Pearl Jam today vs. the past

[harmless]

I don't know about that. I could see people getting into U2 from their 2000's output, or Metallica from Death Magnetic. If you like anything recent from the Foo Fighters, you're going to love the 1997 stuff (and maybe even the 1995 stuff). Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash are artists who have definitely won new fans from modern era recorded output as well.

Fair enough, and good points.

Perhaps I will slightly modify my response by saying if people were to get into Pearl Jam from this or future eras, they would possibly need to make an album very much in the same vein as Ten or Vs.

Not really. They would need to make a quality album that is quality from beginning to end. I reckon that's all there is to it.

I see you have more faith in humanity than I do.

How much faith do you need in humanity to say that if PJ were still making great albums, new fans might be gained? Let's not be delusional and say it's all the people's fault for not realising that their post-2006 output is rarified genius. Maybe they're just not making great albums now.

Ok. They're not making great albums now...
But I'm not gaining my faith in humanity back either

I honestly think they could release an album on the same level as No Code and it's impact towards gaining new fans would be minimal at best.

Then again, I don't even know if they'd LET themselves do that.
It seems they're quite content in slowly chugging out what the've been putting out the last few albums.

You're probably right, and I'm probably just being an arse; I'm just saying that although they're never going to win fans in droves now, great albums always convince one or two they should still be listening. I would argue that Pearl Jam's albums since S/T have hardly been essential listening. But yep, they're definitely happy with the way it's going.

[Lament]

I don't know about that. I could see people getting into U2 from their 2000's output, or Metallica from Death Magnetic. If you like anything recent from the Foo Fighters, you're going to love the 1997 stuff (and maybe even the 1995 stuff). Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash are artists who have definitely won new fans from modern era recorded output as well.

Without a doubt. Just from witnessing it I can say U2 gained tons of new fans who were initiated via ATYLCB. Bruce Springsteen definitely had the same thing happen with The Rising (though to a lesser extent). Even Prince did with Musicology. Johnny Cash and Bob Dylan are no doubt cases. I would guess RHCP has a lot of fans who got into them from their later material too. Same thing with Green Day I'd imagine.

[hlniv]

I don't know about that. I could see people getting into U2 from their 2000's output, or Metallica from Death Magnetic. If you like anything recent from the Foo Fighters, you're going to love the 1997 stuff (and maybe even the 1995 stuff). Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash are artists who have definitely won new fans from modern era recorded output as well.

Without a doubt. Just from witnessing it I can say U2 gained tons of new fans who were initiated via ATYLCB. Bruce Springsteen definitely had the same thing happen with The Rising (though to a lesser extent). Even Prince did with Musicology. Johnny Cash and Bob Dylan are no doubt cases. I would guess RHCP has a lot of fans who got into them from their later material too. Same thing with Green Day I'd imagine.

But Pearl Jam, no. I think the practically unanimous opinion around here is that their later records do not attract new fans, despite their best efforts. And I think the record sales #'s support that.

Refer to http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... =15&t=2476 for further information on the last ten years of pearl jam history

[stip]

To answer the OP, I haven't met a pearl jam fan in person since maybe 1998.

Although I took a coworker to the brooklyn show. He was a casual fan, owned some albums, hadn't listen in a while prior to the show, got lightning bolt, and loves it (arcade fire is his favorite band and he prefers L-bolt to Reflektor)

Someone made the point earlier in this thread (i forgot who) that the new albums, while probably not being someone's favorite, might be a useful initiation into their sound just because they are easier albums to digest if you're not already primed for the 90s sound that is so shot through those records.

Maybe if they heard MYM first but not Sirens.

But all PJ albums are essentially the same to a casual listener. It's not like they've done an Achtung Baby, a Reflektor or an AM.

this has generally been the case with people I've played pearl jam for. The differences that are so obvious to us are non existent to them

I don't know about that. I could see people getting into U2 from their 2000's output, or Metallica from Death Magnetic. If you like anything recent from the Foo Fighters, you're going to love the 1997 stuff (and maybe even the 1995 stuff). Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash are artists who have definitely won new fans from modern era recorded output as well.

Death Magnetic, really? Regarding Dylan and Cash I think the dynamics in a band are different than in a solo artist--although U2, Green Day, RHCP are all good examples.

