pearl jam and the 80s

[stip]

this has come up in a few other threads, and is probably worthy of its own topic. Since Backspacer a lot of us have come to describe PJ's output as having an 80s output. Some people are using this pejoratively (dad rock and training montage soundtracks), and some people are using it positively (or at least without any baggage). How do you understand the 80s influence?



For me some of it is a direct sonic lineage in some of the songs. Echoes of Bruce Springsteen, 80s REM, or 80's U2. But I think more of it is a mindset.

A bunch of years ago I put together two really massive 80s and 90s music compilations (like 400-500 songs in each). The 80s was a lot of genres. The 90s was all alternative stuff.


Pearl Jam was totally a 90s band. Their songs slot in on every one of the cds in the compilation. The alternative genre was largely super serious and pretty dour--especially the grunge variants. It was heavy with the weight of the world. Its humor was sarcastic (which is a fairly disillusioned and mean spirited humor). There was little light and little laughter. It was brooding. It pulled down the shades. More than many of their peers Pearl Jam would, on occasion move apart from this (related, I think, to the way they were so obviously influenced by the less oppressive classic rock genre) but even the upbeat records like Yield had a messianic quality to the songs that kept them serious and full of self-importance.

They carried this out of the decade. If anything, it got more prominent on albums like Binaural and Riot Act. Even on S/T music is serious business and every song is a STATEMENT. Hell, even a song like Big Wave can't escape this.

Something change with Backspacer, and I think that's the 90s quality receding a bit and getting replaced with the 80s vibe. When I listen to the 80s comp I'm easily struck at how more open these songs are. How much more easily they smile. How they take themselves less serious. The ways in which there is less sarcasm and more laughter. The world just seems like a less terrible place (maybe the music had to sound like this as a reaction against what was such a horrible decade). And I think that's the 80s influence in pearl jam's music. It's not just the optimism. It's the assumption in the music that the world is not such a horrible place. And so the songs breathe easier. They feel less weighty in that they don't feel like they need to carry the weight of the world. They laugh more, and at themselves. they love more freely, with less apology and less desperation. they are coming from a different place.

In that respect pearl jam seems to be a fairly different band, and this is where I think the difference is. The songs seem to be coming from a different place. Now there is always the question of whether or not the songs coming from this place execute well (maybe they just don't write as well as they used to, or write these types of songs as well) but I also think an issue some people may have is that they just fundamentally want pearl jam to be a 90s band. Not that they hate the 80s, but that they just don't want pearl jam to be an 80s band. I think the complaints about how pearl jam songs need to be darker, or that the idea that they suddenly have melodies that make them appealing rather than standoffish are coming at least in part from here.

[digster]

Something change with Backspacer, and I think that's the 90s quality receding a bit and getting replaced with the 80s vibe. When I listen to the 80s comp I'm easily struck at how more open these songs are. How much more easily they smile. How they take themselves less serious. The ways in which there is less sarcasm and more laughter. The world just seems like a less terrible place (maybe the music had to sound like this as a reaction against what was such a horrible decade). And I think that's the 80s influence in pearl jam's music. It's not just the optimism. It's the assumption in the music that the world is not such a horrible place. And so the songs breathe easier. They feel less weighty in that they don't feel like they need to carry the weight of the world. They laugh more, and at themselves. they love more freely, with less apology and less desperation. they are coming from a different place.

In that respect pearl jam seems to be a fairly different band, and this is where I think the difference is. The songs seem to be coming from a different place. Now there is always the question of whether or not the songs coming from this place execute well (maybe they just don't write as well as they used to, or write these types of songs as well) but I also think an issue some people may have is that they just fundamentally want pearl jam to be a 90s band. Not that they hate the 80s, but that they just don't want pearl jam to be an 80s band. I think the complaints about how pearl jam songs need to be darker, or that the idea that they suddenly have melodies that make them appealing rather than standoffish are coming at least in part from here.

