Post-Riot Act Moneygrab

[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.

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.

You think this guy would have been proud of Sirens?

[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.

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.

You're right but it's related. At least the actual time spent doing the work in question is. But as someone else said good music can be written effortlessly in which case it becomes a matter of creativity and inspiration. What I'm trying to say is a combination of factors, hard work isn't necessarily of vital importance here.

[McParadigm]

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.

Perspective.

Although Ten had been a steady climber and No Code was certainly not out to make the same gains that the first three records had made, in actuality the numbers looked very different from the certification figures relied on by the media:

Sales
Ten: 7.1 million copies
Vs: 4.9 million copies
Vitalogy: 3.6 million copies
No Code: 1.3 million copies

Certifications
Ten: 10xP
Vs: 6xP
Vitalogy: 5xP
No Code: 1xP

Epic's urgent desire to over-certify the early records in the hopes of establishing THEIR cash cow as the era's big name really just had the effect of misrepresenting the arc of their career. It certainly DID help establish Ten (and its follow-ups, to a lesser degree) as among the classic records of the era, but it also made No Code and Yield's sales look far more plummetous than they were.

No Code had the biggest debut for a rock band in a terrible year for rock bands. It sold a little over a third of what Vitalogy had, but that's a much more natural correction towards the norm than the certification process implied (5xP to 1xP). Basically, Epic created a story that resulted in a very noisy portrayal of No Code as a flop. As a result, it has sold very disproportionately low as a catalog album, even compared to other low-selling "weird" records of the era, making that presentation a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As of 2005, the first Foo Fighters album had managed a grand total of 1.3 million copies sold in the US...the same number that No Code moved in 1996/7. The Colour and the Shape, a 1997 release, had moved 1.9 million. Prior to Kurt's death, In Utero had moved fewer than 2 million copies. So those middle records weren't initially unsuccessful, they were just victims of an intentionally manipulated legacy-grab by the record label...one that effected the way the public saw them, and apparently the way the band did as well.

[evenslow]

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.

You think this guy would have been proud of Sirens?

Spoiler: show

[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.

You think this guy would have been proud of Sirens?

Yes. It's power ballad quality in particular.
Also depending on the quality of the drug(s) he was on at the moment.

[Mine]

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.

Perspective.

Although Ten had been a steady climber and No Code was certainly not out to make the same gains that the first three records had made, in actuality the numbers looked very different from the certification figures relied on by the media:

Sales
Ten: 7.1 million copies
Vs: 4.9 million copies
Vitalogy: 3.6 million copies
No Code: 1.3 million copies

Certifications
Ten: 10xP
Vs: 6xP
Vitalogy: 5xP
No Code: 1xP

Epic's urgent desire to over-certify the early records in the hopes of establishing THEIR cash cow as the era's big name really just had the effect of misrepresenting the arc of their career. It certainly DID help establish Ten (and its follow-ups, to a lesser degree) as among the classic records of the era, but it also made No Code and Yield's sales look far more plummetous than they were.

No Code had the biggest debut for a rock band in a terrible year for rock bands. It sold a little over a third of what Vitalogy had, but that's a much more natural correction towards the norm than the certification process implied (5xP to 1xP). Basically, Epic created a story that resulted in a very noisy portrayal of No Code as a flop. As a result, it has sold very disproportionately low as a catalog album, even compared to other low-selling "weird" records of the era, making that presentation a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As of 2005, the first Foo Fighters album had managed a grand total of 1.3 million copies sold in the US...the same number that No Code moved in 1996/7. The Colour and the Shape, a 1997 release, had moved 1.9 million. Prior to Kurt's death, In Utero had moved fewer than 2 million copies. So those middle records weren't initially unsuccessful, they were just victims of an intentionally manipulated legacy-grab by the record label...one that effected the way the public saw them, and apparently the way the band did as well.

This can't possibly be true. Pj fans are way to smart to be affected by this kind of manipulation.

[McParadigm]

This can't possibly be true. Pj fans are way to smart to be affected by this kind of manipulation.

What if I told you that those sales figures come with exclusive digital content? Would that change your mind?

[Tuolumne]

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.

Perspective.

Although Ten had been a steady climber and No Code was certainly not out to make the same gains that the first three records had made, in actuality the numbers looked very different from the certification figures relied on by the media:

Sales
Ten: 7.1 million copies
Vs: 4.9 million copies
Vitalogy: 3.6 million copies
No Code: 1.3 million copies

Certifications
Ten: 10xP
Vs: 6xP
Vitalogy: 5xP
No Code: 1xP

Epic's urgent desire to over-certify the early records in the hopes of establishing THEIR cash cow as the era's big name really just had the effect of misrepresenting the arc of their career. It certainly DID help establish Ten (and its follow-ups, to a lesser degree) as among the classic records of the era, but it also made No Code and Yield's sales look far more plummetous than they were.

