Page 5 of 10
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Thu October 31, 2013 10:32 pm
by stupidmop
Eh I dont think its anything more than what we've heard really. I bet ed and jeff can both be jackasses if they want to, and I bet dave was a bit of an annoying fuck. If they cared enough or liked dave enough to work things out they would have tried to, they waited around and let mike get his shit together instead of tossing him, presumably cause they liked him. I dont think stone was forced to fire him even though he really liked him, they just went for the easiest option. Plus as they keep telling us, back then communication within the band was low yadda yadda yadda
Did dave A overlap with the ticket master stuff? That was stone and jeffs thing and I think I remember reading that he really didnt care about that and just wanted to play, I may have made that up though.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 4:02 am
by breakerfall66
I read the Five Against One book written by Kim Neely. I thought it was a great read from a credible music journalist; it's funny how most of the 10C nation pans the book.
It's a shame that the PJ20 documentary film and film come off like a propaganda piece (thanks to Cameron Crowe.) The Foo Fighters, Metallica and other band documentaries blow PJ20 out of the water, unfortunately. Also, the vinyl could have been better for the soundtrack.
I feel that Pearl Jam missed out on a golden opportunity here!
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 10:56 am
by Mine
stupidmop wrote:Eh I dont think its anything more than what we've heard really. I bet ed and jeff can both be jackasses if they want to, and I bet dave was a bit of an annoying fuck. If they cared enough or liked dave enough to work things out they would have tried to, they waited around and let mike get his shit together instead of tossing him, presumably cause they liked him. I dont think stone was forced to fire him even though he really liked him, they just went for the easiest option. Plus as they keep telling us, back then communication within the band was low yadda yadda yadda
Did dave A overlap with the ticket master stuff? That was stone and jeffs thing and I think I remember reading that he really didnt care about that and just wanted to play, I may have made that up though.
Mine wrote:http://www.fivehorizons.com/archive/articles/spin801.shtml
O'BRIEN: And Dave Abbruzzese, for whatever reason, he and Eddie didn't get along.
ABBRUZZESE: I felt like there was a time when I had a good friendship with that guy. And then all of a sudden I didn't know him. But I understand—shit, if I was freaking out about stuff and having panic attacks, I can't even begin to fathom what the hell he was going through. I give it up to him just for surviving it.
CURTIS: There was definitely a difference in philosophies. Politics, pro-choice, anti-gun, respect for women, all of that stuff. The responsibilities of being a member of PJ and what message that sends.
AMENT: Dave was a different egg for sure. There were a lot of things, personality wise, where I didn't see eye to eye with him. He was more comfortable being a rock star than the rest of us. Partying, girls, cars. I don't know if anyone was in the same space. Also, with Dave, musically, when you'd say, "I want this to sound more like the Buzzcocks," I don't think he related to that at all. He was a technical guy, and we all played by feeling, or by seeing bands.
GOSSARD: It was the nature of how the politics worked in our band: It was up to me to say, "Hey, we tried, it's not working; time to move on." On a superficial level, it was a political struggle: For whatever reason his ability to communicate with Ed and Jeff was very stifled. I certainly don't think it was all Dave Abrruzzese's fault that it was stifled.
ABRUZZESE: Stone showed up as a man, and as a good friend. I hope to one day tell him how much I appreciate [that]. I had just soured. I didn't really agree with what was going on. I didn't agree with the Ticketmaster stuff at all. But I don't blame anyone or harbor any hard feelings. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't furious and hurt for a long time. But now I just wish there was more music from the band I was a part of.
I think that there was more to it than "Ed didn't like him" and i had the sense Stone was being overly diplomatic and was trying to be the nice guy but somehow i don't buy the story that he fired him because of other people in the band alone. I don't buy the notion that Stone was Ok with Dave going against what were the band's policies because Stone had a huge role in creating them. Jeff's quote is more revealing IMO.
This is why i don't buy into Stone's account completely. What is sort of a common knowledge between fans about the band dynamics of the time comes mostly from him and Jeff, Ed never really "defended" himself in public. What I'm trying to say is that in the past Stone wasn't shy of saying stupid shit in public that gave you the impression he was the good guy vs Ed the bad guy. Some old quotes make them sound like spoilt jerks with huge egos. I don't think the Dave A. situation was exempt from that. I doubt Stone would have fired Dave if it wasn't for Jeff or if he was ok with him being against the whole Ticketmaster thing.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 11:10 am
by stupidmop
The problem with the Kim Neely book (apart from it attempting to turn into some kinda character study on ed halfway) is that you only really get one band members perspective. The ed/Dave thing comes off as hilarious because you've got Dave going I'm a nice guuuyyy and ed popping up to fuck with him ever so often and apparently for no reason because he hasn't given his side of the story. And the other band members are kinda drifting in the peripheral, stone is barely existent. I think it feels like a better account cause there's more 'dirt' but I don't really think its good. Oh and its written rather awfully.