With that first paragraph (and I can only speak to Backspacer; it's way too early for the new record for me)...I think part of the problem is that it doesn't sound fun or less weighty, however much they want it to. I think Fixer has some positives, but I've rarely heard a 'happy' song that felt so much like it was pushing a boulder upstairs. It's possible that this was due to the fact that making Backspacer their 'light' record was a concisious decision; I'm pretty sure they were saying they wanted to make that type of record before they even recorded it, or at least when they were in the midst of it, rather than having it just spring up naturally.

As for the second part, if there's any talk from people wanting PJ to be 'darker' or write less melodic songs, it more likely springs from the feeling that they write those types of songs better. If they write 10 dark songs and 10 happy ones, and 9 of the former are great and 9 of the latter are poor (IMO), is it a bias on my part or just what I'd say their strengths are? Long story short (probably too late), I think it may stem from the writing more than the context.

Also, I think that there is some stuff in these new songs and Backspacer's stuff, specific musical flourishes and writing choices, that strike people as '80's' sounding in a negative sense; cheesy stuff, stuff like that line in Lightning Bolt, Lasers! ©.....it's just a shorthand. Is it the best word to use? Probably not, but most shorthands usually aren't.

[Dugg]

I just think they have always been earnest about the mood and feeling of their records. The angst and anger felt personal and real. As did the contemplation of the middle records and the gray/brown feeling of Riot Act. That's what always drew me to the music. The last two albums felt less earnest and more like they were trying to produce a certain sound. LB seems like they are comfortable in their skin so hopefully it comes together.

To your point, I was a teen in Pittsburgh in the 80s so it was mostly hair bands for me.

[stip]

Something change with Backspacer, and I think that's the 90s quality receding a bit and getting replaced with the 80s vibe. When I listen to the 80s comp I'm easily struck at how more open these songs are. How much more easily they smile. How they take themselves less serious. The ways in which there is less sarcasm and more laughter. The world just seems like a less terrible place (maybe the music had to sound like this as a reaction against what was such a horrible decade). And I think that's the 80s influence in pearl jam's music. It's not just the optimism. It's the assumption in the music that the world is not such a horrible place. And so the songs breathe easier. They feel less weighty in that they don't feel like they need to carry the weight of the world. They laugh more, and at themselves. they love more freely, with less apology and less desperation. they are coming from a different place.

In that respect pearl jam seems to be a fairly different band, and this is where I think the difference is. The songs seem to be coming from a different place. Now there is always the question of whether or not the songs coming from this place execute well (maybe they just don't write as well as they used to, or write these types of songs as well) but I also think an issue some people may have is that they just fundamentally want pearl jam to be a 90s band. Not that they hate the 80s, but that they just don't want pearl jam to be an 80s band. I think the complaints about how pearl jam songs need to be darker, or that the idea that they suddenly have melodies that make them appealing rather than standoffish are coming at least in part from here.

With that first paragraph (and I can only speak to Backspacer; it's way too early for the new record for me)...I think part of the problem is that it doesn't sound fun or less weighty, however much they want it to. I think Fixer has some positives, but I've rarely heard a 'happy' song that felt so much like it was pushing a boulder upstairs. It's possible that this was due to the fact that making Backspacer their 'light' record was a concisious decision; I'm pretty sure they were saying they wanted to make that type of record before they even recorded it, or at least when they were in the midst of it, rather than having it just spring up naturally.

As for the second part, if there's any talk from people wanting PJ to be 'darker' or write less melodic songs, it more likely springs from the feeling that they write those types of songs better. If they write 10 dark songs and 10 happy ones, and 9 of the former are great and 9 of the latter are poor (IMO), is it a bias on my part or just what I'd say their strengths are? Long story short (probably too late), I think it may stem from the writing more than the context.

