The band's biggest mistake

[stip]

Also, the view that somehow the band is making business decisions now when once upon a time they didn't is nonsensical and stupid.

Wait, who's saying this?

right at this time, no one. But this came up all the time in previous debates on this topic. Sorry, I've brought old board baggage into this conversation

[stip]

3. Carve out the best life you can for yourself, on your own terms, within the limitations that are imposed on you by the corporate structure. The target deal, even the oracle show, fall underneath that. The key to this is not whether or not you make money, but whether or not you make money on the terms that matter to you. Artistic integrity might be one of those terms (and there is no reason to call that into question. Integrity and quality are different).

First off, I deleted 1 and 2 cause I agreed with pretty much everything you said. I don't know if any of these questions could be answered by anyone other than PJ, but I just fail to see how a corporate show like Oracle could fall under the rubric of 'artistic integrity.' I fail to see how it could be argued that proactively playing a show like that is symptomatic of 'the limitations imposed by the corporate structure.' Some things you have to do to play the game, but that fails to pertain to that show. I stand by what I said that it was likely a big pay day.

Oh sure, but so what, would be my point. I admit I would rather pearl jam not play these shows than play them, for aesthetic reasons, but what has pearl jam compromised or given up to play them? How does this impact or affect their music, their politics, etc?

Supporting alternative methods of distribution (and Digster, I'd argue that the Target deal enhanced the importance of local stores since it reduced the number of corporate outlets available for purchasing backspacer) could be another..

The survival of local stores will not depend on, or even be aided by the fact that Backspacer cannot be found at Wal Mart. Every other album is going to be available there. What will save them is if enough people continue to consider them the more attractive alternative for moral and/or aesthetic reasons. PJ's deal with Target does nothing to help the independent stores in that regard, and probably hurt them by allying themselves with Target. Was it the straw that broke the camel's back for mom and pop stores? No, of course not, but it did them no favors, either.

How did it hurt them? There are fewer major retailers where Backspacer was available, and an exemption for local stores was carved into the contract, at PJ's insistence?

Pearl Jam 10 years ago probably would not have played that Oracle show. On the other hand, they were selling their albums in every major corporate music outlet that existed, on a major label that did their marketing for them, handled their distribution, cut their checks, etc. Today they are an independent band. It's a trade off. But the corporate involvement has always been there. It's a question of asthetics. The older pearl jam talked about how horrible it was while integrated with it (despite some heroic efforts to cut that cord). Today they use it to benefit themselves without harming anyone other than fans who are in love with largely meaningless superficial gestures

I kind of agree with this, although I think you're judging the band in each respective time period devoid of context. In 1991, if you wanted to conquer the world with your music signing with a major label was one of the only means at your disposal. It's why R.E.M. left IRS in '88. I think working with a major label like that was a perfect example of, as you said, "working within the limitations posed by the corporate structures." So I think judging each band's practices on the basis of the present day music model, where the amount of options for bands of all sizes has increased dramatically, is not possible.

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

[Fuck You Jobu]

double post

[Fuck You Jobu]

Thanks for posting those. The Target debacle was one thing I always hated about the band. It just seemed like a hypocritical leap from snubbing their nose at the commercialization of music and the overpowering corporate influence of record labels and ticket distributors, all the while alienating fans to chase artistic freedom and to whittle down their stardom; then completely abandoning that philosophy to pawn off their most corporate (er, poppy) sounding album to suddenly enlarge their purposely-dwindling fan base using one of the largest corporate distributors makes it seem they abandoned their celebrated principles that were a cornerstone and foundation of the band that was virtuous and wouldn't sell out.

As a band that states, markets and trademarks itself about its musical vision and the integrity of its art, it was just a disingenuous slap in the face as to how they've tried to represent themselves as stalwarts of a pure unadulterated artistry that fueled their earlier mophandlemama work and insulting to fans who believed in an artist who sold themselves as someone who would try to stand above the whoring of music to outside (read "corporate") interests.

so where did you buy all those earlier pearl jam records that they had produced under their own label?


In a way the target thing is a lot more honest and less hypocritical than preaching an anti-corporate artistic stance while on a major label and selling your record through every corporate distributor available.

