in rainbows by radiohead - i'm positive - was given a great score for basically how it was released (with the choose your price thing). it should have been a 5.0 at the most. they respected the aspect of what they were doing as a band and it influenced their review.
Did you read the review? They talk about the music and describe each song on the album, and it certainly deserves more than a 5.0, it's three times the album Backspacer is.
you really believe that? of course i read it...they did a good job on the review but i think they were off because of what they thought otherwise.
there are STRONG radiohead songs on the album but as a whole, i dont' think it's that great. and if you remember, the days leading up to it pitchfork was seriously sucking them off for the whole release thing.
regardless of my opinion of the album, i'm just commenting about their overall enfatuation with the business decisions of radiohead compared with not mentioning one thing about pearl jam's.
Those undecided,........ Needn't have faith to be free
And those misguided, There was a plan for them to be
Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently
Ah, so since I disagree with you I'm clearly not reading the reviews or have an intelligent thought of my own. Got it.
And if you think "Just Breathe" is boringly repetitive...damn....i can't even fathom that opinion, but I guess its out there.
Feel free to continue to have your opinion, but I don't feel the need to discuss it anymore with someone who seems to assume I know nothing and have read nothing....
Hey man, you were the one using the "unverisal rave reviews" card. Your thoughts are pefectly intelligent, I'm just saying don't use metacritic to try to lend your opinions added weight, because metacritic doesn't back you up. The album is not flawless and most reviewers, even the ones that like it, admit that. I'm in that camp, this is the most natural and comfortable album they've done in a long time, and even though I have issues with the tracklisting and song choices, it's overall a pretty strong effort. That doesn't mean this guy is way off base with his review though... he makes some legit points. It's not his fault PJ fans take the band so seriously they can't even take a mild joke like the bass line comment without it causing seizures of outrage that someone dare jest about something as serious and important as an 11 song 35 minute rock album.
I don't have a problem taking a joke, he just seems unprofessional and a pretty excited about throwing some cheap shots in..."Sooner or later, however, you remember these guys wouldn't know a melody if it bit them in the ass. " Nice...
Like I said, i dont have a problem with complaints, I dont think the album is perfect, and I too am not a huge fan of the tracklisting. I just get a little tired of pitchfork's holier than though ego. But I guess thats what they are and what they do....
Every review I've seen has open and serious criticism of half the songs
Crap, Guess I'm not done...
Please tell me the "half the songs" that have serious criticism in them in the following reviews (maybe its YOU who haven't read any of them...)
LA Times
Boston Globe
Blender
AMG
The Guardian
Billboard
Rolling Stone
Spin
Well crap, that's over half of them and I'm getting tired of re-reading them. I hardly found a single criticism in the whole lot of those...
AMG, Billboard, and the Guardian don't mention a single song in their reviews, just the usual "PJ is back and livelier than ever" line. Since you get on Pitchfork for jounralistic integrity based on their jokes, how about the same critical lens applied to the good reviews... how do you review an album without mentioning any songs? It's due to exactly what I described... the album sounds good but the individual songs aren't that memorable. Thus, 90 ratings on metacritic that are unable to identify a single song that stands out. Some of the others do seem to love every song, but Spin has this nugget: "The band hasn’t put together a trifecta this energized and from-the-gut in a decade, and though the rest of Backspacer doesn't match that opening salvo, it has a terrific time trying."
And then you stopped, after cherry picking the best reviews and not even going into the more cautiously approving ones. Pitchfork, we've discussed.
How about Paste: "But too much of the record’s second half leans toward the introspective tunes frontman Eddie Vedder executed perfectly on the Into the Wild soundtrack. But outside of a filmic context and stamped with the name Pearl Jam, several of the songs fall flat, dragging down an otherwise upbeat and enjoyable release."
sputnik: "guitarist Mike McCready is still prone to laying down questionable guitar leads, particularly in the former."
drowned in sound: "Which is fine and all, but um, yeah... shame it’s not one of their best records." and "Though Backspacer's only actively excruciating note is the beardy folk ramble of ‘Just Breathe’, the likes of ‘Unknown Thought’ and ‘Speed Of Sound’ feel sapped by the record's lightness; it's fairly self-evident that these tracks would have sounded better if recorded at literally any other time in Pearl Jam's history. The occasional presence of an orchestra is just bewildering: this is a band that reaches their emotional highs through blood, sweat and tears, not symphonic gimmicks."
I'm not saying the reviews aren't positive, I'm saying even the positive ones seem to struggle to find reasons why other than the fact that the band sounds so much more engaged (which I agree with) and that plenty of people think the slower songs don't work or have other issues. This Pitchfork review is not an anomaly. Nothing they said is novel or off the map. Almost no one is saying "every song on here kicks ass, the album's a classic!"
...... they are abusing the responsibility they have...
..... 99% of the population who aren't us rabid fans wouldn't detect this and would rely on this information.
Let's not over-dramatize this! Abusing responsibility... it's just a piece on an rock album, not reporting some major news that has impact on society....
What difference would it make if the tiny bit of the 99% of the population that are not rabid fans read this review and, shock-horror, they read Backspacer is the 10th album? Will these all of a sudden feel let down or cheated or even worse lied to, if they find out that PJ only made 9 albums?
Perspective..... It's only one person's opinion.
I guess I'm a geezer and come from an old-school frame of mind where I give a f**k about what I do whether it is to take out the trash, get someone somewhere, do my job, live my life. No matter how menial or how important. I'm not the person to say that you came to the wrong window. I like to help someone to their resolution of whatever. That attitude means doing your job right and take pride in what you do. If you can't do something and you know it, do me a favor and don't attempt it. I have called our local news radio's traffic tip line. It is amazing to hear what they report vs. what you had told them. Makes me ask if all of the news is that distorted by mistakes or worse, manipulation. People really do read and rely on these articles. An album review is not a report on a nuclear accident. But is someone has a job to write in a periodical, and it is non-fiction, they should get things right. In an opinion, base it on facts, correct facts. That's all what I'm asking for. To do one's job with pride and accuracy. The reviewer's opinion is different from mine about Backspacer. That's fine. Just don't look like a fool and possibly mislead people by getting the facts wrong.
