Red Mosquito

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:I think that for better or worse, there would probably be no Pearl Jam without Ed. He's always been most of what represented Pearl Jam in my eyes. I love the rest of the other musicians but they're secondary; it's probably all I agree with BoB on. That of course means that if Ed seems to have dropped the ball, the whole thing is let down, whether that be vocally, musically or just in terms of leadership and organisation. I know he fixes songs and I know he "leads" the band in practical ways. That's not something that's about to change. But some of the decisions I felt he was influencing during the Backspacer era were scaring the shit out of me. If BoB is a problem, I'm fairly sure it's because Ed lets him be.

it's because the band let's him or possibly because he took over what were Ed's responsibilities for a while, i honestly have no idea.

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:I think that for better or worse, there would probably be no Pearl Jam without Ed. He's always been most of what represented Pearl Jam in my eyes. I love the rest of the other musicians but they're secondary; it's probably all I agree with BoB on. That of course means that if Ed seems to have dropped the ball, the whole thing is let down, whether that be vocally, musically or just in terms of leadership and organisation. I know he fixes songs and I know he "leads" the band in practical ways. That's not something that's about to change. But some of the decisions I felt he was influencing during the Backspacer era were scaring the shit out of me. If BoB is a problem, I'm fairly sure it's because Ed lets him be.

it's because the band let's him or possibly because he took over what were Ed's responsibilities for a while, i honestly have no idea.

Yup, no idea here either. Your last idea seems plausible. I don't like it, but the band seem happy enough about it so unless they throw a tantrum, we may as well just sit back and focus on the music...

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:I think that for better or worse, there would probably be no Pearl Jam without Ed. He's always been most of what represented Pearl Jam in my eyes. I love the rest of the other musicians but they're secondary; it's probably all I agree with BoB on. That of course means that if Ed seems to have dropped the ball, the whole thing is let down, whether that be vocally, musically or just in terms of leadership and organisation. I know he fixes songs and I know he "leads" the band in practical ways. That's not something that's about to change. But some of the decisions I felt he was influencing during the Backspacer era were scaring the shit out of me. If BoB is a problem, I'm fairly sure it's because Ed lets him be.

it's because the band let's him or possibly because he took over what were Ed's responsibilities for a while, i honestly have no idea.

Yup, no idea here either. Your last idea seems plausible. I don't like it, but the band seem happy enough about it so unless they throw a tantrum, we may as well just sit back and focus on the music...

Just going by what Stone said in the recent interviews they all have equal decision making power. It all comes down to having the balls to voice those opinions at the end of the day i believe. It also seems it took them this long because they didn't want B'OB to have too much control this time.

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:I think that for better or worse, there would probably be no Pearl Jam without Ed. He's always been most of what represented Pearl Jam in my eyes. I love the rest of the other musicians but they're secondary; it's probably all I agree with BoB on. That of course means that if Ed seems to have dropped the ball, the whole thing is let down, whether that be vocally, musically or just in terms of leadership and organisation. I know he fixes songs and I know he "leads" the band in practical ways. That's not something that's about to change. But some of the decisions I felt he was influencing during the Backspacer era were scaring the shit out of me. If BoB is a problem, I'm fairly sure it's because Ed lets him be.

it's because the band let's him or possibly because he took over what were Ed's responsibilities for a while, i honestly have no idea.

Yup, no idea here either. Your last idea seems plausible. I don't like it, but the band seem happy enough about it so unless they throw a tantrum, we may as well just sit back and focus on the music...

Just going by what Stone said in the recent interviews they all have equal decision making power. It all comes down to having the balls to voice those opinions at the end of the day i believe. It also seems it took them this long because they didn't want B'OB to have too much control this time.

That's the feeling I get as well. So that's good. Here's to a better foreseeable future...

theplatypus wrote:You know what this song needs

A big ol' saxophone solo

harmless wrote:I'm gutted that Ed didn't sound good on this one live, but I'm not at all surprised.

evenslow wrote:

theplatypus wrote:You know what this song needs

A big ol' saxophone solo

If only Ed had heard the sirens coming down Baker Street.

Noonie wrote:

evenslow wrote:

theplatypus wrote:You know what this song needs

A big ol' saxophone solo

If only Ed had heard the sirens coming down Baker Street.

Great now I have THAT stuck in my head.

harmless wrote:He's flat a lot of the time. It's not hard to tell.

harmless wrote:Choruses, including the falsetto parts. I found myself already recoiling (I won't say "cringing", don't worry stip) at the high notes, wondering whether he'd make the falsetto parts. It's not the worst thing ever and overall I felt that this was a good live debut. Certainly miles better than the Wrigley performances.

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote:He's flat a lot of the time. It's not hard to tell.

Really? Maybe I just have shitty laptop speakers but he sounded fine to me.