Ten Deluxe Edition: Pitchfork Review

cordurologycordurology Posts: 227
edited April 2009 in The Porch
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/128 ... e-edition/

Pearl Jam
Ten
[Epic / Legacy; 1991/2009]
6.7


Ten may be classic rock today, but it's easy to underestimate how radical Pearl Jam sounded back in 1991, even with Nirvana ascendant. After several long years of hair metal dominance, here was a band that could jam stadium-large, texture their sound darkly and densely, and explode the blues-rock template. Here was a frontman with an entirely new stage presence, whose voice strained hard for sincerity and whose songwriting expressed grave self-reckoning without resorting to easy sentiments or self-glorifying choruses. Against the odds-- as well as against the band's wishes, apparently-- their debut became a phenomenon, an alt-rock figurehead as crucial as Nevermind in ushering in and defining the parameters for mainstream rock. Vedder's self-doubts ran as deep as Cobain's, but he expressed them bluntly and directly rather than poetically and obscurely. Oh and also, he's still alive.

Deeply invested in the cathartic possibilities of punk and classic rock, Pearl Jam seemingly made music as a form of self-therapy, an idea that took hold with nearly a decade of alt-rock acts to come. The band is routinely blamed for the self-gratifying Stone Temple Pilots, Creeds, and Nicklebacks that followed Ten, but the band naturally never set out to remake rock music in its own image. Suspicious of the hedonism of the arena rock that preceded them, Pearl Jam were a solemn band, and Ten sounds nothing if not entirely serious about animating Vedder's self-doubts. At times, it's a bit overwrought ("I don't question our existence/ I just question our modern needs"), but the earnestness with which Vedder sang and the band played these songs belies the decade's reputation as a period of pervasive irony. Ultimately, the 1990s wouldn't have been so bad if Pearl Jam's followers hadn't aped their self-seriousness so relentlessly.

Nevertheless, Ten remains impressive and occasionally moving 18 years later, even gentrified with a shiny reissue. The public perception of the album is watered down thanks mainly to the excision of "Alive", "Jeremy", and "Even Flow" as singles. The latter two may be the album's least remarkable tracks: "Jeremy" is the most pat Freudian psychodrama on an album full of them, and "Evenflow" romanticizes homelessness as spiritually transcendent. But "Alive" remains potent not only because Vedder touches on some seriously transgressive shit here (dead fathers, hints at incest, survivor guilt), but mostly because the band rock the hell out of that coda.

Today, Ten lives and dies by its album tracks, and while there are a few clunkers, most are pretty ballsy in their disdain for expectations. Granted, as a new band with few realistic prospects for the kind of success they quickly achieved, Pearl Jam were working with a very different set of expectations than the ones retroactively assigned to them. On songs like "Once", with its insistent breakdowns, and "Black", with strangely dramatic vocalizations, there's a hardscrabble dynamic that the band would be unable to capture on subsequent releases. "Why Go" is ferocious in its outrage, with Vedder delivering his most pained vocals, and Stone Gossard and Mike McCready match him on every song, translating Vedder's howls into messy, edge-of-the-precipice solos and paint-peeling riffs like the one that anchors "Deep".

In addition to the original album as produced by Rick Parashar and mixed by Tim Palmer, the new reissue includes a second disc, titled Ten Redux, that includes a new mix by Brendan O'Brien. A few of these new versions appeared on 2004's best-of Rearviewmirror, and O'Brien, who has worked with Pearl Jam on most of their subsequent albums, brings Vedder's ad libs to the forefront, sharpens some of the guitar riffs, and generally cleans up the murkiness. Sounding like 2005 rather than 1991, Ten Redux misses the point: The album's murkiness was one of its chief attractions, its flawed spontaneity feeding the songs' of-the-moment intensity. Ultimately, these new versions have less to do with Pearl Jam's music than with O'Brien's superfandom.

Ten Redux closes with a paltry six bonus tracks. "2,000 Mile Blues" is atrocious Jimi worship, "Evil Little Goat" is Vedder's best Jim Morrison impersonation, and neither "Breath" (here retitled "Breath and a Scream") nor "State of Love and Trust" sound as vital here as they did on the Singles soundtrack. These tracks are obviously intended not to overlap with 2003's Lost Dogs: Rarities and B-Sides, but flipsides like "Dirty Frank" and "Yellow Ledbetter" were surprisingly popular satellites orbiting Ten, played often on radio stations that didn't typically delve that deep into any artist's catalog and shouted at concerts by fans who weren't that fanatic. Their absence limits the reissue, creating an incomplete portrait of the band in its earliest days.

