The band's biggest mistake

[bodysnatcher]

For some reason for me, and this is complete bullshit spouting out of my brain.... pearl jam just doesn't seem like a good middle-aged band to me. Fantastic, near perfect young band... and can see them being a fantastic old band doing cool folky/rocky/Neil Young type things.... but the middle ground, just kind like an awkward teenager figuring themselves out.

[stip]

I would agree but they don't seem to really like either....at least not enough to do with any frequency. They play festivals and the same handful of US cities and have put out 2 records in 10 years. I wouldn't call either album a smash hit with the fanbase either....

They should feel pressure.

2 records in 10 years is a little misleading

Not really. They've done 2 records since Riot Act. That was a decade ago.

that's true, but within the year they will have released 3 records in 10 years. They are actively making the next one right now. 3 records in 10 years still isn't great, but it sounds a lot better. Right now is an odd statistical window which makes them sound spectacularly unproductive. A year in ether direction and it looks a little different

There was also a 2 disc b-side comp, several random individual song releases, a documentary, the soundtrack to that documentary, an official live record, a greatest hits, Eddie's two solo records. 30 solo records from other band members that I don't care about.

[digster]

Do stuff like greatest hits and live releases count in measuring a band's productivity, though? I mean, nothing really new came with the PJ20 stuff besides Ole, correct?

[VinylGuy]

I would agree but they don't seem to really like either....at least not enough to do with any frequency. They play festivals and the same handful of US cities and have put out 2 records in 10 years. I wouldn't call either album a smash hit with the fanbase either....

They should feel pressure.

2 records in 10 years is a little misleading

Not really. They've done 2 records since Riot Act. That was a decade ago.

that's true, but within the year they will have released 3 records in 10 years. They are actively making the next one right now. 3 records in 10 years still isn't great, but it sounds a lot better. Right now is an odd statistical window which makes them sound spectacularly unproductive. A year in ether direction and it looks a little different

There was also a 2 disc b-side comp, several random individual song releases, a documentary, the soundtrack to that documentary, an official live record, a greatest hits, Eddie's two solo records. 30 solo records from other band members that I don't care about.

you should care about RNDM and Brad at least.

[stip]

Do stuff like greatest hits and live releases count in measuring a band's productivity, though?

no, not really. Certainly nothing like an album. And I guess outside of Eddie's solo work we only got 3 newish songs in that intervening period (man of the hour, love reign o'er me--a cover, but still, and ole).


They certainly haven't been productive. My point was just that within a year it will look a lot better.

[stip]

if those demos leak we can count those!

[verb_to_trust]

Do stuff like greatest hits and live releases count in measuring a band's productivity, though?

no, not really. Certainly nothing like an album. And I guess outside of Eddie's solo work we only got 3 newish songs in that intervening period (man of the hour, love reign o'er me--a cover, but still, and ole).


They certainly haven't been productive. My point was just that within a year it will look a lot better.

Its not a slam dunk by any means that something gets done this year. Regardless, it wouldn't make anyone feel like it hasn't been 2 in 10 years if the record is released December 29th or something.

[stip]

well wouldn't it be three albums in 10 years, with a new one fresh in hand? I think actually having a new album would go a long way to making people feel like the band is more productive.

[WtOB?]

well wouldn't it be three albums in 10 years, with a new one fresh in hand?

Not if they don't get this thing out by 2016.

[Blenheim Augustine]

There was also a 2 disc b-side comp, several random individual song releases, a documentary, the soundtrack to that documentary, an official live record, a greatest hits, Eddie's two solo records. 30 solo records from other band members that I don't care about.

In other words a couple of new songs, several rehashes of old material, a boring hagiography and new music from other bands. And one of those songs was Ole...

And let's not forget that Backspacer was more of a long EP in terms of length and the CD was more useful as a beer coaster than its intended purpose.

Oh yeah, sure, productive...

[@SkitchP]

I bet none of them have bothered to watch Homicide: Life on the Street.

[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..

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.

You're not understanding what I'm saying and since it's now like 4 pages later, I've lost interest...

[Jorge]

You're not understanding what I'm saying and since it's now like 4 pages later, I've lost interest...

I tend to fall more towards your side of the argument, but this is a worthless post. You could attempt to further explain yourself or, if you've really lost interest, not respond at all.

[Coach]

The band took a dip after 1998. Not sure if it was a mistake, or more of a departure to whatever they did in that 1991-98 era that helped them make great music.