Reasons why YOU think the 1995 tour was amazing..

2-feign-reluctance · November 2017

Grit. Something this current generation lacks.

cropdustdair · November 2017

cropdustdair said:

Zod said:

Because they tried.

What we learned that launching a tour without ticketmaster is insanely hard. you have to find your own venues (which was probably hard back then and impossible now). you have to run the venues yourself including ticketing, merch, services etc....

The tried it. It damn near killed Eddie, but they tried it. They tried to give it to Ticketmaster and ultimate failed, but I love the fact they tried, and that the '95 tour is all about that effort..

This is without a doubt my favorite reason I love the 1995 tour. Thank you Pearl Jam for your efforts you put forth for us.

cropdustdair · November 2017

Anyone have any 1995 tour ticket stubs, photos, newspaper articles/photos etc., please let me know. I'll buy them from you.

Zod · November 2017

I wasn't there so I can't comment on the live shows. For me it was their attempt to say F.U. to ticketmaster and attempting to complete an entire tour using non TM venues (and all the extra work they had to do to run the shows at the non-tm venues). It's a feat that was so difficult in '95 that it almost killed the band (Eddie got sick and it kind of imploded). I don't think it's feat that can be repeated give that we've had 20 more years of TM/Live Nation consolidating and absorbing that many more venues.

PB11041 · November 2017

The logistics of the 1995 and 1996 tours definitely proved to be very taxing on the band's ability to function in a real touring capacity. The harsh reality is that no other acts were willing to step up. And that was because most bands were not like Pearl Jam, it is easy to forget that each of their first three albums sold in excess of a million units by January of 1995. That is not combined, that is just each album. They had the ability to take the risk.

Also often overlooked in 1995, the band did play what 20 shows in their swing through the Far East and Pacific Islands? plus or minus. They recorded and released Mirror Ball, Ed had agreed to tour with Mike Watt, the band agreed to tour with Neil in Europe, Mike had Mad Season stuff going on and was dealing with sobriety.

While the US 1995 tour definitely had some serious bugs, there were additional factors other than TM that made it a trickier course than usual to navigate, and that had to do with the assortment of commitments the band had.

No band could possibly have stepped in to take a serious stand because virtually every act made the bulk of their earnings playing live shows. Very few had the semi luxury of their records actually earning them some serious money.

Smarter_Than_U · November 2017

PB11041 said:

...

No band could possibly have stepped in to take a serious stand because virtually every act made the bulk of their earnings playing live shows. Very few had the semi luxury of their records actually earning them some serious money.

I couldn’t disagree more. The time period in question was the heyday of bands selling CDs. There were many, many bands and artists with a similar ethos that could have stuck their necks out during this time period if they wanted to given money they were making from CDs. Examples off the top of my head include REM, U2, RHCP, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Beastie Boys. One can only guess that tgese bands saw the boycott and lawsuit as fools errands and/or they just see an ROI on rocking the boat. So they either chickened out or made a business decision. But Pearl Jam was most definitely was not the only band at this point in time making a lot of money selling CDs. While the economics have shifted dramatically in the music industry since the mid 90s to be more reflective of your point above, I believe the revenue “big bands” of the time were generating from CD sales actually made the time ripe for a mass stand against Ticketmaster. That ship obviously though has long sailed now.

PB11041 · November 2017

Smarter_Than_U said:

PB11041 said:

...

No band could possibly have stepped in to take a serious stand because virtually every act made the bulk of their earnings playing live shows. Very few had the semi luxury of their records actually earning them some serious money.

I couldn’t disagree more. The time period in question was the heyday of bands selling CDs. There were many, many bands and artists with a similar ethos that could have stuck their necks out during this time period if they wanted to given money they were making from CDs. Examples off the top of my head include REM, U2, RHCP, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Beastie Boys. One can only guess that tgese bands saw the boycott and lawsuit as fools errands and/or they just see an ROI on rocking the boat. So they either chickened out or made a business decision. But Pearl Jam was most definitely was not the only band at this point in time making a lot of money selling CDs. While the economics have shifted dramatically in the music industry since the mid 90s to be more reflective of your point above, I believe the revenue “big bands” of the time were generating from CD sales actually made the time ripe for a mass stand against Ticketmaster. That ship obviously though has long sailed now.

