Jimmy Eat World

[Aaron]

Anyone else a Jimmy Eat World fan?  The new album comes out next month.  There are about 4 different release dates I've seen, so Futures is coming out anytime between October 9th and 19th.  "Pain" is the first single and it's pretty good.  It sounds alot like a mixture of older and newer stuff.  


What's your favorite J.E.W. album and song?  Mine is Clarity and a tie between Lucky Denver Mint and Sweetness

[DvChWi]

I have Bleed American, which I picked up for .50$ at a garage sale.  I've only really listened to it a couple times, so I can't really say if I'm a fan.  However, I do enjoy "The Middle" and "Sweetness," the big singles from that album.  I'll give the album another listen, and see if I'm missing anything.  My little brother has Clarity(another .50$ garage sale purchase), so I can borrow that, too.

[Aaron]

I have Bleed American, which I picked up for .50$ at a garage sale.  I've only really listened to it a couple times, so I can't really say if I'm a fan.  However, I do enjoy "The Middle" and "Sweetness," the big singles from that album.  I'll give the album another listen, and see if I'm missing anything.  My little brother has Clarity(another .50$ garage sale purchase), so I can borrow that, too.

Clarity is the one Jimmy Eat World album you should have.  It's amazing.

[Josh]

Bleed American doesn't impress me too much. Just your standard indie rock stuff as far as I can tell. There are some nice vocal harmonies and a few catchy melodies ("The Middle," "Bleed American," "Sweetness"), but other than that... kinda blah.

[Aaron]

Bleed American doesn't impress me too much. Just your standard indie rock stuff as far as I can tell. There are some nice vocal harmonies and a few catchy melodies ("The Middle," "Bleed American," "Sweetness"), but other than that... kinda blah.

I don't think you can classify it as indie rock.  Indie rock is more like the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, etc.  Bleed American was an ok record, but definitely not as good as their older stuff.  



Side note, the drummer, Zach Lind, is a Christian and helped produce some tracks on the David Crowder Band cd

[GusX:]

I don't think you can classify it as indie rock.  Indie rock is more like the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, etc.  Bleed American was an ok record, but definitely not as good as their older stuff.  



Side note, the drummer, Zach Lind, is a Christian and helped produce some tracks on the David Crowder Band cd

The what the hecks he calling himself  a  J.E.W.  for ?    

[DvChWi]

I don't think you can classify it as indie rock.

No, you don't.    

[murlough23]

I like Jimmy Eat World, for the most part. There were some tracks on Bleed American that were frustratingly methodical and needed a little more development or perhaps a little more deviation from structure (Hear You Me, My Sundown, Cautioners), but that was a fun record for the most part, and the lyrics were interesting, not always immediately giving away what the songs were about. My favorites on that record are "The Middle", "Sweetness", "Bleed American", and "Get It Faster". (I love the whacked-out sound effects and the guitar solo in that last one.)

I'm looking forward to hearing what the new record has to offer.

[Masta_K]

i have BLEED AMERICAN, and i love it. it's in my top 5 probly, but that's just cuz anything with inappropriate lyrics gets kicked out. a mainstream band who idolized BLINK, yet clean lyrics everywhere. and the sound is dandy. not the kind of music that leaves you in awe, but listenable with talent. "get it faster" rocks.

one other P.O.I.:
i have a copy (taped on cassette from my cousin's burned CD) of BLEED AMERICAN done differently. it's the same album, but the songs are all differently. it's not a remix, b/c jim is even singing differently for some songs i.e., "hear you me"). anyone know where this came from? anyone else heard it?

K

   

[Aaron]

idolized Blink?  what do you mean?

[Wildcatblue7]

I like Pain.

No, I am not a masochist.

That's the extent of my fandom.

[Masta_K]

idolized Blink?  what do you mean?

once on the radio i heard a quote from JEW, and they were saying that they "idolized" Blink. it was in context of them being blown away by being requested to play at Tom DeLonge's wedding.

another POI: y'all know the story behind the band's name?

