All I want from the goddamn band
Dismayed
there are a few things that I want actually. The first is a non sloppy
recording...the beep and feedback in GTF and the annoying miscue near the
end of Wishlist. Pisses me off man, like they dont give a shit about the
quality. The next thing I want to do is lose the scratchy, whiny voice.
For some songs this works, but where the hell is the reverberating voice
from Ten. And dont give me that crap that there is more production
affecting Eds voice in Ten...he goes to that tone in Do the Evolution, the
hallelujah part, and whenever he sings the old stuff live. I like Yield,
but these guys could be even better, and everyone knows it.
I'm one of the people who think Ten was actually overproduced, yet the
clearity and power of Eds voice is what drew us in. He still possesses
this power, but never uses it. Whats the deal? Im just tired of the
scratchy shit.
Tony Vance
I think a lot of what you call "sloppy" is intentional. Stone said in
the recent Triple J interview that they put in a lot of "crappy" (his
words) sounding stuff to make the music more interesting. It's nothing
new, since they've been recording feedback, backgroud recording studio
noises, and first takes since Vs..
Yeah, I like Vedder's deep, full voice best, but I like his other vocal
styles on "Yield" too (e.g. Wish List, Faithful, All Those Yesterdays),
though I think he goes a too far at times on "Do the Evolution."
By the way, what do you think of Ed's voice on "In Hidding" and "Given
to Fly?" Sounds as resonant as ever to me.
-Tony
Magnus Pettersson
Dismayed wrote in message...
>there are a few things that I want actually. The first is a non sloppy
>recording...the beep and feedback in GTF and the annoying miscue near the
>end of Wishlist. Pisses me off man, like they dont give a shit about the
>quality. The next thing I want to do is lose the scratchy, whiny voice.
>For some songs this works, but where the hell is the reverberating voice
>from Ten. And dont give me that crap that there is more production
>affecting Eds voice in Ten...he goes to that tone in Do the Evolution, the
>hallelujah part, and whenever he sings the old stuff live. I like Yield,
>but these guys could be even better, and everyone knows it.
> I'm one of the people who think Ten was actually overproduced, yet the
>clearity and power of Eds voice is what drew us in. He still possesses
>this power, but never uses it. Whats the deal? Im just tired of the
>scratchy shit.
MAN!!! This is my opinion too!! Just listen to the songs on Yield! If he
just had that powerful voice from the first to albums Yield could be even
better! That thin voice takes away some of the old Pearl Jam spirit.
Frogwater
>there are a few things that I want actually. The first is a non sloppy
>recording...the beep and feedback in GTF and the annoying miscue near the
>end of Wishlist. Pisses me off man, like they dont give a shit about the
>quality. The next thing I want to do is lose the scratchy, whiny voice.
>For some songs this works, but where the hell is the reverberating voice
>from Ten. And dont give me that crap that there is more production
>affecting Eds voice in Ten...he goes to that tone in Do the Evolution, the
>hallelujah part, and whenever he sings the old stuff live. I like Yield,
>but these guys could be even better, and everyone knows it.
> I'm one of the people who think Ten was actually overproduced, yet the
>clearity and power of Eds voice is what drew us in. He still possesses
>this power, but never uses it. Whats the deal? Im just tired of the
>scratchy shit.
>
>
>
try shutting the fuck up and itching your fucking scratch. life goes on. if
you can't count past 'ten', then i'm sorry for you
Nexus280
>try shutting the fuck up and itching your fucking scratch. life goes on. if
>you can't count past 'ten', then i'm sorry for you
Tell someone to shut the fuck up for voicing an opinion...pretty cool of you.
What they are saying is not far from the truth. As far as the beep in GTF it's
actually just feedback, and I like the raw sound. I however, am a little
disappointed with 'Lowlight'. Toward the end...it's my favorite part but it's
fucked up a little: "Two birds is what they'll see...getting lost XXXXway."
They could have cleaned that up a bit to make this an excelent crisp song, but
that damn part pisses me off.
nexus
Frogwater
'all is well in pj land. opinions free to die at will. no hard feelings.
Dismayed
I
> Yeah, I like Vedder's deep, full voice best, but I like his other vocal
> styles on "Yield" too (e.g. Wish List, Faithful, All Those Yesterdays),
> though I think he goes a too far at times on "Do the Evolution."
>
> By the way, what do you think of Ed's voice on "In Hidding" and "Given
> to Fly?" Sounds as resonant as ever to me.
