Post-Riot Act Moneygrab

[stip]

this would have been the sweet lew single artwork if they had followed through on Jeff's idea to use it as the first single

[Mine]

It's a judgement about the quality of the art as opposed to groundless and occasionally contradictory post hoc storytelling looking to justify why someone doesn't like the music anymore.

You're right.

[stip]

Just to add another meaningless two cents in, if someone feels that the band has been making substandard work for going on a decade now, I don't think it's crazy for them to suggest that it's because they're not working as hard at it. It's speculative, but so is everything here.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

[stip]

What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

In defense of the binaural artwork: the space pictures demonstrated depth. You have a naturally occurring infinity symbol, with an unknown eyeball made of gas in the middle, floating out there in outerspace. not drawn by some computer. natural beauty. that's powerful.

Per Jeff: "The reason that we went with Tchad [Blake] is because he provides an amazing atmosphere to songs....So, I think we wanted the artwork to represent that....One of the themes that we've been exploring...is just realizing that in the big scheme of things, even the music that we make when we come together, no matter how powerful it is, it's still pretty minuscule [sic]. I think for me the whole space theme has a lot to do with scale. You know, you look at some of those pictures, and there are thirteen light years in four inches in that picture."

The new album artwork? The quote would be like:

"The reason that we went with Brendan [O'Brien] is because we wanted to be popular again.... So, I think we wanted the artwork to represent that. We haven't been exploring any themes; its just that after years of trying to get the public spotlight out of his face, Ed succeeded; and woke up one morning and realized "oh shit, what have I done". So we penciled off a couple of weeks over a 4 year period, had BOB select the most commercially viable songs possible, and then farmed out the artwork to someone who would make it look catchy. So the whole farming out the artwork theme has a lot to do with us phoning it in artistically. Its not about musical expression anymore, it's about what people will like; which is conveniently positively correlated with making money, although making money is not the goal, it's just a convenient byproduct of wanting to be popular again."

The cover of Binaural always visually represented the binaural recording technique and listening experience to me. Two spheres of sound coming into each ear, and meeting in the middle (ie. middle of the head) to create the whole.

there's an idea behind it. It's just lazy to use a fairly famous dorm room space poster to represent it. I actually prefer the WTF absurdity of the S/T cover, but neither one is something I'd proudly show off.

The best Binaural artwork is Eddie's pineapple/bombs doodle.

[Mine]

Just to add another meaningless two cents in, if someone feels that the band has been making substandard work for going on a decade now, I don't think it's crazy for them to suggest that it's because they're not working as hard at it. It's speculative, but so is everything here.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

It is but i think this is a simplified view of the creative process. Many great albums were written in very short times. One could argue that a lot of hard work was put in all those things people don't like about the recent albums.

[stip]

Just to add another meaningless two cents in, if someone feels that the band has been making substandard work for going on a decade now, I don't think it's crazy for them to suggest that it's because they're not working as hard at it. It's speculative, but so is everything here.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

It is but i think this is a simplified view of the creative process. Many great albums were written in very short times. One could argue that a lot of hard work was put in all those things people don't like about the recent albums.

It could be, and I would agree.

[hlniv]

blablabla

blablabla

i dont listen to people that dont have avatars for me to put santa hats on.

Santa hat please.

[hlniv]

So PJ just want to be liked?

I liked them better when they didn't want to be liked.

Me, too.

I think the band as you see them now is how they were originally. Relieved of the pressure of suffocating fame, they feel free to want success. When you see/read what they did to promote Ten, before it got really crazy around the summer of '92, they were pretty naively unabashedly enjoying trying to get people to like them and they got excited about it. It just got crazy out of control and they flipped out. Now, life is back to normal. Am I saying anything new here? We all know this, right?

You are exactly right. I'm sure they money-grabbed the shit out of those first two years from the fall of 1990 to the fall of 1992.

I tend to think of my idealistic Pearl Jam in the terms of when I really got into them, which was 93-95. My first experiences with them were during their "pull-back" period, and I really fell in love with that. They were just about the music and the live show. Even when they went back to Ticketmaster tours in 2000/2003 and expanded the political element of their music, they still didn't start to lose the core of what attracted me until 2006 or so. And there's still a lot that remains, but I know I never could have become the fan i have off of the last ten years' output alone.

There is little reason, I think, to doubt that their primary concern is the music and the live show. It just pulls in a direction you, and many, find less interesting. These years aren't anyone's favorites (and, it is worth pointing out, that the riot act and binaural records are fairly divisive too. Not to the same degree, but perhaps they were in their early years. Riot act probably was). I think their most vital years are behind them as well. I just draw that line at 1995. If anything I think they are reinvigorated, but still they are a band past their prime. Still good, often very good, sometimes great, bit past their prime.

