Pearl Jam - The New Reality

Lauri · March 2010

drummer96 wrote:

Im just saying that most responsible adults, when they get married and have kids, start to act like adults!!

woah, a little offensive there. Most of these guys didn't get married and have kids until their late 30s/40s. I'm sure they grew up LONG before then, even as rock stars. I'm also sure Jeff is just as "grown up" as the other 4. Also "acting like an adult" doesn't mean being boring or not standing up for what you believe, or sucking musically. That seems to be what a lot people (not necessarily you) have accused them of. Almost half of the U.S. population never gets married or has kids, so if that's when "most people" start acting "like adults" our society is gonna have some problems.

That's what I'm saying is so amusing about all the posts and articles that focus on how they have kids now and how that's giving them a more "mature" sound and making them focus more on selling records. BS. They've been doing that since they were in their late 20s. All those guys were perfectly "adult" when they were single and childless. Their music and business strategy continues to evolve not because they have kids now and they have just recently become "adults" but because with each album, they get a little older! Just like all of us fans!

Ledbetterman10 · March 2010

drummer96 wrote:

I agree with the original post for the most part. For some strange reason, people can't understand the "evolution" that bands go through as the years go by. And its not just pearl jam, its any band that has been around for years. There is always going to be critics on the music, and the band itself. Heres the deal: believe it or not, even famous musicians get older!!!!! I know, shocking isnt it?! As far as the band changing goes, I think you have to look at two factors: 1) Its fucking 2010, not 1991!!!! Anybody that thinks a rock n roll band is going to have the same attitude 20 years later, simply because they are a rock band, is retarded. Seriously. 2) The music industry has changed dramatically since 1991. Everything from the way bands release their music (digital age), to record sales, promotion, etc. etc., has changed since 1991. Is it "selling out" to release a record with Target for example? I dont think for a minute the band would do it, if the deal wasnt right for them. Thats just one example. As far as the music goes, I go back to my original point: even rock stars get older!!! The music is naturally going to "mellow" out a little bit. Would you want to see a 45 or 46 year old eddie vedder scribbling pro choice on his arms during an SNL performance? Would you want to see a 45 or 46 year old Mike McCready with assless chaps on, on stage? Seriously people, THEY HAVE GROWN UP SINCE THE EARLY DAYS!!!! They are married, with kids. They arent a new band anymore, and they dont need to "shock and awe" people any longer. They can sit back and let the music do the talking. Thats what professional, lasting bands do. I for one, get sick to my stomach when I see certain bands that have been around forever, and they dont "evolve", simply because they have a "schtick" they feel they have to stay with. At what point will it get old to see Metallica come on stage and act angry? (it did about ten years ago for me) How about The Rolling Stones? Anybody else throw up a little in their mouth when you see Mick or Keith take off their shirt on stage?! And do we DARE talk about a band like Def Leppard?! My point is that, it gets to a point where bands just get sad to watch because they are nothing but an act. I dont think we will ever have to worry about that with Pearl Jam. They KNOW their limitations, and you wont see them act like they are 24 years old on stage anymore. If you wanna see Eddie Vedder stage diving, then hit youtube. Those days are over people, and rightfully so. Humans should "mellow out" a little, and act more like adults as we get older, even rock stars.

But what about those of us who truly think that the band's new music is bad? For me, it's not about Eddie not stage-diving or Mike wearing assless chaps or any other schtick. In fact, I agree that bands like the Stones who stick to their schtick for years on end look dumb. But I disagree about Metallica, they don't really do the angry thing anymore. James shout's "We love you!" to the crowd about 20 times a show these days. But I know what you're getting at.

For me it's about the music and not Pearl Jam's look, or business moves or anything like that. Pearl Jam's current sound just isn't the type of music I'm into. It's not because it's them or because I want Vitalogy part 2. I wouldn't like Backspacer no matter who the artist was.

But the people who are making comments like "Stone looks disinterested" or complain about the band's recent business moves are saying that because they are devoted fans who are wondering if the band really has a passion for this anymore or if they are just doing it because "Pearl Jam" is good business. I've seen Paul McCartney in concert and believe me, he still sings Hey Jude because he loves to sing Hey Jude. But I think people may start to be getting the feeling that Stone still plays Even Flow because it's in his best interest that he does.