>
> -Tony
Yeah, I guess I came off too harsh (no pun intended). I love Yield, and
Ed's voice on Lowlight is amazing. As for In Hiding, I think tha chorus,
where he sings I'm in Hiding, would be much more powerful if he went to
the deeper tones there. His voices is certainly clear, however. And for
the most part, Ed's voice is clear throughout the album. I know that it
takes amazing endurance to push and hold a pitch from the diaphragm.
Perhaps this is it.
Twilight
Frogwater wrote:
> >there are a few things that I want actually. The first is a non sloppy
> >recording...the beep and feedback in GTF and the annoying miscue near the
> >end of Wishlist. Pisses me off man, like they dont give a shit about the
> >quality. The next thing I want to do is lose the scratchy, whiny voice.
> >For some songs this works, but where the hell is the reverberating voice
> >from Ten. And dont give me that crap that there is more production
> >affecting Eds voice in Ten...he goes to that tone in Do the Evolution, the
> >hallelujah part, and whenever he sings the old stuff live. I like Yield,
> >but these guys could be even better, and everyone knows it.
> > I'm one of the people who think Ten was actually overproduced, yet the
> >clearity and power of Eds voice is what drew us in. He still possesses
> >this power, but never uses it. Whats the deal? Im just tired of the
> >scratchy shit.
> >
> >
> >
>
> try shutting the fuck up and itching your fucking scratch. life goes on. if
> you can't count past 'ten', then i'm sorry for you
Real mature. Just because this guy prefers Eddie's vocal style on Ten doesn't
mean he "can't count past it"; did you read where he said he thought is was
over-produced? And btw, this isn't just directed at you, but this trendy new
anti-Ten backlash is pissing me off royally. Ten was a fucking great album,
and everybody acting as though there's something wrong with it really gets
on my nerves. I somehow doubt that more than a small percentage of this
group can claim that they were not originally drawn to PJ by Ten at all.
Yes, they have changed their style a lot since then, but that doesn't mean
that the new style is superior to the old one...just different.
Having said that, yes, it would be great if Eddie would use that beautiful voice
that first attracted me to Pearl Jam. (It wasn't just production that made his
voice sound like that: I have *lots* of Ten and Vs.-era boots, and his voice
is just as good as on the albums, if not better.) I agree. Is it so wrong to
think that Eddie is wasting a wonderful thing by insisting on rasping and
growling?
Twilight
Running in the Dark.
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/5333/
Cory McMillen
personally, I think this is the best album yet for Ed's voice. He does
the deep thing as well as on Ten in some parts, and manages to do other
things as well. It's just like the drumming situation. Jack is better
than Dave cos he knows how to change to fit the song. Instead of always
coming across the same way, Eddie's singing the song the way it should
be sung. Do the Evolution is my favorite song yet. He get's an almost
arrogant tone to his voice, as he sings lines like "I am a thief, I am a
liar, there's my church, I sing in the choir." And then, for the bridge,
he goes Neil Young on us. It wouldn't have worked as good the old way.
Personally, I think he originally started experimenting with his voice
when the band started experimenting with new sounds. At the time, they
were trying to distance themselves with all the things they had been
recognized for (ie Eddies voice).
dismayed
Actually, Eds voice drops at that point in Do The Evolution. Again, I
think DTE is probably the highlight of Yield, as its innovative. and I
like change. But I dont like total deviation, especially when a gift such
as Ed's voice is concerned. Someone pointed out that Ed's voice now
sounds "thin," and I think this describes it perfectly. To get past the
issue of Ten, listen to VS. Ed's voice is quite resonant, without the
added prodution of post recording that took place in Ten.
In article <6bik5h$7...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Cory McMillen
Mike Dawson
Frogwater wrote:
Huh???...i'm listening to lowlight right now... "two birds is what
they'll see... getting lost upon their way"
where exactly is the fuck up???
Mike
Ron Moskovitz
Tony,
Call me crazy, but I don't think leaving things intentionally sloppy
makes them more interesting.
I know a lot of people do. They listen to low-fi recordings like the
old Velvet Underground stuff, and say, "Wow, this is so low fi and it's
cool!" which is a little misleading. Better might be to reword it,
"Wow, this is really cool, and it's low-fi, also." When I listen
to something like that, my reaction is usually, "Wow, this is cool.
Think of how much more awesome it would be if they'd had the ability
to get things down on tape cleanly."
That some bands were able to make great albums despite the neccesity
of not being able to do a clean recording is a testament to their skill,
but for a band like PJ to then intentionally make a dirty recording
is a little disingenuous--especially on an album like Yield, where they
spent a lot of time in the studio.
Pearl Jam has the ability and money to get an album absolutely perfect.