Up here so high I start to shake, Up here so high the sky I scrape, I've no fear but for falling down, So look out below I am falling now, Falling down,...not staying down, Could’ve held me up, rather tear me down, Drown in the river
I don't have a problem taking a joke, he just seems unprofessional and a pretty excited about throwing some cheap shots in..."Sooner or later, however, you remember these guys wouldn't know a melody if it bit them in the ass. " Nice...
Like I said, i dont have a problem with complaints, I dont think the album is perfect, and I too am not a huge fan of the tracklisting. I just get a little tired of pitchfork's holier than though ego. But I guess thats what they are and what they do....
I can feel that, normally I would agree. I loathe Pitchfork, most of their writers and readers, and all of their attitude. This might be the first time I've ever agreed with a PF review before. Maybe my willingness to laugh at the cheap shots has to do with the fact that they parallel my own bitterness and frustration with the band over the last few albums. They know melody, they just like to save those songs for b-sides and Lost Dogs and opt instead to load albums with tons of riffs that have no rhythm. It drives me nuts. So, much as I hate to agree with PF, it's kinda nice to see my thoughts expressed with such exasperation.
AMG, Billboard, and the Guardian don't mention a single song in their reviews, just the usual "PJ is back and livelier than ever" line. Since you get on Pitchfork for jounralistic integrity based on their jokes, how about the same critical lens applied to the good reviews... how do you review an album without mentioning any songs? It's due to exactly what I described... the album sounds good but the individual songs aren't that memorable. Thus, 90 ratings on metacritic that are unable to identify a single song that stands out. Some of the others do seem to love every song, but Spin has this nugget: "The band hasn’t put together a trifecta this energized and from-the-gut in a decade, and though the rest of Backspacer doesn't match that opening salvo, it has a terrific time trying."
And then you stopped, after cherry picking the best reviews and not even going into the more cautiously approving ones. Pitchfork, we've discussed.
How about Paste: "But too much of the record’s second half leans toward the introspective tunes frontman Eddie Vedder executed perfectly on the Into the Wild soundtrack. But outside of a filmic context and stamped with the name Pearl Jam, several of the songs fall flat, dragging down an otherwise upbeat and enjoyable release."
sputnik: "guitarist Mike McCready is still prone to laying down questionable guitar leads, particularly in the former."
drowned in sound: "Which is fine and all, but um, yeah... shame it’s not one of their best records." and "Though Backspacer's only actively excruciating note is the beardy folk ramble of ‘Just Breathe’, the likes of ‘Unknown Thought’ and ‘Speed Of Sound’ feel sapped by the record's lightness; it's fairly self-evident that these tracks would have sounded better if recorded at literally any other time in Pearl Jam's history. The occasional presence of an orchestra is just bewildering: this is a band that reaches their emotional highs through blood, sweat and tears, not symphonic gimmicks."
I'm not saying the reviews aren't positive, I'm saying even the positive ones seem to struggle to find reasons why other than the fact that the band sounds so much more engaged (which I agree with) and that plenty of people think the slower songs don't work or have other issues. This Pitchfork review is not an anomaly. Nothing they said is novel or off the map. Almost no one is saying "every song on here kicks ass, the album's a classic!"
I just did the first 8. Sorry they weren't approved by you. But your quote said every review you'd read had problems with half the songs. That's just false. Or are you allowed to cherry-pick but I'm not? YOU'RE the one that made the statement not me, so don't find fault in the method I used to prove you wrong.
Up here so high I start to shake, Up here so high the sky I scrape, I've no fear but for falling down, So look out below I am falling now, Falling down,...not staying down, Could’ve held me up, rather tear me down, Drown in the river
I don't have a problem taking a joke, he just seems unprofessional and a pretty excited about throwing some cheap shots in..."Sooner or later, however, you remember these guys wouldn't know a melody if it bit them in the ass. " Nice...
Like I said, i dont have a problem with complaints, I dont think the album is perfect, and I too am not a huge fan of the tracklisting. I just get a little tired of pitchfork's holier than though ego. But I guess thats what they are and what they do....
I can feel that, normally I would agree. I loathe Pitchfork, most of their writers and readers, and all of their attitude. This might be the first time I've ever agreed with a PF review before. Maybe my willingness to laugh at the cheap shots has to do with the fact that they parallel my own bitterness and frustration with the band over the last few albums. They know melody, they just like to save those songs for b-sides and Lost Dogs and opt instead to load albums with tons of riffs that have no rhythm. It drives me nuts. So, much as I hate to agree with PF, it's kinda nice to see my thoughts expressed with such exasperation.
Ha, we're complete opposites. I love pitchfork, except whenever they review mainstream acts. I always tell people to go to pitchfork to find good new albums you've never heard of, but never, EVER, trust them if the artist is mainstream.
Why? You can just PM us if you feel the need to flame someone for not thinking this album is kinda underwhelming.[/quote]
Gramar not your strong point?[/quote]
Guess not, I must have been too focused on my spelling to pay attention to gramMar... since we're getting all petty and childish here :roll: So do you have any more comments on, you know, Pearl Jam? Or would you prefer we stick to personal digs and threats to flame/spam anyone that speaks ill of Backspacer?[/quote]
*hangs head* I guess you have me here.
Toledo '96, Cleveland '98, Columbus '00, Cleveland '03, Toledo '04
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.
