The band's biggest mistake

[WtOB?]

the Last Kiss thing was so bizarre. if 2013 Pearl Jam put out Last Kiss, it wouldn't make me flinch. But that it happened to '98 Pearl Jam... that's what was so strange to me

2013 pearl jam would go out of their way for that kinda crossover success. see: the fixer.

1998 pearl jam just recorded an old, kinda odd song for their fan club, and it accidentally became their biggest single.

I thought it was kinda weird to ignore that in PJ20. Their biggest single wasn't even mentioned. We coulda got some cool footage of the soundcheck they recorded it at, or footage from that 98 Boston show where they played it or something. God I hate Cameron Crowe. And that autistic whiteboard guy.

[WtOB?]

i love last kiss

Me too. It's actually the song that got me into Pearl Jam.

[bodysnatcher]

Yield commercial = Ed still ate $3 eggs
Target commercial = Ed eats $12 eggs

[bodysnatcher]

dp

[WtOB?]

Yield commercial = Ed still ate $3 eggs
Target commercial = Ed eats $12 eggs

How does Ed like his eggs ??

[stip]

Yield commercial = Ed still ate $3 eggs
Target commercial = Ed eats $12 eggs

Yeah but you need to control for inflation!

[warehouse]

the Last Kiss thing was so bizarre. if 2013 Pearl Jam put out Last Kiss, it wouldn't make me flinch. But that it happened to '98 Pearl Jam... that's what was so strange to me

2013 pearl jam would go out of their way for that kinda crossover success. see: the fixer.

1998 pearl jam just recorded an old, kinda odd song for their fan club, and it accidentally became their biggest single.

I thought it was kinda weird to ignore that in PJ20. Their biggest single wasn't even mentioned. We coulda got some cool footage of the soundcheck they recorded it at, or footage from that 98 Boston show where they played it or something. God I hate Cameron Crowe. And that autistic whiteboard guy.

in retrospect, it was odd to leave out. i understand why they didnt go into the drummer drama or mikes drug use, but this was a really cool part of their history and last kiss is a live staple at this point. eddie vedder even explained the whole thing in philly in 2005, they coulda used that footage.

[VinylGuy]

the Last Kiss thing was so bizarre. if 2013 Pearl Jam put out Last Kiss, it wouldn't make me flinch. But that it happened to '98 Pearl Jam... that's what was so strange to me

2013 pearl jam would go out of their way for that kinda crossover success. see: the fixer.

1998 pearl jam just recorded an old, kinda odd song for their fan club, and it accidentally became their biggest single.

I thought it was kinda weird to ignore that in PJ20. Their biggest single wasn't even mentioned. We coulda got some cool footage of the soundcheck they recorded it at, or footage from that 98 Boston show where they played it or something. God I hate Cameron Crowe. And that autistic whiteboard guy.

in retrospect, it was odd to leave out. i understand why they didnt go into the drummer drama or mikes drug use, but this was a really cool part of their history and last kiss is a live staple at this point. eddie vedder even explained the whole thing in philly in 2005, they coulda used that footage.

i really like the PJ20 film, but there are things that were really rushed...i get that PJ has such a big rich history it was impossible to cover all of that in one movie, but it seems to me the band didnt want to spent a lot of time doing those interviews too...the footage seems to be shot in one day per member...they are all kinda dressed the same and in the same locations...It wouldnt surprise me if they just forgot about it.

[Fuck You Jobu]

Thanks for posting those. The Target debacle was one thing I always hated about the band. It just seemed like a hypocritical leap from snubbing their nose at the commercialization of music and the overpowering corporate influence of record labels and ticket distributors, all the while alienating fans to chase artistic freedom and to whittle down their stardom; then completely abandoning that philosophy to pawn off their most corporate (er, poppy) sounding album to suddenly enlarge their purposely-dwindling fan base using one of the largest corporate distributors makes it seem they abandoned their celebrated principles that were a cornerstone and foundation of the band that was virtuous and wouldn't sell out.

As a band that states, markets and trademarks itself about its musical vision and the integrity of its art, it was just a disingenuous slap in the face as to how they've tried to represent themselves as stalwarts of a pure unadulterated artistry that fueled their earlier mophandlemama work and insulting to fans who believed in an artist who sold themselves as someone who would try to stand above the whoring of music to outside (read "corporate") interests.

