Page 14 of 16

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 10:51 pm
by Hypnos
dimejinky99 wrote:Could be from that film soundtrack..out of the furnace?
Its a shame that those never leaked.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 1:17 am
by 96583UP
MTV Unplugged Porch marker drawing re-staged by Lucasfilms to display: "my roddy, my choice"

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 12:21 pm
by Release_Me
Kevin Davis wrote:
stip wrote:Release Me's point is that the melodic underpinning of those early songs were stronger (i'll defer to people who know more about songwriting/construction to say whether or not that's true).
I don't know what kind of weight my opinion on the subject carries but for me it's pretty much the complete opposite, and is largely why the middle period remains so enjoyable to me while the early works become less and less interesting to me as time goes on. To me a lot of the early songs were very tuneless--Eddie would occasionally stumble across a compelling fragment but for the most part his melodies in those songs are in the same rambling, free-form language as the lyrics, which can lead to melodic brilliance if you're a master improviser, which Eddie is not. To my ears the melodies take on much more deliberate shapes around the time of ''Vitalogy,'' which not coincidentally is the first album where Eddie really takes the reins as the sole composer in the band. When he was composing vocal melodies over Stone's funk-rock riffs, he was pretty limited as to how he could employ chords and melody as cooperative songwriting devices (perhaps unsurprisingly, the most melodically accomplished song on ''Ten'' to my ears is ''Oceans,'' the music of which consists of a harmonically rich chord sequence as opposed to a single-note guitar riff repeated over and over). Starting around ''Vitalogy'' there is a lot more attention to the way harmonies within chords allow the vocal melodies to achieve different colors, different moods, presumably because the writing process is more malleable when you're the one in charge of both words and music and can bend and twist one as you feel it may suit the other. By the time they got back around to writing collaboratively again, Eddie's harmonic instincts (essentially, his understanding of the way certain melodies work as counterpoint to certain types of chords) were a lot stronger, and as a result he was composing tunes that to me felt a lot more like fully realized songs, as opposed to some of the early stuff which at times just seemed like riffs with vocals on top.

For my money songs like ''In Hiding'' and ''Parachutes'' represent the zenith of how Eddie was able to take another band member's arbitrary chord sequences and really make them into something truly musically compelling, in a compositional sense--like, if a jazz pianist were to perform unaccompanied versions of them, the bare bones of the compositions would hold up as something genuinely beautiful. Jeff and especially Stone both seem to me to really have had an inherent knack for this type of composition during this period--pretty much everything Stone wrote between ''Yield'' and ''Riot Act'' is full of clever, unexpected melodic and harmonic tensions, everything from the carnivalesque bridge in ''All Those Yesterdays'' to the after-hours melancholia of ''Fatal'' to the menacing dissonance of ''Rival.'' Matt's songs were rhythmic and mathematical as much as they were tuneful but I also think when you listen closely to them they possess a melodic density that is deliberate and consistent with the rest of material from those records.

For what it's worth, I don't necessarily equate ''catchy'' with ''melodic,'' though I concede they often correlate positively. The songs on ''Ten'' have big choruses with memorable, repeatable lines, and are sung with fervor; they are catchy. But take those superficial qualities away and I don't think any of those songs--''Alive,'' ''Jeremy,'' ''Even Flow''--offer anything that would stand up on strict melodic terms--i.e. as a combination of notes that really makes noteworthy use of the scale. There are many songs in the middle period which I would argue do just that.
BurtReynolds wrote:
stip wrote:with about 9 posts on topic
I didnt want to mention it, but yeah.
That's alright, the original topic isn't very interesting.
Appreciate your input. However, your analysis is based more on the technical aspects of melodies while my point is more from a general listener's perspective where being more technically complex or accomplished (which the middle period melodies maybe, another debate) doesn't necessarily make the melodies stand out anymore than something much simpler. Catchy does correlate strongly with melodic as far as I'm concerned but it's not the only factor. 'Glorified G' is very catchy, but I'd say it's far from being the best song melodically on that album. I don't think the qualities I'm talking about are superficial at all from my perspective because I actually don't like a lot of music which is just 'catchy'. There's something there which compels me to listen to a PJ anthem like 'Alive' or 'Even Flow'more than a song by another band which maybe even catchier. I guess a very simplistic way of saying it would be that if a song gets stuck in your head and doesn't lose it's appeal in the long term, it's what I would consider a great melody.

