Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:

Mine wrote:

McParadigm wrote:So the only people in this equation not thinking about Pearl Jam's songwriting very often is Pearl Jam.

My impression since s/t, and i vaguely remember debating it on the old boars, is that their songwriting in practice comes down to "something cool for the individual members to do in their little corners" rather than shaping the overall sound of the song with everything it comprises. This seems to find some confirmation in their describing their dynamics in the last years in the sense that "better communication" could be translated to "we get to do whatever we want and everybody else agrees more than they used to".

Or, "Nobody's invested in their songs enough to care what I play over them."

from the same interview

You can fight for things. You can have someone brush off something. I might brush off the end of a guitar solo, like, "Eh, I don't know. Maybe hit that one more time?" And Mike can tell me, "There's a direction to that, you just haven't seen it through 3-D glasses." Which means I need to give it a few more listens and see it through his viewpoint.

I think the 3D glasses are the issue. They need better 3d glasses.

"If I can just see it through his viewpoint, then it'll be a good song."

"If I can just see it through his viewpoint, then he won't be bitching about how miserable i made it for him"

I think you should appreciated how much better the communication is in the band though.

Mine wrote:"If I can just see it through his viewpoint, then he won't be bitching about how miserable i made it for him"

I think you should appreciated how much better the communication is in the band though.

You know, for a few years following the near-implosion, I can totally respect that need. They had reached a Beatlesque breaking point, and I can appreciate that Yield was a full band determination to be more "with" each other. I can even understand Binaural's abandoned results coming from the fact that they weren't prepared to face that kind of adversity in the studio, just yet.

But if you're doing that shit right, you shouldn't still have to tiptoe around your attempts to express your creative intentions fifteen years later. If they are still in a place where they can't occasionally say "Listen, this is what the fucking song is supposed to be, and your work is just not getting it there," or even "I think that one is garbage," then they're like a married couple that stayed together for the kids but had no plan. And everybody's experiencing just a dull, slow death of hope, because the only way the two stubborn idiots can stand each other is to avoid any confrontation and sneak out to have their various affairs in-between family outings, but boy aren't we doing the kids a solid I'm sure they don't even notice that anything's wrong.

I'm not sure where I stand on this. In some ways, you could argue that intra-band communication is improving. As a reference point, the first 2 albums were Stone led and then Vitalogy/No Code was an Ed show. As good as all of those albums were, I don't believe anyone in the band believes those were great years communication wise. Yield was a breakthrough from a full band perspective where all five members feel like they're more part of a unit. I think it's unique in that this is a band of 5 songwriters, so I think they'd have to work through alot to get to a place where it's totally equal.

From a pure playing perspective, vocals aside, I noticed a huge positive shift from 2005 onwards from the standpoint of the band playing together and locking into each other.

McParadigm wrote:

Mine wrote:"If I can just see it through his viewpoint, then he won't be bitching about how miserable i made it for him"

I think you should appreciated how much better the communication is in the band though.

You know, for a few years following the near-implosion, I can totally respect that need. They had reached a Beatlesque breaking point, and I can appreciate that Yield was a full band determination to be more "with" each other. I can even understand Binaural's abandoned results coming from the fact that they weren't prepared to face that kind of adversity in the studio, just yet.

But if you're doing that shit right, you shouldn't still have to tiptoe around your attempts to express your creative intentions fifteen years later. If they are still in a place where they can't occasionally say "Listen, this is what the fucking song is supposed to be, and your work is just not getting it there," or even "I think that one is garbage," then they're like a married couple that stayed together for the kids but had no plan. And everybody's experiencing just a dull, slow death of hope, because the only way the two stubborn idiots can stand each other is to avoid any confrontation and sneak out to have their various affairs in-between family outings, but boy aren't we doing the kids a solid I'm sure they don't even notice that anything's wrong.

I agree with all of that.
However i think they stand each other all right but their concepts of what a good song is aren't fully compatible and they're definitely stubborn.
I think the fact that a good part of the band is more than happy with what they're doing has some relevancy in the sense that they're likely the same people who's opinions prevail at the end of the day.

McParadigm wrote:

Mine wrote:"If I can just see it through his viewpoint, then he won't be bitching about how miserable i made it for him"

I think you should appreciated how much better the communication is in the band though.