I think the practically unanimous opinion around here is that their later records do not attract new fans, despite their best efforts. And I think the record sales #'s support that.

according to McP's sales analysis the record sales, controlling for the general drop off, show that Backspacer sold as well as Yield, and that L-bolt is on pace to do something similar.

[twoheadedboy]

I'm not saying Death Magnetic is on par with the first 5 albums, I'm saying I could understand how that could get someone into Metallica (contrary to, as someone else pointed out earlier, St. Anger, or even Load/Reload really IMO). As for Pearl Jam, you're applying the curve of general record buying decline to a band that once broke all records in this realm (Vs.) There is not enough data to convincingly argue this because counter examples can be provided that "prove" the exact opposite - U2 has sold far more records in the 2000 and 2004 releases than the 1993 and 1997 releases. But that is not enough data to counteract the point either; the point is, again, insufficient data to show a trend in either direction, especially without being able to control for all variables (Pearl Jam going to an indie, Pearl Jam exclusively selling through Target, no way to quantify the effect of tastemakers, etc.)

[stip]

I'm not saying Death Magnetic is on par with the first 5 albums, I'm saying I could understand how that could get someone into Metallica (contrary to, as someone else pointed out earlier, St. Anger, or even Load/Reload really IMO). As for Pearl Jam, you're applying the curve of general record buying decline to a band that once broke all records in this realm (Vs.) There is not enough data to convincingly argue this because counter examples can be provided that "prove" the exact opposite - U2 has sold far more records in the 2000 and 2004 releases than the 1993 and 1997 releases. But that is not enough data to counteract the point either; the point is, again, insufficient data to show a trend in either direction, especially without being able to control for all variables (Pearl Jam going to an indie, Pearl Jam exclusively selling through Target, no way to quantify the effect of tastemakers, etc.)

2000/2004 is before the real steep decline in record buying due to the ease of file sharing and internet streaming, I believe.

And shit, if you're gonna point to Vs as what pearl jam should be doing then we need to date the decline to No Code on. Pearl Jam had 3 wildly successful albums. And that ended in 1994.

[stip]

there is also the not insignificant fact that the last two records have produced some of pearl jam's most successful singles. And since the die hard fan base is presumably shrinking, this means someone, somewhere, must be into these songs. It might be steering them to earlier records (which they may not be buying, given the times).

[twoheadedboy]

I also don't buy the "later material is more accessible and a more appropriate introduction to the band". Does one need to listen to "Presence" to appreciate "Led Zeppelin III"? What about "Hesitation Marks" for "Downward Spiral"? It doesn't have to be this way - Sonic Youth and Neil Young are two examples of artists who have put uncompromisingly artistic albums out time after time, picking up fans that way along with other people mentioning how influential the old stuff was to them. The Who and The Beatles got MORE creative as time went on. If we accept the Kurt Cobain mentality, that Pearl Jam (and Alice In Chains) was at its foundation a crass major label ploy to convert an 80's rock band into a 90's one before the general public knew the difference, then their propensity to put out bland albums for the sole purpose of shifting units comes at no surprise. I thought they were better than that, though. The band who quit MTV and fought Ticketmaster singlehandedly was, anyway; who are they now?

[stip]

I also don't buy the "later material is more accessible and a more appropriate introduction to the band". Does one need to listen to "Presence" to appreciate "Led Zeppelin III"? What about "Hesitation Marks" for "Downward Spiral"? It doesn't have to be this way - Sonic Youth and Neil Young are two examples of artists who have put uncompromisingly artistic albums out time after time, picking up fans that way along with other people mentioning how influential the old stuff was to them. The Who and The Beatles got MORE creative as time went on. If we accept the Kurt Cobain mentality, that Pearl Jam (and Alice In Chains) was at its foundation a crass major label ploy to convert an 80's rock band into a 90's one before the general public knew the difference, then their propensity to put out bland albums for the sole purpose of shifting units comes at no surprise. I thought they were better than that, though. The band who quit MTV and fought Ticketmaster singlehandedly was, anyway; who are they now?