What you may be looking for in a melody might be different to me. I still prefer the first three albums and those earlier songs have lost none of their appeal (aside from some songs on Vs which were not that great melodically but just performed with a lot of intensity), while the middle period albums (including the songs you mentioned) don't carry anywhere near the same level of relistenability to me. What we can probably conclude is that Vitalogy seems to be their peak because two listeners with very different perspectives of what is good melodically (you and me) can agree that those were great songs and will remain great songs. Perhaps it was there where they found just the right mix between appealing to someone who doesn't care about how technically complex or intricate their songwriting is and someone who does focus on these things. You get the best of both worlds with Vitalogy.

In my opinion, they went a bit too much in the other direction with No Code and what followed. It took a lot of the joy out of listening to a PJ album for a listener like me, while it probably added something to your experience. I concede that it's possible that from S/T-LB, they probably went a bit too much in the opposite direction for someone with your perspective. However, being the selfish listener that I am, I can say I'd much rather they veer towards this 'extreme' because this is the sort of music I would want them to do if I had my wish! It's more in line with the band's strengths as far as I'm concerned, or what I consider to be this band's strengths.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 12:43 pm
by Release_Me
digster wrote:I think what KD is mentioning there goes back to the trouble I have comparing the first records and the most recent records in terms of melody, which Release Me seems to do. There was an inordinate amount of space given to Eddie on that first record; Stone, for example, absolutely composed the sparing chords of Black for a vocalist to fill in the blanks. As time went on (on Vitalogy but even on Vs.), the songs became much more tightly constructed, probably as they got more comfortable with each other as a band. Eventually, you've got something like LB, which is airtight melodically; I don't mean that it's good (or bad), but it's practically all sharp, clear melodies that fit in very structured songs. To be honesty, I'm not sure there's a PJ album farther apart melodically from LB than Ten. The latter couldn't feel more open in terms of melodies, while the former couldn't feel more closed.
My point isn't in comparing the melodic structure of the individual songs on these albums, but just to highlight that melody was a focal point in their earlier work and seems to me to have become a focal point once again. That's not to say the middle period was devoid of melody but their focus was more on creating layers within the songs, which might be compelling for some listeners but it was distracting from one of their major strengths for me. Ten was a very melodic rock album with a very big sound and songs that made big statements. LB is a tighter album but also relies a lot on melody to carry the songs. You'll find melodic parts in the bridges of MYM and MFS, which are two of the harder rocking songs on LB. Similarly, Getaway finds a nice balance. Sirens is just about the biggest statement on the album and probably the most Ed-centric song they've done in a long time. Infallible is the major 'experiment' on LB in my opinion and even it has a big sounding chorus which has in fact been criticised for being too 'poppy'. If this was on No Code, they wouldn't be bothered about the chorus being big or catchy, they'd be too busy creating layers. That might be exciting for some but I much prefer the balance displayed here.

I feel Ed has more space to shine on the newer records than he did on many of the middle period records. That said, his vocal approach has also changed from S/T onwards probably because of the nature of the songs they were trying to make.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 5:18 pm
by Coach
A few random thoughts after reading the last few pages....

* I can still listen to songs like Even Flow and Jeremy....Even Flow's funk, coupled with McCready's 'melt your face' guitar work never grows old for this listener. I know it's a popular piss break tune among some, and generally speaking, I think that's only because it's been overplayed in the live setting. The best thing they could do is retire the song for a few tours and bring it back.

* Not sure I understand the praise for In Hiding...to me that singing chorus sounds a lot like "Lightning Boollllltttttttt" "I'm in hiiiiiidiiinnnng, oh yeah."

* Yet, I would still nominate Kevin Davis for MVP of PJ Chat, if there was such an award. KD could probably save the board.

* I wonder what a re-imagined MTV Unplugged performance of Ten in 2014 would sound like....e.g. "New Jeremy" and a few other classics "reset," sped up, slowed down, stripped down to accommodate Vedder's current voice.

* I always thought that Ed was great with improv, especially the Daughter tags early on. I guess you could argue some of that was planned, but still....

