Red Mosquito

I think that e-mail is saying way more about the person writing it than anything to do with what makes Ten better than their later records. I mean, in a lot of words he's basically repeating the idea of the angst and darkness of Ten capturing the angst of that certain generation. I mean, OK, but I don't feel that really says much beyond that. The lyrics of Ten, for the most part, are surface level, which makes sense; Ed was probably still figuring out how to write lyrics. A song like Sleight of Hand travels to a far more uncomfortable place than many of those songs and is actually able to bring the situation and the emotion to life. The fact that Alive was on the pulse of a generation, or whatever you want to call it, and Sleight of Hand wasn't is not of too much importance, at least decades later.

I think it's worth asking the question why one approach resonated so broadly and the other didn't--especially if Sleight of Hand is better.

For some context, this is part of a conversation about a course he just finished teaching at UC Santa Cruz on the idea of 'cool' in American culture. One of his units were on the 90s, which was the decade his students were the most curious about. Without really knowing anything (they were very hungry for context) they all worshiped Nirvana and dismissed pearl jam, and so my friend (who was a huge pearl jam fan in the early 90s but hasn't cared about them since) ended up spending a lot of time in that unit defending Pearl Jam--which surprised him since we've had so many conversations over the years where I was defending them against his dismissals.

Jorge?

stip wrote:I think it's worth asking the question why one approach resonated so broadly and the other didn't--especially if Sleight of Hand is better.

Well, besides one approach getting promoted for years on end and one not being promoted in the least, yeah, it's no surprise that a song like Sleight of Hand wouldn't make the noise Alive would; it's certainly far less dramatic. But I think this leads down the rabbit hole of equating popularity with quality, which comes up here often and makes little sense to me. Just because something is popular doesn't make it bad, but it definitely doesn't make it good, either.

That's true, but pearl jam wasn't just popular. Hootie and the Blowfish were popular. Pearl Jam/Nirvana were massively culturally relevant (I'm only talking about the US here). They were touchstones in what was a transformation of youth culture. And then that goes away. So what happened. Some of it is certainly fatigue, but other artists were still able to maintain a degree of relevancy without the popular artists. Spin reviewed Binaural in the same entry as Matchbox 20. So something changed.

The kids grew up & lost interest. Well, most of them.

that was Rolling Stone and that review sucked ballz.

yeah it really did. I think it was framed as a 'which album are you going to play in the car while making out with your girlfriend' or something like that

stip wrote:That's true, but pearl jam wasn't just popular. Hootie and the Blowfish were popular. Pearl Jam/Nirvana were massively culturally relevant (I'm only talking about the US here). They were touchstones in what was a transformation of youth culture. And then that goes away. So what happened. Some of it is certainly fatigue, but other artists were still able to maintain a degree of relevancy without the popular artists. Spin reviewed Binaural in the same entry as Matchbox 20. So something changed.

I'm not sure I can think of one artist who got to the place that Pearl Jam/Nirvana did with their early work and then maintained that relevance throughout their career. Are there artists who maintained sales? Sure, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

No, definitely not sales. And I don't necessarily mean maintaining that level of cultural importance throughout their career. Maybe U2? But bands like REM or Radiohead (radiohead especially) maintained a degree of cultural relevance that lingered far longer than pearl jam's--so something about the nature of that music continued to speak even though the volume got turned down. What was so frustrating for me in the late 90s was that Pearl Jam fundamentally ceased to matter, in a way that I wouldn't say about those other groups I mentioned.

Did they? U2 and REM were on top of the world for a few years, and then faded back down (in terms of relevance, if not sales); this despite U2 doing everything within it's power to avoid that. Radiohead is probably the best example, but even their more recent accolades had to do with the nature of how they released their music rather than the music itself. But if we're wracking our brains for examples, I think it's possible there's not really anything unique to PJ's music that did this, but rather a band like Radiohead is the exception that proves the rule.

it's not that far-fetched to realize that Nirvana and Pearl Jam were just a fad that hit at the right time, and all fads die as soon as (youth) culture loses interest and looks elsewhere for something new. it's just that most of us held onto it.

happens everyday with bands now. it's just that the fad's focus is more hyper intense bc of the internet and disposability. In 1992, you had to rely on magazines and tv to get your band news... stretching that fad out over a couple of years rather than a couple of months.

that certainly helps to explain part of the overall dip in popularity, but that doesn't bridge the gap between arguably the most important band in the United States to sharing a smarmy review with Matchbox 20

stip wrote:that certainly helps to explain part of the overall dip in popularity, but that doesn't bridge the gap between arguably the most important band in the United States to sharing a smarmy review with Matchbox 20

Marketing teams

digster wrote:Did they? U2 and REM were on top of the world for a few years, and then faded back down (in terms of relevance, if not sales); this despite U2 doing everything within it's power to avoid that.

U2 put out records that managed to be massively culturally relevant, hugely commercially successful, and overwhelmingly critically adored in three different decades (The Joshua Tree in the 80s, Achtung Baby in the 90s, and All That You Can't Leave Behind in the 00s). U2 were on top of the world for as long as any band in terms of combining cultural relevance, commercial success, and critical acclaim.

stip wrote:For some context, this is part of a conversation about a course he just finished teaching at UC Santa Cruz on the idea of 'cool' in American culture. One of his units were on the 90s, which was the decade his students were the most curious about. Without really knowing anything (they were very hungry for context) they all worshiped Nirvana and dismissed pearl jam, and so my friend (who was a huge pearl jam fan in the early 90s but hasn't cared about them since) ended up spending a lot of time in that unit defending Pearl Jam

There's a version of Hell in which I take this class over and over and over.

bodysnatcher wrote:

stip wrote:that certainly helps to explain part of the overall dip in popularity, but that doesn't bridge the gap between arguably the most important band in the United States to sharing a smarmy review with Matchbox 20

Marketing teams

This is the answer for every question ever asked about the music industry as a whole.

Lament wrote:

digster wrote:Did they? U2 and REM were on top of the world for a few years, and then faded back down (in terms of relevance, if not sales); this despite U2 doing everything within it's power to avoid that.

U2 put out records that managed to be massively culturally relevant, hugely commercially successful, and overwhelmingly critically adored in three different decades (The Joshua Tree in the 80s, Achtung Baby in the 90s, and All That You Can't Leave Behind in the 00s). U2 were on top of the world for as long as any band in terms of combining cultural relevance, commercial success, and critical acclaim.

The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby came in the same four year period, did they not? 87-91? That's basically a similar stretch of time as PJ supposedly was at the top of the food chain.

And as I said before, I'm not arguing that there aren't exceptions.

stip wrote:that certainly helps to explain part of the overall dip in popularity, but that doesn't bridge the gap between arguably the most important band in the United States to sharing a smarmy review with Matchbox 20

I think we're putting an awful lot of stock into a music review some idiot wrote for Spin if it's meant to stand in for The Worldview of Pearl Jam Circa 2000.

I think, additionally, that really devoted fans can also be the ones most resistant to change. I mean, with the e-mail stip's professor friend sent, he's romanticizing Ten to an absurd degree (Eddie walking into the cave of darkness and all). If he was a young, angry guy back then and had a connection like that to a record, fine, but if you're romanticized it that much in your head, isn't it likely you're going to be resistant when the band bucks the formula, no matter what they do?