Pearl Jam
Pearl Jam (J Records)


Reviewed by Noel Murray
May 10th, 2006


So, the first, most obvious question: What does it mean that the eighth Pearl Jam album is the first to get the simple, direct title Pearl Jam? When a band names an album after itself 15 years into its career, it's an invitation to analysis, and the general impression of this name choice is that it represents renewed confidence. After a stretch in the early '90s as arguably the most popular rock band on the planet, Pearl Jam has settled into an unexpected place as the grunge-era Grateful Dead, with a low-key mass-media presence, a rabid cult following, and a chorus of wary-but-respectful critics ready to proclaim each new album "the best since Vitalogy." Still, Pearl Jam has been more overtly positioned as the band's comeback record, because it's the first on a new label, and it's filled with straight-up, riff-a-riffic rock songs.

The second question: Is this Pearl Jam's best since Vitalogy? Maybe, but let's not go overboard. Like its fellow Seattle-scene breakouts (Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, etc.), Pearl Jam has never exactly burst with timeless melodies. A great Pearl Jam album is more a string of immediate, visceral experiences, where pounding drums and grinding guitars suddenly give way to moments where Eddie Vedder moans dreamily. The band gladly sacrifices fluidity for drama, and even catchy Pearl Jam tracks like "World Wide Suicide" (with its winding hook and acid lyrics) and "Parachutes" (with its charmingly odd acoustic bounce) periodically wander into the murk. The record is really best represented by "Unemployable," which surrounds memorable lines and power chords with all kinds of clatter, enjoying the rub of rock against rock. It's the kind of testament to the power of friction that typifies what is undoubtedly the tightest Pearl Jam album in a decade. But bear in mind that "tight" is a relative term for a band that's never taken song structure seriously.

A.V. Club Rating: B+

I was waiting for this review. I'll take a B+, but I was hoping for better. I like the analysis of the music in it.

Yeah, it's kinda weird. There have been a ton of good to great reviews, but no really "Album of the Year" reviews.

well the year is still young. Have any records gotten album of the year type buzz? This record will age well, and is consistently excellent, but lacks that truly titanic song to latch onto with only a few listens.

OH NO!!!! Another B+. This means an 83 from Metacritc, further hurling my brain into the dank confusion of my letter grade heart of darkness. Why God? WHY?

great review!

and don't expect any "Album of the Year" type reviews my friends, cuz it's far from it, sorry to dissapoint, just be happy it's a good PJ record

" a string of immediate, visceral experiences, where pounding drums and grinding guitars suddenly give way to moments where Eddie Vedder moans dreamily"

This is an impression, not an analysis.

Parales wrote an analysis when he described minor key verses giving way to major key choruses. The writer here doesn't understand what he's hearing, so he writes about his reaction (visceral) uses emotional terminology (dreamily) along with a description of sounds (pounding drums and grinding guitars)

"with its winding hook and acid lyrics... its charmingly odd acoustic bounce [they nonetheless] periodically wander into the murk"

Wtf? I wish I knew what he meant by murk and where the wandering takes place, particularly in regards to WWS. His observation makes no sense to me.

"memorable lines and power chords with all kinds of clatter, enjoying the rub of rock against rock."

Uhm... right. I with him all the way on this one. Wtf?

"It's the kind of testament to the power of friction that typifies what is undoubtedly the tightest Pearl Jam album in a decade. But bear in mind that "tight" is a relative term for a band that's never taken song structure seriously"

????

Power of friction?

Tight is song structure?

This person, who apparently doesn't know a damn thing, mentions structure in a throw away remark referring to the band's entire oeuvre without providing empirical evidence.

Pearl Jam does play with "standard" song structures, but not how as he implies. They don't meander into the murk (not that I understand what he's talking about. I can only make an inference).

Musically, they may have more than one bridge. They might have more than one chorus or more than one verse. Their bridges might relate to other parts of their songs. The bridge may not come until the end. But these are highly structured things that work within a particular song.

The alterations to form are atypical. They are non-standard, but they are definately structured. In fact, this is one of the things that makes this band exceptional.

B plus to PJ or not, I have to give the review itself a D minus.
I'm getting to the point where I see a PJ review and I flinch before I read.



.

*sigh*

B plus is a decent rating but he could have given it an A+ and I'd still dislike the review.

