U2 or PJ. Whose legacy is ruined more by continuing...

[Lament]

U2 and Pearl Jam are two of the bands who I've followed down the absolute smallest of minute points at some time or other (and pretty consistently for over eighteen years). I don't really see a lot of similarities other than they're both popular rock bands. Their "legacies" and what's at stake moving forward with each of them, are actually very different.

People remember Michael Jordan as the greatest basketball player in history. They've already forgotten about the last years in Washington when idiot sportswriters were whining about protecting his legacy. And in a hundred years, no one will remember Michael Jordan at all.

This. So much. Every time the Stones go away for a few years it becomes ok again to be like "FROM 1968-1972 THEY WERE BETTER THAN ANY BAND EVER." Whenever they stop for good, the next generation of people who get into them isn't gonna care that they went on into the 2010's. They're gonna care about the handful of records they made that reside in the absolute elite echelon of modern popular music. Look at The Who, they made some really patchy, borderline questionable work post-Who By Numbers (which, while artistically appreciated now, was not at the time). But when some 16 year old discovers them for the first time (including myself back in the day), his (or her) initial reaction isn't "Man, Quadrophenia and The Who Sell Out and Who's Next seem way less awesome cause Face Dances sucks." Some 16 year old in 2025 who stumbles across Vitalogy or No Code and has his or her mind blown isn't gonna then be like "But wait, Backspacer sucks. Now I don't enjoy those other records. Damn."

[digster]

U2. I don't think that PJ's going to be remembered for any albums besides Ten, so crappy albums aren't really going to hurt how they're viewed.

That being said, I still think Bad is a pretty great song.

This notion that nobody remembers PJ after Ten is overstated, no? To begin with, the albums after Ten sold tons of records and a few of the songs were in heavy radio rotation: Betterman, Daughter. It was No Code where the band slammed the door. In any case, the average person on the street doesn't care about Pearl Jam or U2 to begin with so neither legacy can be ruined for someone who couldn't care less either way. Only a fan is concerned with legacy.

No, I don't think so....I mean, hardcore fans is one thing, but I kind of assumed we were talking about how the band is viewed in general. And when it comes to them, in 20-30 years no one is going to remember Backspacer, and I doubt many will even remember Vitalogy. It will be, "oh, the band that made Ten," or "the band with that Last Kiss song," or "the band with the guy who goes hur-dur when he sings."

[stip]

Binaural was artistically accomplished but a commercial failure. Riot Act was similarly bad commercially, and not as consistent artistically. Avocado went in a different direction and was probably equal (though different) to Riot Act artistically, but also bad commercially. Backspacer was the least accomplished artistically yet but the most commercially successful album since Yield.

I'm saying that Binaural - Avocado, while lacking in certain ways, still add to the legacy of the band, while Backspacer detracts. There's also a clear delineation with post-2007 live material as well...especially 2008 - 2010.

That's fine but then they haven't met the criteria you list for an unparalleled 15 years.

how do binaural, riot act, and avocado add to their legacy while Backspacer detracts?

[stip]

U2. I don't think that PJ's going to be remembered for any albums besides Ten, so crappy albums aren't really going to hurt how they're viewed.

That being said, I still think Bad is a pretty great song.

This notion that nobody remembers PJ after Ten is overstated, no? To begin with, the albums after Ten sold tons of records and a few of the songs were in heavy radio rotation: Betterman, Daughter. It was No Code where the band slammed the door. In any case, the average person on the street doesn't care about Pearl Jam or U2 to begin with so neither legacy can be ruined for someone who couldn't care less either way. Only a fan is concerned with legacy.

No, I don't think so....I mean, hardcore fans is one thing, but I kind of assumed we were talking about how the band is viewed in general. And when it comes to them, in 20-30 years no one is going to remember Backspacer, and I doubt many will even remember Vitalogy. It will be, "oh, the band that made Ten," or "the band with that Last Kiss song," or "the band with the guy who goes hur-dur when he sings."

Most people will just remember songs and not even remember albums. When I was a much more casual music fan I knew the names of all the rolling stones big songs, but I had no idea what was on what album, or even the name of the album.

More serious music fans will probably credit the first 3 albums. I think anything from No Code and beyond is really just a matter of how much fans of pearl jam like or dislike the albums.

[Oh, Jimmy]

Backspacer was the least accomplished artistically yet but the most commercially successful album since Yield.

Was it really that commercially successful or did the deal with Target just make it seem that way? Yeah, Just Breathe got some traction but it didn't chart any higher than Nothing As It Seems.


