liebzz wrote:Maybe I get crap for this, but I'm gonna say it anyway: I really don't care if Pearl Jam is attracting new listeners. I care that they are attracting me as a listener. And to my ears, Lightning Bolt is on par, in terms of quality, with Yield. That might seem blasphemous to those who place the first five on a separate pedestal that no new Pearl Jam album could have a chance at achieving, but I do think, months and months after first hearing it and digesting it over and over, that this is dare I say it, a great album.
great post
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Fri December 06, 2013 7:26 pm
by Thurman Murman
I have a couple of friends that kind of left the band during the No Code era, but rediscovered them after Avocado was released. Not exactly what you were asking, but anyways...
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Fri December 06, 2013 7:31 pm
by Thurman Murman
southp wrote:Backspacer and Lightning Bolt are exactly how Pearl Jam sounds now. And it's pretty damn good for a band that has been around so long! Have a listen to songs like Pendulum, MFS, Infallible, Yellow Moon... these songs stack up well to just about anything from the middle albums.
As for some of those other bands mentioned in this thread, I for one completely ignored U2 for decades. I couldn't stand how everyone loved them so unconditionally. I finally pulled my head out of my ass after enjoying the song Magnificent and decided to go through the whole catalog and found a lot of great songs I never thought I would fall in love with (All I want is You, One Tree Hill, etc). I even went to see them when they came to Montreal a few years ago and went so far as to sign-up for the fan club to ensure I got tickets. So there you go, I became a new U2 fan in 2011.
I have a similar history with Springsteen. As a kid in the 80s i thought he was a joke with those Born in the USA videos...and then he became kind of irrelevant in the early/mid 90s. I basically discovered him when Devils and Dust came out in 2005 (?) and now consider myself to be a huge fan.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Fri December 06, 2013 10:04 pm
by red calzolaio
what do you mean by 'into'?
total fandom, including attending every concert possible?
i consider some of my friends and my father PJ fans because of the last several singles on the radio. then i swooped in and let my father hear the magnificent PJ of old and he liked, he liked a lot.
but yea, ask any of them the name of one PJ song and they would probably say Black.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Mon December 09, 2013 6:43 pm
by twoheadedboy
Leatherhead wrote:Also, when I was at the concert in Portland, after the concert, while using the restroom, I asked a young kid what his favorite PJ album is (while we were both washing our hands). His answer was Lightning Bolt. I asked him about my favorite, Binaural, and he didn't know what album I was talking about, said he'd have to hear some songs from it to know wtf I was talking about. However, this was only one incident, one person, at one concert, in one city, etc.
That's why I specified "people 22 and older" in my post. Young kids are only going to know the most recent thing, unless they really latch on and get into the old stuff.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Mon December 09, 2013 7:06 pm
by Tuolumne
I think as far as new fans, I think they have a chance like in the way Springsteen picks up new listeners gradually. PJ won't be the big phenom they were, but I think they'll remain in the spot of putting out albums continually, ones that priogress and explore different styles. There aren't exactly a bunch of teenagers lining up to pick up Springsteen's "Working on a Dream" and "Wrecking Ball", but serious music listeners in that 18-25 age group see the cred and legacy of his name and they go back and search. The average EDM or casual pop fan isn't giong down Bruce back catalog but there is a certain breed of listeners that seem to exist in every generation that likes to go back into the past and discover it in a very respectful way. And being a killer live acts also helps that. I think we might see more and more of that with PJ.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Mon December 09, 2013 8:45 pm
by Blenheim Augustine
I used to think PJ were going to be like a Led Zep that people always listened to but I think that was wishfull thinking after 1995. Their output since then has been nice but not much more than that - I've enjoyed most of the albums and there are great songs but nothing has the power of the first three albums. They were never going to win in the song writing or musicianship stakes and without the raw energy they've relied on Ed's voice to pull them through - till 2006 when his voice blew out*.