No Code had the biggest debut for a rock band in a terrible year for rock bands. It sold a little over a third of what Vitalogy had, but that's a much more natural correction towards the norm than the certification process implied (5xP to 1xP). Basically, Epic created a story that resulted in a very noisy portrayal of No Code as a flop. As a result, it has sold very disproportionately low as a catalog album, even compared to other low-selling "weird" records of the era, making that presentation a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As of 2005, the first Foo Fighters album had managed a grand total of 1.3 million copies sold in the US...the same number that No Code moved in 1996/7. The Colour and the Shape, a 1997 release, had moved 1.9 million. Prior to Kurt's death, In Utero had moved fewer than 2 million copies. So those middle records weren't initially unsuccessful, they were just victims of an intentionally manipulated legacy-grab by the record label...one that effected the way the public saw them, and apparently the way the band did as well.

Ooh, very deft analysis, I like your analytical chops. My one comment on it though is that the Foo Fighters didn't have the luxury to build off of an 8 million plus selling album. So, I think No Code (as strong as I think it is artistically) still qualifies as a legit flop. And I'm really glad you pointed out In Utero's lack of appeal, in so much revised history that I've read it's been "Kurt offed himself at the height of his fame". I CLEARLY remember that his time in the limelight was vastly outshined by PJ in 93-94, not even close. EdVed was a much bigger deal for that 2 year period.

I believe No Code and Riot Act are their true commercial flops. You'll hardly ever see a band go "uncompromising" as a follow up to that. Bands make divisive and challenging records when they feel they have the CAPITAL to. When they don't have that capital, they won't do it. I'm not talking about PJ, I'm talking about most any artist. And ususally, when they do have the capital, they don't do it any way. Let's quit pretending that they had any of this capital after Riot Act. They did not, and they knew it.

[evenslow]

Well said, McP.

[southp]

Can't we just summarize this thread as "some people liked Binaural and Riot Act, and some people prefer what came before and after"?

I'd be curious to know if the Binaural/RA folks generally jumped in around that period, and if the post-RA fans are more oldtimers and newbies. Personally, I fall into the latter and tend to enjoy the albums with a bit more overt-accessibility. At the same time, I strangely covet Pearl Jam's position at the top of the rock charts and mainstream spotlight. As someone who has been there from the "meteoric rise from the ashes", to the lulls of political introversion, I feel quite happy with the current progress of the band. I should mention that I felt the same way when Yield came out, and for anyone who wasn't there it certainly was a full commercial onslaught...commercials, videos, posters, tshirts, live album, home video, tv appearances, interviews...and a big fuckin' tour. Alot like what they did with Binaural, and Riot Act, and so on...

Kurt Cobain was right all along, and I think some people may be mythologizing a brief era in this band's history based on albums that were missing an obvious hit single.

[evenslow]

When all that is taken into account it's incredible albums 2 - 5 sold as much as they did. I usually make the mistake of comparing their output and sales figures to something like Led Zeppelin, but that's apples/oranges, 70s/90s, rock as dominant behemoth vs. rock as sputtering engine.

What I'm really saying is that when taken in proper context (with Nirvana, Foo Fighters, et al), it's clear that Pearl Jam is McParadigm's favorite band.

[Strat]

I fucking love pearl jam. But fuck them.

Also, Binaural is #1.

That's all i got for now.

[VinylGuy]

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.

Perspective.

Although Ten had been a steady climber and No Code was certainly not out to make the same gains that the first three records had made, in actuality the numbers looked very different from the certification figures relied on by the media:

Sales
Ten: 7.1 million copies
Vs: 4.9 million copies
Vitalogy: 3.6 million copies
No Code: 1.3 million copies

Certifications
Ten: 10xP
Vs: 6xP
Vitalogy: 5xP
No Code: 1xP

Epic's urgent desire to over-certify the early records in the hopes of establishing THEIR cash cow as the era's big name really just had the effect of misrepresenting the arc of their career. It certainly DID help establish Ten (and its follow-ups, to a lesser degree) as among the classic records of the era, but it also made No Code and Yield's sales look far more plummetous than they were.

No Code had the biggest debut for a rock band in a terrible year for rock bands. It sold a little over a third of what Vitalogy had, but that's a much more natural correction towards the norm than the certification process implied (5xP to 1xP). Basically, Epic created a story that resulted in a very noisy portrayal of No Code as a flop. As a result, it has sold very disproportionately low as a catalog album, even compared to other low-selling "weird" records of the era, making that presentation a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As of 2005, the first Foo Fighters album had managed a grand total of 1.3 million copies sold in the US...the same number that No Code moved in 1996/7. The Colour and the Shape, a 1997 release, had moved 1.9 million. Prior to Kurt's death, In Utero had moved fewer than 2 million copies. So those middle records weren't initially unsuccessful, they were just victims of an intentionally manipulated legacy-grab by the record label...one that effected the way the public saw them, and apparently the way the band did as well.

