Red Mosquito

stip wrote:If you still like how Eddie sounds you'll still like pearl jam. If you don't like how he's aged he won't. Almost every other complaint (ESPECIALLY the songwriting/creativity ones) are just dancing around this

I'm sorry Stip but this is one of the straight-up dumbest things I've ever read here. Think about what you're saying for a minute. The complaints about the songwriting are really complaints about Eddie's voice.

Maybe you perceive Pearl Jam songs as merely serviceable delivery methods for soaring Eddie Vedder vocal performances, much like a corn chip is a serviceable delivery method for dip. But that's definitely not the case for everybody here.

Strat wrote:PJ Should stop touring for quite some time. Rely on the income brought in by the PJ socks and toss out EP's every few months.

I kinda agree. I love the notion of them releasing a 3 to 5 song EP every so often, maybe every other year for a few years. Then do some touring. The summer festival circuit, then maybe a few smaller / quieter venues for some chilled out shows, then maybe tour a few mid-major cities: Portland, Austin, El Paso, New Orleans, Tampa, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Raleigh, Richmond, etc...Basically up and down the Mississippi, as well was the Southeast and Southwest. Or in other words, not the usual Boston, Seattle, DC, Philly, NYC, run.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

darth_vedder wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:*just let Stone sing

No lie, I would absolutely support Pearl Jam sans Eddie Vedder. Just change the name. But the same group of guys, except him, making music together? Would probably be my favorite band.

Not a bad idea.

Then have Eddie, Jack and Flea form a new band.

Eddie could never keep up with Jack and Flea.

theplatypus wrote:

stip wrote:If you still like how Eddie sounds you'll still like pearl jam. If you don't like how he's aged he won't. Almost every other complaint (ESPECIALLY the songwriting/creativity ones) are just dancing around this

I'm sorry Stip but this is one of the straight-up dumbest things I've ever read here. Think about what you're saying for a minute. The complaints about the songwriting are really complaints about Eddie's voice.

Maybe you perceive Pearl Jam songs as merely serviceable delivery methods for soaring Eddie Vedder vocal performances, much like a corn chip is a serviceable delivery method for dip. But that's definitely not the case for everybody here.

I've never used corn chips for dip. that could open up whole new vistas for me.

And yes, I do think if Eddie was in his prime most of the complaints about these songs would disappear. I'm not saying everyone would love everything, or that there aren't differences in writing styles that some people find more appealing than others. Preferences don't' disappear, but both the idea of substantive, shocking decline and the intensity with which it is held is largely bound up in the changes in Eddie's voice. If eddie sounded better the volume of all this gets toned way down

stip wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

stip wrote:If you still like how Eddie sounds you'll still like pearl jam. If you don't like how he's aged he won't. Almost every other complaint (ESPECIALLY the songwriting/creativity ones) are just dancing around this

I'm sorry Stip but this is one of the straight-up dumbest things I've ever read here. Think about what you're saying for a minute. The complaints about the songwriting are really complaints about Eddie's voice.

Maybe you perceive Pearl Jam songs as merely serviceable delivery methods for soaring Eddie Vedder vocal performances, much like a corn chip is a serviceable delivery method for dip. But that's definitely not the case for everybody here.

I've never used corn chips for dip. that could open up whole new vistas for me.

And yes, I do think if Eddie was in his prime most of the complaints about these songs would disappear. I'm not saying everyone would love everything, or that there aren't differences in writing styles that some people find more appealing than others. Preferences don't' disappear, but both the idea of substantive, shocking decline and the intensity with which it is held is largely bound up in the changes in Eddie's voice.

This is completely absurd and untrue.

Yup, I fully expect most people to think that.

This, by the way, is one of the main reasons why I don't think we've seen the overall critical drop off in how the albums are reviewed/received that you might expect given the way that people here have excoriated these recent records.

darth_vedder wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:*just let Stone sing

No lie, I would absolutely support Pearl Jam sans Eddie Vedder. Just change the name. But the same group of guys, except him, making music together? Would probably be my favorite band.

Not a bad idea.

Then have Eddie, Jack and Flea form a new band.

Jeff's ready to leave anyway.

