I feel that the collaboration between Stone and Ed usually yield the best results. Plus, if you look at the history of great rock bands, many of them use the same formula as PJ, one person being the wordsmith and one person being the "riff-maker" (see Mick and Keith, Jimmy and Robert, Ozzy and Tony, Bono and The Edge), however, it is interesting that Ed's fav band is The Who, who was OWNED by Pete Townsend. In any case, I think Ed's songwriting ability has grown quite a bit in the last 5-7 years, with many of his chord progressions and melodies having more of a signature sound. Stone has not evolved at the same rate, which may be what the original poster is saying? However, Stone can certainly still rip a mean riff! Jeff is the most underrated songwriter of the bunch.
I thought I should back up my original post..Don't get me wrong, I think as live musicians and players, the rest of PJ are top notch. No-one can catch them, but since 2000 I just think Vedder is not only writing 60% of all the material but that 60% is the best stuff...I mean take:
Insiginicance
Greivance
I Am Mine
Parting Ways
Severed Hand
Worldwide Suicide
Man of The Hour
Undone
Can't Keep
Green Disease
Sad
Education
Can anyone deny, that list contains their best songs this decade?
Yes i can deny. MOTH would be the only song from that list i would definitely put in my top 15.
Insignificance? Grievance? Education?
Are you fucking kidding me?
I would say yes Eddie is the best songwriter in the band and as someone else posted, perhaps in modern music. He's always been their best songwriter. But no, the next album should not be just Ed. This is because everyone generates musical ideas leading to great collaborative efforts. Many of the songs people are using as examples of others' craft, are collaborations in which Vedder plays a significant role. They have an idea, he plugs in mentally and off they go. Their ideas spark his genius and he turns them on.
Why eliminate that? It's crazy to get rid of that. Just Nuts.
We know only a few things for certain. Ed's songs really are Ed's songs. If there's another idea, it might be in the form of a bass run using thematic material he's already created or a lead guitar along similar lines. What he hears in his head is what he wants on the album. -- I can't tell you how glad I am that this debate is finally over. It was musically stupid. His music is different from everyone else's. How could they possibly be helping him write? Wouldn't they help themselves first? Good grief.
The other thing we know is that in collaborative songs (not the "let me help you with your words" songs you find on RA), the melodies are Eddie's, the music is sometimes re-structured (we don't know how frequent this is) by him, and in some cases the bridge is Ed's. And people, this includes Ten. Riffs do not a song make. Witness Footsteps. How do we know this? Interviews, demos and ears.
As Mine pointed out, their credits are sketchy. Trust your ears.
Since they asked, ::coughs:: what I want is for them to do what they want to do. But I don't think music by democracy works well. I would advise them to find another way. From an objective point of view, things were left off albums that should never have been left off and things put on that should never have gone on the albums. I don't know what that means credit and money wise, but the "everyone gets a # of songs per album with a few more from Ed" thing doesn't work all that well. If Ed by himself or Ed with Mike, or Stone alone writes a better song than band member ____ they should put it on the album. Maybe they need just to make the albums longer. Make it 17 instead of 14 songs. I think we can deal with filler.
Perhaps they are thinking of using these other great songs on the next album. But what good is that if the album they put out isn't the masterpiece it would otherwise be? Not only that, they are so prodigious, there will be even more songs by the time they get to the next album. The cycle will never stop unless they include the songs or release an album (or 3) full of them.
I think this is why people are asking some of the questions posited in this thread. We know too much, or think we know (it's not what we don't know that's the problem, it's what we think we know)
; )
ps This post probably comes off like I am dismissing other peoples' contributions. That's not the case but I can understand people may take it that way. The question asked was "should the albums be mostly Vedder". The point I was trying to make was that he makes a greater contribution on other songs than most people realize. So what the hell are people asking for? Nobody else writes music? That's preposterous. Those who think there are weaknesses might be satisfied with a few more songs rather than the current parsing/limit of song space on albums.
pps I expect to be drawn and quartered over this post but since I'm not in the mood for debate, maybe someone else can answer. I'm not alone in this POV and I actually appreciate support rather than spectators. ::nudges:: ; )
.
