PRAMG Top 10

[hlniv]

Whether you call it a grab for money, popularity, relevance, or anything else, it really doesn't matter.

The point is what they did with Yield was absolutely nothing like what they did with S/T or Backspacer. It wasn't even in the same ballpark in terms of sales effort. Yes, it was more than No Code or Vitalogy. But that's like saying 2 dollars is a lot of money because it's more than zero.

Unfortunately, S/T was also not even in the same ballpark as Yield in terms of general quality of music listening either. You may disagree with the opinion of the music comparison, but the general widespread opinion of that comparison is pretty obvious.

[stip]

This is a bit of a rabbit hole, but the differences between Yield's rollout and the S/T rollout seem pretty apparent. The latter remains a unique moment in the band's history by the band's own admission. From Rolling Stone:

The band members are showing a newfound willingness to promote themselves -- appearing on Saturday Night Live and Letterman -- in part because they want their political voice heard. "It seems like a critical time to participate in our democracy," says Vedder. "I think we're representatives of America. We certainly have as much clout as, well, Rush Limbaugh. So if he's gonna fuckin' blow hot air, using his platform, then we should be doing the same."

I don't think there was necessarily a money grab; I take Eddie at his word. I think of it more as a popularity grab. The front cover of Rolling Stone, multiple music videos, SNL, Letterman, Jools Holland, a ton of interviews vs. a commercial and a return to working with Ticketmaster that was unavoidable seems like pretty different situations (again, I'm not passing judgment on that).

oh guys, come on. It's the exact same shit. I don't think you should be judging either, but if you're gonna judge one, be consistent.

Feel free to be disappointed in the perceived artistic value of the records or whatever you want with the music. In all of these cases what the band is going for is popularity--and popularity is going to make you money.

The ticketmaster thing, the video, the commercial. These seem slight by today's standards but they were a big fucking deal back then, and a complete 180 on very well publicized principles that were fundamental to the band's identity. That did not happen with S/T

S/T had multiple music videos at a time when the promotional value of a video was marginal (especially compared to the high profile spectacle of the DTE video). I think a commerical for your record is a much bigger deal then appearing on a music show (Jools Holland = money grab). And S/T is a far more political record with a clear political message compared to Yield, so any slack you feel like giving them for Yield you should be allowing for S/T.

The biggest difference is that with S/T the band had to promote their record themselves because they were not signed with a major label that was going to do it for them.

[stip]

Whether you call it a grab for money, popularity, relevance, or anything else, it really doesn't matter.

The point is what they did with Yield was absolutely nothing like what they did with S/T or Backspacer. It wasn't even in the same ballpark in terms of sales effort. Yes, it was more than No Code or Vitalogy. But that's like saying 2 dollars is a lot of money because it's more than zero.

Unfortunately, S/T was also not even in the same ballpark as Yield in terms of general quality of music listening either. You may disagree with the opinion of the music comparison, but the general widespread opinion of that comparison is pretty obvious.

My point is that the bolded should have nothing to do with this conversation and is simultaneously the cause of its existence. The PRAMG label exists almost entirely as a post hoc rationale for why people don't like the music as much. If it didn't then we would admit that basically every single one of these criticisms can be leveled at the sacred cow that is Yield--pearl jam's first attempt to put themselves back into the spotlight and ensure a lot more people were buying their albums after a decline in sales due a slight change in artistic direction and a noticeable refusal to promote and market themselves.

Every one of these principles that we admired:

No videos because they somehow compromised the artistic vision of a song
releasing difficult singles to drive away fans
Challenging music that was not necessarily radio friendly
Taking any corporate interests that were undermining music

This run ENDS with Yield. That's fine. In retrospect most of these were silly or irritating in practice. But lets recognize it for what it is. If we are going to be judgmental pricks then be consistent. Or lets have the more intellectually honest conversation where we badmouth the post riot act output simply because we don't like the music.

[Mine]

Whether you call it a grab for money, popularity, relevance, or anything else, it really doesn't matter.

The point is what they did with Yield was absolutely nothing like what they did with S/T or Backspacer. It wasn't even in the same ballpark in terms of sales effort. Yes, it was more than No Code or Vitalogy. But that's like saying 2 dollars is a lot of money because it's more than zero.

Unfortunately, S/T was also not even in the same ballpark as Yield in terms of general quality of music listening either. You may disagree with the opinion of the music comparison, but the general widespread opinion of that comparison is pretty obvious.

My point is that the bolded should have nothing to do with this conversation and is simultaneously the cause of its existence. The PRAMG label exists almost entirely as a post hoc rationale for why people don't like the music as much. If it didn't then we would admit that basically every single one of these criticisms can be leveled at the sacred cow that is Yield--pearl jam's first attempt to put themselves back into the spotlight and ensure a lot more people were buying their albums after a decline in sales due a slight change in artistic direction and a noticeable refusal to promote and market themselves.