You know, for a few years following the near-implosion, I can totally respect that need. They had reached a Beatlesque breaking point, and I can appreciate that Yield was a full band determination to be more "with" each other. I can even understand Binaural's abandoned results coming from the fact that they weren't prepared to face that kind of adversity in the studio, just yet.

But if you're doing that shit right, you shouldn't still have to tiptoe around your attempts to express your creative intentions fifteen years later. If they are still in a place where they can't occasionally say "Listen, this is what the fucking song is supposed to be, and your work is just not getting it there," or even "I think that one is garbage," then they're like a married couple that stayed together for the kids but had no plan. And everybody's experiencing just a dull, slow death of hope, because the only way the two stubborn idiots can stand each other is to avoid any confrontation and sneak out to have their various affairs in-between family outings, but boy aren't we doing the kids a solid I'm sure they don't even notice that anything's wrong.

I think it hits that wall sometimes, but this is very far from some sort of Mick and Keith splitting apart and just "doing it for the kids". These are guys that still live in the same city, still spend a solid chunk of each year together, and still write songs together. On the other hand, you have the old rock model of Mick and Keith, 2 guys who hate each other, don't live near each other and basically regroup and see each other for a short time every 5 years and the music totally reflecting that distance. The low points of REMs career also come to mind, where you have the band members living completely separate lives and creating their music in different silos, with the music coming off that way as well. I don't put PJ anywhere near that category. But, that said, Stone and Ed need to just get in a room together, share a bunk bed, and just hang for like a week solid. It's really hard for me to imagine them even hanging out.

McParadigm wrote:Equating the investment of time in the recording studio with songwriting is like saying you don't need to cook the pizza or try a new sauce because it already has cheese and pepperoni on it. It's about trying new things, seeing how small changes affect the song or how different parts and sounds change the impact. PJ still sticks to the Neil Young recording method, which...

A. Works for Neil because his stubborn dickishness, organic process, and volume of output ensure that idiosyncrasies will come to the fore

B. Is now further undermined by BoB's streamlining and the band's need for computer adjustments to the recorded final...changes which gut the organic, human element and kill the personality, leaving you with a record that sounds like a mishmash of old ideas run through a radio-friendly machine. A record that risks nothing, where every part on every song sounds like "well this is what's worked for me in the past, so..."

I have absolutely no problem with BoB from a the standpoint of him overseeing the actual performance of the songs. He grates on me when he intervenes in the actual songwriting. I think he gets great performances from the band members and he's the only one who really pushes Ed vocally. I even like the little layers he puts on. But when he tampers with the structure of a song, changes us up a verse, or adds an intro or something like that, his ego gets in the way.

Stone and Ed seem to be 2 people in the band who have the least issues working together at this point. Stone said Ed was the frontman who's the easiest to work with, Ed said Stone is his main reference in the band in the sense that is the guy who's judgement he trusts the most. It could be argued Stone puts more effort in his solo work because he doesn't want to be what Ed was for the band. Even when it comes down to the actual music i think what Stone does on Ed songs isn't much of an issue and i don't think Stone is disappointed in what LTRP turned out to be in the sense that i don't think that "idea" had more ambition than that.

"It sounds like Pearl Jam"

stip wrote:

Mine wrote:I think RM puts much more thought into PJ writing songs with the live shows in mind and what that means in practice than PJ does.

I think it's pretty clear rm puts as much time into resenting pearl jam as the pit does adoring them

Yep. This. Both boards drive me kinda nuts, but I feel like loathing both keeps the band fresh for me.

http://community.pearljam.com/discussio ... ook#latest

gardenparty wrote:http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/230784/ed-on-facebook#latest

Eddie Vedder poked me on facebook.

Lament wrote:Eddie Vedder poked me on facebook.

I'd let him poke me.

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:

Lament wrote:Eddie Vedder poked me on facebook.

I'd let him poke me.

Maybe in 1994, but not in 2014.

Which picture of Eddie art are you most likely to let poke you?

stip wrote:Which picture of Eddie art are you most likely to let poke you?

twitter christ

stip wrote:Which picture of Eddie art are you most likely to let poke you?

Googleway