Post-Riot Act Moneygrab

[PryTo]

I liked Ten when it came out, but not that much. Vs. hooked me; Vitalogy was even better; and No Code was different but equally brilliant. I liked Yield, but thought it marked an at least partial step backwards to a more commercial sound. I wasn't too into Binaural and Riot Act, but rediscovered the band in 2009 and they became two of my favorites, as good as any of my other favs. Everything that followed RA has been a disappointment to me.

I think there is a large chunk of folks out there who were pretty into PJ, sort of lost track of them around the turn of the century, and rediscovered them in the last few years. You see a lot of that in the "shows I've seen" signatures on the main board.

[southp]

I liked Ten when it came out, but not that much. Vs. hooked me; Vitalogy was even better; and No Code was different but equally brilliant. I liked Yield, but thought it marked an at least partial step backwards to a more commercial sound. I wasn't too into Binaural and Riot Act, but rediscovered the band in 2009 and they became two of my favorites, as good as any of my other favs. Everything that followed RA has been a disappointment to me.

I think there is a large chunk of folks out there who were pretty into PJ, sort of lost track of them around the turn of the century, and rediscovered them in the last few years. You see a lot of that in the "shows I've seen" signatures on the main board.

Well said.

[surfndestroy]

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.

Not a chance. Listen to what he played on Temple of the Dog, then compare it to the latter day Bon Jovi inspired Sirens. I think if he came in with a track like Say Hello 2 Heaven, 10+ minutes of magnificence that it wouldn't have stood a chance to get on Lightning Bolt or Backspacer. I have no idea if he's still inspired to play like he did in his early days, but I'm pretty sure he realizes what stands the chance of making a Pearl Jam album. He probably honestly thought that Sirens was this ballad with integrity, whereas I see it as muzak for Pearl Jam fans.

[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.

Not a chance. Listen to what he played on Temple of the Dog, then compare it to the latter day Bon Jovi inspired Sirens. I think if he came in with a track like Say Hello 2 Heaven, 10+ minutes of magnificence that it wouldn't have stood a chance to get on Lightning Bolt or Backspacer. I have no idea if he's still inspired to play like he did in his early days, but I'm pretty sure he realizes what stands the chance of making a Pearl Jam album. He probably honestly thought that Sirens was this ballad with integrity, whereas I see it as muzak for Pearl Jam fans.

Weak premise.

[PryTo]

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?

Mind if I take that one? IMO, the chorus is grating, the music is non-distinct and try hard, and the lyrics are hit-you-over-the-head obvious. The lyrics have no subtlety or vivid images -- they sound like high-school poetry (combined with juvenile analysis: "War = bad"). Compare these to "Dissident," which you really have to interpret and spend some time with. Huge change. I think about half of Avocado is decent. WWS is probably my least favorite song on it, although it has competition.

[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.

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

Mind if I take that one? IMO, the chorus is grating, the music is non-distinct and try hard, and the lyrics are hit-you-over-the-head obvious. The lyrics have no subtlety or vivid images -- they sound like high-school poetry (combined with juvenile analysis: "War = bad"). Compare these to "Dissident," which you really have to interpret and spend some time with. Huge change. I think about half of Avocado is decent. WWS is probably my least favorite song on it, although it has competition.

My intro to WWS was an odd one. I'm not kidding, I had totally stopped following PJ. For all I knew, they broke up. One day at a friend's place it came on some shitty alt-rock radio station.

At first, I was struck that it didn't sound like every other piece of shit song being played by Nickelback or Hinder or whoever, so at least it had that going for it. I didn't realize it was PJ at first. If I had to guess who it was , I'd say something like Sammy Hagar or something (I wasn't far off). It just has that mid tempo, DADROCK ADULT CONTEMPORARY SOUND. It wasn't until the chorus that I realized it was Ed.

Musically, it just kinda limps into existence and then keeps farting along with none of the fury that seems present in the lyrics (or title). Its weird that a scathing assault on war named Worldwide Suicide sounds like something you'd hear while gorging on Chicken Crispers at Chili's. Even Ed sounds weezy. Actually, it sounds like his voice is literally slowed down. Its weird. If its not meant to be a rocker, then it could at least have some rhythm or groove, but its too starchy to manage that. It sort of comes to life around the 2:30 mark, and I'm being very generous, but in the end its a lifeless piece of shit.

Needless to say, I didn't mention to my friends that it was Pearl Jam or that I was a lapsed fan, and they didn't even seem to notice the song at all. It did get me curious about what Pearl Jam was up to.

[Anders]

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.

