Red Mosquito

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:Pearl Jam never wanted to have a small audience. They have always been a big arena rock band.

I just don't agree with that, and neither do a lot of people. That's the crux of the matter. They had decades to decide that musical integrity was more important than a giant fanbase. Binaural and Riot Act were the genius culmination of that aesthetic. No Code, and the need to run from a giant fanbase and do something else, might have been the trigger, but they sure as hell stayed on that path for a long time and grew contented with it. By the time S/T came around and they suddenly decided they wanted to be like U2 again, that was very much a surprising decision out of leftfield, and jarring for a lot of fans. They were very suddenly following the opposite trajectory that they'd started following at No Code, and it had been a long time. You can't be surprised that a lot of people weren't prepared to readjust.

Yeah you're never going to make an objective statement about what this band wanted because this band didn't have a consensus within them. Green River disbanded because Jeff and Stone wanted a deal with a mayor label then they went to sign a deal for MLB with the label that had such underground artist signed as Vanessa Williams. We're talking about the same 2 guys who were contemplating on leaving PJ because Vitalogy and No Code weren't popular enough and Stone is the guy who was thrilled with Yield because it was more mainstream. So yeah part of the band wanted to be a mainstream band no matter what the fanbase likes to think.

I'm starting to think so too. I'm not assuming at this point that anyone is doing anything they don't want to do. And yet, I fully understand and sympathise with the criticisms of those fans that don't like it.

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

digster wrote:I just don't think they're really going to gain a whole new fanbase at this point. They're 20 years old, and their primary fanbase is hitting their 30's and up. Most people made up their mind, positive or negative, on Pearl Jam a while ago.

Yup. I think this new commercial push for massive success will be ultimately pointless, and I hope they realise it sooner rather than later.

They will never be successful enough at it for it to be relevant outside their hardcore fan base IMO.

The only thing I think objectively, when I look at their recent output, is that the quality of their material is not chiming with their stated intentions. If they want to become relevant again commercially, they just need to be writing better songs, plain and simple. On Backspacer, Brendan O'Brien made everything very shiny and pretty to listen to, but ultimately the songs just had no staying power. This would've been fine if Backspacer had been a quick novelty album thrown out in a year. But we waited years for it, and now we've waited years for the next one.

I hope that Lightning Bolt gives PJ a new lease of life so that they can do what they need to do to gain more success outside the fanbase, ie. put out an album every 2 or 3 years instead of every 4 or 5, and spend longer actually crafting them.

I don't see anything in their recent music which shows that they've gone out of their way to 'gain' fans. They just went back to making music the way they know best. They've stopped intentionally being difficult and are more open to be engaging. Ed would make sure songs which sounded 'poppy' would not make the album back in the day. He was insecure about Pearl Jam's punk and non-mainstream credentials. He's over that now. And so is the band.

I am not a fan at all of No Code-Riot Act run. I don't see the brilliance in it. I would rather they do what they're good at. Those albums may be worshipped here but I don't think it's because they are in anyway more intelligent or superior to what they are doing now. It could be a matter of taste but that's all. There's nothing inherently inferior about the melodies we are hearing here. They are far superior to most of the stuff that made the albums in the middle period. Just because they stopped making less hooky, dreary songs doesn't mean they lost their musical integrity. It is in tact and will remain so as long as they keep making music they feel like. They've always been their own boss. After Vitalogy, they took a direction which I didn't agree with but they did it because that's what the situation in their lives demanded. Now, they are not afraid of going back to their roots precisely because there is no danger of them being overwhelmed with fame. There's no fighting over what might be too 'poppy'.

This assumption that the entire hardcore fanbase doesn't like Backspacer but loves the middle period is a bit far fetched. I am a hardcore too. BS is my 4th favourite album and I'm loving LB so far.

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:Pearl Jam never wanted to have a small audience. They have always been a big arena rock band.

I just don't agree with that, and neither do a lot of people. That's the crux of the matter. They had decades to decide that musical integrity was more important than a giant fanbase. Binaural and Riot Act were the genius culmination of that aesthetic. No Code, and the need to run from a giant fanbase and do something else, might have been the trigger, but they sure as hell stayed on that path for a long time and grew contented with it. By the time S/T came around and they suddenly decided they wanted to be like U2 again, that was very much a surprising decision out of leftfield, and jarring for a lot of fans. They were very suddenly following the opposite trajectory that they'd started following at No Code, and it had been a long time. You can't be surprised that a lot of people weren't prepared to readjust.

