The TV show theory assumes Jut Breathe will be accepted like Green Day's Time of Your Life and have major crossover. Possible but not likely. Amongst the Waves to KROQ on heavy rotation would be better IMO..but neither route was chosen by the band
Bridge Benefit 1994, San Francisco 1995, San Diego 1995 1 & 2, Missoula 1998, Los Angeles 2000, San Diego 2000, Eddie Vedder/Beck 2/26/2002, Santa Barbara 2003, Irvine 2003, San Diego 2003, Vancouver 2005, Gorge 2005, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006 1 & 2, Santa Barbara 2006, Eddie Vedder 4/10/08, Eddie Vedder 4/12/08, Eddie Vedder 4/15/08, 7/12/2008, SF 8/28/09, LA 9/30/09, LA 10/1/09, LA 10/06/09, LA 10/07/09, San Diego 10/09/09, Eddie Vedder 7/6/2011, Eddie Vedder 7/8/2011, PJ20 9/3/2011, PJ20 9/4/2011, Vancouver 9/25/2011, San Diego 11/21/13, LA 11/24/13, Ohana 9/25/21, Ohana 9/26/21, Ohana 10/1/21, EV 2/17/22, LA Forum 5/6/22, LA Forum 5/7/22, EV 10/1/22, EV 9/30/23
Would putting their music on a TV show help push sales? Maybe? But how many of those people that watch those shows would run out and buy the CD? Personally, I don't know a single person who buys ANY music featured on their favorite TV show...
But really... Pearl Jam doesn't need to put their music on television shows to get exposure... that's why you don't see bigger named bands on shows like Gray's Anatomy (a show my mother and grandmother watch - don't see them ever wanting to purchase a PJ record) ... Pearl Jam is renowned as one of the best American rock bands ever... they don't need to promote an album that heavily... they could quietly release an album and still do respectable numbers...
Oh and Backspacer has been featured on ESPN all summer and during the MLB post season which is a great marketing strategy, whether intentional or not, because sports fans is a great target audience for a band like Pearl Jam... not some mother watching Gray's Anatomy or some sweaty pre-teen watching the Hills or whatever...
Also, the whole Pitchfork thing is off.... Pitchfork's general populace of readers is going to turn their nose up at PJ no matter how they sound and that's the truth... Pitchfork is good for finding bands you might not normally find on your own, but their reviews are biased and pretty much masturbatory drivel... in other words, in order for PJ to be liked @ Pitchfork in the first place they would need to change the way they sound entirely to appeal to them.
Disagree. They obviously have their favorite genre at Pitchfork, but why not just do 1 interview? Let Pitchfork do the reviews. Just have the band as I said, do an interview, and then do the rooftop show I mentioned. Pitchfork is a major tastemaker in music, THE MAJOR tastemaker. Its more influential that Spin or Rolling Stone or Target combined, and thats no joke.
Why not do press with something that has that much clout? Let the chips fall where they may.
The point is, Pitchfork has the clout that Target lacks. I am not a buisness management team, but I do know common sense. If you want to sell some product, you want to promote it in ways that will reach people. Is Target a place where you are likely to get people coming in for music? Are people driving to Target to get their music jones fix? You need to look at what these days is selling music. And reguardless of if you think of Greys Anatomy, or Scrubs, or Heroes or whatever as a girlie show, its proven fact that these shows can gain a band major press. And its also proven that Pitchfork, right now, is the major music source of whats hot and whats not.
Look at the Victoria Secret Commercial with Joanna Newsom, or the HP commercial with Vampire Weekend, or the car commercial with Phoenix, this is where its at. These are 3 major indie artists, putting their music in ads that will be seen by millions. In ZombieLand Band of Horses plays in the background. And is anyone seriously calling them sellouts?
You do what you have to do in this climate.
I view music as sacred and its my favorite thing in the world. I have found out about alot of bands via tv shows, and movies using songs. And those songs arent ruined. In fact, its kind of cool.
The TV show theory assumes Jut Breathe will be accepted like Green Day's Time of Your Life and have major crossover. Possible but not likely. Amongst the Waves to KROQ on heavy rotation would be better IMO..but neither route was chosen by the band
You never know until you try. Thats what makes zero sense. They didnt even try it. Liscence some of the songs, see how it goes. If its a nonfactor, its a nonfactor. And if it brings in the dough and the fans and the sales, then thats good. But to not try it at all? Again, this band seems behind the times in this department.
Say Just Breathe is used in a dramatic and emotional scene in Greys Anatomy where someone dies? What is the downside? Is the song really ruined because of that? I would be pumped. I for one think film and tv and music can be used together to make something more powerful than it would have been with just one element.
That Josh Radin example from Scrubs fits with that. The scene is beautiful, and sad, one of the saddest I have ever seen, but it is given more power and emotion through the use of the song Winter.
I mean, is that really that bad? Just Breathe being used in an emotional tv drama?
reguarding the slandering and snickering about the tv shows I mentioned: a band is more likely to get more sales and hype and attention by being used in a movie or a tv show, than they are by doing a cover story in Spin or Rolling Stone. This is Music Culture in 2009 basics.
All I am saying is that given that, it made zero sense to go the cover story route.
Would putting their music on a TV show help push sales? Maybe? But how many of those people that watch those shows would run out and buy the CD? Personally, I don't know a single person who buys ANY music featured on their favorite TV show...
But really... Pearl Jam doesn't need to put their music on television shows to get exposure... that's why you don't see bigger named bands on shows like Gray's Anatomy (a show my mother and grandmother watch - don't see them ever wanting to purchase a PJ record) ... Pearl Jam is renowned as one of the best American rock bands ever... they don't need to promote an album that heavily... they could quietly release an album and still do respectable numbers...
Oh and Backspacer has been featured on ESPN all summer and during the MLB post season which is a great marketing strategy, whether intentional or not, because sports fans is a great target audience for a band like Pearl Jam... not some mother watching Gray's Anatomy or some sweaty pre-teen watching the Hills or whatever...
Also, the whole Pitchfork thing is off.... Pitchfork's general populace of readers is going to turn their nose up at PJ no matter how they sound and that's the truth... Pitchfork is good for finding bands you might not normally find on your own, but their reviews are biased and pretty much masturbatory drivel... in other words, in order for PJ to be liked @ Pitchfork in the first place they would need to change the way they sound entirely to appeal to them.
What accounts for the success of bands like Band of Horses, Bright Eyes, Iron and Wine, Josh Radin, Death Cab, Modest Mouse, Imogen Heap etc... Alot of things obviously. But I can personally, tell you, I have heard songs on said show, and looked them up online. Zach Braff has said that when Josh Radin's song Winter was used on Scrubs, that the official site was knocked offline, because of so many people trying to log on and see who had sung that song. And I also know from personal experience, when a song appears on a major show like Greys or One Tree Hill or Scrubs, people flock to You Tube to try and find the artist and song. Those are facts. They are fact, because all you need to do is look on a certain songs youtube comments after it has been used on a show. You have a ton of people saying "I heard this song on such and such, what a great tune". I volunteer at a local music venue, and we have had several musicians come and play who have been used in shows, Gary Jules is one, and Greg laswell another. Both mentioned, on stage, that their profiles had been raised majorly since having been heard on these shows.
Thats my whole point. The whole point of the discussion. 10 years ago, this never happened. But now you have people literally discovering bands from watching Greys or One tree Hill. There is a direct correlation. These shows have very smart music supervisors. Alexandra Palavas (?) has featured a ton of these indie bands on these shows and almost every time these bands get huge.
My point is, things have changed. And you need to change with the times.
I think its a reality of the world. You want to make commercially viable music in the 21st century? Fine, and this is advice that extends to the Rolling Stones, or to PJ or to the indie bands or to new fresh bands. You have to alter your game, and your strategy. That involves liscencing.
Thats all I am saying. TV does have the power now to make a band big. And Rolling Stone or Spin no longer do. You do the math. Just sayin
The fatal flaw in this line of thinking is in equating Pearl Jam in the Backspacer era with The Shins pre Garden State. It's an absolutely ridiculous comparison and simply doesn't hold up. Pearl Jam has been as exposed as they ever will be and aren't some underground darling waiting to be discovered. They are an aging act that the general public sees as irrelevant (not saying I agree, just saying that's the way it is). Someone at Grey's Anatomy licensing "Just Breathe" risks their show being seen as out of touch and irrelevant as well, whereas if they license a Mars Volta song or something by Phoenix they appear to have their finger on the pulse.
