They are popular in their niche, they have a cult fan base basically. Just like when Chuck Palanhiuk releases a new book or something. he has a rabid fanbase.
i really dont think you guys are right on this. yes pearl jam can still sell out venues across the world, and yes, their albums are never ever complete commercial flops, but anyone who suggests they are in anyway "popular" is insane to put it lightly.
This band built their careers around pissing off commercial and scene fans. ed admits that no code was basically an attempt to lose fans. the ticketmaster thing lost them millions of dollars and millions of fans. and I dont think those fans have come back.
It just depends on your definition of "popular." If you think popular means that every album they release is guarenteed to go platinum and every single they release will be a top 10 hit, then yes, they aren't popular anymore.
But the fact is, most bands in the world would kill to be as "unpopular" as Pearl Jam is. They still draw at huge venues and sell very well. Sure, the general population isn't on the edge of their seats anticipating their next album, but how many bands fall into that category today? Jonas Brothers, Hannah Montana? The music industry has changed so much, comparing popularity today to popularity 40 years ago isn't a fair comparison. Using your definition I think the answer is that there are no more popular bands except the current flavor of the week.
If you compare Pearl Jam to their peers, they stand near the top in terms of popularity and both commercial and financial success. Yes, they aren't producing hit singles anymore, but how many bands who were around in the early 90s(heck, even the late 90s) are doing as well as PJ nowadays?
If they were still together, I would say Phish. While they did not sell a lot of albums, their fanbase was pretty large. I think 90,000 flocked to Vermont to catch their last three shows.
Dave Matthews isn't on Mtv anymore, but, his live shows still sell really well.
I would also have to go with U2 because they still sell a shit load of albums and people go to their shows in large numbers. But, I guess that's expected when Jesus Christ is the front man.
Phish will be back, possibly as soon as next year. They recently reunited to perform at their former tour manager's wedding.
I certainly hope you mean this in terms of popularity. As an artist MJ is in no way comparable to the Beatles.
Yes, popularity. Everything he did in the 80s was absolute gold. He certainly isn't on the Beatles level musically, but he was the closest thing since them in terms of how big of a star he was in his day. And he had some damn good pop songs.
Pearl Jam is definitely that band. Your dad's wrong because the image of bands are different today. Luckily back in his day the easily accessible popular music was the absolute best music out there. Nowadays popularity and Rolling Stone covers don't coincide with quality anymore.
I said of course PJ, but he was right because he said, they arent really popular now, and havent been since 1994.
this is not true
and Id say PJ, Bruce, U2, and perhaps REM
there are not than many others that have been making music for more than 15-20 years that are still relevant and that fill MSG like the stones, zep etc...
They are popular in their niche, they have a cult fan base basically. Just like when Chuck Palanhiuk releases a new book or something. he has a rabid fanbase.
i really dont think you guys are right on this. yes pearl jam can still sell out venues across the world, and yes, their albums are never ever complete commercial flops, but anyone who suggests they are in anyway "popular" is insane to put it lightly.
This band built their careers around pissing off commercial and scene fans. ed admits that no code was basically an attempt to lose fans. the ticketmaster thing lost them millions of dollars and millions of fans. and I dont think those fans have come back.
how many albums do you think the rolling stones sell when they release a new one? fact is, pearl jam are more than a niche band. EVERYBODY knows who they are, even if they don't like them. they've headlined many major festivals the last few years. their name is legendary. sure, most people don't give a shit about their new album, but the same goes for the stones and that was ALWAYS the case for grateful dead, who were never a commercial success and are the definition of a cult following yet are your original example. how is pearl jam any different from the dead? they're not that different from the stones either. they're one of the most recognizable rock bands in the world, they have a catalogue that none of their peers can even come close to approaching.
my brother hated pearl jam, when he listened to their greatest hits he was shocked how many songs he knew. fact is, this band has more huge hit songs than almost anyone else still touring. and people want to go see them when they play. pearl jam fits this bill to a tee, and i would be first to say if they didn't. hell, i've taken heat for saying they've been coasting on their name for years now. pearl jam is the stones of this generation... a band with a huge number of hits, instant worldwide recognition, a legendary live reputation, and a rabid fanbase that still cares about the albums. they defined their times and were the only serious competition the widely acknowledged leaders of the generation had (nirvana, just like the stones were to the beatles).
