Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:51 am Posts: 4009 Location: S. Florida Gender: Female
spenno wrote:
stip wrote:
the interplay isn't that dynamic, but I don't judge a song based on whether every individual member has something fantastic to do.
I'm not suggesting it's the sole criteria for judging a song's worth, but interesting interplay between the musicians is always going to be pretty fundamental for me.....
you like the grateful dead then spenno?
_________________ Can you feel the magic? Oh, yeah
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 pm Posts: 13226 Location: Adelaide, AUS
knee tunes wrote:
spenno wrote:
stip wrote:
the interplay isn't that dynamic, but I don't judge a song based on whether every individual member has something fantastic to do.
I'm not suggesting it's the sole criteria for judging a song's worth, but interesting interplay between the musicians is always going to be pretty fundamental for me.....
you like the grateful dead then spenno?
You know, I've never really given them a chance, but (given what I've heard) I have trouble imaging they'd be my thing.
Like I tried to say on the last page, when I say "interesting interplay" I don't at all mean virtuosity, extended jamming or other obvious sings of "look, here I am playing an instrument". It can be two chords, providing they're the right chords and played in a way that makes my ears perk up.
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:51 am Posts: 4009 Location: S. Florida Gender: Female
spenno wrote:
knee tunes wrote:
you like the grateful dead then spenno?
You know, I've never really given them a chance, but (given what I've heard) I have trouble imaging they'd be my thing.
Like I tried to say on the last page, when I say "interesting interplay" I don't at all mean virtuosity, extended jamming or other obvious sings of "look, here I am playing an instrument". It can be two chords, providing they're the right chords and played in a way that makes my ears perk up.
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 44183 Location: New York Gender: Male
spenno wrote:
stip wrote:
the interplay isn't that dynamic, but I don't judge a song based on whether every individual member has something fantastic to do.
I'm not suggesting it's the sole criteria for judging a song's worth, but interesting interplay between the musicians is always going to be pretty fundamental for me. I'm not talking about complex musical ideas either - merely, as Stone put it, "rhythmic things that butt up against each other in a cool kind of way". They're rather good at that when they put their minds to it - eg: Last Exit, Faithfull, Tremor Christ, Brain of J., Do the Evolution, Insignificance, etc.
(I'd written a thing here about how it's invariably a Vedder song that fails in that department for me, then I remembered Force of Nature and realised that wouldn't be very fair to Ed. Anyway, I Am Mine just sounds dull and uninteresting to these ears, whatever they're doing just doesn't float my boat.)
well I think I am mine is much more interesting than Force of Nature, musically.
Can you think of any Ed 3 guitar songs that do what you're talking about besides Corduroy? Maybe PJ just doesn't need 3 guitarists, which would be a problem when he brings in stuff for him to play on. I agree that they can sometimes sound like they are fishing for stuff the other guys can do.
I'd have to listen to insignificance again, but aren't stone and ed playing a pretty similar part on that one, no less so than I Am Mine?
_________________ "Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR
I was never a militant advocate of this, but it would be interesting to see what happened if Ed put the guitar down. I bet Mike and Stone would start kicking ass again, and Ed could spend his energy on singing and being a frontman.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:37 pm Posts: 15767 Location: Vail, CO Gender: Male
Harmless wrote:
I was never a militant advocate of this, but it would be interesting to see what happened if Ed put the guitar down. I bet Mike and Stone would start kicking ass again, and Ed could spend his energy on singing and being a frontman.
Sometime its okay to say things you do not fully believe in quite yet.
I was never a militant advocate of this, but it would be interesting to see what happened if Ed put the guitar down. I bet Mike and Stone would start kicking ass again, and Ed could spend his energy on singing and being a frontman.
Sometime its okay to say things you do not fully believe in quite yet.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:37 pm Posts: 15767 Location: Vail, CO Gender: Male
Harmless wrote:
62strat wrote:
Harmless wrote:
I was never a militant advocate of this, but it would be interesting to see what happened if Ed put the guitar down. I bet Mike and Stone would start kicking ass again, and Ed could spend his energy on singing and being a frontman.