Pearl Jam's anti corporate stand is only not hypocritical (or better, juvenile) if their point was that corporations should not influence art. And there isn't much evidence to indicate that this is the case with backspacer, beyond people who didn't like the record desperately trying to convince themselves that the problem is something other than believing that pearl jam released an album full of songs they didn't care for.

For better or worse, Backspacer was the record pearl jam wanted to make, a bright, unburdened record that came after a run of 3 alternately angry, defeated, and claustrophobic albums, recorded at a time where the band had talked about how the world actually didn't look like such a horrible and depressing place for once. And then, upon the recording of that record, they decided they wanted to get the best deal they could (selling at FEWER corporate outlets than used to be the case) and increase the number of people who were listening to their music, in exchange for a commercial that, while hardly a work of art, featured a live version of the band playing a song they were (rightfully, I think) proud of, with the logo of the place where you could buy the record featured in the commercial.

What a bunch of assholes.

You're completely missing my point. They can make any music they want so I'm not sure why you brought that up... But Backspacer was intentionally poppy and corporate sounding. Then used an exclusive corporation to distribute it. Its the combination that was disturbing.

Back in the 90s there really weren't a lot of choices to buy music so you were left with a major distributor. Now you can purchase from 1000s of places. Did Pearl Jam do corporate commercials back then to help a corporation? Don't act they just happened to innocently and honestly show a place where you could buy their record. They could have sold their record anywhere (or not even use a big corporation to distribute if they really felt that way about them) or just online - large and small bands seem to make it work. Instead they whored themselves behind a fucking corporate logo - a fucking Target that they earned.

And what do you mean in your point about less corporations selling it? Pearl Jam used to fight against monopolies of art distribution (ticketmaster), now they are creating them which certainly helps the corporation, but how does limiting your distribution help them get more listeners as your argue?

[Fuck You Jobu]

Did they really NEED to ally themselves with Target for this record? Respective of whether it's right or wrong (I think it's a bit of column A and column B), I don't think that this was the only possible route for a band of their caliber (i.e. it's not this approach OR a major label). To be honest, it seems like a good business move; their record sales are softer than they used to be, and Target probably had to pay a small fortune for the exclusivity rights. Guaranteed money up front vs. a much less certain pay day further down the road.

No, and if the choice was Target vs. releasing exclusively via their website and independent stores you can probably make a case that, on behalf of their 'principles' they should have done so. But since I doubt that option was ever on the table (would you trust Pearl Jam Inc. to pull that off) if your choice is

A: Make more money by selling your record at fewer corporate stores

B: Make less money by selling your record at more corporate stores

you'd be an idiot and, perversely enough, less in line with your own principles if you chose B. Again, unless a truly independent release was on the table for them, and I doubt it was, they probably did the right thing.

Perhaps the commercial is distasteful to our 1990s sensibilities, but it hardly harms anyone, and was even in line with their usual artistic sensibilities. It was the band playing live. It just kinda sucked.

Why are you an idiot for choosing B?? The band can live in luxury from their first album alone. Is more money really that necessary? This is same band that wanted to reduce the size of fan base so you can't argue that they must drastically increase their fan base..

[Fuck You Jobu]

Agreed, platypus. I can see why PJ did Target, Oracle, etc. etc. I just don't see why some would try to sell us that they're altruistic why they're doing it all.

it's not altruistic. It is a business decision (and a good one from their perspective). My point is that it's not hypocritical, and as far as business decisions go, one that is fairly accommodating to other principles the band has claimed to have.


Also, the view that somehow the band is making business decisions now when once upon a time they didn't is nonsensical and stupid.

Who's saying that they didn't make business decisions before? The problem is that their decisions are antithetical to what they were before and that their decisions before were a foundation of who they were and sold themselves as...

[Strat]

how is backspacer "corporate sounding" ??

WTF does that meant? Thats totally fine you dont like it. I enjoyed it for what it was but certainly admit it doesnt hold a candle to what made pearl jam "pearl jam" but corporate sounding? You just dont like it. Thats fine.

[VinylGuy]

how is backspacer "corporate sounding" ??

WTF does that meant? Thats totally fine you dont like it. I enjoyed it for what it was but certainly admit it doesnt hold a candle to what made pearl jam "pearl jam" but corporate sounding? You just dont like it. Thats fine.

yeah, i would say Coldplay is more " corporate" than Backspacer.