I think pearl jam's later material is more accessible. That's not a comment about all later material, obviously (well not obviously I guess). And of course everyone agrees that the who just continued to peak and peak and peak until they called it quits

If we accept the Kurt Cobain mentality, that Pearl Jam (and Alice In Chains) was at its foundation a crass major label ploy to convert an 80's rock band into a 90's one before the general public knew the difference, then their propensity to put out bland albums for the sole purpose of shifting units comes at no surprise. I thought they were better than that, though. The band who quit MTV and fought Ticketmaster singlehandedly was, anyway; who are they now?

oh, for fucks sake

[stip]

I wish evenslow was here

[twoheadedboy]

I'm not saying Death Magnetic is on par with the first 5 albums, I'm saying I could understand how that could get someone into Metallica (contrary to, as someone else pointed out earlier, St. Anger, or even Load/Reload really IMO). As for Pearl Jam, you're applying the curve of general record buying decline to a band that once broke all records in this realm (Vs.) There is not enough data to convincingly argue this because counter examples can be provided that "prove" the exact opposite - U2 has sold far more records in the 2000 and 2004 releases than the 1993 and 1997 releases. But that is not enough data to counteract the point either; the point is, again, insufficient data to show a trend in either direction, especially without being able to control for all variables (Pearl Jam going to an indie, Pearl Jam exclusively selling through Target, no way to quantify the effect of tastemakers, etc.)

2000/2004 is before the real steep decline in record buying due to the ease of file sharing and internet streaming, I believe.

And shit, if you're gonna point to Vs as what pearl jam should be doing then we need to date the decline to No Code on. Pearl Jam had 3 wildly successful albums. And that ended in 1994.

Napster ran from 1999 to 2001, and iTunes started that year. Certainly the end of Napster was not the end of the illegal downloading of music, but I would say that, with no iTunes and no YouTube streaming yet (2005), that was the peak of the choice "Do I buy the CD or do I download the file illegally?"

You bringing up Vs. as an outlier is my point exactly. Pearl Jam has released 9 albums in 13 years, 13 years which has seen the fall of hair metal, the rise and fall of "grunge", the advent of illegal downloadable music, and the advent of legal downloading options - really, the complete decline of the record industry, as has been correctly been stated. But to say Pearl Jam has sold fewer records because people have been buying fewer records is not provable - it may be partially true, completely true, or not true at all. Correlation does not imply causation. I think a better metric would be, how many active 10c members have there been, year vs. year? That should be relatively unrelated to the record industry and only related to how much people dig Pearl Jam at this moment in time. You also might be able to track searches for "Pearl Jam" in Google, as far back as that goes. Discretionary purchases over time of copies of a piece of art by one artist cannot tell you anything about the economy as a whole, any more than one stock can tell you about the stock market as a whole, and vice versa. Macro aggregates vs. micro performance.

[twoheadedboy]

there is also the not insignificant fact that the last two records have produced some of pearl jam's most successful singles. And since the die hard fan base is presumably shrinking, this means someone, somewhere, must be into these songs. It might be steering them to earlier records (which they may not be buying, given the times).

The only post "Last Kiss" single anyone I know has cared about has been "Just Breathe", and the same people were aware of and cared about both. That's just my observation, though. These people are aware of Jeremy and Betterman, and that's about it. They are definitely not buying any Pearl Jam albums, present or past, in response to this.

[stip]

I'm not saying Death Magnetic is on par with the first 5 albums, I'm saying I could understand how that could get someone into Metallica (contrary to, as someone else pointed out earlier, St. Anger, or even Load/Reload really IMO). As for Pearl Jam, you're applying the curve of general record buying decline to a band that once broke all records in this realm (Vs.) There is not enough data to convincingly argue this because counter examples can be provided that "prove" the exact opposite - U2 has sold far more records in the 2000 and 2004 releases than the 1993 and 1997 releases. But that is not enough data to counteract the point either; the point is, again, insufficient data to show a trend in either direction, especially without being able to control for all variables (Pearl Jam going to an indie, Pearl Jam exclusively selling through Target, no way to quantify the effect of tastemakers, etc.)

2000/2004 is before the real steep decline in record buying due to the ease of file sharing and internet streaming, I believe.

And shit, if you're gonna point to Vs as what pearl jam should be doing then we need to date the decline to No Code on. Pearl Jam had 3 wildly successful albums. And that ended in 1994.

