Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:12 pm Posts: 1749 Location: Portland, OR
62strat wrote:
Soundgarden kind of suck live though.....
Up until mid-1994 they were amazing live. Then Chris started drinking on stage, they stopped practicing as much and became very hit-and-miss. There are some amazing shows from 1994-1997 but there are some real stinkers too.
Since the reunion, particularly since about midway through 2011, they've been better than ever live. The show I saw last year was ridiculously good. Their shows from last month were all outstanding.
Also: A Thousand Days Before>Blood on the Valley Floor>Bones of Birds is ridiculously awesome.
Pearl Jam shows: Champaign 4/23/2003 Chicago 6/18/2003 St. Louis 10/05/2004 Portland 7/20/2006 Gorge 7/22/2006 Ridgefield 9/26/2009 Philadelphia 10/31/2009
Up until mid-1994 they were amazing live. Then Chris started drinking on stage, they stopped practicing as much and became very hit-and-miss. There are some amazing shows from 1994-1997 but there are some real stinkers too.
Since the reunion, particularly since about midway through 2011, they've been better than ever live. The show I saw last year was ridiculously good. Their shows from last month were all outstanding.
Also: A Thousand Days Before>Blood on the Valley Floor>Bones of Birds is ridiculously awesome.
Agree...there are some 1990-91 shows that are insane.
For those of you who say that Chris' voice or style doesn't evoke any kind of emotional response from you, was this the same with Temple of the Dog as well? I'm really just curious.
For those of you who say that Chris' voice or style doesn't evoke any kind of emotional response from you, was this the same with Temple of the Dog as well? I'm really just curious.
No he didn't earn the screams on that album and while I'm not saying he was only pretending to be sad that Andy Wood died I'm not entirely convinced either. There is a difference.
Edit: Stip don't be mad I was cracking myself up as I typed this.
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 44183 Location: New York Gender: Male
HardTI wrote:
For those of you who say that Chris' voice or style doesn't evoke any kind of emotional response from you, was this the same with Temple of the Dog as well? I'm really just curious.
pretty much.
_________________ "Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR
I can identify with some of what you're saying, Stip. I've found Cornell's voice emotionally engaging in the past--particularly on "Down on the Upside," "Euphoria Morning," and various other stray tracks he's dropped along the way--but too many times I find myself feeling like his voice is ultimately, as Robert Christgau once wrote about Axl Rose, a power tool with attachments. Sometimes it works to tremendous effect, but if you look for something different as a listener, I can understand why a lot of Soundgarden's stuff would leave you cold. Despite the flippant response to it, I don't think your "digital effects" comment was too far off--I knew what you meant. Their best stuff is viscerally and intellectually gripping, but it all seems to exist within this vague sci-fi/fantasy realm that can feel a bit impenetrable--which is fine and sometimes even a strength, but it does put that much more pressure on the compositions, which sometimes are up to the task and sometimes aren't.
The more I listen to Soundgarden the more I realize what a weird relationship I have with their music. I grew up with "Superunknown" and "Down On the Upside" and for years identified them as being among the definitive records in my life, and by extension, Soundgarden as being among the definitive bands. Then, years later, I investigated their back catalog only to discover that almost all of it was specifically not to my taste. So here's this band, this voice, which was so formidable in helping shape my listening habits and which I by extension have a kind of deep-rooted attachment to, but in the end I really just don't care for very much of the music they've released. (I'm really not trying to be combative here, I'm just making an observation.)
I think "King Animal" is a solid album that was just the wrong record at the wrong time for me. I haven't really felt compelled to play it since the original stream (though I'm listening to it now, and it does sound good)--it's just not the sort of thing I've been in the mood to listen to lately.
I can identify with some of what you're saying, Stip. I've found Cornell's voice emotionally engaging in the past--particularly on "Down on the Upside," "Euphoria Morning," and various other stray tracks he's dropped along the way--but too many times I find myself feeling like his voice is ultimately, as Robert Christgau once wrote about Axl Rose, a power tool with attachments. Sometimes it works to tremendous effect, but if you look for something different as a listener, I can understand why a lot of Soundgarden's stuff would leave you cold. Despite the flippant response to it, I don't think your "digital effects" comment was too far off--I knew what you meant. Their best stuff is viscerally and intellectually gripping, but it all seems to exist within this vague sci-fi/fantasy realm that can feel a bit impenetrable--which is fine and sometimes even a strength, but it does put that much more pressure on the compositions, which sometimes are up to the task and sometimes aren't.
The more I listen to Soundgarden the more I realize what a weird relationship I have with their music. I grew up with "Superunknown" and "Down On the Upside" and for years identified them as being among the definitive records in my life, and by extension, Soundgarden as being among the definitive bands. Then, years later, I investigated their back catalog only to discover that almost all of it was specifically not to my taste. So here's this band, this voice, which was so formidable in helping shape my listening habits and which I by extension have a kind of deep-rooted attachment to, but in the end I really just don't care for very much of the music they've released. (I'm really not trying to be combative here, I'm just making an observation.)
I think "King Animal" is a solid album that was just the wrong record at the wrong time for me. I haven't really felt compelled to play it since the original stream (though I'm listening to it now, and it does sound good)--it's just not the sort of thing I've been in the mood to listen to lately.
I totally relate to all of the bolded here. Which is why this album is so high up in my estimation; basically, it only needed to compete with Superunknown and DOTU, which it does, quite comfortably. I'm not as much into the melodramatic, metallic side of Soundgarden. You also make an interesting point about the fantasy / theatrical aspect to their music; I can see that, which is why I don't 'buy' their most extravagant early stuff, and why Chris' voice didn't really inspire 'emotion' in me. In the light of that, maybe King Animal is the most personal and down-to-earth record Soundgarden have written, which would account for its difference in tone to the rest of their catalogue.
The only song I would describe as 'amazing' is A Thousand Days Before. That thing gives me a euphoric feeling hard to describe (an eargasm?). But the rest is good enough to very good indeed.
Objectively maybe, but I wasn't 'there' at the time, caught on to Soundgarden later, so I don't have the attachment to it others do. Which gives a bit of distance, makes it easier to judge King Animal, seemingly.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 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