It began shifting towards new ground and political expression (albeit a creative expression that I particularly enjoy) with the 2000 election, and that ultimately burnt itself out around the time they got back from the 2003 tour, reflected, left Sony, etc... Was it based largely on Ed's personality and viewpoints? Probably, but not completely.
Agree with this.
hlniv wrote:
It took a couple years for them to realize they had a cash machine, and they could be both respectable rock stars and provide the good life for their families.
I don't agree with this completely. I think they knew they had a cash machine with the release of Vs. I think they knew it with every subsequent release and were kinda surprised fans kept coming back. Towards the end of their deal with Sony, I think they didn't care too much about sales because they knew on the other side, there would be opportunity for them to make more loot.
G.R.E.E.D. and all.
hlniv wrote:
What i hope they come to understand is that the creative expression that fueled Binaural and Riot Act (not necessarily the political expression, but the creative fuel) is what still keeps many of their fans returning. I have rediscovered so much of their catalog just in the last year, and i just don't see me "re-discovering" the 2006-2013 output in 2023 like I have with their 1995-2003 output in 2013.
I think this is naive. It's not creativity. Maybe this place - but, broader it's not. Truth is, in the grand scheme of money making, this place and all who come here are largely irrelevant.
What keeps "the majority" of fans returning, if anything, is primarily Ed's voice. Of course, the music and lyrics are also relevant. But, I'd say, to the average fan (not super fans), it's most Ed's voice and the underlying piece of music under it.
For Binaural and Riot Act, I think what I see is terrible/average songs overshadowing any creativity. Sincerely, that's how I see it. I see a few terrible songs (God's Dice) and some moderately poor ones (Get Right), then a few decent songs. I know some may think whooooaaaaaa - nothing as it seems is sooooo creative (it's a few chords and solos - not creative, but I actually dig this). And so is sleight of hand.... woozer (cool lyrics set over an off-piece of music, actually once again one of the better ones)... bushleaguer is crazy inventive (spoken word)... you are - can i get a amen (the drum loop guitar, problem is this songs sucks).... help, help, what can you say - inventive? But, to me, I laugh at all this. I actually think a few of these are the better songs on these records, but the 'creativity' over song aspect loses me. Particularly, when the underlying song sucks - I'd toss You Are as an example there. Pearl Jam was once creative and made good songs, look at In My Tree for that. So, it's not impossible to be both. The problem is Binaural had songs like Evacuation on it and Riot Act had a bunch of ho hum songs on it with nothing earth shattering or even above average.
hlniv wrote:
Oh, and by the way, i was 21 in 2000 and voting in my 1st presidential election. Ed convinced me to vote for Nader. Without his political grandstanding, I certainly would not have done that. Of course, I probably just wouldn't have voted at all...
I don't know what to say to this...
I couldn't care less if you know what to say about the last part. My 35 year old self doesn't know what to say about it either. 21 year old self was a much different person.
Regardless.
As to the above. What keeps the majority of fans returning is not particularly interesting to me. I am largely talking about the the fans that take the time to read all this bullshit.
And in my tree ain't creative. Put Ed and Jack in a room to write a song and you will get in my tree or something like it 75% of the time. I think it's a great song, one of my favs, but not all that surprising or creative. Verse chorus bridge chorus outro
Now make the argument that "In My Tree" is no more creative than "The Fixer".
That guitar part in the verses rhythm is pretty creative. Sorry, guys
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39861
digster wrote:
stip wrote:
There is no reason to ever really doubt that pearl jam has not followed their creative instincts, although I don't really even know what the fuck that means. The fact that you like those records more is not because they are more creative. It explores an aspect of the bands sound you like more. One I would emphatically argue represents the low point of their creative drive and produced the least moving, least interesting, least inspired music of their career.
I'm not sure why this is such a bad thing to suggest, with the obvious caveat that it's always filtered through someone's opinions on the quality of the music. If I think they were writing great songs then and not-so-good songs now, I feel like it'd be weird if I didn't think they were being more creative at that prior point. I don't think that includes a knock on the other person's opinion.
it equates preference with passion and integrity, which I don't like, and implies a kind of superiority in that person's tastes (I like the creative stuff, whereas you like the bland, boring, uninteresting stuff). If I'm going to credit an argument about artistic decline I'm going to want something to go off of beyond personal preference for the music, especially since the self evident decline runs directly counter to my own experiences, preferences, opinions, etc.
No. Not even close to their worst album. At the time it was released, yes. Now, a fair portion of PJ fans like it above No Code or maybe Vs. (I am not one of these). At the least, it is still clearly a more well done and better example of PJ than any of the last 3 records.
I disagree personally and I'm quite sure the heavy majority of those with Pearl Jam records would side with my take, sales certainly do. As for alternative measuring of best vs. worse - this place , here (or even PJ.com forum), is not an accurate representation of PJ fans whatsoever.
hlniv wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
There really is a bit of a common theme there, so let me explain...
