Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

When a band is but a fraction of Pearl Jam, but they aren't zero Pearl Jam.
User avatar
McParadigm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22393
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by McParadigm »

Obviously I disagree, KD, but to be clear: when I say there’s no “reason” for the songs to be kept to a uke-only production, what I’m saying is: they aren’t better for it.

There are plenty of songs in this world that would lose (or have lost) something elemental by the introduction of instrumentation beyond that in which they were birthed. These definitely aren’t it. There are also plenty of songs out there whose charms are crucially supported, highlighted, or grown by a gentle coloring. Those Mountain Goats songs are in that camp. So is much of Into the Wild (although “gentle coloring” isn’t always the operative term, there). This package is, to me, absolutely in the same space.

I 100% agree that it’s some of Ed’s most interesting writing, but even here the nature of his writing is such that there’s always a danger of fairly homogenized results. In the days when his vocal performances elevated songs and gave them personality, that wasn’t a concern. Now, to be frank, he can’t do that, and instrumentation choices are that much more crucial to turning good writing into a great recording.

He doesn’t do anything to serve his writing, and the result is an album that doesn’t do his own work justice. I don’t think it’s by accident that, even in this content desert where we gossip about Mike McCready jumping jacks and somehow can remember that Out of Sand even exists, this entire album filled with strong writing by the principle figure in the band has remained firmly in the Rockfords pile for most fans.
(patriotic choking noises)
User avatar
lecherouslittlestump
known prankster
Posts: 1115
Joined: Mon July 08, 2013 10:39 am

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by lecherouslittlestump »

verb_to_trust wrote:Ed Solo to an audience that isn't Cubs executives and Ten Club members will go over great.
I doubt many people in the UK know who Eddie is, especially when you factor in it's a stadium show which will draw in a lot of casual fans. Kaiser Chiefs are way bigger than EV in the UK and I don't think they've had a hit since Ruby over a decade ago.
"A man who doesn't spend time with the Jamily can never be a real man," - Don Corelone
User avatar
spike
The Master
Posts: 35444
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 4:18 am

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by spike »

dusting off a bunch of decade old songs, keeping them virtually unchanged with sparse production value, and releasing them to the masses isn't a money grab?
User avatar
Birds in Hell
10Club Complaint Department
Posts: 16263
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:38 pm

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by Birds in Hell »

“Ukulele album from aging Pearl Jam frontman” isn’t exactly a surefire recipe for commercial success.
User avatar
spike
The Master
Posts: 35444
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 4:18 am

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by spike »

it's pretty lazy and minimal effort. if he made even $100k off it, it's a coup.
User avatar
bodysnatcher
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22220
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 11:15 pm
Location: the bathroom

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by bodysnatcher »

most expensive part of the album was hiring the scuba diver to go down and take the photo for the album cover
User avatar
Kevin Davis
tl;dr
Posts: 9312
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:06 pm

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by Kevin Davis »

spike wrote:it's pretty lazy and minimal effort. if he made even $100k off it, it's a coup.
Again, this is just the default criticism of all modern Pearl Jam-related things. I agree that the album probably incurred low overhead and, oh no, probably netted EV a profit, especially considering it was released on the band's own label. But nothing about the project was crass or gaudy; you don't have to like the album, but the idea that it exclusively existed to milk the fanbase of their money, no different from a Ten Club dog leash or shot glass or whatever, is a level of cynicism that is absurd even for RM.

And the "ten year-old songs" criticism is silly. Artists release "new" albums of songs that have been sitting around for a while all the time.
User avatar
spike
The Master
Posts: 35444
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 4:18 am

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by spike »

Kevin Davis wrote:
spike wrote:it's pretty lazy and minimal effort. if he made even $100k off it, it's a coup.
Again, this is just the default criticism of all modern Pearl Jam-related things. I agree that the album probably incurred low overhead and, oh no, probably netted EV a profit, especially considering it was released on the band's own label. But nothing about the project was crass or gaudy; you don't have to like the album, but the idea that it exclusively existed to milk the fanbase of their money, no different from a Ten Club dog leash or shot glass or whatever, is a level of cynicism that is absurd even for RM.