Don't kid yourself, Pearl Jam is smart enough to understand their place in the current climate. That's exactly why the Target deal is so smart when taken hand in hand with their complete ownership of the product. That is the kind of deal bands dream of. Getting their music heard on ESPN and Fox during baseball was another great move, as was mentioned before.
Regarding singles - you're behind the curve on this one as well. With the advent of satellite radio and digital downloads, singles are meaningless as well. I don't have satellite but when I was listening to it in the car last month I heard "The Fixer", "Got Some", "Amongst The Waves" and "Just Breathe" across a few channels. Why release one single when you can make the whole album available and let the music advertise itself - especially in this day and age.
When you question the actual packaging of the record you misunderstand the basic concept of making the physical product they are selling valuable. If they were to abandon the art and the liner notes what is to persuade anyone to buy the album at all? Think of the fact that they produce vinyl albums and ask yourself if this is a band that sees value in the physical possession of records. You're right - it's not the cutting edge, but there is no reason to go to the extremes that you are suggesting, especially for a band that ties the art of the album in with the experience of the music the way that Pearl Jam always has. They clearly don't care if the tastemakers get it or not, and at the end of the day it isn't going to hurt their bottom line. In fact, it gives people another reason to purchase what they are selling rather than stealing it digitally.
Finally, when discussing licensing of songs, I will agree with you that marrying music to an image (whether it's through a film, television show or even an ad) is a great marketing tool when the right piece of music is used to market the right film/television show/project. There have to be benefits to both parties. We have no idea if anyone is interested in using PJ's music at this point and if so, whether the band considers that use of their song in their best interest or in the best interest of the band.
Overall, I'm not sure there is a better example of an artist balancing their art with the commerce that their art generates for them. It's gotta be a very difficult line to walk and from my perspective, Pearl Jam does it expertly.
I suggest you step out on your porch...run away my son...see it all...oh see the world // I wait on the porch...hoping someday I'll be let in
Springfield, MA 4/6/94 -- Boston, MA 4/11/94 -- Hartford, CT 10/2/96 -- Hartford, CT 9/13/98 -- Mansfield, MA 7/2/03 -- Reading, PA 10/1/04 -- Albany, NY 5/12/06 -- Milwaukee, WI 6/29/06 -- Mansfield, MA 6/30/08 -- Toronto, ON 9/21/09 -- Philadelphia, PA 10/31/09 -- Worcester, MA 10/16/13 -- Hartford, CT 10/25/13 -- New York, NY 9/26/15 -- New York, NY 5/2/16 -- Boston, MA 8/5/16 -- Boston, MA 8/7/16 -- Boston, MA 9/2/18 -- Boston, MA 9/4/18 -- London, UK 7/8/22 -- Hamilton, ON 9/6/22 -- Toronto, ON 9/8/22 -- New York, NY 9/11/22 -- Chicago, IL 9/5/23 -- Chicago, IL 9/7/23 -- New York, NY 9/3/24 -- Philadelphia, PA 9/7/24 -- Philadelphia, PA 9/9/24
reguarding the slandering and snickering about the tv shows I mentioned: a band is more likely to get more sales and hype and attention by being used in a movie or a tv show, than they are by doing a cover story in Spin or Rolling Stone. This is Music Culture in 2009 basics.
All I am saying is that given that, it made zero sense to go the cover story route.
And all everyone else is saying is that these TV shows you suggest along with Pitchfork is the wrong route to go.
Pichfork is not the MAJOR player. Ask 100 random people what Pitchfork is and they'll just stare at you. Mention what Target is and I'm sure 97% will know what you're talking about.
And you're comparing Pearl Jam to indie bands like Vampire Weekend and Phoenix? Are you kidding?
What about what was said in the other posts about ESPN/ABC? Pearl Jam was played on those stations neary everyday several times a day. That was far better marketing IMO.
Would putting their music on a TV show help push sales? Maybe? But how many of those people that watch those shows would run out and buy the CD? Personally, I don't know a single person who buys ANY music featured on their favorite TV show...
But really... Pearl Jam doesn't need to put their music on television shows to get exposure... that's why you don't see bigger named bands on shows like Gray's Anatomy (a show my mother and grandmother watch - don't see them ever wanting to purchase a PJ record) ... Pearl Jam is renowned as one of the best American rock bands ever... they don't need to promote an album that heavily... they could quietly release an album and still do respectable numbers...
Oh and Backspacer has been featured on ESPN all summer and during the MLB post season which is a great marketing strategy, whether intentional or not, because sports fans is a great target audience for a band like Pearl Jam... not some mother watching Gray's Anatomy or some sweaty pre-teen watching the Hills or whatever...
Also, the whole Pitchfork thing is off.... Pitchfork's general populace of readers is going to turn their nose up at PJ no matter how they sound and that's the truth... Pitchfork is good for finding bands you might not normally find on your own, but their reviews are biased and pretty much masturbatory drivel... in other words, in order for PJ to be liked @ Pitchfork in the first place they would need to change the way they sound entirely to appeal to them.
What accounts for the success of bands like Band of Horses, Bright Eyes, Iron and Wine, Josh Radin, Death Cab, Modest Mouse, Imogen Heap etc... Alot of things obviously. But I can personally, tell you, I have heard songs on said show, and looked them up online. Zach Braff has said that when Josh Radin's song Winter was used on Scrubs, that the official site was knocked offline, because of so many people trying to log on and see who had sung that song. And I also know from personal experience, when a song appears on a major show like Greys or One Tree Hill or Scrubs, people flock to You Tube to try and find the artist and song. Those are facts. They are fact, because all you need to do is look on a certain songs youtube comments after it has been used on a show. You have a ton of people saying "I heard this song on such and such, what a great tune". I volunteer at a local music venue, and we have had several musicians come and play who have been used in shows, Gary Jules is one, and Greg laswell another. Both mentioned, on stage, that their profiles had been raised majorly since having been heard on these shows.
Thats my whole point. The whole point of the discussion. 10 years ago, this never happened. But now you have people literally discovering bands from watching Greys or One tree Hill. There is a direct correlation. These shows have very smart music supervisors. Alexandra Palavas (?) has featured a ton of these indie bands on these shows and almost every time these bands get huge.
My point is, things have changed. And you need to change with the times.
I think its a reality of the world. You want to make commercially viable music in the 21st century? Fine, and this is advice that extends to the Rolling Stones, or to PJ or to the indie bands or to new fresh bands. You have to alter your game, and your strategy. That involves liscencing.
Thats all I am saying. TV does have the power now to make a band big. And Rolling Stone or Spin no longer do. You do the math. Just sayin
The fatal flaw in this line of thinking is in equating Pearl Jam in the Backspacer era with The Shins pre Garden State. It's an absolutely ridiculous comparison and simply doesn't hold up. Pearl Jam has been as exposed as they ever will be and aren't some underground darling waiting to be discovered. They are an aging act that the general public sees as irrelevant (not saying I agree, just saying that's the way it is). Someone at Grey's Anatomy licensing "Just Breathe" risks their show being seen as out of touch and irrelevant as well, whereas if they license a Mars Volta song or something by Phoenix they appear to have their finger on the pulse.
Don't kid yourself, Pearl Jam is smart enough to understand their place in the current climate. That's exactly why the Target deal is so smart when taken hand in hand with their complete ownership of the product. That is the kind of deal bands dream of. Getting their music heard on ESPN and Fox during baseball was another great move, as was mentioned before.
Regarding singles - you're behind the curve on this one as well. With the advent of satellite radio and digital downloads, singles are meaningless as well. I don't have satellite but when I was listening to it in the car last month I heard "The Fixer", "Got Some", "Amongst The Waves" and "Just Breathe" across a few channels. Why release one single when you can make the whole album available and let the music advertise itself - especially in this day and age.
