Red Mosquito

Mine wrote:

digster wrote:To be honest, I think a lot of the arrangement issues could be cured if Ed didn't necessarily play on the songs he writes. It'd free up more space for arrangements, and though he's a good guitar player, his tone live has been shitty for years now. There's plenty of guys (Bono, Springsteen at times) who write songs that they don't necessarily play on live. That idea wouldn't be without exception; some songs, Corduroy or Insignificance for example, I think can benefit from three guitars onstage.

I don't think this is a strong point generally. I think 3 guitars can work just fine together again it depends on the arrangement. To go back at my point if whoever is writing the arrangement isn't particularly talented is going to be a mess of guitars fighting with each other. I don't think this has been an issue with Ed's guitar heavy songs up to Avocado. If anything those parts are to simplistic especially for a guitar player but i think it's a stylistic choice to write the arrangements in this way rather than an inability to do otherwise. Roughly he layered more simple parts rather than having a big riff as the focus.

The problem being that the arrangements are what is letting most of these songs down. I think this is an interesting point. I'm gonna go listen to that show they did without Stone in like 02 or 04 and see whether any of the songs benefit from being stripped down to only 2 guitars. Will report back.

Mine wrote:

hlniv wrote:
Where Ed is much less talented is the leadership category. Pearl Jam has always struggled with direction and organization, and I think that is where Ed has failed more than anything.

Leadership isn't something he could have realistically done any different with this band unless Stone and Jeff left.

Incorrect.

A good leader knows how to motivate and unify his team, and is responsible for doing it. It may have been choppy for the first few years for various reasons, but by 1997 or so, the band "dynamic" certainly was stable enough for an effective leader to have driven the group to new heights. I think through 2003, the clear direction was to continue to record in new ways and tour on a consistent basis, and it was all done well.

Since then, however, the "leader" that the group has needed hasn't existed. Everyone has been doing their own thing for the most part, and whether that is by design or not, it has led to a de-centralized organization without clear direction. It's like they just sort of get together when it is convenient and bang out some tunes. Having BoB make so many decisions is another symptom of this. If Ed had a real focus to the PJ organization and had he provided the leadership that is missing, I think the last ten years of Pearl Jam would have been much, much different.

Now, maybe this all they want it to be at this point, and the group decided that long ago. But i doubt that proceeding without a leader was a conscious choice. I believe between Ed and Bruce, leadership is the critical difference. Of course, Pearl Jam is a band, Bruce is an individual artist (sort of), so maybe it's apples and oranges and you can't compare effectively.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Stone should release an album where he performs Pearl Jam songs he authored in the way he imagined them.

Let's get this done

It never made much sense, all the focus on who's in control. They made their two best records (Vitalogy and Yield) on completely different sides of the spectrum. I don't think this band would be better now if Ed was more in control or less (although it seems like it's pretty much his ship to steer). It's more likely that they suck more now because they've been a band for almost 25 years and are running out of gas.

digster wrote:It never made much sense, all the focus on who's in control. They made their two best records (Vitalogy and Yield) on completely different sides of the spectrum. I don't think this band would be better now if Ed was more in control or less (although it seems like it's pretty much his ship to steer). It's more likely that they suck more now because they've been a band for almost 25 years and are running out of gas.

This. That and their priorities in life have changed.

digster wrote:It never made much sense, all the focus on who's in control. They made their two best records (Vitalogy and Yield) on completely different sides of the spectrum. I don't think this band would be better now if Ed was more in control or less (although it seems like it's pretty much his ship to steer). It's more likely that they suck more now because they've been a band for almost 25 years and are running out of gas.

The truth, folks.

Mine wrote:

digster wrote:To be honest, I think a lot of the arrangement issues could be cured if Ed didn't necessarily play on the songs he writes. It'd free up more space for arrangements, and though he's a good guitar player, his tone live has been shitty for years now. There's plenty of guys (Bono, Springsteen at times) who write songs that they don't necessarily play on live. That idea wouldn't be without exception; some songs, Corduroy or Insignificance for example, I think can benefit from three guitars onstage.