Yeah you're never going to make an objective statement about what this band wanted because this band didn't have a consensus within them. Green River disbanded because Jeff and Stone wanted a deal with a mayor label then they went to sign a deal for MLB with the label that had such underground artist signed as Vanessa Williams. We're talking about the same 2 guys who were contemplating on leaving PJ because Vitalogy and No Code weren't popular enough and Stone is the guy who was thrilled with Yield because it was more mainstream. So yeah part of the band wanted to be a mainstream band no matter what the fanbase likes to think.

I'm starting to think so too. I'm not assuming at this point that anyone is doing anything they don't want to do. And yet, I fully understand and sympathise with the criticisms of those fans that don't like it.

You can want to be big and still want to do it with integrity. It's not an either/or proposition (I don't think that was necessarily PJ's mindset). They wanted to be popular, got popular beyond their wildest dreams, said WTF and pulled back.

Release_Me wrote:I don't see anything in their recent music which shows that they've gone out of their way to 'gain' fans.

They have openly stated as much.

Also, Pearl Jam's "roots" sound nothing like Backspacer, so that argument is kind of silly.

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

harmless wrote:All of it. I'm trying to like the music while still thinking BO'B's a dick. I think that he just knows what the general public feeling about PJ is, however superficial and casual it sounds, i.e. "Eddie Vedder's band." Nobody in the general public gives much of a shit about the other musicians, so neither does BO'B.

I'm right where you are. I think BoB is a massive tool. But, I do see him for what he is, a really good industry rock producer who knows how to get a powerful sound. Plus, he's the only one who can truly handle EdVed as a vocalist and get the best out of him. I think your Steve Albini and Jack Endinos of the world are great for "cred" but it doesn't amount much to bringing in an audience. Next album I wish he's just come on in the end and do the vocals, and use another producer to help sort through the ideas and general direction.

His interview reallt grate on me, you get the sense he doesn't really have appreciation for the creative process. What it takes to imagine a song out of thin air and how to keep artistic integrity. He almost seems to look down on that, so the artistry of an album seems to depend on how much the band stands up to him. The right balance could yield amazing results, though.

Yep. I guess the thing is, why do they need to "bring in an audience" at this point? You might disagree, but a lot of people see what they're doing currently as ungratefully shitting on the audience they've already developed. They've got any right in the world to do that, but I think some people are feeling abandoned, and quite rightly. Their recent aesthetic choices don't reflect the band they became; they reflect the band that they moved away from. It is what it is. But the recent sales pitches and commercial efforts... it just all seems grating because nobody really believes Pearl Jam are in any way struggling for money. They don't need the money, so this change of aesthetic must amount to a change in values... I'm hoping not but eh, it's getting increasingly hard to believe and some people stopped believing a long time ago.

or having to do all the promotional shit themselves that someone else used to do for them.

Release_Me wrote:I don't see anything in their recent music which shows that they've gone out of their way to 'gain' fans. They just went back to making music the way they know best. They've stopped intentionally being difficult and are more open to be engaging.

I'm sorry for snatching little quotes out of longer posts, but we're just not seeing eye-to-eye here. There is plenty in their recent music to suggest they're making a concerted effort to write "catchier hooks" that attract the ear for a short time but don't stick in the gut or the heart for any longer. I'm not sure what you mean by "making music the way they know best". That sounds like advertising spin to me. They know how to make music of all kinds, and they have, on a spectrum from Ten to Riot Act. Riot Act was a mature culmination of their styles into something that revealed a band growing older gracefully. Backspacer is definitely not. It's a deliberate effort to write dumber, more widely-appealing pop tunes. It was good for what it was, but that's mostly what it was, save for a few of the best songs on it. While they're being "more open to be engaging", there are thousands of fans currently not being engaged anymore. Say what you want about that ("It's their fault!") but the fact is, there has been a deliberate change in direction, and if I'm honest, I don't think the payoff has been that we now have a better, more engaging and exciting band. I definitely don't think we have that. I think we have a shadow of what this band was at their most interesting moments. I am not as engaged as I used to be.

