digster wrote:I don't know if it was necessarily a response specifically to Riot Act, as much as they had let their press get to them a bit too much. PJ wasn't really regarded as a bad band in this period, but they were certainly seen as a band that had let go of their massive popularity and were making weird records. This speaks more to the shallowness of the press and the public, I think, cause they weren't that unpopular, nor are their late-90s and early 2000s records that weird. But I wonder if that feeling got to them. After constantly being asked if they were going to ever 'return to rock', I think they wanted to prove that they could still 'rock', whatever that means.
I remember Mike, in an interview, comparing the new stuff to Ten and Vs. That was pretty striking, because they'd always seemed a little apprehensive about drawing comparisons to their most popular work.
I think that also may be why the album is produced in this fashion. It seems produced and mastered by folks who want to emulate the sound of what's on the radio without really knowing how to do it. I don't think they were chasing money, but I do think they wanted to be The Band again.
Exactly. They second guessed themselves and lost their mojo in the process. The only songs that I liked on S/T were the ones most reminiscent of Binaural and Riot Act (Parachutes, Big Wave, Unemployable). The rest is bland, middle of the road crap, completely devoid of any interesting or creative riffs and melodies. The comparisons to "Ten" and "Vs" are highly laughable and way off base. If Pearl Jam was a 60's band, S/T would be the beginning of their "lame 80's phase". But I guess it worked, because a lot of people buy into the idea that S/T was some kind of "return to form". I see it as the band throwing in the proverbial towel and selling their souls to crass commercialism. It amazes me that their last three albums received so much positive press, in comparison to No Code->Riot Act, which were basically ignored. Talk about missing the boat.
It could be that they struck a chord with the larger music public who were largely uninterested in a run of narrower, insular records that no one cared about other than some surviving pockets of pearl jams once massive fan base.
digster wrote:I don't know if it was necessarily a response specifically to Riot Act, as much as they had let their press get to them a bit too much. PJ wasn't really regarded as a bad band in this period, but they were certainly seen as a band that had let go of their massive popularity and were making weird records. This speaks more to the shallowness of the press and the public, I think, cause they weren't that unpopular, nor are their late-90s and early 2000s records that weird. But I wonder if that feeling got to them. After constantly being asked if they were going to ever 'return to rock', I think they wanted to prove that they could still 'rock', whatever that means.
I remember Mike, in an interview, comparing the new stuff to Ten and Vs. That was pretty striking, because they'd always seemed a little apprehensive about drawing comparisons to their most popular work.
I think that also may be why the album is produced in this fashion. It seems produced and mastered by folks who want to emulate the sound of what's on the radio without really knowing how to do it. I don't think they were chasing money, but I do think they wanted to be The Band again.
Exactly. They second guessed themselves and lost their mojo in the process. The only songs that I liked on S/T were the ones most reminiscent of Binaural and Riot Act (Parachutes, Big Wave, Unemployable). The rest is bland, middle of the road crap, completely devoid of any interesting or creative riffs and melodies. The comparisons to "Ten" and "Vs" are highly laughable and way off base. If Pearl Jam was a 60's band, S/T would be the beginning of their "lame 80's phase". But I guess it worked, because a lot of people buy into the idea that S/T was some kind of "return to form". I see it as the band throwing in the proverbial towel and selling their souls to crass commercialism. It amazes me that their last three albums received so much positive press, in comparison to No Code->Riot Act, which were basically ignored. Talk about missing the boat.
It could be that they struck a chord with the larger music public who were largely uninterested in a run of narrower, insular records that no one cared about other than some surviving pockets of pearl jams once massive fan base.
digster wrote:I don't know if it was necessarily a response specifically to Riot Act, as much as they had let their press get to them a bit too much. PJ wasn't really regarded as a bad band in this period, but they were certainly seen as a band that had let go of their massive popularity and were making weird records. This speaks more to the shallowness of the press and the public, I think, cause they weren't that unpopular, nor are their late-90s and early 2000s records that weird. But I wonder if that feeling got to them. After constantly being asked if they were going to ever 'return to rock', I think they wanted to prove that they could still 'rock', whatever that means.
I remember Mike, in an interview, comparing the new stuff to Ten and Vs. That was pretty striking, because they'd always seemed a little apprehensive about drawing comparisons to their most popular work.
I think that also may be why the album is produced in this fashion. It seems produced and mastered by folks who want to emulate the sound of what's on the radio without really knowing how to do it. I don't think they were chasing money, but I do think they wanted to be The Band again.
Exactly. They second guessed themselves and lost their mojo in the process. The only songs that I liked on S/T were the ones most reminiscent of Binaural and Riot Act (Parachutes, Big Wave, Unemployable). The rest is bland, middle of the road crap, completely devoid of any interesting or creative riffs and melodies. The comparisons to "Ten" and "Vs" are highly laughable and way off base. If Pearl Jam was a 60's band, S/T would be the beginning of their "lame 80's phase". But I guess it worked, because a lot of people buy into the idea that S/T was some kind of "return to form". I see it as the band throwing in the proverbial towel and selling their souls to crass commercialism. It amazes me that their last three albums received so much positive press, in comparison to No Code->Riot Act, which were basically ignored. Talk about missing the boat.
It could be that they struck a chord with the larger music public who were largely uninterested in a run of narrower, insular records that no one cared about other than some surviving pockets of pearl jams once massive fan base.