Why aspire to low-fidelity? It's one thing to make an album which,
by virtue of neccesity, sounds a little rough around the edges. It's
another thing entirely to go back and stick things things in to
make it sound rough-aroud-the-edges, which is what I think a lot of
the little blips on Yield are (e.g., the false start at the beginning of
the album. Since I highly doubt they recorded that live in one take,
isn't it just a little phony?)
-Ron
Ron Moskovitz
Huh?
Do The Evolution, innovative?
Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad song (although it's not my cup of
tea, either) but I think it's the least innovative song on the album.
There were a hundred post-punk bands doing exactly that kind of thing
during the 80's, laboring in obscurity. DTE could almost be a cover.
I figured it was a sort of tribute to them...
-Ron
yngver
In article <34DC5971...@agora.rdrop.com>
Twilight <ki...@agora.rdrop.com> writes:
> Having said that, yes, it would be great if Eddie would use that beautiful voice
> that first attracted me to Pearl Jam. (It wasn't just production that made his
> voice sound like that: I have *lots* of Ten and Vs.-era boots, and his voice
> is just as good as on the albums, if not better.) I agree. Is it so wrong to
> think that Eddie is wasting a wonderful thing by insisting on rasping and
> growling?
>
I suppose I have to agree with this, although I've only listened to
Yield a few times so far. But at first listen, too many of the songs
just washed over me, leaving little impression but growling or
screaming a stream of incomprehensible syllables, and my mind turned
back to the days when songs had melodies. Well, Given to California and
Wishlist did snare me in, but I'd heard them both before enough times
to be able to absorb more. It just seems to me that PJ songs are
starting to take a lot more work to get into, or at least I'm finding
them not so accessible.
I also do wonder what happened to the voice that sang Masters of War so
powerfully and beautifully that all those 50 year old rock veterans sat
up to take notice.
-yngver
Ron Moskovitz
What? How many songs on "No Code" or "Yield" can you humm the vocal
melody to and have it be instantly recognizable?
Carl Hall
Ron Moskovitz wrote:
>
> What? How many songs on "No Code" or "Yield" can you humm the vocal
> melody to and have it be instantly recognizable?
I would have to say just about all of them.
Laurie Hester
Persi wrote:
> In article <19980209203...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> shoeg...@aol.com says...
> >
> >yng...@nospam-aol.com (yngver) writes:
> >
> >>I suppose I have to agree with this, although I've only listened to
> >>Yield a few times so far. But at first listen, too many of the songs
> >>just washed over me, leaving little impression but growling or
> >>screaming a stream of incomprehensible syllables, and my mind turned
> >>back to the days when songs had melodies.
> >
> >Are you serious? You mean songs in general, not PJ songs, right? I mean,
> >it is only now that PJ songs have actual melodies...before they were little
> >more than streaming thoughts being sung over jammed out 70's style
> >rock intrumentals.
>
> Sounds like Beck....and I love Beck. Just like Jeff Magnum from Neutral Milk
> Hotel said, "Most of my lyrics are spewings off the top of my head and people
> seem to find them ironic or meaningful". I personally love Magnum's stream of
> conscience lyrics alot. It's what made bands like the Doors so great. I'm
> glad to hear more of it on 'Yield'
>
> >Fine songs indeed, but melodies were few and far between.
>
> Vs seemed to be the most melodic PJ record. Also my favorite. I still don't
> know what 'Got Me a gun, in fact I've got two, that's OK man, cause I love
> God' means, but I'll be damned...I love that lyric.
>
I think this is a sarcastic comment about the whole redneck, gun, America love it
or leave it patriotism, God is a republican, culture. Not that I think that kind
of person is bad, no not me. ;)
Laurie
> >Things were much looser then, as oppposed to now, where they
> >actually have *songs* that can be hummed or "lalala"'d to. I'm wondering
> >what you are thinking as far as melody is concerned...
>
> Instrumentally, they are alot more looser and Mr. Vedder seems more
> comfortable singing. It flows well, in my book. I will have to say that 'Vs'
> and 'Vitalogy' were alot more melodic, though. 'Yield' is like a loose 70's
> Cream/deep Purlple-esque jam w/ great vocals and definintely hummable in
> parts.
>
> --
> In My CD Changer/Stereo:
>
> Led Zeppelin - Presence
> Neutral Milk Hotel - On Avery Island
> JDJ: Coldcut
>
> Quote:
> "I don't think I could write songs
> for my whole life. I can't freak out
> forever. I won't have accomplished anything"
> - Jeff Magnum - NMH
Robert Cooney
i think the point of do the evolution is that simple songs can still be
good, actually i think thats the whole point of yeild as an album. a lot of
people are complaining about the lack of guitar solos, but i think they're
trying to say that a song is more than just showing off your talent.
rob
Ron Moskovitz wrote in message ...
