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.
because everything from the jam to the outro is pure adrenaline.
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.
because everything from the jam to the outro is pure adrenaline.
But everything prior to the jam is butchered. I agree, when I see the song live I think it gets good beginning at the jam, and becomes great at the outro.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:36 pm Posts: 25824 Location: south jersey
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.
atl 94 is rvm at its finest
_________________ Feel the path of every day,... Which road you taking?,...
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:00 pm Posts: 19826 Location: Alone in a corridor
stip wrote:
the strobe lights at the end are cool though
Yes, don't get me wrong, RVM is also one of the songs they could play at any show I'm attending and I wouldn't complain one bit (although not if it excludes any other song ever closing the main set). It has its cool elements, but still, that studio version is so kick ass. When I put a mixtape together to go cycling or running, it's always on. Makes me go a bit faster.
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 May 30, 2006 2:48 pm Posts: 3115 Location: Edinburgh/Lincoln, UK
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.
I remember that now. Yeah, I enjoy it, particularly because it's Dave A. But it's still missing those secondary guitar parts I like so much. It's obviously an awesome song otherwise, but those are the icing on the cake.
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:55 am Posts: 1776 Location: New York, NY
I think the three-guitar songs can sometimes seem a little sparse on the other guitars in part due to Ed's writing style (which is typically the only time we'd see a three-guitar setup besides covers). Ed tends to use a lot of open and barre chording in his music, both in the folkier and moodier pieces and in the more uptempo stuff. Obviously, there are big exceptions to this, but overall he strikes me as being more chord-based than riff-based. So, take Unthought Known for example; it's almost entirely in open chords (I believe), and Ed wails on those chords for all that they're worth. Or Man of the Hour; I wouldn't call it complex, but Ed's certainly filling the space. It sounds great, but it also takes up a lot of space in terms of things that the other guitarists can do that wouldn't clutter the song too much. That's why I think you tend to see Stone do something simple to tweak what Ed's playing and Mike mainly just do color and solos on that stuff. Ed's guitar parts do a lot of that heavy lifting already.
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 44183 Location: New York Gender: Male
Angus wrote:
stip wrote:
the strobe lights at the end are cool though
Yes, don't get me wrong, RVM is also one of the songs they could play at any show I'm attending and I wouldn't complain one bit (although not if it excludes any other song ever closing the main set). It has its cool elements, but still, that studio version is so kick ass. When I put a mixtape together to go cycling or running, it's always on. Makes me go a bit faster.
i wasn't disagreeing with you. Actually I'll go even further. I tend to not even like the jam very much (I much prefer the porch one). But the outro is still awesome.
_________________ "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
Actually yeah, thinking about it I'm not that bothered about the jam either. The one in the studio version is the perfect length. The live version jam, with the 15 minute drum solo, kills the momentum.
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:00 pm Posts: 19826 Location: Alone in a corridor
stip wrote:
Angus wrote:
stip wrote:
the strobe lights at the end are cool though
Yes, don't get me wrong, RVM is also one of the songs they could play at any show I'm attending and I wouldn't complain one bit (although not if it excludes any other song ever closing the main set). It has its cool elements, but still, that studio version is so kick ass. When I put a mixtape together to go cycling or running, it's always on. Makes me go a bit faster.
i wasn't disagreeing with you. Actually I'll go even further. I tend to not even like the jam very much (I much prefer the porch one). But the outro is still awesome.
I know you didn't. I just wanted to add a little to my post.
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:07 am Posts: 1632 Location: Seattle, WA
Just listened to Riot Act for the first time in a long time. Probably the biggest slow-grower of any PJ album out there for me. Hated this album for years, but something about it (its age? my age?) just keeps getting better, and something about it just clicked this time around. Of course there are weak moments, but the great moments just slay you. There are a lot of hidden gems in this album, whether it be a random bassline, a vocal deep in the background, whatever. And something about "All Or None" just kills me.... love that song, and have always considered it very underrated.
It's a great album as a studio album... There's a somberness to it that just doesn't translate live when some of these songs are intermingled with Yield or Ten or S/T. The songs' atmospheres just don't translate live. Thumbing My Way for instance...... boring as shit live. But something about the studio album just strikes a nerve.... and i loathed this song for so long.
Just listened to Riot Act for the first time in a long time. Probably the biggest slow-grower of any PJ album out there for me. Hated this album for years, but something about it (its age? my age?) just keeps getting better, and something about it just clicked this time around. Of course there are weak moments, but the great moments just slay you. There are a lot of hidden gems in this album, whether it be a random bassline, a vocal deep in the background, whatever. And something about "All Or None" just kills me.... love that song, and have always considered it very underrated.
It's a great album as a studio album... There's a somberness to it that just doesn't translate live when some of these songs are intermingled with Yield or Ten or S/T. The songs' atmospheres just don't translate live. Thumbing My Way for instance...... boring as shit live. But something about the studio album just strikes a nerve.... and i loathed this song for so long.
I have a friend who I wanted to get into PJ. He is not a big ballad fans and is quoted "one at the end is acceptable" . So I burnt him a copy of riot act without slower songs and he really liked it.
TRACKLIST LBC Save You Get Right Cropduster Ghost I Am Mine Green Disease You Are Undone Bu$hleaguer 1/2 Full All Or None
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 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
