Red Mosquito

Birds in Hell wrote:I'm not suggesting anyone use that as a basis for what they like and don't like; I certainly don't. All I meant is that when critics talk about excellent rock music of the 70s, they talk about bands like Big Star or Television and not Foghat or Foreigner (who sold a great deal more records at the time.)

And I guess what I'm saying is I don't think that critics, on a large scale, really shape how music is remembered. They do for people who also approach music with a critic's mindset, perhaps, but not for the millions of other people who just approach it as listeners (many of whom, in my experience, are no less enthusiastic about it than the so-called "serious" music fans). Music elitism is a self-perpetuating fallacy--a bunch of critically-minded people agreeing that the "accurate" version of history is the one written by, surprise, other critics, and those who simply enjoy music according to different criteria are therefore caught up in some kind of errant illusion about what "good music" really is. It's nonsense.

There are many "serious" music fans on this board, many of whom originally came here because of an uncharacteristically strong fondness for Pearl Jam. Some have moved on, which is fine, but most of us still think that Pearl Jam have done some wonderful things as musicians, as artists, even if we're not crazy about certain individual works. Likewise, many of us are not people with narrow tastes, or with our unwashed heads forever lodged up the flannel-clad asses of 1995; we're people with large record collections spanning many decades and many genres, containing much of the same music that "serious" listeners are drooling over, yet still choosing to let Pearl Jam, in whatever capacity, be a part of it. I think you can find a lot of proof that "Pearl Jam" and "serious listening" are not mutually exclusive, just by looking around.

Ugh, I deleted the post from which the above quote has been taken - not quickly enough, evidently! I decided it was a poor illustration of what I was trying to express.

as a related question, I wonder if younger people are remember musical history (rock music, anyway) different due to the way in which listening habits are changing (fewer 'supergroups' with massive penetration, infinitely more customizable options to account for idiosyncratic tastes). I wonder if that changes what people discover--if there are fewer pathways leading you towards the Led Zeppelins of the past since classic rock radio will probably not be what guides you.

This would be an interesting question to ask on the pit. There seem to be quite a few youngsters posting over there the past few months. I remember noticing that some of the people identifying themselves as newbies were actually quite young (I remember someone 17 and someone 22).

stip wrote:as a related question, I wonder if younger people are remember musical history (rock music, anyway) different due to the way in which listening habits are changing (fewer 'supergroups' with massive penetration, infinitely more customizable options to account for idiosyncratic tastes). I wonder if that changes what people discover--if there are fewer pathways leading you towards the Led Zeppelins of the past since classic rock radio will probably not be what guides you.

As I read through this entire thread, this was the question that came to mind.

Pearl Jam have suffered more than most bands of their era due to the lack of "classic rock radio" or something similar to prop them up. There's just not a good way to discover a band of their ilk. THE INTERNET is too damn big and there is no longer that sense of curation we once got from radio, magazines and MTV back in the day.

PJ are direct descendants of the giants of classic rock radio, something that always set them apart from many of their peers. In that sense, they're a band out of time. Put another way, if there was still such a thing as classic rock radio, classic rock would now take into account the 90s, and Pearl Jam would be much more on the radar for teens looking into the past, just as I looked forward to "Get the Led Out" every week.

There are just too many bands floating around in the ether now. It's much harder to build a legacy via Spotify and car commercials.

Honestly (and morbidly), the best thing for PJ's legacy would have been if Ed died in 1996 as they were recording No Code. People today would have something more tangible to grab onto (like Janis, Hendrix, Cobain) - greatness snuffed out too early. That's a lot more galvanizing than "old-ish band still chugging along with a nice core audience."

In this alternate history (that I'm glad didn't happen), people would be clamoring for the release of the "No Code Sessions," looking upon it as a bittersweet artifact that showed the amazing left turn the band was about to make.

But the band, and all of us, don't get to be that sexy.

evenslow wrote:Put another way, if there was still such a thing as classic rock radio, classic rock would now take into account the 90s, and Pearl Jam would be much more on the radar for teens looking into the past, just as I looked forward to "Get the Led Out" every week.

Last time I was back in KC visiting friends and family, I turned out 101 The Fox (their Classic Rock station). And sure enough. Pearl Jam. They played Alive next to American Girl and Whole Lotta Love.

On some level, it's looked upon as deeply uncool to be a part of that classic rock lineage and revere your heroes. The cool thing to do is kill your idols and Pearl Jam just isn't built that way. And the generalized Grateful Dead comparisons are certainly not helpful. I'll bet that half the teens today would guess Pearl Jam was a jam band of some kind if they didn't know better.

But it's also overblown that they're only the boring guys who did Jeremy. Casual listeners would be very surprised by stuff like Sleight of Hand or Strangest Tribe or Help Help or Push Me Pull Me or Insignificance or...

I think the anti-video, anti-promotion thing kinda hurt them a little in the long run in some places.

I know videos are dying now anyway but when i was just starting to get into music properly (early 2000's i guess) i'd watch a lot of music tv channels and i always assumed pearl jam was a band that must have had one good album and then broken up or something. You'd see alot of foo fighters and qotsa and nu metal shite etc but i had no idea pearl jam was still producing music since all you'd ever see were the ten songs. Never even saw the DTE vid. Meant i was in for a nice suprise when i finally decided to find out if that band that did that even flow song had any more songs i liked a few years ago.

I'm not saying they should start making videos now though, i actually saw fixer on tv once and i wish i hadn't...But a back catalogue of videos would have given them some kind of presence, at least for me.

HOWEVER i am in england, and no one ever talks about pearl jam in england in any regard anyway. Nirvana as always is held up as the bastion of musical integrity , and cornell would pop up occasionally with audioslave and he did that bond song, so i was at least aware of him.If not soundgarden specifically.

