No, classic rock is not all "crotch rock" and Eddie's mentors were never that one-dimensional. But it's impossible to deny the sexual element in most of these bands (and inherent in rock and roll music altogether), which for whatever reason Eddie has ignored (avoided?) in his lyrics. It's really a glaring hole in their subject matter to me. And when I really think about it, I think it's deliberate... Why? Maybe Eddie's afraid to be seen as THAT kind of band? But if that's the case, I think ignoring it completely is the worst choice of all....

nobody hear talks about it, though it's obvious how sex charged this whole board is... Very interesting observations, perhaps it'll spawn new mental arenas for the band to be discussed...

I can only hope I've been pretty bored with Pearl Jam lately (see: last 2 years), so this thought has given me a reason to listen to their albums again. Now if I only brought them with me to Japan....

Eddie only talked about fucked up sexual topics in his songs - maybe he's inhibited sexually because of something - or he just challenges himself to take on less exploited subject matters?

Maybe they should cover LAID by James.

Yeah, like anti-war songs?
Come on....

i have a hard time imagining Ed singing about squeezing lemons and every inches of his love y'know

Which is unfortunate. I think his love songs that he played on the ukelele (I'm not sure of when and where) are some of the best songs he wrote.


I think to a degree yes. If you talk about contrasting ideas of masculine/ and feminine it's impossible to do so without sex.


I'd prefer to talk only about the music

Mike's solo work is definitely sexual. Rock music is generally sexual (one could argue by definition - "rock and roll" is a euphism for sex)


I'm afraid I'm more of a Lukin myself

Yeah, it's a pretty ridiculous idea Really, he's probably too old now to sing about sex that way without being laughed at.

But I think he should take the challenge of addressing sex as a middle-aged man. That could be interesting....

Pitchfork has no credibility. No matter how valid some people may feel parts of this review are (with which I disagree but whatever), Pitchfork refers to music as being better which they have trashed in the past and use that as a comparison to knock this album down.

Pitchfork has very little credibility. They're too worried about being cool. And now that Pearl Jam (and worse yet, Eddie) is cool again, they don't know what to do with themselves. The LOLLA review was a good case in point. They came across as flabbergasted, and tried to minimize the music by calling it ritual. They couldn't describe what they were seeing any other way. What they don't know, is what an important element ritual plays in pushing music from just good, to the status of great. They didn't minimize the music by recognizing it's impact in calling it ritual. Rather, they correctly defined it and exalted it.

Great music is exaltation. It is spiritual. Some music fires in the part of the brain we also find activated during the experience of great religious/spiritual emotions. This sets off powerful feelings in people. Listening to the way a key changes in a piece can evoke powerful feelings. It can be something as huge as Porch or as small as Long Nights, both are deeply evocative and moving.

So let the fans have their ritual. Let them have their Pearl Jam.

Oh how insulting!

not

Just very sadly dumb. He could have written a great piece about this, but wasn't educated enough to understand the power he was witnessing was a true musical effect, rather than showmanship or some bizarre, incomprehensible band-fan thing. Some music can be, but this isn't. Why would you get it listening to studio releases if this interaction was the cause? I've never been to an Into The Wild concert, but spirituality is all over that album. Forget what he's singing about, it's in the music itself. At times, it is exalting.

.

I agree they are wonderful. Maybe they're just not for us



But we aren't contrasting. We're looking at one thing. Yes this is masculine therefore something else must be feminine, but does that means it's sex simpley because an abstract contrast exists in the musical world? I'm not sure I buy that as a rule.



Might this not be an artificial construct external to the notes themselves. Something caused by the context within which rock was "born" and the songs that were one sung rather than the music itself. These notes played this way = sex? Shouldn't there be something more directly related evocative to the act itself in the music to qualify as sexy? Obviously I'm not saying it isn't, as I gave a couple of examples. I guess suspect we're simplifying things by saying good lead guitar solo = sex when the music might have nothing to do with the pulse of ... you know.



Well now you went and ruined it for me. How about we try Grievance followed by MFC?

ps. proofing warning!

.

Why? Don't you think that the topics that he already takes on are interesting enough? Why is it that because it's "Rock and Roll" every band should be writing songs about sex? And I don't find Mike's solos to be inherently sexy. Melodic, yes, but sexy is not a word that has ever popped into my head.

You seem to feel that their "music" would be more interesting if their lyrics were about sex. I don't understand that.

Pfft... He's such a cock tease
But seriously, whatever he's scared of, by limiting the types of music he puts out, it's hurting his legacy. Maybe he doesn't care about that, which is cool I guess.

However, if they aren't "for us", why did he ever play them out in the public in the first place? Seriously, I just don't think he's the best judge of his own work.

Well, I think the term "masculine" has definite sexual overtones, but if you don't, well.... I've got nothing I suppose

Maybe if Pearl Jam existed in a vacuum, you could say there is nothing inherently sexual about the notes and the way they played them. But if you try to put them into some historical narrative, well... I think to take so liberally from basic rock staples as Pearl Jam does, and to completely ignore one of the defining characteristics of this type of music -- I just wonder what they are trying to accomplish sometimes. Bands can have drums and distorted guitars and not be sexual (Fugazi), but they have really broken off into a completely unique kind of song structure. Pearl Jam, though with a couple subtle differences, is basically 70's arena rock. Mike even "quotes" solos from highly sexual bands all of the time.

What was that? Sorry, I'm already in the kitchen making a sandwich....

Because "Rock and Roll" = sex. Basically, that's how it will be remembered, and I don't know how you can listen to it without that being felt to some degree. I think if you work as a rock and roll band that you have to address that at some point- that you are dealing in a music style that is closely tied to sex. That doesn't mean you can't take it to greater heights-- or that you have to address it crudely, but at first you need to address "it"-- and I don't know that Pearl Jam ever really has. Conversly, it seems like they are intently avoiding it.

I just find it strange that Pearl Jam, with such a huge back catalogue of songs, has so few about such a critical element of humanity.

Seriously, I question there sexual health

130+ pages deep and this thread finally turn a good and proper turn...

It's a good discussion, I'm afraid it's in the wrong place though. Maybe it should be moved to it'sown thread? Mods?

While I find your opinion interesting, I don't feel that "Rock and Roll"=sex. And I don't think that it will be remembered that way. I can listen to rock music without thinking about sex at all, and as a fan, I don't feel a pressing need for any of the songwriters in Pearl Jam it address it. The structure of many of their songs, particularly since Vitalogy are not similar to classic rock forms despite using the same instrumentation. There is very little emphasis on instrumental wankery and great focus on construction of a sonic palette that acts as a backdrop to the themes of the songs. If they choose not direct that focus to a topic that already has too many songs written about it, then perhaps they feel that they have nothing new to add. Perhaps they have intentionaly avoided it. In any case, I don't miss it as a topic in their their catalogue.

I haven't tried to split threads on the new board. Lets see how this goes...

I don't think Pearl Jam has really become cool again. When was this supposed to have happened. Especially not with pitchfork fans anyway.

not being cool w/ pitchfork fans is the first sign to actually being cool