Likes: 
Faceplams: I did too. Unfortunately I put off listening to it for probably a year or so.Originally Posted by Space Suicide
Active Member
I did too. Unfortunately I put off listening to it for probably a year or so.
Matador de Froot Loops
It's a really good album, i just heard it last week and i still like it a lot, don't get the hate...
Too Privileged to Get It
Tomayto, tomahto. I still don't like it, and i'm unlikely to revisit it much if at all. I'm not gonna be arsed if you folks dig it, but i'm off of the Perfect Circle train. 13th Step is my last stop.
Dis-member
‘Twas a good tour, too. Great setlist that mixed up new with old perfectly, and brought back Judith.
Active Member
I'm definitely glad they brought Judith back, but I'm getting sick of 3 Libras (All Main Courses Mix). I want them to play the album version of 3 Libras because it's my favorite APC song and I've only seen them play it twice (first: Fragility v2.0 in 2000, second: 13th Step tour in 2003) and since the last time was 16 years ago, there's probably a pretty slim chance of that happening, which is a serious bummer. I'd also suggest that they give Counting Bodies a break in favor of Pet or Thinking of You. They could also trade out one of the Emotive songs and instead play Sleeping Beauty again.
Just tickles my balls!
I wonder how many times Billy has started a convo with Maynard saying, “so, about 3 Libras in the set tonight...” and Maynard just gives him a death stare back before he can continue to ask to play the non-remix version.
They even did the remix for Trifecta, right? That was a sin.
Last edited by Erneuert; 04-16-2019 at 03:31 AM.
Administrator
Surprisingly, they did a normal version on MJK birthday show in 2014.
Just tickles my balls!
Great Scott!
Stubby Member
Eat The Elephant was a respectable effort. Talk Talk, By And Down The River, Feathers, and The Doomed are top tier APC songs. But let’s stop pretending that this record is of the same caliber as Mer De Noms or Thirteen Step. Those were life changing type of albums. Eat The Elephant is basically on par with Hesitation Marks (great songs, decent songs, and some cringe moments).
Active Member
That song was a strain on Maynard’s range in its heyday. I can only imagine where he’s at now. Plus, I’m sure there’s something about being almost 60 and singing about 3 (likely) lovers that ignored or hurt you in your 30s that’s unappealing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Active Member
I know that's likely the main reason for them no longer playing the album version, but they could maybe drop it down a step and slow it down a bit like Tool did with The Pot. I'm sure they could find a way to do it. I mean NIN played The Perfect Drug last year. Come on.
Active Member
Let's stop pretending there's an objective truth to this and respect that people have different opinions about things.
Administrator
That's probably why they also dropped Brena. And even on Trifecta tour Maynard changed the name in the lyrics.
Just tickles my balls!
Regardless, it’s too beautiful a song to retire just because of the subject matter. And if Tool can still pull off Ticks & Leeches live in a lower register, Tree Leebs can definitely follow suit!
Active Member
He’s been changing the word in Brena since 04. He often subbed in “waffles.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Stubby Member
Art is subjective for sure. But putting Eat The Elephant on the same pedestal as MDN or TS is hard to comprehend. Sort of like if someone were to say that HM is better than The Fragile. Or In Through The Out Door is better than Zeppelin II. Or Death Magnetic is better than Ride The Lightning. Or Monuments To An Elegy is better than Siamese Dream. Sorry if you don’t like the content of my post, but if you disagree, then that’s just like, your opinion man.
Resident Asshole
As did I!
Stubby Member
You liking the album so much was such a pleasant surprise last year. <3
Throbbing Member
I’m also of the camp that hated most of the album when it came out but I’ve not grown to love most of it. I still can’t stand a couple of the tracks but most of the album is great. So bummed my ticket burned for the Anaheim show.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Active Member
I mean, yeah, that's my point. Opinions are opinions. The "let's stop pretending" made it sound like you had the One True answer as the quality of ETE.
Also, literally no one in the recent posts was saying it was as good as the first two albums; they were either saying they love the album or have grown to love it over time.
Active Member
It doesn't have to be for people to consider it a good album. I don't think it's on the same level as those albums, but I'm fine with it just being a good album.
Active Member
Thirteenth Step is a transcendent album for me. It is my favorite album. Touched me deeply then and still helps me.
ETE hits me in a really special spot that I’ve been itching for since, oh, 2016. It’s calming to me.
Although, my wife says it makes her anxious. So, ymmv
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Throbbing Member
Alrighty then. You know what's gonna be a GREAT album though? I can just feel it deep in my entire being.... as I jump up and down in excitement. (Lol, okay sorry...forgive me).
Active Member
You keep saying it's subjective, but then keep arguing that it's wrong to put one thing in favor over another. I don't think you get what subjective means.
Some people would take a bag of McDonald's hamburgers over a $60 dry-aged filet. So what? If that's what they prefer, then that's the better quality thing to them. You can't tell them they're wrong AND say "but it's subjective".
Throbbing Member
Even if Thirteenth Step is one of my favorite album of all time, at the moment, in the recent months, if I want to listen to APC, I'll listen to ETE cause it's new and I like it, even if it's not better.
Stubby Member
Was being a bit cheeky on purpose. Like, art is subjective unless I have a really strong opinion. Oh well, I guess APC is nothing to joke about..
Stubby Member
Well you actually sort of can. There are degrees of subjectivity in relation to acknowledgement of quality. You can't tell them they are "wrong" but you can tell them they should at least attempt to qualify their opinion within a generally understood context to validify it, given the circumstances.
