Red Mosquito

I think one viewpoint that can't be overlooked is the evolution of recording technology, as well as current recording trends. If PJ is indeed wanting to gain some popularity, then they have to create a sound that blends in with radio, trends, etc. Sad truth.

Let's count the things wrong with this. I'll start:

1. Their recent production choice changes don't mirror the production styles of any successful modern act or format.

2. Their songwriting is now aimed backwards, winning over middle aged nostalgics who don't require that production style to buy in.

3. The "production determined by intent" argument started with s/t, and is mostly about fitting in to radio...which is a kind of outdated way to try and get popular.

4. Production is not what's keeping these songs from being great.

Their production style is relatively generic imo, i think is as modern as it's dated. I mean one could make an argument for both i guess.

McParadigm wrote:
4. Production is not what's keeping these songs from being great.

no, that would be primarily dependant on the drumers

McParadigm wrote:1. Their recent production choice changes don't mirror the production styles of any successful modern act or format.

I don't know if I agree with this, I think the hallmarks of the last two records (vocal way out front, guitars pushed to back, lots of ear candy keyboard hooks and sparkly reverbs) are definitely an attempt to fit in with what's expected of music on top 40 radio.

McParadigm wrote:2. Their songwriting is now aimed backwards, winning over middle aged nostalgics who don't require that production style to buy in.

I'm not sure about the first half of this statement, I don't buy that there's much conscious deliberation going on in the band about what direction in which to take their songwriting, but I agree that their primary audience is people who've already bought all of their previous records and are hardly going to start being turned off by a rock band sounding like an actual rock band.

McParadigm wrote:3. The "production determined by intent" argument started with s/t, and is mostly about fitting in to radio...which is a kind of outdated way to try and get popular.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

I don't think the production on S/T reflects any great wish to be popular - it's a pretty raw, straight-up rock record recorded in the same studio as Riot Act with the same producer. The band undoubtedly did want to become more popular off the back of that record which is why they engaged more with the press, played a lot of TV appearances, played a huge world tour and so on.

If anything, the glossier production values of the last two records are a response to, rather than a continuation of, the approach on S/T - "oh, making records that sound like Pearl Jam but with a bigger profile didn't do the trick...maybe if we make them sound like Maroon 5 records?..."

McParadigm wrote:4. Production is not what's keeping these songs from being great.

Yes and no. Great songs are definitely great songs but their aesthetic presentation does play a large role in how we experience them, how deeply we can connect to them, etc. I think the production style of the last two records is totally wrong for the kind of band Pearl Jam are and undermines the effectiveness of even the best songs.

They were essentially a live band that learnt how to use a studio (see Yield). But that was when they played 200 shows a year and were tighter than a duck's behind. It's interesting that their 2 biggest radio tracks up until recently were Last Kiss and Betterman, both essentially live tracks.

After Riot Act and ST I believe they doubted their choices in production and overall focus of the records and went back to who they knew and trusted. The production and vision of Backspacer is coherent so without liking or disliking the end result, you can at least acknowledge the consistency of product. LB seems to have gone both one step further (Ed's vocals, guitar placement, heavily overdubbed) whilst also trying to go back to classic PJ. I think it has gone against the basic aesthetic of what Pearl Jam is (a live band in the studio) but that may be as I don't appreciate the final product. Now BoB might be carrying out exactly what he's been paid/hired to do or he may have been given full creative licence. Only he, Kelly and the band know that.

Isn't that what they did for Lost Dogs? I'm sure I remember some of the songs being 'finished', like vocals added, BOB wankery, etc.

Fuck, I was responding to a conversation from 2 pages ago.

Classic B.

B wrote:Classic B.

Well played, B. Well played.

Mine wrote: I think the main issue is still rooted in the Vitalogy - No Code problematic period and the bands attitude towards it. Stone used to say how he wished they had more time to write better parts for the No Code songs which is the core of the problem. They should have realised that those songs don't need better parts and why and go from there. It would gain them sensibilities towards their own individual talents and styles which is mandatory to make any successful cooperation possible.