Toledo '96, Cleveland '98, Columbus '00, Cleveland '03, Toledo '04
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
I just did the first 8. Sorry they weren't approved by you. But your quote said every review you'd read had problems with half the songs. That's just false. Or are you allowed to cherry-pick but I'm not? YOU'RE the one that made the statement not me, so don't find fault in the method I used to prove you wrong.
You're right. I was a bit hyperbolic when I said that every review rips half the songs, though I think you also overstated your case when you said every review totally disagrees with PF. The criticisms they make are the same as many other criticisms, it's just that PF has them all in one review and seems bothered by them, and other reviews shrug it off as a minor quibble. But that doesn't mean PF has some vendetta against PJ or have no integrity or whatever it is people want from them. It means they didn't like the album because its negatives (most of which are identified with elsewhere) outweigh its positives. PF is not the only one saying these things, it's just that they're the only ones that seem to have a problem with it. I can see how it would be annoying if you love the album to read their snarky shots at the album, but I'm equally annoyed by the cloyingly flowery reviews by fans on here that act like every moment on this album is some sort of life-altering spiritual journey. They do it to get a reaction. Maybe PF was a bit irreverent, but that doesn't mean the criticisms they make are totally unfounded or shocking.
furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.
DITT - FUCKIN - O! see my post earlier. pitchfork - and writers in general - are not musicians. jeff is absolutely off his rocker on this album. geez
Those undecided,........ Needn't have faith to be free
And those misguided, There was a plan for them to be
Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently
furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.
Mostly in my car and on high end headphones and a decent stereo. But I'll admit I'm not a gearhead. What I am is a dude that loves hearing Even Flow live because I can shake my ass during that song, or pump fists during alive, or sway with my arms around my gf to some of the ballads. Tell, what body movements can you make during a song like Johnny Guitar? Maybe a little of those air guitar strums, or Ed's acid-infused hand motions? Let's face it, they're trying to do punk now... head banging for a few seconds, then a few seconds to stand stock still and listen to the 'fuck the man' lyrics, then back to head banging with some arm wind-milling. Gone are the days of PJ writing a song that can get a whole arena on the same page for singing along or dancing or anything like that.
furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.
Mostly in my car and on high end headphones and a decent stereo. But I'll admit I'm not a gearhead. What I am is a dude that loves hearing Even Flow live because I can shake my ass during that song, or pump fists during alive, or sway with my arms around my gf to some of the ballads. Tell, what body movements can you make during a song like Johnny Guitar? Maybe a little of those air guitar strums, or Ed's acid-infused hand motions? Let's face it, they're trying to do punk now... head banging for a few seconds, then a few seconds to stand stock still and listen to the 'fuck the man' lyrics, then back to head banging with some arm wind-milling. Gone are the days of PJ writing a song that can get a whole arena on the same page for singing along or dancing or anything like that.
How old are you? I'm guessing well over 30. And all the shows I've been to, most of the people are moving most of the time.
If you're listening on a good system, adjust the EQ and drop out the high end....then come back and tell me there's no bass lines.
Lastly, I think there's plenty of stuff on the new album for you to grope your girlfriend to at concerts (that's my only complaint about the album). Pearl Jam isn't supposed to be finger-fucking music and the only people i've ever know who thought it was were in fraternities and came upon the music cause dude's in their frat house liked it.
Post edited by imissyoualready on
Toledo '96, Cleveland '98, Columbus '00, Cleveland '03, Toledo '04
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
I just did the first 8. Sorry they weren't approved by you. But your quote said every review you'd read had problems with half the songs. That's just false. Or are you allowed to cherry-pick but I'm not? YOU'RE the one that made the statement not me, so don't find fault in the method I used to prove you wrong.
You're right. I was a bit hyperbolic when I said that every review rips half the songs, though I think you also overstated your case when you said every review totally disagrees with PF. The criticisms they make are the same as many other criticisms, it's just that PF has them all in one review and seems bothered by them, and other reviews shrug it off as a minor quibble. But that doesn't mean PF has some vendetta against PJ or have no integrity or whatever it is people want from them. It means they didn't like the album because its negatives (most of which are identified with elsewhere) outweigh its positives. PF is not the only one saying these things, it's just that they're the only ones that seem to have a problem with it. I can see how it would be annoying if you love the album to read their snarky shots at the album, but I'm equally annoyed by the cloyingly flowery reviews by fans on here that act like every moment on this album is some sort of life-altering spiritual journey. They do it to get a reaction. Maybe PF was a bit irreverent, but that doesn't mean the criticisms they make are totally unfounded or shocking.
I dont' really have a problem with anything you say here...though i think pitchfork loses credibility for constantly bashing major acts. As I was telling my wife a couple days ago (before their review), on pitchfork, its a scale of 1-10, or 1-6 if the general public knows who you are.
I think maybe it offends me more simply because I usually like their reviews and website (i check and read it daily), but they just consistently bash anything anyone knows, and while I agree there's a lot of mainstream crap, it's not ALL nearly as bad as they think it (always) is.
furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.
DITT - FUCKIN - O! see my post earlier. pitchfork - and writers in general - are not musicians. jeff is absolutely off his rocker on this album. geez
I'm not a musician, which is why I started saying rhythm instead of bassline. I don't know the technical terms. I guess that means I'm never allowed to have an opinion about how music sounds to me again. By the way, you had damn well never say a word about a book or tv show you like again, because you never MADE a tv show, so how can you comment on it? Oh, and don't ever talk to me about sports, because unless you play in the NBA, you have no grounds to even comment on sports.