[stip]

Thanks for posting those. The Target debacle was one thing I always hated about the band. It just seemed like a hypocritical leap from snubbing their nose at the commercialization of music and the overpowering corporate influence of record labels and ticket distributors, all the while alienating fans to chase artistic freedom and to whittle down their stardom; then completely abandoning that philosophy to pawn off their most corporate (er, poppy) sounding album to suddenly enlarge their purposely-dwindling fan base using one of the largest corporate distributors makes it seem they abandoned their celebrated principles that were a cornerstone and foundation of the band that was virtuous and wouldn't sell out.

As a band that states, markets and trademarks itself about its musical vision and the integrity of its art, it was just a disingenuous slap in the face as to how they've tried to represent themselves as stalwarts of a pure unadulterated artistry that fueled their earlier mophandlemama work and insulting to fans who believed in an artist who sold themselves as someone who would try to stand above the whoring of music to outside (read "corporate") interests.

so where did you buy all those earlier pearl jam records that they had produced under their own label?


In a way the target thing is a lot more honest and less hypocritical than preaching an anti-corporate artistic stance while on a major label and selling your record through every corporate distributor available.

Pearl Jam's anti corporate stand is only not hypocritical (or better, juvenile) if their point was that corporations should not influence art. And there isn't much evidence to indicate that this is the case with backspacer, beyond people who didn't like the record desperately trying to convince themselves that the problem is something other than believing that pearl jam released an album full of songs they didn't care for.

For better or worse, Backspacer was the record pearl jam wanted to make, a bright, unburdened record that came after a run of 3 alternately angry, defeated, and claustrophobic albums, recorded at a time where the band had talked about how the world actually didn't look like such a horrible and depressing place for once. And then, upon the recording of that record, they decided they wanted to get the best deal they could (selling at FEWER corporate outlets than used to be the case) and increase the number of people who were listening to their music, in exchange for a commercial that, while hardly a work of art, featured a live version of the band playing a song they were (rightfully, I think) proud of, with the logo of the place where you could buy the record featured in the commercial.

What a bunch of assholes.

[digster]

Out of the many 'dubious' things in the past few years regarding how they've changed in terms of their business practices and policies, the Target thing probably has the easiest explanation. After all, they did include mom and pop stores in the deal. I do think stip is underselling the long-term ramifications of how allying themselves with a big-box retailer could hurt independent record stores, but measuring the 'integrity' of the band's decisions, at least when in comparison to their previous stated ideals, is a lot harder with the Target deal than something like the Oracle show, where it's much clearer that they just wanted a big pay day.

I don't really see any issue with saying "PJ believed in a certain way a decade ago, but over time their minds changed and they have a different viewpoint." That's what people do throughout the course of a professional career. What I think is bizarre is when people try to act like the things they've done in the past few years are consistent with the ideals they've always had. If you don't see an issue with them making a deal that nets them a huge deal of money, if you don't have a problem with ticket prices outrunning inflation, if you don't have a problem with corporate show, just say so. There are plenty of musicians and musical critics that would agree with that assessment. But come on; PJ is not still looking out for 'the little guy' by playing corporate gigs, and saying so is trying to have your cake and eat it, too. They're in the position where they can get a lot of money quickly, so they can and do.

[VinylGuy]

Thanks for posting those. The Target debacle was one thing I always hated about the band. It just seemed like a hypocritical leap from snubbing their nose at the commercialization of music and the overpowering corporate influence of record labels and ticket distributors, all the while alienating fans to chase artistic freedom and to whittle down their stardom; then completely abandoning that philosophy to pawn off their most corporate (er, poppy) sounding album to suddenly enlarge their purposely-dwindling fan base using one of the largest corporate distributors makes it seem they abandoned their celebrated principles that were a cornerstone and foundation of the band that was virtuous and wouldn't sell out.

As a band that states, markets and trademarks itself about its musical vision and the integrity of its art, it was just a disingenuous slap in the face as to how they've tried to represent themselves as stalwarts of a pure unadulterated artistry that fueled their earlier mophandlemama work and insulting to fans who believed in an artist who sold themselves as someone who would try to stand above the whoring of music to outside (read "corporate") interests.

so where did you buy all those earlier pearl jam records that they had produced under their own label?