Every one of these principles that we admired:

No videos because they somehow compromised the artistic vision of a song
releasing difficult singles to drive away fans
Challenging music that was not necessarily radio friendly
Taking any corporate interests that were undermining music

This run ENDS with Yield. That's fine. In retrospect most of these were silly or irritating in practice. But lets recognize it for what it is. If we are going to be judgmental pricks then be consistent. Or lets have the more intellectually honest conversation where we badmouth the post riot act output simply because we don't like the music.

It didn't start with Yield, but MG was a principle the band started off with from the beginning. They've only set it aside briefly.

[@SkitchP]

i hate all of you.

[@SkitchP]

and Man of the Hour is CLEARLY pre-money grab.

[Kevin Davis]

I would guess that the "MG" origins of the "PRAMG" truly stem from the past 6-7 years or so, when the number of high-profile, revenue-generating occasions (anniversary tours, a movie, reissue packages, gaudy private corporate parties, etc.) really started to overtake creating music as the band's number one priority. I appreciate that getting as much money possible for as little work is essentially the American dream, and as a human being I don't begrudge them their choices, but I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable thing to be disappointed by. "S/T" probably got lumped in with it because people feel similarly unenthusiastic about it musically, but really 2005-2006 may have been the hardest the band ever worked -- not at all the same as the present era of destination-vacation tours, releasing one album every half decade, etc.

[McParadigm]

Please continue this

[LetMeSleep]

Shit. Logic. RM may combust.

[hlniv]

2005-2006 may have been the hardest the band ever worked -- not at all the same as the present era of destination-vacation tours, releasing one album every half decade, etc.

This is true. Especially in terms of sales effort. However, all my sales experience has basically taught me that you must have a product to sell if you are going to have sales success. They certainly did tour quite a bit, but I think this was simple in its extension of the sales effort. The PJ festival was created. A tony of energy went into it all. But they kinda forgot how to make great music.

[Leatherhead]

2005-2006 may have been the hardest the band ever worked -- not at all the same as the present era of destination-vacation tours, releasing one album every half decade, etc.

This is true. Especially in terms of sales effort. However, all my sales experience has basically taught me that you must have a product to sell if you are going to have sales success. They certainly did tour quite a bit, but I think this was simple in its extension of the sales effort. The PJ festival was created. A tony of energy went into it all. But they kinda forgot how to make great music.

S/T is great!

[stip]

I would guess that the "MG" origins of the "PRAMG" truly stem from the past 6-7 years or so, when the number of high-profile, revenue-generating occasions (anniversary tours, a movie, reissue packages, gaudy private corporate parties, etc.) really started to overtake creating music as the band's number one priority. I appreciate that getting as much money possible for as little work is essentially the American dream, and as a human being I don't begrudge them their choices, but I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable thing to be disappointed by. "S/T" probably got lumped in with it because people feel similarly unenthusiastic about it musically, but really 2005-2006 may have been the hardest the band ever worked -- not at all the same as the present era of destination-vacation tours, releasing one album every half decade, etc.

all this post S/T stuff certainly reflects a reduced output, and some late career retrospective moves, but if this was just about money youd see more albums, more touring, more box sets, more everything. even with all that stuff they arent producing much other than a tour and some festivals every year. the most logical way to read that is a desire to play music and rest on their laurels, not a moneygrab.

being disapointed by the fact that the band is less prolific makes sense. i know i am

[stip]

and hlnv's arguement really seems to be:

i like the album - promotion and touring reflect a desire to share the music

i dislike the album - promotion and touring reflect a desire to make money


i apologize if there is an element i am missing

[stip]

does anyone know how many reissues sold. if this was really about money (rather than legacy) youd see 30$ reissues or something essily downloaded - not expensive boxes designed for a visual/tactile experience.

you would also get a lot more vault releases

[Kevin Davis]

I would guess that the "MG" origins of the "PRAMG" truly stem from the past 6-7 years or so, when the number of high-profile, revenue-generating occasions (anniversary tours, a movie, reissue packages, gaudy private corporate parties, etc.) really started to overtake creating music as the band's number one priority. I appreciate that getting as much money possible for as little work is essentially the American dream, and as a human being I don't begrudge them their choices, but I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable thing to be disappointed by. "S/T" probably got lumped in with it because people feel similarly unenthusiastic about it musically, but really 2005-2006 may have been the hardest the band ever worked -- not at all the same as the present era of destination-vacation tours, releasing one album every half decade, etc.

all this post S/T stuff certainly reflects a reduced output, and some late career retrospective moves, but if this was just about money youd see more albums, more touring, more box sets, more everything. even with all that stuff they arent producing much other than a tour and some festivals every year. the most logical way to read that is a desire to play music and rest on their laurels, not a moneygrab.

being disapointed by the fact that the band is less prolific makes sense. i know i am

I don't mean to pretend to know what their real motivations are, Stip -- I'm just saying that I understand why people have taken a jaded view of the band's business dealings over the past few years. Sure, if they really wanted to make more, they could always do more, but I think the "moneygrab" observation sort of rests on the idea that they're aiming for that balance of getting as much return as possible while pounding as little pavement. Again, as a husband and father, I get it -- this is the dream. But it certainly appears like the Pearl Jam brand is more of a revenue stream for these guys at
this point than it is a regular outlet for their creativity, which I am not surprised has inspired some cynicism.

