Page 62 of 176

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Tue April 01, 2014 4:16 am
by klehtun

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Thu April 03, 2014 11:47 pm
by stupidmop

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Fri April 04, 2014 2:46 am
by hlniv
durdencommatyler wrote:I mean, I don't know. I'm no expert or anything. But I think the production of LB is better than Backspacer and S/T. At least, it sounds way better to my ears.
The production of Backspacer isn't bad at all. Just the songs are bad

S/T had decent enough songs, just totally ruined by the recording/production/mixing, whatever, all of the above.

LB is better than both in these regards, yet somehow still ends up in the dust bin with the other bunnies

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Tue April 08, 2014 12:03 pm
by McParadigm
durdencommatyler wrote:I mean, I don't know. I'm no expert or anything. But I think the production of LB is better than Backspacer
Goodness, no. Any problem with Backspacer is down to the writing. The only issue with the production is the compression, and I don't get the impression most people really know what that does to the sound of a record, anyway.

Backspacer is a light production touch on the mixing board end, with not a lot of processing on the vocals or instruments. The drum overheads are used really well, the guitars sound full without becoming unreadably messy, and it just generally sounds like a band playing in a room. There's some light mic bleed on a few songs, suggesting that in general that's exactly what it was. And, yeah, there are a lot of overdubs, but there are also some qualities to the low end that had some debate going as to whether or not it was recorded in analog.

Lightning Bolt has much less compression, but there's just a brutal and really cold approach to the processing...something that requires a bit more isolation in the recording phase.

I could really end up with one of my stupidly long posts here, so I'll just point out two examples of what I mean:

1. The first ten seconds of Getaway alone already reveals a really shitty choice that was made at some point. You've got drums and, at one point, two guitars crunching it up in there...but there's no low end to be found. Literally all of the low has been scooped out of those instruments, there and through a LOT of the record. You can really hear it at the start of the verse, when the bass and Ed come in together and suddenly the pool feels like it's about 15 feet deeper. The drums and guitars never really have any power or energy on this record, because Brendan has gotten into this thing where he murders everything else to try and "sell" the singer. And so he's just working harder than ever to give Ed as much of the canvas as possible, at a time when the resonance and beauty of his voice is collapsing and when giving him that space is just accenting the warble and goating. Even if you like Ed's voice right now, the point is that this weird decision was made to steal from everyone else to support him, and it's unnecessary (compare the "need" to scoop low end away from guitars and drums here to the sonics of Push Me Pull Me, for example). You can hear it during those moments when there are dynamic shifts, too...like when the band goes big early on in the title track, and everything pushes forward but it doesn't really feel "epic" or explosive the way you get the impression it should. you can't fuck with the low end that much and not lose the inherent power of moments like that. You just fucking kill them.

2. Fucking flange on the acoustic guitar on Swallowed Whole. Fucking flange. Nice effect for the right circumstances (there's a sustained electric in the chorus that it sounds great on), but on a quickly strummed acoustic? Goddamn, no. And anyway, why would you want the most focused-on (and organic) sonic addition to a song about nature to sound so unnatural? It certainly doesn't make the guitar sound better...it already sounds brittle and cardboardy, because you robbed it of so much in order to protect Ed (or maybe because your ears are going, I dunno). It just makes it sound like just that guitar was copied over from a really shittily encoded mp3, and then pasted into the song.

Welp. Stupidly long. There you go.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Tue April 08, 2014 1:22 pm
by Brett
Long, maybe; stupidly so, no. I love reading posts like that, even if I only understand it on a very surface level. For example, I think I kind of get the concept of mic bleed, but I wouldn't really know what to listen for. Otherwise, I like that you give a somewhat detailed explanation of the way a recording works (or doesn't, as the case may be), without being so overly technical as to turn away laymen like myself.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Tue April 08, 2014 9:15 pm
by Leatherhead
klehtun wrote:

:haha: wtf

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Tue April 08, 2014 9:17 pm
by LetMeSleep
It's gotta be someone here.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Tue April 08, 2014 9:28 pm
by Got Some
McParadigm wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:I mean, I don't know. I'm no expert or anything. But I think the production of LB is better than Backspacer
Goodness, no. Any problem with Backspacer is down to the writing. The only issue with the production is the compression, and I don't get the impression most people really know what that does to the sound of a record, anyway.

Backspacer is a light production touch on the mixing board end, with not a lot of processing on the vocals or instruments. The drum overheads are used really well, the guitars sound full without becoming unreadably messy, and it just generally sounds like a band playing in a room. There's some light mic bleed on a few songs, suggesting that in general that's exactly what it was. And, yeah, there are a lot of overdubs, but there are also some qualities to the low end that had some debate going as to whether or not it was recorded in analog.