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 7:08 pm
by stip
coach, go vote in the REM tournament.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 1:05 am
by Coach
stip wrote:coach, go vote in the REM tournament.
shit, I wish I had entered that...I'll vote now.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 7:46 am
by Release_Me
This song now reminds me of 3 different songs. UK obviously, but also No Ceiling and Let It Ride. End up humming parts of those after listening to this on repeat. I think it's performed more intensely than either of those but this is just judging from a substandard recording and without having any idea what the lyrics are. Could be interesting if it gets fleshed out.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 9:10 am
by dimejinky99
This sounds like he could just be making it up on the spot..

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 2:39 pm
by Release_Me
Could be as far as the lyrics are concerned. I can make out only a few actual words.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 4:29 pm
by Coach
stip wrote:coach, go vote in the REM tournament.
I voted. Meant to do that last night, but real life got in the way.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 9:58 pm
by Kevin Davis
Coach wrote:* Yet, I would still nominate Kevin Davis for MVP of PJ Chat, if there was such an award. KD could probably save the board.
Aw, thanks Coach. This takes away some of the sting of being told by Bloomsbury Publishing that they weren't going to let me write a book on Taylor Swift.

Anyway, I was thinking mainly the verses and pre-choruses of ''In Hiding''--I love the way the vocal melody intertwines with the guitar melody, all those suspended 4th chords picked out by Stone. Combined I think they add up to a beautiful composition, two perfectly cooperative parts that really make the most of their simplicity. I would agree that the chorus is an anticlimax of sorts, from a compositional standpoint, though when Eddie's voice was in better shape there was some power in that reaching.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 11:43 pm
by Coach
Kevin Davis wrote:
Coach wrote:* Yet, I would still nominate Kevin Davis for MVP of PJ Chat, if there was such an award. KD could probably save the board.
Aw, thanks Coach. This takes away some of the sting of being told by Bloomsbury Publishing that they weren't going to let me write a book on Taylor Swift.

Anyway, I was thinking mainly the verses and pre-choruses of ''In Hiding''--I love the way the vocal melody intertwines with the guitar melody, all those suspended 4th chords picked out by Stone. Combined I think they add up to a beautiful composition, two perfectly cooperative parts that really make the most of their simplicity. I would agree that the chorus is an anticlimax of sorts, from a compositional standpoint, though when Eddie's voice was in better shape there was some power in that reaching.
Yeah, I've always enjoyed everything about In Hiding, except the chorus. It's always a letdown, unless I "try" to like it.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 11:31 am
by McParadigm
I always saw that chorus as just something to juxtapose the verses with...a step away that helps them stand out for what they are. The verses are sparse and grooving, the chorus is big and filled out; the verses have a bouncing and playful vocal, the chorus is exceedingly simple.

Whatever chorus they might have put there, it would have needed to be those things in order for the verses to sell.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 11:40 am
by E.H. Ruddock
You just wanted to say juxtapose

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 12:11 pm
by Release_Me
I've always felt the chorus was the best part of In Hiding. :D

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 12:19 pm
by Release_Me
I just realised I was on 599 posts so this is number 600. :)

Also, I'm really liking Ed's singing in this song. Would be nice to get some lyrics because he's obviously very into whatever it is he's singing.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 12:20 pm
by Got Some
E.H. Ruddock wrote:You just wanted to say juxtapose
X2

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 1:04 pm
by Thejambi
I'll gladly take this direction over the recent Vedder dreck of the past few years.

Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)

Posted: Fri May 16, 2014 1:26 pm
by Release_Me
I agree with Thejambi.

I think a lot of Ed's recent solo work lacks that something extra which would really put his stamp on the songs. They're pretty much songs anyone with a baritone could have sung just as well. He rarely sings with this sort of conviction where you actually feel he's emotionally invested in the song. I've always found Ed compelling because he could make me feel a whole range of emotions, even when singing simple lines. The way he emphasised simple words like 'be' or 'need', or just a trademark Ed growl at the right time would give me chills. This song has some of those qualities in his delivery. It's a simple song but sung passionately. The quieter parts convey a sense of melancholy and then as the song picks up, you get a sense of defiance which becomes stronger and stronger by the end. This is without knowing what the hell he's actually singing. Hell, he could be singing baba black sheep for all I care as long as he sounds this involved.