* I know people will say "he can still sing now" but even if you repeat that phrase 100 times it won't become true. And when people say he can't sing any more they don't mean he can't hit a specific note they are referring to a pretty much indescribable warmth/tone that captivated millions of people.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Mon December 09, 2013 8:54 pm
by stip
Blenheim Augustine wrote:I used to think PJ were going to be like a Led Zep that people always listened to but I think that was wishfull thinking after 1995. Their output since then has been nice but not much more than that - I've enjoyed most of the albums and there are great songs but nothing has the power of the first three albums. They were never going to win in the song writing or musicianship stakes and without the raw energy they've relied on Ed's voice to pull them through - till 2006 when his voice blew out*.
* I know people will say "he can still sing now" but even if you repeat that phrase 100 times it won't become true. And when people say he can't sing any more they don't mean he can't hit a specific note they are referring to a pretty much indescribable warmth/tone that captivated millions of people.
which was gone after 1995. Pearl Jam's place in music history is its first three records.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Mon December 09, 2013 8:58 pm
by Mine
stip wrote:
Blenheim Augustine wrote:I used to think PJ were going to be like a Led Zep that people always listened to but I think that was wishfull thinking after 1995. Their output since then has been nice but not much more than that - I've enjoyed most of the albums and there are great songs but nothing has the power of the first three albums. They were never going to win in the song writing or musicianship stakes and without the raw energy they've relied on Ed's voice to pull them through - till 2006 when his voice blew out*.
* I know people will say "he can still sing now" but even if you repeat that phrase 100 times it won't become true. And when people say he can't sing any more they don't mean he can't hit a specific note they are referring to a pretty much indescribable warmth/tone that captivated millions of people.
which was gone after 1995. Pearl Jam's place in music history is its first three records.
Is even that really? I mean "Kurt Cobain's contemporary" seems to be their place in music history at this point.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Tue December 10, 2013 3:23 am
by warehouse
Mine wrote:
stip wrote:
Blenheim Augustine wrote:I used to think PJ were going to be like a Led Zep that people always listened to but I think that was wishfull thinking after 1995. Their output since then has been nice but not much more than that - I've enjoyed most of the albums and there are great songs but nothing has the power of the first three albums. They were never going to win in the song writing or musicianship stakes and without the raw energy they've relied on Ed's voice to pull them through - till 2006 when his voice blew out*.
* I know people will say "he can still sing now" but even if you repeat that phrase 100 times it won't become true. And when people say he can't sing any more they don't mean he can't hit a specific note they are referring to a pretty much indescribable warmth/tone that captivated millions of people.
which was gone after 1995. Pearl Jam's place in music history is its first three records.
Is even that really? I mean "Kurt Cobain's contemporary" seems to be their place in music history at this point.
i know its cool to put down pearl jam, but is this really what you think?
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Tue December 10, 2013 3:36 am
by Lament
They'll always be the undisputed kings of Jock-ternative Rock. No one will ever be able to take that title away from them.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Tue December 10, 2013 4:16 am
by stip
DMB?
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Tue December 10, 2013 5:08 am
by Lament
DMB are the undisputed kings of Jockternative Pop.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Wed December 11, 2013 1:32 am
by Wendy Carlos's Twin
Pearl Jam is more Bro-ternative.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Wed December 11, 2013 2:37 am
by Norah
Guys, Wendy is right.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Wed December 11, 2013 3:34 am
by warehouse
where'd my radiohead post go? alt-jockternative?
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Wed December 11, 2013 3:44 am
by Norah
We lost an entire day's worth of posts. Sarge hit the wrong button or something.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Wed December 11, 2013 3:56 am
by Sgt. Crackpot
cutuphalfdead wrote:We lost an entire day's worth of posts. Sarge hit the wrong button or something.
You know it was nothing to do with me, man. My anniversary night last night was actually screwed because I evidently wasted my time trying to get it fixed. Now my wife hates me, and you're all a bunch of ungrateful buttholes.
Oh, and the next time anything like this happens, you're all on your own. Instead I'll actually go an have my once a year shag with my wife instead, at least that way I'll enjoy getting fucked.
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Wed December 11, 2013 4:15 am
by Norah
Re: Pearl Jam today vs. the past
Posted: Wed December 11, 2013 4:17 am
by Lament
Sgt. Crackpot wrote:Instead I'll actually go an have my once a year shag with my wife instead
great post