Think what you will of U2's more recent stuff, but it's catapulted them into playing stadiums and that seems pretty farfetched for PJ at the moment.

I don't think PJ continuing is gonna take away from their legacy since it mostly relies on the first few albums, their live shows, and their uniquely rabid fanbase. Another album like Backspacer might prove me wrong.

[stip]

it was a bit more successful in terms of sales (although not hugely so), and was the first record in a long time to chart two singles that each lasted a fair amount of time. Pearl Jam's first single tends to do well, but it also tends to disappear. Fixer lasted a while and had a reasonably meaningful follow up, which had not happened in over a decade.

Sales are harder to put into context though, given how people's buying habits have changed (or vanished)

[Jorge]

Binaural was artistically accomplished but a commercial failure. Riot Act was similarly bad commercially, and not as consistent artistically. Avocado went in a different direction and was probably equal (though different) to Riot Act artistically, but also bad commercially. Backspacer was the least accomplished artistically yet but the most commercially successful album since Yield.

I'm saying that Binaural - Avocado, while lacking in certain ways, still add to the legacy of the band, while Backspacer detracts. There's also a clear delineation with post-2007 live material as well...especially 2008 - 2010.

That's fine but then they haven't met the criteria you list for an unparalleled 15 years.

how do binaural, riot act, and avocado add to their legacy while Backspacer detracts?

Because twoheadedboy doesn't like Backspacer, or he's fooling himself into thinking that there's some sort of objective measure to how "artistically accomplished" an album is.

[bada]

Binaural was artistically accomplished but a commercial failure. Riot Act was similarly bad commercially, and not as consistent artistically. Avocado went in a different direction and was probably equal (though different) to Riot Act artistically, but also bad commercially. Backspacer was the least accomplished artistically yet but the most commercially successful album since Yield.

I'm saying that Binaural - Avocado, while lacking in certain ways, still add to the legacy of the band, while Backspacer detracts. There's also a clear delineation with post-2007 live material as well...especially 2008 - 2010.

That's fine but then they haven't met the criteria you list for an unparalleled 15 years.

how do binaural, riot act, and avocado add to their legacy while Backspacer detracts?

Because twoheadedboy doesn't like Backspacer, or he's fooling himself into thinking that there's some sort of objective measure to how "artistically accomplished" an album is.

I don't even know how Binaural could be artistically accomplished when they ran away from their own artistic vision.

[Tuolumne]

I think alot of people speak in terms of the outdated idea of their being a monoculture - where people go to a few specific sources or gatekeepers to look back on what was carried the legacy of a certain act. The monoculture - those few TV channels or magazines, or gatekeepers of music and culture has been exploded because of the internet. Now, every band exists in detailed form on the internet.

PJs legacy is going to be a legacy like that of the old days before mass media created a monoculture, it's going to be passed down by word of mouth and by the generations. Very few people give a rats ass about what "100 Top Albums of" list is going on, b/c there's always another one on another internet page or discussion board ... or better yet you can create one yourself. I think any valid artist's music is going to exists as it deserves .... which is through one person at a time. The bad news is that there's probably not going to be anyone who reaches that Beatles/Michael Jackson level of prominence again, or even be looked at historically like the Beatles. The good news is that PJ has such a loyal and deep devotion from people that those people will pass it down through their record collection (ipod lists) artwork, concert memories, concert films, etc. It won't be some monumental Beatles-eque legacy or anywhere close to it, but I think it'll be a decently strong one where those who really want to find something in the past of music that really connected with people deeply, they'll find PJ in there.

[McParadigm]

Backspacer was the least accomplished artistically yet but the most commercially successful album since Yield.

Was it really that commercially successful or did the deal with Target just make it seem that way? Yeah, Just Breathe got some traction but it didn't chart any higher than Nothing As It Seems.

As I've mentioned before, chart peak is a pretty poor way to evaluate radio success. Just Breathe had, according to allaccess, more spins at radio than Given to Fly. Furthermore, the places where those spins accumulated in large numbers tended to have larger audience shares than Given to Fly's run had, meaning greater exposure. Actually, The Fixer was pretty close to Given to Fly numbers, as well, but actually maintained post-run spin numbers in excess of that song's performance.

