Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:It’s such a reflection of the user base though. Radiohead has 3x+ The Who.

That’s because Radiohead is great.

But RHCP near the top… fucking crap Guns N’ Roses still have 30M listeners monthly?!??

No hope.

How the hell does Nickelback have 20M monthly streams? Gross

tragabigzanda wrote:

Fattie_Vedder wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:It’s such a reflection of the user base though. Radiohead has 3x+ The Who.

That’s because Radiohead is great.

But RHCP near the top… fucking crap Guns N’ Roses still have 30M listeners monthly?!??

No hope.

Ledbetter makes a great point about playlists too. Radiohead, Coldplay, and RHCP all have songs that go down smooth with shopping and lattes. PJ virtually has nothing like that.

I would argue that Radiohead on average is way less accessible than Pearl Jam. Pyramid Song is not exactly sunny morning cafe music.

But Nickelback is also higher on this list…

I actually don't think the idea of relevance in 24 is relevant anymore.
We have the ability to curate our entire universe in away we never have had before. Coldplay is not more relevant than those other bands. The Spotify thing reminds of a New York times best selling list. So is the next Daniel Steele or Tom Clancy book more relevant than Shakespeare no probably not. I guess a argument could be made it is in a very small window of time. The big picture would argue the opposite. It's the same as Lennon saying they were bigger than Jesus. They were in a place and time a sliver a blink. Pearl Jam were really one of the last movements in music that was unifying to that extent. That is why they were on Time magazine etc. They were not just part of a movement they literally were the biggest band in the world when that still meant something. The way we are experiencing meda now that may never happen again. Taylor is pulling something entirely different off. Ed was right comparing her fans to a movement. With her the movement is the thing more than the person is . Maybe if we used significant instead of relevant. It would make more sense to everyone. Those two words on the surface seem anchored to each other. They are very different.

Some people just play a generic rock playlist that will auto default to a lot of these bands , if u just let Spotify go it will work it’s way back to foo fighters everytime

coptheriotact wrote:Some people just play a generic rock playlist that will auto default to a lot of these bands , if u just let Spotify go it will work it’s way back to foo fighters everytime

Lmao, yep, all roads lead to the Foo Fighters...or in my case "Machinehead" by Bush. One of the two.

Tj wrote:I actually don't think the idea of relevance in 24 is relevant anymore.
We have the ability to curate our entire universe in away we never have had before. Coldplay is not more relevant than those other bands. The Spotify thing reminds of a New York times best selling list. So is the next Daniel Steele or Tom Clancy book more relevant than Shakespeare no probably not. I guess a argument could be made it is in a very small window of time. The big picture would argue the opposite. It's the same as Lennon saying they were bigger than Jesus. They were in a place and time a sliver a blink. Pearl Jam were really one of the last movements in music that was unifying to that extent. That is why they were on Time magazine etc. They were not just part of a movement they literally were the biggest band in the world when that still meant something. The way we are experiencing meda now that may never happen again. Taylor is pulling something entirely different off. Ed was right comparing her fans to a movement. With her the movement is the thing more than the person is . Maybe if we used significant instead of relevant. It would make more sense to everyone. Those two words on the surface seem anchored to each other. They are very different.

That's a good post. I'm a little too tipsy to make even a semi-decent response so I'll leave it at that.

1 other stupid point in 2024 PJ will be a 34 year old band. In 1991 that would have been a artist from 1957. Who was "relevant" from then Johnny Cash might be it. Maybe a case for Chuck Berry.

Cash was 59 in 91. Ed is now Johnny Cash

Tj wrote:1 other stupid point in 2024 PJ will be a 34 year old band. In 1991 that would have been a artist from 1957. Who was "relevant" from then Johnny Cash might be it. Maybe a case for Chuck Berry.

Yeah I mean it's crazy how few bands even last this long and then even fewer still who retain such a crazy strong dedicated following...I mean it's a tiny number. Maybe 10 at any given time. At most 20 across all genres. Calling any of these bands not "relevant" seems like such a pissy comment. You can absolutely say their current music sucks if you feel that way, but I think the issue of relevance has long since been decided.

Tj wrote:1 other stupid point in 2024 PJ will be a 34 year old band. In 1991 that would have been a artist from 1957. Who was "relevant" from then Johnny Cash might be it. Maybe a case for Chuck Berry.

I was lucky enough to see The Boss last night in San Francisco. I’ve never been a huge Bruce fan but my dad is and bought tix for me and my brothers. The show was absolutely amazing- 3 hours of profoundly empassioned rock music produced mostly by folks in their 70s. Pearl Jam can be whatever they want to be in this day and age. Bruce proves it. His voice was amazing and his guitar playing, aided by wrist braces, was phenomenal.

Fattie_Vedder wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:It’s such a reflection of the user base though. Radiohead has 3x+ The Who.

That’s because Radiohead is great.

But RHCP near the top… fucking crap Guns N’ Roses still have 30M listeners monthly?!??

No hope.

Remember when Cobain said he’d put Gunz out of their jobs? heh-heh

Leatherhead wrote:WTF so much Coldplay?

They're an enormously popular pop act

It's okay to say "band" lol

Damn thanks for telling me. Whew

Coldplay are recording artists of immense mass appeal. Indubitably.

Mentioning PJ'S irrelevance is almost like a hipster credo at this point. It happens every album cycle. "Just because I am reviewing a new Pearl Jam album, and I may even say some flattering things about it, doesn't mean I actually care about it. I don't want to lose my street cred in case I get an interview with pitchfork."

yep

In fact, most AI could easily nail a new PJ album mock review at this point. Mention some shit about "a return to form" a few times, some blabbering about 90's nostalgia (as if it's new insight, bonus points for name dropping Seattle, grunge, Kurt Cobain, Ed's battle against fame, the decision to stop making music videos, Ticketmaster, etc.), some description of hard rockers mixed with soft ballads with the heavy hitters front loaded and the back side more chill, and then the obligatory comment about relevance. Easy peasy.