Persi
In article <19980209203...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
shoeg...@aol.com says...
>
>yng...@nospam-aol.com (yngver) writes:
>
>>I suppose I have to agree with this, although I've only listened to
>>Yield a few times so far. But at first listen, too many of the songs
>>just washed over me, leaving little impression but growling or
>>screaming a stream of incomprehensible syllables, and my mind turned
>>back to the days when songs had melodies.
>
>Are you serious? You mean songs in general, not PJ songs, right? I mean,
>it is only now that PJ songs have actual melodies...before they were little
>more than streaming thoughts being sung over jammed out 70's style
>rock intrumentals.
Sounds like Beck....and I love Beck. Just like Jeff Magnum from Neutral Milk
Hotel said, "Most of my lyrics are spewings off the top of my head and people
seem to find them ironic or meaningful". I personally love Magnum's stream of
conscience lyrics alot. It's what made bands like the Doors so great. I'm
glad to hear more of it on 'Yield'
>Fine songs indeed, but melodies were few and far between.
Vs seemed to be the most melodic PJ record. Also my favorite. I still don't
know what 'Got Me a gun, in fact I've got two, that's OK man, cause I love
God' means, but I'll be damned...I love that lyric.
Jett Karma
rm...@netcom.com (Ron Moskovitz) wrote:
**************
Why couldn't they just have wanted "that sound"? What's wrong with
it? It's like asking, "Why doesn't a band use a real orchestra rather
than all that electronica set up to sound like an orchestra? Isn't
that just a little bit phony?" Isn't all art "phoney"?? What about
our famous "this is not a pipe" painting of a pipe? By dabbling in
retro, aren't PJ just sonicly messing in postmodernism rather than
graphically doing so? Anything with the halo of a relic is fair game.
Lo-fi is definitely a relic. It's perfect. What people have done
with the graphic arts, I really do see PJ doing with sound. And, I
think it's pretty dandy.
--Jett
Jett Karma
shoeg...@aol.com (Shoegaze99) wrote:
>yng...@nospam-aol.com (yngver) writes:
>
>>I suppose I have to agree with this, although I've only listened to
>>Yield a few times so far. But at first listen, too many of the songs
>>just washed over me, leaving little impression but growling or
>>screaming a stream of incomprehensible syllables, and my mind turned
>>back to the days when songs had melodies.
>
>Are you serious? You mean songs in general, not PJ songs, right? I mean,
>it is only now that PJ songs have actual melodies...before they were little
>more than streaming thoughts being sung over jammed out 70's style
>rock intrumentals. Fine songs indeed, but melodies were few and far between.
>Things were much looser then, as oppposed to now, where they
>actually have *songs* that can be hummed or "lalala"'d to. I'm wondering
>what you are thinking as far as melody is concerned...
>
>
>
>
>********************************
>TheS...@aol.com to Shoegaze99:
> "Why you choose to display your incredibly twisted thoughts like this
>in such a public forum I have no idea. I've said it before and I'll say it
>again: you need some serious help."
************
I must say, I think that Yield is the most hummable work they have put
out yet. I personally love all the rasping/growling songs. Blood was
great; DTE is hotter than hell, imho. I know it's just a matter of
taste, but I really do love hearing Ed go from sweetly sonorous to
absolute animal and back on this album. Variety is the spice of life.
And, not only that, I think the vocals demonstrate range in a
different way than it's commonly thought of. Range is more than just
high to low, imho, or soft to loud. It appears to me on this album,
Ed is going for range on so many levels, you *could* call it
dimension. At least, it sounds that way to this pair of ears.
--Jett
Yangety
On 10 Feb 1998 01:17:08 GMT, cow...@NOSPAM.ix.netcom.com (Persi)
wrote:
>Vs seemed to be the most melodic PJ record. Also my favorite. I still don't
>know what 'Got Me a gun, in fact I've got two, that's OK man, cause I love
>God' means, but I'll be damned...I love that lyric.
It's a rag on gun-wielding, truck-driving, racist folks who profess to
"love God" and be "Christians"...yet they hate anyone who doesn't look
or think like them, and thus they carry their guns around looking to
pick off anyone who isn't a backasswards redneck cracker like them.
Just my interpretation...
Yangety!
mark byron carter
In article <rmoskEo...@netcom.com>,
Ron Moskovitz <rm...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Tony,
>
> Call me crazy, but I don't think leaving things intentionally sloppy
>makes them more interesting.