****
Aless
Tell them you love them. Never let the mundane, the unimportant, or worse, the misunderstood, be the final words of parting.
I would say yes Eddie is the best songwriter in the band and as someone else posted, perhaps in modern music. He's always been their best songwriter. But no, the next album should not be just Ed. This is because everyone generates musical ideas leading to great collaborative efforts. Many of the songs people are using as examples of others' craft, are collaborations in which Vedder plays a significant role. They have an idea, he plugs in mentally and off they go. Their ideas spark his genius and he turns them on.
Why eliminate that? It's crazy to get rid of that. Just Nuts.
We know only a few things for certain. Ed's songs really are Ed's songs. If there's another idea, it might be in the form of a bass run using thematic material he's already created or a lead guitar along similar lines. What he hears in his head is what he wants on the album. -- I can't tell you how glad I am that this debate is finally over. It was musically stupid. His music is different from everyone else's. How could they possibly be helping him write? Wouldn't they help themselves first? Good grief.
The other thing we know is that in collaborative songs (not the "let me help you with your words" songs you find on RA), the melodies are Eddie's, the music is sometimes re-structured (we don't know how frequent this is) by him, and in some cases the bridge is Ed's. And people, this includes Ten. Riffs do not a song make. Witness Footsteps. How do we know this? Interviews, demos and ears.
As Mine pointed out, their credits are sketchy. Trust your ears.
Since they asked, ::coughs:: what I want is for them to do what they want to do. But I don't think music by democracy works well. I would advise them to find another way. From an objective point of view, things were left off albums that should never have been left off and things put on that should never have gone on the albums. I don't know what that means credit and money wise, but the "everyone gets a # of songs per album with a few more from Ed" thing doesn't work all that well. If Ed by himself or Ed with Mike, or Stone alone writes a better song than band member ____ they should put it on the album. Maybe they need just to make the albums longer. Make it 17 instead of 14 songs. I think we can deal with filler.
Perhaps they are thinking of using these other great songs on the next album. But what good is that if the album they put out isn't the masterpiece it would otherwise be? Not only that, they are so prodigious, there will be even more songs by the time they get to the next album. The cycle will never stop unless they include the songs or release an album (or 3) full of them.
I think this is why people are asking some of the questions posited in this thread. We know too much, or think we know (it's not what we don't know that's the problem, it's what we think we know)
; )
ps This post probably comes off like I am dismissing other peoples' contributions. That's not the case but I can understand people may take it that way. The question asked was "should the albums be mostly Vedder". The point I was trying to make was that he makes a greater contribution on other songs than most people realize. So what the hell are people asking for? Nobody else writes music? That's preposterous. Those who think there are weaknesses might be satisfied with a few more songs rather than the current parsing/limit of song space on albums.
pps I expect to be drawn and quartered over this post but since I'm not in the mood for debate, maybe someone else can answer. I'm not alone in this POV and I actually appreciate support rather than spectators. ::nudges:: ; )
.
I totally agree. The democracy has made for some weaker albums.
When you have someone with Ed's talent in the band, you stand back and let the talent come to the front.
I'm not saying they should be all Ed songs, but there have been too many mediocre songs on the albums just to make it democratic.
And CERTAINLY the lyrics should be left to Ed. Some of the worst PJ lyrics EVER have been from the others.
you can disagree, but that's just the way I feel...
I thought I thought the world
turns out the world thought me
Inside Job is just ok. The intro is too pretentious and the way the song evolves doesn't justify it.
It's not pretentious in the least, it's called building an atmosphere. I nearly wept with joy the first time I heard that song, it's classic through and through.
If the next album was 80-90% words & music by Eddie Vedder. Would that be such a bad thing?
totally disagree.
Gossard's pen is mightier than the sword
Athens, Greece: 2006/09/30
"Call me Ishmael. Some years ago- never mind how long precisely- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world." Herman Melville : Moby Dick
I'm willing to bet there are a dozen or so songs by Stone, Jeff, Mike and Matt that didn't make Avocado that are just as good as any Ed song. If Down didn't make RA and Fatal didn't make Binaural... who's to say?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Firstly, PJ is a BAND. I listen to their records for the contributions the musicians make - I think at least 50% of a song is in the delivery.
