Re: What is Each Album's Major Flaw?: Ten
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 1:53 pm
While Alive was the song that made me stop and want to pay attention to Pearl Jam, it didn't happen until later in 1993 for me, just a little time before Vs. was released. I had, of course, heard Jeremy and Even Flow, maybe Black as well. When I think of my initial exposure to TEN, it's almost always in tandem with Vs., and immediately, I much preferred Vs. This has evolved over time as live performances have muddied the differences, but Vs. Pearl Jam was my first Pearl Jam love.
To this day, any negative opinions I have of Ten are framed around how it compares to Vs. Both of these albums had massive widespread appeal, but there was something so much more refined with Vs. Ten has always felt simple to me, even though the songs are still today some of the best classic rock in a generation. They're mostly just '80's hard rock songs with a cool new voice laid over the top. The Seattle sound is there, but just barely. This is especially true with Stone's pre-Pearl Jam riffs, and most of the early b-sides and demos. Wash and Alone are exceptions to this, I guess.
Many of the TEN tracks are completely out of place when framed against the catalog, yet, these songs are probably more widely identified as Pearl Jam than any of the rest. Garden, Once, Why Go, Deep, Even Flow, Alive, all are really outliers for Pearl Jam, not representative. The songs written later in the Ten sessions, Jeremy, Black, Porch, Release, are a little closer to being indicative.
Similarly, TEN Eddie is really unlike any other version of him. It really is quite amazing the transformation he went through from the first style and demeanor that he carried, antics, anger, etc... to the introspective shell of late Vs through No Code. It's clear at this point that the early TEN Eddie, the crazy Eddie, the angry Eddie, was an act. It fit the times, but shy, inward Ed was the real him until he grew up around Yield and the '98 tour. The shyness that Cornell referred to in PJ20 when he first came up from San Diego is more real than climbing the lighting rigs and the angry screaming graawwlls. It's pretty impressive that he could both of these people then, yet somehow today, he is neither of these people.
Looking back 23 years later, Oceans stands out as the most interesting tune, as it clearly didn't fit with the rest of the style. It was a harbinger of things to come, certainly their first "experiment".
Major flaw on TEN... hmmm....
I don't think you can count the songwriting and style as a "flaw". It was who Stone and Jeff were at the time. I don't think Eddie's presence or behavior or demeanor can be counted as a flaw, either, it was this act that made Pearl Jam popular.
Song selection is a possible major flaw, leaving out Wash, Alone, SOLAT, Ledbetter, etc... but this could be said of almost every album through Riot Act or S/T. So, that doesn't really stand out for TEN.
So, for flaws with the album, I will go with over-vocalization and over-production. Pearl Jam should be served raw. We know this now, but it wasn't known at that point. And the style of the album production probably led directly to its popularity, so this is a tough "flaw" to be critical of. It was the perfect bridge between the '80s rock and the Seattle sound. Not quite either, but a little bit of both.
So, that leaves the one flaw that probably fits both my personal view, the long-term Pearl Jam career view, and any mainstream negative Pearl Jam opinion at that time - that would be Eddie's over-vocalization, the ooohs and aaaahs, the inaudible words, etc... The same thing that Adam Sandler poked fun at on SNL.
Over-vocalization is the major flaw for me. Just sing the damn song, young Eddie.
To this day, any negative opinions I have of Ten are framed around how it compares to Vs. Both of these albums had massive widespread appeal, but there was something so much more refined with Vs. Ten has always felt simple to me, even though the songs are still today some of the best classic rock in a generation. They're mostly just '80's hard rock songs with a cool new voice laid over the top. The Seattle sound is there, but just barely. This is especially true with Stone's pre-Pearl Jam riffs, and most of the early b-sides and demos. Wash and Alone are exceptions to this, I guess.
Many of the TEN tracks are completely out of place when framed against the catalog, yet, these songs are probably more widely identified as Pearl Jam than any of the rest. Garden, Once, Why Go, Deep, Even Flow, Alive, all are really outliers for Pearl Jam, not representative. The songs written later in the Ten sessions, Jeremy, Black, Porch, Release, are a little closer to being indicative.
Similarly, TEN Eddie is really unlike any other version of him. It really is quite amazing the transformation he went through from the first style and demeanor that he carried, antics, anger, etc... to the introspective shell of late Vs through No Code. It's clear at this point that the early TEN Eddie, the crazy Eddie, the angry Eddie, was an act. It fit the times, but shy, inward Ed was the real him until he grew up around Yield and the '98 tour. The shyness that Cornell referred to in PJ20 when he first came up from San Diego is more real than climbing the lighting rigs and the angry screaming graawwlls. It's pretty impressive that he could both of these people then, yet somehow today, he is neither of these people.
Looking back 23 years later, Oceans stands out as the most interesting tune, as it clearly didn't fit with the rest of the style. It was a harbinger of things to come, certainly their first "experiment".
Major flaw on TEN... hmmm....
I don't think you can count the songwriting and style as a "flaw". It was who Stone and Jeff were at the time. I don't think Eddie's presence or behavior or demeanor can be counted as a flaw, either, it was this act that made Pearl Jam popular.
Song selection is a possible major flaw, leaving out Wash, Alone, SOLAT, Ledbetter, etc... but this could be said of almost every album through Riot Act or S/T. So, that doesn't really stand out for TEN.
So, for flaws with the album, I will go with over-vocalization and over-production. Pearl Jam should be served raw. We know this now, but it wasn't known at that point. And the style of the album production probably led directly to its popularity, so this is a tough "flaw" to be critical of. It was the perfect bridge between the '80s rock and the Seattle sound. Not quite either, but a little bit of both.
So, that leaves the one flaw that probably fits both my personal view, the long-term Pearl Jam career view, and any mainstream negative Pearl Jam opinion at that time - that would be Eddie's over-vocalization, the ooohs and aaaahs, the inaudible words, etc... The same thing that Adam Sandler poked fun at on SNL.
Over-vocalization is the major flaw for me. Just sing the damn song, young Eddie.
