Red Mosquito

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:i struggled for minutes trying to come up with clever subject matter for a "who are pearl jam's autistic peers?" spin-off thread, to no avail

I would've got all identity politics on your ass had you done this; you should be pretty glad you didn't.

your physiologically-normative buttocks-privilege is thus laid bare, as you have just microaggressed against all who have gluteal deficiencies; i await your penance.

Physiologically-normative my ass. Have you even fucking seen me? I'm as crip as they come.

it was tongue-in-cheek bro. i'm just having fun with wordplay, which is my second favorite kind of "...play" behind only cosplay

I know, I didn't really take it seriously or anything and my reply wasn't meant with any seriousness either. What about foreplay? Coldplay is your fourth, right?

though we see the world very differently, we're not so different, you and i

pearl jam sucks is what i'm saying, basically

Indeed. I think that's been the unspoken given, the 'backbone' if you like, of our conversation.

mray10 wrote:

Lament wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Lament wrote:Is there another band who's commercial pinnacle was their debut album yet managed to still stay an arena/festival headline-sized act for a solid decade after they appeared despite declining sales? I can't think of any besides Pearl Jam and The Killers. Just about every other act mentioned in this thread had an ascent in terms of commercial appeal.

RATM?

Evil Empire and the debut both went triple platinum, so they didn't have the decline Pearl Jam, The Black Crowes, and The Killers had.

I get what you're saying here, but it's being sort of uncharitable to how successful Vs. was. Both Vs. and Vitalogy outsold either of those RATM albums. Yes, there was a decline from Ten to Vs. in actual album sales, but both fit the description of hugely successful albums.

I mean, a dropoff in sales of nearly half is one thing when the first sold well, but when the first is an album that gets to diamond ...

Yeah, but that's kind of the point. Most bands who end up being as big and as viable for as long as someone like Pearl Jam have had the benefit of having a more prolonged ascent to allow a fan base to really start to rally behind them and take them on as "their own." U2, R.E.M., The Cure, Depeche Mode, Radiohead, Arcade Fire, The White Stripes, even Oasis or Coldplay; they all had the climb to the top over a longer period of time that let that connection become really fortified. Bands who debut as huge as Pearl Jam don't have the passionate or long-lasting fan base that Pearl Jam has proven to have. I'm not knocking them, I'm just pointing out how unique it is, with Pearl Jam being (as far as anyone can come up with) THE most extreme example.

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:i struggled for minutes trying to come up with clever subject matter for a "who are pearl jam's autistic peers?" spin-off thread, to no avail

I would've got all identity politics on your ass had you done this; you should be pretty glad you didn't.

your physiologically-normative buttocks-privilege is thus laid bare, as you have just microaggressed against all who have gluteal deficiencies; i await your penance.

Physiologically-normative my ass. Have you even fucking seen me? I'm as crip as they come.

it was tongue-in-cheek bro. i'm just having fun with wordplay, which is my second favorite kind of "...play" behind only cosplay

I know, I didn't really take it seriously or anything and my reply wasn't meant with any seriousness either. What about foreplay? Coldplay is your fourth, right?

though we see the world very differently, we're not so different, you and i

pearl jam sucks is what i'm saying, basically

Indeed. I think that's been the unspoken given, the 'backbone' if you like, of our conversation.

it's actually mostly just eddie

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:i struggled for minutes trying to come up with clever subject matter for a "who are pearl jam's autistic peers?" spin-off thread, to no avail

I would've got all identity politics on your ass had you done this; you should be pretty glad you didn't.

your physiologically-normative buttocks-privilege is thus laid bare, as you have just microaggressed against all who have gluteal deficiencies; i await your penance.