It was the heyday of bands selling music period, post vinyl pre-digital disruption tons of bands were selling records, but not nearly at the quantity and velocity out of the gate as Pearl Jam. Moreover you are lumping a lot of bands together that are crossing years of producing and releasing albums under distinctly different contractual arrangements.

There is a reason that the guys from Pearl Jam revere and adore Michele Anthony and Michael Goldstone, many bands did not have the same luxury in their relationship with labels. Not all contracts are created equal and bands like U2 and REM had meaningful equity in huge deals they signed in 1993 and 1996 respectively. It took each at least seven years before any record they released exploded as well.

Moreover, I said VERY FEW, not none. Unless bands that made their living touring at that time (ala Phish and the Grateful Dead - though they obviously had a crash with Garcia passing in 1995 before splintering into several groups and permutations) were willing to risk their earnings it was a DOA.

Pearl Jam was four years old and sold out Soldier Field, they distinctly could roll the dice. I am not saying others should not have or could not have tried, but they did not have the same footing Pearl Jam had. 1996 proved that out, despite No Code not selling nearly as well as their previous 3 albums, the demand for tickets to the 12 shows they played were sky high.

Smarter_Than_U · November 2017

PB11041 said:

Smarter_Than_U said:

PB11041 said:

...

No band could possibly have stepped in to take a serious stand because virtually every act made the bulk of their earnings playing live shows. Very few had the semi luxury of their records actually earning them some serious money.

I couldn’t disagree more. The time period in question was the heyday of bands selling CDs. There were many, many bands and artists with a similar ethos that could have stuck their necks out during this time period if they wanted to given money they were making from CDs. Examples off the top of my head include REM, U2, RHCP, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Beastie Boys. One can only guess that tgese bands saw the boycott and lawsuit as fools errands and/or they just see an ROI on rocking the boat. So they either chickened out or made a business decision. But Pearl Jam was most definitely was not the only band at this point in time making a lot of money selling CDs. While the economics have shifted dramatically in the music industry since the mid 90s to be more reflective of your point above, I believe the revenue “big bands” of the time were generating from CD sales actually made the time ripe for a mass stand against Ticketmaster. That ship obviously though has long sailed now.

It was the heyday of bands selling music period, post vinyl pre-digital disruption tons of bands were selling records, but not nearly at the quantity and velocity out of the gate as Pearl Jam. Moreover you are lumping a lot of bands together that are crossing years of producing and releasing albums under distinctly different contractual arrangements.

There is a reason that the guys from Pearl Jam revere and adore Michele Anthony and Michael Goldstone, many bands did not have the same luxury in their relationship with labels. Not all contracts are created equal and bands like U2 and REM had meaningful equity in huge deals they signed in 1993 and 1996 respectively. It took each at least seven years before any record they released exploded as well.

Moreover, I said VERY FEW, not none. Unless bands that made their living touring at that time (ala Phish and the Grateful Dead - though they obviously had a crash with Garcia passing in 1995 before splintering into several groups and permutations) were willing to risk their earnings it was a DOA.

Pearl Jam was four years old and sold out Soldier Field, they distinctly could roll the dice. I am not saying others should not have or could not have tried, but they did not have the same footing Pearl Jam had. 1996 proved that out, despite No Code not selling nearly as well as their previous 3 albums, the demand for tickets to the 12 shows they played were sky high.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. From my perspective, there were plenty of punk-inspired, fan-oriented, DIY bands during the time period making lots of money from album sales that could have joined forces with Pearl Jam when they boycotted TM and filed their lawsuit and they would all still be sitting pretty to this day assuming they didn’t piss away their millions. The nuances associated with these bands’ contracts and related risks they would have assumed does not and won’t ever change the fact that they basically all let Pearl Jam twist in the wind. With that, it’s a footnote in musical history at this point.

lolobugg · November 2017

I remember Green Day making fun of PJ's stance.

the drummer said something like, "If Pearl Jam want tix to be cheaper, then they should just take a lower percentage like we do." what a dumb bastard.

