Red Mosquito

digster wrote: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.

Lengthwise, perhaps, but the landscape of music in March of '87 when The Joshua Tree came out versus November of '91 when Achtung Baby came out could not have been more drastically different. You could make the case that the landscape of music went relatively unchanged for the entire time that Pearl Jam ruled the food chain, and that their reign was more tied into the reign of "grunge" than it was with anything Pearl Jam themselves were doing.

I think one of the things that bands/artists who do have lengthy "stays of power" (so-to-speak) like U2, REM, Radiohead, etc., seem to have in common is that they manage to never be specifically tied to a time/place/scene/movement. Pearl Jam didn't really manage to pull this off. It's probably not their fault, but it seems to me to be almost undeniably true.

I don't really think I'm disagreeing. But stip seemed to be questioning where that frantic, "this is THE BAND" fanbase went for Pearl Jam after a few years. Despite these examples, I don't think any band has managed to maintain that. People who remember better can dispute this possibly, but wasn't Pearl Jam kind of 'everywhere' for a few years? As popular as U2, REM or Radiohead have been, I don't know if they managed to maintain that level of frenetic adulation for much longer than Pearl Jam; I don't see how any band could. U2 have managed to be popular many times throughout their career, but I don't think they were "The Band" from the release of Joshua Tree up to and through the release of All You Can't Leave Behind.

But I think what stip is asking is how did Pearl Jam become an afterthought for so long? U2 would regenerate a new era of fans with each record, and obviously in between landmark albums other bands would have moments when they were bigger, but U2 never stopped being a BIG DEAL. When they resurfaced at any point it was a big story, and fans and haters alike were there to weigh in (and weigh in loudly) about the value of their latest reinvention/reincarnation. At a certain point Pearl Jam just kind of stopped mattering. Their fans still loved them, but outside of that no one cared. Which can seem odd from a certain angle because yeah, (in America at least) they absolutely were just as huge as U2 was at their biggest moments.

They kind of stopped being a big deal in the late 90s, but that album they came out with in like 00 or 01 was huge. They created a big yuppie fanbase with that that has stuck with them since.

I think it also shouldn't go without saying that Pearl Jam basically ran a self-sabotage campaign for approximately two years straight. I doubt there are many articles between the release of Vitalogy and No Code that didn't have to do with a canceled show, a Ticketmaster treatise, or Ed's shitty personality.

And while it's true that U2 didn't really go away, they never tried to. Pop is now seen as part of their 'in the woods period' (I would guess if U2 has any period comparable to Binaural-Riot Act, it's Zooropa and Pop), but even that album was unaccompanied by a press blitz, videos, and an international stadium tour.

But like I said, I think people shortchange the segment of the fanbase during the height of their popularity that were there more for the idea of "grunge" or "alternative music" and just saw Pearl Jam as the focal point of the latest trend. Just to toss a few numbers out...

Ten (1991): Thirteen times Platinum
No Code (1996): Platinum
Superunknown (1994): Five times Platinum
Down on the Upside (1996): Platinum
August & Everything After (1993): Seven times Platinum
Recovering the Sattelites (1996) Double Platinum
The Blue Album (1994): Triple Platinum
Pinkerton (1996): Gold
Dookie (1994): Ten times Platinum
Insomniac (1995): Double Platinum
Core (1992): Eight times Platinum
Tiny Music (1995): Double Platinum
Dirt (1992): Four times Platinum
Alice In Chains (1995): Double Platinum
Candlebox (1993): Four times Platinum
Lucy (1995): Gold

Casual music buyers just reached a point where they considered early 90s Alternative trend to be passe and uncool. Obviously there are exceptions to the above list (specifically The Smashing Pumpkins), and some of the reasons for the dips are quality driven, but still, it'd be silly to argue that 95% of wildly successful bands from the early 90s just all happened to put out subpar albums that drove away fans in late 95/96. There's a shift in the consumer attitude. That has more to do with it than anything any of these bands did.

numbers wrote:They kind of stopped being a big deal in the late 90s, but that album they came out with in like 00 or 01 was huge. They created a big yuppie fanbase with that that has stuck with them since.

I don't think you could say they stopped being a big deal in the late 90s, they just weren't a big deal for the same reason. Pop not becoming the huge cultural touchpoint that The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were ended up being one of the biggest stories of 1997, and they were still always talked about/covered/reacted to in a very different way than 99% of other bands. You would have thought with how massively successful Pearl Jam was from 1991-1994 they would have warranted the same treatment as U2, but as stip pointed out, by the time 2000 rolled around their albums were being reviewed alongside the second Matchbox 20 record, like they were Collective Soul or something.

Lament wrote: Casual music buyers just reached a point where they considered early 90s Alternative trend to be passe and uncool. Obviously there are exceptions to the above list (specifically The Smashing Pumpkins), and some of the reasons for the dips are quality driven, but still, it'd be silly to argue that 95% of wildly successful bands from the early 90s just all happened to put out subpar albums that drove away fans in late 95/96. There's a shift in the consumer attitude. That has more to do with it than anything any of these bands did.

