I was drawn to Eddie nearly 2 decades ago because he was the ultimate everyman. Through no fault of his own, he's not anymore. I think it's the main reason more people like "their old stuff" better. Thoughts?

I think that there is a lot more pressure to live up to their past now that the band members are established rock musicians. In their early days they were unknown and had no previous reputation to live up to.

Eddie didn't write working class music, even if that was a part of the persona that drew you to him. That stuff was powerful becuase of the way it mixed empathy and confrontation--there is no reason they cannot still write stuff like that. Success may be a reason why they don't--but not becuase he's too famous or no longer an 'everyman'

i know i've expressed many times before what i'd like this band to do next but, of all things, i want them to surprise me as they did with Vitalogy and No Code. those were the days, obviously. but i don't think Eddie's wealth plays a large role in what he writes - the guy seems really grounded for a "superstar". eggs jokes aside, he still manages to reach me with his songwriting.
so basically i don't have the definition of an PJ album that i want - i think the band has a tremendous potential to impress me even after all those years. they just don't seem to take advantage of their potential consistently.

You are right about the working class music but I do think the basic idea of this thread is something I agree with.

Is 2009 Ed going to ride around doing a radio show in van on tour like he did for the No Code tour was it? Or trash hotel rooms? Smash holes through the stage and leave through the floor?

Those feelings are gone, they left with age..he grew up. A lot of people who want the older albums are probably still the age that Ed was when he wrote them and identify with that particular sentiment.

This is a great topic. I think for me personally, it's a matter of "changing" with the band. I was 18 back in 1991, very influenced by PJ, among others, and really loved the early stuff. But, like mastaflatch above, I think now I don't necessarily want "old stuff", but would love to be surprised, no, blown away by an album. Yield kind of surprised me too. Riot Act and S/T were good but didn't floor me. They really grew on me. I guess I'm hoping for that album that I say "holy shit" to after one listen. I know they are capable of that...

The fame is not to blame. The fame was there in 1994-2000 as well, when he/they wrote his/their best music.

Yeah, I was going to say - fame has been a pressure on the band for like 17 years of their 18 year career. The music changed because they all grew up. I agree with Mastaflatch that they maybe stepped into their comfort zone a little. I think they all still have great songs inside them though.

What I don't understand about this "comfort zone" argument is the following : I was thinking about that as well. But then again, everyone was saying that they were so relaxed before making Yield. That they were really comfortable. It's basically the same shit as what we heard before Avocado. So euh... why is Yield so good and Avocado so bad?

This is tough to answer, because it's easy to fall into the trap of saying that a more complex song is more thought out and consequently better. You also have to consider the album's agenda individually...like, I would have loved to have seen a Red Dot or Push Me Pull Me on Avocado, but maybe the band idn't want to do that - direct songs for a different impact?

Some people might argue that the songs on Avocado were a little easy and that the band weren't pushing themselves enough. I'm not going to make that claim as it's hard to justify. I do think Yield is a lyrically stronger album on the whole though. The bad lyrics on Yield (aka Jeff/Stone lyrics) aren't offensively bad...at least not ot the point where the embarassing like parts of Inside Job, at least they're occasionally cryptic and subtle (excluding the Pilate chorus).

I also wonder how much production affects things. Given To Fly isn't a tricky song, but when you hear it it's mindblowing, there's like 5 or 6 things going on at some points. Maybe Brendan had the magician's touch of making Yield sound to it's full potential, where as Avocado was left in it's natural stages.

Either way, I'd just love to see the band take a few more experiments and risks in the studios. Layer up vocals, more instruments, more effects etc..

Or less instruments in some cases.

True dat. But I meant more so trying out new instruments like Ed did on Into The Wild and bringing those in.

Well maybe they did if what we know about The End is true.

Hopefully

I remember an interview shortly after Avocado where Ed said that he wished the band took more risks in the studio, it'll be interesting to see if he was still thinking that way druing the process of making Backspacer.

That's ironic because he tends to get the blame for whatever is wrong with the band (check thread's title ). The thing is whatever risks they make the singer is going to be featured on the song more likely than any other musician so probably they avoid going in that territory.

Ed has always been the lead guy pushing the band into interesting places. Vitalogy and No Code are seen as important turning points in the bands career, and big PJ fans see this as for the better and we have Ed to thank for that.

It's strange that people always assume that the singers/frontmen are the least likely to experiment or shake things up musically. I remember when Thom Yorke's solo album was coming out, and everyone was so surprised that there were no acoustic guitar/piano ballads, no one realised that he was just as responsible as the rest of Radiohead for fucking around with the sound fom Kid A onwards.

This is true. In practice it seems that most people assume the guitar player (or one of them) is always the top musician/songwriter in a rock band.

the thing with the band growing up is that I've grown up with them. The things that are on my mind at age 32 are different than what was at age 16. There should be stuff there that they are capable of tapping into, as well as appropriating universal themes (social/political commentary, existenstial musings) that work no matter how old you are.

Having said that, the problem is found within the band more than Eddie. The best stuff on any recent PJ record can hang pretty close to the best stuff on their older material. I see two problems

With Yield/Binaural they were too concerned about making everyone happy/getting everyone's songs in there and so you have terrible tracklisting decisions, potentially strong songs hamstrung by mediocre lyrics and then with Riot Act and Binaural they were working with a producer who also wouldn't tell them no (see Riot Act--same problem with Binaural-some songs just aren't up to album inclusion qualtiy or need to be reworked and reproduced). I've felt for a few years now that their big problem isn't with the writing--it's with the management and decision making. Hopefully a figure like BoB can get them around taht

This thread is RM at its best. I love this place

inglish teacher's hitting on something though....

don't ask the fish what the fishbowl looks like