When you question the actual packaging of the record you misunderstand the basic concept of making the physical product they are selling valuable. If they were to abandon the art and the liner notes what is to persuade anyone to buy the album at all? Think of the fact that they produce vinyl albums and ask yourself if this is a band that sees value in the physical possession of records. You're right - it's not the cutting edge, but there is no reason to go to the extremes that you are suggesting, especially for a band that ties the art of the album in with the experience of the music the way that Pearl Jam always has. They clearly don't care if the tastemakers get it or not, and at the end of the day it isn't going to hurt their bottom line. In fact, it gives people another reason to purchase what they are selling rather than stealing it digitally.
Finally, when discussing licensing of songs, I will agree with you that marrying music to an image (whether it's through a film, television show or even an ad) is a great marketing tool when the right piece of music is used to market the right film/television show/project. There have to be benefits to both parties. We have no idea if anyone is interested in using PJ's music at this point and if so, whether the band considers that use of their song in their best interest or in the best interest of the band.
Overall, I'm not sure there is a better example of an artist balancing their art with the commerce that their art generates for them. It's gotta be a very difficult line to walk and from my perspective, Pearl Jam does it expertly.
reguarding your statements about liner notes and the physical product itself, the album itself:
This is what gets me excited. I love talking about this stuff. So when others talk about how downloading is ruining bands and the industry, I cheer, because its forcing people to do something different. I find the same old same old boring. Advertising with Rolling stone and Spin and whatnot is boring. And its old and antiquated.
I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.
You talked out if, bands were to abandon the liner notes and the package of it all, why even put out an album at all, and why would people even buy one at all. This is what I want to discuss. iTunes is the largest legal online music store in the world. The majority of people whether they buy from iTunes, or whether they download it for free, arent gonna see the liner notes or the overall package anyway. Is seeing a small pixelated version of the Backspacer cover on your iPod really incentive for people to buy it? Who these days, beyond the vinyl enthusiasts and cd holdouts, spend hours at a time looking at the covers and artwork in albums they are currently buying? Are people really buying Vampire Weekend or Bon Ivor to look at the liner notes?
These things make me happy. They are examples of artists, who are out there struggling to come up with new ways of delivering us music. That is exciting.
And in many ways, its disappointing PJ didnt do something along those lines.
The point is, Pitchfork has the clout that Target lacks. I am not a buisness management team, but I do know common sense. If you want to sell some product, you want to promote it in ways that will reach people. Is Target a place where you are likely to get people coming in for music? Are people driving to Target to get their music jones fix? You need to look at what these days is selling music. And reguardless of if you think of Greys Anatomy, or Scrubs, or Heroes or whatever as a girlie show, its proven fact that these shows can gain a band major press. And its also proven that Pitchfork, right now, is the major music source of whats hot and whats not.
Look at the Victoria Secret Commercial with Joanna Newsom, or the HP commercial with Vampire Weekend, or the car commercial with Phoenix, this is where its at. These are 3 major indie artists, putting their music in ads that will be seen by millions. In ZombieLand Band of Horses plays in the background. And is anyone seriously calling them sellouts?
You do what you have to do in this climate.
I view music as sacred and its my favorite thing in the world. I have found out about alot of bands via tv shows, and movies using songs. And those songs arent ruined. In fact, its kind of cool.
Hey, one thing is for sure. PJ would not hire you. You don´t seem to fit with their way of seeing things. I believe they are not the kind of people that wish for such exposure. These are guys that think they have more than they deserve. With their two feet on the ground.
They wanted to make money on their own. Made a deal with a company that responded to their demands. They saw it right, in their eyes. WHAM. "Easy money. Let´s not worry for food, education, healthcare for a while. Lets go on with our amazing lives."
I don´t suspect them chasing goals at this point in their musical careers.
reguarding the slandering and snickering about the tv shows I mentioned: a band is more likely to get more sales and hype and attention by being used in a movie or a tv show, than they are by doing a cover story in Spin or Rolling Stone. This is Music Culture in 2009 basics.
All I am saying is that given that, it made zero sense to go the cover story route.
And all everyone else is saying is that these TV shows you suggest along with Pitchfork is the wrong route to go.
Pichfork is not the MAJOR player. Ask 100 random people what Pitchfork is and they'll just stare at you. Mention what Target is and I'm sure 97% will know what you're talking about.
And you're comparing Pearl Jam to indie bands like Vampire Weekend and Phoenix? Are you kidding?
What about what was said in the other posts about ESPN/ABC? Pearl Jam was played on those stations neary everyday several times a day. That was far better marketing IMO.
I see the ESPN thing as a non issue. Ed specifically said he wanted new fans, young kids, young fans, to be buying this record, to be swayed by the marketing and all that. Thats paraphrasing, but the message is the same.
Why not do both? ESPN only attracts a certain demographic, while I think despite what people want to say, these tv shows have a wide audience, female yes, but alot of males as well.
You want to attract new fans and specifically younger ones, again, you aint gonna do it by doing a SPin cover. You do it, as I said, with Pitchfork, which is read by a younger demographic, you do it by liscencing to tv shows with a younger audience, shows on the CW etc... and you do it, by marketing in places where young people shop. Target is a cool place, but it aint hip central, lets face it. Kids and teens watch alot of tv and movies. And of course commercials. So, you advertise with that in mind.
Again, this is why i dont get the marketing strategy. Trying to win new fans is one thing. But to narrow it specifically to new fans who are younger, teens, or a little older, you need a specific marketing plan, and you need to use specific means of marketing that appeal to this demographic.
The fact, that the band chose to appeal to this younger audience using Rolling Stone, Spin, and Target, shows a lack of understanding of modern musical culture.
I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.
You really think PJ should stop releasing complete studio albums? Is that what you are implying?
Not likely to come to happen. I amuse myself thinking that I know what they are thinking regarding music marketing. You my friend are on your own world. These guys love vinyl, tell us how antiquated this is. Not to mention, releasing complete albums.
reguarding the slandering and snickering about the tv shows I mentioned: a band is more likely to get more sales and hype and attention by being used in a movie or a tv show, than they are by doing a cover story in Spin or Rolling Stone. This is Music Culture in 2009 basics.
All I am saying is that given that, it made zero sense to go the cover story route.
And all everyone else is saying is that these TV shows you suggest along with Pitchfork is the wrong route to go.
Pichfork is not the MAJOR player. Ask 100 random people what Pitchfork is and they'll just stare at you. Mention what Target is and I'm sure 97% will know what you're talking about.
And you're comparing Pearl Jam to indie bands like Vampire Weekend and Phoenix? Are you kidding?
What about what was said in the other posts about ESPN/ABC? Pearl Jam was played on those stations neary everyday several times a day. That was far better marketing IMO.
Ask 100 people who they go to for music recommendation and reviews and to hear about new bands, 97 percent are gonna say the internet, blogs, pitchfork, and friends, and tv shows. I would bet not a single person says, "i get my advice from target, thats my go to music store!"
reguarding the slandering and snickering about the tv shows I mentioned: a band is more likely to get more sales and hype and attention by being used in a movie or a tv show, than they are by doing a cover story in Spin or Rolling Stone. This is Music Culture in 2009 basics.
All I am saying is that given that, it made zero sense to go the cover story route.
And all everyone else is saying is that these TV shows you suggest along with Pitchfork is the wrong route to go.
Pichfork is not the MAJOR player. Ask 100 random people what Pitchfork is and they'll just stare at you. Mention what Target is and I'm sure 97% will know what you're talking about.
And you're comparing Pearl Jam to indie bands like Vampire Weekend and Phoenix? Are you kidding?
What about what was said in the other posts about ESPN/ABC? Pearl Jam was played on those stations neary everyday several times a day. That was far better marketing IMO.
Ask 100 people who they go to for music recommendation and reviews and to hear about new bands, 97 percent are gonna say the internet, blogs, pitchfork, and friends, and tv shows. I would bet not a single person says, "i get my advice from target, thats my go to music store!"
I bet more say rolling stone or spin more than they do pitchfork
I agree with the blog thing, but pitchfork is looked at like a whiny little brother of Rolling Stone.
I seek out good new music, but rarely ever use Pitchfork as a resource. Although I sometimes use it as a way to avoid bands
I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.
You really think PJ should stop releasing complete studio albums? Is that what you are implying?
Not likely to come to happen. I amuse myself thinking that I know what they are thinking regarding music marketing. You my friend are on your own world. These guys love vinyl, tell us how antiquated this is. Not to mention, releasing complete albums.