Also, I think that there is some stuff in these new songs and Backspacer's stuff, specific musical flourishes and writing choices, that strike people as '80's' sounding in a negative sense; cheesy stuff, stuff like that line in Lightning Bolt, Lasers! ©.....it's just a shorthand. Is it the best word to use? Probably not, but most shorthands usually aren't.

i am not dismissing the quality of the writing as an important factor, and probably the most important. I also don't think this applies to everyone. But what do you make of the fairly common 'I wish this song was darker' complaint?

[digster]

I mean, I think 'darker' is also just a shorthand, perhaps for 'depth' for lack of a better term. I think people here overall are pretty into music and invest a lot of listening time to this (and many other) bands. I don't think they'd throw a song to the wolves for something as frivolous as whether it's 'happy' or 'dark.' It's just another word to stand in for what PJ's strengths are to them.

[BurtReynolds]

I just think they have always been earnest about the mood and feeling of their records. The angst and anger felt personal and real. As did the contemplation of the middle records and the gray/brown feeling of Riot Act. That's what always drew me to the music. The last two albums felt less earnest and more like they were trying to produce a certain sound. LB seems like they are comfortable in their skin so hopefully it comes together.

To your point, I was a teen in Pittsburgh in the 80s so it was mostly hair bands for me.

I think PJ has always been earnest and preachy, even now. Even The Fixer is earnest and preachy. Their reputation for being dead serious is earned i think, at least in Ed's case. It fits when they were serious and "dark", but the band can't shake the weighty quality of their music on these supposed "light" songs. They aren't light at all. They are overweight and flabby, loaded down with preachy new wave nonsense and overt messages. There is little irreverence or irony. Its all very serious. O'brien's crap smeared on top just makes it worse.

All bands have strengths and weaknesses, and I don't think they are very good at this. They aren't complete failures at it. They pull it off in a couple of songs (Satan's Bed and Johnny Guitar come to mind).

Oh back to the 80s topic: none of you can tell me you dont hear Lightning Bolt and think of the Perfect Strangers theme song. TELL ME YOU DON'T! So many similarities.

[harmless]

I find these leaked songs far lighter and more care-free than nearly all of Backspacer. I can imagine sipping cocktails in Maui listening to Lightning Bolt. The Fixer wanted to be this fun but didn't manage it for me.

[harmless]

And also, yes, they still have very interesting, preachy and dark lyrics. But I've always liked that about this band, and I've also enjoyed when that "seriousness" is well juxtaposed with silly music. They did it on Vitalogy, and then they did it on "Last Kiss" (a cover, but I think it gave them a huge boner for that blend of dark and light, which they tried to do a few more times later and only occasionally managed successfully).

[BurtReynolds]

They aren't very interesting or dark, IMO. they are earnest and kinda dumbed down. The preachiness is mostly the only thing thats crossed over (with a few exceptions.)

[harmless]

A lot of the "deeper" songs have dumbed-down lyrics.

But leaving that alone, yeah, they're going to be more dumbed-down, or instant or catchy or whatever, simply because they are pop songs. They work within the limits PJ set for them, and some do it better than others. But they often deal with the same things and Ed does some very interesting things with the lines sometimes, but in an accessible, non-threatening way. It's not because he can't write anymore; it's intentional, he's trying not to be too obscure.

[BurtReynolds]

A lot of the "deeper" songs have dumbed-down lyrics.

But leaving that alone, yeah, they're going to be more dumbed-down, or instant or catchy or whatever, simply because they are pop songs. They work within the limits PJ set for them, and some do it better than others. But they often deal with the same things and Ed does some very interesting things with the lines sometimes, but in an accessible, non-threatening way. It's not because he can't write anymore; it's intentional, he's trying not to be too obscure.

Its definitely intentional, it just doesn't suit the band, Ed's singing style, or the lighter happy music they are going for. Opinions!

[harmless]

A lot of the "deeper" songs have dumbed-down lyrics.