The key to all of the above was the political spin on each record and during each tour. The worse it got (see Riot Act) the worse the album was. S/T was full of it, but less in your face. Binaural only dealt with it in certain areas and did have some singles that were not war-related at all, but it began with Binaural because that's when Ed was actively pushing for Nader.
......So, to me, the pinnacle was really reached at Yield. It was slowly melting into Ed's political OCD post Yield.
As for selling out, I'd say they began the process when they left Sony. They realized it was their time to make buck. And they've been doing it ever since. Target, Ten Club, etc.
All of the rest of this is accurate. It began shifting towards new ground and political expression (albeit a creative expression that I particularly enjoy) with the 2000 election, and that ultimately burnt itself out around the time they got back from the 2003 tour, reflected, left Sony, etc... Was it based largely on Ed's personality and viewpoints? Probably, but not completely.
Agree with this.
hlniv wrote:
It took a couple years for them to realize they had a cash machine, and they could be both respectable rock stars and provide the good life for their families.
I don't agree with this completely. I think they knew they had a cash machine with the release of Vs. I think they knew it with every subsequent release and were kinda surprised fans kept coming back. Towards the end of their deal with Sony, I think they didn't care too much about sales because they knew on the other side, there would be opportunity for them to make more loot.
G.R.E.E.D. and all.
hlniv wrote:
What i hope they come to understand is that the creative expression that fueled Binaural and Riot Act (not necessarily the political expression, but the creative fuel) is what still keeps many of their fans returning. I have rediscovered so much of their catalog just in the last year, and i just don't see me "re-discovering" the 2006-2013 output in 2023 like I have with their 1995-2003 output in 2013.
I think this is naive. It's not creativity. Maybe this place - but, broader it's not. Truth is, in the grand scheme of money making, this place and all who come here are largely irrelevant.
What keeps "the majority" of fans returning, if anything, is primarily Ed's voice. Of course, the music and lyrics are also relevant. But, I'd say, to the average fan (not super fans), it's most Ed's voice and the underlying piece of music under it.
For Binaural and Riot Act, I think what I see is terrible/average songs overshadowing any creativity. Sincerely, that's how I see it. I see a few terrible songs (God's Dice) and some moderately poor ones (Get Right), then a few decent songs. I know some may think whooooaaaaaa - nothing as it seems is sooooo creative (it's a few chords and solos - not creative, but I actually dig this). And so is sleight of hand.... woozer (cool lyrics set over an off-piece of music, actually once again one of the better ones)... bushleaguer is crazy inventive (spoken word)... you are - can i get a amen (the drum loop guitar, problem is this songs sucks).... help, help, what can you say - inventive? But, to me, I laugh at all this. I actually think a few of these are the better songs on these records, but the 'creativity' over song aspect loses me. Particularly, when the underlying song sucks - I'd toss You Are as an example there. Pearl Jam was once creative and made good songs, look at In My Tree for that. So, it's not impossible to be both. The problem is Binaural had songs like Evacuation on it and Riot Act had a bunch of ho hum songs on it with nothing earth shattering or even above average.
hlniv wrote:
Oh, and by the way, i was 21 in 2000 and voting in my 1st presidential election. Ed convinced me to vote for Nader. Without his political grandstanding, I certainly would not have done that. Of course, I probably just wouldn't have voted at all...
I don't know what to say to this...
I couldn't care less if you know what to say about the last part. My 35 year old self doesn't know what to say about it either. 21 year old self was a much different person.
Regardless.
As to the above. What keeps the majority of fans returning is not particularly interesting to me. I am largely talking about the the fans that take the time to read all this bullshit.
And in my tree ain't creative. Put Ed and Jack in a room to write a song and you will get in my tree or something like it 75% of the time. I think it's a great song, one of my favs, but not all that surprising or creative. Verse chorus bridge chorus outro
It was creative for "them" because it was different. But, also, it was good.
Name a song that is creative off Binaural or Riot Act? I bet In My Tree is better. And that, there, is my point.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39861
harmless wrote:
hlniv wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
hlniv wrote:
No. Not even close to their worst album. At the time it was released, yes. Now, a fair portion of PJ fans like it above No Code or maybe Vs. (I am not one of these). At the least, it is still clearly a more well done and better example of PJ than any of the last 3 records.
I disagree personally and I'm quite sure the heavy majority of those with Pearl Jam records would side with my take, sales certainly do. As for alternative measuring of best vs. worse - this place , here (or even PJ.com forum), is not an accurate representation of PJ fans whatsoever.
hlniv wrote:
IlluminEddie wrote:
There really is a bit of a common theme there, so let me explain...
The key to all of the above was the political spin on each record and during each tour. The worse it got (see Riot Act) the worse the album was. S/T was full of it, but less in your face. Binaural only dealt with it in certain areas and did have some singles that were not war-related at all, but it began with Binaural because that's when Ed was actively pushing for Nader.
......So, to me, the pinnacle was really reached at Yield. It was slowly melting into Ed's political OCD post Yield.