Hell, even green day..i dont know...

[Strat]

ALso, from what I have been told (i got banned from the pit for talking about it) Pearl Jam did not really make money until their 2000 tour. I dont know the finances and i dont know the ins and outs and i know everyone will yell and scream and said they made more money selling Ten that nothing else matters - Im just saying I was told that touring for them was not a money making machine until 2000.

[digster]

Wouldn't be that surprising, I'd say, considering what they tried to do in 1995, and just as importantly, the hole they must have gotten into for all the cancelled tours and shows. In addition to the money they lost cancelling them, insuring future tours must have cost quite a bit.

[stip]

how is backspacer "corporate sounding" ??

WTF does that meant? Thats totally fine you dont like it. I enjoyed it for what it was but certainly admit it doesnt hold a candle to what made pearl jam "pearl jam" but corporate sounding? You just dont like it. Thats fine.

to take that even further, what does 'corporate sounding' even mean?

[Jorge]

how is backspacer "corporate sounding" ??

WTF does that meant? Thats totally fine you dont like it. I enjoyed it for what it was but certainly admit it doesnt hold a candle to what made pearl jam "pearl jam" but corporate sounding? You just dont like it. Thats fine.

to take that even further, what does 'corporate sounding' even mean?

It's the sound of conference calls and intranets.

[stip]

Thanks for posting those. The Target debacle was one thing I always hated about the band. It just seemed like a hypocritical leap from snubbing their nose at the commercialization of music and the overpowering corporate influence of record labels and ticket distributors, all the while alienating fans to chase artistic freedom and to whittle down their stardom; then completely abandoning that philosophy to pawn off their most corporate (er, poppy) sounding album to suddenly enlarge their purposely-dwindling fan base using one of the largest corporate distributors makes it seem they abandoned their celebrated principles that were a cornerstone and foundation of the band that was virtuous and wouldn't sell out.

As a band that states, markets and trademarks itself about its musical vision and the integrity of its art, it was just a disingenuous slap in the face as to how they've tried to represent themselves as stalwarts of a pure unadulterated artistry that fueled their earlier mophandlemama work and insulting to fans who believed in an artist who sold themselves as someone who would try to stand above the whoring of music to outside (read "corporate") interests.

so where did you buy all those earlier pearl jam records that they had produced under their own label?


In a way the target thing is a lot more honest and less hypocritical than preaching an anti-corporate artistic stance while on a major label and selling your record through every corporate distributor available.

Pearl Jam's anti corporate stand is only not hypocritical (or better, juvenile) if their point was that corporations should not influence art. And there isn't much evidence to indicate that this is the case with backspacer, beyond people who didn't like the record desperately trying to convince themselves that the problem is something other than believing that pearl jam released an album full of songs they didn't care for.

For better or worse, Backspacer was the record pearl jam wanted to make, a bright, unburdened record that came after a run of 3 alternately angry, defeated, and claustrophobic albums, recorded at a time where the band had talked about how the world actually didn't look like such a horrible and depressing place for once. And then, upon the recording of that record, they decided they wanted to get the best deal they could (selling at FEWER corporate outlets than used to be the case) and increase the number of people who were listening to their music, in exchange for a commercial that, while hardly a work of art, featured a live version of the band playing a song they were (rightfully, I think) proud of, with the logo of the place where you could buy the record featured in the commercial.

What a bunch of assholes.

You're completely missing my point. They can make any music they want so I'm not sure why you brought that up... But Backspacer was intentionally poppy and corporate sounding. Then used an exclusive corporation to distribute it. Its the combination that was disturbing.

Besides the 'what does corporate sounding' mean, the fact that they used a corporation instead of many corporations seems largely irrelevant

Back in the 90s there really weren't a lot of choices to buy music so you were left with a major distributor. Now you can purchase from 1000s of places.

largely corporations (in which case who cares) or independent stores (in which case they are still using them)

Did Pearl Jam do corporate commercials back then to help a corporation? Don't act they just happened to innocently and honestly show a place where you could buy their record. They could have sold their record anywhere (or not even use a big corporation to distribute if they really felt that way about them) or just online - large and small bands seem to make it work. Instead they whored themselves behind a fucking corporate logo - a fucking Target that they earned.

yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the commercial.