   

[Aaron]

once on the radio i heard a quote from JEW, and they were saying that they "idolized" Blink. it was in context of them being blown away by being requested to play at Tom DeLonge's wedding.

another POI: y'all know the story behind the band's name?

 

ahh..i doubt they idolized blink 182 in the area of musical influence. I don't think Blink 182 could ever do anything that is remotely as good as Jimmy Eat World.

[Masta_K]

I don't think Blink 182 could ever do anything that is remotely as good as Jimmy Eat World.

AMEN to that!

   

[Harenil]

They're OK, but I'm not a big fan of that style of music. I did, however, think the 16 minute long song at the end of Clarity sorta excessive.  

[Josh]

Ouch... Pitchfork gives the new album a whopping 3.0.

[Aaron]

that don't mean crap to long time fans of the band.  

[Josh]

that don't mean crap to long time fans of the band.

It don't mean crap to fanboys, maybe, but real fans are willing to admit when the bands they love release subpar material.  

[Aaron]

It don't mean crap to fanboys, maybe, but real fans are willing to admit when the bands they love release subpar material.

I'm not a fanboy, but a true fan.  Futures overall is better than Bleed American.

[murlough23]

Ouch... Pitchfork gives the new album a whopping 3.0.

Pitchfork hates any band that has more than 50% upbeat songs, a lot of potential radio hits on an album, and that ever writes about anything happy. I'm not surprised.

Anyway, my personal jury is still out on whether Futures is better than Bleed American. Right now I like both about the same, though I can tell that Futures is a shade darker.

[bloop]

Pitchfork hates any band that has more than 50% upbeat songs, a lot of potential radio hits on an album, and that ever writes about anything happy. I'm not surprised.

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/p...ere-heavy.shtml

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/n...ow-wonder.shtml

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/w...ian/smile.shtml

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b...ck/odelay.shtml

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/j...eat-world.shtml

Get real.

That said, their review of Futures isn't telling me much about the music (a couple short sentences when you look at it - it's a little too lyric-centered), so I don't like it much.

[Aaron]

if you want to listen to the album for free, go to MTV.com.  It's the featured album on The Leak..well it was, not sure if it still is today

[murlough23]

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/p...ere-heavy.shtml

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/n...ow-wonder.shtml

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/w...ian/smile.shtml

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b...ck/odelay.shtml

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/j...eat-world.shtml

Get real.

I was exaggerating. It's still mostly true, though. I suppose I should add the caveat that you more or less have a free pass if you were making happy music all the way back in the 60's and are just now releasing a previously-unreleased rumored masterpiece or something. These sorts of reviewers love stuff that got rejected by record labels or remained hidden for years for some othe reason.

Thought that last review on JEW really does surprise me. I guess it's perfectly OK to jump a bandwagon as long as the band driving the wagon isn't on a major label, and you're one of the first on the wagon. That's basically what indie cred is - it's the notion that "I got there first, nyah nyah."

[bloop]

I was exaggerating.

It was beyond unfair as an exaggeration, and I've already called you on it well enough.

It's still mostly true, though. I suppose I should add the caveat that you more or less have a free pass if you were making happy music all the way back in the 60's and are just now releasing a previously-unreleased rumored masterpiece or something. These sorts of reviewers love stuff that got rejected by record labels or remained hidden for years for some othe reason.

No, it isn't, and the SMiLE review in particular didn't focus all that much on the big story surrounding the album (although it's admittedly hard to discuss that one without at least mentioning it).  I was, frankly, surprised that the reviewer ended up taking a liking to SMiLE since I recall one of them dissing Pet Sounds, a veritable classic (it is notable that there "Pitchfork" isn't one giant brain but several different reviewers who likely disagree with each other from time to time).  Secondly, not all the albums I mentioned are described by your "caveat".  Thirdly, I doubt you could name another label reject besides YHF.  Finally, if you could, there's nothing wrong with picking the gold out of those albums that fall through the cracks.  So, just please stop making such hasty generalizations.  It makes you look like a bit of an ass, honestly, and I think you're a little too good for that.

