Red Mosquito

pearl jam doesn't need to be what it was in 1994 to be great. pearl jam needs to be great to be what it was in 1994. big difference.

CopperTom wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:For Copper's benefit, lets list all the positive changes PJ has undergone in the past ten years. I'll start:


1. um.... uh...


ok someone else start.

Unarguable:
Digital music
Lossless alternatives
HD FLAC alternatives

Arguable:
Lottery system
The return of GA
Merchandise
Public persona

Oh, business decisions

wow. Malice droppin' the wisdom.

McParadigm wrote:

CopperTom wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:For Copper's benefit, lets list all the positive changes PJ has undergone in the past ten years. I'll start:


1. um.... uh...


ok someone else start.

Unarguable:
Digital music
Lossless alternatives
HD FLAC alternatives

Arguable:
Lottery system
The return of GA
Merchandise
Public persona

Oh, business decisions

Anything could be classified as such, no?

omg

Do tell...

What's funny is a lot of the people here who get accused of hating change for the sake of hating change when it comes to Pearl Jam are people who are huge fans of artists who have gone through more creative changes in their careers than Pearl Jam has even come close to. So it's pretty easy for me to buy that these people are hating the way Pearl Jam is changing, and not just people who hate change.

BurtReynolds wrote:wow. Malice droppin' the wisdom.

shut up, it's true. i don't need pearl jam to be the band they were in the 90s at all. it would be nice if they still had some of the motivation they had back then though. that's all i'm saying.

The fact is this place would be a lot more positive if we moved the Other Bands section to the top and tucked PJ Chat into a nice little subforum under technical support. Or maybe just archive it.

Lets face it. This isn't a PJ forum anymore.

or, alternatively:

Spoiler: show

I've considered this a PJ Harvey forum for at least six months now.

That's not entirely true. For one month I considered this a Stevie Wonder forum.

Lament wrote:I've considered this a PJ Harvey forum for at least six months now.

This is why you're such a welcome addition to the roster.

Does that make me an example of change that was embraced by certain members of the board?

Lament wrote:What's funny is a lot of the people here who get accused of hating change for the sake of hating change when it comes to Pearl Jam are people who are huge fans of artists who have gone through more creative changes in their careers than Pearl Jam has even come close to. So it's pretty easy for me to buy that these people are hating the way Pearl Jam is changing, and not just people who hate change.

what artists have done better creativity wise or change wise in their 2nd decade compared to their 1st decade - as opposed to PJ?

Try and pick one? It has to be a hard rock band that had similar success/acclaim in their 1st decade. There are only a few really good rock bands that have lasted more than a decade. I challenge anyone to come up with one other than the Stones, The Who, U2.

PJ is in very rare company now, and they are no where as greedy as other similar bands that this thread is making them out to be - all kidding aside which I agree is entertaining.

Also they need to be from Seattle. And there needs to be five people in the band. And also they need to have at least 1 MTV Music Video Award. And also

NAME ONE, I DARE YOU


except for these three

worldwithyourheart wrote:

Lament wrote:What's funny is a lot of the people here who get accused of hating change for the sake of hating change when it comes to Pearl Jam are people who are huge fans of artists who have gone through more creative changes in their careers than Pearl Jam has even come close to. So it's pretty easy for me to buy that these people are hating the way Pearl Jam is changing, and not just people who hate change.

what artists have done better creativity wise or change wise in their 2nd decade compared to their 1st decade - as opposed to PJ?

Try and pick one? It has to be a hard rock band that had similar success/acclaim in their 1st decade. There are only a few really good rock bands that have lasted more than a decade. I challenge anyone to come up with one other than the Stones, The Who, U2.

PJ is in very rare company now, and they are no where as greedy as other similar bands that this thread is making them out to be - all kidding aside which I agree is entertaining.

I don't think anyone is saying they're the most greedy band in the world. i think this thread is bemoaning their fate as yet another band that allowed its desire to make money to overshadow (or from my perspective: subsume) their desire to not sacrifice artistic integrity.

worldwithyourheart wrote:what artists have done better creativity wise or change wise in their 2nd decade compared to their 1st decade - as opposed to PJ?

Try and pick one? It has to be a hard rock band that had similar success/acclaim in their 1st decade. There are only a few really good rock bands that have lasted more than a decade. I challenge anyone to come up with one other than the Stones, The Who, U2.

PJ is in very rare company now, and they are no where as greedy as other similar bands that this thread is making them out to be - all kidding aside which I agree is entertaining.

Some of us listen to things besides hard rock. I know that's weird and all. Some of us even listen to music that isn't made by "bands" per se.

But as for artists who were good in their second decade and managed to grow creatively (and in some cases into their third)...

PJ Harvey
Radiohead
R.E.M.
Public Enemy
Bruce Springsteen
Bob Dylan
Stevie Wonder
Manic Street Preachers
The Cure
Depeche Mode
New Order
Pet Shop Boys
Morrissey

I mean, just off the top of my head.

There's music out there being made beyond what gets played on classic rock radio. It's hard to believe, but it's true.

do any of those bands inspire highly evolved fan art?

Spoiler: show

"The Public Fart," by Pablo Picasso