General Pearl Jam Bitching

[Lament]

As for the second part, I'd agree that they haven't come close to U2, R.E.M. and Radiohead in that regard, but I also think those are probably the three bands on PJ's level that have been both the most extreme and the most successful in their musical shifts. So I think the fact that PJ hasn't gotten to their level doesn't mean that they haven't done into to a significant degree.

But that's kind of the point. Those three bands ARE for better or for worse, Pearl Jam's peers in the post-punk 20 years/10 albums/commercially successful alternative rock bands pantheon. So when we think of bands in that group, Pearl Jam's level of experimentation and boundary pushing is pretty middle of the road at best, yet as harmless pointed out a lot of fans talk with this notion that Pearl Jam has gone through great periods of reinvention and discovery. If you took someone who was well-versed in rock but didn't necessarily know Pearl Jam's catalog well at all to see them tomorrow, handed them the setlist in advance and asked them to tell you afterwards which songs were from the same eras (or at the very least, from DIFFERENT eras), they probably couldn't give you an answer that went beyond random shots in the dark. You couldn't do the same thing with U2 or Radiohead; even someone unfamiliar with their catalog would be able to figure out that Mysterious Ways, Bad, and I Will Follow are from very different periods, or Fake Plastic Trees, The National Anthem and Lotus Flower.

Like harmless and I both mentioned before, this isn't necessarily a BAD thing. We obviously like the way Pearl Jam sounds. Hell, my personal favorite song by them is Corduroy, which is the most Pearl Jam-ish of all Pearl Jam songs. When the songwriting is good, Pearl Jam sounding like Pearl Jam is fucking fantastic. I was just glad to see that other people like harmless and stip didn't buy into the whole "Pearl Jam as a very experimental band" line of thinking that pretty much goes unquestioned these days. They're a very sonically conservative band, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[digster]

I just don't think I'd agree that they're a very sonically conservative band. Foo Fighters (a band with a lot of material I like) is what I think of when I think big, sonically conservative band. As I said before, I don't think they've gone as far as U2, Radiohead or R.E.M. but that doesn't mean they've gone nowhere.

I've also mentioned this in the past, but I think they're deceptively experimental due to the fact that they don't write albums that draw attention to their experimental qualities. Kid A and Achtung Baby are examples of a band that went from point A and point B and pretty much stayed exclusively in point B throughout the course of the record. PJ may write something like Sleight of Hand, but they've never shown any interest in making a record that stays in that area throughout. Even Binaural, which is connected via the production techniques, has country-esque ballads, punk numbers, moody pieces, etc.

[evenslow]

I just don't think I'd agree that they're a very sonically conservative band. Foo Fighters (a band with a lot of material I like) is what I think of when I think big, sonically conservative band. As I said before, I don't think they've gone as far as U2, Radiohead or R.E.M. but that doesn't mean they've gone nowhere.

I've also mentioned this in the past, but I think they're deceptively experimental due to the fact that they don't write albums that draw attention to their experimental qualities. Kid A and Achtung Baby are examples of a band that went from point A and point B and pretty much stayed exclusively in point B throughout the course of the record. PJ may write something like Sleight of Hand, but they've never shown any interest in making a record that stays in that area throughout. Even Binaural, which is connected via the production techniques, has country-esque ballads, punk numbers, moody pieces, etc.

this is a good point. they're somewhere on a grand spectrum. not as experimental as U2 or Radiohead but more experimental than Foo Fighters and Green Day. I'm sure there are more we could point to.

[evenslow]

amazing follow-up point: however most people think of them as jeremy, alive, evenflow so they have no clue whatsoever that they've done stuff like sleight of hand, strangest tribe, etc.

[BurtReynolds]

I just don't think I'd agree that they're a very sonically conservative band. Foo Fighters (a band with a lot of material I like) is what I think of when I think big, sonically conservative band. As I said before, I don't think they've gone as far as U2, Radiohead or R.E.M. but that doesn't mean they've gone nowhere.

I've also mentioned this in the past, but I think they're deceptively experimental due to the fact that they don't write albums that draw attention to their experimental qualities. Kid A and Achtung Baby are examples of a band that went from point A and point B and pretty much stayed exclusively in point B throughout the course of the record. PJ may write something like Sleight of Hand, but they've never shown any interest in making a record that stays in that area throughout. Even Binaural, which is connected via the production techniques, has country-esque ballads, punk numbers, moody pieces, etc.

this is a good point. they're somewhere on a grand spectrum. not as experimental as U2 or Radiohead but more experimental than Foo Fighters and Green Day. I'm sure there are more we could point to.

i think they're more experimental than most bands. relatively speaking, they are experimental.