Backspacer's album sales placed it literally at the EXACT same place on the year-end album sales charts as Yield in the US, and a few steps higher worldwide, so even though its roughly 600,000 US copies seem like a far cry from the 1.4 million initially achieved by that record, its level of success was pretty equal...keeping in mind the above-mentioned dissolution of singular culture in the digital age, it was arguably a more remarkable achievement.

Now, to illustrate both why sales are actually a small part of the story and yet still worth being impressed with, let's look at Neil's much-lauded career rebirth in the late 80's (totals are not all from the same source, but are all from within the last 4 years):

1987, Life - 190,000
1988, This Note’s for You - 220,000
1989, Freedom - 990,000
1990, Ragged Glory - 440,000
1991, Weld - 270,000
1992, Harvest Moon - 2,150,000
1994, Sleeps with Angels - 640,000
1995, Mirrorball - 670,000
1996, Dead Man - 80,000

You'll note that the numbers aren't huge...and this was at a time when record sales were peaking. Ragged Glory is not a huge jump up from This Note's for You, in terms of the number of people who actually spent the money to acquire it (used record sales are not included), even though it was talked about endlessly and has had decades of being referenced and praised after the fact. The only record here to even appear on year-end sales lists was Harvest Moon....which actually placed lower than either Yield or Backspacer on its year-end charts (it ranked pretty close to where s/t landed, actually). So on one hand, sales are not a particularly big part of how an artist's ebb and flow and evaluated. On the other, Pearl Jam's post-Riot Act reevaluation by the public at large has had more record buyer "draw" within its industry context than any of Young's rebirth work.

[McParadigm]

I don't even know how Binaural could be artistically accomplished when they ran away from their own artistic vision.

[digster]

U2. I don't think that PJ's going to be remembered for any albums besides Ten, so crappy albums aren't really going to hurt how they're viewed.

That being said, I still think Bad is a pretty great song.

This notion that nobody remembers PJ after Ten is overstated, no? To begin with, the albums after Ten sold tons of records and a few of the songs were in heavy radio rotation: Betterman, Daughter. It was No Code where the band slammed the door. In any case, the average person on the street doesn't care about Pearl Jam or U2 to begin with so neither legacy can be ruined for someone who couldn't care less either way. Only a fan is concerned with legacy.

No, I don't think so....I mean, hardcore fans is one thing, but I kind of assumed we were talking about how the band is viewed in general. And when it comes to them, in 20-30 years no one is going to remember Backspacer, and I doubt many will even remember Vitalogy. It will be, "oh, the band that made Ten," or "the band with that Last Kiss song," or "the band with the guy who goes hur-dur when he sings."

Most people will just remember songs and not even remember albums. When I was a much more casual music fan I knew the names of all the rolling stones big songs, but I had no idea what was on what album, or even the name of the album.

More serious music fans will probably credit the first 3 albums. I think anything from No Code and beyond is really just a matter of how much fans of pearl jam like or dislike the albums.

I really don't think serious music fans will remember they made a record beyond Ten. I think they'll be remembered for that record and for the fact that they toured an awful lot and became known for their live shows.

That being said, this is more predicated on the notion that whatever trajectory they're on continues. It's entirely possible that a record from a celebrated band's catalog finally gets it's due. Maybe that'll happen with Yield or No Code or whatever album we want to use as an example.

[bada]

Whenever I get interested in an old band I hit the greatest hits packages first.

[BurtReynolds]

Whenever I get interested in an old band I hit the greatest hits packages first.

yeah me too.

[Tuolumne]

Backspacer was the least accomplished artistically yet but the most commercially successful album since Yield.

Was it really that commercially successful or did the deal with Target just make it seem that way? Yeah, Just Breathe got some traction but it didn't chart any higher than Nothing As It Seems.

As I've mentioned before, chart peak is a pretty poor way to evaluate radio success. Just Breathe had, according to allaccess, more spins at radio than Given to Fly. Furthermore, the places where those spins accumulated in large numbers tended to have larger audience shares than Given to Fly's run had, meaning greater exposure. Actually, The Fixer was pretty close to Given to Fly numbers, as well, but actually maintained post-run spin numbers in excess of that song's performance.

Backspacer's album sales placed it literally at the EXACT same place on the year-end album sales charts as Yield in the US, and a few steps higher worldwide, so even though its roughly 600,000 US copies seem like a far cry from the 1.4 million initially achieved by that record, its level of success was pretty equal...keeping in mind the above-mentioned dissolution of singular culture in the digital age, it was arguably a more remarkable achievement.

