Have Pearl Jam and their fans changed views on commercialization?

musicismylife78

My first exposure to music, my first time falling in love with music was, like a lot of folks here, during the heyday of grunge. Every single band coming out then was opposed to the mainstreaming of the music that they were making. Kurt and Eddie and Mark Arm and Chris Cornell. It was pretty clear, the music was meant for us the fans and that it was a big F U to the record company, commercial and consumerist culture as well. Not For You obviously is an example. It was odd to see music that was OVERTLY anti commercialist being hawked and promoted and talked about in the most commercial of settings, MTV, Rolling Stone, Spin etc…

But it seems Pearl Jam has altered their view. I don’t think they mind licensing their songs to tv shows. All this makes Not For You rather old and antiquated! People weren’t pissed Scrubs used Long Road, people were happy. Back in 1991 or 1992 people would have been PISSED off and Eddie would have never allowed it.

And by extension the culture at large, or the hip ‘indie culture” that is dominating things these days doesn’t mind seeing or hearing their favorite bands on tv or in commercial settings. Additionally the bands themselves don’t seem to mind this at all. They don’t view it as selling out. Postal Service sells their cd on the UPS website, and one can turn on any of the popular tv shows like Greys Anatomy, OC, Lost and you can hear your’e favorite indie artist being used on the show. And I don’t think any of the bands used, feel guilty one iota about that.

What changed? Has Pearl jam and its fan base changed their views? Would people throw a fit if Pearl Jam was used on Greys Anatomy or Lost? Are music fans less likely to judge harshly a band for liscencing a song for commercial purposes?

Is it a generational thing? Generation X hated commercialism and consumer culture, yet now it seems they embrace it and the flagship bands that embody it, embrace it as well.

Who or what was Not For You directed at? And why, if my analysis is correct, did Ed and the band alter their stance?

This shouldn’t be read as an attack on Pearl Jam. Anyone who responds as such, should be aware of that.

It’s a valid question.

muppet

To be blunt, I think they've lightened up and I'm glad they have. I don't mean that they're now going to be using their songs to advertise cars but it seems they've realised that not everything is an example of oppression or commercialization or whatever.

I always thought it was cringe worthy of Vedder (and almost hypocritical) when he had rants about the 'mass media machine' and how it was all corrupt (I'm paraphrasing of course but you know what I mean). It was certinally admirable but they were slightly over the top at times.

I assume the band themselves have to approve if a song is used for a TV show. Scrubs and Friends are some great programmes, at least it's not American Idol

WoodenHammer

I think it may also be the case that due to the early 90's anti-commercial sentiments and the bands of that time unwillingness to conform, this lead to the crap fest of pop music that was the late 90's and early 00's. The studios and stations may have felt that the music and bands were too inaccessible, so they created their bands (BSB, 98 degrees, etc) and inundated the media with them. That alienated a lot of fans of what we would call "good music". So now, when we do hear good music and the bands are making it accessible, there is some excitement. It's rare to hear a PJ song in primetime, it's not rare to hear some bubbly pop crap.

This is a very different music industry in the late 00's than in the early to mid 90's.

jwoodcock

I am a marketing teacher and have grown to have a little bit more of an understanding toward pop culuture. Watch this program and it will tell you why we loved obscurity. It kind of was a letdown at first to know that we are all duped at one point, but I know the band did it in the early days to keep a sense on normalcy and I think that over the years they have relaxed and realized that you can have pride in your work and not have to hide it. You can be normal anyway. Please post oppinions on this show if you watch it on PBS.com. Sorry to hijack it is just that this fits in.
Sorry.

ONCE DEVIDED

WoodenHammer wrote:

I think it may also be the case that due to the early 90's anti-commercial sentiments and the bands of that time unwillingness to conform, this lead to the crap fest of pop music that was the late 90's and early 00's. The studios and stations may have felt that the music and bands were too inaccessible, so they created their bands (BSB, 98 degrees, etc) and inundated the media with them. That alienated a lot of fans of what we would call "good music". So now, when we do hear good music and the bands are making it accessible, there is some excitement. It's rare to hear a PJ song in primetime, it's not rare to hear some bubbly pop crap.

