Post-Riot Act Moneygrab

[Mine]

It never made much sense, all the focus on who's in control. They made their two best records (Vitalogy and Yield) on completely different sides of the spectrum. I don't think this band would be better now if Ed was more in control or less (although it seems like it's pretty much his ship to steer). It's more likely that they suck more now because they've been a band for almost 25 years and are running out of gas.

Yield isn't one of their best albums. It seems like it's even less of a fan favourite it was a couple of years ago.

Eh, okay. I kind of doubt that's true at all, but I'm not going to start surveying. Yield is clearly in there with Vitalogy and No Code as the favorites around here.

It's a matter of individual taste ultimately. We could go on forever with this and prove absolutely nothing.

[Anders]

Is it really true that Vitaligy was on the other side of the spectrum from Yield in terms of cooperation? I have doubts about that, despite one or two quotes from Ed.

I think no code maybe was the least collaborative? And vitalogy one step behind that. I'm not sure though. And I'm not sure where any of the post - 2000 ones would go on that spectrum.

No Code sure, but wasn't a lot of Vitalogy written on tour?

[Mine]

Is it really true that Vitaligy was on the other side of the spectrum from Yield in terms of cooperation? I have doubts about that, despite one or two quotes from Ed.

I think no code maybe was the least collaborative? And vitalogy one step behind that. I'm not sure though. And I'm not sure where any of the post - 2000 ones would go on that spectrum.

They said Vitalogy and No Code was Ed telling them what to play in one of the LB EPK interviews. According to them there wasn't a big difference between the 2.

[LetMeSleep]

Vitalogy was written mostly on the road and jammed out at soundchecks. That sounds like a pretty collaborative effort even if the songwriting was mostly sole author.

[digster]

It never made much sense, all the focus on who's in control. They made their two best records (Vitalogy and Yield) on completely different sides of the spectrum. I don't think this band would be better now if Ed was more in control or less (although it seems like it's pretty much his ship to steer). It's more likely that they suck more now because they've been a band for almost 25 years and are running out of gas.

Yield isn't one of their best albums. It seems like it's even less of a fan favourite it was a couple of years ago.

Eh, okay. I kind of doubt that's true at all, but I'm not going to start surveying. Yield is clearly in there with Vitalogy and No Code as the favorites around here.

It's a matter of individual taste ultimately. We could go on forever with this and prove absolutely nothing.

Sure, of course...I was just addressing the sort of blanket statement that people don't view Yield as a highlight anymore. I wasn't really talking about anyone's preference.

[hlniv]

Where Ed is much less talented is the leadership category. Pearl Jam has always struggled with direction and organization, and I think that is where Ed has failed more than anything.

Leadership isn't something he could have realistically done any different with this band unless Stone and Jeff left.

Incorrect.

A good leader knows how to motivate and unify his team, and is responsible for doing it. It may have been choppy for the first few years for various reasons, but by 1997 or so, the band "dynamic" certainly was stable enough for an effective leader to have driven the group to new heights. I think through 2003, the clear direction was to continue to record in new ways and tour on a consistent basis, and it was all done well.

Since then, however, the "leader" that the group has needed hasn't existed. Everyone has been doing their own thing for the most part, and whether that is by design or not, it has led to a de-centralized organization without clear direction. It's like they just sort of get together when it is convenient and bang out some tunes. Having BoB make so many decisions is another symptom of this. If Ed had a real focus to the PJ organization and had he provided the leadership that is missing, I think the last ten years of Pearl Jam would have been much, much different.

Now, maybe this all they want it to be at this point, and the group decided that long ago. But i doubt that proceeding without a leader was a conscious choice. I believe between Ed and Bruce, leadership is the critical difference. Of course, Pearl Jam is a band, Bruce is an individual artist (sort of), so maybe it's apples and oranges and you can't compare effectively.

I agree with you but i think the way the dynamic ended up being was a compromise that allowed the band to survive.

Exactly, Ed wasn't a strong enough leader to unify the group from the top. He kind of had to "yield" the decision making to the group in order for the group to remain committed, and that's the way it's basically been ever since. If that let the band survive, then great, and I kind of like the "we're all equal" theory to making music. But, I think the lack of effective centralized leadership has hampered their growth similar to other artists in their 20th+ year and beyond.

Interesting, though, as the artists that have matured well - Dylan, Neil Young, Bruce, etc... are mostly individual acts, with an undeniable leadership/decision-making source.

[digster]

Vitalogy was written mostly on the road and jammed out at soundchecks. That sounds like a pretty collaborative effort even if the songwriting was mostly sole author.

I think the fact that this and Mine's statements directly contradict each other means that we probably should either say that everyone in the band is full of shit, or it's just probably a mix-and-match that wasn't completely one way or the other.

It's likely both.

[Mine]

Where Ed is much less talented is the leadership category. Pearl Jam has always struggled with direction and organization, and I think that is where Ed has failed more than anything.