Thought that last review on JEW really does surprise me. I guess it's perfectly OK to jump a bandwagon as long as the band driving the wagon isn't on a major label, and you're one of the first on the wagon. That's basically what indie cred is - it's the notion that "I got there first, nyah nyah."

If anything, the reviewers there kid on indie cred a little.  They did in the Futures album review, admitting to like "The Middle".  Also, the JEW EP and Futures was reviewed by two different people.

[murlough23]

I'm not in the mood for this right now, bloop. I don't like Pitchfork. I reserve the right to say so. That's all.

[bloop]

I'm not in the mood for this right now, bloop. I don't like Pitchfork. I reserve the right to say so. That's all.

So, fine.  I could translate, but I'll spare the obvious.

On topic, I might get to this album, but I probably won't.

[bloop]

Metacritic

Good news:  Pitchfork is as low as it goes.  Bad news:  the others may not be as "high-falutin" as Pitchfork, but they have little credibility next to them as well.  Overall, though, it isn't being met with bad reviews.  I think AMG went with 4 stars.

[murlough23]

Good news:  Pitchfork is as low as it goes.

Pitchfork is way out in left field, actually. That may be on account of the fact that they actually use the breadth of their scoring system more frequently (something I do actually like about them) - a 3.0 from them may well equal a 3-star rating from me or an 80% from Robin Parrish.

Bad news:  the others may not be as "high-falutin" as Pitchfork, but they have little credibility next to them as well.

Sounds like you wanted everyone to hate this album before you even heard it. Why do the others have less credibility, just because they're not the Almighty Pitchfork?

Overall, though, it isn't being met with bad reviews.  I think AMG went with 4 stars.

Well, I'm not one to immediately assume that whatever the majority says is true, and I even noted in my review that it's not a huge artistic step forward for them, but I still find more of it to be creative than non-creative. It is possible to be creative with straight-ahead pop/rock music, you know.

Of course, people who pay no attention to lyrics won't really care, but that's generally where we reach an impasse.

Anyway, the metacritic average sounds about right. More good than bad, but not spectacular.

[bloop]

Pitchfork is way out in left field, actually. That may be on account of the fact that they actually use the breadth of their scoring system more frequently (something I do actually like about them) - a 3.0 from them may well equal a 3-star rating from me or an 80% from Robin Parrish.

3.0 is still a bad album in their book.  It might be equivalent to a 1 1/2 or 2 star rating, but definitely not three.  Maybe they're a bit more difficult to please, or perhaps you are just too easy.  I would tend to say the latter.

Sounds like you wanted everyone to hate this album before you even heard it. Why do the others have less credibility, just because they're not the Almighty Pitchfork?

No, that's not really it, but thanks for playing.  You're right that I haven't heard the album, so I'm basing that opinion on these publications' general approaches to criticism and I'm afraid the EW's, Billboards, and RS's of the world fall well short of the mark, going for some kind of populist opinion.  AMG I would consider a little higher, and Tiny Mix Tapes, and probably PASTE (although I haven't read a enough of their stuff for me to say that, what I've seen from them is impressive).

Well, I'm not one to immediately assume that whatever the majority says is true, and I even noted in my review that it's not a huge artistic step forward for them, but I still find more of it to be creative than non-creative. It is possible to be creative with straight-ahead pop/rock music, you know.

Pitchfork doesn't think it's very creative - vanilla-ish.  With my experience with JEW, I'd say I agree in general, but I haven't listened to it to agree or disagree with them in this instance.

Of course, people who pay no attention to lyrics won't really care, but that's generally where we reach an impasse.

Well, Pitchfork focused on lyrics quite a bit in that review, and I said that I found it too lyric-centered to be useful to me as a music listener.  I don't have such a high opinion of PF as you think I do.  I'm criticizing them here, but saying in general, they hold themselves to a higher standard than that which was shown in the Futures review.

[murlough23]

3.0 is still a bad album in their book.  It might be equivalent to a 1 1/2 or 2 star rating, but definitely not three.

Right, but they're also harder to please, so getting at least 2 stars with them is probably about as difficult as it is to get 3 or more with me.