HOWEVER 2: I live in a cesspool of ignorance and dub-step, and i dont know any hipsters or much music-savvy people.

They gained a lot of new fans here in Argentina...a lot. Around the time of records like Yield or Binaural most of the fans were casual listeners who knew Ten and maybe Vitalogy. And that was about it.

durdencommatyler wrote:

evenslow wrote:Put another way, if there was still such a thing as classic rock radio, classic rock would now take into account the 90s, and Pearl Jam would be much more on the radar for teens looking into the past, just as I looked forward to "Get the Led Out" every week.

Last time I was back in KC visiting friends and family, I turned out 101 The Fox (their Classic Rock station). And sure enough. Pearl Jam. They played Alive next to American Girl and Whole Lotta Love.

Yeah the life or death of Classic Rock is most likely regional. I can think of 6 stations in CT that play PJ regularly. I used to assume that was how it was everywhere but whenever I travel it's mostly Top 40 and Country. Whether or not kids listen to radio I have no idea.

bada wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

evenslow wrote:Put another way, if there was still such a thing as classic rock radio, classic rock would now take into account the 90s, and Pearl Jam would be much more on the radar for teens looking into the past, just as I looked forward to "Get the Led Out" every week.

Last time I was back in KC visiting friends and family, I turned out 101 The Fox (their Classic Rock station). And sure enough. Pearl Jam. They played Alive next to American Girl and Whole Lotta Love.

Yeah the life or death of Classic Rock is most likely regional. I can think of 6 stations in CT that play PJ regularly. I used to assume that was how it was everywhere but whenever I travel it's mostly Top 40 and Country. Whether or not kids listen to radio I have no idea.

I was speaking more of the primary importance of radio as a go-to tastemaker/curator. That's all completely out the window now with the Internets.

stupidmop wrote:I know videos are dying now anyway

I don't think they are

Heathen wrote:

stupidmop wrote:I know videos are dying now anyway

I don't think they are

I think the impact and significance they once held has. It used to special to hear about an upcoming premier and to catch it on tv. Just as with radio, YouTube and the Internet are so saturated with videos that they have just become part of the overall tapestry.

Thejambi wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stupidmop wrote:I know videos are dying now anyway

I don't think they are

I think the impact and significance they once held has. It used to special to hear about an upcoming premier and to catch it on tv. Just as with radio, YouTube and the Internet are so saturated with videos that they have just become part of the overall tapestry.

I don't disagree with that, but it's very different from videos being dying. With big hits, it's not uncommon that we know the video as much as the song itself.

I never used to hide the fact that I liked Pearl Jam (I was born in 1984), but from 06 on they have become a band I don't exactly think to bring up at parties. The worst is when you are at a bar and a song like Alive comes on and the people who remember you being really into them in high school point it out like you must be so excited to hear it. I wouldn't say i'm embarrassed about my fandom, but when I talk about music i'm excited about with friends, I discuss bands that are current or bands that I am just discovering. The last two albums sort of prevent that type of dialogue for me when it comes to Pearl Jam. Actually, the only time I can remember talking about Backspacer with someone is some 40 something mom asking me who was singing the song that was playing in the background of the movie that was on (it was "Just Breathe). She thought the song was "nice"....

And no casual music fan young or old can name any Pearl Jam song post Vitalogy not named Last Kiss....the 'kids' born post 90's have absolutely no clue.

Heathen wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stupidmop wrote:I know videos are dying now anyway

I don't think they are

I think the impact and significance they once held has. It used to special to hear about an upcoming premier and to catch it on tv. Just as with radio, YouTube and the Internet are so saturated with videos that they have just become part of the overall tapestry.

I don't disagree with that, but it's very different from videos being dying. With big hits, it's not uncommon that we know the video as much as the song itself.

I concur. If anything I think more videos are being made with the lower cost of good equipment now and a basically free vehicle to distribute them.

So what's the last "hit" your average joe/teen can name? Is Given to Fly even on the radar? Or is it Betterman?

Fixer/Just Breathe, whatever you think about them, did more for Pearl Jam with "the public at large" than you could ever hope for two songs 18 years into a career for a rock band out of step with the dominant forms of the time.

Last Kiss, I'd imagine.

I work with college students and most of them have a recognition of the band but are not fans. Many are more familiar with Ed's solo stuff than than anything but Last Kiss and whatever songs may have been on Rockband when they were growing up. PJ chose a path that closely mirrors Grateful Dead and Neil Young. They also chose to be a more global band and focus less on the US. The fanbase in the US is around 250,000 people and will probably just slightly erode over time without any new relevant music. Young people today are no longer interested in the old ways of doing anything--not just music. They do not look back they look forward. This is why Foo Fighters are more relevant than Pearl Jam because they have adapted and become a part of the new way of doing things. Foo Fighters are a cool uncle and Pearl Jam are a grumpy grandfather.

Ledbetterdays wrote:I work with college students and most of them have a recognition of the band but are not fans. Many are more familiar with Ed's solo stuff than than anything but Last Kiss and whatever songs may have been on Rockband when they were growing up. PJ chose a path that closely mirrors Grateful Dead and Neil Young. They also chose to be a more global band and focus less on the US. The fanbase in the US is around 250,000 people and will probably just slightly erode over time without any new relevant music. Young people today are no longer interested in the old ways of doing anything--not just music. They do not look back they look forward. This is why Foo Fighters are more relevant than Pearl Jam because they have adapted and become a part of the new way of doing things. Foo Fighters are a cool uncle and Pearl Jam are a grumpy grandfather.

welcome to the board