Secondly, what about variety? I'm not saying that Ed's songs are of a formula, because they're not. But each writer definitely brings their own approach to a song. I love the fact that on a PJ album you might have one of Jeff's more adventurous songs or (now) one of Matt's songs, which tend to have really interesting structures, timings and riffs.
Thirdly, it is subjective, I know, but I don't think you can discredit the co-written songs of, say, the last three records (I'm assuming you're talking about a slide in quality??). Ed's songs are fabulous, but what about songs like Rival, Save You, You Are, Sleight of Hand, God's Dice, Army Reserve, Life Wasted and so on...
I love PJ albums because of the band as a whole. I even love the different dynamics the past drummers have brought to the band; half the reason I love No Code is because of Jack Irons' contributions (In My Tree!!!). Given To Fly works so well in part because of the propulsion the band bring to the song (and it's co-written by Mike....).
So, yeah, I disagree When I get a PJ album, I want a PJ album, not a solo one.
I think where I fall on this is that Ed really is inconsistent in the quality of his lyrical content. He has lost or moved away from his great storytelling in the earlier albums. His music writing is elementary. Most of it is acoustic or ukelele based these days and not that interesting to me. I am not a fan of Matt's songs or Jeff's songs. They end up sounding more like side projects.
I would like to see more Stone and Mike music writing because I like it when Pearl Jam rocks but Ed has turned that into too much of a punk sound. I would also like to hear more funky bass from Jeff. He really used to be more important to the overall sound of the band.
The last thing is I really wish they would be more workmanlike in the studio and put a little polish on the sound. It seems Ed just wants to get it done whether it is his best effort or not. I sometimes think the studio albums are just a means to get on the road which may eventually be the downfall of the band.
Now that they all have wives and kids how appealing will the road be when the studio has obviously never been a great experience for the band no matter what they say publicly.
My friend was going to see Eddie last night. Since he was in Vegas, I gave him 5 Grand to gamble with. I told him I wanted it all to go on Black. Bastard! PhillyCrownOfThorns-11-2-12
I would say yes Eddie is the best songwriter in the band and as someone else posted, perhaps in modern music. He's always been their best songwriter. But no, the next album should not be just Ed. This is because everyone generates musical ideas leading to great collaborative efforts. Many of the songs people are using as examples of others' craft, are collaborations in which Vedder plays a significant role. They have an idea, he plugs in mentally and off they go. Their ideas spark his genius and he turns them on.
Why eliminate that? It's crazy to get rid of that. Just Nuts.
We know only a few things for certain. Ed's songs really are Ed's songs. If there's another idea, it might be in the form of a bass run using thematic material he's already created or a lead guitar along similar lines. What he hears in his head is what he wants on the album. -- I can't tell you how glad I am that this debate is finally over. It was musically stupid. His music is different from everyone else's. How could they possibly be helping him write? Wouldn't they help themselves first? Good grief.
The other thing we know is that in collaborative songs (not the "let me help you with your words" songs you find on RA), the melodies are Eddie's, the music is sometimes re-structured (we don't know how frequent this is) by him, and in some cases the bridge is Ed's. And people, this includes Ten. Riffs do not a song make. Witness Footsteps. How do we know this? Interviews, demos and ears.
As Mine pointed out, their credits are sketchy. Trust your ears.
Since they asked, ::coughs:: what I want is for them to do what they want to do. But I don't think music by democracy works well. I would advise them to find another way. From an objective point of view, things were left off albums that should never have been left off and things put on that should never have gone on the albums. I don't know what that means credit and money wise, but the "everyone gets a # of songs per album with a few more from Ed" thing doesn't work all that well. If Ed by himself or Ed with Mike, or Stone alone writes a better song than band member ____ they should put it on the album. Maybe they need just to make the albums longer. Make it 17 instead of 14 songs. I think we can deal with filler.
Perhaps they are thinking of using these other great songs on the next album. But what good is that if the album they put out isn't the masterpiece it would otherwise be? Not only that, they are so prodigious, there will be even more songs by the time they get to the next album. The cycle will never stop unless they include the songs or release an album (or 3) full of them.