I don't care for what passes for criticism in popular music. I think the reviews that talk about emotional responses to music are just fine. I find reviews that talk about lyrics boring, but they're ok. I just wouldn't call them music reviews.

The ones that irritate me are the ones posing as analyses but are nothing of the sort.

I've been writing about the decline of criticism for some time. It's just appallingly evident in the reviews of this album. The positive as well as the negative reviews of Pearl Jam are poorly written analyses.


*sigh*

.

i guess i found his wording to be pretty good compared to a lot of reviewers. most choose to not even really tackle much about the music at all, either because they don't know much about creating music (usually the case, which is better than people who assume they do), or because they choose to just be overly wordy for the sake of being wordy (90% of Pfor reviews).

The writing itself is good. The use of language is good. He did try to tackle the music, but to me, without defining the meaning of the words he uses when they don't have musical definitions, makes it virtually incomprehensible.

I would put him in the catagory of one who assumes he knows something (but doesn't) and figures the reader is along for the ride. But murky is musically meaningless unless you provide a frame of reference and he actually misuses fluidity. The only reference he provided were two songs. Parachutes, which has an unusual but beautiful structure and WWS, which has a formal structure.

One could accuse Parachutes of wandering in that its melody has an unusual phrasing that changes as the song evolves, but one would be better served by pointing that out (the unusual phrasing). He also accuses PJ of sacrificing fluidity for drama, yet fluid would be a very good description of how the melody in Parachutes evolves.

WWS is very dramatic but doesn't wander. If it does he needs to point out where. I'd say it's among the most focused songs on the album in that it doesn't step out of it's form for a moment. It's relentless. A person might not like that. LOL. It might drive them nuts. But wandering?

I want him to show me where. Not as a challange, but so I can learn. I want to learn, but I'm not being shown anything in these reviews aside from a few notable exceptions.

In those cases, it wasn't anything I didn't know already, but reading someone else's observations of the same or similar thing is wonderful, especially when they say it more concisely.

I'm disheartened.

The one thing I learned in reading these reviews was something that had been driving me crazy, and that was Ed's vocal phrasing in Inside Job. People say it's like Bono, but it's not and I couldn't figure out who it was until one reviewer mentioned Midnight Oil

::head desk::

Yep. It's Peter Garrett (sp?).

Anyway, I'm sorry if I made you sigh Kyle.

.

i'd say meandering/wandering somes up my thoughts on Parachutes quite well...

pretty song, but the chorus isn't very strong at all and is just kinda blah for me...

plus i think Ed strains a bit too hard, woulda preferred it been done in a lower key.

I agree with you. I plan on posting a review breakdown this weekend. In it, I will compare these reviews with reviews of past PJ albums. I have done some research to find reviews of their older albums and noticed a HUGE decline in the quality of reviews. Part of the problem is there are just so many reviews. So many reviews that just don't need to be written. The other major problem is the quick 2 paragraph reviews offer nothing to the reader. That being said, I love reading reviews, even the bad ones.

Cool. The chorus isn't strong in that it accomodates the melody which is all about the verse. And while I don't agree about the key, I appreciate that you know what you prefer and why.

See, you could have written this.



.

Let me know if you are interested in some input.



.

it just bugs me when Ed sounds strained, especially on studio records (like on the "Liiiiiights we turned off" part, and a couple other spots. think it'd sound more natural w/ a bit more of his baritone thrown in.

I'm not a big fan of that either. I've gotten used to it but I think I commented on that when parachutes first leaked. I don't know if a deeper voice would have worked, but he can't hit those near falsetto notes anymore and he should adjust his style whenever possible (I cringe when he tries to hit them during oceans these days). Some review said that eddie had grown more comfortable with his voice since he was willing to try and hit those notes, which overlooks the fact that he used to be able to do it.

God damned cigarettes (and 95 tour)

IMO, that's about as good of a review as you can expect from an objective listener (i.e. someone that isn't obsessed with or even a fan of the band).

:thumbsup:
Would read again.

I like singers who strain to hit their notes. Sounds more natural to me.

I LOVE the way he reaches for the high octaves in Comatose. It's dirty and shredded and ROCK and *%^$ing ROLL


That's why I liked Cobain's voice too.