Album-wise, I don't think Ed's voice has ever really been the big issue (concert-wise is another story). With "Backspacer" and "Lightning Bolt," I think the prevalent complaints have always been the sterility of the production/arrangements and the not-terrible-but-average quality of the songwriting. Sure, if Ed suddenly became Sam Cooke, the songs could conceivably take on new lives -- the right singer can certainly raise an average song above mediocrity. But you nonetheless make a lot of assumptions by declaring that a group of discerning listeners could be duped into thinking a bunch of average songs were great just because the singer was on his A game that day. There are certainly a lot of great singers out there that consistently fail to sell equally average material.

Kevin Davis wrote:Album-wise, I don't think Ed's voice has ever really been the big issue (concert-wise is another story). With "Backspacer" and "Lightning Bolt," I think the prevalent complaints have always been the sterility of the production/arrangements and the not-terrible-but-average quality of the songwriting. Sure, if Ed suddenly became Sam Cooke, the songs could conceivably take on new lives -- the right singer can certainly raise an average song above mediocrity. But you nonetheless make a lot of assumptions by declaring that a group of discerning listeners could be duped into thinking a bunch of average songs were great just because the singer was on his A game that day. There are certainly a lot of great singers out there that consistently fail to sell equally average material.

Kevin Davis wrote:Album-wise, I don't think Ed's voice has ever really been the big issue (concert-wise is another story). With "Backspacer" and "Lightning Bolt," I think the prevalent complaints have always been the sterility of the production/arrangements and the not-terrible-but-average quality of the songwriting. Sure, if Ed suddenly became Sam Cooke, the songs could conceivably take on new lives -- the right singer can certainly raise an average song above mediocrity. But you nonetheless make a lot of assumptions by declaring that a group of discerning listeners could be duped into thinking a bunch of average songs were great just because the singer was on his A game that day. There are certainly a lot of great singers out there that consistently fail to sell equally average material.

Yeah, there is no singer that you could have sing Yellow Moon that would make that song good.

Good songwriting covers a multitude of sins, including a declining or less powerful voice. I'm not sure I could even count the number of songs that I love where the quality of the song kept me coming back, despite the fact that the vocal didn't bowl me over.

digster wrote:Good songwriting covers a multitude of sins, including a declining or less powerful voice. I'm not sure I could even count the number of songs that I love where the quality of the song kept me coming back, despite the fact that the vocal didn't bowl me over.

This.

An overwhelming majority of bands, maybe not "solo" artists, that I really enjoy have a good chunk of material where the vocals are pushed back in the mix or completely secondary to the music. Instruments speak to me and bring me back for multiple listens way more often than a good set vocals or lyrics.

Although I personally like his voice, many people feel that Dylan's whole career is all the evidence needed that the song can overcome the singer.

that's certainly true, but I don't know that I'd say the same thing about pearl jam

How would that explain the individual songs than from the last three records that have taken off, that many people here do enjoy? I think, at least round here, you're not going to see too many complaints about Parachutes, for example. If everything rose and fell solely on Ed's voice, than there'd be nothing to look back on fondly.

But there are songs like that. There are songs like Parachutes, or Johnny Guitar, or some of the ITW stuff, or others, where people feel like they're diamonds in the rough.

I think it's certainly possible for there to be moments where you like what you hear, or you're so enamored with the music or the melody or some other compositional or performance element that you like the song--just like you can like how Eddie sounds and dislike certain songs. Ten is my third favorite album of all time and I don't give a shit about garden.

My point is that not liking the voice, especially in a case where the vocals were for so many people the primary draw of the band, and the thing that almost singularly defined the music, is likely to be the largest controlling factor, and if you're not happy it's going to color and magnify almost anything you dislike.

tragabigzanda wrote:I think the most flattering thing the band could do given Ed's current voice and our collective dislike for their recent "pop" sound is settle into a cycle of Neil Young-inspired records, featuring a mixture of quiet country-tinged ballads and straight-forward rock numbers. Produce every album like Riot Act, let the songs speak for themselves (without BOB embellishments), and just release different iterations of this album every several years.

aren't these the sorts of records they've been making recently (other than the riot act production point)?

stip wrote:the vocals were for so many people the primary draw of the band, and the thing that almost singularly defined the music

Who is saying this?