I don't think this is a strong point generally. I think 3 guitars can work just fine together again it depends on the arrangement. To go back at my point if whoever is writing the arrangement isn't particularly talented is going to be a mess of guitars fighting with each other. I don't think this has been an issue with Ed's guitar heavy songs up to Avocado. If anything those parts are to simplistic especially for a guitar player but i think it's a stylistic choice to write the arrangements in this way rather than an inability to do otherwise. Roughly he layered more simple parts rather than having a big riff as the focus.

What I'm saying doesn't really have much to do with simplicity or complexity. To go back to Unthought Known; it's a very simple part but it takes up so much room that the song sounds at best cluttered and at worst mushy. I agree that 3 guitars depend on arrangement, and if more often than not adding that third guitar is to the song's detriment, maybe don't add it.

To be honest, I think this would be a cure to their live sound more than studio. The fact that overall they write worse songs now is a way bigger problem now than what they're doing with 3 guitars as opposed to 2.

hlniv wrote:

Mine wrote:

hlniv wrote:
Where Ed is much less talented is the leadership category. Pearl Jam has always struggled with direction and organization, and I think that is where Ed has failed more than anything.

Leadership isn't something he could have realistically done any different with this band unless Stone and Jeff left.

Incorrect.

A good leader knows how to motivate and unify his team, and is responsible for doing it. It may have been choppy for the first few years for various reasons, but by 1997 or so, the band "dynamic" certainly was stable enough for an effective leader to have driven the group to new heights. I think through 2003, the clear direction was to continue to record in new ways and tour on a consistent basis, and it was all done well.

Since then, however, the "leader" that the group has needed hasn't existed. Everyone has been doing their own thing for the most part, and whether that is by design or not, it has led to a de-centralized organization without clear direction. It's like they just sort of get together when it is convenient and bang out some tunes. Having BoB make so many decisions is another symptom of this. If Ed had a real focus to the PJ organization and had he provided the leadership that is missing, I think the last ten years of Pearl Jam would have been much, much different.

Now, maybe this all they want it to be at this point, and the group decided that long ago. But i doubt that proceeding without a leader was a conscious choice. I believe between Ed and Bruce, leadership is the critical difference. Of course, Pearl Jam is a band, Bruce is an individual artist (sort of), so maybe it's apples and oranges and you can't compare effectively.

I agree with you but i think the way the dynamic ended up being was a compromise that allowed the band to survive.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

digster wrote:It never made much sense, all the focus on who's in control. They made their two best records (Vitalogy and Yield) on completely different sides of the spectrum. I don't think this band would be better now if Ed was more in control or less (although it seems like it's pretty much his ship to steer). It's more likely that they suck more now because they've been a band for almost 25 years and are running out of gas.

This. That and their priorities in life have changed.

I think the biggest issue is that now PJ is a commodity for them, they get together every so often to make music in little spurts, and whatever comes out, comes out. I'd rather they took a complete break from the road for a year and all got in a studio to make music because they want to, rather than to have something to punt out to the masses to enable them to go on another money spinning trip round the globe. And by the globe, I mean the 5 places they actually like to play.

digster wrote:It never made much sense, all the focus on who's in control. They made their two best records (Vitalogy and Yield) on completely different sides of the spectrum. I don't think this band would be better now if Ed was more in control or less (although it seems like it's pretty much his ship to steer). It's more likely that they suck more now because they've been a band for almost 25 years and are running out of gas.

Yield isn't one of their best albums. It seems like it's even less of a fan favourite it was a couple of years ago.

hlniv wrote:

Mine wrote:

hlniv wrote:
Where Ed is much less talented is the leadership category. Pearl Jam has always struggled with direction and organization, and I think that is where Ed has failed more than anything.

Leadership isn't something he could have realistically done any different with this band unless Stone and Jeff left.

Incorrect.

A good leader knows how to motivate and unify his team, and is responsible for doing it. It may have been choppy for the first few years for various reasons, but by 1997 or so, the band "dynamic" certainly was stable enough for an effective leader to have driven the group to new heights. I think through 2003, the clear direction was to continue to record in new ways and tour on a consistent basis, and it was all done well.

Since then, however, the "leader" that the group has needed hasn't existed. Everyone has been doing their own thing for the most part, and whether that is by design or not, it has led to a de-centralized organization without clear direction. It's like they just sort of get together when it is convenient and bang out some tunes. Having BoB make so many decisions is another symptom of this. If Ed had a real focus to the PJ organization and had he provided the leadership that is missing, I think the last ten years of Pearl Jam would have been much, much different.