I'm not saying PJ has to become Parliament-Funkadelic, but what set them apart from all their peers was their ability to merge punk and hard rock with Stone's love of funk and hip hop to make music that rocked but still had the ability to get people moving. They've all but pushed Stone out of the band now, so all that's left is those jagged riffing punk tunes that are cool if you're in a punk club doing that bad ass little march right before punching someone or stage diving, but fall flat in the context of a PJ show or album. Look around during a given PJ show during those songs... tell me how many people are into it and how many are just standing looking confused and wondering how they're supposed to get into a song like Supersonic. Compare that to how people respond to Alive or even tunes like Rats and Why Go and Leash.
furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.
DITT - FUCKIN - O! see my post earlier. pitchfork - and writers in general - are not musicians. jeff is absolutely off his rocker on this album. geez
I'm not a musician, which is why I started saying rhythm instead of bassline. I don't know the technical terms. I guess that means I'm never allowed to have an opinion about how music sounds to me again. By the way, you had damn well never say a word about a book or tv show you like again, because you never MADE a tv show, so how can you comment on it? Oh, and don't ever talk to me about sports, because unless you play in the NBA, you have no grounds to even comment on sports.
I'm not saying PJ has to become Parliament-Funkadelic, but what set them apart from all their peers was their ability to merge punk and hard rock with Stone's love of funk and hip hop to make music that rocked but still had the ability to get people moving. They've all but pushed Stone out of the band now, so all that's left is those jagged riffing punk tunes that are cool if you're in a punk club doing that bad ass little march right before punching someone or stage diving, but fall flat in the context of a PJ show or album. Look around during a given PJ show during those songs... tell me how many people are into it and how many are just standing looking confused and wondering how they're supposed to get into a song like Supersonic. Compare that to how people respond to Alive or even tunes like Rats and Why Go and Leash.
"All but pushed Stone out of the band"????????????
Man you seriously dont know what your'e talking about. Do you know how PJ picks songs? You need to go do some homework.......FER REELZ. And everytime you post you end up correcting what you said in the previous post. I recommend you take about 3 weeks off from posting and go watch all the interviews you've missed in the last few years. You'll come back a better, more accurate poster.
"They've all but pushed Stone out of the band" LMMFAO!!!
Toledo '96, Cleveland '98, Columbus '00, Cleveland '03, Toledo '04
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
How old are you? I'm guessing well over 30. And all the shows I've been to, most of the people are moving most of the time.
If you're listening on a good system, adjust the EQ and drop out the high end....then come back and tell me there's no bass lines.
Lastly, I think there's plenty of stuff on the new album for you to grope your girlfriend to at concerts (that's my only complaint about the album). Pearl Jam isn't supposed to be finger-fucking music and the only people i've ever know who thought it was were in fraternities and came upon the music cause dude's in their frat house liked it.
I'm 27, for whatever that has to do anything. I already corrected myself.. sure Jeff is playing a bass, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a general lack of rhythmic rock... you know the 'r' in R&B, the forerunner of rock. There's no swing in the music, no dynamics or tension or patience. Everything is played super fast, even the words. Get a clock and tell me how many words Ed spits in 15 seconds of Got Some compared to Leash or Why Go. They've ceased to write songs that rock because they have heft and weight and try to make up for it by just playing faster. I'm not sure what finger-fucking music is, but I do know that at a concert I like to be able to have some fun dancing around and singing along and PJ used to excel at that. They've sidelined their greatest weapons though... Ed's voice, Mike's wailing, Stone and Jeff's rhythmic interplay... all of it is gone. Maybe Jeff is louder in the mix now, but his bass lines aren't going to give George Clinton a run for his money in terms of getting asses outta the seat. Maybe Stone has a better haircut, but he still spends too much time sitting there doing nothing so that Ed can play simple riffs instead and pretend he's in the Ramones. Maybe Ed can still reach down and send shivers up a listener's spine, but he still has too many songs where it seems like speed and quantity of words take precedence over letting the song breathe and giving him a second in between the verses to reach to his gut for those vocal performances that made us all die hards.
How old are you? I'm guessing well over 30. And all the shows I've been to, most of the people are moving most of the time.
If you're listening on a good system, adjust the EQ and drop out the high end....then come back and tell me there's no bass lines.
Lastly, I think there's plenty of stuff on the new album for you to grope your girlfriend to at concerts (that's my only complaint about the album). Pearl Jam isn't supposed to be finger-fucking music and the only people i've ever know who thought it was were in fraternities and came upon the music cause dude's in their frat house liked it.
I'm 27, for whatever that has to do anything. I already corrected myself.. sure Jeff is playing a bass, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a general lack of rhythmic rock... you know the 'r' in R&B, the forerunner of rock. There's no swing in the music, no dynamics or tension or patience. Everything is played super fast, even the words. Get a clock and tell me how many words Ed spits in 15 seconds of Got Some compared to Leash or Why Go. They've ceased to write songs that rock because they have heft and weight and try to make up for it by just playing faster. I'm not sure what finger-fucking music is, but I do know that at a concert I like to be able to have some fun dancing around and singing along and PJ used to excel at that. They've sidelined their greatest weapons though... Ed's voice, Mike's wailing, Stone and Jeff's rhythmic interplay... all of it is gone. Maybe Jeff is louder in the mix now, but his bass lines aren't going to give George Clinton a run for his money in terms of getting asses outta the seat. Maybe Stone has a better haircut, but he still spends too much time sitting there doing nothing so that Ed can play simple riffs instead and pretend he's in the Ramones. Maybe Ed can still reach down and send shivers up a listener's spine, but he still has too many songs where it seems like speed and quantity of words take precedence over letting the song breathe and giving him a second in between the verses to reach to his gut for those vocal performances that made us all die hards.
Oh I get it now. You're bipolar. You just said a while ago that you didnt like them trying to be the ramones and now you're saying Ed should be pretending he's in the ramones? You're all over the place. I'm off to demoralize other Backspacer-haters.