This is a very different music industry in the late 00's than in the early to mid 90's.

sorry I disagree that bands wre formed because other bands were not accesable. bands were created so that all cash made goes to the record company, they control the writing , producing etc of the music and thus own it, instead of artists owning it themselves and giving a share to the companys.
I dont need to hear PJ on prime time. Ive got my collection for that.
Eds music for ITW and other projects like Singles etc are great.

pjalive21

i also think its a little different for men in their 40's to be screaming anti-commercialism as opposed to the early years when people were beating down their doors to know everything about them and the band..especially Ed, hell look at how Rolling Stone wrote a crap article on Ed because he wouldnt give them an interview

they are older and wiser and feel more comfortable with themselves as men and lets be honest the hype around the band isnt what it was back in the 90's

Cosmo

There used to be a day when you could go to a concert and not be bombarded with advertisements. About the closest thing to advertisements were the Coca-Cola logos on the beer cups. concerts were promoted by promoters... like Goldenvoice or Wolf & Rissmiller.
I remember the Stones being the first band to opt with a big, corporate sponsor... Miller Brewing Company.. in the mid-1980s. The promise was, the sponsors would pay for the tour, so the ticket prices could actually be reduced. And at first... they did. now, look at what the Stones charge... and look at your concert venues... remember when Irvine Meadows was not called the Verison Ampitheater? When 3M Stadium was called Candlestick Park? Murphey Stadium in San Diego was The Murph?
All of those sponsorships were supposed to make it easier on us fans... music, baseball, football, whatever... by lowering the costs to us because the corporations were paying for the advertisement. Now... they own the Stadiums and what are they doing to keep prices low for you?
look at the footage of hockey games in 1979... tell me how many advertisements you see along the boards... on the ice. Now, watch any game on the televison and tell me home many of the boards lack an advertisement.
...
Anyway... that's the way of the world and if you fight against it... you lose. It' like being in a rip tide... the more you fight it... the more it wins. You just let it go and and figure out... there are more important things in life than commercials.

beachdweller

radiohead33 wrote:

My first exposure to music, my first time falling in love with music was, like a lot of folks here, during the heyday of grunge. Every single band coming out then was opposed to the mainstreaming of the music that they were making. Kurt and Eddie and Mark Arm and Chris Cornell. It was pretty clear, the music was meant for us the fans and that it was a big F U to the record company, commercial and consumerist culture as well. Not For You obviously is an example. It was odd to see music that was OVERTLY anti commercialist being hawked and promoted and talked about in the most commercial of settings, MTV, Rolling Stone, Spin etc…

Kurt Cobain was an MTV whore, still loved him, no biggie, GEN X is to broad a group to attach to your generalizations.

But it seems Pearl Jam has altered their view. I don’t think they mind licensing their songs to tv shows. All this makes Not For You rather old and antiquated! People weren’t pissed Scrubs used Long Road, people were happy. Back in 1991 or 1992 people would have been PISSED off and Eddie would have never allowed it.

don't forgot 'Friends' using Yellow Ledbetter in the finale, not a big deal, it's in the way it's used IMO, in both cases, it was very well done

And by extension the culture at large, or the hip ‘indie culture” that is dominating things these days doesn’t mind seeing or hearing their favorite bands on tv or in commercial settings. Additionally the bands themselves don’t seem to mind this at all. They don’t view it as selling out. Postal Service sells their cd on the UPS website, and one can turn on any of the popular tv shows like Greys Anatomy, OC, Lost and you can hear your’e favorite indie artist being used on the show. And I don’t think any of the bands used, feel guilty one iota about that.

IMO, selling out is a pretty immature term, and so over rated, PJ is still a low key band, doing more in the background, than most do in the the foreground

What changed? Has Pearl jam and its fan base changed their views? Would people throw a fit if Pearl Jam was used on Greys Anatomy or Lost? Are music fans less likely to judge harshly a band for liscencing a song for commercial purposes?

it's called growing up, look at the hippies of the 60's, many of them turned into disco fiends in the 70's, others grew up and started software companies, became soccer moms, and some didn't change at all.

Is it a generational thing? Generation X hated commercialism and consumer culture, yet now it seems they embrace it and the flagship bands that embody it, embrace it as well.

I think PJ is far far from embracing commercialism, they still don't have sponsors for there concerts, and the fact that they are making a little money, using the system in a suddle way, picking and choosing, not going in blind and balls out, shows that they are thoughtful in their selections. It's not PJ's responsibility to do anything more than what they want, not to meet any of our standards that we put on them.

Who or what was Not For You directed at? And why, if my analysis is correct, did Ed and the band alter their stance?

it's a song, it came from experience, angst, whatever, but it's not the end all of decisions and life affirming standard to live by, it's a song about an experience, a pronouncement, but you can't evolve by never changing.

This shouldn’t be read as an attack on Pearl Jam. Anyone who responds as such, should be aware of that.

just a follow up, not attacks here on my part either, just my opinion on your questions and statements

It’s a valid question.

my comments in red

zenith

the first thought to enter my head reading the first post - and the running theme thru most of the responses is basically the same:
in the early 90s ed was an angry, driven young man; he got the spotlight shone, and chose to rebel against it - but he's grown and mellowed - he still speaks thru his songs and words, but the whole music scene is focused on other things now and PJ simply are not in the forefront to the extent they were then.

JOEJOEJOE

As people get older, their stances change. I bet it happens to most of us here. However, none of our stances in 1991 were mentioned in the media, so no one can really call us out on them. I try to stick to my ideals, but, when it comes to my business, I get what I have coming (within reason, of course).