In a way the target thing is a lot more honest and less hypocritical than preaching an anti-corporate artistic stance while on a major label and selling your record through every corporate distributor available.

Pearl Jam's anti corporate stand is only not hypocritical (or better, juvenile) if their point was that corporations should not influence art. And there isn't much evidence to indicate that this is the case with backspacer, beyond people who didn't like the record desperately trying to convince themselves that the problem is something other than believing that pearl jam released an album full of songs they didn't care for.

For better or worse, Backspacer was the record pearl jam wanted to make, a bright, unburdened record that came after a run of 3 alternately angry, defeated, and claustrophobic albums, recorded at a time where the band had talked about how the world actually didn't look like such a horrible and depressing place for once. And then, upon the recording of that record, they decided they wanted to get the best deal they could (selling at FEWER corporate outlets than used to be the case) and increase the number of people who were listening to their music, in exchange for a commercial that, while hardly a work of art, featured a live version of the band playing a song they were (rightfully, I think) proud of, with the logo of the place where you could buy the record featured in the commercial.

What a bunch of assholes.

Great post. Where is the influence of Target on the record? Where is, lets say...Rihanna singing on the fixer? they did the record they wanted and sold it they way they also needed.

[digster]

Did they really NEED to ally themselves with Target for this record? Respective of whether it's right or wrong (I think it's a bit of column A and column B), I don't think that this was the only possible route for a band of their caliber (i.e. it's not this approach OR a major label). To be honest, it seems like a good business move; their record sales are softer than they used to be, and Target probably had to pay a small fortune for the exclusivity rights. Guaranteed money up front vs. a much less certain pay day further down the road.

[stip]

I sort of agree.


Pearl jam had a fierce anti-corporate philosophy, but they live in a world basically dominated by corporations. So you are basically left with a few options


1. Try and develop institutions that are capable of existing outside of the corporate structure. Leaving their label was a step in that direction, but probably as far as they'll go. They are not institution builders. They are not Fugazi or Ani DiFranco and they certainly don't have the web presence/savy to do what some other bands are doing with the internet (which is too bad). This was never their strong point

2. Challenge the dominance of existing institutions. They attempted this (and lost) with the ticketmaster anti-trust/boycott agenda in a concrete way. Beyond that they can rail against corporations and challenge their legitimacy, but as Pearl Jam matters less and less as a meaningful institution the value of that power beyond its aesthetic appeal is pretty questionable.

Ironically enough, attempting to broaden their fan base gives them the cultural capital for those moves to be more meaningful, but of course they couldn't do that without the greater exposure they need corporate media and distribution to accomplish.

They can also continue to use their wealth and name recognition (such as it is) to support progressive causes and actors/activists/organizations that are fighting for the causes they believe in. As far as I know they are still pretty first rate on this. This is probably the most important test of the bands integrity in any meaningful sense.

3. Carve out the best life you can for yourself, on your own terms, within the limitations that are imposed on you by the corporate structure. The target deal, even the oracle show, fall underneath that. The key to this is not whether or not you make money, but whether or not you make money on the terms that matter to you. Artistic integrity might be one of those terms (and there is no reason to call that into question. Integrity and quality are different). Supporting alternative methods of distribution (and Digster, I'd argue that the Target deal enhanced the importance of local stores since it reduced the number of corporate outlets available for purchasing backspacer) could be another..


Pearl Jam 10 years ago probably would not have played that Oracle show. On the other hand, they were selling their albums in every major corporate music outlet that existed, on a major label that did their marketing for them, handled their distribution, cut their checks, etc. Today they are an independent band. It's a trade off. But the corporate involvement has always been there. It's a question of asthetics. The older pearl jam talked about how horrible it was while integrated with it (despite some heroic efforts to cut that cord). Today they use it to benefit themselves without harming anyone other than fans who are in love with largely meaningless superficial gestures

[Jorge]

Did they really NEED to ally themselves with Target for this record?

Nope.

PJ is at the point of their career where they could pull off just about any distribution method.

Like you said, the Target partnership was about getting more money. I think the band has admitted as such. And money is a strong motivation for a business decision. But let's not pretend that Pearl Jam needed to do it.