Allow me to explain. I think it's completely fine to choose the McDonald's hamburger. But with that choice comes the acknowledgement that it can be viewed as a counter intuitive decision given the degree of difference in creation. Why would you not choose the option comprised of entirely more quality, attention to detail, and substance? Because the McDonalds hamburger for some reason or combination of reasons (time, diet, palette, health, etc) tastes better to YOU specifically. Ok, that's cool, BUT with that, also has to come the acknowledgement that to anyone with any real sense, industry knowledge, food savantry, the choice would appear foolish and/or ridiculous. Again that doesn't make you wrong, but it does make you a bizarre outlier and to not be cognizant of that in voicing your opinion, is well, relatively ignorant.
You don't have to like Game of Thrones or even watch it. I suppose it's fine if "cousins and dragon fucking" is not for you. But to refuse to acknowledge its achievements, both technical and long form storytelling wise, in comparison to say a show like Real Housewives, well that is just straight tomfoolery. That element is not subjective. You can like one over the other, while still understanding that the other, in theory, technically should be better but for x reason is not to you. Your awareness of that is precisely what helps forms the validity of your opinion, regardless of the opinion itself.
So yes, with the ability to be subjective, you also need to include societal and personal context if you want to be taken somewhat seriously. Otherwise you are just a mouth breathing ass who says well I CAN'T BE WRONG IT'S MY OPINION - maybe so but it can be proven to be an uninformed, stupid opinion though, and therefore yes, your opinion is probably worth less than others because it is so uninformed and taken so out of context, that its relevance could not possibly apply to anyone other than the person spouting it. Do you want to have a useful, valid opinion? Or a completely useless one? That decision is entirely separate outside of the actual opinion itself.
So not to get too meta here with subjectivity inception, but essentially I contend that while opinion itself itself may be subjective, it is impossible for that to exist in a vacuum without the formulation and explanation of that opinion being viewed as objective. What matters less to me is you liking whompers or bad reality tv, what's important is you attempting to acknowledge the reasons why you like it more than the alternates or the example comparables, and also that you understand a general societal context for how quality in a specific industry is determined by experts who have spent thousands of hours debating and determining these things, so that you are at least somewhat aware when a) your opinion is an outlier and b) you are not disrespectful to factual, qualitative data in the defense of your opinion, even when it does not support it. Even in subjective decisions, there is still objective evidence.
It can be vulnerable to leave yourself open to that kind of scrutiny, but some of the best human defenses of opinions are born out of that. Unfortunately also some of the worst. But at least personally, I will always respect someone's opinion if they've shown they've put thought behind why they think or feel that way. I don't care how mundane or small the choice is, there is always a reason you made it. If you are too detached, or unable to discern or communicate why you've made those choices, I don't love the idea of being able to parade around with a shield of "my subjective opinion" to protect you from ever having to learn or understand anything, either about society or yourself. That is way more dangerous to me than flaming away at people for coming out of left field, because at least with that there is an opportunity to learn about why others have certain opinions and how they were informed. Although granted, there are still inherent executional flaws with both ideologies, but you do sort of need to choose one.
The one I choose begins with a foundational common ground inherent in being part of a society, part of humanity. You don't have to do tons of research to help inform and contextualize every single little opinion that you have, that would be insane, but if you start off by acknowledging you are part of something greater than yourself, and everything you say outloud or write on the internet will be perceived in that context, it's a good start to grounding yourself and understanding how your thoughts and ideas fit as part of the larger picture. Sometimes it's important to educate yourself with generally agreed upon principles of industry and learn something, and then there are times where you can define yourself by how and when you choose to stand apart from where the majority of everyone else is, taking the road less travelled and standing up for yourself or others. Both are huge parts of making up your own character from the smallest to the largest decisions you make. But in either case, you are acknowledging you are a person in a world with millions of other people, some of whom know more than I do, have different perspectives than I do, and others with less. As opposed to the alternate, in which you live in a world with only one person, yourself. It's seems safer there, but man it ends up making the world a much scarier place.
And believe me, that ideology starts with something as simple as a burger vs steak. Even though it's so mundane and ya who cares about thinking about something so silly, it just is what it is right? I'd argue those small every day simple decisions are the foundation with which one chooses to process all of their information.
Sorry I drifted way off course there. Eat the Elephant has grown on me nicely as well. I do enjoy the record much more now than I did upon its initial release.
Last edited by valiantsteed; 04-18-2019 at 11:47 AM.
Active Member
The problem I have with that is the idea that we have to choose between the burger and the steak, and that we should always choose the steak just because it's better overall. Maybe today I want the burger, but tomorrow I might be in the mood for steak, just like today I might be in the mood for Eat The Elephant, but tomorrow I'll swing around to Mer De Noms again. It's not always about what's better but what you're in the mood for and what's going to satisfy you in the moment.
Goddamn, this thread is making me hungry.
Throbbing Member
You could eat... an elephant?
I HAD TO!!!
Stubby Member
Exactly. Not to be a jerk but I think you kind of missed my point. You will never always make the same choice or the best choice, that is not the point - the factors that play into your choice are all a part of the objective subjectivity; i.e I had steak yesterday so I don't want it today, the steak is more filling and I am going for a run later, the steak costs more and I can't eat it every day. etc.
But you will always use the information you have available to use to qualify your choice, both current and historic. Nobody would bat an eye if you said you wanted a big mac instead of a steak for dinner when you had a steak for lunch. But if you said you would choose a big mac 100 times out of 100 in a vacuum but qualified it with nothing, you should be prepared to understand why that explanation probably needs further discourse.
Reply With Quote
