Red Mosquito

harmless wrote:The reason Chud be smiling known to him.

let there be no misconception, this guy's collected.

Honestly, isn't the most likely scenario is that neither PJ nor BOB are at the top of their game any more?

They both have back catalogs of work that are stunning and undeniable. They worked together in their collective primes to create a truly landmark, timeless record (Vitalogy), as well as three other outstanding albums (Vs., No Code, Yield). Once upon a time they obviously both brought out the best in each other. BOB's career trajectory has undoubtedly slipped in the 2000's, almost concurrent with Pearl Jam's. It's very plausible that they're both equally responsible for bringing out the flaws in the other entity at this point. I don't believe that a different producer would have made Backspacer significantly better, nor do I believe that BOB would have done a significantly better production job if he was given a better slate of songs (case in point, Magic).

The vast majority of BO'B's albums have been nicely produced, even into the 00s.

Lament wrote:Honestly, isn't the most likely scenario is that neither PJ nor BOB are at the top of their game any more?

They both have back catalogs of work that are stunning and undeniable. They worked together in their collective primes to create a truly landmark, timeless record (Vitalogy), as well as three other outstanding albums (Vs., No Code, Yield). Once upon a time they obviously both brought out the best in each other. BOB's career trajectory has undoubtedly slipped in the 2000's, almost concurrent with Pearl Jam's. It's very plausible that they're both equally responsible for bringing out the flaws in the other entity at this point. I don't believe that a different producer would have made Backspacer significantly better, nor do I believe that BOB would have done a significantly better production job if he was given a better slate of songs (case in point, Magic).

I don't think either know what they are doing at this point. I am fully open and willing to have LB stroke some long hard ear boners and prove me wrong though.

And I think BO'B's intervention on so many songs on Backspacer made them considerably less interesting. The band has said that they use to say no to a lot of BO'B's advice. That's probably what made them great albums. I'd like to know how many other more recent bands are saying no to BO'B and making better albums for it.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

melonhead4 wrote:

scrub12 wrote:BOB did the last Gaslight Anthem album, no? I love that album, but I know next to nothing about mixing and what you guys are talking about.

BOB is def a great producer and I guess you can only be as good and the music you get handed

Unless you can have a hand in making that music better, right?

Yes to an extent, but a band isnt going to let their producer rewrite all the music they wrote and worked hard on...Take a band like PJ who are considered to be by many a great band, they could go into a studio with new material press record and make a good rock record without the help of any producer....Then you take a band like Maroon 5, even if Jesus produced the record it would still be shite, because their music sucks.....sorry to any M5 fans.....A good producer can def make a good album sound great but they cant make a sh1tty album sound good ...IMO

harmless wrote:And I think BO'B's intervention on so many songs on Backspacer made them considerably less interesting. The band has said that they use to say no to a lot of BO'B's advice. That's probably what made them great albums. I'd like to know how many other more recent bands are saying no to BO'B and making better albums for it.

14

melonhead4 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

melonhead4 wrote:

scrub12 wrote:BOB did the last Gaslight Anthem album, no? I love that album, but I know next to nothing about mixing and what you guys are talking about.

BOB is def a great producer and I guess you can only be as good and the music you get handed

Unless you can have a hand in making that music better, right?

Yes to an extent, but a band isnt going to let their producer rewrite all the music they wrote and worked hard on...Take a band like PJ who are considered to be by many a great band, they could go into a studio with new material press record and make a good rock record without the help of any producer....Then you take a band like Maroon 5, even if Jesus produced the record it would still be shite, because their music sucks.....sorry to any M5 fans.....A good producer can def make a good album sound great but they cant make a sh1tty album sound good ...IMO

But in that video, BO'B insisted that people needed to come to him with unfinished ideas so that he could stick his oar into the composition process.

harmless wrote:[
But in that video, BO'B insisted that people needed to come to him with unfinished ideas so that he could stick his oar into the composition process.

I havent watched said video but if thats what he insists then he needs to be replaced or get writing credits....

Heathen wrote:

harmless wrote:And I think BO'B's intervention on so many songs on Backspacer made them considerably less interesting. The band has said that they use to say no to a lot of BO'B's advice. That's probably what made them great albums. I'd like to know how many other more recent bands are saying no to BO'B and making better albums for it.