As for selling out, I'd say they began the process when they left Sony. They realized it was their time to make buck. And they've been doing it ever since. Target, Ten Club, etc.
All of the rest of this is accurate. It began shifting towards new ground and political expression (albeit a creative expression that I particularly enjoy) with the 2000 election, and that ultimately burnt itself out around the time they got back from the 2003 tour, reflected, left Sony, etc... Was it based largely on Ed's personality and viewpoints? Probably, but not completely.
Agree with this.
hlniv wrote:
It took a couple years for them to realize they had a cash machine, and they could be both respectable rock stars and provide the good life for their families.
I don't agree with this completely. I think they knew they had a cash machine with the release of Vs. I think they knew it with every subsequent release and were kinda surprised fans kept coming back. Towards the end of their deal with Sony, I think they didn't care too much about sales because they knew on the other side, there would be opportunity for them to make more loot.
G.R.E.E.D. and all.
hlniv wrote:
What i hope they come to understand is that the creative expression that fueled Binaural and Riot Act (not necessarily the political expression, but the creative fuel) is what still keeps many of their fans returning. I have rediscovered so much of their catalog just in the last year, and i just don't see me "re-discovering" the 2006-2013 output in 2023 like I have with their 1995-2003 output in 2013.
I think this is naive. It's not creativity. Maybe this place - but, broader it's not. Truth is, in the grand scheme of money making, this place and all who come here are largely irrelevant.
What keeps "the majority" of fans returning, if anything, is primarily Ed's voice. Of course, the music and lyrics are also relevant. But, I'd say, to the average fan (not super fans), it's most Ed's voice and the underlying piece of music under it.
For Binaural and Riot Act, I think what I see is terrible/average songs overshadowing any creativity. Sincerely, that's how I see it. I see a few terrible songs (God's Dice) and some moderately poor ones (Get Right), then a few decent songs. I know some may think whooooaaaaaa - nothing as it seems is sooooo creative (it's a few chords and solos - not creative, but I actually dig this). And so is sleight of hand.... woozer (cool lyrics set over an off-piece of music, actually once again one of the better ones)... bushleaguer is crazy inventive (spoken word)... you are - can i get a amen (the drum loop guitar, problem is this songs sucks).... help, help, what can you say - inventive? But, to me, I laugh at all this. I actually think a few of these are the better songs on these records, but the 'creativity' over song aspect loses me. Particularly, when the underlying song sucks - I'd toss You Are as an example there. Pearl Jam was once creative and made good songs, look at In My Tree for that. So, it's not impossible to be both. The problem is Binaural had songs like Evacuation on it and Riot Act had a bunch of ho hum songs on it with nothing earth shattering or even above average.
hlniv wrote:
Oh, and by the way, i was 21 in 2000 and voting in my 1st presidential election. Ed convinced me to vote for Nader. Without his political grandstanding, I certainly would not have done that. Of course, I probably just wouldn't have voted at all...
I don't know what to say to this...
I couldn't care less if you know what to say about the last part. My 35 year old self doesn't know what to say about it either. 21 year old self was a much different person.
Regardless.
As to the above. What keeps the majority of fans returning is not particularly interesting to me. I am largely talking about the the fans that take the time to read all this bullshit.
And in my tree ain't creative. Put Ed and Jack in a room to write a song and you will get in my tree or something like it 75% of the time. I think it's a great song, one of my favs, but not all that surprising or creative. Verse chorus bridge chorus outro
Now make the argument that "In My Tree" is no more creative than "The Fixer".
In my tree is a bunch of power chords. The drums are cool but its not that far outside the proverbial wheelhouse. The arrangement is pretty straight forward. The drums are really the only creative aspect of it.
Thats not saying I dont love the song, cause I do.
There is no reason to ever really doubt that pearl jam has not followed their creative instincts, although I don't really even know what the fuck that means. The fact that you like those records more is not because they are more creative. It explores an aspect of the bands sound you like more. One I would emphatically argue represents the low point of their creative drive and produced the least moving, least interesting, least inspired music of their career.
I'm not sure why this is such a bad thing to suggest, with the obvious caveat that it's always filtered through someone's opinions on the quality of the music. If I think they were writing great songs then and not-so-good songs now, I feel like it'd be weird if I didn't think they were being more creative at that prior point. I don't think that includes a knock on the other person's opinion.
it equates preference with passion and integrity, which I don't like, and implies a kind of superiority in that person's tastes (I like the creative stuff, whereas you like the bland, boring, uninteresting stuff). If I'm going to credit an argument about artistic decline I'm going to want something to go off of beyond personal preference for the music, especially since the self evident decline runs directly counter to my own experiences, preferences, opinions, etc.
I don't really think it implies anything. If I feel that one album is better than another, I don't see why I wouldn't wonder why that is, and one of the conclusions I could see myself coming to is that they were in a better creative space on the album I think is better. There's no real way to measure someone's interior creative drive, so the whole conversation is speculative.
Users browsing this forum: Brett, dad, stip and 43 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