Now, maybe this all they want it to be at this point, and the group decided that long ago. But i doubt that proceeding without a leader was a conscious choice. I believe between Ed and Bruce, leadership is the critical difference. Of course, Pearl Jam is a band, Bruce is an individual artist (sort of), so maybe it's apples and oranges and you can't compare effectively.

I don't think stone and Jeff just want to be eddies 'team' to lead around though.

hlniv wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Stone should release an album where he performs Pearl Jam songs he authored in the way he imagined them.

Let's get this done

The answer is Plato

Dead man walking around

Stiinnkkyy freenncchh cheeeessseeee

RemusLillian wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

digster wrote:It never made much sense, all the focus on who's in control. They made their two best records (Vitalogy and Yield) on completely different sides of the spectrum. I don't think this band would be better now if Ed was more in control or less (although it seems like it's pretty much his ship to steer). It's more likely that they suck more now because they've been a band for almost 25 years and are running out of gas.

This. That and their priorities in life have changed.

I think the biggest issue is that now PJ is a commodity for them, they get together every so often to make music in little spurts, and whatever comes out, comes out. I'd rather they took a complete break from the road for a year and all got in a studio to make music because they want to, rather than to have something to punt out to the masses to enable them to go on another money spinning trip round the globe. And by the globe, I mean the 5 places they actually like to play.

It wouldn't help. They're to old to go trough the mildly at best traumatic experience of recording a Pearl Jam album. Their main strategy at this point is taking the easy road. I was thinking about this in the context of the European tour. A tour promoter could put any price on the tickets they wouldn't even notice. They're charging more than Springsteen in the same venue because a different company is handling it.

hlniv wrote:

Mine wrote:

hlniv wrote:
Where Ed is much less talented is the leadership category. Pearl Jam has always struggled with direction and organization, and I think that is where Ed has failed more than anything.

Leadership isn't something he could have realistically done any different with this band unless Stone and Jeff left.

Incorrect.

A good leader knows how to motivate and unify his team, and is responsible for doing it. It may have been choppy for the first few years for various reasons, but by 1997 or so, the band "dynamic" certainly was stable enough for an effective leader to have driven the group to new heights. I think through 2003, the clear direction was to continue to record in new ways and tour on a consistent basis, and it was all done well.

Since then, however, the "leader" that the group has needed hasn't existed. Everyone has been doing their own thing for the most part, and whether that is by design or not, it has led to a de-centralized organization without clear direction. It's like they just sort of get together when it is convenient and bang out some tunes. Having BoB make so many decisions is another symptom of this. If Ed had a real focus to the PJ organization and had he provided the leadership that is missing, I think the last ten years of Pearl Jam would have been much, much different.

Now, maybe this all they want it to be at this point, and the group decided that long ago. But i doubt that proceeding without a leader was a conscious choice. I believe between Ed and Bruce, leadership is the critical difference. Of course, Pearl Jam is a band, Bruce is an individual artist (sort of), so maybe it's apples and oranges and you can't compare effectively.

Left field here but Bon Jovi in 91 ish fired their manager and JBJ said them all that he was happy to manage the band if they all would trust him and trust his vision. They hired a shrink (the guy who Metallica used in SKOM after Aerosmith recommended him). I'm not saying that that is what PJ did or should have done, but that approach can work IF there is a vision (regardless of how shit that vision may be).

Is it really true that Vitalogy was on the other side of the spectrum from Yield in terms of cooperation? I have doubts about that, despite one or two quotes from Ed.

LetMeSleep wrote:

hlniv wrote:

Mine wrote:

hlniv wrote:
Where Ed is much less talented is the leadership category. Pearl Jam has always struggled with direction and organization, and I think that is where Ed has failed more than anything.

Leadership isn't something he could have realistically done any different with this band unless Stone and Jeff left.

Incorrect.

A good leader knows how to motivate and unify his team, and is responsible for doing it. It may have been choppy for the first few years for various reasons, but by 1997 or so, the band "dynamic" certainly was stable enough for an effective leader to have driven the group to new heights. I think through 2003, the clear direction was to continue to record in new ways and tour on a consistent basis, and it was all done well.