But leaving that alone, yeah, they're going to be more dumbed-down, or instant or catchy or whatever, simply because they are pop songs. They work within the limits PJ set for them, and some do it better than others. But they often deal with the same things and Ed does some very interesting things with the lines sometimes, but in an accessible, non-threatening way. It's not because he can't write anymore; it's intentional, he's trying not to be too obscure.

Its definitely intentional, it just doesn't suit the band, Ed's singing style, or the lighter happy music they are going for. Opinions!

Like arseholes, aren't they? Everyone's got one.

It sounds to me like it doesn't suit what was your vision of the band, and that's a valid criticism. My feeling is that I was perfectly happy for PJ-goes-pop if they did it well enough, and I think they pretty much do here, whereas they only *really* managed it on one or two Backspacer songs. And I'm hoping we have deeper songs coming, although I'm not holding my breath.

[BurtReynolds]

A lot of the "deeper" songs have dumbed-down lyrics.

But leaving that alone, yeah, they're going to be more dumbed-down, or instant or catchy or whatever, simply because they are pop songs. They work within the limits PJ set for them, and some do it better than others. But they often deal with the same things and Ed does some very interesting things with the lines sometimes, but in an accessible, non-threatening way. It's not because he can't write anymore; it's intentional, he's trying not to be too obscure.

Its definitely intentional, it just doesn't suit the band, Ed's singing style, or the lighter happy music they are going for. Opinions!

Like arseholes, aren't they? Everyone's got one.

It sounds to me like it doesn't suit what was your vision of the band, and that's a valid criticism. My feeling is that I was perfectly happy for PJ-goes-pop if they did it well enough, and I think they pretty much do here, whereas they only *really* managed it on one or two Backspacer songs. And I'm hoping we have deeper songs coming, although I'm not holding my breath.

No, I'm saying they as a band aren't well suited for this, for the reasons listed (mostly because of Ed). Bands I like that take this lighter direction are much different than this. If they were good at it, I would be fine with them taking this route. I think all of Ed's strengths as an artist (his voice, writing, attitudes, need to teach) are turned to weaknesses with this stuff.

[harmless]

A lot of the "deeper" songs have dumbed-down lyrics.

But leaving that alone, yeah, they're going to be more dumbed-down, or instant or catchy or whatever, simply because they are pop songs. They work within the limits PJ set for them, and some do it better than others. But they often deal with the same things and Ed does some very interesting things with the lines sometimes, but in an accessible, non-threatening way. It's not because he can't write anymore; it's intentional, he's trying not to be too obscure.

Its definitely intentional, it just doesn't suit the band, Ed's singing style, or the lighter happy music they are going for. Opinions!

Like arseholes, aren't they? Everyone's got one.

It sounds to me like it doesn't suit what was your vision of the band, and that's a valid criticism. My feeling is that I was perfectly happy for PJ-goes-pop if they did it well enough, and I think they pretty much do here, whereas they only *really* managed it on one or two Backspacer songs. And I'm hoping we have deeper songs coming, although I'm not holding my breath.

No, I'm saying they as a band aren't well suited for this, for the reasons listed (mostly because of Ed). Bands I like that take this lighter direction are much different than this. If they were good at it, I would be fine with them taking this route. I think all of Ed's strengths as an artist (his voice, writing, attitudes, need to teach) are turned to weaknesses with this stuff.

I know what you're saying. But it's still opinion, right? Personally I think they've been "good at it" this time, because that's not really an objective call.

[BurtReynolds]

I'm just talking about the lyrics and Ed's voice here, though. The music is as dopey and light as it can be. I have a whole different set of problems with that...

[BurtReynolds]

A lot of the "deeper" songs have dumbed-down lyrics.

But leaving that alone, yeah, they're going to be more dumbed-down, or instant or catchy or whatever, simply because they are pop songs. They work within the limits PJ set for them, and some do it better than others. But they often deal with the same things and Ed does some very interesting things with the lines sometimes, but in an accessible, non-threatening way. It's not because he can't write anymore; it's intentional, he's trying not to be too obscure.

