Post-Riot Act Moneygrab

[worldwithyourheart]

what artists have done better creativity wise or change wise in their 2nd decade compared to their 1st decade - as opposed to PJ?

Try and pick one? It has to be a hard rock band that had similar success/acclaim in their 1st decade. There are only a few really good rock bands that have lasted more than a decade. I challenge anyone to come up with one other than the Stones, The Who, U2.

PJ is in very rare company now, and they are no where as greedy as other similar bands that this thread is making them out to be - all kidding aside which I agree is entertaining.

Some of us listen to things besides hard rock. I know that's weird and all. Some of us even listen to music that isn't made by "bands" per se.

But as for artists who were good in their second decade and managed to grow creatively (and in some cases into their third)...

PJ Harvey
Radiohead
R.E.M.
Public Enemy
Bruce Springsteen
Bob Dylan
Stevie Wonder
Manic Street Preachers
The Cure
Depeche Mode
New Order
Pet Shop Boys
Morrissey

I mean, just off the top of my head.

There's music out there being made beyond what gets played on classic rock radio. It's hard to believe, but it's true.

yeah but the argument here is comparing PJ to their peers at this point in their career. none of those are hard rock bands that had similar success to PJ.

PJ has to be viable business wise from here on in. They don't tour and sell albums like they use to. What do you expect them to do?

radiohead?

Radiohead is probably a notch above PJ in the rock pantheon, but they're success wasn't Michael Jackson-like overnight stratospheric as far as fame goes, the way PJ's was for a minute.

a notch above? they have not had as many sales, radio play, etc. nor will they ever be considered a classic rock band. I like Radiohead, but they are very different. I would say they are in the next tier.

[Heathen]

Also they need to be from Seattle. And there needs to be five people in the band. And also they need to have at least 1 MTV Music Video Award. And also

[Jorge]

The simple fact is they are now an act devoid of new, worthwhile artistic expression.

except Pendulum

[worldwithyourheart]

yeah but the argument here is comparing PJ to their peers at this point in their career. none of those are hard rock bands that had similar success to PJ.

PJ has to be viable business wise from here on in. They don't tour and sell albums like they use to. What do you expect them to do?

PJ may not sell as many records as they used to, but they still sell a lot in comparison to other successful rock bands. That coupled with the fact that the earlier albums still likely get them a ton of royalties leads me to speculate that they could probably retire tomorrow and never want for anything.

Oh, god. I hope we're not getting into the "they need it" argument again.

They have kids now!

no but if they do not make much releasing an album every four years and doing mini tours maybe they will just stop. Would you rather that?

[warehouse]

what artists have done better creativity wise or change wise in their 2nd decade compared to their 1st decade - as opposed to PJ?

Try and pick one? It has to be a hard rock band that had similar success/acclaim in their 1st decade. There are only a few really good rock bands that have lasted more than a decade. I challenge anyone to come up with one other than the Stones, The Who, U2.

PJ is in very rare company now, and they are no where as greedy as other similar bands that this thread is making them out to be - all kidding aside which I agree is entertaining.

Some of us listen to things besides hard rock. I know that's weird and all. Some of us even listen to music that isn't made by "bands" per se.

But as for artists who were good in their second decade and managed to grow creatively (and in some cases into their third)...

PJ Harvey
Radiohead
R.E.M.
Public Enemy
Bruce Springsteen
Bob Dylan
Stevie Wonder
Manic Street Preachers
The Cure
Depeche Mode
New Order
Pet Shop Boys
Morrissey

I mean, just off the top of my head.

There's music out there being made beyond what gets played on classic rock radio. It's hard to believe, but it's true.

yeah but the argument here is comparing PJ to their peers at this point in their career. none of those are hard rock bands that had similar success to PJ.

PJ has to be viable business wise from here on in. They don't tour and sell albums like they use to. What do you expect them to do?

radiohead?

Radiohead is probably a notch above PJ in the rock pantheon, but they're success wasn't Michael Jackson-like overnight stratospheric as far as fame goes, the way PJ's was for a minute.

a notch above? they have not had as many sales, radio play, etc. nor will they ever be considered a classic rock band. I like Radiohead, but they are very different. I would say they are in the next tier.

im sure whenever people consider pearl jam, nirvana, rem, dmb, etc "classic rock" radiohead will be included. its hard for me to get into the "notch above/below" argument b/c they are my 2 favorite bands.

[Thejambi]

The name Radiohead does not carry the same household weight as Pearl Jam.

[Thejambi]

yeah but the argument here is comparing PJ to their peers at this point in their career. none of those are hard rock bands that had similar success to PJ.

PJ has to be viable business wise from here on in. They don't tour and sell albums like they use to. What do you expect them to do?

PJ may not sell as many records as they used to, but they still sell a lot in comparison to other successful rock bands. That coupled with the fact that the earlier albums still likely get them a ton of royalties leads me to speculate that they could probably retire tomorrow and never want for anything.

Oh, god. I hope we're not getting into the "they need it" argument again.

They have kids now!

no but if they do not make much releasing an album every four years and doing mini tours maybe they will just stop. Would you rather that?

Unless they floor us all with the next album , I would have rather they stopped after Benaroya Hall.

[Jorge]

I thought the "notch above" comment had more to do with critical reception and overall stature than commercial success. I understand someone preferring Pearl Jam to Radiohead, but it seems pretty clear to me that Radiohead are above PJ in that aspect. They've had the more enduring career by far, and more continued relevance in terms of the wider music landscape.

The name Radiohead does not carry the same household weight as Pearl Jam.

