I'm not terribly well-versed in musical theory either, but I'll have a ham-fisted attempt at explaining anyway: you're pretty much exactly right in thinking it sounds "off". Changing the key of a song alters its timbre, it's "tonal quality" in other words. Particular pitches resonate in certain ways, part of what makes the song sound the way it does originally is the choice of key in which it's played. The subtle overtones created by the original chords are changed when playing it in a different key - obviously, new ones are in their place, but it still makes a difference in that the song now sounds "off" where once it just sounded "right".

Take Got Some, for example. Obviously the band recorded it in the original key because that's what they felt worked musically for whatever they were trying to achieve - not necessarily as a considered choice, I might add, I expect they probably just naturally gravitated towards one key as opposed to others. The Conan version, despite Ed having a little trouble keeping up vocally, is the only version that comes close to having the kind of energy and tension that the song really needs to work live - compare it to any of the subsequent live versions and they sound leaden and flabby.

You can't get an identical musical effect by playing the exact same relative notes in a lower key, it just doesn't work that way. To me, though I don't expect everyone feels this way, a song would sound more "right" if Ed totally changed the vocal melody but the underlying key of the song remained the same. Same deal with the Led Zeppelin reunion: sure, Plant might be able to hit the higher notes, but the vocal is only one element in the entire sound. I'd rather the band maintain the original key and Plant just worked around his limitations. To people who are mainly listening to the vocal, perhaps they'd feel differently - but I don't think there's any reason the human voice is exempt from the above either. It too would have a different timbre if singing the same line but transposed down to a different key.

Yep. As I've said for as long as I can remember, Adam Duritz of Counting Crows does this all the time.

Often, not always. And even here as you just said it is a factor.

sure

To me, the only artist I have ever seen that takes alot of liberties with vocal melodies is Bob Dylan and I don't think I've seen a show where the whole music sounded off.

If it's music that I'm pretty familiar with I can tell pretty well right away if something is tuned down in a live situation and very few times if at all have I thought now that just sounds horrible.

Downtuning tends to make things heavier, which can be good or bad, and it will muddy stuff up pretty fast but there are eq adjustments that can be made to mend that.

If we're talkin a step down or less I think I'd rather everybody play/sing their parts relative to the original parts.

To wear out the Zeppelin comparison, it sounded like Plant was hitting much higher notes than he could hit 15 years ago b/c the music being played was lower. Instead of deciding on show day that they might need to tune down, they actually rehearsed and made the proper gear adjustments.

Interesting to compare PJ's discography timeline to other bands'

PJ... first 9 albums =18 years
The Who... first 9 albums = 16 years
Neil Young (solo)... first 9 albums = 8.5 years (!)
Radiohead... first 8 albums = 18 years


Guys, PJ is more prolific than Radiohead

Not surprised...PJ has a lot more songs than RH as well, b sides and christmas singles..

This is probably why I never fully latched onto Radiohead.

Quality over quantity

yessir

Not quite!

Apparently Radiohead have about 161 original songs (released or played live), while Pearl Jam have about 155. Not counting covers by either band. If we count all the covers PJ have played, they easily surpass Radiohead. But on original songs only, Radiohead is slightly ahead.

This seems weird at first, until you realize that Radiohead have released 6 EPs, while Pearl Jam have only released 1.

Sources:
http://pearljam.com/music?order=asc&fil ... er_by=song
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_so ... _Radiohead

Maybe so, which is why I would call Radiohead's songs absolutely incredible, on the whole, whilst still not really being a fan. To be a long-term fan you have to maintain long-term interest, and for me, part of that is knowing that there's something in the pipeline. I was thinking back to whether I'd lost interest before, and I remembered that yes, I have. Right after Binaural came out, I decided on two listens that I hated it, and wasn't very interested in PJ until years later, when the countdown to S/T happened. Edit: in the meantime, I had listened to Riot Act and quite liked it, but only then did I listen back to both of them.

guess RH has more songs? really? surprises me how little i care for most of them, actually.

your missing out bigtime

most of them are from which era? amnesiac?

I think Radiohead might be my favorite b-side band of all time. I love their leftovers. A lot of their cutting room floor is better than a lot of album tracks.

i might be wrong, but i think they have a decent amount of bsides from all eras.

You are not wrong.

The Bends was an especially prolific era.

It's worth nothing that many of Dylan's songs--especially the early ones, which are the ones that have been rearranged and sometimes entirely rewritten multiple times--consist primarily of open chords which lend themselves far better to the kind of flexibility you see across Dylan's career. Much of Pearl Jam's songwriting is a kind of equal partnership between "words and music" and "arrangement," in which the arrangement is actually a vital part of the songwriting itself, significantly affecting how the song sounds when altered in any way.