Red Mosquito

I don't mean bands that sound like them, or even the more nebulous 'bands that are as good as them'. When we think about Pearl Jam's career arc who are the people they should be compared to, for better or worse. I don't like the solo artist comparison, personally. It is much easier to make music when you're not answerable to a larger group dynamic. So I'm not sure Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, etc. make sense.


REM, U2, The Chili Peppers, Green Day, Metallica? What other bands are at the 20+ years/10 album mark?

stip wrote:I don't mean bands that sound like them, or even the more nebulous 'bands that are as good as them'. When we think about Pearl Jam's career arc who are the people they should be compared to, for better or worse. I don't like the solo artist comparison, personally. It is much easier to make music when you're not answerable to a larger group dynamic. So I'm not sure Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, etc. make sense.


REM, U2, The Chili Peppers, Green Day, Metallica? What other bands are at the 20+ years/10 album mark?

I guess The Cure could be added to that list.

The main issue I have with those listed is that Pearl Jam turned away from the spotlight. There aren't too many bands over the last 50 years that have done that.

stip wrote:I don't like the solo artist comparison, personally. It is much easier to make music when you're not answerable to a larger group dynamic. So I'm not sure Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, etc. make sense.

Agreed, it's much simpler to follow your whims and head for the ditch as a solo performer than it is to convince three or four other people (who undoubtedly have their own ideas too) to follow you there.

I don't know, I think most bands just run their course (including this one, in my view).

NIN.
Incubus.
Tool.
Weezer

How important is this 20/10 mark?

fairly important, I'd think. Not the numbers exactly, but the mixture of productivity and longevity. Tool's been around for a while but they basically have 4 albums. NIN is essentially just Trent Reznor, right?

You have to admire that U2 took a massive gamble with Achtung Baby and the subsequent road with Zooropa and Pop. I wonder how that 'experiment' would have faired if they had the similar drop in sales that No Code had.

Also, imagine if No Code had just exploded and took PJ into that megastardom stratosphere that they were avoiding. Completely different careers I'm sure.

Sorry to be off topic Stip.

This may or may not be related to your question, but one of my frustrations these days is that they're not comparable with any peers, or that if they are, it's just in terms of longevity. It used to be that they worked with artists such as Neil Young, and you could see and hear the kinship. But now they seem to make music entirely in a vacuum. I would love it if they would talk more about other *current* bands which inspire them, but they don't; it's all just The Who and Motorhead. I'm veering away from my main point, but it's just that PJ create music in a vacuum. As Stone said recently, they 'sound like Pearl Jam'. What else do they sound like? Motorhead. Pink Floyd. The Who. Neil Young sometimes. But where's the effort to compete with their peers in terms of originality? I'm not sure they see the need.

Maybe I'm confusing their 'peers' with other younger bands in the music business, or the music industry in general. Maybe those other bands do the same thing; NIN also seems to be creating music in that vacuum. NIN sounds like NIN, and every time Trent makes a song, it's like "Well, it sounds like NIN."

Thejambi wrote:NIN.
Incubus.
Tool.
Weezer

How important is this 20/10 mark?

And now Soundgarden and AIC, I guess.

stip wrote:fairly important, I'd think. Not the numbers exactly, but the mixture of productivity and longevity. Tool's been around for a while but they basically have 4 albums. NIN is essentially just Trent Reznor, right?

There is also Radiohead, the Black Crowes and DMB but they come just short of 10 lps.
Yeah I suppose NIN is just Trent.
Tool does drag there ass.

Korn?

RHCP?

Green Day?

Wilco

KISS

Sorry if this is kind not related to the question, but Eddie Vedder's obsession with Springsteen really only began to appear publicly around 2001/2002...which was coincidently when Springsteen had his massive comeback with The Rising. It's strange, because in the 90s Vedder worships the likes of Neil Young, U2, The Doors etc but there's literally no mention of Springsteen. Then suddenly, he's covering his songs, singing his praises and performing Betterman with the E-Street Band. Just an observation.

He wasn't exactly creaming over U2 in the 90s either, was he? Yeah, I think one of the most frustrating things about Ed is that he chooses to kiss the arse of so many bands that probably don't even think about Pearl Jam.

harmless wrote:He wasn't exactly creaming over U2 in the 90s either, was he? Yeah, I think one of the most frustrating things about Ed is that he chooses to kiss the arse of so many bands that probably don't even think about Pearl Jam.

pearl jam toured with U2 in the early 90s, and had that terrific springsteen cover with bad radio. Springsteen was basically inactive in the back half of the 90s, and U2's only album was pop, which was hardly going to be an artistic influence.

harmless wrote:

Thejambi wrote:NIN.
Incubus.
Tool.
Weezer

How important is this 20/10 mark?

And now Soundgarden and AIC, I guess.

maybe, but each of those bands was inactive for a decade

Thejambi wrote:

stip wrote:fairly important, I'd think. Not the numbers exactly, but the mixture of productivity and longevity. Tool's been around for a while but they basically have 4 albums. NIN is essentially just Trent Reznor, right?

There is also Radiohead, the Black Crowes and DMB but they come just short of 10 lps.
Yeah I suppose NIN is just Trent.
Tool does drag there ass.

Radiohead should be there.

REM until a short time ago.