Board index » Watched from the Window, with a Red Mosquito... » Pearl Jam




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 518 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
The opening of The End really is affecting. One of the few genuine moments on the record. Whoever made the decision to have the band stay away from this one made the right call. Unadorned, nothing but the music, the delivery, and the sentiment. Strong melody.

This one's excellent, easily the best offering on the record, and pretty emblematic of music that perfectly suits Pearl Jam at this point in their career.

Damn, I forgot about how abruptly this song ends. Unexpected and poignant.

Great, great track.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
So yeah, I started with an attempt to really get Backspacer, and I just ended up more annoyed than anything. Save one or two tracks, just a weak effort. I'm surprised at just how much I was turned off by Eddie throughout most of the record.

My attempt to somewhat objectively evaluate the songs was undermined by just how much the majority of them turned me off. I really have no idea what people who enjoy this record have found that I've missed.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
Harmless wrote:
thodoks wrote:
The music on Amongst the Waves sounds like it was written for and performed by a Richard Marx backing band. Nothing at all interesting going on rhythmically, sonically, melodically, or structurally. Surprisingly, Eddie's delivery is the only thing that doesn't turn this into sheer pap.

OH WOW MIKE U REALLY SHREDDIN NOW BRO

Man, this is just bad. Bad, bad, bad. Poor Matt.


You're basically saying that my drumming write up was bollocks. I can cope with that, but you're wrong.

I didn't even know such a thing existed.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:37 pm
Posts: 15767
Location: Vail, CO
Gender: Male
For the record - Unlike stip, I do not feel I have found something others are missing. I just simply enjoy it. Its enjoyable. Its nothing i can emotionally attach myself to or dig my teeth into and a lot of points thedoks makes - i can see and can partially agree. That being said, I enjoy the 25 minutes of listening because overall I think the Band sounds great (apart from the quality of song writing) and I do enjoy eds vocals.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
Harmless wrote:
thodoks wrote:
The irony of Supersonic is that it's so bad but that it's one of the few songs on the record that actually has personality.


What, the sports jock who's always the first to get drunk at house parties and piss everyone off by singing about his awesome life in a slurred manner?

Yes, that's right. I didn't say it was a particularly enjoyable or agreeable personality, but it was at least genuine.

Which begs the question: is Pearl Jam just faking or mailing in the majority of this record, or have they really become so boring and uninventive that I'm mistaking milquetoast music for something less sincere?

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
Harmless wrote:
I just feel like you're being pretty damning, thodoks.

Well, yeah. The music warrants it.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:37 pm
Posts: 15767
Location: Vail, CO
Gender: Male
thodoks wrote:
Harmless wrote:
thodoks wrote:
The irony of Supersonic is that it's so bad but that it's one of the few songs on the record that actually has personality.


What, the sports jock who's always the first to get drunk at house parties and piss everyone off by singing about his awesome life in a slurred manner?

Yes, that's right. I didn't say it was a particularly enjoyable or agreeable personality, but it was at least genuine.

Which begs the question: is Pearl Jam just faking or mailing in the majority of this record, or have they really become so boring and uninventive that I'm mistaking milquetoast music for something less sincere?



The fact that they have stated it was a choce made to record an album of such material i think negates the argument of them mailing it in. An attempt to make less complex music.

Sure, if the next one is like it ill be on your side.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
I never realized how homogenous this record sounds. No aural palate to speak of. At all.

Compared to the diversity and range of tones, effects, and textures of No Code or Yield, it's really rather stark. And even other records that were a bit less sonically diverse - Vitalogy and Binaural particularly - the songwriting was strong enough to overcome the uniformity in sound.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Snowboy
 Profile

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Posts: 11395
thodoks wrote:
Harmless wrote:
thodoks wrote:
The irony of Supersonic is that it's so bad but that it's one of the few songs on the record that actually has personality.


What, the sports jock who's always the first to get drunk at house parties and piss everyone off by singing about his awesome life in a slurred manner?

Yes, that's right. I didn't say it was a particularly enjoyable or agreeable personality, but it was at least genuine.

Which begs the question: is Pearl Jam just faking or mailing in the majority of this record, or have they really become so boring and uninventive that I'm mistaking milquetoast music for something less sincere?


Option C) It's a pop rock album with not enough depth for you, and you don't like it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Snowboy
 Profile

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Posts: 11395
thodoks wrote:
Harmless wrote:
thodoks wrote:
The music on Amongst the Waves sounds like it was written for and performed by a Richard Marx backing band. Nothing at all interesting going on rhythmically, sonically, melodically, or structurally. Surprisingly, Eddie's delivery is the only thing that doesn't turn this into sheer pap.

OH WOW MIKE U REALLY SHREDDIN NOW BRO

Man, this is just bad. Bad, bad, bad. Poor Matt.


You're basically saying that my drumming write up was bollocks. I can cope with that, but you're wrong.

I didn't even know such a thing existed.


Yeah. When it first came out I wrote a long review with a focus on Matt's playing. I don't know how much I'd agree with now, but I certainly stand by some opinions.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
Harmless wrote:
thodoks wrote:
Harmless wrote:
thodoks wrote:
The irony of Supersonic is that it's so bad but that it's one of the few songs on the record that actually has personality.


What, the sports jock who's always the first to get drunk at house parties and piss everyone off by singing about his awesome life in a slurred manner?

Yes, that's right. I didn't say it was a particularly enjoyable or agreeable personality, but it was at least genuine.

