Red Mosquito

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.

this makes sense, because obviously pearl jam was having a huge amount of trouble selling out those 5 places in several minutes. Clearly a tour would not and could not have happened without a new album.

hlniv wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote: 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).

Having a vision is a defining quality of being a good leader. I think you are on to something with this comparison.

The band had a unified vision, I think, from 1998-2003. They had the political activism that they all seemed to agree with, they had their frontman getting out there and communicating those messages. There was some leadership at that point that worked. The vision was defined, they were the post-grunge, mainstream-yet-art-house, mature rock band. They believed in causes and publicly supported those causes. That was certainly a product of Ed's leadership, and he must have done well with it, as it seemed the group was all bought into the whole deal. And they made a couple of great, post-90's records during this time, plus toured more prolifically than at any point since '91-'94.

Now - go back and read my original header post on this thread. That was only sort of tongue-in-cheek. I actually think there's some truth to it.

They realized (or decided) the vision wasn't worth it anymore, and re-focused with other purposes. Ed stopped providing guidance and leadership, and here we are today.

why doesn't that unifying vision include 2006, in which all the things you are describing are still happening? Because you don't like S/T as much?

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote: 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).

Having a vision is a defining quality of being a good leader. I think you are on to something with this comparison.

The band had a unified vision, I think, from 1998-2003. They had the political activism that they all seemed to agree with, they had their frontman getting out there and communicating those messages. There was some leadership at that point that worked. The vision was defined, they were the post-grunge, mainstream-yet-art-house, mature rock band. They believed in causes and publicly supported those causes. That was certainly a product of Ed's leadership, and he must have done well with it, as it seemed the group was all bought into the whole deal. And they made a couple of great, post-90's records during this time, plus toured more prolifically than at any point since '91-'94.

Now - go back and read my original header post on this thread. That was only sort of tongue-in-cheek. I actually think there's some truth to it.

They realized (or decided) the vision wasn't worth it anymore, and re-focused with other purposes. Ed stopped providing guidance and leadership, and here we are today.

why doesn't that unifying vision include 2006, in which all the things you are describing are still happening? Because you don't like S/T as much?

Yes, clearly this was good leadership that really stood for something, eh?

Personally, I think it's quite obvious that the S/T album was a purposeful attempt to be "mainstream" and get back to rock and roll popularity, after basically giving up on their extended political posturing. The stripped "rock" production, the failed attempt at imagery, this was all a function of the leadership decisions being made. They might have still had causes and opinions, but there certainly was a shift away from that with an intended purpose to be more accepted. Couple that with a lack of focus due to various side projects, family, etc... you get a disjointed result, which is exactly what happened with that album. And why we have only seen two albums released in the 7 years since. Good leaders don't have excuses, it's how the navigate through the challenges that determines their effectiveness. The unifying vision couldn't keep it together past the end of the 2004 VFC tour. It just sort of changed. Even the 2006 tour, which is admittedly one of their best, felt different than the 2000/2003 tours, at least in the US. More focus on large markets, the sets felt a little more planned out, etc...

I actually enjoy almost all of the S/T songs, except Come Back, Life Wasted, and Gone. Inside Job suffers for other reasons. The rest of the album had much potential and just got bogged down in the muddy production and release. I've never wanted to hear the No Code or Vs. guitar sound more. Even the band clearly didn't like how it turned out, they certainly came back to BoB with open arms.

Hearing Ed talk about how close that album was to being a sort of concept album with a connecting storyline just makes me sad. That would have been the perfect leadership direction for the group at that time. Would have been the pinnacle of their maturation, the perfect follow-up to Riot Act. I'll never understand why they didn't do this. Soldier/War-themed concept album + Better production + Cold Confession = Masterpiece PJ album.

I was trying to embed the Life Wasted video, but apparently it's not accessible, even on PJ youtube channel, only on MTV site-
http://www.mtv.com/videos/pearl-jam/876 ... sted.jhtml

hlniv wrote:....
Hearing Ed talk about how close that album was to being a sort of concept album with a connecting storyline just makes me sad. That would have been the perfect leadership direction for the group at that time. Would have been the pinnacle of their maturation, the perfect follow-up to Riot Act.

If you mean, an album that was a breath of fresh air, thoroughly more enjoyable, and had much more consistent energy than yeah it was the perfect follow-up to Riot Act.

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote: 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).

Having a vision is a defining quality of being a good leader. I think you are on to something with this comparison.