I think I'm just poorly articulating what my point is, because that's what I've been trying to say. I think Pearl Jam's tumble off the charts was inevitable to a degree, rather than something specific and unique to their music that made them unable to connect with people, or something.

Yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing about Pearl Jam at all. I'm more trying to get to stip's argument about why they weren't afforded the same "luxuries" for their success at U2, Radiohead, etc. U2 and Radiohead were never really seen as being part of a trend the way Pearl Jam was. So while Pearl Jam's heights of success reached U2-like levels, U2 was always perceived as having that success independent of what else was going on in music, whereas when Pearl Jam achieved it they were seen as being at the crest of a specific wave. When that wave died, it took a very adverse affect on people's interest in Pearl Jam in a way that a U2 or a Radiohead never had to face. U2's spot at the top of the mountain was seen as being uniquely theirs in a way Pearl Jam's never was.

So yeah, Pearl Jam is to Radiohead as Duran Duran is to U2.

Lament wrote:TLDR: Pearl Jam is to Duran Duran as Radiohead is to U2.

Ouch

The parallels between Duran Duran's career and Pearl Jam's are far more similar than anyone here would ever dare to admit.

Lament wrote:

numbers wrote:They kind of stopped being a big deal in the late 90s, but that album they came out with in like 00 or 01 was huge. They created a big yuppie fanbase with that that has stuck with them since.

I don't think you could say they stopped being a big deal in the late 90s, they just weren't a big deal for the same reason. Pop not becoming the huge cultural touchpoint that The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were ended up being one of the biggest stories of 1997, and they were still always talked about/covered/reacted to in a very different way than 99% of other bands. You would have thought with how massively successful Pearl Jam was from 1991-1994 they would have warranted the same treatment as U2, but as stip pointed out, by the time 2000 rolled around their albums were being reviewed alongside the second Matchbox 20 record, like they were Collective Soul or something.

What digster said about this is probably part of it, they went out of their way to not be popular pretty much from 94 on in the 90s.

This is kind of off-topic, but is Radiohead really one of those bands? I feel like their ability to remain at the forefront of the public conversation was at its' fever pitch during OK Computer and Kid A. While I loved Hail to the Thief, I don't remember it being a seismic event, and I don't think In Rainbows would have generated the press it garnered if not for the circumstances surrounding its release.

For a long time I fought against the idea that Radiohead was really on that level, but I'm constantly amazed at what a big deal it still is when they release a new record or go on tour, so I've kinda stopped fighting it.

Pearl Jam in say 1993 had more of a impact on culture than REM, U2, or Radiohead ever did I don't think it is even close, Nirvanna stands toe to toe with Pearl Jam. I will say that War era U2 left more important musical wake than anything Pearl Jam did, but musical and culturial importance are two very different thing.
Pearl Jam's move to pull back from the mainstream left a huge wake in the music world and here is how.
Had they been good little rock stars and promoted songs like Black etc... etc.. made videos and more videos, been here been there.
They would have ruled the roost alot longer. If Ten has sold 13 million albums that means they lost 12.5 million repeat customers. Why? Well 1996 Matchbox 20 made a album that sounded more like classic Pearl Jam than Pearl Jam so did the Verve Pipe and Gread I a mean Cread. A large art of Ten and Vs sales numbers came from young teens. It is 92 you are twelve you have Ten you play it over and over it is great you want to be a rockstar Pearl Jam poster on the wall, life is great. You hold on through junior high, but this Vitology album isn't what you signed up for, but Not For You and Cordaroy are enough to keep you on board. Tenth grade No Code comes out People are starting to say Pearl Jam sucks Then you here Who You Are wtf is this? You buy the album it starts off with something called Sometime you hit skip Hail hail skip so on and so forth. Two years later you hear Pearl Jam are out with a new album, but you don't give a shit, because they ain't no Godsmack.

Kaius wrote:I like edgy stip

I prefer edgy Mickey.

One of the albums that molded me as a music fan no doubt. Never gets old. Love or like every song.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Kaius wrote:I like edgy stip

I prefer edgy Mickey.

I should've spent more time on those books

Maybe Pearl Jam became an "afterthought" in the late-ish 90's because they emerged from such a defined scene, grunge/seattle. They were lumped in with nirvana, soundgarden, alice in chains, etc. so tightly that when the scene started to die out (via cobain's death, hip hop, rap) they simply went with the scene.

The sound of the band was appreciably different once Jack joined too, though that's not the only factor.

Songs like Hail, Hail or Brain of J. are still rock music but they're of a markedly different character to the bombastic material on the earlier records; with Jack behind the kit, they managed to be simultaneously more garage-like and more cerebral.