Leadership isn't something he could have realistically done any different with this band unless Stone and Jeff left.

Incorrect.

A good leader knows how to motivate and unify his team, and is responsible for doing it. It may have been choppy for the first few years for various reasons, but by 1997 or so, the band "dynamic" certainly was stable enough for an effective leader to have driven the group to new heights. I think through 2003, the clear direction was to continue to record in new ways and tour on a consistent basis, and it was all done well.

Since then, however, the "leader" that the group has needed hasn't existed. Everyone has been doing their own thing for the most part, and whether that is by design or not, it has led to a de-centralized organization without clear direction. It's like they just sort of get together when it is convenient and bang out some tunes. Having BoB make so many decisions is another symptom of this. If Ed had a real focus to the PJ organization and had he provided the leadership that is missing, I think the last ten years of Pearl Jam would have been much, much different.

Now, maybe this all they want it to be at this point, and the group decided that long ago. But i doubt that proceeding without a leader was a conscious choice. I believe between Ed and Bruce, leadership is the critical difference. Of course, Pearl Jam is a band, Bruce is an individual artist (sort of), so maybe it's apples and oranges and you can't compare effectively.

Left field here but Bon Jovi in 91 ish fired their manager and JBJ said them all that he was happy to manage the band if they all would trust him and trust his vision. They hired a shrink (the guy who Metallica used in SKOM after Aerosmith recommended him). I'm not saying that that is what PJ did or should have done, but that approach can work IF there is a vision (regardless of how shit that vision may be).

well Vitalogy wasn't a good enough vision for Stone and Jeff

You don't seem to like Jeff and Stone much.

Oh no, i was referring to the fact that they were on the edge of leaving the band at the time.

[LetMeSleep]

The 2 telling moments for me regarding Ed 'taking' control is having Jimmy Shoaf play drums on Satan's Bed (minor as he wanted Dave A out anyway but that would be a pretty big fuck you to Dave).

The second and more important moment is I Got Shit. Ed, Jack, BoB and Neil. Stone, Jeff and Mike must have been WTF. I need to read PJ20 so I can get more info here but that is a massive power-dime shift (sic).

[stupidmop]

Is it really true that Vitaligy was on the other side of the spectrum from Yield in terms of cooperation? I have doubts about that, despite one or two quotes from Ed.

I think no code maybe was the least collaborative? And vitalogy one step behind that. I'm not sure though. And I'm not sure where any of the post - 2000 ones would go on that spectrum.

No Code sure, but wasn't a lot of Vitalogy written on tour?

Yeah a lot of the music was jammed out and what have you. I think where it becomes more of an ed record is all in the concept and the mini songs and stuff like that. I think it was more or less his vision.

I should add that I might be completely wrong, I can't really remember if half the things I've read about this stuff is from actual interviews or whatever or just old conversations/speculation.

Didn't ed write I got shit when the rest of the band was doing mirror ball and he had nothing else to do?

[hlniv]

Left field here but Bon Jovi in 91 ish fired their manager and JBJ said them all that he was happy to manage the band if they all would trust him and trust his vision. They hired a shrink (the guy who Metallica used in SKOM after Aerosmith recommended him). I'm not saying that that is what PJ did or should have done, but that approach can work IF there is a vision (regardless of how shit that vision may be).

Having a vision is a defining quality of being a good leader. I think you are on to something with this comparison.

The band had a unified vision, I think, from 1998-2003. They had the political activism that they all seemed to agree with, they had their frontman getting out there and communicating those messages. There was some leadership at that point that worked. The vision was defined, they were the post-grunge, mainstream-yet-art-house, mature rock band. They believed in causes and publicly supported those causes. That was certainly a product of Ed's leadership, and he must have done well with it, as it seemed the group was all bought into the whole deal. And they made a couple of great, post-90's records during this time, plus toured more prolifically than at any point since '91-'94.

Now - go back and read my original header post on this thread. That was only sort of tongue-in-cheek. I actually think there's some truth to it.

They realized (or decided) the vision wasn't worth it anymore, and re-focused with other purposes. Ed stopped providing guidance and leadership, and here we are today.

[digster]

I think they're way more 'Ed's' band now than they were 15 years ago, around Yield and Binaural. But I think that overall it's not as big a part of their life. More importantly, I think bands in general have a limited amount of time that they're on top. There are bands that go 20 or 30 years writing top-shelf material, but they're in the minority. PJ, like tons of long-running bands before them, have probably lost a step once they stopped making consistently great work. There's not even necessarily anything they're doing wrong; more often than not, I think it just happens.

[hlniv]

The 2 telling moments for me regarding Ed 'taking' control is having Jimmy Shoaf play drums on Satan's Bed (minor as he wanted Dave A out anyway but that would be a pretty big fuck you to Dave).