Unless you think my name is Sufjan, Thom, or Billy, i didnt say a thing. I am telling you that, in music right now, the big wigs, the biggest names in the buisness are personally considering if they should release albums anymore. Thats not my reading of it. Thats from the mouths of these musicians. So I am not implying anything. I am telling you what some of the biggest names in music are thinking. And when Thom Yorke, talks about something people listen.
I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.
You talked out if, bands were to abandon the liner notes and the package of it all, why even put out an album at all, and why would people even buy one at all. This is what I want to discuss. iTunes is the largest legal online music store in the world. The majority of people whether they buy from iTunes, or whether they download it for free, arent gonna see the liner notes or the overall package anyway. Is seeing a small pixelated version of the Backspacer cover on your iPod really incentive for people to buy it? Who these days, beyond the vinyl enthusiasts and cd holdouts, spend hours at a time looking at the covers and artwork in albums they are currently buying? Are people really buying Vampire Weekend or Bon Ivor to look at the liner notes?
I think there is room in the modern era for albums. I think that albums are an important part of the music industry, regardless of the fact that Thom Yorke disagrees. In fact, it could be argued that the abandonment of albums as things of import is helping lead to the death of the music industry.
The labels are the major problem here. Instead of embracing the fact that the industry was changing and finding a way to maintain their relevance in the face of that change, they brought lawsuits and raised prices and refused to budge in their stubborn insistence that they knew the best way to sell the product and that the fans would simply give in and take what they were offered.
That said - there is obviously a contingent of people that are going to be very happy to simply click and download songs one by one, that doesn't mean that albums are pointless and without a place in the world of music. People feared that television would be the death of movies and that has shown to not be the case. It's up to the bands and the labels to find a way to offer some kind of exclusive product to fans loyal enough to purchase an entire album. Pearl Jam has done just that, offering beautiful artwork, detailed liner notes, downloads, other exclusive content and t-shirt tie ins - and that's just the target deal alone.
I suggest you step out on your porch...run away my son...see it all...oh see the world // I wait on the porch...hoping someday I'll be let in
Springfield, MA 4/6/94 -- Boston, MA 4/11/94 -- Hartford, CT 10/2/96 -- Hartford, CT 9/13/98 -- Mansfield, MA 7/2/03 -- Reading, PA 10/1/04 -- Albany, NY 5/12/06 -- Milwaukee, WI 6/29/06 -- Mansfield, MA 6/30/08 -- Toronto, ON 9/21/09 -- Philadelphia, PA 10/31/09 -- Worcester, MA 10/16/13 -- Hartford, CT 10/25/13 -- New York, NY 9/26/15 -- New York, NY 5/2/16 -- Boston, MA 8/5/16 -- Boston, MA 8/7/16 -- Boston, MA 9/2/18 -- Boston, MA 9/4/18 -- London, UK 7/8/22 -- Hamilton, ON 9/6/22 -- Toronto, ON 9/8/22 -- New York, NY 9/11/22 -- Chicago, IL 9/5/23 -- Chicago, IL 9/7/23 -- New York, NY 9/3/24 -- Philadelphia, PA 9/7/24 -- Philadelphia, PA 9/9/24
And all everyone else is saying is that these TV shows you suggest along with Pitchfork is the wrong route to go.
Pichfork is not the MAJOR player. Ask 100 random people what Pitchfork is and they'll just stare at you. Mention what Target is and I'm sure 97% will know what you're talking about.
And you're comparing Pearl Jam to indie bands like Vampire Weekend and Phoenix? Are you kidding?
What about what was said in the other posts about ESPN/ABC? Pearl Jam was played on those stations neary everyday several times a day. That was far better marketing IMO.[/quote]
Ask 100 people who they go to for music recommendation and reviews and to hear about new bands, 97 percent are gonna say the internet, blogs, pitchfork, and friends, and tv shows. I would bet not a single person says, "i get my advice from target, thats my go to music store!"[/quote]
I bet more say rolling stone or spin more than they do pitchfork
I agree with the blog thing, but pitchfork is looked at like a whiny little brother of Rolling Stone.
I seek out good new music, but rarely ever use Pitchfork as a resource. Although I sometimes use it as a way to avoid bands [/quote]
And thats fine. I love pitchfork, I swear by it. But if you dont like it, I understand and respect that. But I also think the track record of Pitchfork speaks for itself. Its one thing to dislike something, its another to disreguard the influence it has on the world, to ignore it, because you dislike it. We are all entitled to our opinions but not our own set of facts. And the facts are that the bands that Pitchfork gives Best New Music tags to, usually blow up, and start getting buzzed about. is it all pitchfork? Probably not, but I think, its naive to discount their influence. The Pitchfork review of Funeral, was a huge reason that Arcade Fire started to pick up steam. Broken Social Scene says this about Pitchfork-"Frontman Kevin Drew said that, following the review, "Everyone was coming up to us, saying, 'We heard about you from Pitchfork.' It basically opened the door for us. It gave us an audience", and that the band "suddenly found [themselves] selling out venues."
Again, i respect people who dislike Pitchfork. If you dislike their writers, or their reviews, if its not your bag, then its not your bag. I respect that. But to tell me Pitchfork doesnt have a major influence on music, and what is considered cool and hip, is plain ignorant and dumb.
I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.
You talked out if, bands were to abandon the liner notes and the package of it all, why even put out an album at all, and why would people even buy one at all. This is what I want to discuss. iTunes is the largest legal online music store in the world. The majority of people whether they buy from iTunes, or whether they download it for free, arent gonna see the liner notes or the overall package anyway. Is seeing a small pixelated version of the Backspacer cover on your iPod really incentive for people to buy it? Who these days, beyond the vinyl enthusiasts and cd holdouts, spend hours at a time looking at the covers and artwork in albums they are currently buying? Are people really buying Vampire Weekend or Bon Ivor to look at the liner notes?
I think there is room in the modern era for albums. I think that albums are an important part of the music industry, regardless of the fact that Thom Yorke disagrees. In fact, it could be argued that the abandonment of albums as things of import is helping lead to the death of the music industry.
The labels are the major problem here. Instead of embracing the fact that the industry was changing and finding a way to maintain their relevance in the face of that change, they brought lawsuits and raised prices and refused to budge in their stubborn insistence that they knew the best way to sell the product and that the fans would simply give in and take what they were offered.
That said - there is obviously a contingent of people that are going to be very happy to simply click and download songs one by one, that doesn't mean that albums are pointless and without a place in the world of music. People feared that television would be the death of movies and that has shown to not be the case. It's up to the bands and the labels to find a way to offer some kind of exclusive product to fans loyal enough to purchase an entire album. Pearl Jam has done just that, offering beautiful artwork, detailed liner notes, downloads, other exclusive content and t-shirt tie ins - and that's just the target deal alone.
But if such music heavyweights as Billy, Trent, Sufjan and Thom are debating these issues, I dont think my opinion or your opinion matter all that much. I agree the music industry blew it. I have no sympathy for the labels. I agree wholeheartedly. But I dont think thats the issue here. Billy, Trent, Sufjan and Thom are debating how to release music because of two things. One: as you said, the industry is clueless, the labels are clueless, and two, music fans in general dont consume music like they did in the past. I said it before, most people, dont listen to full albums anymore. They download it from iTunes legally, or go to Wal Mart, copy it on the computer, save the singles or the songs they like, then, they put the other 8 or 10 songs in the trash and upload it to their iPod. Most people dont really even listen on CD anymore. They listen on their computer, so their are never any cd's to play, or they use their iPod.
Those are fundamentally different ways of listening to music than what used to be used. ITunes allows buying of single songs. you could buy only the songs you like.
So thats what they are deliberating about. Sufjan and Thom, are considering the landscape. When people can go on iTunes and buy Sufjans John Wayne Gacy and Chicago, from the Illinois album and then not hear or not buy the rest, or when people can buy Bodysnactchers and dont have to buy the rest of the record, why even make an entire cohesive album at all?
Why create an entire album of music, when people dont listen to music AS AN ALBUM anymore?
I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.
