Pearl Jam still Alive -- but they're no U2

PJ FAN

First thing I did when I got up Tuesday was logon to the Sun and read the review. I can't even describe the feeling I got when I read it. My emotion wandered from rage, disbelief, to defeit, then back to rage. I've been preaching about this band to anyone that will listen to me, and to have to go back to work today and have everyone walk up to me and say " I heard/read that PJ sucked" really bummed me out. I loved the show. All I did was e-mail other reviews of the show.

Trying to get people to notice what Rock Gods these guys are can get tiresome. Though I've made ALLOT of die hard fans over the years.

Light_years

i really wish this thread would be deleted, cause i get mad everytime i scroll by it and see the title

Webslinger

jtwist wrote:

Discoteqhe (sp?) anyone

Discotheque was intended to be heavily produced. And it was commercially successful in Europe, where it hit #1 in most countries, including the U.K. While I don't believe that commercial success is any indicator, necessarily, of quality (any measure of quality in art is relatively subjective), the song certainly didn't kill U2's fanbase. There's a certain dance element to that song, and certainly a lot of dance songs are heavily produced. To claim "overproduc[tion]" though is mostly subjective (depending on whether the individual believes the song is good).

Calling themselves "The Greatest Band in the World" that's ALOT of hype to live up to....

I thought Bono said U2 was reapplying for the position. Regardless, they are only overhyped if you believe they aren't the world's greatest rock band (which is, again, why I believe the claim is subjective).

I guess I was wrong for having an opinion different than what "the charts" say. Using this theory, I can flip on 10 different radio stations that range from "Alternative" to "Soft Rock" to "Pop/Top 40" and hear U2 on each and every one of them (probably about 10 times a day too). I'm confused, which of these labels is correct?

None are completely accurate; that's why I said be careful when compartmentalizing artists. I heard Sting on a jazz station the other day . . .

"Miss Sarajevo" has elements of classical music in it.

I can listen to Adult Contemporary stations and sometimes catch "Wishlist" as well.

Anyway, if you consider "All Because of You" to be pop, then I think it's time some of these classifications are dropped completely.

Woah, now you can't be serious about this. First off, using the sacred "charts" to measure relevance is one of the reasons the music industry makes me sick. I guess Pearl Jam stopped being relevant a LONG time ago because I have a hard time remembering the last time one of their singles was on the "charts". Led Zeppelin couldn't have been all that relevant either since they had exactly one single crack the top 10 during the course of their career. All hail U2, Green Day and J-Lo the kings (and queens) of music relevance!!!!!

The thing is Led Zepplin had the second highest selling album total at one point (I know nothing about the sales of their singles), only second to the Beatles. While I don't believe popularity is an indication of quality, in order to be relevant culturally, the culture has to, at least, hear and know the songs. One measure of this is based on sales (singles, albums, whatever . . .). And I was told, U2's latest album has sold over 10 million copies worldwide (I believe that's probably true because they won an award for World's Best-Selling Rock Artist at the World Music Awards recently). In order to be part of the zeitgeist, the artist's song has to be heard or, (bleh) consumed, at the very least.

I don't much care for some of Michael Jackson's music, but it would be impossible for me to deny that he was 1) hugely successful at one point, and 2) influenced a number of other artists. I also know that U2 was hugely succesful, commercially, at one point as well and appear to have affected other acts (namely Coldplay in recent days). If you accept that Vedder likes some of U2's music, chances are U2 has also influenced Pearl Jam a little as well (especially if "Bad is the greatest song about addiction" that Vedder has heard).

Perhaps but I would prefer to discover and enjoy music I feel is relevant on my own rather

I also enjoy discovering music on my own, and I sympathize with your opinion here. That said what you and the reviewer (who, in my opinion, is a twit) mean by "relevant" are two completely different things. I like the song "Wash". It's relevant to me. It's not, however, relevant to any of my friends, my girlfriend, my parents, my relatives or anyone else I know extremely well. Is the song "Wash", then relevant, culturally? Has it affected an age? Is it a defining song of the times; is it part of our zietgeist? Is it, as the reviewer says, "relevant in the outside world"? Probably not . . .

than have the media decide for me by ramming it down my throat (i.e. Ipod commercials,

U2 is all about having its songs heard. But no one is ramming anything. People fail to realize they are not completely passive and incapable of acting on their own volition (I.E., turning the channel).

incessant overplaying of each and every single they release

Overplaying is again a, relatively, subjective assertion on your part. By the way, If I had a dollar for each time I heard "Wishlist" on the radio when that song first came out (or saw the "Jeremy" video . . .)