And what do you mean in your point about less corporations selling it? Pearl Jam used to fight against monopolies of art distribution (ticketmaster), now they are creating them which certainly helps the corporation, but how does limiting your distribution help them get more listeners as your argue?

limiting distribution would help them send more bodies to independent stores than a wide distribution. that was my point.

Pearl Jam did not create a monopoly on their album. They decided to sell it via one major corporation instead of many, as well as independent stores and via their website.

Really the people who got hurt by this were amazon and wal-mart. Curse pearl jam and their hypocrisy.

[digster]

Oh sure, but so what, would be my point. I admit I would rather pearl jam not play these shows than play them, for aesthetic reasons, but what has pearl jam compromised or given up to play them? How does this impact or affect their music, their politics, etc?

I mean, I have no idea how it affects their music, if at all. And isn't the entire point of the questioning here that playing a show like that, and supporting the intertwining of art and corporatization in such a manner, might be antithetical to their progressive ambitions and intent on being a band of integrity?

I mean, if you're asking me if it's a very big deal, no. I don't think anything PJ does or doesn't do is going to be the death knell for social change in popular music, but on a PJ board it seems worth noting. I mean, I don't think it's a bad thing for bands, artists, whoever, to act as a model of inspiration in making an ethical business model. Do they have to do this? No, of course not, but I don't think it's the wrong ambition to shoot for.

That being said, I'm not really the person who's all that upset here. Does it seem hypocritical to the way they've conducted their business, even up to the past ten years or so? Sure, but I have absolutely no way of knowing if they've shifted their line of thinking in an honest manner or just decided to cash in.

How did it hurt them? There are fewer major retailers where Backspacer was available, and an exemption for local stores was carved into the contract, at PJ's insistence?

I can try to expand on what I said before, but it basically comes down to the fact that I don't think that any short-term impact that has of sales going to or not going to other big-box retailers is probably negated by the publicity generated for Target by Pearl Jam. The band did put a de facto stamp of approval on Target as the place to go, and considering how the band is viewed (and markets itself) as a band of integrity I'm sure that had some kind of impact, without having any way of saying how sizable it was.

I'm not saying it was a bad thing that other big-box retailers didn't get that particular album, but I don't think it's so cut-and-dry to say that they were helping independent stores, either.

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

Platypus I believe said it earlier that the democratization of popular music via the Internet and the collapse of major labels has made it far easier for bands to generate a sizable global presence without the help of a major label. That's a big difference from when PJ came up in the industry. And to say they were being more hypocritical then than now doesn't address that context. That was my only point there.

[stip]

Did they really NEED to ally themselves with Target for this record? Respective of whether it's right or wrong (I think it's a bit of column A and column B), I don't think that this was the only possible route for a band of their caliber (i.e. it's not this approach OR a major label). To be honest, it seems like a good business move; their record sales are softer than they used to be, and Target probably had to pay a small fortune for the exclusivity rights. Guaranteed money up front vs. a much less certain pay day further down the road.

No, and if the choice was Target vs. releasing exclusively via their website and independent stores you can probably make a case that, on behalf of their 'principles' they should have done so. But since I doubt that option was ever on the table (would you trust Pearl Jam Inc. to pull that off) if your choice is

A: Make more money by selling your record at fewer corporate stores

B: Make less money by selling your record at more corporate stores

you'd be an idiot and, perversely enough, less in line with your own principles if you chose B. Again, unless a truly independent release was on the table for them, and I doubt it was, they probably did the right thing.

Perhaps the commercial is distasteful to our 1990s sensibilities, but it hardly harms anyone, and was even in line with their usual artistic sensibilities. It was the band playing live. It just kinda sucked.

Why are you an idiot for choosing B?? The band can live in luxury from their first album alone. Is more money really that necessary? This is same band that wanted to reduce the size of fan base so you can't argue that they must drastically increase their fan base..

Because B A: does not help your principles (you are less corporate by being more involved with corporations? explain that one to me) and B: you are worse off for it.


Should pearl jam make less money because you would have preferred to also be able to buy the album t wal-mart? That's kind of an inflated sense of your importance as a fan, isn't it?

And Pearl Jam had been wanting to grow their fan base again for a long time. It's not crazy to want people to hear and care about the art you make when you're an artist. You seem really upset that angry people in their late 20s can grow up into mature and emotionally healthy and stable adults.