14

Agreed on Backspacer, i think its a good record but they couldve jammed out more on Johnny Guitar and if he was responsible for Speed of Sound, he should be tarred and feathered...IMO Speed of Sound has some of Eddies best lyrics in awhile, the demo version beautiful..

melonhead4 wrote:

Heathen wrote:

harmless wrote:And I think BO'B's intervention on so many songs on Backspacer made them considerably less interesting. The band has said that they use to say no to a lot of BO'B's advice. That's probably what made them great albums. I'd like to know how many other more recent bands are saying no to BO'B and making better albums for it.

14

Agreed on Backspacer, i think its a good record but they couldve jammed out more on Johnny Guitar and if he was responsible for Speed of Sound, he should be tarred and feathered...IMO Speed of Sound has some of Eddies best lyrics in awhile, the demo version beautiful..

That soundcheck version at Wrigley was solid as well. Had BOB not producer-fucked that song to Hell and back, it'd by far be my favorite on Backspacer

harmless wrote:The band has said that they use to say no to a lot of BO'B's advice. That's probably what made them great albums. I'd like to know how many other more recent bands are saying no to BO'B and making better albums for it.

But isn't it entirely possible that they were saying no because they had a much clearer, stronger vision of what they wanted each album to be, and now they're going into the studio less certain than they were from 1993-1998? I know they tossed around catch-phrases for what they wanted Backspacer to be ("poppier," "more immediate," "new wave-y"), but honestly those don't strike me as really specific ideas for what an album should be.

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:The band has said that they use to say no to a lot of BO'B's advice. That's probably what made them great albums. I'd like to know how many other more recent bands are saying no to BO'B and making better albums for it.

But isn't it entirely possible that they were saying no because they had a much clearer, stronger vision of what they wanted each album to be, and now they're going into the studio less certain than they were from 1993-1998? I know they tossed around catch-phrases for what they wanted Backspacer to be ("poppier," "more immediate," "new wave-y"), but honestly those don't strike me as really specific ideas for what an album should be.

Actually yes, that's entirely possible. The way they talk about their music now is vague to the point of laughable.

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:The band has said that they use to say no to a lot of BO'B's advice. That's probably what made them great albums. I'd like to know how many other more recent bands are saying no to BO'B and making better albums for it.

But isn't it entirely possible that they were saying no because they had a much clearer, stronger vision of what they wanted each album to be, and now they're going into the studio less certain than they were from 1993-1998? I know they tossed around catch-phrases for what they wanted Backspacer to be ("poppier," "more immediate," "new wave-y"), but honestly those don't strike me as really specific ideas for what an album should be.

This....and you have to admit, us PJ fans are spoiled....We complain about BS and Self titled, those albums are considered by alot of people PJ worst records, but they are better than alot of bands best efforts....

melonhead4 wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:The band has said that they use to say no to a lot of BO'B's advice. That's probably what made them great albums. I'd like to know how many other more recent bands are saying no to BO'B and making better albums for it.

But isn't it entirely possible that they were saying no because they had a much clearer, stronger vision of what they wanted each album to be, and now they're going into the studio less certain than they were from 1993-1998? I know they tossed around catch-phrases for what they wanted Backspacer to be ("poppier," "more immediate," "new wave-y"), but honestly those don't strike me as really specific ideas for what an album should be.

This....and you have to admit, us PJ fans are spoiled....We complain about BS and Self titled, those albums are considered by alot of people PJ worst records, but they are better than alot of bands best efforts....

Shitty bands maybe.

Thejambi wrote:

melonhead4 wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:The band has said that they use to say no to a lot of BO'B's advice. That's probably what made them great albums. I'd like to know how many other more recent bands are saying no to BO'B and making better albums for it.

But isn't it entirely possible that they were saying no because they had a much clearer, stronger vision of what they wanted each album to be, and now they're going into the studio less certain than they were from 1993-1998? I know they tossed around catch-phrases for what they wanted Backspacer to be ("poppier," "more immediate," "new wave-y"), but honestly those don't strike me as really specific ideas for what an album should be.

This....and you have to admit, us PJ fans are spoiled....We complain about BS and Self titled, those albums are considered by alot of people PJ worst records, but they are better than alot of bands best efforts....