Lightning Bolt has much less compression, but there's just a brutal and really cold approach to the processing...something that requires a bit more isolation in the recording phase.

I could really end up with one of my stupidly long posts here, so I'll just point out two examples of what I mean:

1. The first ten seconds of Getaway alone already reveals a really shitty choice that was made at some point. You've got drums and, at one point, two guitars crunching it up in there...but there's no low end to be found. Literally all of the low has been scooped out of those instruments, there and through a LOT of the record. You can really hear it at the start of the verse, when the bass and Ed come in together and suddenly the pool feels like it's about 15 feet deeper. The drums and guitars never really have any power or energy on this record, because Brendan has gotten into this thing where he murders everything else to try and "sell" the singer. And so he's just working harder than ever to give Ed as much of the canvas as possible, at a time when the resonance and beauty of his voice is collapsing and when giving him that space is just accenting the warble and goating. Even if you like Ed's voice right now, the point is that this weird decision was made to steal from everyone else to support him, and it's unnecessary (compare the "need" to scoop low end away from guitars and drums here to the sonics of Push Me Pull Me, for example). You can hear it during those moments when there are dynamic shifts, too...like when the band goes big early on in the title track, and everything pushes forward but it doesn't really feel "epic" or explosive the way you get the impression it should. you can't fuck with the low end that much and not lose the inherent power of moments like that. You just fucking kill them.

2. Fucking flange on the acoustic guitar on Swallowed Whole. Fucking flange. Nice effect for the right circumstances (there's a sustained electric in the chorus that it sounds great on), but on a quickly strummed acoustic? Goddamn, no. And anyway, why would you want the most focused-on (and organic) sonic addition to a song about nature to sound so unnatural? It certainly doesn't make the guitar sound better...it already sounds brittle and cardboardy, because you robbed it of so much in order to protect Ed (or maybe because your ears are going, I dunno). It just makes it sound like just that guitar was copied over from a really shittily encoded mp3, and then pasted into the song.

Welp. Stupidly long. There you go.

Well said

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Wed April 09, 2014 12:07 am
by stip
I'm as a big a defender of Eddie right now as anyone this side of Release Me and I agree with McParadigm that it makes no sense to neuter the band to support him. It hasn't in 20 years.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Wed April 09, 2014 5:47 am
by onawave
Goodness, no. Any problem with Backspacer is down to the writing. The only issue with the production is the compression, and I don't get the impression most people really know what that does to the sound of a record, anyway.

Backspacer is a light production touch on the mixing board end, with not a lot of processing on the vocals or instruments. The drum overheads are used really well, the guitars sound full without becoming unreadably messy, and it just generally sounds like a band playing in a room. There's some light mic bleed on a few songs, suggesting that in general that's exactly what it was. And, yeah, there are a lot of overdubs, but there are also some qualities to the low end that had some debate going as to whether or not it was recorded in analog.

Lightning Bolt has much less compression, but there's just a brutal and really cold approach to the processing...something that requires a bit more isolation in the recording phase.

I could really end up with one of my stupidly long posts here, so I'll just point out two examples of what I mean:

1. The first ten seconds of Getaway alone already reveals a really shitty choice that was made at some point. You've got drums and, at one point, two guitars crunching it up in there...but there's no low end to be found. Literally all of the low has been scooped out of those instruments, there and through a LOT of the record. You can really hear it at the start of the verse, when the bass and Ed come in together and suddenly the pool feels like it's about 15 feet deeper. The drums and guitars never really have any power or energy on this record, because Brendan has gotten into this thing where he murders everything else to try and "sell" the singer. And so he's just working harder than ever to give Ed as much of the canvas as possible, at a time when the resonance and beauty of his voice is collapsing and when giving him that space is just accenting the warble and goating. Even if you like Ed's voice right now, the point is that this weird decision was made to steal from everyone else to support him, and it's unnecessary (compare the "need" to scoop low end away from guitars and drums here to the sonics of Push Me Pull Me, for example). You can hear it during those moments when there are dynamic shifts, too...like when the band goes big early on in the title track, and everything pushes forward but it doesn't really feel "epic" or explosive the way you get the impression it should. you can't fuck with the low end that much and not lose the inherent power of moments like that. You just fucking kill them.