And the "ten year-old songs" criticism is silly. Artists release "new" albums of songs that have been sitting around for a while all the time.
haha, calm down and give me a plausible reason why this album exists.
User avatar
bodysnatcher
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22220
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 11:15 pm
Location: the bathroom

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by bodysnatcher »

spike wrote:
Kevin Davis wrote:
spike wrote:it's pretty lazy and minimal effort. if he made even $100k off it, it's a coup.
Again, this is just the default criticism of all modern Pearl Jam-related things. I agree that the album probably incurred low overhead and, oh no, probably netted EV a profit, especially considering it was released on the band's own label. But nothing about the project was crass or gaudy; you don't have to like the album, but the idea that it exclusively existed to milk the fanbase of their money, no different from a Ten Club dog leash or shot glass or whatever, is a level of cynicism that is absurd even for RM.

And the "ten year-old songs" criticism is silly. Artists release "new" albums of songs that have been sitting around for a while all the time.
haha, calm down and give me a plausible reason why this album exists.
so Ed could tour it for 8 years
User avatar
surfndestroy
Future Drummer
Posts: 2870
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 2:21 am

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by surfndestroy »

spike wrote:haha, calm down and give me a plausible reason why this album exists.
Same could be said for the last two Pearl Jam outings.

I'll take Ukulele Songs over either Backspacer or Lightning Bolt. Ukulele Songs has it charms and embraces the limitations of the medium. It wasn't released with a lot of fanfare and I am sure few people outside of a PJ forum remember anything about this record or have heard a single song from it. It wasn't designed for radio play and released for purely artistic reasons imo. I think of it more as a fan club release and a damn fine one at that.
Think I’m going to try being kind to everyone a chance.
User avatar
Kevin Davis
tl;dr
Posts: 9312
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:06 pm

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by Kevin Davis »

spike wrote:
Kevin Davis wrote:
spike wrote:it's pretty lazy and minimal effort. if he made even $100k off it, it's a coup.
Again, this is just the default criticism of all modern Pearl Jam-related things. I agree that the album probably incurred low overhead and, oh no, probably netted EV a profit, especially considering it was released on the band's own label. But nothing about the project was crass or gaudy; you don't have to like the album, but the idea that it exclusively existed to milk the fanbase of their money, no different from a Ten Club dog leash or shot glass or whatever, is a level of cynicism that is absurd even for RM.

And the "ten year-old songs" criticism is silly. Artists release "new" albums of songs that have been sitting around for a while all the time.
haha, calm down and give me a plausible reason why this album exists.
From the previous page:
I think the songs are almost uniformly strong -- harmonically, melodically, and stylistically unique items in EV/PJ canon, some of them among the more compositionally compelling things Eddie has written from a strictly nuts-and-bolts, chords-and-melodies perspective.
Granted, that's just (one of the reasons) why I like the album, but others have expressed their fondness for it as well; even McP, who dislikes the album, at least agreed with that part of my assessment. Whether you accept that as a "plausible reason why it exists" is up to you, though I'm not sure what kind of answer I'd give to a question like this regarding any album. I don't think the album has any kind of meaningful significance, or is any kind of major touchstone for the artist (though, as I said, I do think it explores some musical ideas that exist nowhere else in this artist's body of work), but I also don't think that an artist turning a fair profit on a low-overhead album is synonymous with that album being a "moneygrab."
User avatar
VinylGuy
jeeeesus relax already
Posts: 42761
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by VinylGuy »

yeah, the notion that Uke Songs was release to make money is absurd. It was released when he felt it was ok to release it, and it had more to do with his personal life than anything else.

I have it on vinyl, and i think i listened to it maybe two times? I dont really care about it, but its a good album.
BONE FUCKIN´ TOMAHAWK.
User avatar
spike
The Master
Posts: 35444
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 4:18 am

Re: Eddie Vedder supporting The Who

Post by spike »

bodysnatcher wrote:
spike wrote:
Kevin Davis wrote:
spike wrote:it's pretty lazy and minimal effort. if he made even $100k off it, it's a coup.
Again, this is just the default criticism of all modern Pearl Jam-related things. I agree that the album probably incurred low overhead and, oh no, probably netted EV a profit, especially considering it was released on the band's own label. But nothing about the project was crass or gaudy; you don't have to like the album, but the idea that it exclusively existed to milk the fanbase of their money, no different from a Ten Club dog leash or shot glass or whatever, is a level of cynicism that is absurd even for RM.

And the "ten year-old songs" criticism is silly. Artists release "new" albums of songs that have been sitting around for a while all the time.
haha, calm down and give me a plausible reason why this album exists.
so Ed could tour it for 8 years
we have a winner
Post Reply