[EJ]

I would guess that the "MG" origins of the "PRAMG" truly stem from the past 6-7 years or so, when the number of high-profile, revenue-generating occasions (anniversary tours, a movie, reissue packages, gaudy private corporate parties, etc.) really started to overtake creating music as the band's number one priority. I appreciate that getting as much money possible for as little work is essentially the American dream, and as a human being I don't begrudge them their choices, but I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable thing to be disappointed by. "S/T" probably got lumped in with it because people feel similarly unenthusiastic about it musically, but really 2005-2006 may have been the hardest the band ever worked -- not at all the same as the present era of destination-vacation tours, releasing one album every half decade, etc.

all this post S/T stuff certainly reflects a reduced output, and some late career retrospective moves, but if this was just about money youd see more albums, more touring, more box sets, more everything. even with all that stuff they arent producing much other than a tour and some festivals every year. the most logical way to read that is a desire to play music and rest on their laurels, not a moneygrab.

being disapointed by the fact that the band is less prolific makes sense. i know i am

I don't mean to pretend to know what their real motivations are, Stip -- I'm just saying that I understand why people have taken a jaded view of the band's business dealings over the past few years. Sure, if they really wanted to make more, they could always do more, but I think the "moneygrab" observation sort of rests on the idea that they're aiming for that balance of getting as much return as possible while pounding as little pavement. Again, as a husband and father, I get it -- this is the dream. But it certainly appears like the Pearl Jam brand is more of a revenue stream for these guys at
this point than it is a regular outlet for their creativity, which I am not surprised has inspired some cynicism.

both of your recent posts on this have been spot on observations

[digster]

If Yield was a moneygrab, it was a pretty shitty one, considering it was followed by the band's two most uncommercial records.

[stip]

yield was a happy and contented record followed by their two most depressing albums. motivations dont remain constant

[stip]

and for what it's worth, I don't think ANY of these periods are 'moneygrabs' in the sense that it is used here. At different points in Pearl Jam's career they have been more or less concerned with expanding the reach of the audience hearing their music, and I think that's fine. But if we're gonna tar them at one stage in their career it is disingenuous to ignore identical behavior at a different stage just because we happen to like the music produced during that time.

[stip]

I would guess that the "MG" origins of the "PRAMG" truly stem from the past 6-7 years or so, when the number of high-profile, revenue-generating occasions (anniversary tours, a movie, reissue packages, gaudy private corporate parties, etc.) really started to overtake creating music as the band's number one priority. I appreciate that getting as much money possible for as little work is essentially the American dream, and as a human being I don't begrudge them their choices, but I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable thing to be disappointed by. "S/T" probably got lumped in with it because people feel similarly unenthusiastic about it musically, but really 2005-2006 may have been the hardest the band ever worked -- not at all the same as the present era of destination-vacation tours, releasing one album every half decade, etc.

all this post S/T stuff certainly reflects a reduced output, and some late career retrospective moves, but if this was just about money youd see more albums, more touring, more box sets, more everything. even with all that stuff they arent producing much other than a tour and some festivals every year. the most logical way to read that is a desire to play music and rest on their laurels, not a moneygrab.

being disapointed by the fact that the band is less prolific makes sense. i know i am

I don't mean to pretend to know what their real motivations are, Stip -- I'm just saying that I understand why people have taken a jaded view of the band's business dealings over the past few years. Sure, if they really wanted to make more, they could always do more, but I think the "moneygrab" observation sort of rests on the idea that they're aiming for that balance of getting as much return as possible while pounding as little pavement. Again, as a husband and father, I get it -- this is the dream. But it certainly appears like the Pearl Jam brand is more of a revenue stream for these guys at
this point than it is a regular outlet for their creativity, which I am not surprised has inspired some cynicism.

Again, if this is for the most part a revenue thing they make different choices--most of which require minimal effort. Pearl Jam is a part time enterprise for the people in the band right now, and I'm sure none of these guys need money (Eddie is worth like 90 million dollars or something insane. There was a chart here a few years back). And so shorter tours, festivals, etc. are convenient ways to get together and play your music without having to commit months of your life to the road, etc. Is the preference for pearl jam to only play shows when they have an album--as if new music is the only reason to celebrate a twenty year career and a catalog of close to 200 song? They are at the stage in their career where you start reissuing albums (they've only done two of these, I remind everyone). A documentary about one of the most important and influential bands of their era twenty years out is pretty reasonable.

It sucks that something you care about doesn't produce as much music as you'd like, and it sucks even more when you don't think that music matches your expectations for what it should be. But that's what this is. And it's all it should be.