Lauri · March 2010

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

But the people who are making comments like "Stone looks disinterested" or complain about the band's recent business moves are saying that because they are devoted fans who are wondering if the band really has a passion for this anymore or if they are just doing it because "Pearl Jam" is good business. I've seen Paul McCartney in concert and believe me, he still sings Hey Jude because he loves to sing Hey Jude. But I think people may start to be getting the feeling that Stone still plays Even Flow because it's in his best interest that he does.

Has Stone ever looked really interested? I have no idea, I've never met him personally. Honestly I believe that everyone in Pearl Jam still loves what they're doing. I hear/see it at their shows more than any other band I've ever seen live. It's one of the reasons I love them. You go to any of their shows and you just know they're into it. It's not half-assed. Yeah sometimes you can tell they're slightly half-assing something like Evenflow they play every night, but I think it's sort of funny how they don't try to hide it (like one of the last nights of the tour in like 03 I think when eddie sang "I don't have to sing this fucking song again, yeah"). For the most part I'm always just amazed at how much they put into every single show.

And if Stone looked at little disinterested on SNL- well that's a little different can of worms. Performing on a TV show is like the "job" end of things I would guess. I know that's probably where I'd look bored.

drummer96 · March 2010

Lauri wrote:

drummer96 wrote:

Im just saying that most responsible adults, when they get married and have kids, start to act like adults!!

woah, a little offensive there. Most of these guys didn't get married and have kids until their late 30s/40s. I'm sure they grew up LONG before then, even as rock stars. I'm also sure Jeff is just as "grown up" as the other 4. Also "acting like an adult" doesn't mean being boring or not standing up for what you believe, or sucking musically. That seems to be what a lot people (not necessarily you) have accused them of.

That's what I'm saying is so amusing about all the posts and articles that focus on how they have kids now and how that's giving them a more "mature" sound and making them focus more on selling records. BS. They've been doing that since they were in their late 20s. All those guys were perfectly "adult" when they were single and childless. Their music and business strategy continues to evolve not because they have kids now and they have just recently become "adults" but because with each album, they get a little older! Just like all of us fans!

I didnt try to sound offensive, sorry for that impression. Its just innocent chat, nothing big. But yeah, I am on your side. Im not trying to say having kids makes you instantly "grow up", its just part of getting older for some people. I DEFINITELY dont think that having kids in general has changed their musical direction or sound by any means. Age and maturity is the reason the "angst" isnt in their music anymore.

Ledbetterman10 · March 2010

Lauri wrote:

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

But the people who are making comments like "Stone looks disinterested" or complain about the band's recent business moves are saying that because they are devoted fans who are wondering if the band really has a passion for this anymore or if they are just doing it because "Pearl Jam" is good business. I've seen Paul McCartney in concert and believe me, he still sings Hey Jude because he loves to sing Hey Jude. But I think people may start to be getting the feeling that Stone still plays Even Flow because it's in his best interest that he does.

Has Stone ever looked really interested? I have no idea, I've never met him personally. Honestly I believe that everyone in Pearl Jam still loves what they're doing. I hear/see it at their shows more than any other band I've ever seen live. It's one of the reasons I love them. You go to any of their shows and you just know they're into it. It's not half-assed. Yeah sometimes you can tell they're slightly half-assing something like Evenflow they play every night, but I think it's sort of funny how they don't try to hide it (like one of the last nights of the tour in like 03 I think when eddie sang "I don't have to sing this fucking song again, yeah"). For the most part I'm always just amazed at how much they put into every single show.

And if Stone looked at little disinterested on SNL- well that's a little different can of worms. Performing on a TV show is like the "job" end of things I would guess. I know that's probably where I'd look bored.

