Post-Riot Act Moneygrab

[EJ]

Well, they haven't quite set up a permanent home for concerts in Vegas. Yet.

[Mine]

Yes but even stip's post is a meaningless simplification of what I'm actually doing, which is not just talking about PJ "directing songs to an audience" (something they've always done), but doing it with much more commercial success in mind. Stip thinks some of Pearl Jam's best music to date is some of Pearl Jam's worst, so I completely understand why he's undermining what I thought was a perfectly reasonable point, but still. Certain audiences will make more money; in this case, a broader, less discerning one -- and in the case of giving away many of your songs to baseball and TV shows, one that only gives a shit about what effect the songs have on your adrenaline whilst watching said TV shows. I listened to that basketball spot in which Ed was interviewed, and LTRP was playing behind someone taking a slam dunk. I'll be honest, I thought "Man, that's where this kind of song belongs."

Commercial success was always in mind, even back in the day where MLB was not in ash form yet. They haven't released one album to date where they didn't care about audience reception. Especially as far as the "founding fathers" are concerned. I don't think any audience makes a difference for them because the numbers are roughly the same.

[Mine]

I just thought tte band saw the need to grow their audience post Riot Act or they'd end up playing smaller audiences and being entirely a nostalgic act. So they pimped their first three albums, are sure to include lots of Ten live, put out some questionable ballady syrop in an attempt to get some crossover success and continue to play arenas. Aersomith used this formula quite successfully.

You can't really compare them. Aerosmith did that by having Dianne Warren write that ballad.

When you have a songwiter that can write Just Breathe, you don't need Dianne Warren.

Writing something that did so poorly as JB would end her career. With that i mean made so little money.

[harmless]

I just thought tte band saw the need to grow their audience post Riot Act or they'd end up playing smaller audiences and being entirely a nostalgic act. So they pimped their first three albums, are sure to include lots of Ten live, put out some questionable ballady syrop in an attempt to get some crossover success and continue to play arenas. Aersomith used this formula quite successfully.

You can't really compare them. Aerosmith did that by having Dianne Warren write that ballad.

When you have a songwiter that can write Just Breathe, you don't need Dianne Warren.

Writing something that did so poorly as JB would end her career. With that i mean made so little money.

Eh, you can't predict how a song will do. Some pretty shitty songs have made artists' careers before, and some great songs haven't broken the bank.

[harmless]

Yes but even stip's post is a meaningless simplification of what I'm actually doing, which is not just talking about PJ "directing songs to an audience" (something they've always done), but doing it with much more commercial success in mind. Stip thinks some of Pearl Jam's best music to date is some of Pearl Jam's worst, so I completely understand why he's undermining what I thought was a perfectly reasonable point, but still. Certain audiences will make more money; in this case, a broader, less discerning one -- and in the case of giving away many of your songs to baseball and TV shows, one that only gives a shit about what effect the songs have on your adrenaline whilst watching said TV shows. I listened to that basketball spot in which Ed was interviewed, and LTRP was playing behind someone taking a slam dunk. I'll be honest, I thought "Man, that's where this kind of song belongs."

Commercial success was always in mind, even back in the day where MLB was not in ash form yet. They haven't released one album to date where they didn't care about audience reception. Especially as far as the "founding fathers" are concerned. I don't think any audience makes a difference for them because the numbers are roughly the same.

There's a huge spectrum between 'not caring' and 'clawing for cash'. I wouldn't say they're quite doing the latter now, but they're veering further towards it than they were pre-S/T (barring, possibly, the pre-No Code stuff and Yield).

[BurtReynolds]

I don't usually say this, but harmless is making a lot of good posts today.

[harmless]

I don't usually say this, but harmless is making a lot of good posts today.

You're just saying that because Thursday is one of the two days of the week in which I hate Pearl Jam.

[BurtReynolds]

I don't usually say this, but harmless is making a lot of good posts today.

You're just saying that because Thursday is one of the two days of the week in which I hate Pearl Jam.

whats the other day? I'll try to only visit PJchat on those days.

[McParadigm]

I hope they snap out of it and fall into a Neil Young "don't give a damn" phase.

I hope they become dream bros again.

Ed's even having second thoughts about that in the drawing.

[harmless]

I don't usually say this, but harmless is making a lot of good posts today.

You're just saying that because Thursday is one of the two days of the week in which I hate Pearl Jam.

whats the other day? I'll try to only visit PJchat on those days.

I'm afraid that day varies, but it's generally likely to be a Monday.

[McParadigm]

"...next line is, I don't want to take what you can't give! And they're, like, singing along to that shit! With their arms up, and their tour t-shirts on, and I swear to god I could probably take their wallets right outta their goddamn pants and they still wouldn't get the joke!"

"Anyways, it's Friday. Let's go buy some cars."

[stip]

can we please stop equating 'reaching an audience' with 'making money', even if the former does lead to the later

honesty stip, i have no idea what we're arguing about or what a PJ song that isn't a blatant money making vehicle by design sounds like, if there ever was such a thing

Yawn. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about what I've said, but never mind; any comment about the sound of a Pearl Jam song which is any way negative is going to put your hackles up.

oh no i can talk shit about more than a few PJ songs, hell i thought i had a bad reputation here because i tend to express not very enthusiastic opinions about certain fan favourites. I didn't even take anything as particularly negative in your posts. Stip summed up my opinion well.