, ridiculous media coverage of every single move they make, etc.)

Bono is a big celebrity. Comes with the territory . . .
At least I don't hear him whining constantly about being one.

PJ has lights, have you seen any bands that don't use lights for an arena concert?

No.

That was my point.

Based on what I know, U2's stage is a big part of what makes their shows great. I've heard people say that's what sets them apart.

I found Elevation's lightshow to be pretty lacklustre, actually. /shrug

I would prefer to judge a concert based on the bands talents not the stage designers

And with a U2 concert, you have the opportunity to judge both.

instruments but I think many people out there (myself included) could say the same for Adam and Larry in U2

:rolleyes:

By the way, did you know Adam came up with the bassline for "New Year's Day"? It's not a complicated bassline, but, then again, it doesn't have to be.

No they endorse Ipod. Whether you link it to their music or not, they're still doing it

They're not getting paid for those commercials. They are getting paid for each U2 ipod that sells, and for their music. They are endorsing it as a vehicle to both play their music and to promote their music. Again, I feel criticism here is completely inane, but whatever.



"Well ... there I was sitting down on the couch in my pajamas with my eldest son. He was watching TV. I was doing one of my favorite things -- I was tallying up all the money I passed up in endorsements over the years, and thinking of all the fun I could have had with it. Suddenly I hear "Uno, dos, tres, catorce!" I look up. But instead of the silhouettes of the hippie wannabes bouncing around in the iPod commercial, I see my boys!

Oh, my God! They sold out!

Now ... what I know about the iPod is this: it is a device that plays music. Of course their new song sounded great, my guys are doing great, but methinks I hear the footsteps of my old tape operator Jimmy Iovine somewhere. Wily. Smart. Now, personally, I live an insanely expensive lifestyle that my wife barely tolerates. I burn money, and that calls for huge amounts of cash flow. But I also have a ludicrous image of myself that keeps me from truly cashing in. (laughter) You can see my problem. Woe is me.

So the next morning, I call up Jon Landau -- or as I refer to him, "the American Paul McGuinness" -- and I say, "Did you see that iPod thing?" And he says, "Yes." And he says, "And I hear they didn't take any money." And I said, "They didn't take any money?!" And he says, "No." I said, "Smart, wily Irish guys." (laughter) Anybody ... anybody ... can do an ad and take the money. But to do the ad and not take the money ... that's smart. That's wily. I say, "Jon, I want you to call up Bill Gates or whoever is behind this thing and float this: A red, white, and blue iPod signed by Bruce 'The Boss' Springsteen. Now remember, no matter how much money he offers, don't take it!"

-- from Bruce Springsteen's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction speech for U2

http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=3790

Sure they hit their peak in the "all about me 80's" and it sure shows.

Again, subjective . . . A lot of critics feel U2 hit their peak in the early 90s with Achtung Baby.

Overall, I will say that you have made some valid points and that at the same time my opinions are quite different from yours but that doesn't make either of us wrong.

Fair enough

I guess I just know of too many people who happen to be U2 fans that crap on PJ

I love PJ's music. I would never "crap on PJ". You know, most of my U2 acquaintances have seen PJ live and like PJ a lot. /shrug

(much the same as this "writer" does) by saying things like "Pearl Jam sucks, when was the last time they put out anything good?"

Ben Rayner, of the Toronto Star, says the exact same thing constantly about U2. In fact, a few critics that blast U2 constantly say the same thing. Or they'll make the claim that U2 is no longer relevant because they are no longer popular (I don't know what planet they're on, but I guess winning "World's Best-Selling Rock Artist" at the World Music Awards means U2 is no longer popular) Except he thinks "Beautiful Day" is a great song (I think the "Beautiful Day" is merely o.k. and nothing to write home about; in fact, I disliked that song the first time I heard it . . .). Coldplay (and The White Stripes I have recently discovered) is loved by Ben Rayner. Ben Rayner fails to realize that without U2, Coldplay would probably sound a lot different (Chris Martin used to play "A Sort of Homecoming" to his former unborn child; he has actually referred to himself once as "Bono", etc. . . .)

but for them to go around calling themselves "The Greatest Band in the World" makes me sick!!!!!

I'm not sure anyone other than Bono has come close to making that claim. I sympathize with you here, somewhat. Bono is a bit of a twit at times (but I think he has a good heart. I use to believe he was a complete ass, but, in person, he was extremely nice to both me and my girlfriend. And he acted suprisingly humble).