Bands are making less dough from recorded music, so they need to look elsewhere.

I agree that the advent of coporate sponsorship hasn't really helped keep ticket prices down (except for maybe the Warped Tour), so, hopefully, the bands are reaping some of this new income source.

In the 90's, bands like Everclear, Third Eye Blind and Smashmouth were corporate whores pretty much right after they gained some notoriety. To me, that is much worse then a "veteran" band looking for more dough.

Credibility is important, and obviously, none of those 3 bands kept theirs!

dcfaithful

muppet wrote:

To be blunt, I think they've lightened up and I'm glad they have. I don't mean that they're now going to be using their songs to advertise cars but it seems they've realised that not everything is an example of oppression or commercialization or whatever.

I always thought it was cringe worthy of Vedder (and almost hypocritical) when he had rants about the 'mass media machine' and how it was all corrupt (I'm paraphrasing of course but you know what I mean). It was certinally admirable but they were slightly over the top at times.

I assume the band themselves have to approve if a song is used for a TV show. Scrubs and Friends are some great programmes, at least it's not American Idol

but sadly, i've seen 'Jeremy' slaughtered by one of the contestants on that show.

dcfaithful

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

As people get older, their stances change. I bet it happens to most of us here. However, none of our stances in 1991 were mentioned in the media, so no one can really call us out on them. I try to stick to my ideals, but, when it comes to my business, I get what I have coming (within reason, of course).

Bands are making less dough from recorded music, so they need to look elsewhere.

I agree that the advent of coporate sponsorship hasn't really helped keep ticket prices down (except for maybe the Warped Tour), so, hopefully, the bands are reaping some of this new income source.

In the 90's, bands like Everclear, Third Eye Blind and Smashmouth were corporate whores pretty much right after they gained some notoriety. To me, that is much worse then a "veteran" band looking for more dough.

Credibility is important, and obviously, none of those 3 bands kept theirs!

agreed.

Cosmo

zenith wrote:

the first thought to enter my head reading the first post - and the running theme thru most of the responses is basically the same:
in the early 90s ed was an angry, driven young man; he got the spotlight shone, and chose to rebel against it - but he's grown and mellowed - he still speaks thru his songs and words, but the whole music scene is focused on other things now and PJ simply are not in the forefront to the extent they were then.

...
The angry man in his 20s is cool because he is the 'Angry Young Man'.
... when he reached his 40s and he's still angry... he's nothing more than an Old Grouch.
...
I think the 'Angry Young Man' is gone... I mean, amongst the 20somethings of today. Most of them who claim to be angry today... too often come off as whinny little bitches.

Gather No Moss

There's a saying that goes something like this: As you grow older, you change from an idealist to a realist.

slightofjeff

I think it mostly has to do with their popularity.

In the '90s, it was important to limit the amount of "mainstreamness" because they were so popular as to be overexposed. Being overcommercialized at that stage of their career meant people hiding in their bushes.

Now that their popularity has waned somewhat, it's not as critical to put that wall up between the band and fans. They don't have to worry about, "If I do this magazine interview, will it create more stalkers?"

Cropduster84

the best thing to happen to pearl jam was the media leaving them alone.....


they seem a lot more free now to make their own decisions, Ed seems a happy, still quite young at heart guy in his 40s, he has a child now and comes across as a much more mature and deep human being......


I dont think having a couple of songs played at the end of a couple tv shows is selling out, pearl jam are still a band on their own in my opinion, there's noone like them.....they've grown up, their rebellion has turned into political activism.....


I would only worry if they started writing theme tunes to coca cola adverts, and i really cant see that.....

simpleman

In 1991, I was 16 years old and thought I knew everthing... In my thirties now, I've grown up, calmed down a little, a learned a lot of real life lessons. I would like to assume, now in their forties, that PJ has grown up too....

chiquimonkey

Cropduster84 wrote:

the best thing to happen to pearl jam was the media leaving them alone.....

absolutely! imagine how different things would be had they catered to the media back then. things would have turned out quite different.

commercialization doesn't matter much to me i suppose. they've changed, i've changed, only thing that hasn't changed is my love of their music. as long as that stays true, i'm good

U R A Crazy Breed

i get totally disgusted with all the old songs i hear in commercials now.some bands i can understand,the ones that didn't make a lot of cash.so a royalty check for them is food and shelter.
BUT the members of PJ won't be in a soup line any time soon!! That bullshit about them being older is just that,BULLSHIT.like selling out becomes more acceptable as you get older! FUCK THAT!!! a TV show where the song may fit in is semi-acceptable.But the day i hear a PJ song pushing Food/cars/Pharmaceuticals etc.,is the day i cash in my "fan card".

I hope/think Ed and the guys feel the same.