Plus its no better than the movie in terms of talking about the music or whatever, it starts off talking about the ten and vs sessions ok and then drifts off, I don't think it says anything about the vitalogy/ no code ones.
It's definitely a missed opportunity, and it actually put me off watching anything Cameron Crowe related ever, but I dunno if we'll ever really get a non surface level documentary/ book. I dunno if they'd be interested in rehashing old crap.
Though id be really interested in a 'how vitalogy/ no code was made' thing even if they glossed over the drummers and everything else all over again. Just tell me about the music bros.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 11:12 am
by Mine
stupidmop wrote:
Though id be really interested in a 'how vitalogy/ no code was made' thing even if they glossed over the drummers and everything else all over again. Just tell me about the music bros.
You'd think they're almost embarrassed by those albums.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 11:23 am
by stupidmop
Mine wrote:stupidmop wrote:Eh I dont think its anything more than what we've heard really. I bet ed and jeff can both be jackasses if they want to, and I bet dave was a bit of an annoying fuck. If they cared enough or liked dave enough to work things out they would have tried to, they waited around and let mike get his shit together instead of tossing him, presumably cause they liked him. I dont think stone was forced to fire him even though he really liked him, they just went for the easiest option. Plus as they keep telling us, back then communication within the band was low yadda yadda yadda
Did dave A overlap with the ticket master stuff? That was stone and jeffs thing and I think I remember reading that he really didnt care about that and just wanted to play, I may have made that up though.
Mine wrote:http://www.fivehorizons.com/archive/articles/spin801.shtml
O'BRIEN: And Dave Abbruzzese, for whatever reason, he and Eddie didn't get along.
ABBRUZZESE: I felt like there was a time when I had a good friendship with that guy. And then all of a sudden I didn't know him. But I understand—shit, if I was freaking out about stuff and having panic attacks, I can't even begin to fathom what the hell he was going through. I give it up to him just for surviving it.
CURTIS: There was definitely a difference in philosophies. Politics, pro-choice, anti-gun, respect for women, all of that stuff. The responsibilities of being a member of PJ and what message that sends.
AMENT: Dave was a different egg for sure. There were a lot of things, personality wise, where I didn't see eye to eye with him. He was more comfortable being a rock star than the rest of us. Partying, girls, cars. I don't know if anyone was in the same space. Also, with Dave, musically, when you'd say, "I want this to sound more like the Buzzcocks," I don't think he related to that at all. He was a technical guy, and we all played by feeling, or by seeing bands.
GOSSARD: It was the nature of how the politics worked in our band: It was up to me to say, "Hey, we tried, it's not working; time to move on." On a superficial level, it was a political struggle: For whatever reason his ability to communicate with Ed and Jeff was very stifled. I certainly don't think it was all Dave Abrruzzese's fault that it was stifled.
ABRUZZESE: Stone showed up as a man, and as a good friend. I hope to one day tell him how much I appreciate [that]. I had just soured. I didn't really agree with what was going on. I didn't agree with the Ticketmaster stuff at all. But I don't blame anyone or harbor any hard feelings. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't furious and hurt for a long time. But now I just wish there was more music from the band I was a part of.
I think that there was more to it than "Ed didn't like him" and i had the sense Stone was being overly diplomatic and was trying to be the nice guy but somehow i don't buy the story that he fired him because of other people in the band alone. I don't buy the notion that Stone was Ok with Dave going against what were the band's policies because Stone had a huge role in creating them. Jeff's quote is more revealing IMO.
This is why i don't buy into Stone's account completely. What is sort of a common knowledge between fans about the band dynamics of the time comes mostly from him and Jeff, Ed never really "defended" himself in public. What I'm trying to say is that in the past Stone wasn't shy of saying stupid shit in public that gave you the impression he was the good guy vs Ed the bad guy. Some old quotes make them sound like spoilt jerks with huge egos. I don't think the Dave A. situation was exempt from that. I doubt Stone would have fired Dave if it wasn't for Jeff or if he was ok with him being against the whole Ticketmaster thing.
I get the feeling he would have been willing to make things work if not for all the other crap. Hence them always saying it was Ed and Jeff. Who the hell knows though.
In thinking about how you'd get a 'proper' documentary out of these guys I just realised that these guys have got to be infuriating to talk to for that kind of interview. 'How did vitalogy come about?' 'Well we started with about 7 songs and then we got 5 or 6 more...'