The second and more important moment is I Got Shit. Ed, Jack, BoB and Neil. Stone, Jeff and Mike must have been WTF. I need to read PJ20 so I can get more info here but that is a massive power-dime shift (sic).

I guess I knew that fact about recording I Got Shit, but had forgotten. It never really occurred to me in the context of this discussion how that went down.

Jeff was the only non-Ed member of Pearl Jam that had been around longer than 6 months to play on Merkinball, and he played a very simplistic bass line on only 1 of the two songs. Yet, this was a "Pearl Jam" single.

Why the hell not have the full band play on these tunes? They were all there, recording the Neil album. Maybe Ed brought in the songs late, and the other guys had other commitments or something, but the only real passable explanation is that Stone, Mike, and Jeff weren't exactly happy at that point.

[Anders]

I think the 'Ed power grab' happened around the absolute end of Vitalogy. I think there are a lot of nuances to this, but in general Vs. was team work with some classic Stone Ten-era like songs, Vitalogy was team work on the road with Ed having a bigger say in the shaping of the album than before, while No Code was the Ed record with somewhat more limited band and Jack Irons influence (although the band wrote some of the best songs on both albums). By Yield, Ed was in a better place, and the band communicated better, and so the album went back to the team work of old.

[LetMeSleep]

It seems to me to be about application. It's hard to get 5 guys to apply themselves to a single cause at the same time. And it appears that if the other 4 guys are into it but Ed isn't, then nothing happens. But when Ed is up for it, they all have to fall in line. I'm not saying this negatively, just realistically.

Yeah I Got Shit was written during Mirrorball sessions but where were Mike, Stone and Jeff to record it.

[LetMeSleep]

I think the 'Ed power grab' happened around the absolute end of Vitalogy. I think there are a lot of nuances to this, but in general Vs. was team work with some classic Stone Ten-era like songs, Vitalogy was team work on the road with Ed having a bigger say in the shaping of the album than before, while No Code was the Ed record with somewhat more limited band and Jack Irons influence (although the band wrote some of the best songs on both albums). By Yield, Ed was in a better place, and the band communicated better, and so the album went back to the team work of old.

Yep.

[hlniv]

I think they're way more 'Ed's' band now than they were 15 years ago, around Yield and Binaural. But I think that overall it's not as big a part of their life. More importantly, I think bands in general have a limited amount of time that they're on top. There are bands that go 20 or 30 years writing top-shelf material, but they're in the minority. PJ, like tons of long-running bands before them, have probably lost a step once they stopped making consistently great work. There's not even necessarily anything they're doing wrong; more often than not, I think it just happens.

They've followed and/or been around enough groups over the years to know how and to have been able to prevent it from "just happening", as long as they didn't want it to happen.

I think they are fully aware that it started happening about ten years ago, and just let it keep going. While it may be more "Ed's band" now than 15 years ago (I think you are right), the fact that they have let it "just happen" proves that there was not adequate leadership to prevent it from happening.

Unless, of course, they just don't give a shit all together. Which very well may be true.

[stupidmop]

I think they're way more 'Ed's' band now than they were 15 years ago, around Yield and Binaural. But I think that overall it's not as big a part of their life. More importantly, I think bands in general have a limited amount of time that they're on top. There are bands that go 20 or 30 years writing top-shelf material, but they're in the minority. PJ, like tons of long-running bands before them, have probably lost a step once they stopped making consistently great work. There's not even necessarily anything they're doing wrong; more often than not, I think it just happens.

I'm not disagreeing completely, cause really we have no clue. But the way the band go on about how amazing it is to have a leader singer that collaborates with them, and the way bo'b talks about eddie being more easy going or whatever makes me think the opposite. As in they go on about it so much now because it wasn't always the case.

I do agree that the band isn't as important to them now that they've got families and other shit to deal with. Can't really fault them for prioritising.

[super nintendo chalmers]

[Anders]

Is it really true that Vitaligy was on the other side of the spectrum from Yield in terms of cooperation? I have doubts about that, despite one or two quotes from Ed.

I think no code maybe was the least collaborative? And vitalogy one step behind that. I'm not sure though. And I'm not sure where any of the post - 2000 ones would go on that spectrum.

No Code sure, but wasn't a lot of Vitalogy written on tour?

Yeah a lot of the music was jammed out and what have you. I think where it becomes more of an ed record is all in the concept and the mini songs and stuff like that. I think it was more or less his vision.

I should add that I might be completely wrong, I can't really remember if half the things I've read about this stuff is from actual interviews or whatever or just old conversations/speculation.

Didn't ed write I got shit when the rest of the band was doing mirror ball and he had nothing else to do?

I agree with that. Vitalogy without Ed having final say, would be the same, but with something like Hard To Imagine and Out Of My Mind instead of Whipping, Pry.To and Stupid Mop. Stone convinced him to include Betterman though.