The band had a unified vision, I think, from 1998-2003. They had the political activism that they all seemed to agree with, they had their frontman getting out there and communicating those messages. There was some leadership at that point that worked. The vision was defined, they were the post-grunge, mainstream-yet-art-house, mature rock band. They believed in causes and publicly supported those causes. That was certainly a product of Ed's leadership, and he must have done well with it, as it seemed the group was all bought into the whole deal. And they made a couple of great, post-90's records during this time, plus toured more prolifically than at any point since '91-'94.

Now - go back and read my original header post on this thread. That was only sort of tongue-in-cheek. I actually think there's some truth to it.

They realized (or decided) the vision wasn't worth it anymore, and re-focused with other purposes. Ed stopped providing guidance and leadership, and here we are today.

why doesn't that unifying vision include 2006, in which all the things you are describing are still happening? Because you don't like S/T as much?

Yes, clearly this was good leadership that really stood for something, eh?

Personally, I think it's quite obvious that the S/T album was a purposeful attempt to be "mainstream" and get back to rock and roll popularity, after basically giving up on their extended political posturing. The stripped "rock" production, the failed attempt at imagery, this was all a function of the leadership decisions being made. They might have still had causes and opinions, but there certainly was a shift away from that with an intended purpose to be more accepted. Couple that with a lack of focus due to various side projects, family, etc... you get a disjointed result, which is exactly what happened with that album. And why we have only seen two albums released in the 7 years since. Good leaders don't have excuses, it's how the navigate through the challenges that determines their effectiveness. The unifying vision couldn't keep it together past the end of the 2004 VFC tour. It just sort of changed. Even the 2006 tour, which is admittedly one of their best, felt different than the 2000/2003 tours, at least in the US. More focus on large markets, the sets felt a little more planned out, etc...

I actually enjoy almost all of the S/T songs, except Come Back, Life Wasted, and Gone. Inside Job suffers for other reasons. The rest of the album had much potential and just got bogged down in the muddy production and release. I've never wanted to hear the No Code or Vs. guitar sound more. Even the band clearly didn't like how it turned out, they certainly came back to BoB with open arms.

Hearing Ed talk about how close that album was to being a sort of concept album with a connecting storyline just makes me sad. That would have been the perfect leadership direction for the group at that time. Would have been the pinnacle of their maturation, the perfect follow-up to Riot Act. I'll never understand why they didn't do this. Soldier/War-themed concept album + Better production + Cold Confession = Masterpiece PJ album.

I was trying to embed the Life Wasted video, but apparently it's not accessible, even on PJ youtube channel, only on MTV site-
http://www.mtv.com/videos/pearl-jam/876 ... sted.jhtml

S/T is their most political record. The setlists felt more 'planned'? What does that mean? Larger markets? They were playing fucking Iowa in 06

If you don't like the end result, fine, but I'm not sure what this has to do with a lack of 'leadership'. keeping cold confession off a record is brought to you by the same leadership team that kept sad off of binaural and undone off of riot act. the sound was almost certainly a calculated response to move as far away from the weary riot act sound, which was fairly reviled by large segments of the fan base at a time. There was a vision behind it. Moving away from a concept album does not negate that.

I don't like the art direction either, but since then they've gone to artists they presumably respect to have them help design their album art. What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

stip wrote:

hlniv wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote: 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).

Having a vision is a defining quality of being a good leader. I think you are on to something with this comparison.

The band had a unified vision, I think, from 1998-2003. They had the political activism that they all seemed to agree with, they had their frontman getting out there and communicating those messages. There was some leadership at that point that worked. The vision was defined, they were the post-grunge, mainstream-yet-art-house, mature rock band. They believed in causes and publicly supported those causes. That was certainly a product of Ed's leadership, and he must have done well with it, as it seemed the group was all bought into the whole deal. And they made a couple of great, post-90's records during this time, plus toured more prolifically than at any point since '91-'94.

Now - go back and read my original header post on this thread. That was only sort of tongue-in-cheek. I actually think there's some truth to it.

They realized (or decided) the vision wasn't worth it anymore, and re-focused with other purposes. Ed stopped providing guidance and leadership, and here we are today.

why doesn't that unifying vision include 2006, in which all the things you are describing are still happening? Because you don't like S/T as much?

Yes, clearly this was good leadership that really stood for something, eh?