Mine wrote:stupidmop wrote:
Though id be really interested in a 'how vitalogy/ no code was made' thing even if they glossed over the drummers and everything else all over again. Just tell me about the music bros.
You'd think they're almost embarrassed by those albums.
If they're embarrassed about any albums its binaural and riot act
Dumbasses.
Otherwise they never really talk about any of thier old albums so its hard to tell how they feel. Jeffs thing in that interview where he mentioned not liking it as much cause he was told what to play on a bunch was interesting, but thats all we've got.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 11:30 am
by Mine
stupidmop wrote:Mine wrote:stupidmop wrote:Eh I dont think its anything more than what we've heard really. I bet ed and jeff can both be jackasses if they want to, and I bet dave was a bit of an annoying fuck. If they cared enough or liked dave enough to work things out they would have tried to, they waited around and let mike get his shit together instead of tossing him, presumably cause they liked him. I dont think stone was forced to fire him even though he really liked him, they just went for the easiest option. Plus as they keep telling us, back then communication within the band was low yadda yadda yadda
Did dave A overlap with the ticket master stuff? That was stone and jeffs thing and I think I remember reading that he really didnt care about that and just wanted to play, I may have made that up though.
Mine wrote:http://www.fivehorizons.com/archive/articles/spin801.shtml
O'BRIEN: And Dave Abbruzzese, for whatever reason, he and Eddie didn't get along.
ABBRUZZESE: I felt like there was a time when I had a good friendship with that guy. And then all of a sudden I didn't know him. But I understand—shit, if I was freaking out about stuff and having panic attacks, I can't even begin to fathom what the hell he was going through. I give it up to him just for surviving it.
CURTIS: There was definitely a difference in philosophies. Politics, pro-choice, anti-gun, respect for women, all of that stuff. The responsibilities of being a member of PJ and what message that sends.
AMENT: Dave was a different egg for sure. There were a lot of things, personality wise, where I didn't see eye to eye with him. He was more comfortable being a rock star than the rest of us. Partying, girls, cars. I don't know if anyone was in the same space. Also, with Dave, musically, when you'd say, "I want this to sound more like the Buzzcocks," I don't think he related to that at all. He was a technical guy, and we all played by feeling, or by seeing bands.
GOSSARD: It was the nature of how the politics worked in our band: It was up to me to say, "Hey, we tried, it's not working; time to move on." On a superficial level, it was a political struggle: For whatever reason his ability to communicate with Ed and Jeff was very stifled. I certainly don't think it was all Dave Abrruzzese's fault that it was stifled.
ABRUZZESE: Stone showed up as a man, and as a good friend. I hope to one day tell him how much I appreciate [that]. I had just soured. I didn't really agree with what was going on. I didn't agree with the Ticketmaster stuff at all. But I don't blame anyone or harbor any hard feelings. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't furious and hurt for a long time. But now I just wish there was more music from the band I was a part of.
I think that there was more to it than "Ed didn't like him" and i had the sense Stone was being overly diplomatic and was trying to be the nice guy but somehow i don't buy the story that he fired him because of other people in the band alone. I don't buy the notion that Stone was Ok with Dave going against what were the band's policies because Stone had a huge role in creating them. Jeff's quote is more revealing IMO.
This is why i don't buy into Stone's account completely. What is sort of a common knowledge between fans about the band dynamics of the time comes mostly from him and Jeff, Ed never really "defended" himself in public. What I'm trying to say is that in the past Stone wasn't shy of saying stupid shit in public that gave you the impression he was the good guy vs Ed the bad guy. Some old quotes make them sound like spoilt jerks with huge egos. I don't think the Dave A. situation was exempt from that. I doubt Stone would have fired Dave if it wasn't for Jeff or if he was ok with him being against the whole Ticketmaster thing.
I get the feeling he would have been willing to make things work if not for all the other crap. Hence them always saying it was Ed and Jeff. Who the hell knows though.
In thinking about how you'd get a 'proper' documentary out of these guys I just realised that these guys have got to be infuriating to talk to for that kind of interview. 'How did vitalogy come about?' 'Well we started with about 7 songs and then we got 5 or 6 more...'
Mine wrote:stupidmop wrote:
Though id be really interested in a 'how vitalogy/ no code was made' thing even if they glossed over the drummers and everything else all over again. Just tell me about the music bros.
You'd think they're almost embarrassed by those albums.
If they're embarrassed about any albums its binaural and riot act
Dumbasses.
Otherwise they never really talk about any of thier old albums so its hard to tell how they feel. Jeffs thing in that interview where he mentioned not liking it as much cause he was told what to play on a bunch was interesting, but thats all we've got.
I think Stone was trying to make himself look like the nice guy in the same way you described Dave as doing and the fanbase embraced that. Remember Stone and Jeff broke Green River up because they wanted to be on a mayor label - just saying i don't think he was that nice/easy to work with.