What they did instead is, well, they fought to get it back again. "It" being the approach that puts more importance on individual parts rather than the song as a whole, which is rock and roll in it's less imaginative,most overdone, mediocre and bland form especially in a band like Pearl Jam that isn't exceptional at it.

It's also what you'd expect from a live oriented band compared to one that is willing to put the advantages of a studio setting to good use when crafting an album and it's sound.

I think this is spot on. They're just not that type of artist, and never have been. Just get in a room together and play your damn instruments, guys. Let Ed work out the melody and lyrics later.

hlniv wrote:

Mine wrote: I think the main issue is still rooted in the Vitalogy - No Code problematic period and the bands attitude towards it. Stone used to say how he wished they had more time to write better parts for the No Code songs which is the core of the problem. They should have realised that those songs don't need better parts and why and go from there. It would gain them sensibilities towards their own individual talents and styles which is mandatory to make any successful cooperation possible.

What they did instead is, well, they fought to get it back again. "It" being the approach that puts more importance on individual parts rather than the song as a whole, which is rock and roll in it's less imaginative,most overdone, mediocre and bland form especially in a band like Pearl Jam that isn't exceptional at it.

It's also what you'd expect from a live oriented band compared to one that is willing to put the advantages of a studio setting to good use when crafting an album and it's sound.

I think this is spot on. They're just not that type of artist, and never have been. Just get in a room together and play your damn instruments, guys. Let Ed work out the melody and lyrics later.

I think they would seem a better band if CD had the same time constrains as vinyl did 40 +/- 5 minutes would make for greater albums even back in the day because it would force them to be more concise or at least split messes in 2 great albums.
I'm convinced they suck at working with each other and were better when they kept it to a minimum. You have to develop shared artistic sensibilities to cooperate successfully. With them it seems to be more about getting to the lowest common denominator or avoiding what caused conflicts before s/t.
As much as people repeat what you said - that they should write the music together and Ed should stick a melody and lyrics on it later, the songs that weren't written this way seem to be generally more popular, regardless of who wrote them.

There are many ways from going from riff/idea/demo to finished song, and Pearl Jam settled for the one that really doesn't give their talents the best justice.

Birds in Hell wrote:
I don't think the production on S/T reflects any great wish to be popular - it's a pretty raw, straight-up rock record recorded in the same studio as Riot Act with the same producer. The band undoubtedly did want to become more popular off the back of that record which is why they engaged more with the press, played a lot of TV appearances, played a huge world tour and so on.

If anything, the glossier production values of the last two records are a response to, rather than a continuation of, the approach on S/T - "oh, making records that sound like Pearl Jam but with a bigger profile didn't do the trick...maybe if we make them sound like Maroon 5 records?..."

Sorry, but I have to call "bullshit" on that. To me, there was a clear difference between "Riot Act" and "S/T" in terms of the production and sound quality, despite the fact that the producer was the same. There was a conscious effort to make the sound more compressed and congested, and the mixes more cluttered, to fit in better with today's standards. And it didn't help that most of the songs were generic to the max. The production isn't nearly as slick and corny as the last two albums, but it's a far cry from the "band in a room" sound of "Riot Act" and much of what came before it.

McParadigm wrote:

I think one viewpoint that can't be overlooked is the evolution of recording technology, as well as current recording trends. If PJ is indeed wanting to gain some popularity, then they have to create a sound that blends in with radio, trends, etc. Sad truth.

Let's count the things wrong with this. I'll start:

1. Their recent production choice changes don't mirror the production styles of any successful modern act or format.

2. Their songwriting is now aimed backwards, winning over middle aged nostalgics who don't require that production style to buy in.

3. The "production determined by intent" argument started with s/t, and is mostly about fitting in to radio...which is a kind of outdated way to try and get popular.