Personally, I think it's quite obvious that the S/T album was a purposeful attempt to be "mainstream" and get back to rock and roll popularity, after basically giving up on their extended political posturing. The stripped "rock" production, the failed attempt at imagery, this was all a function of the leadership decisions being made. They might have still had causes and opinions, but there certainly was a shift away from that with an intended purpose to be more accepted. Couple that with a lack of focus due to various side projects, family, etc... you get a disjointed result, which is exactly what happened with that album. And why we have only seen two albums released in the 7 years since. Good leaders don't have excuses, it's how the navigate through the challenges that determines their effectiveness. The unifying vision couldn't keep it together past the end of the 2004 VFC tour. It just sort of changed. Even the 2006 tour, which is admittedly one of their best, felt different than the 2000/2003 tours, at least in the US. More focus on large markets, the sets felt a little more planned out, etc...

I actually enjoy almost all of the S/T songs, except Come Back, Life Wasted, and Gone. Inside Job suffers for other reasons. The rest of the album had much potential and just got bogged down in the muddy production and release. I've never wanted to hear the No Code or Vs. guitar sound more. Even the band clearly didn't like how it turned out, they certainly came back to BoB with open arms.

Hearing Ed talk about how close that album was to being a sort of concept album with a connecting storyline just makes me sad. That would have been the perfect leadership direction for the group at that time. Would have been the pinnacle of their maturation, the perfect follow-up to Riot Act. I'll never understand why they didn't do this. Soldier/War-themed concept album + Better production + Cold Confession = Masterpiece PJ album.

I was trying to embed the Life Wasted video, but apparently it's not accessible, even on PJ youtube channel, only on MTV site-
http://www.mtv.com/videos/pearl-jam/876 ... sted.jhtml

S/T is their most political record. The setlists felt more 'planned'? What does that mean? Larger markets? They were playing fucking Iowa in 06

If you don't like the end result, fine, but I'm not sure what this has to do with a lack of 'leadership'. keeping cold confession off a record is brought to you by the same leadership team that kept sad off of binaural and undone off of riot act. the sound was almost certainly a calculated response to move as far away from the weary riot act sound, which was fairly reviled by large segments of the fan base at a time. There was a vision behind it. Moving away from a concept album does not negate that.

I don't like the art direction either, but since then they've gone to artists they presumably respect to have them help design their album art. What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

Hilarious

stip wrote:Larger markets? They were playing fucking Iowa in 06

All American politics start in Iowa

What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

Yeah, I don't grock why that gets such a pass on this board. I remember having the same "must be joking" reaction to that as I did to S/T and the new one.

To me, the space artwork is representative of what happened to that project: they went in with the intention to develop a "new" Pearl Jam sound, were unhappy with the results and unwilling to put the kind of time in needed to do it right (or, being this band, they might have had the tour booked before they started recording like a bunch of idiots...), and they basically just shut down and moved on rather than try and see a frustrating challenge through to the end. Slap some space pictures on it, I guess. That will set the appropriate mood and context. Fuck. I don't know. Let's hit up Letterman and then go play some shows.

Keep in mind it was 2000, so they may have Dogpiled those images.

stip wrote:
S/T is their most political record. The setlists felt more 'planned'? What does that mean? Larger markets? They were playing fucking Iowa in 06

If you don't like the end result, fine, but I'm not sure what this has to do with a lack of 'leadership'. keeping cold confession off a record is brought to you by the same leadership team that kept sad off of binaural and undone off of riot act. the sound was almost certainly a calculated response to move as far away from the weary riot act sound, which was fairly reviled by large segments of the fan base at a time. There was a vision behind it. Moving away from a concept album does not negate that.

I don't like the art direction either, but since then they've gone to artists they presumably respect to have them help design their album art. What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

Good post, Stip. I'm not buying this lack of leadership post 2003 argument either. As far as we know, the only thing directing them through 2003 was a recording obligation with Sony.

This has been discussed ad nauseum here, but it bears repeating: Ed even said he was really disappointed with how poorly Riot Act was selling, and how record stores weren't even stocking it. He wanted to move away from the cerebral, introspective stuff and make more visceral, immediate music. Music that might garner more public attention and would be more concert "set-friendly".

How this direction in music is responded to by hard core PJ fans is a different issue.

I prefer the pre-Backspacer, photography style artwork to the "have some other guy draw something for us" of the last two albums.

The only pearl jam albums that have art I really like are Vitalogy (everything), Yield (everything), Riot Act (the album cover), No Code (the way the liner notes are done), and L-Bolt (everything)

I'm in the camp they a definite shift occurred in 2003/2004. Showbox DVD, Lost Dogs, Live At The Garden DVD, Benaroya Hall, Rearviewmirror Greatest Hits package, the 2005 tours with no album to support, playing festivals again, the Italy DVD from the 2006 tour, tour in 2008 without an album, Target deal, Live On Ten Legs, the reissues, the entire PJ20 tour/merch blitz, an endless stream of ridiculous pieces of merchandise at ridiculous prices...

