The band promoted Backspacer wrong, made little sense

24

Comments

  • PJammer4life
    PJammer4life Los Angeles Posts: 2,672
    NCBRI wrote:
    Going the Target route may have meant fewer album sales, but it probably made them more money in the end while allowing them more freedom.


    Exactly. They could have sold 1 million at $1.00 each for their cut..or 500,000 at $4 a album and make twice as much. Not having it at Best Buy hurts..but not having a 2nd hit single hurts worse...it looks like their sales may drop off to the level of Aerosmith.
    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
  • igotid88
    igotid88 Posts: 28,690
    PJammer4life wrote:
    NCBRI wrote:
    Going the Target route may have meant fewer album sales, but it probably made them more money in the end while allowing them more freedom.


    Exactly. They could have sold 1 million at $1.00 each for their cut..or 500,000 at $4 a album and make twice as much. Not having it at Best Buy hurts..but not having a 2nd hit single hurts worse...it looks like their sales may drop off to the level of Aerosmith.

    Just Breathe is doing well. It was just released. Hopefully it will get picked up by the AC stations and may be CHR.
    I miss igotid88
  • South of Seattle
    South of Seattle West Seattle Posts: 10,724
    Get_Right wrote:
    musicismylife78 wrote:

    If they didnt want more sales or exposure, why do press with Spin? Why do the DLC thing for Rock Band? Again dust off that 2006 Rolling Stone issue, and read what Mike has to say about what he hopes in terms of sales of Avocado. And please dust off the Spin article, where Mike and Ed specifically say, they want backspacer to sell some units.

    Does the band want to be the hottest ticket in town? Probably not, but lets not kid ourselves. The last two albums and the press surrounding them, have been explicitly about trying to get attention and fame. If you cant see that, its hard to even discuss basic facts with you. Because this is a basic fact. Its out of the mouths of the band.

    Im sorry, but when Ed and Mike talk about wanting to sell more records, I would assume thats what they mean. They want to sell more records. That to me indicates, the band IS NOT happy with their place, and IS NOT satisfied with the current level of sales.
    good debate
    they have always done interviews, letterman, etc
    and of course they say that they want it to sell units-they do want to get paid
    but you are taking a big leap from saying they want to sell records to saying that they are not happy with the current situation
    Id bet they are very happy to have a million units guaranteed in this environment

    I will admit I dont get the rockband thing

    but at the end of the day, it really comes down to piracy
    they dont make as much as they used to off a record- so they have done things they might not have done when they were selling 2-3 million records-its also the reason they raised ticket prices, unfortunately

    I think the Rockband thing is the equal to putting your show on One Tree Hill or The Hills and other crap like that.

    The Video Game industry is much more profitable than the Movie/Music industry right now. Only a certain demographic watches the Hills and stuff like that. Almost Everyone from the age of 4 and up these days has a Wii/Playstation 3/ or an Xbox 360.

    This way you can interact with the music more than just hearing a snippet on TV.

    1 Million records to Target is pretty large considering they did it label-less. Now they can sell a high number and make more off each copy.

    Pearl Jam's bread and butter is touring and everything that involves it.

    Look around the porch, how many threads are about Pearl Jam products? PJ bootlegs, water bottles, posters, hoodies, onesies, stickers . . . the list goes on.
    NERDS!
  • Stephen Flow
    Stephen Flow Posts: 3,327
    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.
  • PJammer4life
    PJammer4life Los Angeles Posts: 2,672
    edited November 2009
    Get a Grip (1993) #1 US, #2 UK, US Sales: 7,000,000
    Big Ones (1994) #6 US, #7 UK, US Sales: 4,000,000
    Nine Lives (1997) #1 US, #4 UK, US Sales: 2,000,000
    A Little South of Sanity (1998) #12 US, #36 UK, US Sales: 1,000,000
    Just Push Play (2001) #2 US, #7 UK, US Sales: 1,000,000
    Young Lust: The Aerosmith Anthology (2001) #191 US, #32 UK, US Sales: 500,000
    O, Yeah! The Ultimate Aerosmith Hits (2002) #4 US, #6 UK, US Sales: 1,000,000
    Honkin' on Bobo (2004) #5 US, #28 UK, US Sales: 600,000