4. Production is not what's keeping these songs from being great.

For years, I have been giving engineers and studios shit for brickwalling and noise-reducing important "vintage" stuff for the sake of modern taste, when people with modern taste don't care about those things anyway. They should be more concerned with pleasing the crazy obsessives who care about sound and want the best quality possible. But they never see it that way...it's more important to please Nancy & Joe Blow who bought the album for one song to load into their iPod.

Case in point: Pearl Jam in just about every aspect of their career.

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:
I don't think the production on S/T reflects any great wish to be popular - it's a pretty raw, straight-up rock record recorded in the same studio as Riot Act with the same producer. The band undoubtedly did want to become more popular off the back of that record which is why they engaged more with the press, played a lot of TV appearances, played a huge world tour and so on.

If anything, the glossier production values of the last two records are a response to, rather than a continuation of, the approach on S/T - "oh, making records that sound like Pearl Jam but with a bigger profile didn't do the trick...maybe if we make them sound like Maroon 5 records?..."

Sorry, but I have to call "bullshit" on that. To me, there was a clear difference between "Riot Act" and "S/T" in terms of the production and sound quality, despite the fact that the producer was the same. There was a conscious effort to make the sound more compressed and congested, and the mixes more cluttered, to fit in better with today's standards. And it didn't help that most of the songs were generic to the max. The production isn't nearly as slick and corny as the last two albums, but it's a far cry from the "band in a room" sound of "Riot Act" and much of what came before it.

I feel as though that sense of the album sounding cluttered and compressed, which it definitely does, is a result of mastering moreso than mixing. I don't think that necessarily reflects a push towards relevance either, that kind of mastering was simply very popular at the time (things are arguably better now in that regard).

Kasper's mixes are also definitely drier and less textured than Brendan's work on Riot Act where he took essentially 'live' performances and gave them additional depth.

Birds in Hell wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:
I don't think the production on S/T reflects any great wish to be popular - it's a pretty raw, straight-up rock record recorded in the same studio as Riot Act with the same producer. The band undoubtedly did want to become more popular off the back of that record which is why they engaged more with the press, played a lot of TV appearances, played a huge world tour and so on.

If anything, the glossier production values of the last two records are a response to, rather than a continuation of, the approach on S/T - "oh, making records that sound like Pearl Jam but with a bigger profile didn't do the trick...maybe if we make them sound like Maroon 5 records?..."

Sorry, but I have to call "bullshit" on that. To me, there was a clear difference between "Riot Act" and "S/T" in terms of the production and sound quality, despite the fact that the producer was the same. There was a conscious effort to make the sound more compressed and congested, and the mixes more cluttered, to fit in better with today's standards. And it didn't help that most of the songs were generic to the max. The production isn't nearly as slick and corny as the last two albums, but it's a far cry from the "band in a room" sound of "Riot Act" and much of what came before it.

I feel as though that sense of the album sounding cluttered and compressed, which it definitely does, is a result of mastering moreso than mixing. I don't think that necessarily reflects a push towards relevance either, that kind of mastering was simply very popular at the time (things are arguably better now in that regard).

Kasper's mixes are also definitely drier and less textured than Brendan's work on Riot Act where he took essentially 'live' performances and gave them additional depth.

I also remember Ed being infatuated with Sleater Kinney "The woods" and excited about how that album felt like it was going to blow your stereo up. he interviewed what's her name around that time so im pretty certain he wanted that approach with S/T as well.

it works on the first three songs.

stip wrote:it works on the first three songs.

No.

From my ears, S/T seems tailor-made for modern rock radio, in production if not necessarily in the songwriting. I think spenno's right that that comes primarily from the brickwall mastering, but that's the production's most identifiable attribute.

EJ wrote:

stip wrote:it works on the first three songs.

No.

I clearly just established that it did.

It isn't so much that stip is ignorant, it's just that he knows so many things that aren't so.