But still, the fact that there is a different approach to songwriting, with a band that may have said its most important things, is really the central issue. Not that the music matters less. It is different, and for many not as good.

Why can't you entertain the idea that it might matter less?

because the reasons people are offering are weak, and seem to primarily revolve around not liking the music they are making now more than music they were making 10 years ago. Since I like the music they are making now more than the music they were making 10 years ago, I find myself unpersuaded. I think many of the 'moneygrab' arguments that go hand in hand with the caring less claim are mostly tendentious, based on the mythologiziation of three-four years of band history, and imagined band dynamics and fantasies passed off as reality. And some are just dumb.

If you want to argue that the band is less of a priority I wouldn't disagree, but by all accounts they are all still quite prolific musicians, seem to really enjoy playing together, and I see no reason to doubt they aren't working hard when they are together.

If you want to argue that the band just has fewer good ideas, or may have exhausted what they can do as a unit, I'd disagree,, but I don't think that's wrong in the way I think these other things are wrong. It's a judgement about the quality of the art as opposed to groundless and occasionally contradictory post hoc storytelling looking to justify why someone doesn't like the music anymore.

When records like No Code, or Riot Act, or Binaural came out I didn't try and convince myself that pearl jam didn't care (although I did worry a bit given Eddie's RA vocals). I just accepted that they weren't writing to my tastes, enjoyed the stuff that struck a chord, and hoped that someday they'd return.

In the end I think this all comes down to the approach to writing--songs that will play well live, and songs that feel more immediate. I think the reason they're doing that is because they want to preserve the flavor of the live shows, and because they want to write songs that might draw in new listeners and introduce them to the bands legacy. At this point, in their less modest moments, they might think of Pearl Jam as a musical institution--the last of the classic rock bands--and writing to the present with that past in mind is not crazy. Wanting people to hear your art seems pretty reasonable. Wanting to have a certain degree of visibility to amplify a political voice makes sense. When Bruce Springsteen or Bono speak it carries more weight then when Michael Stipe does.

It's also possible (this is crazy, I know) that they really like their new songs and are proud of them because they think they're good.

That they are making choices because they don't care about music and care about money is just fucking dumb. They make hundreds of thousands of dollars per show. They can consistently sell out the venues in the places they like playing the most. They don't need to rush a new album to keep touring (which they've demonstrated). They don't make much money off of record sales anymore. How many fucking dog collars and 7 inch single sets do you think they need to equal the revenue of one show.


Other choices were possible. Maybe they would have been better. Maybe the ones they currently made could be better executed. These are interesting conversations to have . This one is not. I'm just an asshole who can't walk away from an argument.

blah blah ba bittle lawbbity blahh

I'm not reading all that. you lost me after the first statement in the previous reply where you somehow still avoid recognizing the desire for commercial success was their primary concern. i recognize you are referring to me, but i just dont care.

And there cant be two primary concerns

It is important to stop reading as soon as you discover someone disagrees with you. That requires real leadership, the kind we all wish pearl jam still had. Now, lets check out your follow through.

I discovered disagreement long before that first sentence. We established that probably back around page 3 of this thread.

Either way, I've never claimed to be a good leader. And if i were, i certainly wouldn't attempt to demonstrate that here. This is an un-leadable bunch, methinks.

And, I do have a pretty good follow through. Sometimes, I don't extend it and I jam up a bit, causing my ball to slice right. But, when I'm good and loose, my follow-though is tall and helps me achieve that nice high draw.

[hlniv]

What was the vision behind the binaural art. googling pictures of space?

In defense of the binaural artwork: the space pictures demonstrated depth. You have a naturally occurring infinity symbol, with an unknown eyeball made of gas in the middle, floating out there in outerspace. not drawn by some computer. natural beauty. that's powerful.

Per Jeff: "The reason that we went with Tchad [Blake] is because he provides an amazing atmosphere to songs....So, I think we wanted the artwork to represent that....One of the themes that we've been exploring...is just realizing that in the big scheme of things, even the music that we make when we come together, no matter how powerful it is, it's still pretty minuscule [sic]. I think for me the whole space theme has a lot to do with scale. You know, you look at some of those pictures, and there are thirteen light years in four inches in that picture."