Maybe they're a bit more difficult to please, or perhaps you are just too easy.  I would tend to say the latter.

Am I easier to please? Sure. Am I too easy to please? Well, I don't purposefully go around for reasons to not like stuff (not saying they do, but I'm not about to arbitrarily give myself more reasons to dislike stuff). Actually, there can be a lot of little things that I dislike and point out - especially with CCM albums - but I guess the little things don't ruin it for me as much as they ruin an album for Pitchfork. I mean, one poorly-written line and Pitchfork is ready to trash a song completely, you know what I'm saying? It's like they picked all the bad lines from the Jimmy Eat World album that they could (and I agree that some of those lines were bad), and ignored a lot of the better ones. They set up a straw man case by focusing largely on the negative aspects.

No, that's not really it, but thanks for playing.  You're right that I haven't heard the album, so I'm basing that opinion on these publications' general approaches to criticism and I'm afraid the EW's, Billboards, and RS's of the world fall well short of the mark, going for some kind of populist opinion.

Hey, I'm no big fan of the big magazines myself - especially RS, they tend to go for overall "coolness" factor in the eyes of God-knows-who. But my complaints about them are actually similar to my complaints about Pitchfork - I feel like both have an audience that they have to retain a certain image with, and that kind of pre-determines their opinions on certain things. Definitely moreso for RS than Pitchfork - Pitchfork is a far more interesting read any day even if I often disagree. But true for both publications. They just strike me as having people that they have to please.

AMG I would consider a little higher

I'm starting to work out my differences with AMG. They do well with a lot of the mainstream stuff. I think a lot of their CCM reviews are laughable and they shouldn't have bothered in some cases, but then, that's not their primary focus. They really need people who are more knowledgeable in that area if they're going to bother reviewing CCM albums at all.

It also baffles me that their ratings often don't match the content of their reviews.

Pitchfork doesn't think it's very creative - vanilla-ish.  With my experience with JEW, I'd say I agree in general, but I haven't listened to it to agree or disagree with them in this instance.

JEW has some vannilla-ish songs. I'll give you that. But they really messed up when they claimed every song on Bleed American sounded alike. Sorry, but to these ears, it's a long way from "Bleed American" to "Sweetness" to "Get It Faster" to "My Sundown". I don't necessarily think any of these are absolutely the best song ever, but they are different from each other, generally pretty interesting lyrics-wise, and there are some interesting elements in the music if you're actually listening. The same is true for the new album. If anything, they've sacrificed a slight amount of the catchiness for a moodier feel. If nothing else, you should listen to "Drugs or Me"; that is a great song.

Well, Pitchfork focused on lyrics quite a bit in that review, and I said that I found it too lyric-centered to be useful to me as a music listener.

I had the same complaint. I was like, "OK, what about the msuic?" I just mentally cut-and-pasted from their other JEW review and assumed they felt all the songs sounded the same again. It does take a few listens for some of 'em to stand out. That effect is probably amplified when you already have a bias against a band. I've listened to several albums when I wasn't really in the mood for them and thought all the songs sounded alike (including dc Talk's Jesus Freak and Caedmon's Call's 40 Acres - what was I thinking there?)

I don't have such a high opinion of PF as you think I do.

This is the first time I can recall you taking issue with them. I agree with what you're saying - just because you generally agree with a review doesn't mean it's a well-written one. I don't dislike it just because I disagreed with it, either. I just think the review was unfair to the band because the publication already had a bias against them. Once you've recorded an album that Pitchfork dislikes, there seems to be no going back.

I'm criticizing them here, but saying in general, they hold themselves to a higher standard than that which was shown in the Futures review.

OK, fine. Then let's not hold their Futures review up as an example that the Jimmy Eat World album is bad. It's a biased and incomplete review (OK, well, every review is biased, but this one seems especially so).

I'm not even that big of a JEW fan. So this isn't a fanboy rant. I'm just frustrated with how easy it is for Pitchfork to slam an act just for being more mainstream. It's great to recognize artists that are ridiculously creative and cutting edge. But I think great things can be accomplished with music even when the intent of your music is not necessarily to push the boundaries of the art form.

