Home› Musicians and Gearheads
Options

Pearl Jam's evolution in tone

frisbiefrisbie Posts: 14
edited October 2003 in Musicians and Gearheads
Let me preface this with saying this is not a complaint, but an observation . . . I've been listening to a large number of Pearl Jam's boots from the early days until now . . . obviously there is a sound quality difference between the older & the newer ones, but I noticed that Pearl Jam's guitar tone has become somewhat thinner to my ears . . . I'm not sure I like the new amps that Stone & Mike are using as much as their older setup . . . what do you guys think, I was just listening to some boots from 95 & 94 & the guitar tone just sounds so much heavier to my ears & seems to resonate more . . . please tell me I'm hearing something . . . as far as performance goes, they seem more tight & consistent as a band now (not that they were ever lacking in those areas, but they do seem to have grown tighter) . . . what do you guys think? I also know I'm not liking the Yamaha drums as well as the dw, just a preference.
10/01/96, 08/22/98, 08/28/98, 08/20/00, 08/21/00, 08/27/00, 09/01/00, 12/08/02, 04/18/03, 04/28/03, 04/29/03, 05/02/03, 07/08/03, 07/09/03, 10/03/05, 05/12/06, 05/30/06

Remove yourself from comfort, all progress involves risk.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Options
    exhaustedexhausted Posts: 6,638
    i found both mike and stone's tone suffered greatly on the 2000 tour. stone's more-so. i haven't listened to enough 2003 boots to comment.
  • Options
    FlizankFlizank Posts: 59
    Yeah, there certainly has been a lose in tone.. I'd say after 98' things made a change for the worse, although they are tight as a band and the music is higher quality, the tone just isn't the same. The Jeff also lost the funk sound that he used to have if you listen to the 92 boots.
    PresiWAH of the Evenflow Fan Club
    Don't need a hand, there's always arms attached.
    Don't get behind I can't fall back.
    Why must we trust all these rusted rails?
    They don't want no change. We already have.
  • Options
    62strat62strat Posts: 638
    stones tone sucke din 2000.....


    but this tour, theyve sounded better than ever...

    those trentino amps are amazing, so thick so fucll so beautifu lso heavy is if you ask me.

    the early days, the gutiars sounded "Weak" in a way...yes they used big marshals, but i dont htink they sounded very "prfoessional" sounded like a garage band, which is fine..but it hink now, wow...just perfect tone, mccready sounds aamazing..and i think stones tone this 03 tour is damn near perfect....
  • Options
    mccreadyisgodmccreadyisgod Bumfuq, MT Posts: 6,395
    The great thing about their tone right now, is that you can hear the notes Stone and Mike are playing. Their tone isn't so thick and muddy that it all sounds mushy. Sure, it's not as stadium-rock powerful, but this is Pearl Jam, not Black Label Society.
    ...and if you don't like it, you can suck on an egg.
  • Options
    GlaswegianGlaswegian Posts: 62
    Yeah, 2000 was sounding pretty bad tone-wise but from what i've heard of the 2003 tour there's a vast improvement.
    scottish by birth, british by law and 'weegie by the grace of god...!!!!! FUCK THE QUEEN!!!
  • Options
    BufaloBufalo Posts: 32
    I found McCready's sound to be a little too thin when I saw them this year. Stone sounded great though. I just wish more soundmen would mix the bass guitar as thick as they mix the bass drum...
  • Options
    mccreadyisgodmccreadyisgod Bumfuq, MT Posts: 6,395
    As a soundguy, I'll tell you one thing about mixing: the bass drum has the most impact and drives the song. That's why so many engineers just drive the snot out of the bass drum. I prefer a subtler approach, but so many bands prefer to have that bass drum really big-sounding. I agree that Jeff gets sorta buried in the mix sometimes, though.
    ...and if you don't like it, you can suck on an egg.
Sign In or Register to comment.