Red Mosquito

Please don't compare Josh Homme to Ed Vedder in the singing department ever.

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:Bringing in complete ideas may be stifling. In bands that I have been in, those types of songs played out quite predictably with little to no input from others being accepted by the songwriter. Jamming on an idea often can reap huge rewards. Even if the idea is fleshed out in song form, the songwriter doing a demo with other instrumentation takes it a long way down the road towards finished form.

I couldn't agree more. This might be their biggest problem at the moment.

listening to alternate takes from bands like The Beatles and Radiohead provides proof that no matter how good a songwriter is, bringing a song in its skeletal form to the band can yield awesome rewards.

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:Bringing in complete ideas may be stifling. In bands that I have been in, those types of songs played out quite predictably with little to no input from others being accepted by the songwriter. Jamming on an idea often can reap huge rewards. Even if the idea is fleshed out in song form, the songwriter doing a demo with other instrumentation takes it a long way down the road towards finished form.

I couldn't agree more. This might be their biggest problem at the moment.

Definitely. I guess it all comes down to the time spent together. Is there much inspiration to create music as art or is there just the need to have product to keep the car running?

mastaflatch wrote:

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:Bringing in complete ideas may be stifling. In bands that I have been in, those types of songs played out quite predictably with little to no input from others being accepted by the songwriter. Jamming on an idea often can reap huge rewards. Even if the idea is fleshed out in song form, the songwriter doing a demo with other instrumentation takes it a long way down the road towards finished form.

I couldn't agree more. This might be their biggest problem at the moment.

listening to alternate takes from bands like The Beatles and Radiohead provides proof that no matter how good a songwriter is, bringing a song in its skeletal form to the band can yield awesome rewards.

evenslow wrote:Please don't compare Josh Homme to Ed Vedder in the singing department ever.

yup, his bands' music is awesome but his voice ruins it for me.

evenslow wrote:Please don't compare Josh Homme to Ed Vedder in the singing department ever.

Why? The comparison was valid. It would be pretty disingenuous to say Josh Homme couldn't sing.

mastaflatch wrote:

evenslow wrote:Please don't compare Josh Homme to Ed Vedder in the singing department ever.

yup, his bands' music is awesome but his voice ruins it for me.

His voice is okay but I do tend to tune him out (that's why I don't really notice his lyrics). Musically, QOTSA are top notch. The last album has some good vocals takes though.

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

Mike wrote:It would be totally okay to write songs he can't pull off perfectly if they did not talk about "writing songs that would be great live" all the time. "Oh yeah, we're keeping it simpler so it will be good live, blablabalbla live live concerts blablalba but Ed will not write vocal melodies that he can sing live. That would make too much sense"

The comment about writing songs which would be great live didn't have anything to do with the difficulty or simplicity, I don't think. I think it had to do with the songs being more outward and crowd involving and just translating well in a live setting.

Which, again, the old songs were. I don't have any idea why the new songs are any more the above than the mid-period stuff. Obviously we disagree on that, but to say Backspacer is "good live" as opposed Binaural is just ludicrous. There's obviously some other criteria that Pearl Jam are going by when they make these decisions. Maybe it's that they just don't like Binaural / Riot Act, or that they think the casual fanbase doesn't. Whatever. But at least be honest about the reasons, and it's fuck all to do with Backspacer-style songs being more effective in a live setting.

Release_Me wrote:Ed is choosing to lower the key for some of the songs and that's totally understandable. He also skips entire parts of older songs which are difficult or half asses them when he feels like it. It's all part and parcel of touring for him now.

It would be understandable for older material that was difficult to sing (e.g. "Blood") but it's not quite so understandable that he keeps writing stuff that is impossible to pull off live. I don't understand that, no. I'm not sure why it's understandable that he "skips entire parts of older songs which are more difficult or half asses them". Just play different songs, imo, not all the "rockers" that everyone wants to hear you butcher. Not that it, or my opinion, really matters.

