Where does Pearl Jam go from here?

bootlegger10

BrainofBGA said:

From here...well I think they’re waiting on Ed to put lyrics down to the music, from the very small info we’ve had, the guys have got together a number of times to lay down music, and there was a hint of frustration recently in either Mike or Jeff’s voice when quizzed on new album progress. 

Yeah, Ed hasn't really provided much music lately.  Uke Songs was basically a collection of songs written in 2001-2003.    Ed giveth and taketh away it seems.  Everyone else falls in line.

on2legs

brianlux said:

on2legs said:

brianlux said:

on2legs said:

brianlux said:

on2legs said:

timdwilli said:

The band is roughly the same age that the Stones were for Voodoo Lounge. The VL tour was 129 (mostly stadium) shows on 6 continents in just over a year. That's pretty astonishing. A comparable album and a tour even 1/3 of that would be amazing right now for PJ

I’m going out on a limb and say that Mick Jagger and the rest of the Stones lead way more extravagant lifestyles than the guys in Pearl Jam.  Touring that much might be a necessity and not by preference or a reflection of their commmitment to music. 

I would guess otherwise.  Mick Jagger is an economics wiz and probably makes a ton of money off his investments.  And Keith and Charlie just love making music and it's hard to picture them playing just for the money.

So you think Ed, Stone, Mike, and Jeff lead more extravagant lifestyles than The Rolling Stones?

I love this place. 

Huh?  Where did you get that from what I said?

My bad... thought you meant that the Stones were less extravagant than Ed and the rest of the guys. 

No worries.

Compared to most of us, all of these guys live extravagantly.   Even Bill Wyman, who hasn't toured with the Stones since 1992, still has a net worth of $80 million!  I have no idea what $80 Mil looks like!

So, on2legs, where to you see Pearl Jam headed these days?

An album every 5-6 years and medium length tours immediately after an album release and then shorter tours in the years following until they release the next album.  Then they start the cycle over again. 

guypjfreak

on2legs said:is that rearea micks place 

bootlegger10 said:

on2legs said:

brianlux said:

on2legs said:

timdwilli said:

The band is roughly the same age that the Stones were for Voodoo Lounge. The VL tour was 129 (mostly stadium) shows on 6 continents in just over a year. That's pretty astonishing. A comparable album and a tour even 1/3 of that would be amazing right now for PJ

I’m going out on a limb and say that Mick Jagger and the rest of the Stones lead way more extravagant lifestyles than the guys in Pearl Jam.  Touring that much might be a necessity and not by preference or a reflection of their commmitment to music. 

I would guess otherwise.  Mick Jagger is an economics wiz and probably makes a ton of money off his investments.  And Keith and Charlie just love making music and it's hard to picture them playing just for the money.

So you think Ed, Stone, Mike, and Jeff lead more extravagant lifestyles than The Rolling Stones?

I love this place. 

No, I think he was implying that they don’t need touring dollars to afford their extravagant lifestyles.

Mick’s country estate... pretty sure the touring helps with the upkeep. 

NewJPage

on2legs said:

bootlegger10 said:

on2legs said:

brianlux said:

on2legs said:

timdwilli said:

The band is roughly the same age that the Stones were for Voodoo Lounge. The VL tour was 129 (mostly stadium) shows on 6 continents in just over a year. That's pretty astonishing. A comparable album and a tour even 1/3 of that would be amazing right now for PJ

I’m going out on a limb and say that Mick Jagger and the rest of the Stones lead way more extravagant lifestyles than the guys in Pearl Jam.  Touring that much might be a necessity and not by preference or a reflection of their commmitment to music. 

I would guess otherwise.  Mick Jagger is an economics wiz and probably makes a ton of money off his investments.  And Keith and Charlie just love making music and it's hard to picture them playing just for the money.

So you think Ed, Stone, Mike, and Jeff lead more extravagant lifestyles than The Rolling Stones?

I love this place. 

No, I think he was implying that they don’t need touring dollars to afford their extravagant lifestyles.

Mick’s country estate... pretty sure the touring helps with the upkeep. 

I think interest in his savings account covers that

mcgruff10

2006 was their last big tour year. Since then The formula to their longevity is 10-35 shows a year (with 2017 being the exception).  My guess is they continue that trend. 

Spiritual_Chaos

on2legs said:

bootlegger10 said:

on2legs said:

brianlux said:

on2legs said:

timdwilli said:

The band is roughly the same age that the Stones were for Voodoo Lounge. The VL tour was 129 (mostly stadium) shows on 6 continents in just over a year. That's pretty astonishing. A comparable album and a tour even 1/3 of that would be amazing right now for PJ

I’m going out on a limb and say that Mick Jagger and the rest of the Stones lead way more extravagant lifestyles than the guys in Pearl Jam.  Touring that much might be a necessity and not by preference or a reflection of their commmitment to music. 

I would guess otherwise.  Mick Jagger is an economics wiz and probably makes a ton of money off his investments.  And Keith and Charlie just love making music and it's hard to picture them playing just for the money.

So you think Ed, Stone, Mike, and Jeff lead more extravagant lifestyles than The Rolling Stones?

