Red Mosquito

I ALREADY SAID THEM!

stip wrote:I ALREADY SAID THEM!

Oops, sorry

I don't know about peers, but I do believe that buddying up to so many of his musical heroes so early on served a detrimental purpose for Ed. Whether it was a father figure thing, rock band fantasy camp thing, or what...he leaned on older musicians a LOT, and the problem with that was that they were all in the wind-down period of their careers. Pete Townshend, Neil Young (well...he wasn't winding down...so I'm glad he was there), Springsteen, the Ramones....they had all spent decades establishing a foundation of music, and were 10-15 years older than he was. There's a different kind of career behavior there, and I sometimes wonder if Pearl Jam entered into that classicist phase so early in their career because of Ed associated himself with those guys in a way he really didn't with, say, Radiohead or the like.

That, and the fact that so many of the bands they kind of blew up with disappeared or became reunion fodder at a stupid early age.

What was that Neil Young comment made about Pearl Jam when talking about the Mirror Ball sessions? Something about them "in some ways seem older than me."

This was a compliment. A very good one. 1995 Pearl Jam.

McParadigm wrote:I don't know about peers, but I do believe that buddying up to so many of his musical heroes so early on served a detrimental purpose for Ed. Whether it was a father figure thing, rock band fantasy camp thing, or what...he leaned on older musicians a LOT, and the problem with that was that they were all in the wind-down period of their careers. Pete Townshend, Neil Young (well...he wasn't winding down...so I'm glad he was there), Springsteen, the Ramones....they had all spent decades establishing a foundation of music, and were 10-15 years older than he was. There's a different kind of career behavior there, and I sometimes wonder if Pearl Jam entered into that classicist phase so early in their career because of Ed associated himself with those guys in a way he really didn't with, say, Radiohead or the like.

That, and the fact that so many of the bands they kind of blew up with disappeared or became reunion fodder at a stupid early age.

interesting observation. Possibly.

Foo Fighters are at 19/7.

McParadigm wrote:I don't know about peers, but I do believe that buddying up to so many of his musical heroes so early on served a detrimental purpose for Ed. Whether it was a father figure thing, rock band fantasy camp thing, or what...he leaned on older musicians a LOT, and the problem with that was that they were all in the wind-down period of their careers. Pete Townshend, Neil Young (well...he wasn't winding down...so I'm glad he was there), Springsteen, the Ramones....they had all spent decades establishing a foundation of music, and were 10-15 years older than he was. There's a different kind of career behavior there, and I sometimes wonder if Pearl Jam entered into that classicist phase so early in their career because of Ed associated himself with those guys in a way he really didn't with, say, Radiohead or the like.

That, and the fact that so many of the bands they kind of blew up with disappeared or became reunion fodder at a stupid early age.

I've seen more than a few people talk about their dislike of Vedder because they think he's a 'hanger on' i.e. his 'buddying up' with famous musicians was calculated and deliberate. There was a quote from one of the Ramones that was pretty damming - can't remember it exactly, but he criticised Vedder for his fake punk credentials (highlighting his mohawk or something...this was after one of Vedder's RR Hall of Fame speeches I think)

Obviously I disagree, but it's a perception that people had about Vedder. And it works both ways - I'm sure Neil Young got some street cred by playing with Pearl Jam and Nirvana, as did Bowie by touring with NIN.

I don't disagree 100%. I think that for better or worse, he's been sincere in his worship for other bands. That's cute or whatever, even admirable, but it's also a bit naïve. As I've said before, I'm not sure how many of those bands would reciprocate that high respect. If you defer too much to your betters, you end up sacrificing your own growth. Which is what's happened, in many ways.

I've wondered how the rest of the band have felt about his undying devotion to iconic rock figures. To me has always felt like Ed wanted to sit at the cool-kids table, and would leave Jeff, Stone, and Mike in the dust to do it.

Hypothetical conversation
Stone: I have some really good stuff I'm excited to work on.
Ed: Oh great. Have you heard this [fill in underground punk bank]? They are true music.
Stone:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, same here. To me they've had much more success than PJ in the last decade, especially given that 'give it away free' thing they did for In Rainbows. That attracted a lot of global attention.

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.

Agreed, I was just using the simple criteria bluestate posted.

lecherouslittlestump wrote:Sorry if this is kind not related to the question, but Eddie Vedder's obsession with Springsteen really only began to appear publicly around 2001/2002...which was coincidently when Springsteen had his massive comeback with The Rising. It's strange, because in the 90s Vedder worships the likes of Neil Young, U2, The Doors etc but there's literally no mention of Springsteen. Then suddenly, he's covering his songs, singing his praises and performing Betterman with the E-Street Band. Just an observation.

I'm not going to go searching out 90s interviews for Springsteen mentions, but Ed was covering Springsteen songs even before he was in Pearl Jam so I think the fandom/respect was always there.

Stip and I went back and forth on this point at length not too long ago, though I can't remember what thread it was in (maybe the one that turned into a Neil Young thread).

And I think songs like Betterman recalled Springsteen.

I would love it if Radiohead was considered a peer, since they are my 2nd favorite band, but not only are they more popular/successful than PJ right now but they've also always had an "indie credibility" that PJ lost a long time ago.

In fact, I don't even like any of the bands I previously mentioned. I would be much happier if PJ's contemporaries were RH, Sonic Youth, Wilco, Flaming Lips, etc. But those are all revered "indie" bands compared to PJ's more mainstream position. Neil Young is the closest thing to a PJ peer that I also have much love and respect for.

mray10 wrote:

lecherouslittlestump wrote:Sorry if this is kind not related to the question, but Eddie Vedder's obsession with Springsteen really only began to appear publicly around 2001/2002...which was coincidently when Springsteen had his massive comeback with The Rising. It's strange, because in the 90s Vedder worships the likes of Neil Young, U2, The Doors etc but there's literally no mention of Springsteen. Then suddenly, he's covering his songs, singing his praises and performing Betterman with the E-Street Band. Just an observation.

I'm not going to go searching out 90s interviews for Springsteen mentions, but Ed was covering Springsteen songs even before he was in Pearl Jam so I think the fandom/respect was always there.

True (I forgot about that One Step Up cover, which is beautiful). I just wondered why Ed wasn't outspoken in his love to Springsteen in the 90s the way he was with Neil Young or The Ramones. Especially interesting seeing as Bruce was in a commercial and critical deadzone in the 90s.

But yeah, I'm reaching. I don't doubt Ed's fandom. I think his version of The Promised Land with Sleater Kinney is better than Bruce's.

Could've just started listening to Springsteen more round then himself.

Eds kind of a goofball, I get the feeling that when he meets these people he doesn't play it cool and say yeah I like your band, he pulls the whole omg your music saved my life thing Which is either endearing or off putting depending on who you are I guess.