Toledo '96, Cleveland '98, Columbus '00, Cleveland '03, Toledo '04
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
U2's All That you Cant Leave behind - 5.0 (easily u2's best album this decade)
Green Days 21st Century Breakdown - 4.8
Nine Inch Nails' The Fragile - 2.0 (that one is almost beyond belief)
Weezers Make Believe - 0.4
Coldplays A rush of blood to the head 4.9
Of those 5, I would rate U2's, NIN's, and Coldplays albums as 21st Century classics, and I only would put about 15-20 albums in that category. Granted, Weezer's Make Believe is poor, but a 0.4? The point is, they either hate anything mainstream (not named Radiohead), or they do it on purpose. I dont know which.
"All but pushed Stone out of the band"????????????
Man you seriously dont know what your'e talking about. Do you know how PJ picks songs? You need to go do some homework.......FER REELZ. And everytime you post you end up correcting what you said in the previous post. I recommend you take about 3 weeks off from posting and go watch all the interviews you've missed in the last few years. You'll come back a better, more accurate poster.
"They've all but pushed Stone out of the band" LMMFAO!!!
Ed wrote music for a grand total of 7 songs over the first 3 albums (porch, rvm, elderly woman, corduroy, not for you, immortality, betterman). 7 out of 33 songs. He has 5 out of the 11 songs on this album. On those first 3 albums, Stone wrote 8 of the Ten songs on his own and at least half of the rest of VS-Vitalogy... so 19 out of 33 we'll say. This album, he has I believe ONE song he wrote himself, and maybe 2 other co-writer credits (not coincidentally, it's the best song on the album). On the last album, Ed wrote music for... 4-5 songs? Stone had... 2? 3?
You say I'm delusional? You're right, the distribution of song-writing duties hasn't changed AT ALL over the years :roll: PJ is Ed's baby now, and Stone may be ok with that, but I'm not. His was always the most interesting music. And it's annoying when you have people that talented going to waste. Ed did an entire solo album, and still sticks 3 more songs just like the ones from his solo album onto BS, while Stone had his solo album shelved (so clearly, he had material) and can't get more than one song on this album? You don't believe that any more than I do.
I don't know how they pick the songs, but I don't think anyone would disagree that they suck at it. The proof of that is the songs left off Binaural and Riot Act, which are largely far better than any of the songs actually on those albums. Even the band has admitted that. I know they said they tried to get away from that this time, but I don't think it worked. Sue me.
Maybe Stone has a better haircut, but he still spends too much time sitting there doing nothing so that Ed can play simple riffs instead and pretend he's in the Ramones.
Oh I get it now. You're bipolar. You just said a while ago that you didnt like them trying to be the ramones and now you're saying Ed should be pretending he's in the ramones? You're all over the place. I'm off to demoralize other Backspacer-haters.
Ummm, I think that quote pretty clearly says I wish Ed wasn't wasting all his time trying to be the Ramones? Because when Ed plays "I'm a punk rocker" he picks up a guitar and Stone just stands there doing nothing because no punk song ever recorded needs 3 guitars. So instead of hearing a song like Alive or Leash or Animal, we get to hear another song like Comatose. Ya-fuckin-hoo. One thing I'm not is all over the place, I've been very consistent here for years in saying that I hate when the band tries to be punk.
"All but pushed Stone out of the band"????????????
Man you seriously dont know what your'e talking about. Do you know how PJ picks songs? You need to go do some homework.......FER REELZ. And everytime you post you end up correcting what you said in the previous post. I recommend you take about 3 weeks off from posting and go watch all the interviews you've missed in the last few years. You'll come back a better, more accurate poster.
"They've all but pushed Stone out of the band" LMMFAO!!!
Ed wrote music for a grand total of 7 songs over the first 3 albums (porch, rvm, elderly woman, corduroy, not for you, immortality, betterman). 7 out of 33 songs. He has 5 out of the 11 songs on this album. On those first 3 albums, Stone wrote 8 of the Ten songs on his own and at least half of the rest of VS-Vitalogy... so 19 out of 33 we'll say. This album, he has I believe ONE song he wrote himself, and maybe 2 other co-writer credits (not coincidentally, it's the best song on the album). On the last album, Ed wrote music for... 4-5 songs? Stone had... 2? 3?
You say I'm delusional? You're right, the distribution of song-writing duties hasn't changed AT ALL over the years :roll: PJ is Ed's baby now, and Stone may be ok with that, but I'm not. His was always the most interesting music. And it's annoying when you have people that talented going to waste. Ed did an entire solo album, and still sticks 3 more songs just like the ones from his solo album onto BS, while Stone had his solo album shelved (so clearly, he had material) and can't get more than one song on this album? You don't believe that any more than I do.
I don't know how they pick the songs, but I don't think anyone would disagree that they suck at it. The proof of that is the songs left off Binaural and Riot Act, which are largely far better than any of the songs actually on those albums. Even the band has admitted that. I know they said they tried to get away from that this time, but I don't think it worked. Sue me.
Dude I cant do this anymore with you. You're from CLeveland so i friended you and we'll just let this one go for now.
Post edited by imissyoualready on
Toledo '96, Cleveland '98, Columbus '00, Cleveland '03, Toledo '04
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.
Mostly in my car and on high end headphones and a decent stereo. But I'll admit I'm not a gearhead. What I am is a dude that loves hearing Even Flow live because I can shake my ass during that song, or pump fists during alive, or sway with my arms around my gf to some of the ballads. Tell, what body movements can you make during a song like Johnny Guitar? Maybe a little of those air guitar strums, or Ed's acid-infused hand motions? Let's face it, they're trying to do punk now... head banging for a few seconds, then a few seconds to stand stock still and listen to the 'fuck the man' lyrics, then back to head banging with some arm wind-milling. Gone are the days of PJ writing a song that can get a whole arena on the same page for singing along or dancing or anything like that.