All of this doesn't matter, of course, but I don't think you can argue it objectively at all. PJ would like to think you can, and so would their apologists for the newer material, but the fact is, there are fans dropping away for the opposite reason that others are happier. "This is not maturer or more engaging. It's devolution, baby."

harmless wrote:Well, I think they are pandering. Certainly on recent evidence, dumber lyrics and generally much less effort on song-craft and simply getting together to write songs. The fact that BoB is now on board to *help* them write songs is simply laughable. But that's all been talked to death. You're right, if that's not just how it is from now on, and they're just "fucking shit up", changing it up or whatever, and they've got their deeply intelligent album just around the corner, that's absolutely fine. But not all of the fanbase is going to go through the motions while they're waiting for it. Again, reaching out to a new audience is absolutely fine, but it's not necessary. They would be one of the biggest rock bands in the world with or without that concerted effort to drastically broaden their audience, and it does kind of go against what they said were their past values. I'm not slating them for doing what they want to do, but we're all within our rights to point out the inconsistency. All of this suddenly running towards the commercial-rock Hall of Fame was a surprising right turn.

I'd dispute that.

theplatypus wrote:

Release_Me wrote:I don't see anything in their recent music which shows that they've gone out of their way to 'gain' fans.

They have openly stated as much.

I'll explain something to you. I take about 17% of what they say in public seriously because i think they just make shit up because you have to fill those promotion articles/interviews with something.

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

harmless wrote:All of it. I'm trying to like the music while still thinking BO'B's a dick. I think that he just knows what the general public feeling about PJ is, however superficial and casual it sounds, i.e. "Eddie Vedder's band." Nobody in the general public gives much of a shit about the other musicians, so neither does BO'B.

I'm right where you are. I think BoB is a massive tool. But, I do see him for what he is, a really good industry rock producer who knows how to get a powerful sound. Plus, he's the only one who can truly handle EdVed as a vocalist and get the best out of him. I think your Steve Albini and Jack Endinos of the world are great for "cred" but it doesn't amount much to bringing in an audience. Next album I wish he's just come on in the end and do the vocals, and use another producer to help sort through the ideas and general direction.

His interview reallt grate on me, you get the sense he doesn't really have appreciation for the creative process. What it takes to imagine a song out of thin air and how to keep artistic integrity. He almost seems to look down on that, so the artistry of an album seems to depend on how much the band stands up to him. The right balance could yield amazing results, though.

Yep. I guess the thing is, why do they need to "bring in an audience" at this point? You might disagree, but a lot of people see what they're doing currently as ungratefully shitting on the audience they've already developed. They've got any right in the world to do that, but I think some people are feeling abandoned, and quite rightly. Their recent aesthetic choices don't reflect the band they became; they reflect the band that they moved away from. It is what it is. But the recent sales pitches and commercial efforts... it just all seems grating because nobody really believes Pearl Jam are in any way struggling for money. They don't need the money, so this change of aesthetic must amount to a change in values... I'm hoping not but eh, it's getting increasingly hard to believe and some people stopped believing a long time ago.

or having to do all the promotional shit themselves that someone else used to do for them.

They never did this much, though, or the same things. There's an obvious reach for a different, or wider, demographic.

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:Well, I think they are pandering. Certainly on recent evidence, dumber lyrics and generally much less effort on song-craft and simply getting together to write songs. The fact that BoB is now on board to *help* them write songs is simply laughable. But that's all been talked to death. You're right, if that's not just how it is from now on, and they're just "fucking shit up", changing it up or whatever, and they've got their deeply intelligent album just around the corner, that's absolutely fine. But not all of the fanbase is going to go through the motions while they're waiting for it. Again, reaching out to a new audience is absolutely fine, but it's not necessary. They would be one of the biggest rock bands in the world with or without that concerted effort to drastically broaden their audience, and it does kind of go against what they said were their past values. I'm not slating them for doing what they want to do, but we're all within our rights to point out the inconsistency. All of this suddenly running towards the commercial-rock Hall of Fame was a surprising right turn.

I'd dispute that.

I was unfair to use "dumb" here, which doesn't mean anything. Instantly-gratifying, simplistic (not simple), "direct." All of those things can be interpreted as less interesting if what you *enjoy* is a more challenging, nuanced listen.

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:Pearl Jam never wanted to have a small audience. They have always been a big arena rock band.

I just don't agree with that, and neither do a lot of people. That's the crux of the matter. They had decades to decide that musical integrity was more important than a giant fanbase. Binaural and Riot Act were the genius culmination of that aesthetic. No Code, and the need to run from a giant fanbase and do something else, might have been the trigger, but they sure as hell stayed on that path for a long time and grew contented with it. By the time S/T came around and they suddenly decided they wanted to be like U2 again, that was very much a surprising decision out of leftfield, and jarring for a lot of fans. They were very suddenly following the opposite trajectory that they'd started following at No Code, and it had been a long time. You can't be surprised that a lot of people weren't prepared to readjust.