I don't disagree that there's some really good stuff in here, but taken as a whole, it certainly has felt like a band deciding to cash in on their legacy in order to continue making money while slowing down the output of new material.

I don't think it had anything to do with money, or perhaps not initially. I think it was more about popularity, or being part of the national conversation; I think they were turning into Neil Young, or to use a band example, R.E.M.; a band that worked in arenas on a massive scale but still was not the biggest band in the world territory. I think they decided that instead, they wanted to be U2, or be in that category at least.

digster wrote:I don't think it had anything to do with money, or perhaps not initially. I think it was more about popularity, or being part of the national conversation; I think they were turning into Neil Young, or to use a band example, R.E.M.; a band that worked in arenas on a massive scale but still was not the biggest band in the world territory. I think they decided that instead, they wanted to be U2, or be in that category at least.

Anyone that doesn't want to be in the R.E.M category is a douche.

EJ wrote:

stip wrote:
S/T is their most political record. The setlists felt more 'planned'? What does that mean? Larger markets? They were playing fucking Iowa in 06

If you don't like the end result, fine, but I'm not sure what this has to do with a lack of 'leadership'. keeping cold confession off a record is brought to you by the same leadership team that kept sad off of binaural and undone off of riot act. the sound was almost certainly a calculated response to move as far away from the weary riot act sound, which was fairly reviled by large segments of the fan base at a time. There was a vision behind it. Moving away from a concept album does not negate that.

I don't like the art direction either, but since then they've gone to artists they presumably respect to have them help design their album art. What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

Good post, Stip. I'm not buying this lack of leadership post 2003 argument either. As far as we know, the only thing directing them through 2003 was a recording obligation with Sony.

This has been discussed ad nauseum here, but it bears repeating: Ed even said he was really disappointed with how poorly Riot Act was selling, and how record stores weren't even stocking it. He wanted to move away from the cerebral, introspective stuff and make more visceral, immediate music. Music that might garner more public attention and would be more concert "set-friendly".

How this direction in music is responded to by hard core PJ fans is a different issue.

What is the evidence they've lit the world on fire other than the general fanbase buying the albums yet again? I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that "the fanbase" as you call it was global to begin with.

They've simplified their music and aesthetic, but I'm not sure it's done anything for them.

harmless wrote:

EJ wrote:

stip wrote:
S/T is their most political record. The setlists felt more 'planned'? What does that mean? Larger markets? They were playing fucking Iowa in 06

If you don't like the end result, fine, but I'm not sure what this has to do with a lack of 'leadership'. keeping cold confession off a record is brought to you by the same leadership team that kept sad off of binaural and undone off of riot act. the sound was almost certainly a calculated response to move as far away from the weary riot act sound, which was fairly reviled by large segments of the fan base at a time. There was a vision behind it. Moving away from a concept album does not negate that.

I don't like the art direction either, but since then they've gone to artists they presumably respect to have them help design their album art. What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

Good post, Stip. I'm not buying this lack of leadership post 2003 argument either. As far as we know, the only thing directing them through 2003 was a recording obligation with Sony.

This has been discussed ad nauseum here, but it bears repeating: Ed even said he was really disappointed with how poorly Riot Act was selling, and how record stores weren't even stocking it. He wanted to move away from the cerebral, introspective stuff and make more visceral, immediate music. Music that might garner more public attention and would be more concert "set-friendly".

How this direction in music is responded to by hard core PJ fans is a different issue.

What is the evidence they've lit the world on fire other than the general fanbase buying the albums yet again? I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that "the fanbase" as you call it was global to begin with.

Huh? Not sure what you're arguing here. I don't think they lit the world on fire with those changes. And, quite honestly, I don't like the direction they took. My point was that it was a conscious effort to attempt to get some more attention.

EJ wrote:

harmless wrote:

EJ wrote:

stip wrote:
S/T is their most political record. The setlists felt more 'planned'? What does that mean? Larger markets? They were playing fucking Iowa in 06

If you don't like the end result, fine, but I'm not sure what this has to do with a lack of 'leadership'. keeping cold confession off a record is brought to you by the same leadership team that kept sad off of binaural and undone off of riot act. the sound was almost certainly a calculated response to move as far away from the weary riot act sound, which was fairly reviled by large segments of the fan base at a time. There was a vision behind it. Moving away from a concept album does not negate that.