    Ten (1991) #2 13,000,000
    Vs. (1993) #1 7,000,000
    Vitalogy (1994) #1 5,000,000
    No Code (1996) #1 1,000,000 plus
    Yield (1998) #2 1,000,000 plus
    Live On Two Legs (1998) #15 1,000,000 plus
    Binaural (2000) # 2 500,000 plus
    Riot Act (2003) #5 500,000 plus
    Lost Dogs (2005) #15 500,000 plus
    Rearviewmirror (2004) #16 500,000 plus (platinum double album)
    Self Titled (2006) #2 700,000 plus

    See a similar trend?
    Post edited by PJammer4life on
    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
  • bovy_j
    bovy_j Posts: 1,008
    "it should have been liscened to Gossip Girl, and 30 rock and One Tree Hill."
    :lol::lol::lol::lol:
    Why the jesus would Pearl Jam want to be on those stupid television shows that stupid teenage girls watch? They are GARBAGE! :lol:
    I think you're looking for Lady Gaga or somethin here buddy. ;)
    And how can you say they 'should' be doing this and that? You aren't their marketing team. ;)
    They're doing just fine with what they believe they "should" be doing, without your help. :)

    BTW: I stopped reading your post after you mentioned those three television shows.
  • force-10
    force-10 Posts: 794
    ONe thing is for sure, the only fact anyone has mentioned here regarding PJ, or have mentioned it but not noticed it, PJ is promoting this late album way more than any other album before.

    They want to do it the way they see fit. Mike said in a recent interview (or whas it stone?) that they now have kids and have to think about how to support them, now. As in, "we did not think this way before". I assume they want money now. Hence, the deals, wich cash in almost immediately i believe.

    This uncommonly-never before promoting from pearl jam, might be the first step for them coming to do a gig in central america. Metallica is rumored (big time) to visit guatemala for their 2010 latin american tour. This will be huge. I´m sure it will go swell. After this, promotors would be more open to english speaking rock acts, because I´m positive Metallica will be a huge hit here.

    I´m sure that PJ would come, because for the 2003 tour, PJ management did talk with local promoters, but these assholes thought they would not sell enough tickets. PJ were charging too much, not too many people know them, where their two concerns. BUt now....
    IN THE DARK, ALL CATS ARE BLACK.
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    Stephen Flow wrote:
    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
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    musicismylife78 wrote:
    Stephen Flow wrote:
    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


    Are The Shins or Imogen Heap the biggest bands in the world? Obviously not, but both would tell you, and I think its obvious, a huge part of why they got big, and why they both are 2 cutting edge, and hip bands right now, is because in the Shins case, they were given the best shout out anyone could give a band via Garden State, and then Imogen Heap has been played on the OC, and Garden State etc...

    Those shows made the difference between those bands being a local phenomenon, their hometowns best band, to major indie rock superstars.

    That translates into more record sales, more merch sales, more ticket sales, and more word of mouth.
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    bovy_j wrote:
    "it should have been liscened to Gossip Girl, and 30 rock and One Tree Hill."
    :lol::lol::lol::lol:
    Why the jesus would Pearl Jam want to be on those stupid television shows that stupid teenage girls watch? They are GARBAGE! :lol:
    I think you're looking for Lady Gaga or somethin here buddy. ;)
    And how can you say they 'should' be doing this and that? You aren't their marketing team. ;)
    They're doing just fine with what they believe they "should" be doing, without your help. :)

    BTW: I stopped reading your post after you mentioned those three television shows.


    Cool, dont read my posts then. Why even post here? See ya, post on someone elses thread.
  • PJammer4life
    PJammer4life Los Angeles Posts: 2,672
    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
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    Stephen Flow wrote:
    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.
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    PJammer4life wrote:
    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?
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    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.
  • Demps
    Demps Posts: 102
    musicismylife78 wrote:
    Stephen Flow wrote:
    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
  • South of Seattle
    South of Seattle West Seattle Posts: 10,724
    musicismylife78 wrote:
    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.
    NERDS!
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    Demps wrote:
    musicismylife78 wrote:
    Stephen Flow wrote:
    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.
  • force-10
    force-10 Posts: 794
    musicismylife78 wrote:
    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.
    IN THE DARK, ALL CATS ARE BLACK.
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    South of Seattle wrote:
    musicismylife78 wrote:
    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.
  • force-10
    force-10 Posts: 794
    musicismylife78 wrote:

    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.
    IN THE DARK, ALL CATS ARE BLACK.

Categories