Which begs the question: is Pearl Jam just faking or mailing in the majority of this record, or have they really become so boring and uninventive that I'm mistaking milquetoast music for something less sincere?


Option C) It's a pop rock album with not enough depth for you, and you don't like it.

Sure. But I've been led to believe there are multiple layers here that I'm just not getting. You know, that multiple listens will reveal.

My complaint isn't with people who dig the record for what it is - a pretty disposable, boilerplate offering from a band interested in somehow reclaiming broader appeal and relevance. I just object to people who say there are things going on under the surface of this record that cause critics to not fully appreciate precisely what those things are.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Snowboy
 Profile

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Posts: 11395
I basically think this album is full of ear candy, sonically. It's just not complex and is designed to be an instant hit (by which I mean drug hit, not pop hit); for some people that's going to result in an album they get tired of very quickly. Others will be hooked on the tiny little musical moments which basically jack off the ear. There are plenty, they're just not part of deep songs. I understand the comments about the formulaic guitar playing, but really, that's what a pop song is. Formulaic. It's formulaic ear candy with a couple of more interesting twists and it's what PJ wanted, this time. Fine by me.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
Harmless wrote:
I basically think this album is full of ear candy, sonically.

It seems likely that our definition of "ear candy" diverges.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Last edited by thodoks on Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:37 pm
Posts: 15767
Location: Vail, CO
Gender: Male
thodoks wrote:
Harmless wrote:
I basically think this album is full of ear candy, sonically.

It seems likelyl that our definition of "ear candy" diverges.



Well candy is fun and tasty but ultimately not on par with a meaty steak. Ya dig?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Snowboy
 Profile

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Posts: 11395
thodoks wrote:
Harmless wrote:
thodoks wrote:
Harmless wrote:
thodoks wrote:
The irony of Supersonic is that it's so bad but that it's one of the few songs on the record that actually has personality.


What, the sports jock who's always the first to get drunk at house parties and piss everyone off by singing about his awesome life in a slurred manner?

Yes, that's right. I didn't say it was a particularly enjoyable or agreeable personality, but it was at least genuine.

Which begs the question: is Pearl Jam just faking or mailing in the majority of this record, or have they really become so boring and uninventive that I'm mistaking milquetoast music for something less sincere?


Option C) It's a pop rock album with not enough depth for you, and you don't like it.

Sure. But I've been led to believe there are multiple layers here that I'm just not getting. You know, that multiple listens will reveal.

My complaint isn't with people who dig the record for what it is - a pretty disposable, boilerplate offering from a band interested in somehow reclaiming broader appeal and relevance. I just object to people who say there are things going on under the surface of this record that cause critics to not fully appreciate precisely what those things are.


Well, I think there *are* deeper things going on than you give i credit for. That's because I hear them and interpret them in my head and heart that way (yes, cheesy language but I'm calling it as I see it). We all interpret music as we interpret language. That said, I can totally understand that you don't see those things. And I know the reasons you don't see those things (they're the same reasons that stop me recommending this one to potential PJ fans; too many people find too much of the album embarrassing). I just do. So, it's subjective. Some people see depth delivered in a palatable way. Others see superficiality.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
Harmless wrote:
Well, I think there *are* deeper things going on than you give i credit for. That's because I hear them and interpret them in my head and heart that way (yes, cheesy language but I'm calling it as I see it). We all interpret music as we interpret language. That said, I can totally understand that you don't see those things. And I know the reasons you don't see those things (they're the same reasons that stop me recommending this one to potential PJ fans; too many people find too much of the album embarrassing). I just do. So, it's subjective. Some people see depth delivered in a palatable way. Others see superficiality.

What are these deeper things? I keep asking, but I rarely get an answer.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Snowboy
 Profile

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Posts: 11395
62strat wrote:
thodoks wrote:
Harmless wrote:
I basically think this album is full of ear candy, sonically.

It seems likelyl that our definition of "ear candy" diverges.



Well candy is fun and tasty but ultimately not on par with a meaty steak. Ya dig?


Exactly. The term is deliberate. I mostly put this album on when I'm feeling low and need a smile. I get it, it works. A lot of people take the piss out of the 'patterns' and 'texture' Mike always went on about, but I get that as well; and it's an experiment accomplished, to me. If there was kickass Radiohead-style shredding all over this thing, it would sound all kinds of wrong in context.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
Why put this record on when you need a pop lift, though? So many other bands and musicians are doing pop better than this record that I can't imagine turning to Pearl Jam to scratch my disposable music itch.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Snowboy
 Profile

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Posts: 11395
thodoks wrote:
Harmless wrote:
Well, I think there *are* deeper things going on than you give i credit for. That's because I hear them and interpret them in my head and heart that way (yes, cheesy language but I'm calling it as I see it). We all interpret music as we interpret language. That said, I can totally understand that you don't see those things. And I know the reasons you don't see those things (they're the same reasons that stop me recommending this one to potential PJ fans; too many people find too much of the album embarrassing). I just do. So, it's subjective. Some people see depth delivered in a palatable way. Others see superficiality.

What are these deeper things? I keep asking, but I rarely get an answer.


I'm trying to find my review but I can't remember where I put it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Let's actually listen to the albums: Backspacer edition
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6405
Location: DC
Gender: Male
You forgot to talk about Johnny Guitar. Please share your thoughts about that song with us, thanks.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 518 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

Board index » Watched from the Window, with a Red Mosquito... » Pearl Jam


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:40 pm