The new album artwork? The quote would be like:

"The reason that we went with Brendan [O'Brien] is because we wanted to be popular again.... So, I think we wanted the artwork to represent that. We haven't been exploring any themes; its just that after years of trying to get the public spotlight out of his face, Ed succeeded; and woke up one morning and realized "oh shit, what have I done". So we penciled off a couple of weeks over a 4 year period, had BOB select the most commercially viable songs possible, and then farmed out the artwork to someone who would make it look catchy. So the whole farming out the artwork theme has a lot to do with us phoning it in artistically. Its not about musical expression anymore, it's about what people will like; which is conveniently positively correlated with making money, although making money is not the goal, it's just a convenient byproduct of wanting to be popular again."

You win this thread.

Shut it down. It's all over, folks. This guy has earned the crown.

But, somehow i still like it..... hmm....

not bad. if you had put an LOL in there somewhere it would have been better. Still, lets celebrate his (and your) victory in this thread by enjoying some alternative binaural artwork.



I had to look through two other space pictures to find it. But I wanted to find something that perfectly captured that in the big scheme of things, even the music that pearl jam makes when they come together, no matter how powerful it is, it's still pretty minuscule [sic]. I think for me the whole space theme has a lot to do with scale. You know, you look at some of those pictures, and there are thirteen light years in four inches in that picture.

I kinda wanted to use this picture



but I think it works better with the original tracklisting

Those pictures are glorious.

I like stars and wanted to quote this just so I could see them again.

[hlniv]

It's a judgement about the quality of the art as opposed to groundless and occasionally contradictory post hoc storytelling looking to justify why someone doesn't like the music anymore.

Just to add another meaningless two cents in, if someone feels that the band has been making substandard work for going on a decade now, I don't think it's crazy for them to suggest that it's because they're not working as hard at it. It's speculative, but so is everything here.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

You still just don't get it, man. I fault myself for failing to lead you.

The only thing that the Pearl Jam organization is working hard at is commercial success (I've settled on this phrase, as I think it depicts the full range of the moneygrab, the audiencegrab, the accessibility goal, etc...). The individuals in the band are working hard at other things, just not Pearl Jam. This has been the obvious strategic direction for this decade in question. Don't see how that is even questionable.

I like the LB/new/newer music, just not as much as some of the prior stuff. Still like it, though, just don't love it. And haven't loved it for quite a while. What i really don't like is how strikingly different everything around the music has become compared to the time when I first became hooked. I understand it, just don't like it.

[Kevin Davis]

There is little reason, I think, to doubt that their primary concern is the music and the live show.

You mean, except for the fact that they don't write music together very often anymore and only play about 9 live shows per year?

I empathize with your lack of patience for this sellout/cash-grab business but there is a great deal in the way the band conducts its business nowadays that implies a lesser effort on their part--the significantly reduced creative output, the miniature "destination" tours as opposed to lengthier outings that afford the band a chance to really get into a rhythm, their willingness to go onstage with (by their own admission, as I understand) little rehearsal and trot out setlists that favor immediate novelty over performance quality. I feel like I even remember one point during the pre-"Lightning Bolt" press where Brendan O'Brien said that one of his main roles this time around was corralling the band back into the studio to make sure that the record got finished at all, though at this point my mind has difficulty remembering if something I read about Pearl Jam was legitimate press or a fake interview written by an RM'er. I think that one was real, though.

Listening to "Lightning Bolt," I don't doubt that the care, if not the "effort" (a pretty meaningless qualifier when measuring the value of the actual art--plenty of evidence suggests that a number of Pearl Jam's greatest songs were written fairly "effortlessly") which went into composing the songs was, for the most part, comparable to what it's always been. The record certainly feels crafted, hardly careless or tossed off without consideration--when they're locked into that creative routine, I don't doubt that that passion for creating the best record they can is as viable as ever. At the end of the day these guys are musicians who got into music because they love music, and I don't think that that in-the-moment spark is as easy to extinguish as is the motivation to break from the hard-earned comfort of day-to-day living and actually make coordinating the schedules of five grown men, many of whom have relatively newfound personal responsibilities, the priority it was when they were in their twenties and thirties.

I understand that; that's pretty much my life right now, too. But whatever the reasons, the increasingly reduced effort put into making Pearl Jam, as a creative entity, exist in the first place (4+ years in between albums is a long time for a band who supposedly sees the music "as their primary concern") is a drag for me, because not only has it, to my ears, pretty much shattered the natural creative arc that they were sustaining up through "Riot Act" or so, but also it just provides more opportunities for my interest in the current progression of the band to wane. So, no, in their heart of hearts I don't feel like they care less about music than they used to, and I certainly don't think they've suddenly come to see music as a mere commodity. But I do think their lack of prioritizing the band has affected their ability to execute, which in the end is what matters.