I think this is why people are asking some of the questions posited in this thread. We know too much, or think we know (it's not what we don't know that's the problem, it's what we think we know)
; )
ps This post probably comes off like I am dismissing other peoples' contributions. That's not the case but I can understand people may take it that way. The question asked was "should the albums be mostly Vedder". The point I was trying to make was that he makes a greater contribution on other songs than most people realize. So what the hell are people asking for? Nobody else writes music? That's preposterous. Those who think there are weaknesses might be satisfied with a few more songs rather than the current parsing/limit of song space on albums.
pps I expect to be drawn and quartered over this post but since I'm not in the mood for debate, maybe someone else can answer. I'm not alone in this POV and I actually appreciate support rather than spectators. ::nudges:: ; )
.
I agree with pretty much everything you said except maybe the part of how the democracy part works. My impresion from interviews is it was more like they need a majority vote to get songs on the albums etc and that they all have input on the songs. Such as,4 guys say that part doesn't work Ed so he changes it. I dont think its that "ed gets 5 songs and the rest get 3 each or whatever. I thnk you can blame them all that Down or Fatal didn't make the albums. The majority of them probably said we love the songs but they are not right for "this" album and the overall vibe we have established. The demacratic system they used for Avacodo produced mostly good results i thought.
I find the criticisms of Ed's lyric writing interesting. Ed is a better lyric writer today than he has ever been. His ability to meld ideas and imagery with more complex poetic meter is miles beyond anything that he was capable of 15 years ago. He also uses the meter of the songs and the timing of the riffing patterns very skillfully in his choice of syllables. The lyrics, when spoken, often contain many of the stresses present in the music itself. He is both much more accomplished and much more ambitious.
Secondly, it seems that for many, the vocal melody is often excluded when discussing songwriting. Would ALIVE, BLACK, NOTHINGMAN or GIVEN TO FLY be the songs they are without the lyrics and vocal melodies? Would they be as memorable? Would anyone claim that Pearl Jam's greatest songs would have been as memorable without the contribution of Eddie Vedder?
And as for Eddie Vedder's songwriting, there is nothing simplistic about it. The reliance on chord choices as a measure of songwriting quality mystifies me. There is much more to a complete song than just the underlying chords. Eddie Vedder can write a ballad of the quality of MAN OF THE HOUR on his own. He can write a rocker with the kind of creativity that we see in GRIEVANCE as an individual. No one else in the band arranges tunes in this style. An Eddie Vedder tune is instantly recognizable. Looking objectively at the tunes written by the band members without any collaboration with Eddie, are there any of these among the band's best tunes?
That doesn't mean that the band isn't important. All of the members are very important. And their collaborations with Eddie are important in the songwriting of the band. But I don't think that there is any comparison between any of the other members of the band and Eddie in terms of songwriting.
I think the next studio album should be a 7 disc box set, in thiis box theres a disc for each member to showcase there song writing and art skills with the WHOLE band playing on each of the discs and then the seventh disc be full of songs written by all the members together!!! Out of that whole box guaranteed the 7th disc will be the groundbreaking relative innovative disc of the bunch!!! then we can start a thread on here trashing each one of them as it seems to be a common trend to criticise everything they did and didnt do!! Seriously people looking through the posts on here I have to wonder how many real PEARL JAM fans are on here!!???!!! Better yet maybe they should release a blank disc you can write them an album and send it to them since you seem to know so much about whats good and whats not. Last time I checked music was a art form a type of expression if you want to be competitive and see whos better then the turn you CD player off and go watch some sports and go clog there message boards with yer negativity!!! The next album shouldnt even have credit they should have a 10 club contest guess who wrote what!!