I don't think anything from the middle period excepting Yield is really good live. Upto Vitalogy, yes. No Code, Binaural & Riot Act have a few songs which I would want to hear live but most of them don't gain much in a live setting because they're just not the sort of anthemic songs which take off live. This is pretty much a fact as far as I am concerned and the band probably agrees which is why they made that comment. Or maybe they meant something else. You can disagree and have your own opinion.

Nothing he wrote on LB is 'impossible' to pull off live. That's just stretching it. He's choosing to lower the key on a few of the new songs to preserve his voice and that's it. You have the studio versions to listen to if you want them in the original key. Live, people go and want to have a good time and enjoy the spectacle. I don't see what there is to understand about taking the new album songs sung whichever way they sound best in studio. And I said him skipping or half assing parts is part and parcel of them touring now. The schedule they have, they are definitely going to perform some of the old classics multiple times at the various shows. The people who attend those shows won't complain if they miss out on obscure songs. They want all the hits. A lot of the hits are from the early days and require a lot of effort to sing the way they were originally sung. Ed couldn't possibly do that every night and expect to have a voice by the end of it. He sings them differently, with less intensity and sometimes skips difficult parts. Whether you like this fact or not is besides the point. It's just how it is.

Josh Homme is to Ed Vedder on vocals as Ed Vedder is to Lindsey Buckingham on guitar.

It's not close.

LetMeSleep wrote:

mastaflatch wrote:

evenslow wrote:Please don't compare Josh Homme to Ed Vedder in the singing department ever.

yup, his bands' music is awesome but his voice ruins it for me.

His voice is okay but I do tend to tune him out (that's why I don't really notice his lyrics). Musically, QOTSA are top notch. The last album has some good vocals takes though.

I agree...vocals are never why I got into QOTSA or Them Crooked Vultures

I read up to "anthemic songs that take off live". Sorry. That's not all I mean by a song that works live, and I wish it wasn't all Pearl Jam meant.

harmless wrote:If they wanted to write simpler songs they could pull off live that were still as great as older songs, they could. But they're not, because they can't really be bothered. They want serviceable stuff that "does the job".

They did write those songs.

evenslow wrote:Josh Homme is to Ed Vedder on vocals as Ed Vedder is to Lindsey Buckingham on guitar.

It's not close.

Are we comparing skills here, or just chosen style? If you don't like one over the other, that's fine, but let's be honest, Josh Homme knows what his range is, and keeps to it. Even Bruce Springsteen knows what he isn't capable of singing anymore.

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote:If they wanted to write simpler songs they could pull off live that were still as great as older songs, they could. But they're not, because they can't really be bothered. They want serviceable stuff that "does the job".

They did write those songs.

Not really, but I'm honestly envious of your perpetual optimism.

harmless wrote:I read up to "anthemic songs that take off live". Sorry. That's not all I mean by a song that works live, and I wish it wasn't all Pearl Jam meant.

I don't know what they meant. I'm speculating. But I know that I don't look forward to much off No Code or Binaural or Riot Act live for this very reason.

Mike wrote:I want an album full of Sleeping By Myselfs.

The fast songs were my favorites from the last two albums. This one has me, for the first time, kinda craving a subdued sit down record next.

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote:If they wanted to write simpler songs they could pull off live that were still as great as older songs, they could. But they're not, because they can't really be bothered. They want serviceable stuff that "does the job".

They did write those songs.

Not really, but I'm honestly envious of your perpetual optimism.

given our similarities, I suspect that's because you weren't talking to him from 1996 to 2005

stip wrote:

Mike wrote:I want an album full of Sleeping By Myselfs.

The fast songs were my favorites from the last two albums. This one has me, for the first time, kinda craving a subdued sit down record next.

It's time that PJ wrote their Nebraska.

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:

harmless wrote:If they wanted to write simpler songs they could pull off live that were still as great as older songs, they could. But they're not, because they can't really be bothered. They want serviceable stuff that "does the job".

They did write those songs.

Not really, but I'm honestly envious of your perpetual optimism.

I really think they did. Sorry you don't feel the same way. This stuff kicks the shit out of No Code-Riot Act for me.

I think their middle period songs work wonderfully live. Guess it depends on what you want from Pearl Jam. I want this and need to accept that I will probably never get it again.