Ooh, very deft analysis, I like your analytical chops. My one comment on it though is that the Foo Fighters didn't have the luxury to build off of an 8 million plus selling album. So, I think No Code (as strong as I think it is artistically) still qualifies as a legit flop. And I'm really glad you pointed out In Utero's lack of appeal, in so much revised history that I've read it's been "Kurt offed himself at the height of his fame". I CLEARLY remember that his time in the limelight was vastly outshined by PJ in 93-94, not even close. EdVed was a much bigger deal for that 2 year period.

I believe No Code and Riot Act are their true commercial flops. You'll hardly ever see a band go "uncompromising" as a follow up to that. Bands make divisive and challenging records when they feel they have the CAPITAL to. When they don't have that capital, they won't do it. I'm not talking about PJ, I'm talking about most any artist. And ususally, when they do have the capital, they don't do it any way. Let's quit pretending that they had any of this capital after Riot Act. They did not, and they knew it.

Dave A. had that point when he thought they would hire someone like Daniel Lanois to work after Vitalogy.

[Kevin Davis]

I'd be curious to know if the Binaural/RA folks generally jumped in around that period, and if the post-RA fans are more oldtimers and newbies.

I discovered Pearl Jam in early 1995. I bought "Vitalogy" on cassette and pretty much listened to nothing but their first three albums for an entire year. I feel pretty unwaveringly that the four records that followed are the strongest albums of their career, though I didn't necessarily feel that way as they were released. So I guess the middle records are the ones that most accurately reflect my "journey" with the band (as well as my current tastes), but they're not really indicative of what initially suckered me in.

[Anders]

I'd be curious to know if the Binaural/RA folks generally jumped in around that period, and if the post-RA fans are more oldtimers and newbies.

I discovered Pearl Jam in early 1995. I bought "Vitalogy" on cassette and pretty much listened to nothing but their first three albums for an entire year. I feel pretty unwaveringly that the four records that followed are the strongest albums of their career, though I didn't necessarily feel that way as they were released. So I guess the middle records are the ones that most accurately reflect my "journey" with the band (as well as my current tastes), but they're not really indicative of what initially suckered me in.

I could say just about the same thing. Vitalogy was the first Pearl Jam album I bought on the release date, but the band was already my favourite based on Ten and Vs. It took some time to adjust to each of the four following albums, but now they fit my taste perfectly. Can't say the same about the last three albums, although I still like and listen to them.

[BurtReynolds]

The Post Riot Act Moneygrab Musical Product™ sucks to me, and I have theories why, but don't really care to prove them, and could never hope to supply enough proof to meet Stip's high bar. Its all just speculation one way or another. All that matters is that they sound like crap to me now.

Binaural and Riot Act are great albums with some flaws, but compared to The Post Riot Act Moneygrab Musical Product™, they are shining beacons of light.

[BurtReynolds]

Ten was the album that hooked me, but I didn't hear it until sometime between Vitalogy and No Code ( I lived in the sticks). No Code was the first album I bought and was hooked. Then I bought Ten and spent several months playing it on repeat. Then I bought Vs and Vitalogy and Merkinball on the same day. By the time Yield came out, I was a pretty big fan. Didn't like Binaural at first, but didn't hate it. I hated Riot Act. Gave a pirated copy 2 listens and promptly deleted it from my hard drive and swore off PJ.

Oddly enough, hearing WWS on the radio got me back into them, even though I thought (and still think) WWS was a terrible song. It did get me to give Binaural and RA another try, and I'm glad it did. Their live shows are what really got me hooked again at this point, as their studio output was steadily dropping.

[McParadigm]

I followed these guys around all through the 70's, though I admit to sort of losing track of them for a while in the mid-80's. Got back in sometime around 1942, haven't gone anywhere since.

[guitar_davey]

Ten was the album that hooked me, but I didn't hear it until sometime between Vitalogy and No Code ( I lived in the sticks). No Code was the first album I bought and was hooked. Then I bought Ten and spent several months playing it on repeat. Then I bought Vs and Vitalogy and Merkinball on the same day. By the time Yield came out, I was a pretty big fan. Didn't like Binaural at first, but didn't hate it. I hated Riot Act. Gave a pirated copy 2 listens and promptly deleted it from my hard drive and swore off PJ.

Oddly enough, hearing WWS on the radio got me back into them, even though I thought (and still think) WWS was a terrible song. It did get me to give Binaural and RA another try, and I'm glad it did. Their live shows are what really got me hooked again at this point, as their studio output was steadily dropping.

Just curious, and definitely not looking to argue, but what makes WWS a "terrible song" to your ears?

[Mine]

This can't possibly be true. Pj fans are way to smart to be affected by this kind of manipulation.

What if I told you that those sales figures come with exclusive digital content? Would that change your mind?

Is the digital content part of a digital copy of a vinyl LP that has packaging of such high quality it can barely avoid tearing and damaging the record? If this is the case consider my mind changed.