Physiologically-normative my ass. Have you even fucking seen me? I'm as crip as they come.

it was tongue-in-cheek bro. i'm just having fun with wordplay, which is my second favorite kind of "...play" behind only cosplay

I know, I didn't really take it seriously or anything and my reply wasn't meant with any seriousness either. What about foreplay? Coldplay is your fourth, right?

though we see the world very differently, we're not so different, you and i

pearl jam sucks is what i'm saying, basically

Indeed. I think that's been the unspoken given, the 'backbone' if you like, of our conversation.

it's actually mostly just eddie

double adverb eddie

lecherouslittlestump wrote:

EJ wrote:

bluestate wrote:PJ doesn't have many close peers when considering this criteria :
Been around for 20+ yrs and still making albums
Had a majority of their success/popularity in the 90's
Still very successful but due to their hardcore/niche fans and not because of any current mainstream commercial success

So RHCP, NIN, Tool, Metallica, maybe Foo Fighters. Soundgarden doesn't count due to the long hiatus. Maybe Jane's Addiction and Weezer too. It's really hard to think of bands that fit that criteria.

Radiohead seems like the closest fit to this criteria to me.

New Radiohead albums seem to get rave reviews* though, and they are constantly cited by modern day indie bands as an inspiration.

*I'm in the UK so might be different in the US.

That's pretty much how it is here. There's also the fact that Radiohead would never release an album like Backspacer.

theplatypus wrote:

harmless wrote:It's pretty passive aggressive and makes me do a big facepalm. I mean, all this RIP Johnny Ramone stuff, Johnny Ramone was my best buddy etc. from Ed... how reciprocal was that?

It seems to me like Marky Ramone never has a kind word to say about anyone. His interviews always read like a cranky old man complaining about how no one understands his generation.

That's exactly true. A friend of mine interviewed Marky for a book he was working on and said that Marky pretty much hates everyone and said that "everything was Joey's fault". I don't know more about this than what my friend told me, but I absolutely believe him.

doug rr wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:

harmless wrote:

--- wrote:i struggled for minutes trying to come up with clever subject matter for a "who are pearl jam's autistic peers?" spin-off thread, to no avail

I would've got all identity politics on your ass had you done this; you should be pretty glad you didn't.

your physiologically-normative buttocks-privilege is thus laid bare, as you have just microaggressed against all who have gluteal deficiencies; i await your penance.

Physiologically-normative my ass. Have you even fucking seen me? I'm as crip as they come.

it was tongue-in-cheek bro. i'm just having fun with wordplay, which is my second favorite kind of "...play" behind only cosplay

I know, I didn't really take it seriously or anything and my reply wasn't meant with any seriousness either. What about foreplay? Coldplay is your fourth, right?

though we see the world very differently, we're not so different, you and i

pearl jam sucks is what i'm saying, basically

Indeed. I think that's been the unspoken given, the 'backbone' if you like, of our conversation.

it's actually mostly just eddie

double adverb eddie

lecherouslittledoug

no one said dmb?

Did anybody say ZZTop of course not from a style point of view, but output over the first 20years. A fan culture and overall sales they seam really alike
Tom Petty and the Hearbreakers

What rock bands today could even headline a festival they have to be together.
this is my list
The Stones
U2
Metalica
Pearl Jam
Fleetwood Mac
The Eagles
second tier but not big enough
Foo Fighters
Greenday
Chili Peppers
Soundgarden
Bon jovi
Def Leppard
Tool
Tom Petty I forgot some I am sure and the Eaglrs and Fleetwoonmack are a sretch

Nickleback

The Cure, The Killers, and Mumford & Sons were the headliners at Lollapalooza a few weeks ago. The Stone Roses/Blur (co-headliners), Phoenix, and RHCP headlined Coachella this year. Bonnaroo was McCartney, Petty, and Jack Johnson (subbing for Mumford & Sons), right? Glastonbury was The Arctic Monkeys, the Stones, and Mumford again. T In The Park was Mumford, Rhianna, and The Killers. Reading/Leeds was Green Day, Eminem, and Biffy Clyro.

So obviously all of those acts. Though someone will inevitably say that several of those bands can't really headline festivals.

I don't know what other festivals are considered major outside of those six.