Well you make a good point about Stone. In fact, he mentions in this interview from 2000 (around the 4:30 mark) about how he doesn't fake it when he's not into it and he'll just play his part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbtcwqYXzw

But another thing I find telling about Stone over the recent years is how he seems to "tow the company line" for lack of a better term with Eddie creatively. And what I mean by that is remember how Stone was upset by the fact that Eddie had sorta taken over the band creatively in the mid-90's? But now, having not written a really good hard rock riff in like 10 years, Stone is totally willing to be a sideman, playing fills where he is barely even touching the strings during one of Eddie's folk songs. I guess he figures being a sideman on an Eddie folk song is better than having no song at all....which is fine.

drummer96 · March 2010

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

[quote="drummer96"

But what about those of us who truly think that the band's new music is bad? For me, it's not about Eddie not stage-diving or Mike wearing assless chaps or any other schtick. In fact, I agree that bands like the Stones who stick to their schtick for years on end look dumb. But I disagree about Metallica, they don't really do the angry thing anymore. James shout's "We love you!" to the crowd about 20 times a show these days. But I know what you're getting at.

For me it's about the music and not Pearl Jam's look, or business moves or anything like that. Pearl Jam's current sound just isn't the type of music I'm into. It's not because it's them or because I want Vitalogy part 2. I wouldn't like Backspacer no matter who the artist was.

But the people who are making comments like "Stone looks disinterested" or complain about the band's recent business moves are saying that because they are devoted fans who are wondering if the band really has a passion for this anymore or if they are just doing it because "Pearl Jam" is good business. I've seen Paul McCartney in concert and believe me, he still sings Hey Jude because he loves to sing Hey Jude. But I think people may start to be getting the feeling that Stone still plays Even Flow because it's in his best interest that he does.

Well I dont know what to tell you if you just dont like the music as much anymore. We all have different musical tastes. I mean, I think we all can sit back and go through record by record and hear the evolution of the bands music. I personally happen to like their earlier stuff a little better. But I also think the last two records have been really good, especially backspacer. As far as the "going through the motions" issue, I dont get that from Pearl Jam at all. Im with Lauri on this one. I think they are one of the most consistently energetic bands night after night. Constantly changing up the setlists, 3 hour shows night after night, making a point to hit every area of the country/world? I think they are very dedicated to the fans, and their jobs. Of course they are going to have a few off nights, EVERY band does. But thats part of life. Im sure there are plenty of nights when one of the members dont feel like going on stage, whether they are tired, sick, have personal issues going on, whatever it may be. But I sure dont see that very often. I thnk they are very much into their jobs.

Lauri · March 2010

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

But another thing I find telling about Stone over the recent years is how he seems to "tow the company line" for lack of a better term with Eddie creatively. And what I mean by that is remember how Stone was upset by the fact that Eddie had sorta taken over the band creatively in the mid-90's? But now, having not written a really good hard rock riff in like 10 years, Stone is totally willing to be a sideman, playing fills where he is barely even touching the strings during one of Eddie's folk songs. Being a sideman on an Eddie folk song is better than having no song at all.

Well maybe that's the case, but I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that. I mean, as I said, we don't know Stone personally, maybe he's just decided that's what he'd rather do. I have always just LOVED Stone's song writing, but yeah, maybe he's just decided to let the other guys take more of that role more recently. I mean he does a lot of stuff on his own and with Brad and whatnot, maybe's he's just more cool with the whole set up. Plus, back in the day, Eddie was a great lyricist but not really on Stone's level as a song writer. He's gotten MUCH better over the years. And back then, Mike never wrote and Matt wasn't in the band...and now I'd say Matt has a HUGE influence on that end of things...I think now there's just more song writers in the band and so Stone takes less of a major role in that. And that might not be towing the company line anymore, that might just be like hey, this is working pretty well for all of us. And also maybe that's a little of the "growing up" part of things, you know? It's a little babyish to feel threatened by another guy in your own band improving his song writing.

Ledbetterman10 · March 2010

drummer96 wrote:

think they are one of the most consistently energetic bands night after night. Constantly changing up the setlists, 3 hour shows night after night, making a point to hit every area of the country/world? I think they are very dedicated to the fans, and their jobs. Of course they are going to have a few off nights, EVERY band does.