[stip]

I basically agree with all that. Even though I'm a big fan of their current output if they spent even more time working on stuff I have no doubt it would be even better, that tours would be improved by making them longer, and that they in general have less time to invest in the band, or less time they are willing to invest. But, again, this is not exactly the same thing as not caring about the outcome, or even caring less, in the sense that I suspect many in this thread (and in similar conversations) are using it.

I also get how this raises the stakes for each album, and I'm lucky there. The records I was less enamored with were only 2 years apart.

And you aren't imagining that BoB comment.

[stupidmop]

Speaking of bo'b trying to wrangle them into the studio, I came across this earlier and thought it was pretty funny. This was 2000 so they were still cranking out albums every 2 years at this point.

AskPearlJam: Brendan says: Why so long since the last album?

Stone: Has it been a year and a half?

Eddie: I think that's Brendan O'Brien asking the question and I want to tell Brendan that we can't employ him full-time.

http://pearljamhistory.no.sapo.pt/PJArt ... s_chat.htm

Of course nowadays there's probably more need to wrangle.

[stip]

that's awesome

[stip]

It's a judgement about the quality of the art as opposed to groundless and occasionally contradictory post hoc storytelling looking to justify why someone doesn't like the music anymore.

Just to add another meaningless two cents in, if someone feels that the band has been making substandard work for going on a decade now, I don't think it's crazy for them to suggest that it's because they're not working as hard at it. It's speculative, but so is everything here.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

You still just don't get it, man. I fault myself for failing to lead you.

The only thing that the Pearl Jam organization is working hard at is commercial success (I've settled on this phrase, as I think it depicts the full range of the moneygrab, the audiencegrab, the accessibility goal, etc...). The individuals in the band are working hard at other things, just not Pearl Jam. This has been the obvious strategic direction for this decade in question. Don't see how that is even questionable.

I like the LB/new/newer music, just not as much as some of the prior stuff. Still like it, though, just don't love it. And haven't loved it for quite a while. What i really don't like is how strikingly different everything around the music has become compared to the time when I first became hooked. I understand it, just don't like it.

the year is 1998. There has been a rapid decline in commercial success over the last two albums--the previous one barely made it to 1 million copies, a number that only two albums and 3 years prior they were able to pull off in a week. The band self-consciously sets out to write a rock record that everyone, including, I believe, the band deems a 'return to form'. The first single is easily the most commercially viable and easily accessible song on the album. Commercials are made and aired to advertise the upcoming album. The band goes back on its now well established and famous no video policy. They end their celebrated boycott of ticketmaster venues because it was making it harder for fans to see them. And on top of this their corporate record label is doing whatever it is record labels do to help promote acts like this. All of this in a climate where pearl jam had embedded cultural cache, the musical climate was generally favorable to this kind of music, extensive radio play of a lead single was pretty guaranteed, and the lead singer was still something of a household name.

And the name of that album is Lighting Bolt Backspacer S/T Yield.

[Kaius]

It's a judgement about the quality of the art as opposed to groundless and occasionally contradictory post hoc storytelling looking to justify why someone doesn't like the music anymore.

Just to add another meaningless two cents in, if someone feels that the band has been making substandard work for going on a decade now, I don't think it's crazy for them to suggest that it's because they're not working as hard at it. It's speculative, but so is everything here.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

You still just don't get it, man. I fault myself for failing to lead you.

The only thing that the Pearl Jam organization is working hard at is commercial success (I've settled on this phrase, as I think it depicts the full range of the moneygrab, the audiencegrab, the accessibility goal, etc...). The individuals in the band are working hard at other things, just not Pearl Jam. This has been the obvious strategic direction for this decade in question. Don't see how that is even questionable.

I like the LB/new/newer music, just not as much as some of the prior stuff. Still like it, though, just don't love it. And haven't loved it for quite a while. What i really don't like is how strikingly different everything around the music has become compared to the time when I first became hooked. I understand it, just don't like it.

the year is 1998. There has been a rapid decline in commercial success over the last two albums--the previous one barely made it to 1 million copies, a number that only two albums and 3 years prior they were able to pull off in a week. The band self-consciously sets out to write a rock record that everyone, including, I believe, the band deems a 'return to form'. The first single is easily the most commercially viable and easily accessible song on the album. Commercials are made and aired to advertise the upcoming album. The band goes back on its now well established and famous no video policy. They end their celebrated boycott of ticketmaster venues because it was making it harder for fans to see them. And on top of this their corporate record label is doing whatever it is record labels do to help promote acts like this. All of this in a climate where pearl jam had embedded cultural cache, the musical climate was generally favorable to this kind of music, extensive radio play of a lead single was pretty guaranteed, and the lead singer was still something of a household name.