Some stuff cut out
>
> That some bands were able to make great albums despite the neccesity
>of not being able to do a clean recording is a testament to their skill,
>but for a band like PJ to then intentionally make a dirty recording
>is a little disingenuous--especially on an album like Yield, where they
>spent a lot of time in the studio.
>
> Pearl Jam has the ability and money to get an album absolutely perfect.
>Why aspire to low-fidelity? It's one thing to make an album which,
How about the fact that pearl jam likes to play live and likes to record
live to capture the spirit. They could each just come in at seperate times
and record their own tracks over everything else, but they like to play
together. from all of their recent interviews it's obvious that fun and
enjoyment is important to them. do any of them ever have to work a day in
their lives again? probably not. so why labor over something you don't
like.
my guess would be that they though that GTF version was the best, and that
they didn't think they could do it as well w/o other problems or they
really liked the 'feeling' that that version had for them. it is obvious
that somethings are added later in production, but i prefer hearing cd's
that will probably reproduce well live like Yield over albums that are so
produced or contrived that they sound totally different live (say like
NIN-often entirely performed by trent when recorded, but he has to hire
some guys as a band to tour). not that i don't like NIN or late beatles or
other music that can't be made without a studio and lots of tracks.
but i think the feeling of pearl jam is that they like to play as a band.
plus after recording 20 versions of one song, you probably think that the
"ok" one sounds a lot better than playing thru it again.
just my own opinion, feel free to have one for yourself.
-mark
yngver
In article <19980209203...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
shoeg...@aol.com (Shoegaze99) writes:
> Are you serious? You mean songs in general, not PJ songs, right? I mean,
> it is only now that PJ songs have actual melodies...before they were little
> more than streaming thoughts being sung over jammed out 70's style
> rock intrumentals. Fine songs indeed, but melodies were few and far between.
> Things were much looser then, as oppposed to now, where they
> actually have *songs* that can be hummed or "lalala"'d to. I'm wondering
> what you are thinking as far as melody is concerned...
No, I completely disagree. There is nothing as "hooky" on Yield as
songs like Alive, Daughter, Even Flow, Better Man, Tremor Christ, etc.
Brain of J and Do the Evolution are mostly just hoarse yelling, and
Push Me Pull Me is basically spoken word. In some of the songs EV's
vocals just meander about, as though in search of a melody. If you can
find an actual
tune to hum in Faithfull, you're a better man than I. And in Lowlight,
EV sometimes almost seems out of tune, if there is a tune to be out of.
Beyond a doubt PJ have evolved musically quite a bit since Ten, and
that part of Yield is enjoyable. I just wish the vocal melodies in some
of the verses didn't seem so haphazard, as though EV just made them up
as he sang, and uncomfortably so.
I understand that some people like this and take it as vocal
experimentation, but for me, I just like songs I can sing along with. I
think one reviewer called Wishlist a melodic masterpiece, and that is
so far the standout song for me on this album, with GTF second,
although perhaps it doesn't count since I liked it back when Robert
Plant sang it too. But I never cared for Blood or Black Circle, the
"barking dog" songs, nor do I much like EV's Willie Nelson voice,
because that's not where he shines, so maybe for me there's too much of
my least favorite aspects of PJ on this album. And it's too short.
-yngver
Corey Wolden
> my guess would be that they though that GTF version was the best, and
that
> they didn't think they could do it as well w/o other problems or they
> really liked the 'feeling' that that version had for them. it is obvious
> that somethings are added later in production, but i prefer hearing cd's
> that will probably reproduce well live like Yield over albums that are so
> produced or contrived that they sound totally different live (say like
> NIN-often entirely performed by trent when recorded, but he has to hire
> some guys as a band to tour). not that i don't like NIN or late beatles
or
> other music that can't be made without a studio and lots of tracks.
I totally agree with the live reproduction standpoint. I was one of those
who showed up as my record store opened to snag a copy of the Foo Fighters'
first album... I knew that Dave Grohl basically played everything on the
album, and that's why I literally avoided the tour... From what I saw on
MTV, I made a wise decision....
Laniel
It's not phony man! It's a RAMONES-type of start... Before saying
stupidities, get informed!
Ron Moskovitz
In article <01bd37e1$a478ee80$26f7eccd@mycomp>,
Laniel <lan...@odyssee.net> wrote:
>It's not phony man! It's a RAMONES-type of start... Before saying
>stupidities, get informed!
Oh--it's Ramones-like!
Spare me.
That kind of thing--which the Ramones did, among others--was a neccesity
for young punk bands because they didn't have the option of recording
things over or edditting them out. Then it became part of the act.
