Ten has a very dark, brooding tone to the album. The Master/Slave intro-outro fosters this, as do the themes of Eddie's lyrics on the album. Why Go and Oceans sound to me as the only sunny/bright/light songs on the album, with Why Go's lyrics negating that feeling (the principle reason I'm inclined to skip the song on the album, but not on the early boots). The production on the album gets a bad rap in these here RM parts, and it's probably abetted by band members speaking against it, to the extent of even re-mixing the tracks for RearViewMirror. Still, if I've got to name the one Pearl Jam album which has a distinct "sound" which is characteristic of the album-- it's Ten. It's unmistakeable and undeniable. It's overcast, it's heavy, it's sullen and forlorn, and though it often can't be taken in heavy doses, I cherish and value it. If I'm in a certain mood or if it's a certain season in the year, or if it's a certain time of day, I can turn to Ten to achieve a certain emotional therapy because it's vibe is so forthright. Do I prefer the albums where there aren't seven tracks of various Eddie moanings, etc, probably, but that's more to do with my preference for straight-forward minimal effects music which can be easily reproduced in the live setting without an additional "member" of the band toying with a computer (e.g. Wilco). Would I EVER want to hear Ten stripped of what I consider it's essence and soul and what makes it the album it is-- NEVER. Others disagree and that's fine, but I for one am standing up for the production as something which I value and recognize a once in a band's discography's lifetime, and I want to reclaim some ground for the album which is often sold up the river in these parts.

u dont like ed's moaning?

That's just an excuse people make. Overall you're right.

do you feel the RVM remixes take away from what you value about Ten?

Fuck the RVm remixes.

I love my original, non-remixed, non-bonus-tracked, non-japanese, 1991-vintage Ten CD. Straight from Columbia House to my ears!

We talk about the production only because Ed and jeff once said in an interview (don't make me look it up) that there was a bit too much reverb on the album. That was the sign of the times. Check out other albums from that era (Siamese DReam comes to mind) and you'll see it's all over the place. I love it. It makes the album what it is. Leave a masterpiece alone!

p.s. Why Go is in no way a "sunny/bright/light" song.

i suggest finding ten tracks on a live bootleg

Agreed...I do like the remixes though...after listening to those 11 songs for....what is it....17 years...it's cool to hear them remixed. I'd love to have Ten and all the other songs from that era on double cd remixed by O'Brien as long as none of the band members add anything new to them....

i did not know this interview existed.

Or in plainspeak, indeed.

Though I fear you may be constructing a strawman they way you worded your question. It's not that they take away what I value, it's that the studio versions are stripped of their essence. The RVM versions sound like PJ songs lacking any post-production work, work which each of their respective albums can be identified and characterized by. The RVM tracks don't feel or sound like they could have been appended and properly sequenced onto Vs. That's in large part due to the difference in musical composition between the albums. Stone ceased to write songs with the chord structures etc of Ten era AND the relationship between Ed and Stone was transforming. To a certain degree-- the songs on Ten, independnet of production, sound more like MLB than PJ's Vs. The post-production accentuates the Ten songs and, in my opinion, is what enabled them and the album to be so well received by the masses. If the band had released the RVM versions of all their songs, I don't know if they would have gone over so well-- seriously.

wow.

eddie said it around 2000 for Binaural promo. mentioned it again in the Ten After Ten Spin interview (I believe) and then Jeff brought it up again around 2003, if memory serves (my photographic memory is fading...)

i never really listen/read interviews the band gives.

Well I'm not going to argue about whether or not Ten would have done as well had O'Brien produced it, but, for me at least, the O'Brien remixes actually enhances the essence of each song--it makes each more raw, immediate, visceral, which I think is the direction the songs want to go. It's almost like the production on Ten is designed to mask their impact-to add a layer between the music and the listener.

The sounding more like MLB thing is an interesting observation, and probably another reason why I prefer the RVM remixes. It's more directly 'pearl jam', rather than pearl jam filtered through mother love bone

I'd take the RVM versions over the original Ten versions, but I wouldn't put together a "new" version of Ten using the RVM remixes because they'd sound completely out of place.

That record is a product of its time. Which is fine. I don't care for the production much anymore because it makes all those songs sound like the early 90s. Whereas for me every song on that record (with the possible exception of Jeremy) is much more than just a relic.

All this is really just a function of time. Pearl jam has matured to a point where they don't have any need to conform to any kind of trend, but I'm sure they're not the only group who looks back on their first record and thinks, "Wow, it's too bad the producer/record company/our insecurity led to that album sounding so grunge/pop/metal/etc"

You hit the nail on the head. Check out any grunge-y album from 1991-1993. They all have that very similar over-reverbed, slight-vocal-effect kind of feel. Core. Dirt. Siamese. They wouldn't be the same any other way. I mean, it formulates the sound of that era. Much like we then stuck with the Limp Bizkit/Korn/Staind overcompressed era after grunge.

As for the RVM mixes...
You can take the band out of the grunge but you can never take the grunge out of the band!!

p.s. Speaking of first albums, I'm sure we can find a lot worse production choices than Ten. What do you think Metallica now thinks of Kill 'Em All? Yikes!

i like you southp

Yeah, exactly: I think Ten sounds just fine for what it is; a rock album recorded in 1991.

Would we want to go back and remix Elvis's Mystery Train because it's soaked in 50's style echo? No freakin' way, it gives it a certain character of its own and gives a permanent signpost as to where music production was at when it was recorded.

Ten is fine, I never liked the RVM remixes.

Now Binaural: there's a record that could be remixed...

You're a good man Isaac. I'm glad you started this thread... are you a fan since the Ten era?
Anyways, like you said, "the album is sold up the river in these parts". But remember that to the casual PJ fan and the rest of the music-listening world, Ten IS Pearl Jam. Even as a big fan of Ten, I can't agree with that statement. At the very least the Ten-haters around here need to appreciate it's importance, influence and also it's place in musical history!

A better question now if we look into the rest of the catalog, is there another album that also has a similar type of production quality that glues the songs together like Ten? i.e. Does the Binaural technique serve to gel the songs? Actually, is there any other album that is as congruent as Ten?

provided the originals aren't taped over in the process I'd have no problem remixing old albums. The question is whether or not the mixes are any good--do they add a new dimension to the song, enhance what was already there, etc. In the case of a record like Ten I think it is wildly succesful. If someone was to remix REM's Murmur I don't think it would work because the murkiness and hazy quality that the sound has is essential to the mix. Removing it would undermine what the songs were about

I suppose i can be called that
But anyway more than a hater I'm not prone to ever accept it as being their best album in none of the 101 ways I've heard.
I agree with what Ike says but i wanted to extend that sounding like MLB and produced like most rock albums at the time. In simpler terms it's just the production or does songwriting make it sound that way too?
I've had this discussion in pm before and I'm curious what other think about it.