I love this place. 

No, I think he was implying that they don’t need touring dollars to afford their extravagant lifestyles.

Mick’s country estate... pretty sure the touring helps with the upkeep. 

I read an interview with someone from Metallica... and he (Lars maybe...) talked about how they need to do X dates every year to keep the Metallica-machine running and their people getting paid.

I would guess Pearl Jam also has X dates they need to do per year on average. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

bootlegger10 said:

NewJPage said:

timdwilli said:

The band is roughly the same age that the Stones were for Voodoo Lounge. The VL tour was 129 (mostly stadium) shows on 6 continents in just over a year. That's pretty astonishing. A comparable album and a tour even 1/3 of that would be amazing right now for PJ

Voodoo lounge was also the Stones' 20th album. PJ has ten

Pearl Jam's albums are quality though.  The Stones had singles and the rest wasn't very good. 

Come on.

Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Tattoo You, Some Girls, Emotional Rescue, Goat's Head Soup, Exile...

The Stones 'early' albums (anything prior to Undercover) were awesome- just like PJ's early genius.

And yes... their later albums weren't as fantastic as their earlier stuff, but Backspacer isn't exactly Vs either. I do agree that their later pieces of work yielded some great singles as a bare minimum.

I didn't want your point to stand uncontested because it is not valid in my mind. The Stones are freaking awesome. One of the greatest ever without a doubt.

E.K

to Australia hopefully.  Hurry up!! 

southernmanfan

And South Africa....hurry up

brianlux

If I could, I would tell the guys in the band what my cousin Mike told me once: 

"Make the most of your 50's.  It's the best decade of your life.  You've lived long enough to gain a good amount of knowledge and wisdom and you still have enough energy and strength to do something great with it."

This is the time.  Ed is 54.  The other guys around the same.  This really is the time!  Make it good while you can!  In another ten years, you'll be feeling gravity's pull, trust me.

(To Boom, I would just say, "Hey man, you're doing great.  Just do whatever it takes to keep the aches and pains at bay!")

mrk2

Maybe that is exactly what they are doing. Enjoying life and spending time doing what they want without the burden of having to stress about working

E.K

on2legs said:

Mick’s country estate... pretty sure the touring helps with the upkeep. 

  I am guessing that the older brick building on the right is the servant's quarters?    

vaggar99

brianlux said:

If I could, I would tell the guys in the band what my cousin Mike told me once: 

"Make the most of your 50's.  It's the best decade of your life.  You've lived long enough to gain a good amount of knowledge and wisdom and you still have enough energy and strength to do something great with it."

This is the time.  Ed is 54.  The other guys around the same.  This really is the time!  Make it good while you can!  In another ten years, you'll be feeling gravity's pull, trust me.

(To Boom, I would just say, "Hey man, you're doing great.  Just do whatever it takes to keep the aches and pains at bay!")

best post i've read all year!

Cob

As a longtime Deadhead, I used to cringe when Pearl Jam fans or people in general would compare Pearl Jam to the Grateful Dead, but over the past 4 years or so, they have changed their MO to basically match Grateful Dead and even Phish, they have turned into a band that make their money off of touring, haven't released any recent studio material and tend to stick to playing areas they know they can make money, which is Europe, East Coast and Chicago in the US and festivals and large stadiums. 

Having been a fan of Grateful Dead and Phish (you can insert whatever joke you wish) I am somewhat used to it, as I have gone through this with two other bands already, I have to say I can't blame them, that's their bread and butter, I mean Grateful Dead released a studio LP in 1979 and the next one didn't come out until 1987.  PJ has taken the same route, their concerts are mainly older songs the fans prefer to hear, just like the other bands I mentioned, I am not upset about them not doing the "Holiday Single" that was normally a year or more behind.

I do wish since they are not doing it anymore, that they would do something like release a Vault CD or download of a full show every year to fan club members only and not the general public.  This is the direction they are heading, but like I said, I have already been through it was 2 different bands.   As long as they play live shows I can live with it, although the last US "tour" didn't seem to promising for future tours, all stadium shows, no arenas or amphitheater's, only large stadiums that produce large revenue, but I went to Seattle and Wrigley and enjoyed the shows.  They also seem to be WAY more interested with selling products and pitching things to sell you the past 3-4 years.

They are still one of my favorite bands, that won't change, but I am into other bands a lot also, so I will survive.

brianlux

vaggar99 said:

brianlux said:

If I could, I would tell the guys in the band what my cousin Mike told me once: 

"Make the most of your 50's.  It's the best decade of your life.  You've lived long enough to gain a good amount of knowledge and wisdom and you still have enough energy and strength to do something great with it."

This is the time.  Ed is 54.  The other guys around the same.  This really is the time!  Make it good while you can!  In another ten years, you'll be feeling gravity's pull, trust me.

(To Boom, I would just say, "Hey man, you're doing great.  Just do whatever it takes to keep the aches and pains at bay!")

best post i've read all year!

Thanks, vaggar. 