Barrie 08/22/98
Toronto 10/01/00
Toronto 06/28/03
Kitchner 09/11/05
London 09/12/05
Hamilton 09/13/05
Toronto 05/9/06
Toronto 05/10/06
Please play SATANS BED
I think the next studio album should be a 7 disc box set, in thiis box theres a disc for each member to showcase there song writing and art skills with the WHOLE band playing on each of the discs and then the seventh disc be full of songs written by all the members together!!! Out of that whole box guaranteed the 7th disc will be the groundbreaking relative innovative disc of the bunch!!! then we can start a thread on here trashing each one of them as it seems to be a common trend to criticise everything they did and didnt do!! Seriously people looking through the posts on here I have to wonder how many real PEARL JAM fans are on here!!???!!! Better yet maybe they should release a blank disc you can write them an album and send it to them since you seem to know so much about whats good and whats not. Last time I checked music was a art form a type of expression if you want to be competitive and see whos better then the turn you CD player off and go watch some sports and go clog there message boards with yer negativity!!! The next album shouldnt even have credit they should have a 10 club contest guess who wrote what!!
I'd say that's pretty warranted.
.
****
Aless
Tell them you love them. Never let the mundane, the unimportant, or worse, the misunderstood, be the final words of parting.
Eddie's songs on Avocado are easily the weakest, lamest songs on the album. The dude does not walk on water.
No one said that he walked on water. I merely said that he is the best songwriter in the band. Which song(s) on S/T did not have a contribution from Eddie Vedder?
And WWS is the best song on the album, both musically and lyrically.
No one said that he walked on water. I merely said that he is the best songwriter in the band. Which song(s) on S/T did not have a contribution from Eddie Vedder?
And WWS is the best song on the album, both musically and lyrically.
I like wws alot too!
Eddie is the clearly the best songwriter of the bunch. The other guys seems to agree when someone like Stone says that the band is ready to hit the studio when Eddie calls them in... Taken from the KROCK interview if I remember correct.
Just because people on The Porch don't like it doesn't mean it's a bad song. It hurts but it's true.
Btw Eddie is the only one who ever got high profile songwriting jobs outside PJ.
There was a semi scandal about why Eddie didn't bring the other members on the ITW project. Do you people really believe Sean Penn (or any other musician working on the score) would let them near it?
Just because Stone wrote a couple of big riffs doesn't mean he is a good songwriter. Everybody who ever touched a musical instrument can do it.
Mr Ament have said himself he regrets pushing for some of his songs in the past.
Time for a reality check people.
I knew who I was before other people started telling me who I was. J.Joplin
Are we all forgetting that they're a band? They all contribute to all the songs, and if it works, it stays in, if not, it's out. To say one or the other is better is just plain stupid. They're a band, live with it.
I also find it amusing all the: "I don't like the music or lyrics from Pearl Jam, but I'm a huge fan." I'll admit I don't like all the songs, but can you really say that you don't like an entire songwriter's catalogue and say you're a fan? I don't think it makes sense. Anyway, my double-pennys.
Comments
Yes i can deny. MOTH would be the only song from that list i would definitely put in my top 15.
Insignificance? Grievance? Education?
Are you fucking kidding me?
insignificance and grievance are amazing..... education is just pretty good.
8/7/08, 6/9/09
I would say yes Eddie is the best songwriter in the band and as someone else posted, perhaps in modern music. He's always been their best songwriter. But no, the next album should not be just Ed. This is because everyone generates musical ideas leading to great collaborative efforts. Many of the songs people are using as examples of others' craft, are collaborations in which Vedder plays a significant role. They have an idea, he plugs in mentally and off they go. Their ideas spark his genius and he turns them on.
Why eliminate that? It's crazy to get rid of that. Just Nuts.
We know only a few things for certain. Ed's songs really are Ed's songs. If there's another idea, it might be in the form of a bass run using thematic material he's already created or a lead guitar along similar lines. What he hears in his head is what he wants on the album. -- I can't tell you how glad I am that this debate is finally over. It was musically stupid. His music is different from everyone else's. How could they possibly be helping him write? Wouldn't they help themselves first? Good grief.
The other thing we know is that in collaborative songs (not the "let me help you with your words" songs you find on RA), the melodies are Eddie's, the music is sometimes re-structured (we don't know how frequent this is) by him, and in some cases the bridge is Ed's. And people, this includes Ten. Riffs do not a song make. Witness Footsteps. How do we know this? Interviews, demos and ears.
As Mine pointed out, their credits are sketchy. Trust your ears.
