new album

2»

Comments

  • MattyJoe
    MattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    In terms of Pearl Jam, selling out means embracing the commercialism that they have been "against" for so long. This commercialism entails press interviews, promotion in the media, ads, music videos, Grammys (and other awards), and other various marketing strategies which are associated with the "music industry". Starting around 1994 this also entails Ticketmaster.

    Yes, early in their career they embraced these things because, really, that was the only way they were going to get popular. Then suddenly around '92 they started disapproving of these practices and opted to "rebel" against them. Their fans all went along with them and actually became more loyal as a result. Then the battle escalated with the Ticketmaster dispute. It was at this point that the band took on the status that it held until around 2005, meaning a sort of huge but undergroundish following. Very few interviews and almost no media coverage. Their attitude of "take as many pictures as you want, record us, tape us" is very anticommercial. Then they released the official bootlegs. Most bands would never do such a thing and even if they did would not offer them to fans at such a low cost.

    But, starting with 'Yield' but not REALLY taking hold until around 2005, the band has slowly overturned their attitude of anticommercialism. They have begun doing more interviews, like Eddie's big interviews with RS in '05 and '06, more album promotion, more TV appearances, etc. Personally I have absolutely no problem with this. Some people (the elite, veteran fans) may take issue with this but I don't. However, if this overturning of anticommercialism means no more official boots or no more taping/recording/picture taking at shows I would be very disappointed.
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    harmless_little_f*** wrote:
    I'm worried about 'kind of poppy'.

    "Sad" is classified as "kind of poppy", would an album with a couple of those be so terrible? I thought "Sad" around here was near the holy grail.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • 12345AGNST1
    12345AGNST1 Posts: 4,906
    Considering their most "poppy" song is sad, id say theres nothing to worry about any "poppy" pearl jam.
    5/28/06, 6/27/08, 10/28/09, 5/18/10, 5/21/10
    8/7/08, 6/9/09
  • itsevobaby
    itsevobaby Posts: 1,809
    woodsie wrote:
    any date rumours
    for whatever it's worth, Metacritic.com has it listed as - titleTBC - out 2008.

    they can be horribly wrong sometimes though, nature of the releasedaterumourmill beast
    Look Alive,
    See These Bones
  • wolfamongwolves
    wolfamongwolves Posts: 2,414
    Personally, I'd consider Do the Evolution a pop song, so I'm not too worried...
    93: Slane
    96: Cork, Dublin
    00: Dublin
    06: London, Dublin
    07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
    09: Manchester, London
    10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
    11: San José
    12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
  • Cropduster84
    Cropduster84 Posts: 1,283
    Pearl Jam poppy is none too shoddy......


    Betterman
    Sad
    Leatherman
    Down
    I Am Mine
    'The more I studied religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.' - Sir Richard Francis Burton
  • EBowie
    EBowie Posts: 533
    I don't mind if they do some "poppy" stuff. It is far too easy to get caught up in placing genre labels on everything. If the music moves you, then what gives(?).......................plus, I'd say the band has earned the right to make whatever kind of music/sounds they want.
  • washedinblack91
    washedinblack91 Posts: 3,079
    people just need to chill on this board. wanting to be more popular and selling out are totally different ideas. wanting to put out poppier songs? maybe they want a change of pace. i thought i read somewhere that it was stone who wanted to experiment more than anyone anyway, maybe the rest of the band wants to chill with the experimenting. i mean for goodness sakes its not like their music is being played during ford commercials. and about the boots, let's just wait on that, people are really jumping the gun on that issue. there hasn't been so much as a tweet in months, so lets just calm down a bit and stop accusing them of this or that when we don't really have all that much information yet.
    PJ: 9/29/04, 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/30/08, 10/30/09, 10/31/09, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 9/3/11, 9/4/11, 10/18/13, 8/7/16
    eV: 8/4/08, 8/5/08, 6/21/11
    SG: 10/4/08<-- MET STONE!!!
  • Lizard
    Lizard So Cal Posts: 12,091
    harmless_little_f*** wrote:
    I'm worried about 'kind of poppy'.

    Yeah. could be "kind of Poopy"!!! :p
    So I'll just lie down and wait for the dream
    Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
  • Big Ed
    Big Ed Posts: 331
    If pearl jam were a "household name"......if every Tom, Dick & Harry could name 20 pj songs and owned at least 6 studio releases......if Wal-Mart had every single pj CD available 24/7.......if Mc'Donald's had a Boom-Burger.....if you could buy a pj tee-shirt at every outlet mall in the middle of no-where....if everyone loved the band as much as MOST of us around here do.....how could that be a bad thing?
    Ignoring Rusted Signs

Categories