Lets Email the Author of the Terrible Pitchfork Review

So there is, definitely, a change in Pearl Jam's sound. The band has admitted it, fans have noticed it. Older bandmates now. More mature, smoothed out. And yet, there music still rivets us in different ways.

Funny thing about it? Stone and Ed and Ament have all said at various times, and repeatedly, that what happened with the songs on Ten and Vs. was 'magical', that, yeah, these songs came together quickly and greatly, but they never felt like they were writing music, that it felt like they weren't trying to actually write music until Vitalogy, and then dove into that aspect hard afterward, going on to No Code and Yield with the layers and textures, etc, etc.

Therein lies the immediate brilliance that resulted from the convergence of Stone/Ament and Ed and the others in the beginning. Magic.

Now? No, of course not. Band has been around the block a few times. They're older. They strive NOT to sound like 'old' pearl Jam. They want to evolve and morph and try new stuff.

That they still captivate as many fans as they do with this music and sell 750,000+ albums per release at a time when the Internet has utterly destroyed traditional cd/record sales, says something.

soulsinging wrote:

imissyoualready wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

I dunno, I keep hoping one day they'll do what they're capable of and get back to their strengths. I see flashes of it now and again... like the breakdown in Supersonic, or Amongst the Waves. The jams at the end of Unthought Known and Force of Nature... they keep coming close. I keep hoping. Maybe I'm an idiot for it, but this band meant a lot to me and I keep rooting for them. Like how I stuck with the Detroit Tigers through the worst decade in baseball, and one day it paid off and they made the playoffs again But I have moved on in many ways. I rarely listen to PJ, I sold Riot Act because it was weak. I listen to tons of new bands daily, more so than PJ by far.

I stick around here because the Moving Train is addictive, I get good tips from Other Music, it's a great way to waste free time, and I already bought the damn membership so why not? Don't worry though, I won't be long. My membership has lapsed and I don't intend to renew it. I'll still give them a listen when they have new stuff, I love seeing them live, I love their middle albums. Hell, I don't even hate the new stuff, I just know they can and have done better.

And now it makes sense. You arent really a PJ fan anymore if you're selling your PJ records. You're just here to piss real fans off.

No, I'm not a fan of their new stuff. I've been devoted to this band for over 10 years. I somehow doubt getting rid of one album means I'm not a fan. Do you have every album by every band you ever liked? I can't think of a single band whose entire catalogue I own. PJ comes closer than anyone to that distinction.

I'm not trying to piss people off. I often hope someone will catch something I missed and it'll change my mind about their recent material.

+1

slightofjeff wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Ed wrote music for a grand total of 7 songs over the first 3 albums (porch, rvm, elderly woman, corduroy, not for you, immortality, betterman). 7 out of 33 songs. He has 5 out of the 11 songs on this album. On those first 3 albums, Stone wrote 8 of the Ten songs on his own and at least half of the rest of VS-Vitalogy... so 19 out of 33 we'll say. This album, he has I believe ONE song he wrote himself, and maybe 2 other co-writer credits (not coincidentally, it's the best song on the album). On the last album, Ed wrote music for... 4-5 songs? Stone had... 2? 3?

You say I'm delusional? You're right, the distribution of song-writing duties hasn't changed AT ALL over the years :roll: PJ is Ed's baby now, and Stone may be ok with that, but I'm not. His was always the most interesting music. And it's annoying when you have people that talented going to waste. Ed did an entire solo album, and still sticks 3 more songs just like the ones from his solo album onto BS, while Stone had his solo album shelved (so clearly, he had material) and can't get more than one song on this album? You don't believe that any more than I do.

I don't know how they pick the songs, but I don't think anyone would disagree that they suck at it. The proof of that is the songs left off Binaural and Riot Act, which are largely far better than any of the songs actually on those albums. Even the band has admitted that. I know they said they tried to get away from that this time, but I don't think it worked. Sue me.

I don't mean this quite as shittily as it's going to come out, but why are you still around then? The band has been "Ed's baby" since Vitalogy. It's been damn near 15 years. At some point, it seems you'd realize Ten/Vs.-era Pearl Jam isn't coming back. Why are you still here?

See I love the first three STP albums. Love them, love them, love them. I still consider Purple to be one of the best pieces of music of all time. The fourth and fifth albums didn't do much for me. Surprisingly, however, I didn't go on the STP website and bitch about it. I just shrugged my shoulders and moved on to other bands.

Sleightofjeff, you know that your STP message board analogy isn't a very fair comparison. You're not obsessed with STP whereas, though I don't know him personally, I'd wager a guess that soulsinging IS obsessed with Pearl Jam. That's why he's passionate about this songwriting-distribution debate. It's not like he's just trying to be an asshole. That's why it sucks being on the unpopular side of an topic around here. You can't state a negative opinion because people like imissyoualready and THEBIBLEISTEN will accuse you of trying to piss people off.

That being said, I totally disagree with soulsinging's opinion. I think the other four members of PJ are great musicians and play awesome live. But creatively....they have been the four wheels on the Eddie Vedder-mobile for about a decade now. And whereas Stone was pissed in the Vitalogy years that Eddie had taken over creativly, now, he's seems more than happy just to still have a guy like Ed around to ride the coattails of.

asgoodased wrote:

Other mainstream acts album reviews by Pitchfork:

U2's All That you Cant Leave behind - 5.0 (easily u2's best album this decade)
Green Days 21st Century Breakdown - 4.8
Nine Inch Nails' The Fragile - 2.0 (that one is almost beyond belief)
Weezers Make Believe - 0.4
Coldplays A rush of blood to the head 4.9

Of those 5, I would rate U2's, NIN's, and Coldplays albums as 21st Century classics, and I only would put about 15-20 albums in that category. Granted, Weezer's Make Believe is poor, but a 0.4? The point is, they either hate anything mainstream (not named Radiohead), or they do it on purpose. I dont know which.

hmmmmmm I'm gonna play music reviewer just for fun...

yeah, I would say pitchfork is wrong on all counts...