I don't like the art direction either, but since then they've gone to artists they presumably respect to have them help design their album art. What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

Good post, Stip. I'm not buying this lack of leadership post 2003 argument either. As far as we know, the only thing directing them through 2003 was a recording obligation with Sony.

This has been discussed ad nauseum here, but it bears repeating: Ed even said he was really disappointed with how poorly Riot Act was selling, and how record stores weren't even stocking it. He wanted to move away from the cerebral, introspective stuff and make more visceral, immediate music. Music that might garner more public attention and would be more concert "set-friendly".

How this direction in music is responded to by hard core PJ fans is a different issue.

What is the evidence they've lit the world on fire other than the general fanbase buying the albums yet again? I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that "the fanbase" as you call it was global to begin with.

Huh? Not sure what you're arguing here. I don't think they lit the world on fire with those changes. And, quite honestly, I don't like the direction they took. My point was that it was a conscious effort to attempt to get some more attention.

OK, yeah. I did think that your argument was that it was working. But regardless, I wasn't disagreeing as much as adding to what you said. My main thought is that whatever it is they're trying, I wish they'd stop, because I'm not sure Pearl Jam is any more significant to the world now than they were in 2006 and earlier. Certainly in the UK, the general public thinks they're still unnecessary, but now they come complete with boring music too.

stip wrote:Eddie clearly looks to his musical heroes for guidance. If Springsteen is a bigger influence on him now than he once was it is probably because where Springsteen is with his life, or what he's done, or the kinds of music he writes speaks to where Eddie is right now. at some point there will be someone else.

stip wrote: S/T is their most political record

No. It was their most war-themed record. It was not overly political. War does not equal politics. Riot Act was clearly more political - Bushleaguer, 1/2 Full, Green Disease, Help Help, even I Am Mine, Cropduster, Ghost, there's a wide variety of political commentary throughout that record.

stip wrote: The setlists felt more 'planned'? What does that mean? Larger markets? They were playing fucking Iowa in 06

Nope - never played fucking Iowa in '06. They played there in '03, though. Which supports my point. Thank you. Smaller US markets played in '06 were Grand Rapids, Albany and Cincinnati. It was the first tour they really didn't go into the South, etc... It was different.

Planned setlist - meaning : the 2006 tour was when they first rolled out the 17-20 song main set plus two 4-8 song encores. Almost every time, except when it's a festival or when they have supported other acts. Still do it today. Before that tour, they could play a 15 song main set or 24, they could play 1 encore or 3, encore two might only be two songs, etc.... 2006 was structured and planned much more so in the past. Conclusion- that tour was a little different than in the past.

stip wrote:
If you don't like the end result, fine, but I'm not sure what this has to do with a lack of 'leadership'. keeping cold confession off a record is brought to you by the same leadership team that kept sad off of binaural and undone off of riot act. the sound was almost certainly a calculated response to move as far away from the weary riot act sound, which was fairly reviled by large segments of the fan base at a time. There was a vision behind it. Moving away from a concept album does not negate that.

The decision to not include Sad on Binaural was precisely due to the leadership that I am referring to, i.e. it would have been to much of a "hit". Undone or Down would have made Riot Act even more political, and didn't really fit the tone of the album. The reasons these songs were left off had more to do with unifying leadership, than a lack of it. Even if Binaural or Riot Act would have been better with a couple of those b-sides, I understand and respect the thoughtful reason for most of the omissions.

I vehemently disagree with the notion that the sound of S/T was intended to be as far away from Riot Act as possible. I contend they were trying to get as close to Ten/Vs as possible. Go back and read their comments in that album's promotion. That was clearly the goal, which ultimately failed. While the songs written for the album aren't bad at all, the sound that ended up being recorded sure is.

And, just to be clear - a poor result almost always can be attributed to a lack of effective leadership. This is something i believe in quite strongly in my professional life. A leader's purpose is to get the team to achieve a result.

stip wrote:I don't like the art direction either, but since then they've gone to artists they presumably respect to have them help design their album art. What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

While certainly funny and rightfully deserving of a laugh, this statement is largely irrelevant. The simple fact that they all sat there and allowed these zombie molds/mock-ups to be created off of their faces just tells me that someone was asleep at the wheel. Plus, I like stars, damnit.

The bottom line in all this is that there clearly was a change following 2003/2004. I am suggesting that ultimately this was caused by a change in the leadership approach within the group, which became decentralized and unfocused, allowing the money-grab to be the primary driving force behind the continued existence of the band.

And yes, I like Lightning Bolt more than the last two records just about all the way around. Comparing it to the prior albums is almost like comparing apples and oranges, though.