[Lament]

See, I just really can't get on board with them being experimental in regards to their peers. Sleight of Hand is probably as far out of their comfort zone as they've gotten, but it's also very much a one off song that outside of the context of how little variation there is in much of the catalog doesn't exactly scream out "we're going to new places!" Even if you want to argue a song like Who You Are or Parachutes is experimental "for Pearl Jam" or out of their comfort zone, they're always placed in a setting where there is plenty of VERY familiar sounding material around it. When you've got peers making entire albums out of staking new ground for themselves, I don't consider that to be particularly experimental (or at least not worthy of being able to claim it as an attribute of your band). Experimental bands take bold steps out of their comfort zones; Pearl Jam at best dips their toes into the pool for a minute and then goes back to what they know they do well. They're a great band, and a undisputed titan in the alternative rock pantheon, but they're absolutely not experimental when compared to the other bands in that pantheon.

[digster]

Who else of their peers would you put above them in this regard, besides the three that were mentioned? I'd say Wilco has probably broached the limits of their sound more. I just don't think naming three bands who have done it more means that they aren't. Stip brought up two good examples before of bands that seek to perfect and burrow deeper into their limited sonic range.

I guess for me, it comes down to what evenslow said before; a catalog that can encapsulate both Alive and Strangest Tribe, to pick two examples, is a catalog that casts a relatively wide net.

[BurtReynolds]

they are more experimental than their grunge counterparts i think.

[evenslow]

Who else of their peers would you put above them in this regard, besides the three that were mentioned? I'd say Wilco has probably broached the limits of their sound more. I just don't think naming three bands who have done it more means that they aren't. Stip brought up two good examples before of bands that seek to perfect and burrow deeper into their limited sonic range.

I guess for me, it comes down to what evenslow said before; a catalog that can encapsulate both Alive and Strangest Tribe, to pick two examples, is a catalog that casts a relatively wide net.

A Ghost is Born is Binaural essentially.

[evenslow]

See, I just really can't get on board with them being experimental in regards to their peers. Sleight of Hand is probably as far out of their comfort zone as they've gotten, but it's also very much a one off song that outside of the context of how little variation there is in much of the catalog doesn't exactly scream out "we're going to new places!" Even if you want to argue a song like Who You Are or Parachutes is experimental "for Pearl Jam" or out of their comfort zone, they're always placed in a setting where there is plenty of VERY familiar sounding material around it. When you've got peers making entire albums out of staking new ground for themselves, I don't consider that to be particularly experimental (or at least not worthy of being able to claim it as an attribute of your band). Experimental bands take bold steps out of their comfort zones; Pearl Jam at best dips their toes into the pool for a minute and then goes back to what they know they do well. They're a great band, and a undisputed titan in the alternative rock pantheon, but they're absolutely not experimental when compared to the other bands in that pantheon.

Of course they're only experimental within their context but considering they're essentially a classic-rock derivative band, they're pretty damn experimental for what they are. Don't just think of Radiohead, think of The Who and Led Zeppelin. That's PJ's context as well (even if they're not as good). Within that spectrum, something like Sleight of Hand or Strangest Tribe or whatever is pretty out there.

The Who had concepts that were much bigger, but their sound isn't exactly Ummagumma. So, if you think of it that way...

[Lament]

Of course they're only experimental within their context but considering they're essentially a classic-rock derivative band, they're pretty damn experimental for what they are. Don't just think of Radiohead, think of The Who and Led Zeppelin. That's PJ's context as well (even if they're not as good). Within that spectrum, something like Sleight of Hand or Strangest Tribe or whatever is pretty out there.

The Who had concepts that were much bigger, but their sound isn't exactly Ummagumma. So, if you think of it that way...

I suppose I don't look at The Who and Led Zeppelin as their peers. In terms of the alternative bands that lasted for 20 years, put out 10 albums, and spent a legitimate period being commercially viable enough to fill arenas/ampitheatres (and yes, this is the rarified group I believe they ultimately belong in)...