Lament wrote:Is there another band who's commercial pinnacle was their debut album yet managed to still stay an arena/festival headline-sized act for a solid decade after they appeared despite declining sales? I can't think of any besides Pearl Jam and The Killers. Just about every other act mentioned in this thread had an ascent in terms of commercial appeal.

You'll laugh, but Linkin Park. Hybrid Theory was absolutely massive - the Ten of its era in terms of impact (not quality). They were at the centre of that horrible nu-metal genre in the early 00s. Slightly diminished (but still considerable) success with Meteora and Minutes To Midnight, then a concious attempt to become less commercial and more 'experimental' with their subsequent albums, at the cost of commercial success (although they still do fine). Usually a solid draw at festivals and shows, and they've got a die-hard fanbase.

I imagine a lot of posters here were young/teens when Ten came out - well that was me for Hybrid Theory. I don't like the band, but as a kid that band was everywhere.

lecherouslittlestump wrote:You'll laugh, but Linkin Park. Hybrid Theory was absolutely massive - the Ten of its era in terms of impact (not quality). They were at the centre of that horrible nu-metal genre in the early 00s. Slightly diminished (but still considerable) success with Meteora and Minutes To Midnight, then a concious attempt to become less commercial and more 'experimental' with their subsequent albums, at the cost of commercial success (although they still do fine). Usually a solid draw at festivals and shows, and they've got a die-hard fanbase.

I imagine a lot of posters here were young/teens when Ten came out - well that was me for Hybrid Theory. I don't like the band, but as a kid that band was everywhere.

That actually makes perfect sense. I remember them being huge when they came out, and every time I think they've disappeared I see them in the concert listings and think to myself "Wow. They're really still big enough to fill THAT place?"

I'd also drop in System of a Down (1994 - present) and Korn (1993 to present) - they were huge Grammy winning bands that inevitably petered out but still have dedicated fanbases. They both had hiatuses but I'd say PJ has had its fair share of unofficial hiati.

Also Dave Matthews Band. Big first albums then became a touring band with a bizarre fanbase whilst releasing sub-standard albums. Time period is similar as well - Metallica, U2 and Aerosmith started way before PJ. DMB are the only other to come close in terms of US sales.

harmless wrote:

Heathen wrote:

ccanad wrote:I think a better question is which current bands will be in this category within the next let's say 15 years.

To me, the list includes:

Arcade Fire
My Morning Jacket
Coldplay
Kings of Leon
Incubus
Silversun Pickups (hopeful, but reaching here)
Temper Trap (same)
Black Keys

Any others?

The only band here that I can see being part of the same heavy-weight category as the bands in the OP is Coldplay.

I think Arcade Fire should make it, and Kings of Leon might if they stay interesting for long enough. Incubus totally blew their chance with the last album.

Incubus formed at the same time as PJ - I'm not sure why they are on this list? In 15 years they'll all be drawing pensions.

Lament wrote:Is there another band who's commercial pinnacle was their debut album yet managed to still stay an arena/festival headline-sized act for a solid decade after they appeared despite declining sales? I can't think of any besides Pearl Jam and The Killers. Just about every other act mentioned in this thread had an ascent in terms of commercial appeal.

Linkin Park - debut - Hybrid Theory - 24m sales.
SOAD was their second album but similar trajectory after that.


Dave Matthews - UTTAD - 5m followed by Crash - 4m then drop away.

Blenheim Augustine wrote:Linkin Park - debut - Hybrid Theory - 24m sales.

Yeah, I agreed when lecherouslittlestump mentioned them. They seem to have a pretty similar trajectory.

What's still odd though is that no one has come up with a good example of a band that pre-dated Pearl Jam and had a similar path. Van Halen did for the for the first several albums, but then 1984 ended up blowing up massively.

Extreme?

harmless wrote:Extreme?

Ed is gonna front Van Halen's next album.

Actually, Lightning Bolt would be a great name for a VH record.

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:Extreme?

Ed is gonna front Van Halen's next album.

Actually, Lightning Bolt would be a great name for a VH record.

No I mean the band called Extreme.