And you have every right to hate U2's music; I'm not trying to change your mind. While I don't like Britney Spears' music, I don't go around telling her fans they're wrong for liking her music (as though it's some sort of established, objective, fact that her music is horrible, mind-numbing pap--despite the fact I believe that to be true) .

Anyway, I won't be responding further, mostly because I don't have the time.

GWN

Great post, Webslinger! Count me as another who love both bands (and Bruce Springsteen and Dave Matthews Band, for that matter)! Last week, I saw 3 PJ shows and 2 U2 shows. Does it get much better than that?

Betterman77

Ok this is a PEARL JAM BOARD not a u2 one, U2 SUCKS BALLS


P
E
A
R
L

J
A
M

R
O
C
K
S
!
!
!
!

SleightOfHands

Not relavant? People in the press write stuff just to be employed. This guy is either A) selling out to get a promotion or has no idea what music is and what it does for people. I wasted 10 minutes of my life reading that garbage.

i_am_a_wishlist

I wonder if she has ever written a negavite review of a pop band.

NOCODE#1

Quarterman98 wrote:

I'm usually ok with a negative review of the band, but this one gets under my skin. Saying they are no longer relevant is a load of crap. This guy overanalyzes the band...why not just look at the show as 3 hours of great rock n roll?? that's really what it comes down to, and saying bono upstaged them is just stupid. the guy was out there for 1 song.

but the fact was established years ago that u2 is way more relevant but who cares. ill take this little secret of a band anyday

NOCODE#1

SleightOfHands wrote:

Not relavant? People in the press write stuff just to be employed. This guy is either A) selling out to get a promotion or has no idea what music is and what it does for people. I wasted 10 minutes of my life reading that garbage.

slow reader eh?

lana

I read this review after the concert as I was interested in what the critics would say (not that i particularly care what they say). It was my first Pearl Jam concert (and second concert overall ) and i really loved it.
I understand that ultimately the review is an expression of a personal opinion and tastes do differ, but the critic does not strike me as a very good journalist because she doesnt seem to be very open-minded, she seems to have made up her mind before she went. She should have listened to their CDs instead, then maybe she wouldn't say "they haven't had a hit in years". Plus, when did U2 become the touchstone for every rock show?
I like old U2 songs and respect their music but to say that Bono's appearance was the highlight of the show is a serious EXAGGERATION. (By the way, i have read a review of U2's concert in another paper and the critics weren't very kind to them either.)

The phrase "their (PJ's) activities hardly generate a mention in the media these days" sounds very shallow, i am sorry, but just because they are not on TV all the time doesnt make them any lesser musicians, what are they supposed to do to please Liisa Ladouceur: go to designers' shows, start their clothing line or date models?
Pearl Jam are true artists and very rare people in the world who wouldn't sell their souls for an extra million bucks (and everyone is a sell-out nowadays shilling for the Man). Eddie seems to be a very nice humble person and doesnt suffer any delusions of grandeur despite the fact that millions worship him (and if you want to compare that to Bono, let's say that U2's frontmen sometimes seems to have god complex).
Pearl Jam is a breath of fresh air in this sickly consumerist commercial world where you cant turn your head without being poisoned by clever marketing campaigns.
And yes they are still very much relevant. And yes, i felt a sense of occasion, a sense of danger, a sense of now, and i felt very much alive. And what does "innovative stage design" really mean and what does it bring into the show?

thunder_balls

Well, I love Pearl Jam. I love U2. But Pearl Jam is a much more talented band. They beat them in all aspects. Better bassist, better singer, better drummer, and better guitarist. Plus, a lot of the times, U2's sound can be boring, and sound the same. I like U2 a lot personally, but Pearl Jam definately beats them in my aspect. But hey, I'm sure it would've been cool to see Bono with Pearl Jam. Also, U2 is over-rated, especially compared to Pearl Jam. Bono is a great frontman, and U2 can put on a great show. But Eddie Vedder is a better frontman. Especially with all the crowd diving, and all that stuff I saw in the "Even Flow" video(does anyone know, what show the Even Flow video was from?). Plus, Ed Vedder, and Pearl Jam, are much better people. They actually care about their fans. I know Ed interacts with the crowd all the time, from the footage I've seen. And like, I just got "rearviewmirror" their greatest hits cd. That thing is filled with TONS of pictures in there. Anyways, Pearl Jam is a better band. I can't wait for a new album to come out.