I rail about this constantly but I really just don't see where current choices are undermining the musical integrity of the band. Certainly they may care less about producing new music, but that's not the same thing as not caring about the music you produce.

And Binaural and Riot Act remain, easily, the pearl jam sound I am most thankful they have moved away from. For me it is hardly the genius culmination of anything--it represented a sour artistic dead end that systematically alienated their artistic strengths for...I'm not even sure why. I will obviously concede that those records are very important and very impressive to a lot of people, and quite possibly for good reasons, but that does not mean that the current approach represents an artistic dead end. They are writing songs playing to a different set of strengths--ones that, I think, are a much better fit for the band.

If people move away from the band because they aren't writing the kind of music they want to hear that's a no brainer. You can't argue with that. But I would strongly argue with what I see as the implications in your post that the approach they've abandoned was inherently superior/more artistic/etc. Maybe that wasn't your point.

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

harmless wrote:All of it. I'm trying to like the music while still thinking BO'B's a dick. I think that he just knows what the general public feeling about PJ is, however superficial and casual it sounds, i.e. "Eddie Vedder's band." Nobody in the general public gives much of a shit about the other musicians, so neither does BO'B.

I'm right where you are. I think BoB is a massive tool. But, I do see him for what he is, a really good industry rock producer who knows how to get a powerful sound. Plus, he's the only one who can truly handle EdVed as a vocalist and get the best out of him. I think your Steve Albini and Jack Endinos of the world are great for "cred" but it doesn't amount much to bringing in an audience. Next album I wish he's just come on in the end and do the vocals, and use another producer to help sort through the ideas and general direction.

His interview reallt grate on me, you get the sense he doesn't really have appreciation for the creative process. What it takes to imagine a song out of thin air and how to keep artistic integrity. He almost seems to look down on that, so the artistry of an album seems to depend on how much the band stands up to him. The right balance could yield amazing results, though.

Yep. I guess the thing is, why do they need to "bring in an audience" at this point? You might disagree, but a lot of people see what they're doing currently as ungratefully shitting on the audience they've already developed. They've got any right in the world to do that, but I think some people are feeling abandoned, and quite rightly. Their recent aesthetic choices don't reflect the band they became; they reflect the band that they moved away from. It is what it is. But the recent sales pitches and commercial efforts... it just all seems grating because nobody really believes Pearl Jam are in any way struggling for money. They don't need the money, so this change of aesthetic must amount to a change in values... I'm hoping not but eh, it's getting increasingly hard to believe and some people stopped believing a long time ago.

or having to do all the promotional shit themselves that someone else used to do for them.

They never did this much, though, or the same things. There's an obvious reach for a different, or wider, demographic.

I think it may have something to do with having kids. I guess they crave more money for their children rather then for themselves at this point.

theplatypus wrote:Also, Pearl Jam's "roots" sound nothing like Backspacer, so that argument is kind of silly.

Agreed.

Bands like R.E.M, they had pop in their *blood*. PJ just sounded like they were attempting it. They had better or worse attempts; I'm not trying to argue that Backspacer was objectively awful or anything, just that the aesthetic didn't chime with people.

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Release_Me wrote:Pearl Jam never wanted to have a small audience. They have always been a big arena rock band.

I just don't agree with that, and neither do a lot of people. That's the crux of the matter. They had decades to decide that musical integrity was more important than a giant fanbase. Binaural and Riot Act were the genius culmination of that aesthetic. No Code, and the need to run from a giant fanbase and do something else, might have been the trigger, but they sure as hell stayed on that path for a long time and grew contented with it. By the time S/T came around and they suddenly decided they wanted to be like U2 again, that was very much a surprising decision out of leftfield, and jarring for a lot of fans. They were very suddenly following the opposite trajectory that they'd started following at No Code, and it had been a long time. You can't be surprised that a lot of people weren't prepared to readjust.

I rail about this constantly but I really just don't see where current choices are undermining the musical integrity of the band. Certainly they may care less about producing new music, but that's not the same thing as not caring about the music you produce.

