I think adding a bass will be a drastic change in LB.

In some songs, they're very significant indeed. In others, not so much. I don't understand why you wouldn't acknowledge that.

i'd say we have a pretty-good idea of what LB & FD are as songs. i'm looking forward to hearing them more (studio & live), but i'm not expecting studio jeremy -> jeremy II changes. you know?

Right. Sometimes it doesn't take that drastic of a change to change an opinion on a song.

I couldn't even hear the upright bass on the live version of FD. Significant improvement already. Add some slide guitar and turn up Boom's already nice organ chords, it's halfway to a decent song. These studio decisions are significant to me; they're all part of the songwriting. It seems to me that some people on RM think that studio decisions are unnecessary decoration, and that the song is the song even without them. I disagree. If Bob Dylan played all of his stuff on 80s synth and keytar, I doubt he'd be as popular.

I don't think Jeremy II sounds any more different to studio Jeremy than the vast majority of live PJ sounds to studio PJ. To me the difference is exactly equivalent.

I can't support this.

I'm trying hard to think of a bad Pearl Jam song that I think is a good or great song in the studio because it was produced so well. I can't think of one. I certainly wouldn't say that the way a song is produced has no bearing, or not even a significant one, but I think there's a limit to what it can do.

Think of your favourite PJ song, and then imagine all of the ways the same song could totally suck. If you can't think of any, you're probably lacking in imagination.

Fine. However, if you can't think of a good PJ studio song that was fucked up when they played it live, we're not listening to the same band.

And again, it's worth repeating that none of these LB songs are *bad* songs imo.

i think you may be reading a little too much into what i'm saying.

i agree with you, i think most of us posting with you this morning agree with you.

where we differ is with regard to how significant the change will be between studio & live, but we've got 60+ days to learn that.

Production and studio 'magic', by the way, is what made me think Supersonic was good for at least a few weeks. And it's what makes some people still think Big Wave is good.

I know you haven't, that was kind of my point. People saying it will be terrible because Pearl Jam songs are the same live as in the studio aren't making a whole lot of sense. Was it you who just posted about the spoken word backing vocals in Breakerfall? That's a perfect example. It's something that adds a ton to the studio version of the song, but it doesn't come through live at all.

Parachutes. I absolutely hated that song off of the album. The recording and vocals both sound like trash to me. Hearing it live, even though it is pretty much the same song, totally transformed my feelings towards it. It gave me a totally different frame of reference that helped me get past the album versions short comings.

Not For You. I hated it when i first heard it (SNL 94). I thought it was loud, abrasive and annoying. When i got Vitalogy I actually liked it a hell of a lot more. All the little things were more audible and dynamic. The little things elevated it and the overall tone was more appealing to me.

Here's my very general rule of thumb on this topic....
The songs from the first few albums were better live (and some still are).
The last few albums have been better in the studio.

i had that same experience with NFY

I had that opposite experience with NFY

Not really. I love the studio cut. But I loved that SNL performance, too.