2. Fucking flange on the acoustic guitar on Swallowed Whole. Fucking flange. Nice effect for the right circumstances (there's a sustained electric in the chorus that it sounds great on), but on a quickly strummed acoustic? Goddamn, no. And anyway, why would you want the most focused-on (and organic) sonic addition to a song about nature to sound so unnatural? It certainly doesn't make the guitar sound better...it already sounds brittle and cardboardy, because you robbed it of so much in order to protect Ed (or maybe because your ears are going, I dunno). It just makes it sound like just that guitar was copied over from a really shittily encoded mp3, and then pasted into the song.

Welp. Stupidly long. There you go.
im not much of an audio guy, but i know how i like something to hear. to me LB was was over produced. it just seems to lack grit in the recordings. for example lightning bolt as a song - is actually fuking awesome. the studio version of it, actually suks as a recording. the only that keeps me listening (without trying to sound cliche) is the journey that the lyrics take you on.

now if you recorded LB the same way they did say vs, viatology or no code - we have a winner.

for the next album, pearl jam should change give b-o-b a miss. try someone new.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Wed April 09, 2014 1:21 pm
by stip
As much as I like Lightning Bolt, it is the first time where I feel like in almost every case the production is not doing the songs justice. People say that about S/T as well, but I think the abrasive edge to S/T works on my favorite songs. The songwriting on lightning bolt is strong basically from top to bottom, but there is this stubborn insistence on not showcasing the songs in their best light.


Lightning Bolt and Swallowed Whole are probably the worst offenders.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Thu April 10, 2014 9:06 am
by Mine
McParadigm wrote:You've got drums and, at one point, two guitars crunching it up in there...but there's no low end to be found. Literally all of the low has been scooped out of those instruments, there and through a LOT of the record. You can really hear it at the start of the verse, when the bass and Ed come in together and suddenly the pool feels like it's about 15 feet deeper.
The vocals don't have much of a low end either. I've posted about this before. I checked how the vocals sound on Backspacer and LB compared to Ed's solo material from the same period (all produced by Adam Kaspar) because of this. The vocals on ITW, US and Better Days all have more of a low end (even lower-mid i think) even if slightly less so on US (different mic used?) compared to LB especially where the vocals often sound unnaturally thin. Even compared to his speaking voice the Kaspar produced vocals are closer tonally than B'OB's.
I assumed it was to give more space to the bass rather than the vocals especially since even the drums are affected.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Thu April 10, 2014 2:17 pm
by digster
The vocals are absolutely pushed higher in the mix. It's a preference thing for me, but I think such an approach clearly takes you out of the song. When working in the studio, whether they track live or separately, the impression they seem to intend (and always have) is for the listener to take the studio version as a 'performance' of the song. The emphasis on vocals destroys that illusion, and it makes it that much easier to see the seams. Compare it to their earlier work, and it really seemed like Ed's voice was fighting with the band for prominence.

The greater prominence for vocals, as McParadigm mentioned, also highlights the fault lines and cracks in Ed's voice at this point. Not only are his vocals deteriorating (which is to be expected), but he's also seemingly having trouble singing songs in a way that highlights what he has left, and the production is aiming a spotlight on the blemishes as opposed to illuminating the positive aspects of his voice that are still there.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Thu April 10, 2014 5:06 pm
by stip
I think Eddie sounds really good on L-bolt, with maybe only one-two exceptions. My issue is that it comes at the expense of the music too much. In terms of the performances I think they're really good, and a few are just flat out great.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Sat April 12, 2014 1:03 am
by Tj
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsxwwhJ6GrY Pearl Jam member Matt Cameron's 1978 hit Puberty Love

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Sun April 20, 2014 10:51 am
by Birds in Hell


What a band.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Sun April 20, 2014 11:43 pm
by VinylGuy
Im pretty sure thats my favorite PJ era.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Tue April 22, 2014 12:03 pm
by onawave
Birds in Hell wrote:

What a band.
fuk. yes.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Tue April 22, 2014 7:20 pm
by McParadigm
klehtun wrote:
It's rare that something is this unapologetically ridiculous, and yet fails to find a home in RM's ongoing chattermatters department.

Re: Pearl Jam Videos

Posted: Wed April 23, 2014 12:48 pm
by Blenheim Augustine
McParadigm wrote:2. Fucking flange on the acoustic guitar on Swallowed Whole. Fucking flange. Nice effect for the right circumstances (there's a sustained electric in the chorus that it sounds great on), but on a quickly strummed acoustic?
This.

I don't understand how anyone thought that intro sounded good. I like the song but if they had gone straight electric it would have been improved. I'm not a fan of PJ uptempo acoustic. It makes it sound like a shitty REM song; which I suppose is just an REM song.