Well I totally agree with this and that's why I'm still into the band whether I like this record, the next record or anything they do from here on out. I'll always be emotionally invested in the previous records and that doesn't go away. I'm all about the changing setlists and 3 hour shows. That's why I have to skip out of work early for the MSG presale on Tuesday. I just said I don't like Backspacer....and also said that there were people around here that are up in arms because of what they thought was a less than energetic performance last night. I'm not one of them. I don't care what they do on SNL so long as they deliver in concert.

drummer96 · March 2010

I agree Lauri. Its a toss up between who's songwriting I like more, Stone's or Eddies. Its funny as the years have gone on, when I first listen to a new pj song, I can almost 100% tell you who wrote it. They all have their unique writing style. I just love Stones writing style. He has one of the most interesting guitar forms out there IMO.

drummer96 · March 2010

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

drummer96 wrote:

think they are one of the most consistently energetic bands night after night. Constantly changing up the setlists, 3 hour shows night after night, making a point to hit every area of the country/world? I think they are very dedicated to the fans, and their jobs. Of course they are going to have a few off nights, EVERY band does.

Well I totally agree with this and that's why I'm still into the band whether I like this record, the next record or anything they do from here on out. I'll always be emotionally invested in the previous records and that doesn't go away. I'm all about the changing setlists and 3 hour shows. That's why I have to skip out of work early for the MSG presale on Tuesday. I just said I don't like Backspacer....and also said that there were people around here that are up in arms because of what they thought was a less than energetic performance last night. I'm not one of them. I don't care what they do on SNL so long as they deliver in concert.

I hear ya. Can I ask what your favorite albums by them are?

JaneNY · March 2010

Bird889 wrote:

nice post.

I've purchased my one way ticket and am not planning to got off this ride for a long time.

Same here. I've loved this band for years now, and will never get off until the ride is over. And may that be many years away.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · March 2010

djonesr wrote:

There's one part of the post which I respectfully but also completely disagree with. The original poster mentioned something about being angry when you are young but that goes away when you are older, and then mentions that "at least you should". I disagree with that. I think that losing anger when you get older is a matter of getting complacent or getting tired of being angry and giving up because it seems impossible to change what's getting you so angry.

My advice to angry young individuals is to keep the anger as long as you can. Sorry for the topic drift!

you are correct. I misspoke. What I guess I meant by that was that you don't necessarily lose your anger, but you learn how to channel it properly or more effectively.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun · March 2010

here's a summary: bands with kids and families suck!

Hugh Freaking Dillon · March 2010

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

djonesr wrote:

We all know (as a whole), that backspacer is totally fucking awesome and is arguably one of their best releases. From what I am seeing and reading, those few who are in "backspacer sucks" mode seem to be those who are "stuck" in 1991 and if it doesn't sound like Porch, it sucks.

You are 100% wrong about this. People who think Backspacer sucks are not stuck in 1991. Just like Metallica fans who thought St. Anger sucked weren't stuck in 1985.

I agree that those who don't like BS are not stuck in 1991, but from what I can tell, every Metallica fan that I spoke to that didn't like St Anger was hoping for another Puppets or KEA. i.e: stuck in '85.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun · March 2010

can you still be a hardcore fan and think their latter albums mostly suck? i think so. their music taste has changed, mine has changed too. it doesnt make much sense that our musical taste would change together though.

if thats the case with you, you might want to question if thats because you just want to like whatever they put out even though you wouldnt be caught dead listening to it if it were by another band.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · March 2010

MrSmith wrote:

can you still be a hardcore fan and think their latter albums mostly suck? i think so. their music taste has changed, mine has changed too. it doesnt make much sense that our musical taste would change together though.

if thats the case with you, you might want to question if thats because you just want to like whatever they put out even though you wouldnt be caught dead listening to it if it were by another band.

of COURSE you can be a hardcore fan and not like all of their releases!!! who is saying that you can't be?? that's ludicrous!

I'll be the first to admit that MOST of their albums have not been instant hits with me.

Ten: loved it instantly
VS: loved it instantly
Vitalogy: was confused with it for a while, now one of my faves (except for the stupid throaways)
No Code: didn't like it much at first, but now again, one of my faves
Yield: loved immediately
Binaural: thought it was alright. DTE is my fave PJ song, but the rest didn't grab me at first.
Riot Act: loved all but one: I hate LBC to this day, and always have
Avocado: really liked it from the get-go
Backspacer: didn't like it at all except for Got Some for quite some time. Now I love all the upbeat ones, the slower ones are still growing on me.