You talked out if, bands were to abandon the liner notes and the package of it all, why even put out an album at all, and why would people even buy one at all. This is what I want to discuss. iTunes is the largest legal online music store in the world. The majority of people whether they buy from iTunes, or whether they download it for free, arent gonna see the liner notes or the overall package anyway. Is seeing a small pixelated version of the Backspacer cover on your iPod really incentive for people to buy it? Who these days, beyond the vinyl enthusiasts and cd holdouts, spend hours at a time looking at the covers and artwork in albums they are currently buying? Are people really buying Vampire Weekend or Bon Ivor to look at the liner notes?
I think there is room in the modern era for albums. I think that albums are an important part of the music industry, regardless of the fact that Thom Yorke disagrees. In fact, it could be argued that the abandonment of albums as things of import is helping lead to the death of the music industry.
The labels are the major problem here. Instead of embracing the fact that the industry was changing and finding a way to maintain their relevance in the face of that change, they brought lawsuits and raised prices and refused to budge in their stubborn insistence that they knew the best way to sell the product and that the fans would simply give in and take what they were offered.
That said - there is obviously a contingent of people that are going to be very happy to simply click and download songs one by one, that doesn't mean that albums are pointless and without a place in the world of music. People feared that television would be the death of movies and that has shown to not be the case. It's up to the bands and the labels to find a way to offer some kind of exclusive product to fans loyal enough to purchase an entire album. Pearl Jam has done just that, offering beautiful artwork, detailed liner notes, downloads, other exclusive content and t-shirt tie ins - and that's just the target deal alone.
Why create an entire album of music, when people dont listen to music AS AN ALBUM anymore?
There are still plenty of people who DO listen to albums.
I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.
You talked out if, bands were to abandon the liner notes and the package of it all, why even put out an album at all, and why would people even buy one at all. This is what I want to discuss. iTunes is the largest legal online music store in the world. The majority of people whether they buy from iTunes, or whether they download it for free, arent gonna see the liner notes or the overall package anyway. Is seeing a small pixelated version of the Backspacer cover on your iPod really incentive for people to buy it? Who these days, beyond the vinyl enthusiasts and cd holdouts, spend hours at a time looking at the covers and artwork in albums they are currently buying? Are people really buying Vampire Weekend or Bon Ivor to look at the liner notes?
I think there is room in the modern era for albums. I think that albums are an important part of the music industry, regardless of the fact that Thom Yorke disagrees. In fact, it could be argued that the abandonment of albums as things of import is helping lead to the death of the music industry.
The labels are the major problem here. Instead of embracing the fact that the industry was changing and finding a way to maintain their relevance in the face of that change, they brought lawsuits and raised prices and refused to budge in their stubborn insistence that they knew the best way to sell the product and that the fans would simply give in and take what they were offered.
That said - there is obviously a contingent of people that are going to be very happy to simply click and download songs one by one, that doesn't mean that albums are pointless and without a place in the world of music. People feared that television would be the death of movies and that has shown to not be the case. It's up to the bands and the labels to find a way to offer some kind of exclusive product to fans loyal enough to purchase an entire album. Pearl Jam has done just that, offering beautiful artwork, detailed liner notes, downloads, other exclusive content and t-shirt tie ins - and that's just the target deal alone.
But if such music heavyweights as Billy, Trent, Sufjan and Thom are debating these issues, I dont think my opinion or your opinion matter all that much. I agree the music industry blew it. I have no sympathy for the labels. I agree wholeheartedly. But I dont think thats the issue here. Billy, Trent, Sufjan and Thom are debating how to release music because of two things. One: as you said, the industry is clueless, the labels are clueless, and two, music fans in general dont consume music like they did in the past. I said it before, most people, dont listen to full albums anymore. They download it from iTunes legally, or go to Wal Mart, copy it on the computer, save the singles or the songs they like, then, they put the other 8 or 10 songs in the trash and upload it to their iPod. Most people dont really even listen on CD anymore. They listen on their computer, so their are never any cd's to play, or they use their iPod.
Those are fundamentally different ways of listening to music than what used to be used. ITunes allows buying of single songs. you could buy only the songs you like.
So thats what they are deliberating about. Sufjan and Thom, are considering the landscape. When people can go on iTunes and buy Sufjans John Wayne Gacy and Chicago, from the Illinois album and then not hear or not buy the rest, or when people can buy Bodysnactchers and dont have to buy the rest of the record, why even make an entire cohesive album at all?
Why create an entire album of music, when people dont listen to music AS AN ALBUM anymore?
In response to your comment "music fans in general dont consume music like they did in the past", I think we need to be clear that people don't consume it in the same FORMAT, but people consume just as much, if not more music than ever before. Most of the people I know have 10 times as much digital music on their Ipods than they own on CD or vinyl - which I find kind of silly, seeing as they don't listen to or even know half of what they have on there!
The culture of music and the relationship with commerce has changed drastically in the last 10 years. The technology has made it so easy to "acquire" such a quantity of music, and it's much more economical for artists and labels to adapt to that technology, rather than try to foster a situation where the album concept maintains some cultural significance or artistic integrity. This is where I think Pearl Jam differs from some of the other acts you mentioned. They still believe in the album format, which is why a deal like they worked with Target is perfect. They're guaranteed a fixed return on the deal, and because of the heavier promotion this time around, they will gain some renewed interest in their music - but at the same time, are preserving a nice balance between where they expect to be financially as well as artistically.
I personally rarely download music at all - I almost always buy a vinyl copy or CD of almost every album release of my favorite artists and still anticipate album release dates as much as I did 10 years ago. I enjoy reading liner notes and having a physical medium, rather than a digital file. I still play all of my music in my car on CD - no Ipod hook-up. I'm probably in the minority, but from my personal standpoint, I didn't decide to purchase less music because of the technology or illegal downloading. I stopped buying as much because frankly, there's just less quality music being produced in my humble opinion. These days, I'm discovering more "new" music from 10...20...even 50 years ago! I tend to buy more used CD's/vinyl than new stuff. Personally, I can't really stomach FM radio, Billy Corgan (I love Gish and Siamese Dream), Thom Yorke (I love Radiohead's first 4 albums), or any of the crap played on a CW TV show! As a musician myself, I appreciate that Pearl Jam is still just 5 guys rockin' out out on drums/bass/guitars, and not a bunch of jackholes who think a great album can be produced on a laptop by whining over 50 looped/mixed tracks of bullcrap for 6 minutes at a shot!
Osaka, Japan (2/21/95), San Diego (7/10/98), Las Vegas (10/22/00), San Diego (10/25/00), Las Vegas (6/6/03), Las Vegas (7/6/06), Los Angeles (7/9/06), VH1 Rock Honors (7/12/08), Ed Solo (7/8/11), Ed Solo (11/1/12), Los Angeles (11/23/13)
I just can't believe they never released a second single.
the next single is coming out soon no?
16th november
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
My ?????? to everyone here why do you care how many units are sold ,to me it's about individuality i could care less how many units are sold, i got mine ! as long as they keep on touring and i have the chance to attend and purchase boots ,just my 2c...
My buisness plan for backspacer would have been: liscencing some of the tunes for use in tv shows like Greys Anatomy or The Hills. Just Breathe or The End, no doubt would fit perfectly, as some emotional scene in Greys.
They took this approach for Avocado. If you remember, 'Come Back' was featured in an extremely emotional scene in the first season of the popular show, 'Friday Night Lights.' Didn't seem to make a significant difference in terms of album sales. In any case, how the record is marketed is up to Pearl Jam and their competent management team..
'I want to hurry home to you
put on a slow, dumb show for you
and crack you up
so you can put a blue ribbon on my brain
god I'm very, very frightening
and I'll overdo it'
When I first heard about the Target deal, I didnt cringe about the fact they were doing a deal with a major corporation, my anger or disappointment was the fact this was sort of a wierd and silly idea if they wanted to sell records.
Its clear, for Avocado and Backspacer, the band, explicitly were hoping that these records would sell big numbers, and the press and marketing for both records reflected that.
I posted about this months ago, when the deal was announced and I said it was silly to do this, with Target, to focus attention and hype and the media, on the album itself as opposed to the songs specifically or the band.