So your idea of a good song is "it has a good beat and I can dance to it." That explains a lot
Bet you loooooove the new Beyonce song.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
furthermore.....this issue of no bass lines? do any of you know what a bass line is? are you listening with earbuds or in front of a computer (bass response is bad with both those mediums). wtf? i gotta get off of this board and go to the gearheads page where at lease 20-30% of the people know what the hell they're talking about.
Mostly in my car and on high end headphones and a decent stereo. But I'll admit I'm not a gearhead. What I am is a dude that loves hearing Even Flow live because I can shake my ass during that song, or pump fists during alive, or sway with my arms around my gf to some of the ballads. Tell, what body movements can you make during a song like Johnny Guitar? Maybe a little of those air guitar strums, or Ed's acid-infused hand motions? Let's face it, they're trying to do punk now... head banging for a few seconds, then a few seconds to stand stock still and listen to the 'fuck the man' lyrics, then back to head banging with some arm wind-milling. Gone are the days of PJ writing a song that can get a whole arena on the same page for singing along or dancing or anything like that.
So your idea of a good song is "it has a good beat and I can dance to it." That explains a lot
Bet you loooooove the new Beyonce song.
Toledo '96, Cleveland '98, Columbus '00, Cleveland '03, Toledo '04
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
Ed wrote music for a grand total of 7 songs over the first 3 albums (porch, rvm, elderly woman, corduroy, not for you, immortality, betterman). 7 out of 33 songs. He has 5 out of the 11 songs on this album. On those first 3 albums, Stone wrote 8 of the Ten songs on his own and at least half of the rest of VS-Vitalogy... so 19 out of 33 we'll say. This album, he has I believe ONE song he wrote himself, and maybe 2 other co-writer credits (not coincidentally, it's the best song on the album). On the last album, Ed wrote music for... 4-5 songs? Stone had... 2? 3?
You say I'm delusional? You're right, the distribution of song-writing duties hasn't changed AT ALL over the years :roll: PJ is Ed's baby now, and Stone may be ok with that, but I'm not. His was always the most interesting music. And it's annoying when you have people that talented going to waste. Ed did an entire solo album, and still sticks 3 more songs just like the ones from his solo album onto BS, while Stone had his solo album shelved (so clearly, he had material) and can't get more than one song on this album? You don't believe that any more than I do.
I don't know how they pick the songs, but I don't think anyone would disagree that they suck at it. The proof of that is the songs left off Binaural and Riot Act, which are largely far better than any of the songs actually on those albums. Even the band has admitted that. I know they said they tried to get away from that this time, but I don't think it worked. Sue me.
I don't mean this quite as shittily as it's going to come out, but why are you still around then? The band has been "Ed's baby" since Vitalogy. It's been damn near 15 years. At some point, it seems you'd realize Ten/Vs.-era Pearl Jam isn't coming back. Why are you still here?
See I love the first three STP albums. Love them, love them, love them. I still consider Purple to be one of the best pieces of music of all time. The fourth and fifth albums didn't do much for me. Surprisingly, however, I didn't go on the STP website and bitch about it. I just shrugged my shoulders and moved on to other bands.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Comments
you really believe that? of course i read it...they did a good job on the review but i think they were off because of what they thought otherwise.
there are STRONG radiohead songs on the album but as a whole, i dont' think it's that great. and if you remember, the days leading up to it pitchfork was seriously sucking them off for the whole release thing.
regardless of my opinion of the album, i'm just commenting about their overall enfatuation with the business decisions of radiohead compared with not mentioning one thing about pearl jam's.
And those misguided, There was a plan for them to be
Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently
What goes on?
Crap, Guess I'm not done...
Please tell me the "half the songs" that have serious criticism in them in the following reviews (maybe its YOU who haven't read any of them...)
LA Times
Boston Globe
Blender
AMG
The Guardian
Billboard
Rolling Stone
Spin
Well crap, that's over half of them and I'm getting tired of re-reading them. I hardly found a single criticism in the whole lot of those...
I don't have a problem taking a joke, he just seems unprofessional and a pretty excited about throwing some cheap shots in..."Sooner or later, however, you remember these guys wouldn't know a melody if it bit them in the ass. " Nice...
Like I said, i dont have a problem with complaints, I dont think the album is perfect, and I too am not a huge fan of the tracklisting. I just get a little tired of pitchfork's holier than though ego. But I guess thats what they are and what they do....
AMG, Billboard, and the Guardian don't mention a single song in their reviews, just the usual "PJ is back and livelier than ever" line. Since you get on Pitchfork for jounralistic integrity based on their jokes, how about the same critical lens applied to the good reviews... how do you review an album without mentioning any songs? It's due to exactly what I described... the album sounds good but the individual songs aren't that memorable. Thus, 90 ratings on metacritic that are unable to identify a single song that stands out. Some of the others do seem to love every song, but Spin has this nugget: "The band hasn’t put together a trifecta this energized and from-the-gut in a decade, and though the rest of Backspacer doesn't match that opening salvo, it has a terrific time trying."
And then you stopped, after cherry picking the best reviews and not even going into the more cautiously approving ones. Pitchfork, we've discussed.
How about Paste: "But too much of the record’s second half leans toward the introspective tunes frontman Eddie Vedder executed perfectly on the Into the Wild soundtrack. But outside of a filmic context and stamped with the name Pearl Jam, several of the songs fall flat, dragging down an otherwise upbeat and enjoyable release."
sputnik: "guitarist Mike McCready is still prone to laying down questionable guitar leads, particularly in the former."
drowned in sound: "Which is fine and all, but um, yeah... shame it’s not one of their best records." and "Though Backspacer's only actively excruciating note is the beardy folk ramble of ‘Just Breathe’, the likes of ‘Unknown Thought’ and ‘Speed Of Sound’ feel sapped by the record's lightness; it's fairly self-evident that these tracks would have sounded better if recorded at literally any other time in Pearl Jam's history. The occasional presence of an orchestra is just bewildering: this is a band that reaches their emotional highs through blood, sweat and tears, not symphonic gimmicks."