Patently untrue

[warehouse]

The name Radiohead does not carry the same household weight as Pearl Jam.

in the states maybe

[Thejambi]

The name Radiohead does not carry the same household weight as Pearl Jam.

in the states maybe

Perhaps that's an important qualifier.
Either way, I really don't care about this argument.

[worldwithyourheart]

I would rather a few more mediocre albums sprinkled with a few good/ great tracks than them giving up. They haven't released a great album since Yield, but I really enjoyed Backspacer.

Ultimately I think Eddie will evolve into primarily a solo artist sprinkled with a few nostalgic PJ gigs

[bodysnatcher]

lol, people are saying pearl jam are above radiohead?

[warehouse]

when people here try to distinguish the first half of pearl jam's career vs the second, do people purposely look over what happened at roskilde in 2000? it seems to me if you are trying to narrow down when pearl jam "changed", seeing a bunch of fans die in front of them would be the most likely place.

[warehouse]

lol, people are saying pearl jam are above radiohead?

can you believe this? on a pearl jam message board no less!

if i had to pick id put pearl jam above radiohead, but im not gonna pretend my personal preference is what the rest of the world thinks.

[Heathen]

when people here try to distinguish the first half of pearl jam's career vs the second, do people purposely look over what happened at roskilde in 2000? it seems to me if you are trying to narrow down when pearl jam "changed", seeing a bunch of fans die in front of them would be the most likely place.

In retrospect, these fans were lucky to not have to witness the post-riot act moneygrab.

[warehouse]

when people here try to distinguish the first half of pearl jam's career vs the second, do people purposely look over what happened at roskilde in 2000? it seems to me if you are trying to narrow down when pearl jam "changed", seeing a bunch of fans die in front of them would be the most likely place.

In retrospect, these fans were lucky to not have to witness the post-riot act moneygrab.

not only isnt this funny, its borderline offensive. i know people here constantly try to be witty and whatnot, but this was a terrible attempt

[Leatherhead]

lol, people are saying pearl jam are above radiohead?

Pearl Jam are so much better than Radiohead. Even moneygrabbing Pearl Jam.

[Lament]

How specific will our criteria need to get for Pearl Jam to decisively be the greatest band of all-time?

[hlniv]

It is possible, you know, to simultaneously be disappointed in the current state of PJ and remain a very big PJ fan. I know it's possible, because this is how I feel. I do not so much care for the last 5-6 years output and direction that the band has taken, but my fandom is as high as ever.

The simple fact is they are now an act devoid of new, worthwhile artistic expression. And that's OK. Once we get used to Pearl Jam simply existing to maintain the Pearl Jam that finished being built in 2006, we can all be fans again. Doesn't mean we will love the new albums, doesn't mean we think their live shows are any good, but with the magic of interwebs, we can gloriously re-live their 15 year contribution for the rest of our lives. And, we can take a trip down memory lane every time they play a show that our adult lives will let us attend.

This is a more than mature viewpoint, I wish this sort of thing was posted from your "side" more often.

Thank you. And don't try to categorize me

The simple fact is they are now an act devoid of new, worthwhile artistic expression.

except Pendulum

No.

Actually, this is a perfect example of my disappointment with PJ's current output. Pendulum was written in what, 2008, right? It was left off of Backspacer, not selected for various reasons, didn't "fit" the album, or whatever. The reality is that it wasn't (and still isn't) a fully developed song. It's a neat little effects trick with some type of electronic percussion that Jeff did something cool with. Ed writes some vague lyrics 5 years later and they slap a title on it, and label it a Pearl Jam song. Plop it just a couple of tunes ahead of a re-recording of an EV solo song, and BAM - two tracks done for the new album. Neither are bad Pearl Jam, and both are enjoyable listens on the album, but still, neither is singularly impressive.

The current Pearl Jam musical product is really just about slappin' shit together and trying to sell records. OK fine. Now, it's certainly not necessarily a bad thing to revisit older songs left on the cutting block and put them on new records. But, it's just proves that there's not that much effort put in when it's done in tandem with a complete lack of B-sides or anything else creatively productive in the 3 years before or likely 4-5 years after. We have Of The Earth and Ole and not much else.

It's not really being a fan of Pearl Jam right now, as much as it is being a fan of their potential.

I don't think you can say you are a huge fan of a band that you think has been disappointing for 6 years. We are kind of in the "Yeah I love Pearl Jam! Jeremy is great." territory here.

Well. I am a fan of Pearl Jam right now. And I am not a fan of their potential. Those things most certainly can be separate. Are you a fan of Led Zeppelin? Or the Who? Or the Stones? Doubt those guys are going to break much new ground from here out...

And yes, Jeremy is great. So are about 100 other songs. And hundreds of live shows. And years of being unique in the industry. And all the moments over the last 20 years where some PJ tune or experience has given me energy or emotion or empathy or excitement or elevated my opinion of I something hadn't been exposed to or enveloped me with a feeling of comfort or connection. Yep, all of those things are great, too. And many of these things still happen to me, it's just usually not with anything they've produced in the last six years.

[Tuolumne]

when people here try to distinguish the first half of pearl jam's career vs the second, do people purposely look over what happened at roskilde in 2000? it seems to me if you are trying to narrow down when pearl jam "changed", seeing a bunch of fans die in front of them would be the most likely place.

In retrospect, these fans were lucky to not have to witness the post-riot act moneygrab.

not only isnt this funny, its borderline offensive. i know people here constantly try to be witty and whatnot, but this was a terrible attempt

Not even borderline offensive. Just offensive. Seriously, what the fuck.