Since then, however, the "leader" that the group has needed hasn't existed. Everyone has been doing their own thing for the most part, and whether that is by design or not, it has led to a de-centralized organization without clear direction. It's like they just sort of get together when it is convenient and bang out some tunes. Having BoB make so many decisions is another symptom of this. If Ed had a real focus to the PJ organization and had he provided the leadership that is missing, I think the last ten years of Pearl Jam would have been much, much different.

Now, maybe this all they want it to be at this point, and the group decided that long ago. But i doubt that proceeding without a leader was a conscious choice. I believe between Ed and Bruce, leadership is the critical difference. Of course, Pearl Jam is a band, Bruce is an individual artist (sort of), so maybe it's apples and oranges and you can't compare effectively.

Left field here but Bon Jovi in 91 ish fired their manager and JBJ said them all that he was happy to manage the band if they all would trust him and trust his vision. They hired a shrink (the guy who Metallica used in SKOM after Aerosmith recommended him). I'm not saying that that is what PJ did or should have done, but that approach can work IF there is a vision (regardless of how shit that vision may be).

well Vitalogy wasn't a good enough vision for Stone and Jeff

Mine wrote:

digster wrote:It never made much sense, all the focus on who's in control. They made their two best records (Vitalogy and Yield) on completely different sides of the spectrum. I don't think this band would be better now if Ed was more in control or less (although it seems like it's pretty much his ship to steer). It's more likely that they suck more now because they've been a band for almost 25 years and are running out of gas.

Yield isn't one of their best albums. It seems like it's even less of a fan favourite it was a couple of years ago.

Eh, okay. I kind of doubt that's true at all, but I'm not going to start surveying. Yield is clearly in there with Vitalogy and No Code as the favorites around here.

Mine wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

hlniv wrote:

Mine wrote:

hlniv wrote:
Where Ed is much less talented is the leadership category. Pearl Jam has always struggled with direction and organization, and I think that is where Ed has failed more than anything.

Leadership isn't something he could have realistically done any different with this band unless Stone and Jeff left.

Incorrect.

A good leader knows how to motivate and unify his team, and is responsible for doing it. It may have been choppy for the first few years for various reasons, but by 1997 or so, the band "dynamic" certainly was stable enough for an effective leader to have driven the group to new heights. I think through 2003, the clear direction was to continue to record in new ways and tour on a consistent basis, and it was all done well.

Since then, however, the "leader" that the group has needed hasn't existed. Everyone has been doing their own thing for the most part, and whether that is by design or not, it has led to a de-centralized organization without clear direction. It's like they just sort of get together when it is convenient and bang out some tunes. Having BoB make so many decisions is another symptom of this. If Ed had a real focus to the PJ organization and had he provided the leadership that is missing, I think the last ten years of Pearl Jam would have been much, much different.

Now, maybe this all they want it to be at this point, and the group decided that long ago. But i doubt that proceeding without a leader was a conscious choice. I believe between Ed and Bruce, leadership is the critical difference. Of course, Pearl Jam is a band, Bruce is an individual artist (sort of), so maybe it's apples and oranges and you can't compare effectively.

Left field here but Bon Jovi in 91 ish fired their manager and JBJ said them all that he was happy to manage the band if they all would trust him and trust his vision. They hired a shrink (the guy who Metallica used in SKOM after Aerosmith recommended him). I'm not saying that that is what PJ did or should have done, but that approach can work IF there is a vision (regardless of how shit that vision may be).

well Vitalogy wasn't a good enough vision for Stone and Jeff

You don't seem to like Jeff and Stone much.

Anders wrote:Is it really true that Vitaligy was on the other side of the spectrum from Yield in terms of cooperation? I have doubts about that, despite one or two quotes from Ed.

I think no code maybe was the least collaborative? And vitalogy one step behind that. I'm not sure though. And I'm not sure where any of the post - 2000 ones would go on that spectrum.

I think, while there is some truth to Vitalogy-No Code being 'ed' records and Yield being a 'band' record, it's far, far less simplistic than that. I only pointed it out as a way of showing that the whole control issue seems flawed.