Red Mosquito

stip wrote:if they were only motivated by the paycheck wouldn't they record more?

Well obviously a new record impacts their ability to sell tickets. It puts the band's name in magazines and on websites, creates chatter, involves TV appearances and radio/media attention, etc.

However, as with 'reunion' tours, you do face a precipitous law of diminishing returns as a legacy act. If this is Paul McCartney's first album of new material in five years, that's exciting. It gets a lot of articles written about it, and some various other buzz. But not as much buzz as the first Rolling Stones album in nearly a decade. And both of them get more than Springsteen, who has put out 6 records in the last 10 years. And while Bruce works his nuts off promoting to build that missing buzz, he still does plenty of regional tours that are far from packed houses. Basically, he takes the kind of 70% sold out shows that Pearl Jam would use to justify skipping the south for years and that Paul McCartney will never see, and treats them as a special challenge.

Now, I personally don't think Pearl Jam's release schedule is built on much more than their semi-retired indifference, but I also think that touring is a comfort food to them. If it becomes work, certain members are probably not all that interested. It has to sell itself, and "selling itself" is a term that can mean different things as you get older and more accustomed to sitting around the house.

There's a quote from Neil's manager along the lines of "If the goal was to make more money from touring, we'd probably just put out fewer records," (I think he also commented once that they upped their income substantially in the 80's by hiding out in county fairs for a few years, so it was a big deal when they came back to arena gigs) which almost exactly mirrors something the promoter I used to work for said about Eric Clapton...basically, it was "they guy's got great timing. Just enough new stuff to drive his fee up, but not so much that he scares the audience away." And at that time, Clapton was putting out records every 3-4 years.

PJ Should stop touring for quite some time. Rely on the income brought in by the PJ socks and toss out EP's every few months.

I'd like to see them do more of everything. Although I'm obviously happier with the product that comes out than many, I certainly agree with McP and others that the biggest driver of their schedule is a semi-retirement. I don't want to say that Pearl Jam is a hobby, because I do think they're proud of what they do, and the shows are excellent, and all the rest. But it is clearly not the most important thing in their lives.

They should hire Tchad Blake to produce the next record and take their music to new sonic places...oh wait.

It would be nice to see them making more music. I think jeff mike and Matt would be interested on this.
And to isolate themselves to record with a new producer would be cool too.

At this point, I'd be fine with Pearl Jam just being a touring band. If we never get another proper Pearl Jam record, I won't complain. Ten - Lightning Bolt is a hell of a career, nothing to be ashamed of. Of course, I'll listen to just about anything they throw out. But if this is it, I can't be upset by that.

But I'd love the entire shit out of Jeff, Mike and Matt starting a new band together and recording an album a year.

i think the band should fire eddie and hire aaron lewis

LoathedVermin72 wrote:i think the band should fire eddie and hire aaron lewis

*Darius Rucker

Oh wait, same thing

*just let Stone sing

cutuphalfdead wrote:*just let Stone sing

No lie, I would absolutely support Pearl Jam sans Eddie Vedder. Just change the name. But the same group of guys, except him, making music together? Would probably be my favorite band.

durdencommatyler wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:*just let Stone sing

No lie, I would absolutely support Pearl Jam sans Eddie Vedder. Just change the name. But the same group of guys, except him, making music together? Would probably be my favorite band.

Yeah, it could be a great backing band for uncle Neil

Back on topic, I do think that a new producer can bring needed change in the band dynamics. Someone who's not afraid to say no to Eddie. And can possible refuel the powerstruggle, all hands to Jeff now

I agree with what's being said about semi-retirement. They only have 20-30 show days a year. That leaves them with enough time to make more records. Stay in Seattle, self-produce or Jack Endino or any other local producer. Being on a label, and therefore being pushed to release records worked really good for them (imo). I can live with the touring schedule they have now, but I would like to hear more records. Or just release Lost Dogs II

durdencommatyler wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:*just let Stone sing

No lie, I would absolutely support Pearl Jam sans Eddie Vedder. Just change the name. But the same group of guys, except him, making music together? Would probably be my favorite band.

I'd almost certainly lose interest. I'd get the first album and hope for the best, but I'm pretty sure that'd be it for me. I like them all as musicians, but Eddie's voice is the alchemical process that ties it all together.

stip wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:*just let Stone sing

No lie, I would absolutely support Pearl Jam sans Eddie Vedder. Just change the name. But the same group of guys, except him, making music together? Would probably be my favorite band.

I'd almost certainly lose interest. I'd get the first album and hope for the best, but I'm pretty sure that'd be it for me. I like them all as musicians, but Eddie's voice is the alchemical process that ties it all together.

I would agree pre-S/T. Now his voice is nearly unlistenable.

If you still like how Eddie sounds you'll still like pearl jam. If you don't like how he's aged he won't. Almost every other complaint (ESPECIALLY the songwriting/creativity ones) are just dancing around this, since it's easier to imagine that one of those things will change than Eddie suddenly sounding 15 year younger.

stip wrote:if they were only motivated by the paycheck wouldn't they record more?

Though I realize that RM is equipped with a GIF of Eddie sliding down a fire pole that could serve as evidence to the contrary, I don't get the impression that they're just trying to accumulate limitless sums of money for the sake of wealth itself, so much as they are trying to strike a balance between a hefty paycheck and a light workload. No criticisms there -- there is nothing I would like better in my life right now than some respite from my bills and a shitload of free time. It's just difficult not to feel bummed at the toll this has predictably taken on their music -- even though, like dct, it would faze me none if their album-making career turned out to be over. I like the idea of a Stone-fronted band, but maybe not this particular group of guys -- I can't imagine them being able to support his range of styles

stip wrote:If you still like how Eddie sounds you'll still like pearl jam. If you don't like how he's aged he won't. Almost every other complaint (ESPECIALLY the songwriting/creativity ones) are just dancing around this, since it's easier to imagine that one of those things will change than Eddie suddenly sounding 15 year younger.

I agree that I would definitely like the band a whole lot more these days if Eddie's voice was as good as it was in 2006 or earlier. The songwriting and creativity complaint is still legit though. For example, when I first heard Mind Your Manners I thought "This is a straight up Dead Kennedys rip off," and then Mike just blatantly admitted to that in one of the early LB promotional vids.

And at no point in the band's history prior to that had they written a song greatly influenced by another artist...

In which stip insists that disliking Pearl Jam's recent songwriting is basically impossible.

durdencommatyler wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:*just let Stone sing

No lie, I would absolutely support Pearl Jam sans Eddie Vedder. Just change the name. But the same group of guys, except him, making music together? Would probably be my favorite band.

Not a bad idea.

Then have Eddie, Jack and Flea form a new band.

darth_vedder wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:*just let Stone sing

No lie, I would absolutely support Pearl Jam sans Eddie Vedder. Just change the name. But the same group of guys, except him, making music together? Would probably be my favorite band.

Not a bad idea.

Then have Eddie, Jack and Flea form a new band.

Eddie could never keep up with Jack and Flea.