[digster]

Agreed, platypus. I can see why PJ did Target, Oracle, etc. etc. I just don't see why some would try to sell us that they're altruistic why they're doing it all.

[stip]

Did they really NEED to ally themselves with Target for this record? Respective of whether it's right or wrong (I think it's a bit of column A and column B), I don't think that this was the only possible route for a band of their caliber (i.e. it's not this approach OR a major label). To be honest, it seems like a good business move; their record sales are softer than they used to be, and Target probably had to pay a small fortune for the exclusivity rights. Guaranteed money up front vs. a much less certain pay day further down the road.

No, and if the choice was Target vs. releasing exclusively via their website and independent stores you can probably make a case that, on behalf of their 'principles' they should have done so. But since I doubt that option was ever on the table (would you trust Pearl Jam Inc. to pull that off) if your choice is

A: Make more money by selling your record at fewer corporate stores

B: Make less money by selling your record at more corporate stores

you'd be an idiot and, perversely enough, less in line with your own principles if you chose B. Again, unless a truly independent release was on the table for them, and I doubt it was, they probably did the right thing.

Perhaps the commercial is distasteful to our 1990s sensibilities, but it hardly harms anyone, and was even in line with their usual artistic sensibilities. It was the band playing live. It just kinda sucked.

[stip]

Agreed, platypus. I can see why PJ did Target, Oracle, etc. etc. I just don't see why some would try to sell us that they're altruistic why they're doing it all.

it's not altruistic. It is a business decision (and a good one from their perspective). My point is that it's not hypocritical, and as far as business decisions go, one that is fairly accommodating to other principles the band has claimed to have.


Also, the view that somehow the band is making business decisions now when once upon a time they didn't is nonsensical and stupid.

[digster]

3. Carve out the best life you can for yourself, on your own terms, within the limitations that are imposed on you by the corporate structure. The target deal, even the oracle show, fall underneath that. The key to this is not whether or not you make money, but whether or not you make money on the terms that matter to you. Artistic integrity might be one of those terms (and there is no reason to call that into question. Integrity and quality are different).

First off, I deleted 1 and 2 cause I agreed with pretty much everything you said. I don't know if any of these questions could be answered by anyone other than PJ, but I just fail to see how a corporate show like Oracle could fall under the rubric of 'artistic integrity.' I fail to see how it could be argued that proactively playing a show like that is symptomatic of 'the limitations imposed by the corporate structure.' Some things you have to do to play the game, but that fails to pertain to that show. I stand by what I said that it was likely a big pay day.

Supporting alternative methods of distribution (and Digster, I'd argue that the Target deal enhanced the importance of local stores since it reduced the number of corporate outlets available for purchasing backspacer) could be another..

The survival of local stores will not depend on, or even be aided by the fact that Backspacer cannot be found at Wal Mart. Every other album is going to be available there. What will save them is if enough people continue to consider them the more attractive alternative for moral and/or aesthetic reasons. PJ's deal with Target does nothing to help the independent stores in that regard, and probably hurt them by allying themselves with Target. Was it the straw that broke the camel's back for mom and pop stores? No, of course not, but it did them no favors, either.

Pearl Jam 10 years ago probably would not have played that Oracle show. On the other hand, they were selling their albums in every major corporate music outlet that existed, on a major label that did their marketing for them, handled their distribution, cut their checks, etc. Today they are an independent band. It's a trade off. But the corporate involvement has always been there. It's a question of asthetics. The older pearl jam talked about how horrible it was while integrated with it (despite some heroic efforts to cut that cord). Today they use it to benefit themselves without harming anyone other than fans who are in love with largely meaningless superficial gestures

I kind of agree with this, although I think you're judging the band in each respective time period devoid of context. In 1991, if you wanted to conquer the world with your music signing with a major label was one of the only means at your disposal. It's why R.E.M. left IRS in '88. I think working with a major label like that was a perfect example of, as you said, "working within the limitations posed by the corporate structures." So I think judging each band's practices on the basis of the present day music model, where the amount of options for bands of all sizes has increased dramatically, is not possible.

[Jorge]

Also, the view that somehow the band is making business decisions now when once upon a time they didn't is nonsensical and stupid.

Wait, who's saying this?