Ten deserved better than Ten Redux and the paltry bonus tracks. Fortunately, the reissue also includes a DVD of Pearl Jam's 1992 performance on "MTV Unplugged". The fashions are of course dated (nice fuzzy hat, Jeff Ament) and Vedder's stool-bound intensity can be fairly ridiculous, but the DVD is a useful and entertaining document of their intense live sets. Thanks to the tight rhythms of drummer Dave Abbruzzese and bass player Ament, the songs lose little of their momentum in this setting, which handily showcases the guitar interplay between Gossard and McCready. But this is Vedder's show-- a live, public debut for his idiosyncrasies. Taking the stage in a tight jacket and backwards baseball cap, he gradually unleashes himself during the show, first letting his hair down and then eventually losing the jacket. By show's end, he's balancing precariously on his stool and scrawling PRO CHOICE!!! on his arms with a Sharpie. Pearl Jam may have shunned the spotlight, but they were born showmen.

— Stephen M. Deusner, April 3, 2009
Lex 03, Gorge 05, Cincy 06
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • PJFAN_seattlePJFAN_seattle Posts: 2,965
    pitchfork gives everything crappy scores.
    Shows:
    Seattle Key Arena 9-21-2009
    Seattle Key Arena 9-22-2009
  • cordurologycordurology Posts: 227
    pitchfork gives everything crappy scores.

    True, but 6.7 is actually not too bad on that site. The over/under generally seems to be around 6.5.. anything over is usually a positive review, anything under.. not so much.
    Lex 03, Gorge 05, Cincy 06
  • PJFAN_seattlePJFAN_seattle Posts: 2,965
    pitchfork gives everything crappy scores.

    True, but 6.7 is actually not too bad on that site. The over/under generally seems to be around 6.5.. anything over is usually a positive review, anything under.. not so much.

    thats a D :shock:
    i thot they did very well on the new ten.
    Shows:
    Seattle Key Arena 9-21-2009
    Seattle Key Arena 9-22-2009
  • cordurologycordurology Posts: 227
    pitchfork gives everything crappy scores.

    True, but 6.7 is actually not too bad on that site. The over/under generally seems to be around 6.5.. anything over is usually a positive review, anything under.. not so much.

    thats a D :shock:

    Music ratings are different from school grading scales. In Rolling Stone, three stars is considered "Good", while 3/5 would equal a 60, or an F, in most school grading systems.
    Lex 03, Gorge 05, Cincy 06
  • PJFAN_seattlePJFAN_seattle Posts: 2,965
    Music ratings are different from school grading scales. In Rolling Stone, three stars is considered "Good", while 3/5 would equal a 60, or an F, in most school grading systems.


    :(6.7 still seems 2 low tho.
    Shows:
    Seattle Key Arena 9-21-2009
    Seattle Key Arena 9-22-2009
  • Thorns2010Thorns2010 Posts: 2,201
    Good to know they don't even know what they are talking about.

    The remixed tracks on the greatest hits are DIFFERENT then the ones on the reissue.

    Oh well, not everyone can be crazy like us to know this!

    EDIT: Oh and he seemed like a bit of a whiner about the fact that Yellow Ledbetter and Dirty Frank weren't on the reissue.
  • PJFAN_seattlePJFAN_seattle Posts: 2,965
    Thorns2010 wrote:
    Good to know they don't even know what they are talking about.

    The remixed tracks on the greatest hits are DIFFERENT then the ones on the reissue.

    Oh well, not everyone can be crazy like us to know this!

    EDIT: Oh and he seemed like a bit of a whiner about the fact that Yellow Ledbetter and Dirty Frank weren't on the reissue.

    yah ive read pitchfork reviews before and most of the writers are like that.
    Shows:
    Seattle Key Arena 9-21-2009
    Seattle Key Arena 9-22-2009
  • Ultimately, the 1990s wouldn't have been so bad if Pearl Jam's followers hadn't aped their self-seriousness so relentlessly.

    They should see what those fans turned into!
  • cordurologycordurology Posts: 227
    Ultimately, the 1990s wouldn't have been so bad if Pearl Jam's followers hadn't aped their self-seriousness so relentlessly.

    They should see what those fans turned into!

    http://www.instantrimshot.com/
    Lex 03, Gorge 05, Cincy 06
  • FlaggFlagg Posts: 5,856
    I have to say I agree with a lot of this review. Ten was never my favorite album though. So I very much disagree with the reviewer saying they were never able to re-capture the dynamic they had on Ten. Hello? They surpassed it on thier very next two albums!

    Also agree on the exclusion of Yellow Ledbetter and Dirty Frank. If you are going to make a definitive re-issue, those two should have been on there.