Its definitely intentional, it just doesn't suit the band, Ed's singing style, or the lighter happy music they are going for. Opinions!

Like arseholes, aren't they? Everyone's got one.

It sounds to me like it doesn't suit what was your vision of the band, and that's a valid criticism. My feeling is that I was perfectly happy for PJ-goes-pop if they did it well enough, and I think they pretty much do here, whereas they only *really* managed it on one or two Backspacer songs. And I'm hoping we have deeper songs coming, although I'm not holding my breath.

No, I'm saying they as a band aren't well suited for this, for the reasons listed (mostly because of Ed). Bands I like that take this lighter direction are much different than this. If they were good at it, I would be fine with them taking this route. I think all of Ed's strengths as an artist (his voice, writing, attitudes, need to teach) are turned to weaknesses with this stuff.

I know what you're saying. But it's still opinion, right? Personally I think they've been "good at it" this time, because that's not really an objective call.

oh sure. If people like it, then great. I'm just an asshole on the interwebs.

[stip]

A lot of the "deeper" songs have dumbed-down lyrics.

But leaving that alone, yeah, they're going to be more dumbed-down, or instant or catchy or whatever, simply because they are pop songs. They work within the limits PJ set for them, and some do it better than others. But they often deal with the same things and Ed does some very interesting things with the lines sometimes, but in an accessible, non-threatening way. It's not because he can't write anymore; it's intentional, he's trying not to be too obscure.

Its definitely intentional, it just doesn't suit the band, Ed's singing style, or the lighter happy music they are going for. Opinions!

Like arseholes, aren't they? Everyone's got one.

It sounds to me like it doesn't suit what was your vision of the band, and that's a valid criticism. My feeling is that I was perfectly happy for PJ-goes-pop if they did it well enough, and I think they pretty much do here, whereas they only *really* managed it on one or two Backspacer songs. And I'm hoping we have deeper songs coming, although I'm not holding my breath.

No, I'm saying they as a band aren't well suited for this, for the reasons listed (mostly because of Ed). Bands I like that take this lighter direction are much different than this. If they were good at it, I would be fine with them taking this route. I think all of Ed's strengths as an artist (his voice, writing, attitudes, need to teach) are turned to weaknesses with this stuff.

fair enough. I agree that this isn't necessarily where his strengths lie (which is part of my issue with no code and yield) but I still think what he's doing is good.

[Blenheim Augustine]

A bunch of years ago I put together two really massive 80s and 90s music compilations (like 400-500 songs in each). The 80s was a lot of genres. The 90s was all alternative stuff.

That probably says more about you than it does about music in the 90s. Even if largely confined to US - Punk: NOFX, Blink-182, Rancid, Offspring, Green Day; nu-metal - SOAD, Korn, RATM, Linkin Park, Faith no More, Incubus; Metal - nine inch nails, white zombie, metallica, slayer, megadeth, Anthrax; Hiphop - Dr Dre, Snoop, Notorious BIG, Tupac; R&B - too much. That's just guitar bands. Electronica exploded in the 90s, whole genres of music were created - Trip hop, ambient, downtempo, garage, drum and bass.

[darth_vedder]

The 90's were definitely more than alt. rock.

Alt. Rock dominated, but in addition to everything you listed alt. Country started taking off with WIlco, Uncle Tupelo, etc...

Also, The Beastie Boys dominated the 90's. They were the cat's meow.

[stip]

The 90's were definitely more than alt. rock.

Alt. Rock dominated, but in addition to everything you listed alt. Country started taking off with WIlco, Uncle Tupelo, etc...

Also, The Beastie Boys dominated the 90's. They were the cat's meow.

yes, obviously. My compilation was just alternative rock, broadly understood. I was not implying that this is all the 90s had, although I would argue that more than anything else it probably helped define the decade.