And Binaural and Riot Act remain, easily, the pearl jam sound I am most thankful they have moved away from. For me it is hardly the genius culmination of anything--it represented a sour artistic dead end that systematically alienated their artistic strengths for...I'm not even sure why. I will obviously concede that those records are very important and very impressive to a lot of people, and quite possibly for good reasons, but that does not mean that the current approach represents an artistic dead end. They are writing songs playing to a different set of strengths--ones that, I think, are a much better fit for the band.

If people move away from the band because they aren't writing the kind of music they want to hear that's a no brainer. You can't argue with that. But I would strongly argue with what I see as the implications in your post that the approach they've abandoned was inherently superior/more artistic/etc. Maybe that wasn't your point.

I don't think the music in question is Binaural or Riot Act to be honest.

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

harmless wrote:All of it. I'm trying to like the music while still thinking BO'B's a dick. I think that he just knows what the general public feeling about PJ is, however superficial and casual it sounds, i.e. "Eddie Vedder's band." Nobody in the general public gives much of a shit about the other musicians, so neither does BO'B.

I'm right where you are. I think BoB is a massive tool. But, I do see him for what he is, a really good industry rock producer who knows how to get a powerful sound. Plus, he's the only one who can truly handle EdVed as a vocalist and get the best out of him. I think your Steve Albini and Jack Endinos of the world are great for "cred" but it doesn't amount much to bringing in an audience. Next album I wish he's just come on in the end and do the vocals, and use another producer to help sort through the ideas and general direction.

His interview reallt grate on me, you get the sense he doesn't really have appreciation for the creative process. What it takes to imagine a song out of thin air and how to keep artistic integrity. He almost seems to look down on that, so the artistry of an album seems to depend on how much the band stands up to him. The right balance could yield amazing results, though.

Yep. I guess the thing is, why do they need to "bring in an audience" at this point? You might disagree, but a lot of people see what they're doing currently as ungratefully shitting on the audience they've already developed. They've got any right in the world to do that, but I think some people are feeling abandoned, and quite rightly. Their recent aesthetic choices don't reflect the band they became; they reflect the band that they moved away from. It is what it is. But the recent sales pitches and commercial efforts... it just all seems grating because nobody really believes Pearl Jam are in any way struggling for money. They don't need the money, so this change of aesthetic must amount to a change in values... I'm hoping not but eh, it's getting increasingly hard to believe and some people stopped believing a long time ago.

or having to do all the promotional shit themselves that someone else used to do for them.

They never did this much, though, or the same things. There's an obvious reach for a different, or wider, demographic.

I think it may have something to do with having kids. I guess they crave more money for their children rather then for themselves at this point.

That's plausible, yup. I've always wished they were just more open about this change of direction. They've spoken about it, but only vagueness like "I use to think that lyrics had to be complex but now I think they can be simple." So what, Ed? They can be simple, but they can't be noticeably *worse* or you're going to lose people... I'm not making demands but it would've been nice if they'd been honest about this deliberate change of direction on the band's part.

harmless wrote:The only thing I think objectively, when I look at their recent output, is that the quality of their material is not chiming with their stated intentions. If they want to become relevant again commercially, they just need to be writing better songs, plain and simple. On Backspacer, Brendan O'Brien made everything very shiny and pretty to listen to, but ultimately the songs just had no staying power. This would've been fine if Backspacer had been a quick novelty album thrown out in a year. But we waited years for it, and now we've waited years for the next one.

I hope that Lightning Bolt gives PJ a new lease of life so that they can do what they need to do to gain more success outside the fanbase, ie. put out an album every 2 or 3 years instead of every 4 or 5, and spend longer actually crafting them.

they were the bands most commercially successful material in YEARS. The songs seemed to have much less staying power in the fanbase than with the larger community of music listeners.

When you control for how people listen to music and most of the ways we can measure impact (the stuff McP is good at) I believe (someone correct this if it's wrong) Backspacer had a far larger reach than any recent records--quite possibly going back to the mid/late 90s. And we have to allow for the fact that part of the reach pearl jam had in 96-98 had a lot to do with the residual impact of 1991-1995.


If what you're saying is that Pearl Jam, to capture their old success, needs to write an album as good (or as impactful) as Ten, Vs, or Vitalogy than I certainly agree. But shit, that's a knock on every album since vitalogy

theplatypus wrote:Also, Pearl Jam's "roots" sound nothing like Backspacer, so that argument is kind of silly.

I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth, but the more extroverted and immediate songwriting that characterized albums like Ten and Vs. certainly dominate backspacer.