I'm not saying the reviews aren't positive, I'm saying even the positive ones seem to struggle to find reasons why other than the fact that the band sounds so much more engaged (which I agree with) and that plenty of people think the slower songs don't work or have other issues. This Pitchfork review is not an anomaly. Nothing they said is novel or off the map. Almost no one is saying "every song on here kicks ass, the album's a classic!"
I guess I'm a geezer and come from an old-school frame of mind where I give a f**k about what I do whether it is to take out the trash, get someone somewhere, do my job, live my life. No matter how menial or how important. I'm not the person to say that you came to the wrong window. I like to help someone to their resolution of whatever. That attitude means doing your job right and take pride in what you do. If you can't do something and you know it, do me a favor and don't attempt it. I have called our local news radio's traffic tip line. It is amazing to hear what they report vs. what you had told them. Makes me ask if all of the news is that distorted by mistakes or worse, manipulation. People really do read and rely on these articles. An album review is not a report on a nuclear accident. But is someone has a job to write in a periodical, and it is non-fiction, they should get things right. In an opinion, base it on facts, correct facts. That's all what I'm asking for. To do one's job with pride and accuracy. The reviewer's opinion is different from mine about Backspacer. That's fine. Just don't look like a fool and possibly mislead people by getting the facts wrong.
I can feel that, normally I would agree. I loathe Pitchfork, most of their writers and readers, and all of their attitude. This might be the first time I've ever agreed with a PF review before. Maybe my willingness to laugh at the cheap shots has to do with the fact that they parallel my own bitterness and frustration with the band over the last few albums. They know melody, they just like to save those songs for b-sides and Lost Dogs and opt instead to load albums with tons of riffs that have no rhythm. It drives me nuts. So, much as I hate to agree with PF, it's kinda nice to see my thoughts expressed with such exasperation.
I just did the first 8. Sorry they weren't approved by you. But your quote said every review you'd read had problems with half the songs. That's just false. Or are you allowed to cherry-pick but I'm not? YOU'RE the one that made the statement not me, so don't find fault in the method I used to prove you wrong.
Here's a list of them http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists ... backspacer
Ha, we're complete opposites. I love pitchfork, except whenever they review mainstream acts. I always tell people to go to pitchfork to find good new albums you've never heard of, but never, EVER, trust them if the artist is mainstream.
Gramar not your strong point?[/quote]
Guess not, I must have been too focused on my spelling to pay attention to gramMar... since we're getting all petty and childish here :roll: So do you have any more comments on, you know, Pearl Jam? Or would you prefer we stick to personal digs and threats to flame/spam anyone that speaks ill of Backspacer?[/quote]
*hangs head* I guess you have me here.
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
You're right. I was a bit hyperbolic when I said that every review rips half the songs, though I think you also overstated your case when you said every review totally disagrees with PF. The criticisms they make are the same as many other criticisms, it's just that PF has them all in one review and seems bothered by them, and other reviews shrug it off as a minor quibble. But that doesn't mean PF has some vendetta against PJ or have no integrity or whatever it is people want from them. It means they didn't like the album because its negatives (most of which are identified with elsewhere) outweigh its positives. PF is not the only one saying these things, it's just that they're the only ones that seem to have a problem with it. I can see how it would be annoying if you love the album to read their snarky shots at the album, but I'm equally annoyed by the cloyingly flowery reviews by fans on here that act like every moment on this album is some sort of life-altering spiritual journey. They do it to get a reaction. Maybe PF was a bit irreverent, but that doesn't mean the criticisms they make are totally unfounded or shocking.
DITT - FUCKIN - O! see my post earlier. pitchfork - and writers in general - are not musicians. jeff is absolutely off his rocker on this album. geez
And those misguided, There was a plan for them to be
Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently
What goes on?
Mostly in my car and on high end headphones and a decent stereo. But I'll admit I'm not a gearhead. What I am is a dude that loves hearing Even Flow live because I can shake my ass during that song, or pump fists during alive, or sway with my arms around my gf to some of the ballads. Tell, what body movements can you make during a song like Johnny Guitar? Maybe a little of those air guitar strums, or Ed's acid-infused hand motions?
Seattle Key Arena 9-21-2009
Seattle Key Arena 9-22-2009
How old are you? I'm guessing well over 30. And all the shows I've been to, most of the people are moving most of the time.
If you're listening on a good system, adjust the EQ and drop out the high end....then come back and tell me there's no bass lines.
Lastly, I think there's plenty of stuff on the new album for you to grope your girlfriend to at concerts (that's my only complaint about the album). Pearl Jam isn't supposed to be finger-fucking music and the only people i've ever know who thought it was were in fraternities and came upon the music cause dude's in their frat house liked it.
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
I dont' really have a problem with anything you say here...though i think pitchfork loses credibility for constantly bashing major acts. As I was telling my wife a couple days ago (before their review), on pitchfork, its a scale of 1-10, or 1-6 if the general public knows who you are.
I think maybe it offends me more simply because I usually like their reviews and website (i check and read it daily), but they just consistently bash anything anyone knows, and while I agree there's a lot of mainstream crap, it's not ALL nearly as bad as they think it (always) is.
I'm not a musician, which is why I started saying rhythm instead of bassline. I don't know the technical terms. I guess that means I'm never allowed to have an opinion about how music sounds to me again. By the way, you had damn well never say a word about a book or tv show you like again, because you never MADE a tv show, so how can you comment on it? Oh, and don't ever talk to me about sports, because unless you play in the NBA, you have no grounds to even comment on sports.
