Grunge is over, that's been said and done over a decade ago, but alternative has surely evolved since them, but Pearl Jam continues to be a primary band in modern rock. While nothing by them has rivaled the likes their fantastic, hard rocking "Ten", they sure have had a career that has lasted longer than most bands that got their start in the 90's. With their self titled album released three years ago, Pearl Jam proved that a barre chord roar with a couple of solos is not dated, despite what this decade seems to be getting after. What direction does Backspacer bring to the table?Since "Ten", Pearl Jam has been an unapologetically hard rocking band, but has changed it's formula around a bit within every couple years. "Ten" felt very brash, "Vitalogy" stripped down the formula somewhat, as was the same with their previous effort, now with "Backspacer", the band has slowed down a little, and sometimes showing a lighter side. However, Eddie Vedder and company are far from conforming to the likes of Nickelback, Mike Mcready hasn't lost much since their previous efforts, and Vedder can still pitch lyrics, continuing what "Ten" wasn't, fast paced and somewhat cheery.
As stated, Pearl Jam has changed its style slightly, this go around, Backspacer was influenced by New Wave. In a lot of ways, "Backspacer" feels like the lead single off their previous album, "Life Wasted", but with a significant loss in crunch. "The Fixer" is a fair single, as it is one of the punchier songs on the album. "Johnny Guitar" felt a bit like Duran Duran, which was a neat change of pace. Two of the songs, "Just Breathe" and "The End" were acoustics, and actually gave a fair glimpse at their lighter side, and Vedder's voice matched it perfectly. For anyone new to Pearl Jam, this isn't the album to get. If you want post 2000 rock, their self titled might be the way to go, and anyone willing to try one of the greatest hard rock albums of all time, "Ten" is near perfect. Then again, any fan of Pearl Jam should definitely give this a shot, and as for the new approach, it isn't necessarily a flaw or a step up, but it is too bad that the band has lost it's edge over the years.
4/5
I'm new to the reviewing business...I've tried it a couple of times recently on my blog because there's a considerable number of students writing reviews. I tried reviewing books/stories, which is a lot different (and, to me, easier) than trying to describe sounds.
But you have a knockout flair for music reviewing. Here, it looks like to me, is your winning strategy: you put the music in context. I've seen some other students tackle this job by describing the music itself in much more detail, like this:
http://mushroom547.blogspot.com/2009/09/review-of-resistance.html
Your approach seems to be more to track the history of how a band's work has evolved, and then set off the current work against that background. And you succeed.
Still another way to write about music is to place it in a HISTORICAL context. As in, "This music matters because it reflected the war that was going on at the time it was composed," or what have you. It can enrich the way you hear a piece of music if you know that it caused riots when it was first performed...but I'm starting to get into 20th century "classical" music, I think...