Ledbetterman10 · March 2010

drummer96 wrote:

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

drummer96 wrote:

think they are one of the most consistently energetic bands night after night. Constantly changing up the setlists, 3 hour shows night after night, making a point to hit every area of the country/world? I think they are very dedicated to the fans, and their jobs. Of course they are going to have a few off nights, EVERY band does.

Well I totally agree with this and that's why I'm still into the band whether I like this record, the next record or anything they do from here on out. I'll always be emotionally invested in the previous records and that doesn't go away. I'm all about the changing setlists and 3 hour shows. That's why I have to skip out of work early for the MSG presale on Tuesday. I just said I don't like Backspacer....and also said that there were people around here that are up in arms because of what they thought was a less than energetic performance last night. I'm not one of them. I don't care what they do on SNL so long as they deliver in concert.

I hear ya. Can I ask what your favorite albums by them are?

Well I always say Vitalogy is my favorite because it's what got me into the band and it's the album I still like to listen to front to back today. It's actually interesting how I got into Pearl Jam. I was 12 years old in 1996 and was really getting into rock music; Nirvana, Metallica, Green Day, Beastie Boys, Soundgarden and all the usual suspects from mid-90's MTV. That was how most of us "children of the 90's" were introduced to new music. But since PJ had stopped making videos, they were always sort of a mystery to me. I'd hear the name from time to time but I wouldn't be able to name one of their songs.

So finally I tune into the 1996 grammys to see if Alanis Morrisette was going to say "fuck" during her performance and saw that one of the albums she beat out for album of the year was "Vitalogy" by Pearl Jam. And......I still don't know what it was man. There was something about the look of the album cover....just the grey canvas with "Vitalogy" written in gold across the front of it....I don't know what it was but it intrigued me. I bought the album within the next couple of days and.....wow. I must have listened to it and read the liner notes every day for about 5 hours straight for the next couple of weeks. I remember buying Ten, Vs, and the Dissident single on my next trip to the CD store and was a completely obsessed Pearl Jam freak by time No Code hit stores that summer.

Zidane · March 2010

Great post. You basically said everything that I had on my mind; I was 16 in 1996 and I'll be turning 30 this year... There's a lot of things that change and whatever I was thinking back then surely changed with the years. And I don't think PJ is an exception to it.

Thanks man!

Jeanwah · March 2010

LikeAnOcean wrote:

I think people are just way too obsessed and have too much time on their hands.

This, 100%.

Not to mention, assuming what EV and the band thinks is fine, but in the end its all just that: an assumption. I have a family, but that certainly doesn't mean that I dropped my ideals the minute I became a mother.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun · March 2010

Johnny Sitar wrote:

MrSmith wrote:

can you still be a hardcore fan and think their latter albums mostly suck? i think so. their music taste has changed, mine has changed too. it doesnt make much sense that our musical taste would change together though.

if thats the case with you, you might want to question if thats because you just want to like whatever they put out even though you wouldnt be caught dead listening to it if it were by another band.

of COURSE you can be a hardcore fan and not like all of their releases!!! who is saying that you can't be?? that's ludicrous!

I'll be the first to admit that MOST of their albums have not been instant hits with me.

Ten: loved it instantly
VS: loved it instantly
Vitalogy: was confused with it for a while, now one of my faves (except for the stupid throaways)
No Code: didn't like it much at first, but now again, one of my faves
Yield: loved immediately
Binaural: thought it was alright. DTE is my fave PJ song, but the rest didn't grab me at first.
Riot Act: loved all but one: I hate LBC to this day, and always have
Avocado: really liked it from the get-go
Backspacer: didn't like it at all except for Got Some for quite some time. Now I love all the upbeat ones, the slower ones are still growing on me.

thats fine, heh, but you just said you like all their albums! what if you didnt like their last two albums (and still dont) and thought Binaural and RA were hit or miss? thats basically me, but the thing is i really REALLY love the ones i like!

im pretty picky, but any band that puts out 5 albums i adore is automatically in godhood status, even if they put out total crap from then on! kinda like being a Harrison Ford fan. after Han Solo, and Indiana, he's set for life!

Pearl Jam - The New Reality

Comments

Categories