the new pearl jam reviewed right

despite my mixed feelings, i ref pitchfork a lot on here, so now i'm sending you to a site i actually prefer for what i feel to be the most even-handed review of pearl jam's new self-titled disc i've read so far.

pearl jam review on cokemachineglow

i've been considering writing up my own review, but this one pretty much nails it. i don't know if i would have that much to add, really. pitchfork's 5.5 was laughable; i can't even understand why they would review it other than to confirm to snobbish hipsters that their dislike of pearl jam can remain intact. to call eddie vedder's voice an "acquired taste's acquired taste" is completely ridiculous for a site that has handed out sterling silver reviews to the likes of clap your hands say yeah, wolf parade and, yes, scott walker. i can bet you that vedder's baritone is a lot closer to what the man on the street expects from a rock singer than alec ounsworth or spencer krug's strangled yelping, which i love, by the way. i love CYHSY and wolf parade, but i think hipsters should acknowledge that there's more to the music scene out there than their little corner of it. pearl jam themselves said it best back on vs.: "this is not for you."

is pearl jam going to crack my top ten come year's end? am i going to find myself going back to it over and over again? probably not. but i'll just remember to check back in on any of the bands whose first efforts have yielded up 8.5s or above on pfork this year in 2021 to see how they're doing. pearl jam have been putting out good to great albums for 15 years. they make a living doing music, they play to scads of fans at every venue they hit and they've written some great songs. not a bad take, i think.

okay, i guess i did have something to add.