Since they asked, ::coughs:: what I want is for them to do what they want to do. But I don't think music by democracy works well. I would advise them to find another way. From an objective point of view, things were left off albums that should never have been left off and things put on that should never have gone on the albums. I don't know what that means credit and money wise, but the "everyone gets a # of songs per album with a few more from Ed" thing doesn't work all that well. If Ed by himself or Ed with Mike, or Stone alone writes a better song than band member ____ they should put it on the album. Maybe they need just to make the albums longer. Make it 17 instead of 14 songs. I think we can deal with filler.
Perhaps they are thinking of using these other great songs on the next album. But what good is that if the album they put out isn't the masterpiece it would otherwise be? Not only that, they are so prodigious, there will be even more songs by the time they get to the next album. The cycle will never stop unless they include the songs or release an album (or 3) full of them.
I think this is why people are asking some of the questions posited in this thread. We know too much, or think we know (it's not what we don't know that's the problem, it's what we think we know)
; )
ps This post probably comes off like I am dismissing other peoples' contributions. That's not the case but I can understand people may take it that way. The question asked was "should the albums be mostly Vedder". The point I was trying to make was that he makes a greater contribution on other songs than most people realize. So what the hell are people asking for? Nobody else writes music? That's preposterous. Those who think there are weaknesses might be satisfied with a few more songs rather than the current parsing/limit of song space on albums.
pps I expect to be drawn and quartered over this post but since I'm not in the mood for debate, maybe someone else can answer. I'm not alone in this POV and I actually appreciate support rather than spectators. ::nudges:: ; )
.
Aless
Tell them you love them. Never let the mundane, the unimportant, or worse, the misunderstood, be the final words of parting.
Tell them.
Yeah. They truly are.
.
Aless
Tell them you love them. Never let the mundane, the unimportant, or worse, the misunderstood, be the final words of parting.
Tell them.
I totally agree. The democracy has made for some weaker albums.
When you have someone with Ed's talent in the band, you stand back and let the talent come to the front.
I'm not saying they should be all Ed songs, but there have been too many mediocre songs on the albums just to make it democratic.
And CERTAINLY the lyrics should be left to Ed. Some of the worst PJ lyrics EVER have been from the others.
you can disagree, but that's just the way I feel...
turns out the world thought me
It's not pretentious in the least, it's called building an atmosphere. I nearly wept with joy the first time I heard that song, it's classic through and through.
totally disagree.
Gossard's pen is mightier than the sword
"Call me Ishmael. Some years ago- never mind how long precisely- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world." Herman Melville : Moby Dick
i aint sayin that 1 person is this & another is that . its just the way it goes.
Jim Morrison wrote 2/3 of the music for the Doors. yet they where still called the Doors. not the Jim Morrison band. etc etc etc ..
11/91 chicago
7/11/95 chicago
6/29/98 chicago
5/30/00 london UK
6/4/00 manchester UK
10/8/00 alpine valley
10/9/00 chicago
6/18/03 chicago
PLAY ALASKA U PUSSIES
Firstly, PJ is a BAND. I listen to their records for the contributions the musicians make - I think at least 50% of a song is in the delivery.
Secondly, what about variety? I'm not saying that Ed's songs are of a formula, because they're not. But each writer definitely brings their own approach to a song. I love the fact that on a PJ album you might have one of Jeff's more adventurous songs or (now) one of Matt's songs, which tend to have really interesting structures, timings and riffs.
Thirdly, it is subjective, I know, but I don't think you can discredit the co-written songs of, say, the last three records (I'm assuming you're talking about a slide in quality??). Ed's songs are fabulous, but what about songs like Rival, Save You, You Are, Sleight of Hand, God's Dice, Army Reserve, Life Wasted and so on...
I love PJ albums because of the band as a whole. I even love the different dynamics the past drummers have brought to the band; half the reason I love No Code is because of Jack Irons' contributions (In My Tree!!!). Given To Fly works so well in part because of the propulsion the band bring to the song (and it's co-written by Mike....).
So, yeah, I disagree
I would like to see more Stone and Mike music writing because I like it when Pearl Jam rocks but Ed has turned that into too much of a punk sound. I would also like to hear more funky bass from Jeff. He really used to be more important to the overall sound of the band.