Sometime its okay to say things you do not fully believe in quite yet.
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
I think I am Mine is about what it could have been, and I like it a lot, though less than when it used to be among my favorite songs.
I also think I like Get Right more now than before. And Mike's solos are pretty important on this album, especially on Ghost. I think something this album does well is feature sections of songs where guitars are not prominent, certainly not most prominent, but couples those with solos and other cool things. For instance, the 'flying away...' sections of Ghost, there's only some sparse/spacey guitar playing coupled with some cool drumming, but those sections are preceded by crunchy guitar riffs and followed by solos. I like that.
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 pm Posts: 13226 Location: Adelaide, AUS
stip wrote:
Can you think of any Ed 3 guitar songs that do what you're talking about besides Corduroy?
I think these do: Rearviewmirror, Not For You, Insignificance, Grievance, In My Tree.
stip wrote:
Maybe PJ just doesn't need 3 guitarists, which would be a problem when he brings in stuff for him to play on. I agree that they can sometimes sound like they are fishing for stuff the other guys can do.
Maybe. Still, the more I think about this, I think I might be wrong (at least in part) in trying to pin it on the three-guitar arrangements: after all, I have no problems with Habit, Leatherman, MFC or U and all of those songs feature all three guitarists playing similar things at various points.
Maybe there's just something about I Am Mine as a song that doesn't work for me - though I really like a few of the lyrical images, especially the line about the "full moon looking for friends at high tide".
stip wrote:
I'd have to listen to insignificance again, but aren't stone and ed playing a pretty similar part on that one, no less so than I Am Mine?
Stone used to play some really wonderful contrasting parts during the intro to the song that he dropped some time after the 2000 tour, much to my disappointment. He still does some interesting stuff on there though, certainly moreso than on I Am Mine.
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 2:48 pm Posts: 3115 Location: Edinburgh/Lincoln, UK
Pearl Jam probably don't need 3 guitars on some songs, but there's certainly no harm in having them all playing live. Almost all of the 'two guitar' songs in the catalogue probably have at least 3 guitar tracks playing at some point at least.
The third guitar shouldn't be warranted only if it's playing something different - its inclusion should be justified if it lends a similar texture to a performance that one might expect on a studio track. A lot of this comes down to texture, so when you say 'Stone just plays Ed's part', that might be true, but usually it's on an acoustic, or phrased a little differently, or just letting some chords ring that Ed might be strumming. These are productive and worthwhile additions, though they might not seem interesting to the player.
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 pm Posts: 13226 Location: Adelaide, AUS
I think I'm inclined to agree (despite my previous statement in this thread).
There's plenty of songs where I feel that textural difference works just fine, so I think it's just a matter of the song itself not doing a great deal for me.
Pearl Jam probably don't need 3 guitars on some songs, but there's certainly no harm in having them all playing live. Almost all of the 'two guitar' songs in the catalogue probably have at least 3 guitar tracks playing at some point at least.
The third guitar shouldn't be warranted only if it's playing something different - its inclusion should be justified if it lends a similar texture to a performance that one might expect on a studio track. A lot of this comes down to texture, so when you say 'Stone just plays Ed's part', that might be true, but usually it's on an acoustic, or phrased a little differently, or just letting some chords ring that Ed might be strumming. These are productive and worthwhile additions, though they might not seem interesting to the player.
The problem comes when the studio tracks have sparser moments, when certain guitar parts are markedly different to create a texture you really like. When they're all just hammering the same thing live, the song is kind of ruined. RVM is the best example of this; I've always wondered where the lovely arpeggios are. For me, the arpeggios (played by Mike I think) make the song, and they just hammer at the chords underneath when playing live. So yes, you get a wall of sounds, but it's not the multi-layered texture it was originally.
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:00 pm Posts: 19826 Location: Alone in a corridor
Harmless wrote:
iceagecoming wrote:
Pearl Jam probably don't need 3 guitars on some songs, but there's certainly no harm in having them all playing live. Almost all of the 'two guitar' songs in the catalogue probably have at least 3 guitar tracks playing at some point at least.