[stip]

Agreed, platypus. I can see why PJ did Target, Oracle, etc. etc. I just don't see why some would try to sell us that they're altruistic why they're doing it all.

it's not altruistic. It is a business decision (and a good one from their perspective). My point is that it's not hypocritical, and as far as business decisions go, one that is fairly accommodating to other principles the band has claimed to have.


Also, the view that somehow the band is making business decisions now when once upon a time they didn't is nonsensical and stupid.

Who's saying that they didn't make business decisions before? The problem is that their decisions are antithetical to what they were before and that their decisions before were a foundation of who they were and sold themselves as...

you mean when I was able to buy their corporate label albums at any corporate store I wanted, as opposed to now when I can buy their independent record at one corporate store, independent outlets, and through the band itself?

[Jorge]

Really the people who got hurt by this were amazon and wal-mart.

And those international fans who had to pay an obscene amount of money if they wanted to own a physical copy of the album because it has to be imported.

[VinylGuy]

Really the people who got hurt by this were amazon and wal-mart.

And those international fans who had to pay an obscene amount of money if they wanted to own a physical copy of the album because it has to be imported.

It had a national edition too. Universal i think handles PJ and Ed releases these days..

[Norah]

Did they really NEED to ally themselves with Target for this record?

Nope.

PJ is at the point of their career where they could pull off just about any distribution method.

Like you said, the Target partnership was about getting more money. I think the band has admitted as such. And money is a strong motivation for a business decision. But let's not pretend that Pearl Jam needed to do it.

This is what was frustrating me when I was posting about this last night. Not that anyone was really making this argument in the moment, I just got caught up in the arguments I've heard over the last 4 years since this happened.

It's all part of the same thing now when it comes to Pearl Jam. Convenience is their number one motivator, and that sucks.

[stip]

Oh sure, but so what, would be my point. I admit I would rather pearl jam not play these shows than play them, for aesthetic reasons, but what has pearl jam compromised or given up to play them? How does this impact or affect their music, their politics, etc?

I mean, I have no idea how it affects their music, if at all. And isn't the entire point of the questioning here that playing a show like that, and supporting the intertwining of art and corporatization in such a manner, might be antithetical to their progressive ambitions and intent on being a band of integrity?

I think I need to see a stronger causal link to start taking this seriously. I really do. This would have bothered me 10 years ago, but the reasons for it bothering me were really pretty superficial (the obvious association with corporations/the business money side of music--which was always there, but less obvious) or no longer relevant (pearl jam does not have the cultural capital for this to mean much. It would have been devastating in 1996).

I would prefer they not play these shows or do the target commercials (the deal could not possibly bother me any less) because I don't like how it appears. But I think it is also just that--appearances--and I want to know that there is something deeper there before it starts to bother me.

I mean, if you're asking me if it's a very big deal, no. I don't think anything PJ does or doesn't do is going to be the death knell for social change in popular music, but on a PJ board it seems worth noting. I mean, I don't think it's a bad thing for bands, artists, whoever, to act as a model of inspiration in making an ethical business model. Do they have to do this? No, of course not, but I don't think it's the wrong ambition to shoot for.

That being said, I'm not really the person who's all that upset here. Does it seem hypocritical to the way they've conducted their business, even up to the past ten years or so? Sure, but I have absolutely no way of knowing if they've shifted their line of thinking in an honest manner or just decided to cash in.

Again, in most cases I think this isn't hypocrisy as much as the old thinking was just kinda silly in a lot of ways. There is a romantic attachment we all have to the principled stand pearl jam took when they were an anti-corporate band (on a major label--and you didn't have to be) being sold in all the major corporate stores (you may have had to be), but the major difference between them and now is PJ has to market and distribute their music themselves, rather than have some evil corporation do it on their behalf so they could keep their hands clean.


Let me say that there were a number of steps pearl jam took then that I think did have significance. The no videos policy (although who here is calling them sell outs in 1998 for the DTE video?) was one, the ticketmaster stuff, the lack of press. Those were significant. But pearl jam always had corporate sponsors. Literally. Its principle one was named Sony/Epic.

Again, I would prefer they didn't do the target commercial personally. Or play the oracle show. But the fact that they're doing it doesn't make them hypocrites who only care about money and not their music either.