Pearl Jam is slumming if they have to borrow part of the Ramones' act.
-Ron
Alessiana
ramones... not ramones... who gives a fuck. pearl jam has used different
intros to their albums in the past and this is just more of the same thing.
personally i enjoy this start as much as i enjoyed the start of ten, vs and
vitalogy. no code is the only one that was traditional and its the only one
i wish they had done differently
aless
Shannon Compton
rm...@netcom.com (Ron Moskovitz) wrote:
>In article <01bd37e1$a478ee80$26f7eccd@mycomp>,
>Laniel <lan...@odyssee.net> wrote:
>>It's not phony man! It's a RAMONES-type of start... Before saying
>>stupidities, get informed!
>
> Oh--it's Ramones-like!
>
> Spare me.
>
> That kind of thing--which the Ramones did, among others--was a neccesity
>for young punk bands because they didn't have the option of recording
>things over or edditting them out. Then it became part of the act.
>
> Pearl Jam is slumming if they have to borrow part of the Ramones' act.
>
> -Ron
>
Or maybe they just thought it was funny. I always kind of like false
starts, for some reason. Maybe they do too. People are so uptight.
Shannon
Mike Dawson
Shannon Compton wrote:
>
> rm...@netcom.com (Ron Moskovitz) wrote:
>
> >In article <01bd37e1$a478ee80$26f7eccd@mycomp>,
> >Laniel <lan...@odyssee.net> wrote:
> >>It's not phony man! It's a RAMONES-type of start... Before saying
> >>stupidities, get informed!
> >
> > Oh--it's Ramones-like!
> >
> > Spare me.
> >
> > That kind of thing--which the Ramones did, among others--was a neccesity
> >for young punk bands because they didn't have the option of recording
> >things over or edditting them out. Then it became part of the act.
> >
> > Pearl Jam is slumming if they have to borrow part of the Ramones' act.
> >
> > -Ron
> >
Ron, you're a fucking goof...plain and simple...at first, i thought all
these cynical posts you put up were some kind of joke, but, after
reading that, i realized what a ignorant little shit you are....
borrowing the ramones act????...fuck off... they're having a bit of fun
Mike
Alessiana
well ron, who ever had the brilliant insight to include the "countdown" as an
example of lo-fi, had apparently not given very much thought to it.
it doesn't belong as an example within a set of low-fi observations regarding
pearl jam's yield. all the countdown proves is that pearl jam counted down
and decided to keep it in the studio recording. since pearl jam has had false
starts and unusual openings to songs and albums in the past, the inclusion of
the countdown speaks more for this inclination then for anything else
so, mike would not be off base in making the observation that's its just a
countdown. cos, that's all it is...
personally i don't think you are an fucking goof, or an ignorant little
shit...
but you sure seem to have an affinity for arguing points that are ultimately
insupportable.
aless
Ron Moskovitz wrote:
> /Sarcasm mode on/
>
> Gee, Mike, you really put me in my place. So eloquently, too.
>
> /Sarcasm mode off/
>
> More seriously, maybe they are having "a bit of fun" but to what end?
> When the cost is in the sound quality, my opinion is thanks but
> no thanks.
>
> Now, that count-off is just one of many things which give the
> album a lo-fi feel, so don't come back yelling "it's just a freaking
> count-down" because if you'd actually been reading this thread you'd
> know that the count-down was only one example of several.
>
> Fun is fun, but, hey, I'll bet Mike McCready thinks hitting the bottle is
> pretty fun--until he wakes up the next day. Taken individually,
> the little lo-fi touches don't mean much, but taken as together I
> think they seriously weaken "Yield," because they get in the way
> of the listener actually hearing the music.
>
> That's "fun" that has consequences.
>
> -Ron
Ron Moskovitz
BreezyOaks
Two words for you: Anal Retentive. That's all I have to say about that.
Bret
Chris Myers
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 02:31:17 GMT, rm...@netcom.com (Ron Moskovitz)
wrote:
>/Sarcasm mode on/
>
> Gee, Mike, you really put me in my place. So eloquently, too.
>
>/Sarcasm mode off/
>
all i have to say is that if the band felt that way, they would have
not released it in this "less than perfect" format that you are
hinting at.
!@#$!@#$!@$#!@#$!@##$!@#$%$%#%^&$@@!~@#$%^&&%$#@~!@#$%^^^%
Just because he was responded didn't mean he's listening to it.
I respond to plenty of posts without actually reading them.
