McParadigm wrote: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.
Time isn't going to kill itself, McP, and this is pretty good company.
If more RMers would develop encyclopedic knowledge of Tom Waits or REM I'd be delighted to take a few months off from pearl jam.
stip wrote: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?
Yes, the goal here is precisely to expand the size of the audience, because in doing so, they are more likely to eventually be inducted into the HoF, and will make much more money along the way. The records directly impact who comes to your concerts. I think "wanting people to hear your music" is bullshit, for a band the size of Pearl Jam. Man, young bands with no money at all start Kickstarter campaigns "because they want people to hear their music". Pearl Jam have a global, rabid fanbase and audience already, which they are constantly showing the finger by reaching outwards. Now, that might be something Pearl Jam are enjoying doing, and if so, good luck to them. But in consciously trying to expand their audience (something they don't need to do) by constantly putting the shlockiest genre experiments on their albums, they are most definitely seeking to make more money now.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
harmless wrote:
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?
I've already written what albums I think were created with less of a commercial mindset, I don't need to do it again.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
stip wrote: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?
Yes, the goal here is precisely to expand the size of the audience, because in doing so, they are more likely to eventually be inducted into the HoF, and will make much more money along the way. The records directly impact who comes to your concerts. I think "wanting people to hear your music" is bullshit, for a band the size of Pearl Jam. Man, young bands with no money at all start Kickstarter campaigns "because they want people to hear their music". Pearl Jam have a global, rabid fanbase and audience already, which they are constantly showing the finger by reaching outwards. Now, that might be something Pearl Jam are enjoying doing, and if so, good luck to them. But in consciously trying to expand their audience (something they don't need to do) by constantly putting the shlockiest genre experiments on their albums, they are most definitely seeking to make more money now.
Until Backspacer, pearl jam had essentially become a band with a closed fanbase. they were not attracting new listeners. Songs with crossover appeal will lead people to your music, and honestly I'm sure if you are an artist knowing that you have successful songs that lots of people know is actually pretty fucking cool.
Otherwise these are wealthy people who do not seem to live extravagant lifestyles and were not having trouble selling out the shows where they amke their money anyway.
harmless wrote:
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?
I've already written what albums I think were created with less of a commercial mindset, I don't need to do it again.
right, I'm just confirming that it is the 3 albums that are not pre-no code, Yield, or the 3 post Riot Act albums, and that your comments about pearl jam's new direction refer to 70% of their catalog.
harmless wrote:I've already written what albums I think were created with less of a commercial mindset, I don't need to do it again.
but you're almost at 17000
Shit, you're right. I kind of hate myself.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
McParadigm wrote: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.
It's not like many do this from home. This is merely a workplace diversion.
Think I’m going to try being kind to everyone a chance.
harmless wrote:
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?
I've already written what albums I think were created with less of a commercial mindset, I don't need to do it again.
right, I'm just confirming that it is the 3 albums that are not pre-no code, Yield, or the 3 post Riot Act albums, and that your comments about pearl jam's new direction refer to 70% of their catalog.
Jesus, stip. They went from being the biggest band in the world, to wilfully choosing to run away from that fame; Vitalogy smacks of that, lyrically, and then No Code is the aesthetic change which set it in motion. Was Yield an effort to "fight to get it back again"? Not really; stylistically it might've been a return to a more straight-forward rock sound, but let's not pretend there weren't any bands that sounded like shiny-radio-pop in 1997. Of course there were, and Pearl Jam were not trying to emulate them. Now they are, since Backspacer and possibly even S/T (albeit without BoB).
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
stupidmop wrote:That intro has to be doing more harm than good, audience wise. Who wouldn't race to flip the radio channel after that eh?
that's just it! Give these people some fucking credit. If pearl jam was going for a flat out moneygrab they'd hopefully be better at it!
That piano sounds like it's straight out of Aladdin. Aladdin made shit loads of money.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
stupidmop wrote:That intro has to be doing more harm than good, audience wise. Who wouldn't race to flip the radio channel after that eh?
that's just it! Give these people some fucking credit. If pearl jam was going for a flat out moneygrab they'd hopefully be better at it!
Heuurr thhuuuaaaa siiiiiurrruuuuuunnnssss
I don't see how grr argh grunge survivors putting out music sounding like Disney music is a bright move.
Though I like to think someone somewhere hears either track, thinks 'how lovely!, lemme see what else they do! ' and finds blood.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
I think that what we'd all like to believe is that decisions to make songs sound like cheesy radio shlock are no longer actually commercial decisions, because they sound bad, and nobody likes things that sound bad. So in fact, Pearl Jam are being very punk for being cool enough, being don't-give-a-fuck enough, to write cheesy shlock songs that sound bad. Some days I like that kind of paradoxical reasoning, because it makes PJ sound like they could be doing something cool.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
I think they are trying to be more accessible, but haven't become such hacks that they aren't trying to do it their own way. They are trying to put their own spin on it, but its not working IMO. They have only one eye on being more accessible, but thats enough to hamper them. Shades of gray here, dudes.
This is all just my own very unscientific opinion.