Not a chance. Listen to what he played on Temple of the Dog, then compare it to the latter day Bon Jovi inspired Sirens. I think if he came in with a track like Say Hello 2 Heaven, 10+ minutes of magnificence that it wouldn't have stood a chance to get on Lightning Bolt or Backspacer. I have no idea if he's still inspired to play like he did in his early days, but I'm pretty sure he realizes what stands the chance of making a Pearl Jam album. He probably honestly thought that Sirens was this ballad with integrity, whereas I see it as muzak for Pearl Jam fans.

Weak premise.

Haha Temple Of The Dog Mike makes the Post Riot Act Moneygrab Mike seem weak in comparison.

[Angus]

I always thought Temple of the Dog is one of the most overrated things in "Pearl Jam" history. Give me Sirens over Say Hello To Heaven every day of the week.

[BurtReynolds]

Mad Season Mike is best.

[McParadigm]

Mike is an almost archetypal example of the "wears his influences" type musician. The one thing that prevents this from defining him is that he is also a very reactive musical personality...he plays in response to his surroundings, not in an attempt to control them. So if the band is making Immortality, he will respond to that particular tone and mood. If they are making Do the Evolution, the same.

If, however, the music is fairly personality-free...or if he is writing a piece of his own...he will generally put the imprint of whatever of his influences it most closely resembles directly to it, in very broad and unaltered strokes.

[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?

Mind if I take that one? IMO, the chorus is grating, the music is non-distinct and try hard, and the lyrics are hit-you-over-the-head obvious. The lyrics have no subtlety or vivid images -- they sound like high-school poetry (combined with juvenile analysis: "War = bad"). Compare these to "Dissident," which you really have to interpret and spend some time with. Huge change. I think about half of Avocado is decent. WWS is probably my least favorite song on it, although it has competition.

My intro to WWS was an odd one. I'm not kidding, I had totally stopped following PJ. For all I knew, they broke up. One day at a friend's place it came on some shitty alt-rock radio station.

At first, I was struck that it didn't sound like every other piece of shit song being played by Nickelback or Hinder or whoever, so at least it had that going for it. I didn't realize it was PJ at first. If I had to guess who it was , I'd say something like Sammy Hagar or something (I wasn't far off). It just has that mid tempo, DADROCK ADULT CONTEMPORARY SOUND. It wasn't until the chorus that I realized it was Ed.

Musically, it just kinda limps into existence and then keeps farting along with none of the fury that seems present in the lyrics (or title). Its weird that a scathing assault on war named Worldwide Suicide sounds like something you'd hear while gorging on Chicken Crispers at Chili's. Even Ed sounds weezy. Actually, it sounds like his voice is literally slowed down. Its weird. If its not meant to be a rocker, then it could at least have some rhythm or groove, but its too starchy to manage that. It sort of comes to life around the 2:30 mark, and I'm being very generous, but in the end its a lifeless piece of shit.

Needless to say, I didn't mention to my friends that it was Pearl Jam or that I was a lapsed fan, and they didn't even seem to notice the song at all. It did get me curious about what Pearl Jam was up to.

That's fair enough. Thanks for answering anyway. I was curious.

[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.

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

Mind if I take that one? IMO, the chorus is grating, the music is non-distinct and try hard, and the lyrics are hit-you-over-the-head obvious. The lyrics have no subtlety or vivid images -- they sound like high-school poetry (combined with juvenile analysis: "War = bad"). Compare these to "Dissident," which you really have to interpret and spend some time with. Huge change. I think about half of Avocado is decent. WWS is probably my least favorite song on it, although it has competition.

My intro to WWS was an odd one. I'm not kidding, I had totally stopped following PJ. For all I knew, they broke up. One day at a friend's place it came on some shitty alt-rock radio station.

At first, I was struck that it didn't sound like every other piece of shit song being played by Nickelback or Hinder or whoever, so at least it had that going for it. I didn't realize it was PJ at first. If I had to guess who it was , I'd say something like Sammy Hagar or something (I wasn't far off). It just has that mid tempo, DADROCK ADULT CONTEMPORARY SOUND. It wasn't until the chorus that I realized it was Ed.

Musically, it just kinda limps into existence and then keeps farting along with none of the fury that seems present in the lyrics (or title). Its weird that a scathing assault on war named Worldwide Suicide sounds like something you'd hear while gorging on Chicken Crispers at Chili's. Even Ed sounds weezy. Actually, it sounds like his voice is literally slowed down. Its weird. If its not meant to be a rocker, then it could at least have some rhythm or groove, but its too starchy to manage that. It sort of comes to life around the 2:30 mark, and I'm being very generous, but in the end its a lifeless piece of shit.

Needless to say, I didn't mention to my friends that it was Pearl Jam or that I was a lapsed fan, and they didn't even seem to notice the song at all. It did get me curious about what Pearl Jam was up to.