-Phil Oliver
Mike Dawson
(to ron)
lo-fi weakens the album???.. what a fucking joke... are you slagging
lo-fi albums??? hmmmmmm, seems to me, "Adventures in Hi-Fi" was one of
REM's best, and that was pretty low-fi wouldn't you say????...recorded
at soundchecks, in a dressing room, live..... And yeah, thats not the
most "lo-fi" album out there, just an example.. how can you slag an
album for being lo-fi????...once again, ron just doesn't know he's alive
unless he's cynical...
Mike
Mike Dawson
normally, i wouldn't call someone an ignorant shit or whatever, over a
post.... but EVERY post i have read from ron, is pure bs... he's is so
goddamn cynical and thats why his posts are bs.... there is some real
intelligence in the way he debates, too bad he masks it in cynical
bs.....
Mike
Alessiana wrote:
>
> well ron, who ever had the brilliant insight to include the "countdown" as an
> example of lo-fi, had apparently not given very much thought to it.
>
> it doesn't belong as an example within a set of low-fi observations regarding
> pearl jam's yield. all the countdown proves is that pearl jam counted down
> and decided to keep it in the studio recording. since pearl jam has had false
> starts and unusual openings to songs and albums in the past, the inclusion of
> the countdown speaks more for this inclination then for anything else
>
> so, mike would not be off base in making the observation that's its just a
> countdown. cos, that's all it is...
>
> personally i don't think you are an fucking goof, or an ignorant little
> shit...
>
> but you sure seem to have an affinity for arguing points that are ultimately
> insupportable.
>
> aless
>
yngver
In article <34EA86...@ica.net>
Mike Dawson <gkda...@ica.net> writes:
> normally, i wouldn't call someone an ignorant shit or whatever, over a
> post.... but EVERY post i have read from ron, is pure bs... he's is so
> goddamn cynical and thats why his posts are bs.... there is some real
> intelligence in the way he debates, too bad he masks it in cynical
> bs.....
You forgot to add that this is just YOUR OPINION. There are plenty of
readers of this ng who respect Ron and what he has to say. His
assessment of Yield was the most helpful one I read, because he was not
afraid to point out faults as well as high points (in his opinion, of
course.) I'd much rather read an intelligent, well reasoned assessment
than some fannish drool about Yield being the most brilliant record
ever made.
What is cynicism to you is objectivity to others.
Lord knows Ron doesn't need me to defend him, and he's been on this ng
so long I'm sure he has a pretty thick skin by now, but I know I am not
the only one who sincerely hopes this latest rash of hostility against
his posts does not discourage him from posting in the future.
It's a shame that some readers of this ng can't stick to debating
people's posts rather than the merits of the person posting, which I
think very few of us are qualified to judge.
-yngver
Ron Moskovitz
Mike,
Sometimes I think one ought to include the whole history of a thread
in each post, because people have an amazing knack for forgetting what you
wrote three or four posts ago.
My position is not that lo-fi albums suck. Some of the greatest
albums in history are fairly low-fidelity (such as the Stones'
'Exile on Main Street' which sounds like it was recorded through a drugged-
out, alchoholic haze. But, heck, it probably was).
My position was that low fidelity is not what makes those albums great.
The quality of the music is what makes those albums great. It's my
position that many great low-fi albums succeed /despite/ not
/because of/ their poor production values.
When I listen to an old Velvet Underground album, I'm not saying
to myself, "Wow, it's great that you can barely hear what's going on,"
I'm saying, "Wow, this is great material. Think how great it would
be if you could actually hear everything that was going on!"
You seem unable to distinguish the /production/ from the /performance/.
They are separate things. Sometimes the performance is strong
enough to survive poor production, and sometimes it isn't.
So, yes, it is my opinion that, in general (and certainly in the case
of Yield) that the low-fidelity nature of the recording hurts
the album. If there's a great performance, I want to be able to hear it.
Yield may well be strong enough to survive the dirty production (part
of it definitely are) but I think it's silly to imagine that the
muddy sound actually helps things.
And low fidelity has nothing to do with recording live or during sound
checks. For example, much of U2's "Zooropa" was recorded during sound
checks, and no-one would describe it as being low-fidelity. Large
sections of Derek and the Dominoes 'Layla' was recorded in a single
take (which is why one song fades in during a solo--somebody forgot
to turn the tape on!) but you can hear every note as if you were in
the room with them.
Mike Dawson
yngver wrote:
> You forgot to add that this is just YOUR OPINION. There are plenty of
> readers of this ng who respect Ron and what he has to say.
you respect cynicism???.... seriously, thats a poor outlook on life...
i'm not saying Ron has to be gushing with compliments, thats not
intelligent and he seems a fairly intelligent person... but whats the
sense in posting "one vs the world" statements everytime... and all his
posts seem to be that.... it's as if he's afraid and saying something
good....
