in praise of eddie vedder 1991-1993

[stip]

I was listening to breath and SOLAT today, and I sometimes forget just how amazing Eddie's voice was those first few years (the records where he didn't feel like he had to apologize for sounding like Eddie Vedder). Over the top, sure, but over the top the way a monument is over the top. The Lincoln Memorial is larger than life, but it still takes your breath away. He is just so deep, rich, full of conviction, commanding. He absolutely owns every song he sings, with that odd mixture of Springsteenesque passion, Morrison richness, and Michael Jackson's idiosyncrasies. There was never a better rock singer than Eddie back then.

I wish he had the self-confidence back then to own it, instead of spending the next decade trying to sound like something he wasn't .

[warehouse]

i think u can extend it to 1994. he sounds amazing during the atlanta show

[stip]

He does, but at that point he's already starting to change. A little more abrasive, a little less velvet in the screams.

[Norah]

is this a nightmareblack thread?

[Biff Pocoroba]

I know what you mean. I hear it every time I listen to a remastered Ten/Vs track or the studio Crazy Mary. As strong as many of those songs are on their own it was that voice that hooked me onto this band.

[Kevin Davis]

(the records where he didn't feel like he had to apologize for sounding like Eddie Vedder)

Thing is, I don't think he really does sound like Eddie Vedder those first few years. I always suspected that that deep-throated warble (what others have referred to at times as the hurr-durr) was actually a completely unnatural vocal technique that Eddie in his inexperience kind of inadvertently defaulted to to retain better control over his singing. I like the range and conviction in his voice during this time, but that hurr-durr is a really, really unpleasant side effect. My least favorite era for Eddie as a singer.

[Monkey_Driven]

(the records where he didn't feel like he had to apologize for sounding like Eddie Vedder)

Thing is, I don't think he really does sound like Eddie Vedder those first few years. I always suspected that that deep-throated warble (what others have referred to at times as the hurr-durr) was actually a completely unnatural vocal technique that Eddie in his inexperience kind of inadvertently defaulted to to retain better control over his singing. I like the range and conviction in his voice during this time, but that hurr-durr is a really, really unpleasant side effect. My least favorite era for Eddie as a singer.

Completely agree.

[evenslow]

Would be an interesting alternate history if he had kept singing that way. That voice certainly would have had more mass appeal, but perhaps most of the more interesting things they did with Vitalogy and No Code would not have happened.

And I'll agree with Biff that that voice in particular was the immediate hook back in '91-92. It was the factor that made you turn your head and pay attention.

[Heathen]

is this a nightmareblack thread?

NOT ENOUGH CAPS

[mkay0]

He does, but at that point he's already starting to change. A little more abrasive, a little less velvet in the screams.

Listening to the 1993 Vegas shows, and the change you are talking about is already well underway.

[stip]

yup. really I'm talking about Ten and Vs.

[Norah]

yup. really I'm talking about Ten and Vs.

how can anyone forget TEN? stip BACK ME UP!

[stip]

[stip]

I'll admit, after a while I did a second account check on him.

[digster]

I admire Eddie's early voice for the sheer power of it, and the way he'd throw himself into songs, but I agree with KD that his Ten-era voice, at least on record, does sound put-on and somewhat dated these days. I think his voice had already significantly changed by Vs; he felt less of a need to sell the vocal in a way that was unnatural.

[bada]

How do you know what someone's true singing voice is? How do you know what your own true singing voice is? Isn't the voice like a lot of instruments it sounds the way you want it to sound? I really don't know.

[Mine]

Would be an interesting alternate history if he had kept singing that way. That voice certainly would have had more mass appeal, but perhaps most of the more interesting things they did with Vitalogy and No Code would not have happened.

And I'll agree with Biff that that voice in particular was the immediate hook back in '91-92. It was the factor that made you turn your head and pay attention.

I'm not sure about mass appeal. I've often seen on music forums Ed's singing on Ten pointed out as the main reason people don't like about Pearl Jam. I've seen similar things said when ITW came out from people who liked it that werent fans of Pearl Jam.
It's actually interesting when you're familiar with what the general consensuss is/was on this board.
I think that 10 is the golden standard anything they did since is measured against by both their fans and their detractors. So when concerning Ed's singing you have people who think he was at his best then and started getting worst from Vitalogy onwards and on the other side people who dislike it and blame it for Creed and the like complitely ignoring PJ had significant shifts in style both musically and in the way Ed uses his voice.

At the and of the day it shows you that it's all about taste when it comes to this kind of aspects of music.

[Kevin Davis]

I admire Eddie's early voice for the sheer power of it, and the way he'd throw himself into songs, but I agree with KD that his Ten-era voice, at least on record, does sound put-on and somewhat dated these days. I think his voice had already significantly changed by Vs; he felt less of a need to sell the vocal in a way that was unnatural.

I think it's at its worst on the 1992 shows--definitely more so than it is on the records, where at least he's afforded the discipline of a formal recording setting. Still, I think it's more compensatory than it is a sales tactic--sometimes just slightly altering the shape of one's palate, or moving one's tongue to a certain place in the mouth, or tightening certain muscles, affords a singer a greater sense of control over the melody, and I think that's what Eddie is doing in those days, particularly on the very low, baritone parts. But in almost every case the price of those shortcuts is articulation. I would suspect that by 1993/1994, a few years of experience just naturally worked those tics out of him, and found him probably singing in a more "proper" fashion, meaning one more in line with how a vocal coach might advise (relatively speaking, of course), than he was during those very early years. From that point on, I think his voice mostly just continued to improve, until natural signs of wear began to take effect.

[Norah]

I admire Eddie's early voice for the sheer power of it, and the way he'd throw himself into songs, but I agree with KD that his Ten-era voice, at least on record, does sound put-on and somewhat dated these days. I think his voice had already significantly changed by Vs; he felt less of a need to sell the vocal in a way that was unnatural.

I think it's at its worst on the 1992 shows--definitely more so than it is on the records, where at least he's afforded the discipline of a formal recording setting. Still, I think it's more compensatory than it is a sales tactic--sometimes just slightly altering the shape of one's palate, or moving one's tongue to a certain place in the mouth, or tightening certain muscles, affords a singer a greater sense of control over the melody, and I think that's what Eddie is doing in those days, particularly on the very low, baritone parts. But in almost every case the price of those shortcuts is articulation. I would suspect that by 1993/1994, a few years of experience just naturally worked those tics out of him, and found him probably singing in a more "proper" fashion, meaning one more in line with how a vocal coach might advise (relatively speaking, of course), than he was during those very early years. From that point on, I think his voice mostly just continued to improve, until natural signs of wear began to take effect.

A lot of what I have a problem with the way he sings now isn't the wear and tear on his voice. Though, the over annunciation of certain sounds and that higher warble could be his way of adjusting to his deteriorating voice.

[Kevin Davis]

I don't mean wear and tear in the sense of physical ravage, i.e. Bob Dylan's current voice, which is natural for most singers and useful to the extent the artist allows it to be. Some of the songs on "Uke Songs" are great examples of how Ed's current limitations could be really affecting. His problem now is mainly that all the songs his fans want to hear are completely unsuited to his current limitations.

But yes, I definitely think that a lot of his present-day tics are very similar to the "hurr-durr"--in short, they're shortcuts he's using to keep from just flying off-key. That multi-syllable thing he does now ("Nothing as it see-heems...") is absolutely an attempt at retaining vocal control. And, again, as it always is, the price is articulation.