    Really necessary to call 2000 Mile Blues and atrocious Jimi lovefest? Really? They were just fucking around in the studio and decided to record it. Everything doesn't have to be so serious.
    DAL-7/5/98,10/17/00,6/9/03,11/15/13
    BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
    MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
    PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
    CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
    HTFD-6/27/08
    ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
    KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
    Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
    PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
    OKC-11/16/13
    SEA-12/6/13
    TUL-10/8/14
  • that rating made me throwup in my mouth. if pitchfork existed when ten came out - and for some reason 10 wasn't as popular as it was - they would have given it a 10.0.

    they have something against pearl jam; always have. i don't get it.

    ten is not my favorite album either, but it deserves atleast an 8.0 by their standards. what would they give a nevermind reissue?

    i love pitchfork, but they hate my favorite band so it makes me crazy sometimes.
    Those undecided,........ Needn't have faith to be free
    And those misguided, There was a plan for them to be
    Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
    But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently

    What goes on?
  • thrakerthraker Posts: 61
    It's actually one of the most positive Pearl Jam reviews that they have ever done (besides Yield). I was actually blown away by the overall attitude it showed given that hipsters are generally Pearl Jamphobes. I wonder if in the near future we'll be seeing more dark-rimmed-glasses-emaciated-cannot-buy-clothes-that-fit-ironic-mustache-types at the shows?
    :ugeek:
  • BALLBOYBALLBOY Australia Posts: 1,032
    What a strange review, it started being positive then came down to earth with a thud. But then most reviewers have failed badly at whatever & take their pain & suffering out on beautiful things.
    Eastern Creek 95,Syd 1 98,Bris 2 98, Syd 1&2 03, Reading Fest 06, Bris 1 06, London 09, Hyde Park 10, Gold Coast BDO 14 Budapest 22 Krakow 22 Amsterdam 22 St Paul 1&2 23 Chicago 1&2 23 Chicago 1&2 24 New York 1 24 Philly 1&2 24 Boston 1&2 24 Gold Coast 24 Melbourne 1 24 Sydney 1&2 24
  • DD164485DD164485 Posts: 149
    I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the horn rim dorks over at Pitchfork actually took their collective lips off the cock of Animal Collective long enough to give this TEN re-issue a review.

    This is pretty remarkable considering they didn't even bother to review Eddie's "Into the Wild Album".

    For the record... I called them out on this fact in an e-mail about a year ago and their reply was that the album "wasn't relevant for their publication". Anyways...I digress.

    I can just imagine the pain,suffering, and bitching that must have ensued when these clowns realized that would finally have to give Pearl Jam or this re-issue of TEN, a rating above 4.0 (their usual Pearl Jam score)

    They probably felt strong-armed by the historical relevance of the album.

    Pitchfork likely assesed the situation and realized how pathetic and utterly ridiculous they'd look if they decided to give TEN...the legendary TEN...a rating any lower than 6.0.

    It should be noted that without TEN, Nevermind and the collective success of the 1990's alternative movement...these dorks likely would not have the platform they unfortunately have to express and unleash their utterly useless opinion on the world today.

    But then again...this is the same publication that dared release a "Best of the 90's" album list without a single hint of either Alice N Chains, Soungarden, or Pearl Jam on the list.

    We're lucky to walk away from this review relatively unscathed.

    FUCK PITCHFORK
  • CranMalReignCranMalReign Posts: 1,928
    Sounding like 2005 rather than 1991, Ten Redux misses the point: The album's murkiness was one of its chief attractions, its flawed spontaneity feeding the songs' of-the-moment intensity. Ultimately, these new versions have less to do with Pearl Jam's music than with O'Brien's superfandom.

    That's my most favoritest part!

    Yes, all about O'Brien's superfandom... having his arm twisted by the band for 15 years before reluctantly agreeing to remix, but only if the original was included.
    • 98 Pgh
    • 00 Pgh
    • 03 Pgh|Philly|PSU|Camden 1+2|Hershey
    • 04 Boston 1|Reading
    • 05 Philly
    • 06 Camden 1+2|Pgh
    • 08 Camden 1+2|Hartford|Mansfield 2
    • 09 Philly 1 [EV]|Toronto|Spectrum 1-4
    • 10 Cleveland|Buffalo
    • 11 Philly [EV]|PJ20
    • 12 Philly
    • 13 London|Pgh|Buff|Philly 1+2|Balt
    • 14 Cincy|StL
    • 16 Philly 1+2|Philly 2 [TotD]
    • 18 Boston 1+2
  • soxjamsoxjam Posts: 55
    Pitchfork always gives bad reviews. Their critics seem like a bunch of snobs who only give good reviews to bands no one has heard of. They try to be ahead of the curve and hate any band who has gotten some fame.
Sign In or Register to comment.