My buisness plan for backspacer would have been: liscencing some of the tunes for use in tv shows like Greys Anatomy or The Hills. Just Breathe or The End, no doubt would fit perfectly, as some emotional scene in Greys. I would have liscenced the tunes to movies and trailers. I would have given the album out, to all stores, thus the Target deal wouldnt be in place, and it would have been available as instant download for 5 bucks on the Ten Club website, with various other versions of the album also on the site, maybe a slightly higher priced Backspacer for 10 bucks but included would be a free LP of the record and then additional bonus tracks only available with that purchase. I would have forgotten about Spin and rolling Stone magazine as both are non issues at this point, and done interviews with the online press even those that arent necesarily PJ friendly. Interviews with Pichfork, maybe do one of those things for Pitchfork TV where they play a few songs on the rooftop of the Pitchfork headquarters. I would do press with Stereogum and Brooklyn Vegan. Does the band still oppose using their music in tv commercials for products? They obviously think some corporations even if they are huge can still be fair and just, so, why not lend the use of the songs for commercials? The Shins did a commercial for Mcdonalds, and as far as I know they are still considered a viable and top tier band in indie rock. They could have done press with KEXP, oneof the premiere rock stations in the nation that actually plays good rock music, and ignores 3 doors down and Nickelback.
This is a smart band. A wise band. But as I pointed out months ago, they are clueless as to how to deal with the current musical climate, which of course is understandable.
It makes no sense to spend a ton of time, doing an elaborate liner notes and album cover package. PJ are the masters at this, but the time for it has passed. They should have pffered the Tom Tomorrow stuff, exclusively for the 10 buck version of the record that I mentioned above. I am not complaining. And in any case, my buisness plan that I outlined, doesnt leave the band with less money and less sales, in fact my model gains them large numbers of new fans, and a deluge of press, and lots of sales.
The crux of the issue is that the majority of bands, and labels are clueless as to how to proceed in this new downloading era. Pearl jam is no exception. I think the band had a million options, and mulled them all, especially when In Rainbows shook things up. I think they took a wrong turn though.
my 8 day old cocker spaniel Shitbrick could give a better model than this.
I wonder how many sales they missed because of the ineptness of Target.
I was on the road out west when it dropped and hit several stores to gather up
what I wanted (LP, single and Target version).
They couldn't handle a Sunday release, which is somewhat understandable since
most albums drop on Tuesday. Backspacer was in the stockroom, but not on display
in several stores (as many noted here). And even though I didn't want it, nobody
seemed to know anything about the T-shirts even though they were included in
the Sunday Target flyer.
Lots of confused looks on Target faces during my journey.
I wonder how many sales they missed because of the ineptness of Target.
I was on the road out west when it dropped and hit several stores to gather up
what I wanted (LP, single and Target version).
They couldn't handle a Sunday release, which is somewhat understandable since
most albums drop on Tuesday. Backspacer was in the stockroom, but not on display
in several stores (as many noted here). And even though I didn't want it, nobody
seemed to know anything about the T-shirts even though they were included in
the Sunday Target flyer.
Lots of confused looks on Target faces during my journey.
you are missing the point
it does not matter to the band-because they had a guarantee for one million records at $5 a pop.
it only hurt target in that they couldnt move as many units as they should have
Pj has not sold one million records since yield, and that includes avocado where they promoted the record more than any other
yet they got a guarantee from target for one million copies of backspacer-from the bands perspetive, backspacer was the best selling record since yield-which is pretty amazing in this digital age. Plus Itunes downloads and plus fan club sales.
brilliant I say
Musicismylife78, I am surprised you havent mentioned an infomercial-because that is the best way to move product these days.
You cannot equate pearl jam's music with a widget.
I have mixed feelings on how the band did at promoting the album.
Rock Band: expected, and smart. Video game sales have actually remained relatively stable during the recession, and I have read that in the near future, it's very viable for an artist to release an album online, physically in stores, and on Rock Band.
Conan O' Brien Show: What? Does anyone even remember this? A repeat appearance closer to the release date would have made sense, methinks.
Target: Find another big-box retailer that will heavily feature them on advertisements and the like, buy 1 million copies up front, AND allow distribution of an album through other channels which the band supports - you'll have some trouble with that.
My thoughts are that the band likely recognize the power of their own fan base as well, which is definitely a significant amount of forward momentum on album sales the band can count on. I, for one, can almost think of myself as a living, breathing advertisement, and I'm not sad to say it. I talk about this band all the time!
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
At first i thought this was a joke. But wow i can't believe they are serious.
2008 - Camden, NJ 1
2009 - Philadelphia, PA x4
2010 - Newark, NJ, New York City, NY x2
2012 - Philadelphia, PA
2013 - Chicago, IL, Philadelphia, PA x2, Hartford, CT 2016 - Philadelphia, PA x2, New York City, NY 2, Fenway 2
Comments
Disagree. They obviously have their favorite genre at Pitchfork, but why not just do 1 interview? Let Pitchfork do the reviews. Just have the band as I said, do an interview, and then do the rooftop show I mentioned. Pitchfork is a major tastemaker in music, THE MAJOR tastemaker. Its more influential that Spin or Rolling Stone or Target combined, and thats no joke.
Why not do press with something that has that much clout? Let the chips fall where they may.
The point is, Pitchfork has the clout that Target lacks. I am not a buisness management team, but I do know common sense. If you want to sell some product, you want to promote it in ways that will reach people. Is Target a place where you are likely to get people coming in for music? Are people driving to Target to get their music jones fix? You need to look at what these days is selling music. And reguardless of if you think of Greys Anatomy, or Scrubs, or Heroes or whatever as a girlie show, its proven fact that these shows can gain a band major press. And its also proven that Pitchfork, right now, is the major music source of whats hot and whats not.
Look at the Victoria Secret Commercial with Joanna Newsom, or the HP commercial with Vampire Weekend, or the car commercial with Phoenix, this is where its at. These are 3 major indie artists, putting their music in ads that will be seen by millions. In ZombieLand Band of Horses plays in the background. And is anyone seriously calling them sellouts?
You do what you have to do in this climate.
I view music as sacred and its my favorite thing in the world. I have found out about alot of bands via tv shows, and movies using songs. And those songs arent ruined. In fact, its kind of cool.
You never know until you try. Thats what makes zero sense. They didnt even try it. Liscence some of the songs, see how it goes. If its a nonfactor, its a nonfactor. And if it brings in the dough and the fans and the sales, then thats good. But to not try it at all? Again, this band seems behind the times in this department.
Say Just Breathe is used in a dramatic and emotional scene in Greys Anatomy where someone dies? What is the downside? Is the song really ruined because of that? I would be pumped. I for one think film and tv and music can be used together to make something more powerful than it would have been with just one element.
That Josh Radin example from Scrubs fits with that. The scene is beautiful, and sad, one of the saddest I have ever seen, but it is given more power and emotion through the use of the song Winter.
I mean, is that really that bad? Just Breathe being used in an emotional tv drama?
All I am saying is that given that, it made zero sense to go the cover story route.
The fatal flaw in this line of thinking is in equating Pearl Jam in the Backspacer era with The Shins pre Garden State. It's an absolutely ridiculous comparison and simply doesn't hold up. Pearl Jam has been as exposed as they ever will be and aren't some underground darling waiting to be discovered. They are an aging act that the general public sees as irrelevant (not saying I agree, just saying that's the way it is). Someone at Grey's Anatomy licensing "Just Breathe" risks their show being seen as out of touch and irrelevant as well, whereas if they license a Mars Volta song or something by Phoenix they appear to have their finger on the pulse.
Don't kid yourself, Pearl Jam is smart enough to understand their place in the current climate. That's exactly why the Target deal is so smart when taken hand in hand with their complete ownership of the product. That is the kind of deal bands dream of. Getting their music heard on ESPN and Fox during baseball was another great move, as was mentioned before.
Regarding singles - you're behind the curve on this one as well. With the advent of satellite radio and digital downloads, singles are meaningless as well. I don't have satellite but when I was listening to it in the car last month I heard "The Fixer", "Got Some", "Amongst The Waves" and "Just Breathe" across a few channels. Why release one single when you can make the whole album available and let the music advertise itself - especially in this day and age.