And the name of that album is Lighting Bolt Backspacer S/T Yield.

[hlniv]

I basically agree with all that. Even though I'm a big fan of their current output if they spent even more time working on stuff I have no doubt it would be even better, that tours would be improved by making them longer, and that they in general have less time to invest in the band, or less time they are willing to invest. But, again, this is not exactly the same thing as not caring about the outcome, or even caring less, in the sense that I suspect many in this thread (and in similar conversations) are using it.

I also get how this raises the stakes for each album, and I'm lucky there. The records I was less enamored with were only 2 years apart.

And you aren't imagining that BoB comment.

Who in this thread has said the that they don't care ( or care less ) about the outcome ?

I, for one, certainly believe they care about the outcome, it's just that the specific outcome that they care about has shifted full-on towards a commercial outcome.

[Mine]

I basically agree with all that. Even though I'm a big fan of their current output if they spent even more time working on stuff I have no doubt it would be even better, that tours would be improved by making them longer, and that they in general have less time to invest in the band, or less time they are willing to invest. But, again, this is not exactly the same thing as not caring about the outcome, or even caring less, in the sense that I suspect many in this thread (and in similar conversations) are using it.

I also get how this raises the stakes for each album, and I'm lucky there. The records I was less enamored with were only 2 years apart.

And you aren't imagining that BoB comment.

Who in this thread has said the that they don't care ( or care less ) about the outcome ?

I, for one, certainly believe they care about the outcome, it's just that the specific outcome that they care about has shifted full-on towards a commercial outcome.

I was thinking about how proud Mike is of Sirens. I guess he would have been proud of it at any given point in their career since it seems closer to his taste in music than most of their music is.

[digster]

Just to add another meaningless two cents in, if someone feels that the band has been making substandard work for going on a decade now, I don't think it's crazy for them to suggest that it's because they're not working as hard at it. It's speculative, but so is everything here.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

It is but i think this is a simplified view of the creative process. Many great albums were written in very short times. One could argue that a lot of hard work was put in all those things people don't like about the recent albums.

I don't think it's an argument necessarily dependent on time. You can work on something for a long time and not put much work in. I think the effort involved is the bigger thing, as opposed to the time it took.

[hlniv]

It's a judgement about the quality of the art as opposed to groundless and occasionally contradictory post hoc storytelling looking to justify why someone doesn't like the music anymore.

Just to add another meaningless two cents in, if someone feels that the band has been making substandard work for going on a decade now, I don't think it's crazy for them to suggest that it's because they're not working as hard at it. It's speculative, but so is everything here.

It is certainly more reasonable divorced from the insipid cash grab arguments

You still just don't get it, man. I fault myself for failing to lead you.

The only thing that the Pearl Jam organization is working hard at is commercial success (I've settled on this phrase, as I think it depicts the full range of the moneygrab, the audiencegrab, the accessibility goal, etc...). The individuals in the band are working hard at other things, just not Pearl Jam. This has been the obvious strategic direction for this decade in question. Don't see how that is even questionable.

I like the LB/new/newer music, just not as much as some of the prior stuff. Still like it, though, just don't love it. And haven't loved it for quite a while. What i really don't like is how strikingly different everything around the music has become compared to the time when I first became hooked. I understand it, just don't like it.

the year is 1998. There has been a rapid decline in commercial success over the last two albums--the previous one barely made it to 1 million copies, a number that only two albums and 3 years prior they were able to pull off in a week. The band self-consciously sets out to write a rock record that everyone, including, I believe, the band deems a 'return to form'. The first single is easily the most commercially viable and easily accessible song on the album. Commercials are made and aired to advertise the upcoming album. The band goes back on its now well established and famous no video policy. They end their celebrated boycott of ticketmaster venues because it was making it harder for fans to see them. And on top of this their corporate record label is doing whatever it is record labels do to help promote acts like this. All of this in a climate where pearl jam had embedded cultural cache, the musical climate was generally favorable to this kind of music, extensive radio play of a lead single was pretty guaranteed, and the lead singer was still something of a household name.

And the name of that album is Lighting Bolt Backspacer S/T Yield.

Although, exclusive target deals, MLB licensing, excessive merchandising, slowleak artwork reveals, twitter bombing, purposeful pop-rock sound creation, live show song quantity over quality, etc.. etc... etc... none of that happened in 1998.

Your point is valid, though, they made a little left turn down this path with Yield. Of course, they did not continue exploring that path with Binaural or Riot Act, so the validity of this "nothing is different than Yield" argument is a little stunted.