Bands who have pushed the limits of their sound more than Pearl Jam:

U2
Radiohead
R.E.M.
The Cure
Depeche Mode

Bands who have pushed their limits either less or just as far:

Red Hot Chili Peppers

I don't think being experimental for a classic-rock derivative band makes you experimental. Britney Griner is the greatest female dunker of all-time. That doesn't mean she's a great dunker.

[evenslow]

Of course they're only experimental within their context but considering they're essentially a classic-rock derivative band, they're pretty damn experimental for what they are. Don't just think of Radiohead, think of The Who and Led Zeppelin. That's PJ's context as well (even if they're not as good). Within that spectrum, something like Sleight of Hand or Strangest Tribe or whatever is pretty out there.

The Who had concepts that were much bigger, but their sound isn't exactly Ummagumma. So, if you think of it that way...

I suppose I don't look at The Who and Led Zeppelin as their peers. In terms of the alternative bands that lasted for 20 years, put out 10 albums, and spent a legitimate period being commercially viable enough to fill arenas/ampitheatres (and yes, this is the rarified group I believe they ultimately belong in)...

Bands who have pushed the limits of their sound more than Pearl Jam:

U2
Radiohead
R.E.M.
The Cure
Depeche Mode

Bands who have pushed their limits either less or just as far:

Red Hot Chili Peppers

I don't think being experimental for a classic-rock derivative band makes you experimental. Britney Griner is the greatest female dunker of all-time. That doesn't mean she's a great dunker.

Well, now we're getting into semantics. And I would argue about including The Cure and Depeche Mode on that list. Also, I'd add Foo Fighters and Green Day to the bottom of that.

And, again, I'm opening things up substantially by including classic rock bands, but it was to make a broader point about experimentation in a given genre, i.e., "classic rock." In that particular genre, Led Zeppelin III is looked upon as experimental.

Anyway, this is all to say that in the grand scheme of things, Pearl Jam is NOT an experimental band. But within their context, they absolutely are.

And within the smaller context of their career, it's even more amazing that the band that rose to popularity on Alive and Jeremy is the same band that made Tremor Christ and Present Tense and You Are. It's all what viewpoint you look at it from.

[Jorge]

Wait, you'd argue that The Cure haven't pushed their sound more than Pearl Jam? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[evenslow]

I don't see The Cure or Depeche Mode as being analogous to Pearl Jam, regardless of the specific comparison as to how long they've been around.

[Lament]

I can be down with putting Foo Fighters & Green Day on that list. When I thought about it, the 10 album thing seemed less important than twenty years. I guess the point I was making was that Pearl Jam is part of a small group of acts who came from a background/scene that was considered to be alternative, crossed over and experienced legitimate, extended mainstream success on an arena/ampitheatre level, and had the longevity to last two whole decades. Without the 10 album thing, I'd go ahead and add Nine Inch Nails and Tool to the list as well. I would personally add the Beastie Boys too, seeing as though they come from the hardcore scene and are every bit the force in 80's/90's alternative music that any of the other acts mentioned were. Even with adding those acts though, I would say three of them (Nine Inch Nails, Tool, and the Beastie Boys) pushed the elements of their sound further on the whole than Pearl Jam (I would put Foo Fighters & Green Day along with RHCP on the conservative end of the spectrum).

I guess I also don't see anything crazy about the band who wrote Jeremy also having songs like Present Tense or Tremor Christ. Plus they're both merely singular moments on albums with things like Corduroy, Betterman, Not For You, Whipping, Hail, Hail, Smile, Off He Goes, and Red Mosquito on them as well to more than balance them out.

It just feels like the level on which they're legitimately experimental is "compared to bands that aren't experimental," and that's fine. They're definitely more experimental than Cheap Trick or The Ramones. But I find it much easier to say that compared to bands that share what (to me) are big points of similarity (alternative scene/extended mainstream success/twenty years of longevity), they're at best in the middle when it comes to how willing they are to push their boundaries. We're picking out individual songs on records that are otherwise filled with fairly standard Pearl Jam-style fare as examples while most of these other acts have entire albums that were undeniable departures on the whole (Achtung Baby/Kid A/Up/Disintegration/Songs of Faith & Devotion/Check Your Head/The Downward Spiral).