When you question the actual packaging of the record you misunderstand the basic concept of making the physical product they are selling valuable. If they were to abandon the art and the liner notes what is to persuade anyone to buy the album at all? Think of the fact that they produce vinyl albums and ask yourself if this is a band that sees value in the physical possession of records. You're right - it's not the cutting edge, but there is no reason to go to the extremes that you are suggesting, especially for a band that ties the art of the album in with the experience of the music the way that Pearl Jam always has. They clearly don't care if the tastemakers get it or not, and at the end of the day it isn't going to hurt their bottom line. In fact, it gives people another reason to purchase what they are selling rather than stealing it digitally.
Finally, when discussing licensing of songs, I will agree with you that marrying music to an image (whether it's through a film, television show or even an ad) is a great marketing tool when the right piece of music is used to market the right film/television show/project. There have to be benefits to both parties. We have no idea if anyone is interested in using PJ's music at this point and if so, whether the band considers that use of their song in their best interest or in the best interest of the band.
Overall, I'm not sure there is a better example of an artist balancing their art with the commerce that their art generates for them. It's gotta be a very difficult line to walk and from my perspective, Pearl Jam does it expertly.
Springfield, MA 4/6/94 -- Boston, MA 4/11/94 -- Hartford, CT 10/2/96 -- Hartford, CT 9/13/98 -- Mansfield, MA 7/2/03 -- Reading, PA 10/1/04 -- Albany, NY 5/12/06 -- Milwaukee, WI 6/29/06 -- Mansfield, MA 6/30/08 -- Toronto, ON 9/21/09 -- Philadelphia, PA 10/31/09 -- Worcester, MA 10/16/13 -- Hartford, CT 10/25/13 -- New York, NY 9/26/15 -- New York, NY 5/2/16 -- Boston, MA 8/5/16 -- Boston, MA 8/7/16 -- Boston, MA 9/2/18 -- Boston, MA 9/4/18 -- London, UK 7/8/22 -- Hamilton, ON 9/6/22 -- Toronto, ON 9/8/22 -- New York, NY 9/11/22 -- Chicago, IL 9/5/23 -- Chicago, IL 9/7/23 -- New York, NY 9/3/24 -- Philadelphia, PA 9/7/24 -- Philadelphia, PA 9/9/24
And all everyone else is saying is that these TV shows you suggest along with Pitchfork is the wrong route to go.
Pichfork is not the MAJOR player. Ask 100 random people what Pitchfork is and they'll just stare at you. Mention what Target is and I'm sure 97% will know what you're talking about.
And you're comparing Pearl Jam to indie bands like Vampire Weekend and Phoenix? Are you kidding?
What about what was said in the other posts about ESPN/ABC? Pearl Jam was played on those stations neary everyday several times a day. That was far better marketing IMO.
reguarding your statements about liner notes and the physical product itself, the album itself:
This is what gets me excited. I love talking about this stuff. So when others talk about how downloading is ruining bands and the industry, I cheer, because its forcing people to do something different. I find the same old same old boring. Advertising with Rolling stone and Spin and whatnot is boring. And its old and antiquated.
I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.
You talked out if, bands were to abandon the liner notes and the package of it all, why even put out an album at all, and why would people even buy one at all. This is what I want to discuss. iTunes is the largest legal online music store in the world. The majority of people whether they buy from iTunes, or whether they download it for free, arent gonna see the liner notes or the overall package anyway. Is seeing a small pixelated version of the Backspacer cover on your iPod really incentive for people to buy it? Who these days, beyond the vinyl enthusiasts and cd holdouts, spend hours at a time looking at the covers and artwork in albums they are currently buying? Are people really buying Vampire Weekend or Bon Ivor to look at the liner notes?
These things make me happy. They are examples of artists, who are out there struggling to come up with new ways of delivering us music. That is exciting.
And in many ways, its disappointing PJ didnt do something along those lines.
Hey, one thing is for sure. PJ would not hire you. You don´t seem to fit with their way of seeing things. I believe they are not the kind of people that wish for such exposure. These are guys that think they have more than they deserve. With their two feet on the ground.
They wanted to make money on their own. Made a deal with a company that responded to their demands. They saw it right, in their eyes. WHAM. "Easy money. Let´s not worry for food, education, healthcare for a while. Lets go on with our amazing lives."
I don´t suspect them chasing goals at this point in their musical careers.
I see the ESPN thing as a non issue. Ed specifically said he wanted new fans, young kids, young fans, to be buying this record, to be swayed by the marketing and all that. Thats paraphrasing, but the message is the same.
Why not do both? ESPN only attracts a certain demographic, while I think despite what people want to say, these tv shows have a wide audience, female yes, but alot of males as well.
You want to attract new fans and specifically younger ones, again, you aint gonna do it by doing a SPin cover. You do it, as I said, with Pitchfork, which is read by a younger demographic, you do it by liscencing to tv shows with a younger audience, shows on the CW etc... and you do it, by marketing in places where young people shop. Target is a cool place, but it aint hip central, lets face it. Kids and teens watch alot of tv and movies. And of course commercials. So, you advertise with that in mind.
Again, this is why i dont get the marketing strategy. Trying to win new fans is one thing. But to narrow it specifically to new fans who are younger, teens, or a little older, you need a specific marketing plan, and you need to use specific means of marketing that appeal to this demographic.
The fact, that the band chose to appeal to this younger audience using Rolling Stone, Spin, and Target, shows a lack of understanding of modern musical culture.
You really think PJ should stop releasing complete studio albums? Is that what you are implying?
Not likely to come to happen. I amuse myself thinking that I know what they are thinking regarding music marketing. You my friend are on your own world. These guys love vinyl, tell us how antiquated this is. Not to mention, releasing complete albums.
Ask 100 people who they go to for music recommendation and reviews and to hear about new bands, 97 percent are gonna say the internet, blogs, pitchfork, and friends, and tv shows. I would bet not a single person says, "i get my advice from target, thats my go to music store!"
I bet more say rolling stone or spin more than they do pitchfork
I agree with the blog thing, but pitchfork is looked at like a whiny little brother of Rolling Stone.
I seek out good new music, but rarely ever use Pitchfork as a resource. Although I sometimes use it as a way to avoid bands
Unless you think my name is Sufjan, Thom, or Billy, i didnt say a thing. I am telling you that, in music right now, the big wigs, the biggest names in the buisness are personally considering if they should release albums anymore. Thats not my reading of it. Thats from the mouths of these musicians. So I am not implying anything. I am telling you what some of the biggest names in music are thinking. And when Thom Yorke, talks about something people listen.
I think there is room in the modern era for albums. I think that albums are an important part of the music industry, regardless of the fact that Thom Yorke disagrees. In fact, it could be argued that the abandonment of albums as things of import is helping lead to the death of the music industry.
The labels are the major problem here. Instead of embracing the fact that the industry was changing and finding a way to maintain their relevance in the face of that change, they brought lawsuits and raised prices and refused to budge in their stubborn insistence that they knew the best way to sell the product and that the fans would simply give in and take what they were offered.
That said - there is obviously a contingent of people that are going to be very happy to simply click and download songs one by one, that doesn't mean that albums are pointless and without a place in the world of music. People feared that television would be the death of movies and that has shown to not be the case. It's up to the bands and the labels to find a way to offer some kind of exclusive product to fans loyal enough to purchase an entire album. Pearl Jam has done just that, offering beautiful artwork, detailed liner notes, downloads, other exclusive content and t-shirt tie ins - and that's just the target deal alone.
Springfield, MA 4/6/94 -- Boston, MA 4/11/94 -- Hartford, CT 10/2/96 -- Hartford, CT 9/13/98 -- Mansfield, MA 7/2/03 -- Reading, PA 10/1/04 -- Albany, NY 5/12/06 -- Milwaukee, WI 6/29/06 -- Mansfield, MA 6/30/08 -- Toronto, ON 9/21/09 -- Philadelphia, PA 10/31/09 -- Worcester, MA 10/16/13 -- Hartford, CT 10/25/13 -- New York, NY 9/26/15 -- New York, NY 5/2/16 -- Boston, MA 8/5/16 -- Boston, MA 8/7/16 -- Boston, MA 9/2/18 -- Boston, MA 9/4/18 -- London, UK 7/8/22 -- Hamilton, ON 9/6/22 -- Toronto, ON 9/8/22 -- New York, NY 9/11/22 -- Chicago, IL 9/5/23 -- Chicago, IL 9/7/23 -- New York, NY 9/3/24 -- Philadelphia, PA 9/7/24 -- Philadelphia, PA 9/9/24
Pichfork is not the MAJOR player. Ask 100 random people what Pitchfork is and they'll just stare at you. Mention what Target is and I'm sure 97% will know what you're talking about.