Napster ran from 1999 to 2001, and iTunes started that year. Certainly the end of Napster was not the end of the illegal downloading of music, but I would say that, with no iTunes and no YouTube streaming yet (2005), that was the peak of the choice "Do I buy the CD or do I download the file illegally?"

You bringing up Vs. as an outlier is my point exactly. Pearl Jam has released 9 albums in 13 years, 13 years which has seen the fall of hair metal, the rise and fall of "grunge", the advent of illegal downloadable music, and the advent of legal downloading options - really, the complete decline of the record industry, as has been correctly been stated. But to say Pearl Jam has sold fewer records because people have been buying fewer records is not provable - it may be partially true, completely true, or not true at all. Correlation does not imply causation. I think a better metric would be, how many active 10c members have there been, year vs. year? That should be relatively unrelated to the record industry and only related to how much people dig Pearl Jam at this moment in time. You also might be able to track searches for "Pearl Jam" in Google, as far back as that goes. Discretionary purchases over time of copies of a piece of art by one artist cannot tell you anything about the economy as a whole, any more than one stock can tell you about the stock market as a whole, and vice versa. Macro aggregates vs. micro performance.

the 10c stat would be interesting. But, insofar as record sales go, you can still look at how the band is selling relative to the other artists at that time. Are they capturing a similar share of the record buying public, which may enable you to speculate about their reach in other platforms (not perfectly, of course). And record sales are still a pretty good measure of how many people are INTERESTED in a band. They just can't tell us anything about quality

[Kevin Davis]

I don't know about that. I could see people getting into U2 from their 2000's output, or Metallica from Death Magnetic. If you like anything recent from the Foo Fighters, you're going to love the 1997 stuff (and maybe even the 1995 stuff). Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash are artists who have definitely won new fans from modern era recorded output as well.

Death Magnetic, really? Regarding Dylan and Cash I think the dynamics in a band are different than in a solo artist--although U2, Green Day, RHCP are all good examples.

Dylan and Cash also had legions of tongue-wagging critics heralding their latter-day offerings not just as great late-career highlights but as sacred scriptures put forth by wise, learned prophets. Both of those artists possess an air of mystique and legend that someone as transparently non-enigmatic as Eddie Vedder will never approach, and while those albums (Dylan's stuff from "Time Out of Mind" on, Cash's "American" albums) are certainly fantastic, resonant works that deserve much of their acclaim, I do think culture receives and processes records from artists of that ilk differently than it receives records from aging rock bands, no matter how well-respected.

I think "All That You Can't Leave Behind" came as a relief to a lot of long-term fans who weren't prepared to follow U2 into the abyss of electro-pop, but I find it to be an odd place to draw a line in their career in terms of when they started attracting "new fans," because they were really a pretty strong commercial presence in all of the years leading up to it. I knew a lot of people who got into U2 because of "Beautiful Day" and "Walk On," but a few years before that I knew just as many who got into them through "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me" and "Staring At the Sun" and "Sweetest Thing." They're a huge pop band. Their "new record" is always going to attract a certain number of new fans, and repel existing ones (personally I thought "Beautiful Day" was one of the lamest songs of their career when it came out).

I guess what I mean to say is that I don't understand what you (the OP, I mean) mean when you wonder whether the band "isn't doing themselves any favors" with their last two records. You make it seem like you have some goal in mind for them that they have failed to take into consideration for themselves, that selling records and concert tickets to (a) "people who would have [bought them] anyway," and (b) "fickle pop fans who aren't going to care next month when they've moved on to something else" is not a good enough reason to continue producing music, that unless some 19 year-old kid is going to be converted into a drooling superfan by way of a band's new hit single then all may as well be for naught. I don't know what the band would have done differently to win over that new fan; I think there's as much circumstantial juju and pure dumb luck that goes into why a band like Green Day or RHCP scores an unlikely late-career hit with a record like "American Idiot" or "Stadium Arcadium" than there are easily identifiable decisions that the band made for things to end up that way, and to a certain extent I think Green Day and RHCP both work at a level of "general interest" accessibility that is simply beyond Pearl Jam, even at their most "Sirens"-esque. I am curious what evidence there is that the later works of Green Day and RHCP legitimately did win over a significant number of people who then went back and developed catalog-wide bonds with those bands' entire bodies of work, rather than simply attracting more of those "fickle pop fans" you mention.