NP: "The Innocent's Corner", Caedmon's Call

[bloop]

Am I easier to please? Sure. Am I too easy to please? Well, I don't purposefully go around for reasons to not like stuff (not saying they do, but I'm not about to arbitrarily give myself more reasons to dislike stuff). Actually, there can be a lot of little things that I dislike and point out - especially with CCM albums - but I guess the little things don't ruin it for me as much as they ruin an album for Pitchfork. I mean, one poorly-written line and Pitchfork is ready to trash a song completely, you know what I'm saying? It's like they picked all the bad lines from the Jimmy Eat World album that they could (and I agree that some of those lines were bad), and ignored a lot of the better ones. They set up a straw man case by focusing largely on the negative aspects.

I can't say this for sure for obvious reasons.  You might have a case here, and you might not.

Hey, I'm no big fan of the big magazines myself - especially RS, they tend to go for overall "coolness" factor in the eyes of God-knows-who. But my complaints about them are actually similar to my complaints about Pitchfork - I feel like both have an audience that they have to retain a certain image with, and that kind of pre-determines their opinions on certain things. Definitely moreso for RS than Pitchfork - Pitchfork is a far more interesting read any day even if I often disagree. But true for both publications. They just strike me as having people that they have to please.

Bottom line:  Pitchfork generally features pretty tough critics that care about things I care about.  RS does not.  I agree that their Futures review isn't very good, but I maintain that they're generally much better than that, while with RS that kind of thing is the expected norm.

I'm starting to work out my differences with AMG. They do well with a lot of the mainstream stuff. I think a lot of their CCM reviews are laughable and they shouldn't have bothered in some cases, but then, that's not their primary focus. They really need people who are more knowledgeable in that area if they're going to bother reviewing CCM albums at all.

It also baffles me that their ratings often don't match the content of their reviews.

Sometimes.  I find they're getting better as time goes on.  I just don't understand AMG's criteria.  You're comparing the band to their potential as a band?  How?

JEW has some vannilla-ish songs. I'll give you that. But they really messed up when they claimed every song on Bleed American sounded alike. Sorry, but to these ears, it's a long way from "Bleed American" to "Sweetness" to "Get It Faster" to "My Sundown". I don't necessarily think any of these are absolutely the best song ever, but they are different from each other, generally pretty interesting lyrics-wise, and there are some interesting elements in the music if you're actually listening. The same is true for the new album. If anything, they've sacrificed a slight amount of the catchiness for a moodier feel. If nothing else, you should listen to "Drugs or Me"; that is a great song.

I'll do that, but Bleed American was still more middle-of-the-road pop/rock than off-the-beaten-track art-rock.  It's obvious which I, and Pitchfork, think of higher (justifiably, IMO).

I had the same complaint. I was like, "OK, what about the msuic?" I just mentally cut-and-pasted from their other JEW review and assumed they felt all the songs sounded the same again. It does take a few listens for some of 'em to stand out. That effect is probably amplified when you already have a bias against a band. I've listened to several albums when I wasn't really in the mood for them and thought all the songs sounded alike (including dc Talk's Jesus Freak and Caedmon's Call's 40 Acres - what was I thinking there?)

I'm not convinced an unfair bias exists - just lazy writing.  Again, a different guy did the Futures review than did Bleed American.

This is the first time I can recall you taking issue with them. I agree with what you're saying - just because you generally agree with a review doesn't mean it's a well-written one. I don't dislike it just because I disagreed with it, either. I just think the review was unfair to the band because the publication already had a bias against them. Once you've recorded an album that Pitchfork dislikes, there seems to be no going back.

Again, I don't want to guess at a bias other than one toward artier kinds of bands, which I proudly share, but I have taken issue with them before.  For example, while I agreed that Kid A was a 10.0 if I ever heard one, the text of the review itself was downright masturbatory.  I think Brent's gotten a little better with time, but honestly that line about a stillborn child watching IMAX...wow - too lame.  

Also, that entire phenomenon of discussing Christmas when you were seven and somehow tying that into a review was too much, but I'm not noticing that as much lately.

