Stone will never be the live singer Ed is, or was. Ed is a natural performer, and shares with many of pop music's greatest singers a knack for fusing spectacle (however modest) and melodic variation with an uncanny ability to render almost anything he sings entirely his own. Whether its due to inability or underdevelopment, Stone doesn't have that--his presence is awkward and his voice doesn't have much traveling capacity.

However, with "Bayleaf" Stone composed a record that was 100% suited to his strengths, something which it doesn't seem entirely one can necessarily count on Pearl Jam to do at this point in time. To be fair, "Bayleaf" is over ten years old, and there's no real "track record" to indicate a follow-up would be equally well-considered; also to be fair, most of Eddie's serious missteps as a singer haven't been related to new studio material, but rather his insistence on continuing to perform songs in concert that are clearly beyond his current limitations. I thought he sounded as good as he could have been expected to sound on the ukulele album, and I'd say the same thing about the one-off tracks that have popped up over the last few years ("Ole," "Skipping," "Better Days," etc.). Misguided though it may be, I don't fear poor vocals from Ed on the next record as much as I fear poor songs. His voice is still a powerful instrument; even singers whose voices are in great states of deterioration can still be moving, because those instincts for how to render a song are ingrained in them. They just need discipline.

But I don't think saying that one would rather hear Stone sing at this point is necessarily a side-by-side catch-all comparison of the two singers. Most of us have heard virtually every musical note out of Eddie Vedder's mouth over the last decade--any of us could take any song we're familiar with, and in our mind create a reasonable facsimile of what Eddie Vedder would sound like singing it. His voice holds no surprises for us at this point, as gripped as we've all been by it in the past. At his best, Stone is a charismatic, inquisitive songwriter, and his geeky alien-sounding voice serves his material (personally, I thought all the weakest tunes on "Bayleaf" were the ones sung by Ty Willman), but when I listen to him sing I still feel like there are stories in his voice I haven't quite figured out yet, and that's the kind of thing that invites playback.

LOL what r u lookin for attention?

Stone will never be the live singer Ed is, or was. Ed is a natural performer, and shares with many of pop music's greatest singers a knack for fusing spectacle (however modest) and melodic variation with an uncanny ability to render almost anything he sings entirely his own. Whether its due to inability or underdevelopment, Stone doesn't have that--his presence is awkward and his voice doesn't have much traveling capacity.

However, with "Bayleaf" Stone composed a record that was 100% suited to his strengths, something which it doesn't seem one can necessarily count on Pearl Jam to do at this point in time. To be fair, "Bayleaf" is over ten years old, and there's no real "track record" to indicate a follow-up would be equally well-considered; also to be fair, most of Eddie's serious missteps as a singer haven't been related to new studio material, but rather his insistence on continuing to perform songs in concert that are clearly beyond his current limitations. I thought he sounded as good as he could have been expected to sound on the ukulele album, and I'd say the same thing about the one-off tracks that have popped up over the last few years ("Ole," "Skipping," "Better Days," etc.). Misguided though it may be, I don't fear poor vocals from Ed on the next record as much as I fear poor songs. His voice is still a powerful instrument; even singers whose voices are in great states of deterioration can still be moving, because those instincts for how to render a song are ingrained in them. They just need discipline.

But I don't think saying that one would rather hear Stone sing at this point is necessarily a side-by-side catch-all comparison of the two singers. Most of us have heard virtually every musical note out of Eddie Vedder's mouth over the last decade--any of us could take any song we're familiar with, and in our mind create a reasonable facsimile of what Eddie Vedder would sound like singing it. His voice holds no surprises for us at this point, as gripped as we've all been by it in the past. At his best, Stone is a charismatic, inquisitive songwriter, and his geeky alien-sounding voice serves his material (personally, I thought all the weakest tunes on "Bayleaf" were the ones sung by Ty Willman), but when I listen to him sing I still feel like there are stories in his voice I haven't quite figured out yet, and that's the kind of thing that invites playback.

I love Stone and can't wait for his new album. Based on those more recent tracks and live videos we've seen, I think he's really improved as a vocalist since Bayleaf.

Still, I would much rather listen to this guy sing if I had to choose:

I wish Ed would release an album with Natalie Maines.

Those performances with Natalie were enjoyable, but no duets album, please.

Two people singing together makes you sick?

I hope this song is in it. I think it's a great song.

I hope this song is in it. I think it's a great song.

No. I love a good duet. But a full album of duets is pretty gimmicky and generally points to an artistic decline.

Kevin Davis, ladies and gentlemen. He actually understood what I meant and didn't just assume I was trolling you nerds.

But, we do have those 2008 songs that are a much more recent example of his vocals compared to Bayleaf.

you nerds.