Now, to illustrate both why sales are actually a small part of the story and yet still worth being impressed with, let's look at Neil's much-lauded career rebirth in the late 80's (totals are not all from the same source, but are all from within the last 4 years):

1987, Life - 190,000
1988, This Note’s for You - 220,000
1989, Freedom - 990,000
1990, Ragged Glory - 440,000
1991, Weld - 270,000
1992, Harvest Moon - 2,150,000
1994, Sleeps with Angels - 640,000
1995, Mirrorball - 670,000
1996, Dead Man - 80,000

You'll note that the numbers aren't huge...and this was at a time when record sales were peaking. Ragged Glory is not a huge jump up from This Note's for You, in terms of the number of people who actually spent the money to acquire it (used record sales are not included), even though it was talked about endlessly and has had decades of being referenced and praised after the fact. The only record here to even appear on year-end sales lists was Harvest Moon....which actually placed lower than either Yield or Backspacer on its year-end charts (it ranked pretty close to where s/t landed, actually). So on one hand, sales are not a particularly big part of how an artist's ebb and flow and evaluated. On the other, Pearl Jam's post-Riot Act reevaluation by the public at large has had more record buyer "draw" within its industry context than any of Young's rebirth work.

Damn. Very very well put. Thought out and backed with actual facts. This is the kind of stuff I love.

I think the general PJ narrative in the pop culture context (which realy does not have the currency it did 15-20 years ago, or even 10 years ago) is: "Broke it big during the grunge era, stepped away from the spotlight, and found a devoted audience that values their records and live shows". I think people here are focusing on the Ten-era as if that is going to be the only thing remembered. But that is what the story was about 10 years ago. NOW the story is that the general public has overall caught up to the concept that PJ has amassed a large following. Hisotrically, people will be looking back on this cult (US) just as much, if not more, than the initial PJ break through with Ten. This bears very well for their "legacy" as having established such a cult-following will attract certain types of people to look back on their output and view it substantially. They'll look back at the post-grunge era of PJ with interest b/c so many people stuck by them and followed them so closely. It won't be a large number of people like with the Beatles, but I think some people will dig to see what this band was all about.

Also, people will undoubtedly look back on their live shows. If there is any agreement anywhere b/t the fans, the general public, and hipsters, it's that they are a great live act. And what's a major reason they're a great live act? Because they mix up their setlists. How are they able to pull this off when very few can? Because they have a strong enough catalogue that allows them to change up the setlists and have fans still care, or even care more. This only make someone looking into their years from now interested in the depth and breadth of the catalogue.

[digster]

I think the general PJ narrative in the pop culture context (which realy does not have the currency it did 15-20 years ago, or even 10 years ago) is: "Broke it big during the grunge era, stepped away from the spotlight, and found a devoted audience that values their records and live shows". I think people here are focusing on the Ten-era as if that is going to be remembered. But that is what the story was about 10 years ago. NOW the story is that the general public has overall caught up to the concept that PJ has amassed a large following. Hisotrically, people will be looking back on this cult (US) just as much, if not more, than the initial PJ break through with Ten. This bears very well for their "legacy" as having established such a cult-following will attract certain types of people to look back on their output and view it substantially. They'll look back at the post-grunge era of PJ with interest b/c so many people stuck by them and followed them so closely. It won't be a large number of people like with the Beatles, but I think some people will dig to see what this band was all about.

I agree wholeheartedly with that; the 'cult' following is definitely going to be a big part of how Pearl Jam's legacy is shaped and how they're viewed in the future. I just don't think the music made during that period is going to be remembered that much. I hope I'm wrong; if all they're remembered for when it comes to records is Ten, it does a disservice to their talent, hard work, and range.

[BurtReynolds]

I would think they would be remembered for Betterman than anything on Ten. that's the only song I ever hear from them.

[Lament]

I would think they would be remembered for Betterman than anything on Ten. that's the only song I ever hear from them.

There's gonna be a whole generation of kids who's ex-fratboy Dads used to play Elderly Woman for them on his acoustic guitar because it was the only song he remembered the chords to, so I bet that song ends up being pretty high up in their canon when people look back in 15-20 years.

[Kevin Davis]

People remember Michael Jordan as the greatest basketball player in history. They've already forgotten about the last years in Washington when idiot sportswriters were whining about protecting his legacy.

This feels right to me. No entertainer is going to be remembered for their failures, unless the failure itself was his or her claim to fame.

[Buggy]

Playing corporate events like Oracle Open World I think might do more tarnish to their legacy than releasing commercially mediocre albums.