And you're comparing Pearl Jam to indie bands like Vampire Weekend and Phoenix? Are you kidding?
What about what was said in the other posts about ESPN/ABC? Pearl Jam was played on those stations neary everyday several times a day. That was far better marketing IMO.[/quote]
Ask 100 people who they go to for music recommendation and reviews and to hear about new bands, 97 percent are gonna say the internet, blogs, pitchfork, and friends, and tv shows. I would bet not a single person says, "i get my advice from target, thats my go to music store!"[/quote]
I bet more say rolling stone or spin more than they do pitchfork
I agree with the blog thing, but pitchfork is looked at like a whiny little brother of Rolling Stone.
I seek out good new music, but rarely ever use Pitchfork as a resource. Although I sometimes use it as a way to avoid bands
And thats fine. I love pitchfork, I swear by it. But if you dont like it, I understand and respect that. But I also think the track record of Pitchfork speaks for itself. Its one thing to dislike something, its another to disreguard the influence it has on the world, to ignore it, because you dislike it. We are all entitled to our opinions but not our own set of facts. And the facts are that the bands that Pitchfork gives Best New Music tags to, usually blow up, and start getting buzzed about. is it all pitchfork? Probably not, but I think, its naive to discount their influence. The Pitchfork review of Funeral, was a huge reason that Arcade Fire started to pick up steam. Broken Social Scene says this about Pitchfork-"Frontman Kevin Drew said that, following the review, "Everyone was coming up to us, saying, 'We heard about you from Pitchfork.' It basically opened the door for us. It gave us an audience", and that the band "suddenly found [themselves] selling out venues."
Again, i respect people who dislike Pitchfork. If you dislike their writers, or their reviews, if its not your bag, then its not your bag. I respect that. But to tell me Pitchfork doesnt have a major influence on music, and what is considered cool and hip, is plain ignorant and dumb.
But if such music heavyweights as Billy, Trent, Sufjan and Thom are debating these issues, I dont think my opinion or your opinion matter all that much. I agree the music industry blew it. I have no sympathy for the labels. I agree wholeheartedly. But I dont think thats the issue here. Billy, Trent, Sufjan and Thom are debating how to release music because of two things. One: as you said, the industry is clueless, the labels are clueless, and two, music fans in general dont consume music like they did in the past. I said it before, most people, dont listen to full albums anymore. They download it from iTunes legally, or go to Wal Mart, copy it on the computer, save the singles or the songs they like, then, they put the other 8 or 10 songs in the trash and upload it to their iPod. Most people dont really even listen on CD anymore. They listen on their computer, so their are never any cd's to play, or they use their iPod.
Those are fundamentally different ways of listening to music than what used to be used. ITunes allows buying of single songs. you could buy only the songs you like.
So thats what they are deliberating about. Sufjan and Thom, are considering the landscape. When people can go on iTunes and buy Sufjans John Wayne Gacy and Chicago, from the Illinois album and then not hear or not buy the rest, or when people can buy Bodysnactchers and dont have to buy the rest of the record, why even make an entire cohesive album at all?
Why create an entire album of music, when people dont listen to music AS AN ALBUM anymore?
There are still plenty of people who DO listen to albums.
In response to your comment "music fans in general dont consume music like they did in the past", I think we need to be clear that people don't consume it in the same FORMAT, but people consume just as much, if not more music than ever before. Most of the people I know have 10 times as much digital music on their Ipods than they own on CD or vinyl - which I find kind of silly, seeing as they don't listen to or even know half of what they have on there!
The culture of music and the relationship with commerce has changed drastically in the last 10 years. The technology has made it so easy to "acquire" such a quantity of music, and it's much more economical for artists and labels to adapt to that technology, rather than try to foster a situation where the album concept maintains some cultural significance or artistic integrity. This is where I think Pearl Jam differs from some of the other acts you mentioned. They still believe in the album format, which is why a deal like they worked with Target is perfect. They're guaranteed a fixed return on the deal, and because of the heavier promotion this time around, they will gain some renewed interest in their music - but at the same time, are preserving a nice balance between where they expect to be financially as well as artistically.
I personally rarely download music at all - I almost always buy a vinyl copy or CD of almost every album release of my favorite artists and still anticipate album release dates as much as I did 10 years ago. I enjoy reading liner notes and having a physical medium, rather than a digital file. I still play all of my music in my car on CD - no Ipod hook-up. I'm probably in the minority, but from my personal standpoint, I didn't decide to purchase less music because of the technology or illegal downloading. I stopped buying as much because frankly, there's just less quality music being produced in my humble opinion. These days, I'm discovering more "new" music from 10...20...even 50 years ago! I tend to buy more used CD's/vinyl than new stuff. Personally, I can't really stomach FM radio, Billy Corgan (I love Gish and Siamese Dream), Thom Yorke (I love Radiohead's first 4 albums), or any of the crap played on a CW TV show! As a musician myself, I appreciate that Pearl Jam is still just 5 guys rockin' out out on drums/bass/guitars, and not a bunch of jackholes who think a great album can be produced on a laptop by whining over 50 looped/mixed tracks of bullcrap for 6 minutes at a shot!
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
They took this approach for Avocado. If you remember, 'Come Back' was featured in an extremely emotional scene in the first season of the popular show, 'Friday Night Lights.' Didn't seem to make a significant difference in terms of album sales. In any case, how the record is marketed is up to Pearl Jam and their competent management team..
put on a slow, dumb show for you
and crack you up
so you can put a blue ribbon on my brain
god I'm very, very frightening
and I'll overdo it'
my 8 day old cocker spaniel Shitbrick could give a better model than this.
I wonder how many sales they missed because of the ineptness of Target.
I was on the road out west when it dropped and hit several stores to gather up
what I wanted (LP, single and Target version).
They couldn't handle a Sunday release, which is somewhat understandable since
most albums drop on Tuesday. Backspacer was in the stockroom, but not on display
in several stores (as many noted here). And even though I didn't want it, nobody
seemed to know anything about the T-shirts even though they were included in
the Sunday Target flyer.
Lots of confused looks on Target faces during my journey.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me...
it does not matter to the band-because they had a guarantee for one million records at $5 a pop.
it only hurt target in that they couldnt move as many units as they should have
Pj has not sold one million records since yield, and that includes avocado where they promoted the record more than any other
yet they got a guarantee from target for one million copies of backspacer-from the bands perspetive, backspacer was the best selling record since yield-which is pretty amazing in this digital age. Plus Itunes downloads and plus fan club sales.
brilliant I say
Musicismylife78, I am surprised you havent mentioned an infomercial-because that is the best way to move product these days.
You cannot equate pearl jam's music with a widget.
Rock Band: expected, and smart. Video game sales have actually remained relatively stable during the recession, and I have read that in the near future, it's very viable for an artist to release an album online, physically in stores, and on Rock Band.
Conan O' Brien Show: What? Does anyone even remember this? A repeat appearance closer to the release date would have made sense, methinks.
Target: Find another big-box retailer that will heavily feature them on advertisements and the like, buy 1 million copies up front, AND allow distribution of an album through other channels which the band supports - you'll have some trouble with that.
My thoughts are that the band likely recognize the power of their own fan base as well, which is definitely a significant amount of forward momentum on album sales the band can count on. I, for one, can almost think of myself as a living, breathing advertisement, and I'm not sad to say it. I talk about this band all the time!
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXqHfHN9dJs
xo
every time i see a post from you i expect to see a link to rules.
At first i thought this was a joke. But wow i can't believe they are serious.
2009 - Philadelphia, PA x4
2010 - Newark, NJ, New York City, NY x2
2012 - Philadelphia, PA
2013 - Chicago, IL, Philadelphia, PA x2, Hartford, CT
2016 - Philadelphia, PA x2, New York City, NY 2, Fenway 2
Now thats a deluxe edition!!!!!!!
Now that is some brilliant marketing right there.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=769776790&n=2