Just throwing that out there as a counter theory
I actually think albums like Backspacer, but especially Avocado, are mixed successes at best when you consider the comparative effort that went into promoting them. They probably did more promotion for S/T than any album besides Ten, and it's night and day compared to their past records, particularly the ones where they were in the wilderness, so to speak. I can't go far beyond speculation, but it seems pretty clear to me they were hoping for S/T to be an album to get them back in the conversation with a band like U2.
Well yes, that's true. By that standard they failed. But pearl jam doesn't promote any of their albums THAT much. Nothing even close to a U2 style blitzkrieg. And while they did more for the last 3 albums that needs to be weighed against a changing media environment that may have demanded it.
But by internally comparatively metrics the last three records produced bigger hits, sold more albums (controlling for the industry) and were a bit more critically acclaimed (esp backspacer) than the two that preceded them.
Certainly they haven't aged better on this forum, but if we use that tournament that ran off of spotify plays (or wherever pj got their data from for their FAR INFERIOR March Madness tournament ) I think the more recent albums were as well, if not better represented, than binaural and Riot act.
Yeah, they've never done a U2-style push, but S/T was pushed fairly hard. An expansive tour, hitting quite a few late shows, including a return to SNL, their first cover Rolling Stone interview since the early '90s...hell, the cover story said "Pearl Jam Return From Exile." Clearly, the line the press was supposed to push was that they were back. I also don't know how much things changed in the media environment between Riot Act's release and S/T's that they wanted to shift their entire approach. They wanted more records sold, and wanted to be a name again. I don't begrudge them that, but I think it's clear that's what they were aiming for.
As for bigger hits and spotify plays, yeah, I wouldn't doubt the latter records are more highly represented. I think even someone who thinks Nothing as it Seems is a sack of shit and The Fixer is God's gift to songwriting would have to admit that the latter is going to appeal to a broader population than the former regardless of any question of quality. But I think, in general, PJ is pretty much viewed as they were 10-12 years ago; a band that puts on a great live show with an extraordinarily devoted fanbase. I don't think when you take that into account, their recent records have had the liftoff they wanted, and I don't think that means they were bad records.
digster wrote:I don't know if it was necessarily a response specifically to Riot Act, as much as they had let their press get to them a bit too much. PJ wasn't really regarded as a bad band in this period, but they were certainly seen as a band that had let go of their massive popularity and were making weird records. This speaks more to the shallowness of the press and the public, I think, cause they weren't that unpopular, nor are their late-90s and early 2000s records that weird. But I wonder if that feeling got to them. After constantly being asked if they were going to ever 'return to rock', I think they wanted to prove that they could still 'rock', whatever that means.
digster wrote:I don't know if it was necessarily a response specifically to Riot Act, as much as they had let their press get to them a bit too much. PJ wasn't really regarded as a bad band in this period, but they were certainly seen as a band that had let go of their massive popularity and were making weird records. This speaks more to the shallowness of the press and the public, I think, cause they weren't that unpopular, nor are their late-90s and early 2000s records that weird. But I wonder if that feeling got to them. After constantly being asked if they were going to ever 'return to rock', I think they wanted to prove that they could still 'rock', whatever that means.
digster wrote:I don't know if it was necessarily a response specifically to Riot Act, as much as they had let their press get to them a bit too much. PJ wasn't really regarded as a bad band in this period, but they were certainly seen as a band that had let go of their massive popularity and were making weird records. This speaks more to the shallowness of the press and the public, I think, cause they weren't that unpopular, nor are their late-90s and early 2000s records that weird. But I wonder if that feeling got to them. After constantly being asked if they were going to ever 'return to rock', I think they wanted to prove that they could still 'rock', whatever that means.
I remember Mike, in an interview, comparing the new stuff to Ten and Vs. That was pretty striking, because they'd always seemed a little apprehensive about drawing comparisons to their most popular work.
I think that also may be why the album is produced in this fashion. It seems produced and mastered by folks who want to emulate the sound of what's on the radio without really knowing how to do it. I don't think they were chasing money, but I do think they wanted to be The Band again.
Exactly. They second guessed themselves and lost their mojo in the process. The only songs that I liked on S/T were the ones most reminiscent of Binaural and Riot Act (Parachutes, Big Wave, Unemployable). The rest is bland, middle of the road crap, completely devoid of any interesting or creative riffs and melodies.
It really pisses me off the way Army Reserve gets no respect whenever talk turns to S/T.
I really like Army Reserve. It was my favorite track from S/T for at least a year or two. I'd now rank it anywhere from 1-3. My other fav's are Unemployable and Marker.
The life wasted - wws - comatose run is one of my all time 3 song sequences. I'm also a huge fan of parachutes and come back (and like a bunch of others) but those 3 songs justify the existence of the entire album several times over. Eddies sandpaper vocals, the huge feel of the life wasted riff and its blistering solo, the bitter savagery of comatose, the howling empathy and playful groove of WWS. That run of songs restored my faith in the band
digster wrote:I also don't know how much things changed in the media environment between Riot Act's release and S/T's that they wanted to shift their entire approach.
Their contract with Epic also expired after Riot Act. I'm sure that had something to do with it.
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
Unemployable and inside job are probably the only songs I don't really like. Marker and severed hand disappoint a bit just because I think each could have been even better
digster wrote:I also don't know how much things changed in the media environment between Riot Act's release and S/T's that they wanted to shift their entire approach.
Their contract with Epic also expired after Riot Act. I'm sure that had something to do with it.
I feel they may have felt that they had to be pretty forceful with the marketing for ST for this reason. I'm sure they over compensated but the lack of Epic behind them surely affected their outlook/approach.
Also, the remaster/remix of Ten was probably first brought up around this time. That kind of reminiscing affects your current actions.