I'll give the U2 album a 7.5. maybe an 8.

I'll give the Green Day album a 0.1 because it's worthless shite. Dookie was good as a zeitgeist album but otherwise I don't hear any reason for them to continue recording music, other than the fact that people like them and keep buying their records and attending their shows. well, they can have fun with that.

NIN - The Fragile. I have this one. A lot of it sounds the same. I'll give it a 5.5.

Weezer's Make Believe - a 6.5. It's got some really fun songs on it.

Coldplay - blah, I can't even be bothered to rate them.


that was fun. we all have our own opinions. art affects us all differently. there's no point in getting upset when people disagree... there will always be people who disagree. i find other people's opinions interesting, but ultimately, I like what I like.

as Eddie once said when introducing a certain song we all know... "you are yours"

I will not however email the author of the article.

So the 'haute' thing to do if you're a pitchfork reviewer is to show off your writing more than your knowledge of music. They make no bones about it - just read any of a gazillion catch phrases or 'shock' phrases in their reviews that serve little more than to one-up each other or show off writing 'precociousness'.

The site thrives on controversy - giving an album, any album, a 0.0 rating is nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt, imho - and self-adulation when it 'stumps' for certain indie acts that wind up becoming popular, and then increasingly dumping on that act as they gain popularity. Case in point: Death Cab For Cutie.

Nine years ago when I started visiting pitchfork to 'discover' bands I'd never heard of, I came across Death Cab For Cutie. Liked the review, bought the album (their second release, 'We Have The Facts and We're Voting Yes') and rest is history. Took me a few years to realize pitchfork's path, but it became clearly evident when "Transatlanticism" was released, the album that blew up Death Cab for the masses. I loved that album. It still was before most people had heard of Death Cab, but they'd been gaining steam for a couple of years. Anyway, pitchfork trashed it. ... Go and read pitchfork's ratings on Death Cab albums from oldest to most recent. Their ratings progressively worsen. By design, if you ask me.

Regardless, I like going to pitchfork because they compile a bunch of professional critics' reviews/stories in one place easily enough for each album, and I can discover a new independent/indie band, like Death Cab.

I merely read their reviews with a grain of salt, knowing I'll likely get a good chuckle out of some assclown writer's lack of knowledge or funny metaphor/turn of phrase, knowing they wrote it not to advance their story, but to get their own jollies off.

a few of those songs belong on the list. ... I'm a big fan of LCD Soundsystem, but two LCDSS songs greatest this past decade? Them pitchfork pigs are slobbering on themselves.

soulsinging wrote:

imissyoualready wrote:

"All but pushed Stone out of the band"????????????

Man you seriously dont know what your'e talking about. Do you know how PJ picks songs? You need to go do some homework.......FER REELZ. And everytime you post you end up correcting what you said in the previous post. I recommend you take about 3 weeks off from posting and go watch all the interviews you've missed in the last few years. You'll come back a better, more accurate poster.

"They've all but pushed Stone out of the band" LMMFAO!!!

Ed wrote music for a grand total of 7 songs over the first 3 albums (porch, rvm, elderly woman, corduroy, not for you, immortality, betterman). 7 out of 33 songs. He has 5 out of the 11 songs on this album. On those first 3 albums, Stone wrote 8 of the Ten songs on his own and at least half of the rest of VS-Vitalogy... so 19 out of 33 we'll say. This album, he has I believe ONE song he wrote himself, and maybe 2 other co-writer credits (not coincidentally, it's the best song on the album). On the last album, Ed wrote music for... 4-5 songs? Stone had... 2? 3?

You say I'm delusional? You're right, the distribution of song-writing duties hasn't changed AT ALL over the years :roll: PJ is Ed's baby now, and Stone may be ok with that, but I'm not. His was always the most interesting music. And it's annoying when you have people that talented going to waste. Ed did an entire solo album, and still sticks 3 more songs just like the ones from his solo album onto BS, while Stone had his solo album shelved (so clearly, he had material) and can't get more than one song on this album? You don't believe that any more than I do.

I don't know how they pick the songs, but I don't think anyone would disagree that they suck at it. The proof of that is the songs left off Binaural and Riot Act, which are largely far better than any of the songs actually on those albums. Even the band has admitted that. I know they said they tried to get away from that this time, but I don't think it worked. Sue me.

It's getting stronger in me the opinion that it might have been a collective decision of the whole band, right or wrong, to put some Into The Wild leftovers in Backspacer, given the large success the soundtrack has had. Maybe they thought that way Backspacer could sell more and I don't see anything wrong with that. I personally think it wasn't a good idea to include the "solo" songs in their record and not because I don't like those songs, but because I'd rather have them on their own and without the over-production. I just don't see why they had to rearrange Speed of Sound that way, for instance. It just doesn't sound right. Stick to acoustic and publish an Into The Wild Part II, rather. Either way, it is true that Stone has had less to say over the years and left more and more space to Eddie instead. And it shows. There was a time when they all shared 20% of royalties and everybody knows that after a while Stone agreed to give 4% to Eddie and so did the rest of the band, so now Eddie gets 36% and the rest of them only 14%. So that could be an explanation for Stone's "withdrawal" from songwriting in Pearl Jam.

Yeah, he said that you were all a bunch of clownshoes!

+1 million