Red Mosquito

you're doing it again.

What, showing agreement without adding anything to the conversation? I do that, I know.

that's alright.

I'll stand by Riot Act as a political record, but it is a political record about paralysis and alienation, and so Roskilde is still all over that. These are not exactly contradictory interpretations. Pearl Jam's political has always been personal, and these two streams intersect quite nicely--shattering public and private tragedy and loss . I think Down and Undone are left off that record more for their optimism (basically everything after the 1st 3 songs is defeatist as hell) than their politics.


Looking at the tracklist, however, it's really the final third of the record (green disease---help help---bushleaguer---1/2 full) that is explicitly political (plus some moments in ghost and cropduster earlier). It's not like the record was recorded in the order the songs appear, but it is interesting that it's tracked like that--like personal tragedies evolve into public ones.

Mine wrote:even back in the day where MLB was not in ash form yet

I believe the correct way to word this is "When Mother Love Bone was not yet ashen."

Lament wrote:

Mine wrote:even back in the day where MLB was not in ash form yet

I believe the correct way to word this is "When Mother Love Bone was not yet ashen."

aproved

BurtReynolds wrote: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.

I think you're right. 50 year-old shades of grey.

harmless wrote: 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).

This sums up the PJ fan mythology pretty well. The fact that the band contradicted most of it in every interview they gave especially when promoting Yield doesn't seem to bother anybody. Even Ed was saying at the time that No Code selling less was an indication of how much promotion influences record sells. There isn't one genre that sells nor it was in 1997.
There's a difference between not writing the kind of music you're expected to and writing the kind of music that isn't supposed to be as popular both intended consciously.
Pearl Jam are thought of as being wise/ethical/moral and i don't know what in their glory days when for the most part they were pretentious and naive ie. talking out of their asses.

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote: 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).

This sums up the PJ fan mythology pretty well. The fact that the band contradicted most of it in every interview they gave especially when promoting Yield doesn't seem to bother anybody. Even Ed was saying at the time that No Code selling less was an indication of how much promotion influences record sells. There isn't one genre that sells nor it was in 1997.
There's a difference between not writing the kind of music you're expected to and writing the kind of music that isn't supposed to be as popular both intended consciously.
Pearl Jam are thought of as being wise/ethical/moral and i don't know what in their glory days when for the most part they were pretentious and naive ie. talking out of their asses.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive options. What they used to be was passionate, so they spoke out about stuff. A lot of times they were right. Sometimes they were wrong. It doesn't take away from anything the fanbase thought they were.

'Not writing the music you're supposed to' is exactly what I'm talking about. Obviously calling it self-sabotage would be an exaggeration.

harmless wrote:'Not writing the music you're supposed to' is exactly what I'm talking about. Obviously calling it self-sabotage would be an exaggeration.

It doesn't exclude commercial success or better said appeal. And again insert Stone quote about all those cool riffs ready to make Ten #2 instead of Vitalogy that Ed wouldn't obey and ego hurts very much yadda yadda. It had more to do with expectations maby even more from their label than their public.

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:'Not writing the music you're supposed to' is exactly what I'm talking about. Obviously calling it self-sabotage would be an exaggeration.

It doesn't exclude commercial success or better said appeal. And again insert Stone quote about all those cool riffs ready to make Ten #2 instead of Vitalogy that Ed wouldn't obey and ego hurts very much yadda yadda. It had more to do with expectations maby even more from their label than their public.

I have not seen those Stone quotes.

BurtReynolds wrote: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.

Doesn't this imply that the theory of them trying to be significantly more accessible and commercially successful is very flawed?

Mine wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote: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.

Doesn't this imply that the theory of them trying to be significantly more accessible and commercially successful is very flawed?

Why would it?

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.

McParadigm wrote:also

This is by far my crowning achievement of thread creation.

I remember the days when seeing Pearl Jam in pop culture was a bit shocking, if not exhilarating. There was even a thread about it on the old board. Now they’re everywhere and anywhere. Sometime in the most oddest places. I don’t know whether it was a conscious effort to get out in public, or it was people realizing that the band is important and should be given respect and recognition, it’s probably a combination of the two but the effect has been detrimental to the music itself. All of the articles, the specials, the promotion, the documentary, the tributes etc. has little to do with the music they made. It’s about the individuals, the journey, the process, and the generally sound that they produced during a generation. Nostalgia stories tend to focus on the tent poles of what we remember, and extinguish the rest. It’s a watered down version of what really made the band popular, which was the music and passion. All of this extra “stuff” creates a monster and the trap is to feed that monster. Pearl Jam is certainly not Pearl Jam anymore, they’re guys playing roles in the Pearl Jam movie, they’re caricatures of themselves, clinging on what has made them popular. It’s a shtick. Too many voices in the room, too many mouths to feed. An extraordinary band develops a sound then destroys it, they don’t develop it then profit from it. But they aren’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last, but nonetheless, very ordinary.

pnjguy wrote:I remember the days when seeing Pearl Jam in pop culture was a bit shocking, if not exhilarating. There was even a thread about it on the old board. Now they’re everywhere and anywhere. Sometime in the most oddest places. I don’t know whether it was a conscious effort to get out in public, or it was people realizing that the band is important and should be given respect and recognition, it’s probably a combination of the two but the effect has been detrimental to the music itself. All of the articles, the specials, the promotion, the documentary, the tributes etc. has little to do with the music they made. It’s about the individuals, the journey, the process, and the generally sound that they produced during a generation. Nostalgia stories tend to focus on the tent poles of what we remember, and extinguish the rest. It’s a watered down version of what really made the band popular, which was the music and passion. All of this extra “stuff” creates a monster and the trap is to feed that monster. Pearl Jam is certainly not Pearl Jam anymore, they’re guys playing roles in the Pearl Jam movie, they’re caricatures of themselves, clinging on what has made them popular. It’s a shtick. Too many voices in the room, too many mouths to feed. An extraordinary band develops a sound then destroys it, they don’t develop it then profit from it. But they aren’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last, but nonetheless, very ordinary.

pnjguy wrote:I remember the days when seeing Pearl Jam in pop culture was a bit shocking, if not exhilarating. There was even a thread about it on the old board. Now they’re everywhere and anywhere. Sometime in the most oddest places. I don’t know whether it was a conscious effort to get out in public, or it was people realizing that the band is important and should be given respect and recognition, it’s probably a combination of the two but the effect has been detrimental to the music itself. All of the articles, the specials, the promotion, the documentary, the tributes etc. has little to do with the music they made. It’s about the individuals, the journey, the process, and the generally sound that they produced during a generation. Nostalgia stories tend to focus on the tent poles of what we remember, and extinguish the rest. It’s a watered down version of what really made the band popular, which was the music and passion. All of this extra “stuff” creates a monster and the trap is to feed that monster. Pearl Jam is certainly not Pearl Jam anymore, they’re guys playing roles in the Pearl Jam movie, they’re caricatures of themselves, clinging on what has made them popular. It’s a shtick. Too many voices in the room, too many mouths to feed. An extraordinary band develops a sound then destroys it, they don’t develop it then profit from it. But they aren’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last, but nonetheless, very ordinary.

Great post, and I agree with most of what is said. The only caveat is the fact that it is ordinary. There are very few groups in the history of rock and roll that have been through that cycle and have been around long enough to complete it. The Stones, U2, The Eagles, to name a few, but there aren't that many.