SENROCK

Red Lukin2 wrote:

Judging by the drunken, university-aged crowd, the Lollapalooza generation has abandoned them, but Gen Y has fully embraced Pearl Jam as the new Grateful Dead.

As Bono's presence only highlighted, they're certainly no U2.

ayight thats IT. Who's the A$$HOLE that wrote this STOOOOOPID review?! I'd like a minute ALONE with them.......

Pastor JeffD

Jesus, if some of you people got this excited over the genocide in Darfur, poverty in America, or global fuckin warming, shit, maybe we COULD change the world.

You are all getting worked up over a fucking CONCERT REVIEW? Writing letters? GMAB.

Look, the reporter is an idiot.
That much is clear.
So what.



Pearl Jam is the new Grateful Dead? Believe me, I ate, drank, and breathed all things Grateful Dead for close to 10 years... and Ive NEVER thought PJ as the new Dead. Although, if PJ would stretch out their songs a tad more, they'd make one hellva "jam band" -- I think this everytime I hear Even Flow.

PJ and U2 - again apples and oranges. While I think it's fabulously ignorant to call U2 a "pop" band(Sunday Bloody Sunday, Out Of Control, New Years Day, Desire, All Because Of You, The Fly, Vertigo, etc... THESE ARE ROCK SONGS).

But they are from totally different places and are in totally different places today.

Ugh, but I digress (didnt want to get into the whole U2 v. PJ thing, sorry).




Let it go. Save your anger and energy for fucking things that matter, not stupid reporters from some rag ass paper who obviously doesnt GET what PJ is all about.

Jeremyfanforever

Red Lukin2 wrote:

havent read it yet, but by going by the title I'd have to disagree


http://www.torontosun.com/Entertainment/Music/2005/09/20/1227294-sun.html


On Saturday night, Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder joined U2 on stage at the Air Canada Centre. Last night, Bono returned the favour.

After a two-and-a-half hour set that made multiple references to the "distinguished, dignified" Irish lads, Pearl Jam launched into Neil Young's Keep On Rocking In The Free World for their third encore. With the lights completely raised in the venue, the unmistakable shape of a short rock star in a cowboy hat became clear: Bono was at the mic. The surprise guest appearance raised the show from mediocre to memorable.

Pearl Jam are rock 'n' roll survivors. The Seattle group has outwit, outplayed and outlasted almost all their 1990's "grunge" peers and the fall of the music industry in general by becoming a touring machine. They haven't had a hit in years, and their activities hardly generate a mention in the media these days. But 14 years after their groundbreaking debut disc, Ten, they're still alive, selling out shows at stadiums like the Air Canada Centre with little effort or promotion.

Last night's ACC gig is part of an extensive cross-Canada tour that hits such oft-neglected markets at Thunder Bay and St. John's.

And the crowds follow, trailing them from town to town, obsessive over the ever-changing set lists.


The band has even developed a successful authorized bootleg system. They've sold more than 3 million live discs so far, and you could buy a CD of last night's show for $10 just hours after it ended.

The band that was considered leaders of a brand new movement a decade ago has now become like a very old one.

Judging by the drunken, university-aged crowd, the Lollapalooza generation has abandoned them, but Gen Y has fully embraced Pearl Jam as the new Grateful Dead.

Pearl Jam don't do much in the way of spectacle these days. They don't have to. They simply launch into a classic like Given To Fly or Elderly Woman Behind The Counter In A Small Town, singer Eddie Vedder reaching his arms and voice up to the rafters to grab hold of the faithful, and the sold-out crowd responded with much enthusiastic nodding and pot smoking. Yes, just like Deadheads.

"Good evening, a toast," saluted Vedder. "My hotel room window looks out at something," he continued.

"I don't know what it's called, a big tower in the middle of the city. It makes me homesick because we have one, too. It's comforting to know that our big cities have something in common: They are both sporting rather large erections."

The singer isn't normally one for jokes, but he did crack another soon after:

"I want to thank U2 for opening for us" he laughed, referring to the band's multi-night stand at the ACC. Later, he admitted his group drank $1,500 worth of vodka with the Bono and the boys on Sunday night.

There were several musical U2 references throughout the set, too: Impromptu segues into bits of the Irish band's hits A Sort Of Homecoming and Bad, which Vedder called "one of the greatest songs ever."