The third guitar shouldn't be warranted only if it's playing something different - its inclusion should be justified if it lends a similar texture to a performance that one might expect on a studio track. A lot of this comes down to texture, so when you say 'Stone just plays Ed's part', that might be true, but usually it's on an acoustic, or phrased a little differently, or just letting some chords ring that Ed might be strumming. These are productive and worthwhile additions, though they might not seem interesting to the player.
The problem comes when the studio tracks have sparser moments, when certain guitar parts are markedly different to create a texture you really like. When they're all just hammering the same thing live, the song is kind of ruined. RVM is the best example of this; I've always wondered where the lovely arpeggios are. For me, the arpeggios (played by Mike I think) make the song, and they just hammer at the chords underneath when playing live. So yes, you get a wall of sounds, but it's not the multi-layered texture it was originally.
RVM is one of those songs where I never understood how some people can prefer it live over the studio version.
Pearl Jam probably don't need 3 guitars on some songs, but there's certainly no harm in having them all playing live. Almost all of the 'two guitar' songs in the catalogue probably have at least 3 guitar tracks playing at some point at least.
The third guitar shouldn't be warranted only if it's playing something different - its inclusion should be justified if it lends a similar texture to a performance that one might expect on a studio track. A lot of this comes down to texture, so when you say 'Stone just plays Ed's part', that might be true, but usually it's on an acoustic, or phrased a little differently, or just letting some chords ring that Ed might be strumming. These are productive and worthwhile additions, though they might not seem interesting to the player.
The problem comes when the studio tracks have sparser moments, when certain guitar parts are markedly different to create a texture you really like. When they're all just hammering the same thing live, the song is kind of ruined. RVM is the best example of this; I've always wondered where the lovely arpeggios are. For me, the arpeggios (played by Mike I think) make the song, and they just hammer at the chords underneath when playing live. So yes, you get a wall of sounds, but it's not the multi-layered texture it was originally.
RVM is one of those songs where I never understood how some people can prefer it live over the studio version.
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 44183 Location: New York Gender: Male
Harmless wrote:
Angus wrote:
Harmless wrote:
iceagecoming wrote:
Pearl Jam probably don't need 3 guitars on some songs, but there's certainly no harm in having them all playing live. Almost all of the 'two guitar' songs in the catalogue probably have at least 3 guitar tracks playing at some point at least.
The third guitar shouldn't be warranted only if it's playing something different - its inclusion should be justified if it lends a similar texture to a performance that one might expect on a studio track. A lot of this comes down to texture, so when you say 'Stone just plays Ed's part', that might be true, but usually it's on an acoustic, or phrased a little differently, or just letting some chords ring that Ed might be strumming. These are productive and worthwhile additions, though they might not seem interesting to the player.
The problem comes when the studio tracks have sparser moments, when certain guitar parts are markedly different to create a texture you really like. When they're all just hammering the same thing live, the song is kind of ruined. RVM is the best example of this; I've always wondered where the lovely arpeggios are. For me, the arpeggios (played by Mike I think) make the song, and they just hammer at the chords underneath when playing live. So yes, you get a wall of sounds, but it's not the multi-layered texture it was originally.
RVM is one of those songs where I never understood how some people can prefer it live over the studio version.
Yup.
_________________ "Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 44183 Location: New York Gender: Male
the strobe lights at the end are cool though
_________________ "Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:02 pm Posts: 6405 Location: DC Gender: Male
stip wrote:
the strobe lights at the end are cool though
I don't agree with you often, but the strobe lights are indeed pretty kick ass.
But yeah, most PJ studio beats most PJ live. One of these days I'll have to make a list of the live tracks I actually like better. I don't reckon it would be more than 15 or so songs, if that.
I don't agree with you often, but the strobe lights are indeed pretty kick ass.
But yeah, most PJ studio beats most PJ live. One of these days I'll have to make a list of the live tracks I actually like better. I don't reckon it would be more than 15 or so songs, if that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
