Page 2 of 2

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Sat June 24, 2017 3:42 pm
by evenslow
McParadigm wrote:
stip wrote:The Corduroy outro fades out already, you know :)


I certainly think pearl jam has a great album left in them. Vitalogy great, I doubt it. Eddie physically can't sing the way he used to even if everything was in place
"Great" is a quality comparison, though, not a sonic one. An album as great as Vitalogy made today wouldn't have to sound anything like that record, it would just be a matter of playing to their strengths now the same way they played to their strengths then.

There's no reason Ed couldn't find compelling ways to use what his instrument is now, rather than croak out low notes and fall flat on high ones. They'd just have to find a new sonic approach that serves whatever he replaces it with, and that takes commitment, risk, and confidence in your audience...three things I believe they lack entirely.
I would argue they took a little risk (h/t Warren Zevon) on Backspacer but Lightning Bolt is certainly about as risk-averse as it gets.

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Sat June 24, 2017 4:10 pm
by McParadigm
evenslow wrote:
McParadigm wrote:
stip wrote:The Corduroy outro fades out already, you know :)


I certainly think pearl jam has a great album left in them. Vitalogy great, I doubt it. Eddie physically can't sing the way he used to even if everything was in place
"Great" is a quality comparison, though, not a sonic one. An album as great as Vitalogy made today wouldn't have to sound anything like that record, it would just be a matter of playing to their strengths now the same way they played to their strengths then.

There's no reason Ed couldn't find compelling ways to use what his instrument is now, rather than croak out low notes and fall flat on high ones. They'd just have to find a new sonic approach that serves whatever he replaces it with, and that takes commitment, risk, and confidence in your audience...three things I believe they lack entirely.
I would argue they took a little risk (h/t Warren Zevon) on Backspacer but Lightning Bolt is certainly about as risk-averse as it gets.
Agreed. It's hard to tell from the way they talked about it at the time whether or not they actually recognized what a risk that record was, though.

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Sat June 24, 2017 10:30 pm
by Sgt. Crackpot
McParadigm wrote:
evenslow wrote:
McParadigm wrote:
stip wrote:The Corduroy outro fades out already, you know :)


I certainly think pearl jam has a great album left in them. Vitalogy great, I doubt it. Eddie physically can't sing the way he used to even if everything was in place
"Great" is a quality comparison, though, not a sonic one. An album as great as Vitalogy made today wouldn't have to sound anything like that record, it would just be a matter of playing to their strengths now the same way they played to their strengths then.

There's no reason Ed couldn't find compelling ways to use what his instrument is now, rather than croak out low notes and fall flat on high ones. They'd just have to find a new sonic approach that serves whatever he replaces it with, and that takes commitment, risk, and confidence in your audience...three things I believe they lack entirely.
I would argue they took a little risk (h/t Warren Zevon) on Backspacer but Lightning Bolt is certainly about as risk-averse as it gets.
Agreed. It's hard to tell from the way they talked about it at the time whether or not they actually recognized what a risk that record was, though.
So it begs the question, do we want a safe record this time or do we want PJ to take some risks?

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Sat June 24, 2017 11:30 pm
by wease
Sgt. Crackpot wrote:
McParadigm wrote:
evenslow wrote:
McParadigm wrote:
stip wrote:The Corduroy outro fades out already, you know :)


I certainly think pearl jam has a great album left in them. Vitalogy great, I doubt it. Eddie physically can't sing the way he used to even if everything was in place
"Great" is a quality comparison, though, not a sonic one. An album as great as Vitalogy made today wouldn't have to sound anything like that record, it would just be a matter of playing to their strengths now the same way they played to their strengths then.

There's no reason Ed couldn't find compelling ways to use what his instrument is now, rather than croak out low notes and fall flat on high ones. They'd just have to find a new sonic approach that serves whatever he replaces it with, and that takes commitment, risk, and confidence in your audience...three things I believe they lack entirely.
I would argue they took a little risk (h/t Warren Zevon) on Backspacer but Lightning Bolt is certainly about as risk-averse as it gets.
Agreed. It's hard to tell from the way they talked about it at the time whether or not they actually recognized what a risk that record was, though.
So it begs the question, do we want a safe record this time or do we want PJ to take some risks?
Risks all the way. They should get all the tunes Matt wrote for the Soundgarden album and record them. (Assuming they weren't finished and SG doesn't plan on releasing it).