Cob said:

As a longtime Deadhead, I used to cringe when Pearl Jam fans or people in general would compare Pearl Jam to the Grateful Dead, but over the past 4 years or so, they have changed their MO to basically match Grateful Dead and even Phish, they have turned into a band that make their money off of touring, haven't released any recent studio material and tend to stick to playing areas they know they can make money, which is Europe, East Coast and Chicago in the US and festivals and large stadiums. 

Having been a fan of Grateful Dead and Phish (you can insert whatever joke you wish) I am somewhat used to it, as I have gone through this with two other bands already, I have to say I can't blame them, that's their bread and butter, I mean Grateful Dead released a studio LP in 1979 and the next one didn't come out until 1987.  PJ has taken the same route, their concerts are mainly older songs the fans prefer to hear, just like the other bands I mentioned, I am not upset about them not doing the "Holiday Single" that was normally a year or more behind.

I do wish since they are not doing it anymore, that they would do something like release a Vault CD or download of a full show every year to fan club members only and not the general public.  This is the direction they are heading, but like I said, I have already been through it was 2 different bands.   As long as they play live shows I can live with it, although the last US "tour" didn't seem to promising for future tours, all stadium shows, no arenas or amphitheater's, only large stadiums that produce large revenue, but I went to Seattle and Wrigley and enjoyed the shows.  They also seem to be WAY more interested with selling products and pitching things to sell you the past 3-4 years.

They are still one of my favorite bands, that won't change, but I am into other bands a lot also, so I will survive.

An interesting post, Cob, and always cool to hear from a Deadhead. 

I'm a bit surprised to hear the Dead and Phish have been compared to or with Pearl Jam.  The former two are jam bands.  Not that they haven't written some great songs- the Dead in particular with superior songwriting on Workingman's Dead and American Beauty- but the work of those bands is mostly about long improvisational jams whereas Pearl Jam is much more a song-based band with occasional stretching out on numbers like "Rearviewmirror".   And I think songwriting backed by great hooks and riffs and the ability to deliver these songs convincingly in live performance has been what makes them the great band they are.  I don't see them doing well in the future if they just rely on runnin through the same numbers ad infinitum like The Rolling Stones have done for years.  And by "well" I don't mean financially (obviously), but "well" in the creative sense.  It's not only possible to write well in one's 50's, it's often the best time.  Example:  John Steinbeck wrote East of Eden when he was 50 and Travels With Charley when he was 60.

Anyway, again, they owe the world nothing and have given a lot to their fans.  But I hope they take advantage of a potentially fertile, creative time in life.  Too many fine musicians have coasted during those years.

eboweddie

I think 260 shows in 11 years tells it's own story.  Is that 20 odd shows a year?. It's not great to be honest 

RYME

E.K said:

on2legs said:

Mick’s country estate... pretty sure the touring helps with the upkeep. 

  I am guessing that the older brick building on the right is the servant's quarters?    

No no no,,, that's just his man cave.

RYME

Just some food for thought here, read this Rolling Stone article about 85 year old Willie Nelson who keeps doing 100 shows per year, smokes weed and stays up till 4 in the morning playing poker, 2 weeks on 2 weeks off.  And has released 19 albums in the last 10 years.  Over his career, 68 Studio albums 12 live albums (no bootlegs) 42 compilation albums, 2 soundtrack albums and 34 collaboration albums.  He's got more albums in the incubator as I write this.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/willie-nelson-at-85-a-visit-with-the-king-of-night-life-630334/amp/#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s
At 54 years of age Willie was just getting started.

BelieveYouMe

As a fan since 1992/1993, I agree with previous posters that Pearl Jam appears to have become mostly a nostalgia act, an entity they pledged to avoid after the PJ20 celebration.  Pearl Jam is their retirement plan, the vehicle to fund their lifestyles, pay the salaries of their employees, and engage in charity.  Play a limited tour every 2 years, sell bootlegs, and push merchandise, merchandise, merchandise.  When they were getting started, it wasn't about the merchandise.  It was all about creating new music, expressing their political and social views via music, and making concerts affordable ($18 for floor seats in 1994).   I understand they're 25 years older - we all are - and with the aging process comes a natural slowdown.  Spouses, children, other interests, hearing loss.  : - )  However, for a band that recorded "Cold Confession" and "Let It Ride" post Riot Act, yet has released just one song in six years, it is disappointing they don't appear inspired to create new music together.

brianlux

RYME said:

Just some food for thought here, read this Rolling Stone article about 85 year old Willie Nelson who keeps doing 100 shows per year, smokes weed and stays up till 4 in the morning playing poker, 2 weeks on 2 weeks off.  And has released 19 albums in the last 10 years.  Over his career, 68 Studio albums 12 live albums (no bootlegs) 42 compilation albums, 2 soundtrack albums and 34 collaboration albums.  He's got more albums in the incubator as I write this.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/willie-nelson-at-85-a-visit-with-the-king-of-night-life-630334/amp/#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s
At 54 years of age Willie was just getting started.

Whoa!  That set's the bar pretty high! 

Plus, Willie has written, at last count, 337 songs (not to mention that very many he has interpreted.)