[harmless]

If we accept the Kurt Cobain mentality

Tbf, I'm pretty glad that more of us haven't done this.

[harmless]

I don't know about that. I could see people getting into U2 from their 2000's output, or Metallica from Death Magnetic. If you like anything recent from the Foo Fighters, you're going to love the 1997 stuff (and maybe even the 1995 stuff). Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash are artists who have definitely won new fans from modern era recorded output as well.

Death Magnetic, really? Regarding Dylan and Cash I think the dynamics in a band are different than in a solo artist--although U2, Green Day, RHCP are all good examples.

Dylan and Cash also had legions of tongue-wagging critics heralding their latter-day offerings not just as great late-career highlights but as sacred scriptures put forth by wise, learned prophets. Both of those artists possess an air of mystique and legend that someone as transparently non-enigmatic as Eddie Vedder will never approach, and while those albums (Dylan's stuff from "Time Out of Mind" on, Cash's "American" albums) are certainly fantastic, resonant works that deserve much of their acclaim, I do think culture receives and processes records from artists of that ilk differently than it receives records from aging rock bands, no matter how well-respected.

I think "All That You Can't Leave Behind" came as a relief to a lot of long-term fans who weren't prepared to follow U2 into the abyss of electro-pop, but I find it to be an odd place to draw a line in their career in terms of when they started attracting "new fans," because they were really a pretty strong commercial presence in all of the years leading up to it. I knew a lot of people who got into U2 because of "Beautiful Day" and "Walk On," but a few years before that I knew just as many who got into them through "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me" and "Staring At the Sun" and "Sweetest Thing." They're a huge pop band. Their "new record" is always going to attract a certain number of new fans, and repel existing ones (personally I thought "Beautiful Day" was one of the lamest songs of their career when it came out).

I guess what I mean to say is that I don't understand what you (the OP, I mean) mean when you wonder whether the band "isn't doing themselves any favors" with their last two records. You make it seem like you have some goal in mind for them that they have failed to take into consideration for themselves, that selling records and concert tickets to (a) "people who would have [bought them] anyway," and (b) "fickle pop fans who aren't going to care next month when they've moved on to something else" is not a good enough reason to continue producing music, that unless some 19 year-old kid is going to be converted into a drooling superfan by way of a band's new hit single then all may as well be for naught. I don't know what the band would have done differently to win over that new fan; I think there's as much circumstantial juju and pure dumb luck that goes into why a band like Green Day or RHCP scores an unlikely late-career hit with a record like "American Idiot" or "Stadium Arcadium" than there are easily identifiable decisions that the band made for things to end up that way, and to a certain extent I think Green Day and RHCP both work at a level of "general interest" accessibility that is simply beyond Pearl Jam, even at their most "Sirens"-esque. I am curious what evidence there is that the later works of Green Day and RHCP legitimately did win over a significant number of people who then went back and developed catalog-wide bonds with those bands' entire bodies of work, rather than simply attracting more of those "fickle pop fans" you mention.

[stupidmop]

This could've just gone in the bitching thread....or the lightning bolt thread....or the money grab thread...

The only casual fans I know think that Backspacer and Lightning Bolt sound nothing like Pearl Jam at all.

same.

[southp]

Backspacer and Lightning Bolt are exactly how Pearl Jam sounds now. And it's pretty damn good for a band that has been around so long! Have a listen to songs like Pendulum, MFS, Infallible, Yellow Moon... these songs stack up well to just about anything from the middle albums.

As for some of those other bands mentioned in this thread, I for one completely ignored U2 for decades. I couldn't stand how everyone loved them so unconditionally. I finally pulled my head out of my ass after enjoying the song Magnificent and decided to go through the whole catalog and found a lot of great songs I never thought I would fall in love with (All I want is You, One Tree Hill, etc). I even went to see them when they came to Montreal a few years ago and went so far as to sign-up for the fan club to ensure I got tickets. So there you go, I became a new U2 fan in 2011.

[harmless]

Backspacer and Lightning Bolt are exactly how Pearl Jam sounds now.

Thanks for the reminder!

[VinylGuy]

In Argentina they are bigger then ever...since 2006, and i would say 2005 when they first came.

Around 1998, nobody fuckin listened to them...even with Do the evolution being a really big hit in MTV.
Dont know why and dont care really.