The last thing is I really wish they would be more workmanlike in the studio and put a little polish on the sound. It seems Ed just wants to get it done whether it is his best effort or not. I sometimes think the studio albums are just a means to get on the road which may eventually be the downfall of the band.
Now that they all have wives and kids how appealing will the road be when the studio has obviously never been a great experience for the band no matter what they say publicly.
BUGS
Nothing else needs to be said...:)
"Free Shipping" SPEEDY MCCREADY
My friend was going to see Eddie last night. Since he was in Vegas, I gave him 5 Grand to gamble with. I told him I wanted it all to go on Black. Bastard! PhillyCrownOfThorns-11-2-12
I agree with pretty much everything you said except maybe the part of how the democracy part works. My impresion from interviews is it was more like they need a majority vote to get songs on the albums etc and that they all have input on the songs. Such as,4 guys say that part doesn't work Ed so he changes it. I dont think its that "ed gets 5 songs and the rest get 3 each or whatever. I thnk you can blame them all that Down or Fatal didn't make the albums. The majority of them probably said we love the songs but they are not right for "this" album and the overall vibe we have established. The demacratic system they used for Avacodo produced mostly good results i thought.
Secondly, it seems that for many, the vocal melody is often excluded when discussing songwriting. Would ALIVE, BLACK, NOTHINGMAN or GIVEN TO FLY be the songs they are without the lyrics and vocal melodies? Would they be as memorable? Would anyone claim that Pearl Jam's greatest songs would have been as memorable without the contribution of Eddie Vedder?
And as for Eddie Vedder's songwriting, there is nothing simplistic about it. The reliance on chord choices as a measure of songwriting quality mystifies me. There is much more to a complete song than just the underlying chords. Eddie Vedder can write a ballad of the quality of MAN OF THE HOUR on his own. He can write a rocker with the kind of creativity that we see in GRIEVANCE as an individual. No one else in the band arranges tunes in this style. An Eddie Vedder tune is instantly recognizable. Looking objectively at the tunes written by the band members without any collaboration with Eddie, are there any of these among the band's best tunes?
That doesn't mean that the band isn't important. All of the members are very important. And their collaborations with Eddie are important in the songwriting of the band. But I don't think that there is any comparison between any of the other members of the band and Eddie in terms of songwriting.
Toronto 10/01/00
Toronto 06/28/03
Kitchner 09/11/05
London 09/12/05
Hamilton 09/13/05
Toronto 05/9/06
Toronto 05/10/06
Please play SATANS BED
It was not written by Eddie.
Summerfest 95, 06 Alpine 92, 98, 00, 03 Chicago 95, 98, 00, 03, 06, 07 Grand Rapids 04, St. John's 05 Milwaukee 08
I'd say that's pretty warranted.
.
Aless
Tell them you love them. Never let the mundane, the unimportant, or worse, the misunderstood, be the final words of parting.
Tell them.
And WWS is the best song on the album, both musically and lyrically.
I am a man, I am advanced.....I am the first man to borrow Stone's leather pants!
I like wws alot too!
Eddie is the clearly the best songwriter of the bunch. The other guys seems to agree when someone like Stone says that the band is ready to hit the studio when Eddie calls them in... Taken from the KROCK interview if I remember correct.
Nah, joint worst with Gone.....
This is why I love The Porch.....
Btw Eddie is the only one who ever got high profile songwriting jobs outside PJ.
There was a semi scandal about why Eddie didn't bring the other members on the ITW project. Do you people really believe Sean Penn (or any other musician working on the score) would let them near it?
Just because Stone wrote a couple of big riffs doesn't mean he is a good songwriter. Everybody who ever touched a musical instrument can do it.
Mr Ament have said himself he regrets pushing for some of his songs in the past.
Time for a reality check people.
Lol.
I was refering to that fact this place can have such wide ranging opinions.....
I love some Eddie songs - I Am Mine for one.....but WWS side just does not do it for me.....
I also find it amusing all the: "I don't like the music or lyrics from Pearl Jam, but I'm a huge fan." I'll admit I don't like all the songs, but can you really say that you don't like an entire songwriter's catalogue and say you're a fan? I don't think it makes sense. Anyway, my double-pennys.