That's fair enough. Thanks for answering anyway. I was curious.

always happy to help! would you like a Santa hat avatar?

[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.

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?

you mean the guy who based the Alive solo on a kiss song. Yes. Yes I do

[Kevin Davis]

would you like a Santa hat avatar?

I would!

[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?

Mind if I take that one? IMO, the chorus is grating, the music is non-distinct and try hard, and the lyrics are hit-you-over-the-head obvious. The lyrics have no subtlety or vivid images -- they sound like high-school poetry (combined with juvenile analysis: "War = bad"). Compare these to "Dissident," which you really have to interpret and spend some time with. Huge change. I think about half of Avocado is decent. WWS is probably my least favorite song on it, although it has competition.

My intro to WWS was an odd one. I'm not kidding, I had totally stopped following PJ. For all I knew, they broke up. One day at a friend's place it came on some shitty alt-rock radio station.

At first, I was struck that it didn't sound like every other piece of shit song being played by Nickelback or Hinder or whoever, so at least it had that going for it. I didn't realize it was PJ at first. If I had to guess who it was , I'd say something like Sammy Hagar or something (I wasn't far off). It just has that mid tempo, DADROCK ADULT CONTEMPORARY SOUND. It wasn't until the chorus that I realized it was Ed.

Musically, it just kinda limps into existence and then keeps farting along with none of the fury that seems present in the lyrics (or title). Its weird that a scathing assault on war named Worldwide Suicide sounds like something you'd hear while gorging on Chicken Crispers at Chili's. Even Ed sounds weezy. Actually, it sounds like his voice is literally slowed down. Its weird. If its not meant to be a rocker, then it could at least have some rhythm or groove, but its too starchy to manage that. It sort of comes to life around the 2:30 mark, and I'm being very generous, but in the end its a lifeless piece of shit.

Needless to say, I didn't mention to my friends that it was Pearl Jam or that I was a lapsed fan, and they didn't even seem to notice the song at all. It did get me curious about what Pearl Jam was up to.

That's fair enough. Thanks for answering anyway. I was curious.

always happy to help! would you like a Santa hat avatar?

Actually, yes.

[hlniv]

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.

My PJ addiction started in the summer of 1994 with continuous listens of Vs. This led me back to Ten and I discovered that Ten was much more than Alive and Jeremy. I re-discovered the Unplugged set, too, I wore out a VHS tape of that, that set was a big moment in cementing my fandom. I bought Vitalogy the day it was released on both CD and cassette, and seriously considered getting a turntable simply to get Vitalogy a week earlier. I camped out at a record store for a midnight sale of No Code. I didn't get a chance to see them live until Sept 96.

I generally was disappointed in Both Binaural and Riot Act at the time of their release, but eventually grew appreciate and really like both, Binaural clicked with me after Lost Dogs came out, and Riot Act took me until 2007 or so, once the new PJ high of S/T wore off.

[hlniv]

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.

Very good points. Connects & explains the slight commercial/accessibility push of Yield with the much larger post-Riot Act shift. They simply haven't had enough artistic capital to do anything else in the last ten years, and have chosen to maintain that path over the last three albums rather than pull back into more "divisive and challenging" records. Many (not all) here would much prefer the "divisive and challenging" approach, it seems. I know I would.

I suspect that Stone and Jeff would also prefer a more "divisive and challenging" approach, and the variance between their preferred path and the path that the group is on could explain the relative apathy towards devoting more time and energy towards Pearl Jam. This is the root of my lack of leadership argument, i.e. a good bit of the "team" doesn't buy in to the plan. Again, this is certainly all suspicion. Maybe they really loved the Fixer and believe Sirens is a stellar artistic achievement, I just doubt these types of tunes really inspire either of them

[EJ]

When they were working on LB, didn't Stone say it might be a bit divisive for fans, like No Code was?

[hlniv]

Mike is an almost archetypal example of the "wears his influences" type musician. The one thing that prevents this from defining him is that he is also a very reactive musical personality...he plays in response to his surroundings, not in an attempt to control them. So if the band is making Immortality, he will respond to that particular tone and mood. If they are making Do the Evolution, the same.

If, however, the music is fairly personality-free...or if he is writing a piece of his own...he will generally put the imprint of whatever of his influences it most closely resembles directly to it, in very broad and unaltered strokes.

Very interesting take.

Explains his relative disappearance over the last few albums. He was just reacting to the quality of the music. Not a whole lot of tone and mood for a ripping lead guitarist to react to.

[hlniv]

always happy to help! would you like a Santa hat avatar?

Can I have one for my new bourbon bottle avatar, please?