Shitty bands maybe.

Good ones too

stip wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

melonhead4 wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:The band has said that they use to say no to a lot of BO'B's advice. That's probably what made them great albums. I'd like to know how many other more recent bands are saying no to BO'B and making better albums for it.

But isn't it entirely possible that they were saying no because they had a much clearer, stronger vision of what they wanted each album to be, and now they're going into the studio less certain than they were from 1993-1998? I know they tossed around catch-phrases for what they wanted Backspacer to be ("poppier," "more immediate," "new wave-y"), but honestly those don't strike me as really specific ideas for what an album should be.

This....and you have to admit, us PJ fans are spoiled....We complain about BS and Self titled, those albums are considered by alot of people PJ worst records, but they are better than alot of bands best efforts....

Shitty bands maybe.

Good ones too

I'm with Stip and Lament on this one!

Rangi Guy wrote:

stip wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

melonhead4 wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:The band has said that they use to say no to a lot of BO'B's advice. That's probably what made them great albums. I'd like to know how many other more recent bands are saying no to BO'B and making better albums for it.

But isn't it entirely possible that they were saying no because they had a much clearer, stronger vision of what they wanted each album to be, and now they're going into the studio less certain than they were from 1993-1998? I know they tossed around catch-phrases for what they wanted Backspacer to be ("poppier," "more immediate," "new wave-y"), but honestly those don't strike me as really specific ideas for what an album should be.

This....and you have to admit, us PJ fans are spoiled....We complain about BS and Self titled, those albums are considered by alot of people PJ worst records, but they are better than alot of bands best efforts....

Shitty bands maybe.

Good ones too

I'm with Stip and Lament on this one!

Reality check time. Name one good band who's best album is worse than Backspacer. And if their best album is worse than Backspacer, how in the world are you ranking them as a good band?

Being charitable, I would say that Backspacer is Pearl Jam's Zoorapa. Except Zooropa makes more sense in it's context. Both are relaxed, have fun albums. But Zooropa has the context of being made mid-tour and being the logicial extension of putting out a fun album that is a musical extension of and shortly after a very serious, career changing album. Backspacer is that album minus all the context that would make it relevent and/or more enjoyable.

surfndestroy wrote:

Rangi Guy wrote:

stip wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

melonhead4 wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:The band has said that they use to say no to a lot of BO'B's advice. That's probably what made them great albums. I'd like to know how many other more recent bands are saying no to BO'B and making better albums for it.

But isn't it entirely possible that they were saying no because they had a much clearer, stronger vision of what they wanted each album to be, and now they're going into the studio less certain than they were from 1993-1998? I know they tossed around catch-phrases for what they wanted Backspacer to be ("poppier," "more immediate," "new wave-y"), but honestly those don't strike me as really specific ideas for what an album should be.

This....and you have to admit, us PJ fans are spoiled....We complain about BS and Self titled, those albums are considered by alot of people PJ worst records, but they are better than alot of bands best efforts....

Shitty bands maybe.

Good ones too

I'm with Stip and Lament on this one!

Reality check time. Name one good band who's best album is worse than Backspacer. And if their best album is worse than Backspacer, how in the world are you ranking them as a good band?

Being charitable, I would say that Backspacer is Pearl Jam's Zoorapa. Except Zooropa makes more sense in it's context. Both are relaxed, have fun albums. But Zooropa has the context of being made mid-tour and being the logicial extension of putting out a fun album that is a musical extension of and shortly after a very serious, career changing album. Backspacer is that album minus all the context that would make it relevent and/or more enjoyable.

Reality Check time!

okay, reality check. The following are bands/artists I like a lot but prefer backspacer to all of their output

Beck
Soundgarden
Bruce Springsteen
Counting Crows
Bright Eyes
Ani DiFranco
Fiona Apple
Dresden Dolls
Rage Against the Machine
Stone Temple Pilots
The White Stripes

stip wrote:prefer

Prefer is a long ways from better. There are lots of good albums I don't like. But I'm not going to think that some album that I think is harshly underrated is actually better than the best output by any of those bands you listed. I prefer cats singing christmas carols to Tom Waits but I'm never going to say it's better.