Abstract thoughts...
PlacidSoul
There are photo's that have been floating around in recent publications, of the
band, that were taken by British photographer Anton Corbijn. The beautiful
shots of the band sort of simbolize something to me. I know this is quite off
the wall to be saying such a sentimental thing about my favorite American rock
band but, the photo's represent, to me, a band that has weathered the storm and
forged new ground every time out. Ever creating swooning, raw and untouchable
rock music for the masses to devour, during their time.
I suppose what I'm getting at is my favorite analogy that Pearl Jam is like a
modern version of The Who, or something to that effect. Steadily putting out
masterful product and easily listenable records, no matter how off the wall
they try to present themselves.
Anyone ever get the same feelings about the band?
Jason
Jett Karma
placi...@aol.com (PlacidSoul) wrote:
*************
While I think your thoughts about the band are valid and honestly
lovely, the more I know about The Who, the less I feel there is any
real comparison between the two bands as bands. The Who were a pop
band to start with, at Pete's own admission. Later they got into more
into the concept of music as art--at least Townshend did. The Who
peaked in the 70s and kept going, long after they'd done the best work
they ever would. They became a "stadium band" going through the
motions...again, by Pete's own admission. PJ and the Who's careers
don't parallel.
That Eddie has been extremely influenced by The Who and, particularly,
by Townshend, can't be denied. No argument. (And thank god he has
been!) It seems to me that Ed has taken Townshend and his
"perspective" and used it as a springboard for his own vision and
aims.
It appears to me that if PJ have weathered their storm (and it seems
you're right--they have weathered the worst of the tempest), they've
done so more cohesively than The Who was ever able to pull together.
It seems to me for all the stories about Ed and his control
freakiness, he is much more able to entertain ideas from other band
members about direction, etc., than Pete was able to.
I listen to things like "Scoop," and think...Christ! What did
Townshend need those other guys for? That may be heresy to you, but
in general that is the feeling I get. Some of Townshend's work for
The Who sounded *better* before The Who had their go at the stuff.
The Who's stuff really felt like Townshend...and there's a reason...it
was, greatly, Townshend. That is why, ultimately, he left The Who and
pursued a solo career, which contains some of his best and his most
mature lyrics and music and is the phase of his career where he
expressed his most important ideas most clearly (his Lighthouse stuff
was really solo stuff, you must admit--Pure and Easy, all of that was
really pre-solo Pete--it was not really written for the band; it was
written for Pete).
Ed has stepped back. Yield is certainly not an "Ed" album. It feels
like a collaborative work, which it is. It seems to me that Pete
wanted control and got it. None of The Who's albums fill me with a
feeling that I'm looking at a truly collaborative band effort. (Spots
of it here and there, of course.) Ed seems to be so in control, that
he doesn't have to scramble around trying to amass it and keep it. He
has relaxed. He's centered enough to let other people have their say
and their expression, too. To me, this means the band is more
important to Ed as a vehicle of expression than it was to Pete. Also,
whatever important thoughts Ed may end up expressing with PJ or, even
if he were to go on to a solo career someday, he has expressed clearly
some of his best and most important ideas through PJ. (I'm hardly
saying he's expressed his best ideas and most important ideas already
and that he has nothing more to say...I'm saying, though, that he as
expressed some of the best of them. Ed is maturing as a person, his
music will follow. He's only in his early 30s...I believe he will be
around for quite a long while and getting better all the time. I
think he is a very intelligent, capable and extremely talented person
who is capable of even better things than what we've already seen,
superb--in places--as that already has been. Not like I have high
hopes or high expectations or anything. <g>) And, not to completely
gloss over the rest of the band...I'm very impressed with a lot of
what I see coming from them. Ed is a true talent, but hardly the only
talent in the band.
Ah, well. Enough blithering from me for today. Thanks for listening.
--Jett
Spir|t
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 02:12:40 GMT, jzbl...@flash.net (Jett Karma)
wrote:
Jett, do you understand the concept of a thread? You see my newsreader
neatly orders posts according to the subject. If it can't find an
existing thread with a subject say "Abstract thoughts...and
Semi-Rambling Thoughts" it simply generates a new thread - say "Re:
Abstract thoughts...and Semi-Rambling Thoughts". Now there are two
parallel threads but with different subject. Another thread to ignore
or read for me. "Yay!".
Could you and all others please try and NOT change the subject when
there's no reason to do so? Thanks!
>--Jett
. martin . http://home4.inet.tele.dk/wulffeld . #Yield / Undernet
. and you're all i see .
. and trumpets blew, and angels flew on the other side .
. and you're all i see, and you're all i'll need .
. there's a love that god puts in your heart .
Jett Karma
Laurie Hester
Hey, this is a thread on abstract thoughts, not policing the newsgroup.
Stick to the topic!
Laurie
Spir|t
On Sat, 07 Mar 1998 17:32:23 -0800, Laurie Hester
<fun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<smile>
>Hey, this is a thread on abstract thoughts, not policing the newsgroup.
>Stick to the topic!
>
>Laurie
. martin . http://home4.inet.tele.dk/wulffeld . #Yield / Undernet .
. what kind of love is this that keeps me hanging on .
. despite everything it's doing to me .
. what is this love that keeps me coming back for more .
. when it will only end in misery .
Spir|t
On Sat, 07 Mar 1998 23:05:17 GMT, jzbl...@flash.net (Jett Karma)
wrote:
>wulf...@SPAMTHISpost4.tele.dk (Spir|t) wrote:
>
>>Jett, do you understand the concept of a thread? You see my newsreader
>>neatly orders posts according to the subject. If it can't find an
>>existing thread with a subject say "Abstract thoughts...and
>>Semi-Rambling Thoughts" it simply generates a new thread - say "Re:
>>Abstract thoughts...and Semi-Rambling Thoughts". Now there are two
>>parallel threads but with different subject. Another thread to ignore
>>or read for me. "Yay!".
>>
>>Could you and all others please try and NOT change the subject when
>>there's no reason to do so? Thanks!
>***********
>Please explain the concept. Thanks!!
>
>--Jett
I think you DO know the concept. If you don't.. well that's just sad
since you're not a newbie. Thanks for (hopefully) being considerate in
the future :)