Depends on how the question about Vitalogy is asked. If the premise is Vitalogy is a great album then it was all jammed out if not then it was a nightmare to write.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 11:52 am
by stupidmop
Maybe when ed said 'stone was the problem' that's what he was really telling us
It ended up being mostly eds fault because I think the media ran with the whole 'power play by psycho asshole lead singer' thing more than anything. And Dave saying stone was the only one man enough to talk to him lol.
And vitalogy yeah, I just meant that they always go for the mundane generic answer first.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 12:23 pm
by McParadigm
I'm stuck at a hotel and this movie was on last night. I watched like 25 minutes and, based on how they present the material that they DO cover, I'm kinda glad they glossed over the good records. The only way a decent exploration of the post-Vitalogy to ST era will ever exist is if fans make it.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 1:58 pm
by hbk
I just read the first 2 or 4 pages of U2BYU2 (Where each band member writes a few paragraphs about the band and their relationship with eachother) and it was already light years more informative than anything on PJ20...I look forward to reading this book even though I don't care much for U2!
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 3:03 pm
by dimejinky99
U2 by U2 is a brilliant book even of you aren't a fan. They go I depth about everything including the records. Well worth a read.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 3:33 pm
by Mine
With Pearl Jam it seems like every single song they recorded from Vitalogy to Riot Act was such a horrendous experience that they don't dare to touch the subject.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 5:56 pm
by stupidmop
Or very uneventful.
I wanna hear ed talk about binaural, I dont recall hearing/seeing him do so.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 5:58 pm
by VinylGuy
stupidmop wrote:Or very uneventful.
I wanna hear ed talk about binaural, I dont recall hearing/seeing him do so.
There is very little footage from those sessions.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 6:02 pm
by digster
The only things I've heard about Binaural from any of the band members is that none of them seem to have particularly fond memories about it.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 6:07 pm
by EJ
stupidmop wrote:Or very uneventful.
I wanna hear ed talk about binaural, I dont recall hearing/seeing him do so.
Ed's mentioned he had a bad case of writer's block during those sessions.
I bet Jeff was the only one in the band who felt good about that record when it was completed.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 6:13 pm
by digster
The other thing is that they have a different view on their records than anyone else, in the sense that the experience they had making it probably colors their view of the final product in a way it doesn't for listeners. We know now that the whole Binaural era was kind of a rough time for band members, and I'm sure the Roskilde experience has an affect on how they look back on it, even if it happened directly after the album's release.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 6:15 pm
by McParadigm
If the 33 1/3 series has taught us anything, its that the most insightful reflections on an album tend to come from not the people who made the record
A PJ documentary on Binaural would be excutiating beyond even the worst RM threads on the topic
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 6:16 pm
by stupidmop
VinylGuy wrote:stupidmop wrote:Or very uneventful.
I wanna hear ed talk about binaural, I dont recall hearing/seeing him do so.
There is very little footage from those sessions.
Yeah I think binaural and riot act are the ones we have the least info about. I dont think ive seen any actual footage from the sessions at all though?
Obviously im biased because its probably my favourite record of thiers, but they are some interesting songs, with some interesting choices used, and some of eds best songs/lyrics, I wish they'd talk about it more. Plus we jump from yield being the most 'collaborative' album to ed writing half the songs again if I recall, which is also kinda interesting.
EJ wrote:stupidmop wrote:Or very uneventful.
I wanna hear ed talk about binaural, I dont recall hearing/seeing him do so.
Ed's mentioned he had a bad case of writer's block during those sessions.
I bet Jeff was the only one in the band who felt good about that record when it was completed.
Writers block my ass. Those are some of his best songs
Maybe he needs writers block more often. Or maybe his version of writers block is just not going with the first lyrics that come to mind a la backspacer.
Re: Pearl jam Twenty (documentary)
Posted: Fri November 01, 2013 6:17 pm
by mray10
EJ wrote:stupidmop wrote:Or very uneventful.
I wanna hear ed talk about binaural, I dont recall hearing/seeing him do so.
Ed's mentioned he had a bad case of writer's block during those sessions.
I bet Jeff was the only one in the band who felt good about that record when it was completed.
I would be interested to hear them talk more specifically about why the chose Blake as a producer, and then sort of abandoned the concept, etc.
But in reality they had a lot of personal stuff going on at that time that probably stands out a lot more. Mike was having drug issues, Eddie relationship issues, Cameron was just doing his first record with them.
Plus, the tour that follows, Roskilde especially, seems to have spilled over in their momories. In interviews they talk about Roskilde and Binaural as if they're interchangeable, when that's not really the case.