Yes but even stip's post is a meaningless simplification of what I'm actually doing, which is not just talking about PJ "directing songs to an audience" (something they've always done), but doing it with much more commercial success in mind. Stip thinks some of Pearl Jam's best music to date is some of Pearl Jam's worst, so I completely understand why he's undermining what I thought was a perfectly reasonable point, but still. Certain audiences will make more money; in this case, a broader, less discerning one -- and in the case of giving away many of your songs to baseball and TV shows, one that only gives a shit about what effect the songs have on your adrenaline whilst watching said TV shows. I listened to that basketball spot in which Ed was interviewed, and LTRP was playing behind someone taking a slam dunk. I'll be honest, I thought "Man, that's where this kind of song belongs."

I just have a lot of trouble that eddie vedder, who is worth tens of millions of dollars, is writing Future Days because he thinks this is going to be a cash cow for him.

[stip]

maybe i'm just insulted that, if eddie vedder is going to go out there and write a song designed to make him as much money as possible, that you don't think he can do better than Future Days

[Mine]

maybe i'm just insulted that, if eddie vedder is going to go out there and write a song designed to make him as much money as possible, that you don't think he can do better than Future Days

well according to the fanbase he's a complete idiot so there's your explanation

[stip]

Yes but even stip's post is a meaningless simplification of what I'm actually doing, which is not just talking about PJ "directing songs to an audience" (something they've always done), but doing it with much more commercial success in mind. Stip thinks some of Pearl Jam's best music to date is some of Pearl Jam's worst, so I completely understand why he's undermining what I thought was a perfectly reasonable point, but still. Certain audiences will make more money; in this case, a broader, less discerning one -- and in the case of giving away many of your songs to baseball and TV shows, one that only gives a shit about what effect the songs have on your adrenaline whilst watching said TV shows. I listened to that basketball spot in which Ed was interviewed, and LTRP was playing behind someone taking a slam dunk. I'll be honest, I thought "Man, that's where this kind of song belongs."

Commercial success was always in mind, even back in the day where MLB was not in ash form yet. They haven't released one album to date where they didn't care about audience reception. Especially as far as the "founding fathers" are concerned. I don't think any audience makes a difference for them because the numbers are roughly the same.

There's a huge spectrum between 'not caring' and 'clawing for cash'. I wouldn't say they're quite doing the latter now, but they're veering further towards it than they were pre-S/T (barring, possibly, the pre-No Code stuff and Yield).

so basically you are saying for 7 albums they've been concerned about this, but for a brief window of 3 non-consecutive albums they didn't care as much?

[harmless]

can we please stop equating 'reaching an audience' with 'making money', even if the former does lead to the later

honesty stip, i have no idea what we're arguing about or what a PJ song that isn't a blatant money making vehicle by design sounds like, if there ever was such a thing

Yawn. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about what I've said, but never mind; any comment about the sound of a Pearl Jam song which is any way negative is going to put your hackles up.

oh no i can talk shit about more than a few PJ songs, hell i thought i had a bad reputation here because i tend to express not very enthusiastic opinions about certain fan favourites. I didn't even take anything as particularly negative in your posts. Stip summed up my opinion well.

Yes but even stip's post is a meaningless simplification of what I'm actually doing, which is not just talking about PJ "directing songs to an audience" (something they've always done), but doing it with much more commercial success in mind. Stip thinks some of Pearl Jam's best music to date is some of Pearl Jam's worst, so I completely understand why he's undermining what I thought was a perfectly reasonable point, but still. Certain audiences will make more money; in this case, a broader, less discerning one -- and in the case of giving away many of your songs to baseball and TV shows, one that only gives a shit about what effect the songs have on your adrenaline whilst watching said TV shows. I listened to that basketball spot in which Ed was interviewed, and LTRP was playing behind someone taking a slam dunk. I'll be honest, I thought "Man, that's where this kind of song belongs."

I just have a lot of trouble that eddie vedder, who is worth tens of millions of dollars, is writing Future Days because he thinks this is going to be a cash cow for him.

My only issue here is that, again, "cash cow" is not what I said. No single song can be a "cash cow" unless it's a remarkably well-timed and well-executed single. What I said was more subtle, and has to do with the "treatment" of the song in production, rather than the song itself. This song could have sounded like "Man of the Hour", or "Thumbing My Way".

[stip]

and you think the goal here is not to expand the size of the audience (man of the hour was licensed to the winter Olympics one year, btw) because they want people to hear their music, but instead is to make the music more profitable for them, in an era where the vast majority of the money made is made off of touring?

[harmless]

maybe i'm just insulted that, if eddie vedder is going to go out there and write a song designed to make him as much money as possible, that you don't think he can do better than Future Days

Again, I am not saying the *song* is that way inclined. I am saying that BoB has seen fit to make the *production* that way inclined. It has a totally unnecessarily syrupy treatment, this little, unassuming acoustic ditty of Ed's. It has everything and the kitchen sink thrown at it, everything which one would usually hear in the most inoffensive and "likeable" radio ballads. People have accused "Sirens" of being this, and I can see why, but that is a much, much better song so the OTT, radio-ready production is more forgiveable for me. It is BoB who has made this decision to steer this song to a certain audience, and that audience happens to have more money.

[McParadigm]

Years later, as the effects of the chemotherapy began expediting the final waning of their already-faded strength, they remembered the countless hours spent arguing about Pearl Jam on the internet, and my god were they ever glad they did that.

[McParadigm]

also