I think the Black Crowes are my generations Greatful Dead. They play obscure set lists every night, sell out where ever they play, and are seemingly always on tour. Great band and great music that many former dead heads turned into crowes fans
Comments
*shudder*
05-10-06
08-05-07
06-14-08
08-12-08 (EV)
It just depends on your definition of "popular." If you think popular means that every album they release is guarenteed to go platinum and every single they release will be a top 10 hit, then yes, they aren't popular anymore.
But the fact is, most bands in the world would kill to be as "unpopular" as Pearl Jam is. They still draw at huge venues and sell very well. Sure, the general population isn't on the edge of their seats anticipating their next album, but how many bands fall into that category today? Jonas Brothers, Hannah Montana? The music industry has changed so much, comparing popularity today to popularity 40 years ago isn't a fair comparison. Using your definition I think the answer is that there are no more popular bands except the current flavor of the week.
If you compare Pearl Jam to their peers, they stand near the top in terms of popularity and both commercial and financial success. Yes, they aren't producing hit singles anymore, but how many bands who were around in the early 90s(heck, even the late 90s) are doing as well as PJ nowadays?
I certainly hope you mean this in terms of popularity. As an artist MJ is in no way comparable to the Beatles.
Phish will be back, possibly as soon as next year. They recently reunited to perform at their former tour manager's wedding.
http://bonnaroo.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=bands&action=display&thread=15169
New Beatles- Oasis
New U2- U2
9/24/96 MD. 9/28/96 Randalls. 8/28-29/98 Camden. 9/8/98 NJ. 9/18/98 MD. 9/1-2/00 Camden. 9/4/00 MD. 4/28/03 Philly. 7/5-6/03 Camden. 9/30/05 AC.
10/3/05 Philly. 5/27-28/06 Camden. 6/23/06 Pitt. 6/19-20/08 Camden. 6/24/08 MSG. 8/7/08 EV Newark, NJ. 6/11-12/09 EV Philly, PA. 10/27-28-30-31/09 Philly, PA., 5/15/10 Hartford,5/17/10 Boston, 5/18/10 Newark, 5/20-21/10 MSG
this is not true
and Id say PJ, Bruce, U2, and perhaps REM
there are not than many others that have been making music for more than 15-20 years that are still relevant and that fill MSG like the stones, zep etc...
how many albums do you think the rolling stones sell when they release a new one? fact is, pearl jam are more than a niche band. EVERYBODY knows who they are, even if they don't like them. they've headlined many major festivals the last few years. their name is legendary. sure, most people don't give a shit about their new album, but the same goes for the stones and that was ALWAYS the case for grateful dead, who were never a commercial success and are the definition of a cult following yet are your original example. how is pearl jam any different from the dead? they're not that different from the stones either. they're one of the most recognizable rock bands in the world, they have a catalogue that none of their peers can even come close to approaching.
my brother hated pearl jam, when he listened to their greatest hits he was shocked how many songs he knew. fact is, this band has more huge hit songs than almost anyone else still touring. and people want to go see them when they play. pearl jam fits this bill to a tee, and i would be first to say if they didn't. hell, i've taken heat for saying they've been coasting on their name for years now. pearl jam is the stones of this generation... a band with a huge number of hits, instant worldwide recognition, a legendary live reputation, and a rabid fanbase that still cares about the albums. they defined their times and were the only serious competition the widely acknowledged leaders of the generation had (nirvana, just like the stones were to the beatles).
who would you suggest?
how about rem?