understand that if 2003 marked the "beginning of the end" of a certain aspect of early Pearl Jam, it also showed the early bloom of a tremendous and really gorgeous maturity?

I recognize that manic and maniacal energy of the 90s and appreciate its power (I think Stip said in another thread, they were tapping into something he assumed he'd never see again). Still, it left plenty of room for growth, and I think too many people think the inevitable tradeoff is somehow disappointing.

oh, ok. my bad.

Yeah. Backspacer is a tremendous and gorgeously mature album that a band can only make after they've gotten the manic and maniacal rage of albums like No Code, Yield, and Binaural out of their system.

I know we all wish they could tap back into the sheer fury of songs like Who You Are, Off He Goes, Around The Bend, Faithfull, All Those Yesterdays, Of The Girl, Sleight of Hand, and Parting Ways. It's understandable. But instead we get the aged wisdom of Supersonic, Big Wave, and Ole.

Appreciate it, naysayers.

backspacer is a mature album about not taking what you have for granted.. It's not a gorgeous album but it's not trying to be either.

otherwise, that's a fairly hostile response for no reason, isn't it?

I've "expelled all my anger" on this subject but I couldn't put out "your flames"

Do you really think either Backspacer or S/T are one of the three most mature artistic statements they've made? Not just the messages, but everything, music, artwork, etc.? I think on the whole Backspacer is probably the most juvenile thing they've done, and even S/T doesn't strike me as particularly mature (certainly no more so than the four records that preceded it).

I was actually going to write up something similar but feel like his post pretty much summed it up.

Other than soccer mom favorite Just Breathe and The End I don't think there is anything particularly 'mature' about BS. I actually think its pretty difficult to say the album is about anything really. Sure, a few songs have some lyrical themes that connect but its mostly about Johnny's guitar and fixing things otherwise....

Certainly not S/T. I would say that about backspacer if by mature you mean the themes on the album. If you mean mature in terms of careful and considered craft than no. But I also think there is a logical progression throughout pearl jam's albums such that each album is at least partially in conversation with the one(s) that preceded it. I think it makes sense that those two albums sound the way that they do.

I don't think Backspacer is a juvenile record at all. I think it is a light and carefree and fun record (I've used the phrase unburdened before) that is trying to close the book on the dour heaviness of the three previous albums (and in a lot of ways on the first 8). I think people often assume that a song has to sound weighty and meaningful in a sterotypical way in order for people to think it is about something deep or important, and that's just not true.

Above all else I think Backspacer is a deceptive record, and because it is so superficially light people don't look closer.


Backspacer and S/T are quite possibly my two favorite post Vitalogy Pearl Jam albums (backspacer is definitely 4. Not sure about Yield or S/T), but that reflects my personal preferences. I wouldn't say that they are better than the albums I like less. I do think, quite seriously, that in a number of ways Backspacer is more intelligent than both Yield and No Code (thematically, at least). I think the craft and composition on those records is more careful and deliberate, but that's appropriate given the albums.


Also, if you want to compare Ole, Big Wave, and Supersonic to something compare it to Lukin or Mankind or Leatherman or U. What you did in your post is like someone bitching that Parachutes doesn't rock as hard as why go.

I don't know how you can pick 2003 as your "Marker In The Sand" (hah) regardless of definition. If Roskilde changed them, USA 2000 is the turning point. If Matt Cameron changed them, USA 1998 is the turning point. If Ed's divorce changed them, then the "marker" is the beginning of the Binaural cycle in 1999. The only thing truly different about '03 was the addition of Boom, and Riot Act was there (at the time) weakest studio album, with a handful of clunkers and a lackluster vocal performance. Some don't like S/T and might argue THAT's the great change, but other than Inside Job I think it is better matched with what came before than what came later. The change is either Ed's first solo record or Backspacer, your pick. Giving up the indie arrangement for Target exclusivity, playing Conan instead of Letterman, Oracle and other corporate gigs, repeatedly playing the European festival circuit, the continued decline of Ed's voice...for better or for worse, the band changed post-Avocado in a more stark and less gradual way than at any time since late '94/early '95.

Still, as it became clear when I responded to the "best PJ month" thread in the live forum...Pearl Jam was the best live act on earth from about February '92 to about March '95. They were a "gotta see" act from February '92 to the end of '06, a period of 15 years (though I still want to know what the hell happened to Ed's voice post-pacific rim '95). They're still really good, live and otherwise. That's a better record as a live band than Zeppelin or the Who, for sure.

Backspacer sounds like it does because sometimes its too hard to make a really thoughtful piece of art, not because it is intentionally simplistic or 'unbridled' due to artistic choice. It requires lots and lots of effort to make a great record. It becomes even more difficult to pull off when you decide that being rich and having a family is pretty fun....

ahh, the old 'I'm not impressed so they didn't try cuz they are rich' argument.

yeah, I'm not sure I would draw a line at 03 either, and I agree that S/T isn't really any outlier from the previous records.

I suppose what seems light and carefree to you on Backspacer feels juvenile and careless. Backspacer is an album where it feels like they just took whatever the first idea that made an embryo of a song long enough to be a "real" song and ran with it. To me it doesn't so much cry "spontaneity" as it does "that's a whole song, right?" I understand that's a fine line to tread, but some bands can do it. On Backspacer, Pearl Jam makes a strong case to my ears that they cannot. They're not The Replacements or Elastica or Ash, and they never will be. There's no shame in that; it's just disappointing when they convince themselves otherwise.

The point with the comparison between the two sets of songs wasn't meant to be a one way street back in the other direction. The original statement was that people can't appreciate Pearl Jam's post-2003 maturity because they long for the pre-2003 manic/maniacalism/etc. I picked those songs because the overwhelming sentiment among most "naysayers" is actually the complete opposite. I would argue the pre-2003 songs that are among the most beloved (the ones named in my first post) I are the mature, thought provoking pieces, while the the post-2003 material that is most derided (the other set of songs in that post) is when Pearl Jam attempts to be manic, unleashed rockers. No one is wondering why they don't write songs like Rearviewmirror anymore. People seem more to wonder why they'd bother to write a song like Supersonic. That's why I can't wrap my ahead around where someone would get the idea that the bands current maturity is being unappreciated because people are waiting for another Blood or Whipping. It's just not true. It's actually very possible that the mature, thoughtful pieces from each and every album/era rate higher in the eyes of the "naysayers" than the unbridled rockers do (Ten being the possible exception).

that's not what he said.

Not in so few of words....

From a songwriting and stylistic standpoint, Avocado is a left turn from the direction they were heading in with every record since Yield. It was their first full-length since leaving Epic, their first new record after two career-spanning compilation albums, the first record in a decade where they made a concerted effort to do a lot of press again and reclaim commercial visibility (evinced by the band's own comments around this record cycle) and the first record since Yield where they produced a music video that wasn't just a live performance. It's completely reasonable to mark it as a "turning point" for the band.

It's not worse than the 'it's so much deeper than you think' argument (aka 'I'm smarter than you') you pulled out.

Whilst I almost agree with you, I believe BS once again suffers from the production. Early on it seems that BO'B and Ed/PJ decided that an immediate, concise and uncluttered record was the brief. They certainly delivered it. Most of the tracks (in my opinion) suffer from a lack of breathing space. GSMF, GS and JG all leave me wanting a bit more musically, maybe jamming at the outro or some space between the vocals. It's not until FoN that we get the return of our investment of a musical outro.

I like BS but there's too much Eddie and not enough music. And when there is a musical break, often it's too forced (see AtW end of solo. fucking awful).