OK, fine. Then let's not hold their Futures review up as an example that the Jimmy Eat World album is bad. It's a biased and incomplete review (OK, well, every review is biased, but this one seems especially so).

I'll try to check it out and tell you what I think, but I can make no guarantees.

I'm not even that big of a JEW fan. So this isn't a fanboy rant. I'm just frustrated with how easy it is for Pitchfork to slam an act just for being more mainstream. It's great to recognize artists that are ridiculously creative and cutting edge. But I think great things can be accomplished with music even when the intent of your music is not necessarily to push the boundaries of the art form.

So Beck and OutKast aren't mainstream now?  They loved U2's newest single - that isn't mainstream?  I think you just painted with a broad brush here, so I needed to post in the interest of fairness.

To conclude, here's what I like in a critic.  I like them to be very tough.  Most people don't have the money for anything but a few CDs a month, so let's whittle it down - separate wheat from chaff.  I also don't feel anything but the best is really worth the time.  Secondly, I like critics to be concerned about those things with which I'm concerned.  Talk about the lyrics - I care about them - but don't make it the driving force of your entire review because I'm looking at buying music, which is about much more than just what some so-called critic's little English term paper on prose and poetry is going to tell me.

[GusX:]

To conclude, here's what I like in a critic.  I like them to be very tough.  Most people don't have the money for anything but a few CDs a month, so let's whittle it down - separate wheat from chaff.  I also don't feel anything but the best is really worth the time.  Secondly, I like critics to be concerned about those things with which I'm concerned.  Talk about the lyrics - I care about them - but don't make it the driving force of your entire review because I'm looking at buying music, which is about much more than just what some so-called critic's little English term paper on prose and poetry is going to tell me.

You also might find out that the critic is a fruitcake .  Just, um a suggestion [ and a small one at that.]  

[bloop]

I still generally like Pitchfork, but the guy missed the mark on this one.  In terms of PF grades, it probably deserves somewhere in the 6.somethings or 7.somethings.  I'd personally go with a C+.  It's normal, but it's solid, and the band is showing some growth.

[murlough23]

I still generally like Pitchfork, but the guy missed the mark on this one.  In terms of PF grades, it probably deserves somewhere in the 6.somethings or 7.somethings.  I'd personally go with a C+.  It's normal, but it's solid, and the band is showing some growth.

Whoa. You mean we actually agree on this one? I might have said B-, but close enough. I'm surprised that you'd go that high for a "normal" pop/rock album. Now do you see what I was saying all along about how you can make an inside-the-lines batch of catchy pop/rock songs and still have a fairly solid piece of work? (A lot of that depends on lyrics and making sure the music isn't the same on every song, of course.)

[Aaron]

I give Futures a B.  It's probably my 2nd favorite J.E.W. album right behind Clarity

[bloop]

Whoa. You mean we actually agree on this one? I might have said B-, but close enough. I'm surprised that you'd go that high for a "normal" pop/rock album. Now do you see what I was saying all along about how you can make an inside-the-lines batch of catchy pop/rock songs and still have a fairly solid piece of work? (A lot of that depends on lyrics and making sure the music isn't the same on every song, of course.)

Well, yes, obviously just by looking at my post I got that.  I always did - I just needed to listen myself to know whether PF hit the nail on the head or missed the mark.  I'd say they have a sore thumb on this one.

[murlough23]

Well, yes, obviously just by looking at my post I got that.  I always did - I just needed to listen myself to know whether PF hit the nail on the head or missed the mark.  I'd say they have a sore thumb on this one.

Heh. Sore thumb. Good one.

I guess I just got the false impression that you were thinking that I was excusing a lack of creativity so long as the music was "catchy" or whatever. I'm considering a lot more than that when I describe an album as being a solid collection of pop/rock songs, so I didn't want you to think I was judging this on a superficial basis of hook value alone. I was worrying that you had this really stupid colection of completely normal pop/rock songs with stupid lyrics and the same chord progressions all the way through in your head, and you thought that was the kind of album I was defending.