I'm not saying PJ has to become Parliament-Funkadelic, but what set them apart from all their peers was their ability to merge punk and hard rock with Stone's love of funk and hip hop to make music that rocked but still had the ability to get people moving. They've all but pushed Stone out of the band now, so all that's left is those jagged riffing punk tunes that are cool if you're in a punk club doing that bad ass little march right before punching someone or stage diving, but fall flat in the context of a PJ show or album. Look around during a given PJ show during those songs... tell me how many people are into it and how many are just standing looking confused and wondering how they're supposed to get into a song like Supersonic. Compare that to how people respond to Alive or even tunes like Rats and Why Go and Leash.
"All but pushed Stone out of the band"????????????
Man you seriously dont know what your'e talking about. Do you know how PJ picks songs? You need to go do some homework.......FER REELZ. And everytime you post you end up correcting what you said in the previous post. I recommend you take about 3 weeks off from posting and go watch all the interviews you've missed in the last few years. You'll come back a better, more accurate poster.
"They've all but pushed Stone out of the band" LMMFAO!!!
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
I'm 27, for whatever that has to do anything. I already corrected myself.. sure Jeff is playing a bass, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a general lack of rhythmic rock... you know the 'r' in R&B, the forerunner of rock. There's no swing in the music, no dynamics or tension or patience. Everything is played super fast, even the words. Get a clock and tell me how many words Ed spits in 15 seconds of Got Some compared to Leash or Why Go. They've ceased to write songs that rock because they have heft and weight and try to make up for it by just playing faster. I'm not sure what finger-fucking music is, but I do know that at a concert I like to be able to have some fun dancing around and singing along and PJ used to excel at that. They've sidelined their greatest weapons though... Ed's voice, Mike's wailing, Stone and Jeff's rhythmic interplay... all of it is gone. Maybe Jeff is louder in the mix now, but his bass lines aren't going to give George Clinton a run for his money in terms of getting asses outta the seat. Maybe Stone has a better haircut, but he still spends too much time sitting there doing nothing so that Ed can play simple riffs instead and pretend he's in the Ramones. Maybe Ed can still reach down and send shivers up a listener's spine, but he still has too many songs where it seems like speed and quantity of words take precedence over letting the song breathe and giving him a second in between the verses to reach to his gut for those vocal performances that made us all die hards.
Oh I get it now. You're bipolar. You just said a while ago that you didnt like them trying to be the ramones and now you're saying Ed should be pretending he's in the ramones? You're all over the place. I'm off to demoralize other Backspacer-haters.
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
U2's All That you Cant Leave behind - 5.0 (easily u2's best album this decade)
Green Days 21st Century Breakdown - 4.8
Nine Inch Nails' The Fragile - 2.0 (that one is almost beyond belief)
Weezers Make Believe - 0.4
Coldplays A rush of blood to the head 4.9
Of those 5, I would rate U2's, NIN's, and Coldplays albums as 21st Century classics, and I only would put about 15-20 albums in that category. Granted, Weezer's Make Believe is poor, but a 0.4? The point is, they either hate anything mainstream (not named Radiohead), or they do it on purpose. I dont know which.
Ed wrote music for a grand total of 7 songs over the first 3 albums (porch, rvm, elderly woman, corduroy, not for you, immortality, betterman). 7 out of 33 songs. He has 5 out of the 11 songs on this album. On those first 3 albums, Stone wrote 8 of the Ten songs on his own and at least half of the rest of VS-Vitalogy... so 19 out of 33 we'll say. This album, he has I believe ONE song he wrote himself, and maybe 2 other co-writer credits (not coincidentally, it's the best song on the album). On the last album, Ed wrote music for... 4-5 songs? Stone had... 2? 3?
You say I'm delusional? You're right, the distribution of song-writing duties hasn't changed AT ALL over the years :roll: PJ is Ed's baby now, and Stone may be ok with that, but I'm not. His was always the most interesting music. And it's annoying when you have people that talented going to waste. Ed did an entire solo album, and still sticks 3 more songs just like the ones from his solo album onto BS, while Stone had his solo album shelved (so clearly, he had material) and can't get more than one song on this album? You don't believe that any more than I do.
I don't know how they pick the songs, but I don't think anyone would disagree that they suck at it. The proof of that is the songs left off Binaural and Riot Act, which are largely far better than any of the songs actually on those albums. Even the band has admitted that. I know they said they tried to get away from that this time, but I don't think it worked. Sue me.
Ummm, I think that quote pretty clearly says I wish Ed wasn't wasting all his time trying to be the Ramones? Because when Ed plays "I'm a punk rocker" he picks up a guitar and Stone just stands there doing nothing because no punk song ever recorded needs 3 guitars. So instead of hearing a song like Alive or Leash or Animal, we get to hear another song like Comatose. Ya-fuckin-hoo. One thing I'm not is all over the place, I've been very consistent here for years in saying that I hate when the band tries to be punk.
Dude I cant do this anymore with you. You're from CLeveland so i friended you and we'll just let this one go for now.
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
So your idea of a good song is "it has a good beat and I can dance to it." That explains a lot
Bet you loooooove the new Beyonce song.
for the least they could possibly do
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
I don't mean this quite as shittily as it's going to come out, but why are you still around then? The band has been "Ed's baby" since Vitalogy. It's been damn near 15 years. At some point, it seems you'd realize Ten/Vs.-era Pearl Jam isn't coming back. Why are you still here?
See I love the first three STP albums. Love them, love them, love them. I still consider Purple to be one of the best pieces of music of all time. The fourth and fifth albums didn't do much for me. Surprisingly, however, I didn't go on the STP website and bitch about it. I just shrugged my shoulders and moved on to other bands.
for the least they could possibly do