We so often say "Well, they've never repeated themselves," and on a very insulated level that's true, but they've also never delivered a truly shocking departure. Even if you go read a lot of the contemporary reviews for No Code, a lot of the criticism from writers was that after hyping up what a departure it was going to be, it was actually fairly standard rock on the whole. Every single Pearl Jam album has been dominated by moments of Pearl Jam sounding very much like themselves. And like I said before, I have no problem with that. They're probably my favorite band out of everyone listed in this series of posts. There's laundry list of things that make this band phenomenal and exciting and legendary, but I can't bring myself to add "they're constantly experimenting and pushing the boundaries of their sound" on that list. It will always seem odd to me when it's just kinda casually accepted that this is a band that is always taking sonic gambles and pushing the boundaries of their sound, daring the listener to re-establish their idea of just what "Pearl Jam" is. Again, it's not like I'm comparing them to the Miles Davises and Brian Enos of the world when I say this, I'm comparing them to bands who share what to me are very important, undeniable similarities.

[Lament]

Sorry for all the edits. I'm super OCD about spelling/punctuation.

[evenslow]

I agree with what you're saying if not the emphasis of certain things.

We're kind of talking around each other but again, it's all about vantage point. If you're comparing what they did to Zooropa then No, they haven't taken a chance quite like that.

Then again, all those songs you mentioned above, be it Red Mosquito or Hail Hail, while not being experimental per se, show a mainstream band at the top of their game willing to try styles and push the boundaries of what an act like that is supposed to accept. They were the biggest band in the world for a time and they refused to do Ten 2. That's worth a lot in my book. REM (as great as they were) never had to grapple with a situation quite like that.

[Lament]

Then again, all those songs you mentioned above, be it Red Mosquito or Hail Hail, while not being experimental per se, show a mainstream band at the top of their game willing to try styles and push the boundaries of what an act like that is supposed to accept. They were the biggest band in the world for a time and they refused to do Ten 2. That's worth a lot in my book. REM (as great as they were) never had to grapple with a situation quite like that.

I think you're spot on with this, and would include this on a list of things that make Pearl Jam great. Out of everyone we've mentioned, U2 is really the only other act that experienced the true whirlwind of being a PHENOMENON. Whereas U2's response was to turn outward and seek out new adventures in sound, Pearl Jam's was to focus inward and refine the sound they'd rode in on. I don't think one is inherently a better choice than the other, and I think each group ultimately made the right decision based upon their strengths. Pearl Jam turned inward on their initial sound and sought out the nuances and more obtuse angles within it. I found it striking when we had the thread about where people's favorite Pearl Jam records fit among their favorite all-time albums how many people commented that it was hard to pull out single albums from the catalog, and I think this is a big reason why. I also think this is a part of why so many people are disillusioned with the band's work over the past several years. For a lot of fans Yield was kind of the perfect, ultimate refinement of Pearl Jam, and while Binaural and Riot Act absolutely have great moments on them and new wrinkles here or there, I think with each passing record a lot of people started feeling like the nuances had all been visited and the more obtuse angles either didn't seem so obtuse anymore or just weren't being revisited (if that makes sense). I suppose that's kind of the crossroad I see Pearl Jam being at post-2003. That's kind of what I see being Pearl Jam's issue with each new album at this point; are the songs good enough to justify the sound? For a lot of people they will be. For some of us, they won't. And for a lot of people, it won't matter because they just love everything with Pearl Jam stamped on it.

[harmless]

Who else of their peers would you put above them in this regard, besides the three that were mentioned? I'd say Wilco has probably broached the limits of their sound more. I just don't think naming three bands who have done it more means that they aren't. Stip brought up two good examples before of bands that seek to perfect and burrow deeper into their limited sonic range.

I guess for me, it comes down to what evenslow said before; a catalog that can encapsulate both Alive and Strangest Tribe, to pick two examples, is a catalog that casts a relatively wide net.

Bands don't have to be artistic peers to be considered more experimental. Some bands stretch their sound as a matter of course and never look back (Radiohead); others have the occasional few tracks on an album that take you to different places. but so does Deftones. Are they experimental too? The fact that PJ has variety (which band doesn't?) shouldn't mean they're remembered as experimental. All bands 'experiment' in terms of their own sound, that's just called growth. But look at PJ now, they're not at experimental Point D.

[Mine]

I don't think they're experimental. I do think they're eclectic though even if it's by classic rock standards. You could argue that they fit well in the rock context of the late 60's trough the early 70's in that regard and Ed as a singer mirrors that perfectly.