Comparing themselves to the best live band on earth is a bad idea. While U2 has proven to be vital in the 21st century, their live shows spectacular displays of showmanship and innovative stage design, Pearl Jam in 2005 has little to offer anyone but their, albeit many, diehard fans. The audience knows every word, every nuance and new trick from guitarists Stone Gossard and Mike McCready, delighting in the extended solos and clever combinations of hits, album tracks and covers. From the opening riff of Indifference they knew to get their lighters out for the line "I will light the match this morning." They knew to "boo" when touring keyboardist Boom Gaspar was introduced.

For their part, Pearl Jam delivered an upbeat, rocking set heavy on their best known tunes, such as Even Flow, Daughter and Do The Evolution.

When Vedder took the stage solo for the tender Better Man, the audience erupted into a thunderous roar. They cheered and sang along on a sweet version of Neil Young's Harvest Moon, featuring back-up vocals from Carrie Brownstein, of opening act Sleater-Kinney.

But despite the massive love-in, something was missing. A sense of occasion. A sense of danger. A sense of now.

You could call Pearl Jam timeless. You could also call them outdated. They've earned the right to be classic rockers, but even when they play their biggest hit, Alive, it doesn't feel like a classic moment.

Vedder certainly didn't turn up his performance a notch. (Although he did run to one side of the stage instead of just facing drummer Matt Cameron.)

It was just another rock song from by-gone era, back when Pearl Jam actually mattered.

For two and a half hours, Pearl Jam preached to a grateful flock.

Then at the end, they were upstaged by a man in a cowboy hat and tambourine.

Just because they can make a good living being serious, damned good players with a massive back catalogue, doesn't make them relevant in the outside world once the lights go up.

As Bono's presence only highlighted, they're certainly no U2.

---

SELECTED SET LIST

HERE'S WHAT PEARL JAM PLAYED LAST NIGHT AT THE ACC

- Love Boat Captain

- A Sort Of Homecoming (U2 cover, excerpt)

- Elderly Woman Behind The Counter In A Small Town

- Even Flow

- Daughter

- Better Man (Vedder solo)

- Bad (U2 cover, excerpt)

- Black (extended)

- Do The Evolution

- You've Got To Hide Your Love Away (Beatles cover)

- Present Tense

- Wishlist

- Harvest Moon (Neil Young cover, with Carrie Brownstein of Sleater-Kinney)

- Indifference

- Alive

- Jeremy Keep On Rockin' In The Free World (Neil Young cover with Bono)

---

PEARL JAM

LAST NIGHT AIR CANADA CENTRE

Sun Rating: 3 out of 5

Given To Fly isn't a hit, what the hell is he talking about?

redsdisease

Red Lukin2 wrote:

And the crowds follow, trailing them from town to town, obsessive over the ever-changing set lists.

This struck me as strange as it was the second review that I've read this week that mentioned the fact that they change their set lists for every show. Is that unusual? I always kinda' wished that PJ played without a set list like Fugazi, it never occured to me that it was notable to just change it every show, that seems like a no brainer to me.

Anyways, that article was really bad, reads like she really didn't want to be there. She doesn't even get into whether they played well or not, just talks about how much better U2's lighting and stage design was, I for one am very glad that PJ doesn't use cheap gimmicks like that. Maybe she should review plays or something.

Pauk

Most bands either choose a setlist at the start of the tour and stick with it, maybe changing a few songs along the way, or start off with a setlist and change the songs depending on the reaction from the crowd until they find something that works.
Not that many bands change songs as regularly as Pearl Jam. Off the top of my head I can only think of 3 bands I've seen that change a considerable amount of songs: Pearl Jam, Belle & Sebastian and New Pornographers. Other than that most bands I've seen don't change more than 3 or 4 songs a tour, and I've certainly never seen a band give their old material as much priority as the new songs as Pearl Jam do.

stu gee

In my opinion u2 are one of the most overated bands in the world. Pearl jam are my favourite band, but i also listen to many other bands and styles of music, both old and new so im not ignorant of other music at all. Listening to u2 is painfully boring, i can tolerate with or without you, sunday bloody sunday, but the rest is completely lost on me. Bono is a prick as well, and u2's new stuff is getting even worse. Songs like elevation are uncalled for, absolute shit.

bahiense

U2 hasnt made a good song for years!!!
sorry if you still like U2, no probs, but to be honest the last cd sucks!
its true you cant compare the bands, or their shows!!
i used to like old U2 songs, but got tired of them, maybe because theyre too commercial, dunno.
awful article!!!

meme

yuk

45678910

CalAllen

i wonder if u2 fans are on their msg board talking about the same article and saying what great insight this writer has