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Sun June 25, 2017 1:39 am
by evenslow
I'm much more into the idea of a failed experiment than another paint-by-numbers.

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Sun June 25, 2017 5:17 pm
by McParadigm
evenslow wrote:I'm much more into the idea of a failed experiment than another paint-by-numbers.
100%

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Sun June 25, 2017 6:34 pm
by wease
McParadigm wrote:
evenslow wrote:I'm much more into the idea of a failed experiment than another paint-by-numbers.
100%
Yes, indeed

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Sun June 25, 2017 7:20 pm
by Superblood Wolfmoon
Lounge Lizard wrote:Angry punkish numbers; kickass riffs by Stone; hallucinogenic interludes and a completely nut-loose closer; a moody half ballad discussing the cost of endless life
I think PJ has tried this formula on pretty much every album. It's just that the songs aren't as good.

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Sun June 25, 2017 9:48 pm
by PHATJ
wease wrote:
McParadigm wrote:
evenslow wrote:I'm much more into the idea of a failed experiment than another paint-by-numbers.
100%
Yes, indeed
We've all said this a thousand times. :gomez:

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Mon June 26, 2017 6:11 pm
by surfndestroy
evenslow wrote:I'm much more into the idea of a failed experiment than another paint-by-numbers.
What is a failed experiment at this point? I'd call the last two albums failed experiments.

For all the talk of Vitalogy being a risk, I don't see that. They put a sure fire hit on it in Betterman and they had to know Immortality was going to go over well. The musical songs are all pretty straight forward and a continuation of Vs, same for the lyrics. Then there's the filler. Is it risky putting filler on an album where you have to feel you have two big hits?

When I see people wanting a Vitalogy 2.0 is what they really want something more raw and less polished in the production? With one or two far fetched ideas included even though the average person will just skip them?

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Mon June 26, 2017 6:19 pm
by Jorge
I like Vitalogy's musical songs

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Mon June 26, 2017 7:23 pm
by evenslow
surfndestroy wrote:
evenslow wrote:I'm much more into the idea of a failed experiment than another paint-by-numbers.
What is a failed experiment at this point?
It would be more akin to Binaural than Vitalogy probably. Just them stepping outside their mainstream-ish comfort zone to make space for the slightly artier material like "Nothing As It Seems" or "Sleight of Hand." Even something like "Of The Earth" I would be happy about b/c you can hear them trying for something bigger on it. A little ambition goes a long way.

Barring that, I think most people around here would just be happy with some production that doesn't sound like it was created in BOB's radio-rock lab.

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Mon June 26, 2017 7:29 pm
by Strat
evenslow wrote:
surfndestroy wrote:
evenslow wrote:I'm much more into the idea of a failed experiment than another paint-by-numbers.
What is a failed experiment at this point?
It would be more akin to Binaural than Vitalogy probably. Just them stepping outside their mainstream-ish comfort zone to make space for the slightly artier material like "Nothing As It Seems" or "Sleight of Hand." Even something like "Of The Earth" I would be happy about b/c you can hear them trying for something bigger on it. A little ambition goes a long way.

Barring that, I think most people around here would just be happy with some production that doesn't sound like it was created in BOB's radio-rock lab.
That and i hope for the non 2-3 punk numbers 1 big anthem, 1-3 semi anthems, and 2 ed solo track thing.

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Mon June 26, 2017 7:35 pm
by Sgt. Crackpot
Maybe they should make the next Tool album. That'd be a risk.

Re: Vitalogy 2.0

Posted: Mon June 26, 2017 7:46 pm
by evenslow
Strat wrote:
evenslow wrote:
surfndestroy wrote:
evenslow wrote:I'm much more into the idea of a failed experiment than another paint-by-numbers.
What is a failed experiment at this point?
It would be more akin to Binaural than Vitalogy probably. Just them stepping outside their mainstream-ish comfort zone to make space for the slightly artier material like "Nothing As It Seems" or "Sleight of Hand." Even something like "Of The Earth" I would be happy about b/c you can hear them trying for something bigger on it. A little ambition goes a long way.

Barring that, I think most people around here would just be happy with some production that doesn't sound like it was created in BOB's radio-rock lab.
That and i hope for the non 2-3 punk numbers 1 big anthem, 1-3 semi anthems, and 2 ed solo track thing.
AKA paint-by-numbers AKA the Lightning Bolt treatment.