> His
> assessment of Yield was the most helpful one I read, because he was not
> afraid to point out faults as well as high points (in his opinion, of
> course.) I'd much rather read an intelligent, well reasoned assessment
> than some fannish drool about Yield being the most brilliant record
> ever made.
but, if these people believe Yield is the most brillant record ever
made, whats wrong with that?....what you're saying is that it's ok for
ron to point out faults because it's his opinion...but, it's not ok for
people to call Yield "the greatest album ever made", even though it's
their opinion.... you're ranking one opinion over the other, isn't that
hypocrisy?... free speach, as long as you say the right things...
> What is cynicism to you is objectivity to others.
negative view after negative is cynicism, not objectivity... objectivity
is stating the good with the bad....
> Lord knows Ron doesn't need me to defend him, and he's been on this ng
> so long I'm sure he has a pretty thick skin by now, but I know I am not
> the only one who sincerely hopes this latest rash of hostility against
> his posts does not discourage him from posting in the future.
this is the internet... in most cases, nobody knows each other
personally on here.... if a total stranger's words make you thick
skinned, than you have a severe problem with lacking self worth....
true, it's not "nice" to be calling people names here, i agree, and i
apologize if it caused him any "pain".....it was a stupid moment of
frustration and it's not me.... but to say it would affect him posting
in the future, then there's a problem, and it's not with me, but with
him.....
> It's a shame that some readers of this ng can't stick to debating
> people's posts rather than the merits of the person posting, which I
> think very few of us are qualified to judge.
you're judging me... you wouldn't have written this defense if you
weren't judging me.... i've done wrong against ron, in your eyes...
therefore, you're judging me.... and heck, i don't mind it, because (no
offense) but what you think about me isn't all that important to me...
i'll wake up tomorrow, and i'll deal with the opinions that surround me,
not one's that i read on a computer screen..... and yes, i did make a
stupid comment, but, how many other posts have i judged a person rather
than debated their comment???... i wouldn't say it's common occurence
for me....
Mike
yngver
In article <34ED05...@ica.net>
Mike Dawson <gkda...@ica.net> writes:
> you respect cynicism???
Of course I do, being cynical myself. But again, what you call
cynicism, a cynic calls realism.
.... seriously, thats a poor outlook on life...
In your opinion, not mine.
> i'm not saying Ron has to be gushing with compliments, thats not
> intelligent and he seems a fairly intelligent person... but whats the
> sense in posting "one vs the world" statements everytime... and all his
> posts seem to be that.... it's as if he's afraid and saying something
> good....
I've been reading his posts for years. It is not true his posts are
always negative; they are generally fairly well balanced.
And he is hardly "one vs. the world." There are many readers of this ng
that agree with him, but since this ng tends to so viciously attack
anyone who doesn't adopt the proper worshipful tone when discussing PJ,
a lot of people are afraid to post anything critical here. How do I
know this? Because they e-mail me and tell me so, and I'll bet Ron gets
his share of private e-mails agreeing with him as well.
>
> > His
> > assessment of Yield was the most helpful one I read, because he was not
> > afraid to point out faults as well as high points (in his opinion, of
> > course.) I'd much rather read an intelligent, well reasoned assessment
> > than some fannish drool about Yield being the most brilliant record
> > ever made.
>
> but, if these people believe Yield is the most brillant record ever
> made, whats wrong with that?....what you're saying is that it's ok for
> ron to point out faults because it's his opinion...but, it's not ok for
> people to call Yield "the greatest album ever made", even though it's
> their opinion.... you're ranking one opinion over the other, isn't that
> hypocrisy?... free speach, as long as you say the right things...
No, that's the opposite of what I said. This ng is all for free speech,
as long as you say the right things, which is the party line about PJ.
A record review that proclaims Yield the most brilliant record ever
made (which would be pretty hard to substantiate, if you think about
it) and gives no real reasons to support that opinion is not a very
helpful review.
>
> > What is cynicism to you is objectivity to others.
>
> negative view after negative is cynicism, not objectivity... objectivity
> is stating the good with the bad....
And that's what Ron does, state the good with the bad. It's just that
anything remotely critical is met with a flurry of nasty flames here. I
wonder why fans on other music ngs often seem to be more willing take
off the rose colored glasses sometimes.
-yngver
Alessiana
well i am real sick of posts characterizing people who genuinely support most
of pearl jam's endeavors as being worshipful, but hey, i guess that's just me.
btw, has anyone said that yield was the greatest record ever made?
aless