PB11041 · November 2017

Smarter_Than_U said:

PB11041 said:

Smarter_Than_U said:

PB11041 said:

...

No band could possibly have stepped in to take a serious stand because virtually every act made the bulk of their earnings playing live shows. Very few had the semi luxury of their records actually earning them some serious money.

I couldn’t disagree more. The time period in question was the heyday of bands selling CDs. There were many, many bands and artists with a similar ethos that could have stuck their necks out during this time period if they wanted to given money they were making from CDs. Examples off the top of my head include REM, U2, RHCP, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Beastie Boys. One can only guess that tgese bands saw the boycott and lawsuit as fools errands and/or they just see an ROI on rocking the boat. So they either chickened out or made a business decision. But Pearl Jam was most definitely was not the only band at this point in time making a lot of money selling CDs. While the economics have shifted dramatically in the music industry since the mid 90s to be more reflective of your point above, I believe the revenue “big bands” of the time were generating from CD sales actually made the time ripe for a mass stand against Ticketmaster. That ship obviously though has long sailed now.

It was the heyday of bands selling music period, post vinyl pre-digital disruption tons of bands were selling records, but not nearly at the quantity and velocity out of the gate as Pearl Jam. Moreover you are lumping a lot of bands together that are crossing years of producing and releasing albums under distinctly different contractual arrangements.

There is a reason that the guys from Pearl Jam revere and adore Michele Anthony and Michael Goldstone, many bands did not have the same luxury in their relationship with labels. Not all contracts are created equal and bands like U2 and REM had meaningful equity in huge deals they signed in 1993 and 1996 respectively. It took each at least seven years before any record they released exploded as well.

Moreover, I said VERY FEW, not none. Unless bands that made their living touring at that time (ala Phish and the Grateful Dead - though they obviously had a crash with Garcia passing in 1995 before splintering into several groups and permutations) were willing to risk their earnings it was a DOA.

Pearl Jam was four years old and sold out Soldier Field, they distinctly could roll the dice. I am not saying others should not have or could not have tried, but they did not have the same footing Pearl Jam had. 1996 proved that out, despite No Code not selling nearly as well as their previous 3 albums, the demand for tickets to the 12 shows they played were sky high.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. From my perspective, there were plenty of punk-inspired, fan-oriented, DIY bands during the time period making lots of money from album sales that could have joined forces with Pearl Jam when they boycotted TM and filed their lawsuit and they would all still be sitting pretty to this day assuming they didn’t piss away their millions. The nuances associated with these bands’ contracts and related risks they would have assumed does not and won’t ever change the fact that they basically all let Pearl Jam twist in the wind. With that, it’s a footnote in musical history at this point.

If you are not actually making much money off your record sales, it is not insignificant. Selling records and making money off them are two different things.

Smarter_Than_U · November 2017

PB11041 said:

Smarter_Than_U said:

PB11041 said:

Smarter_Than_U said:

PB11041 said:

...

No band could possibly have stepped in to take a serious stand because virtually every act made the bulk of their earnings playing live shows. Very few had the semi luxury of their records actually earning them some serious money.

I couldn’t disagree more. The time period in question was the heyday of bands selling CDs. There were many, many bands and artists with a similar ethos that could have stuck their necks out during this time period if they wanted to given money they were making from CDs. Examples off the top of my head include REM, U2, RHCP, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Beastie Boys. One can only guess that tgese bands saw the boycott and lawsuit as fools errands and/or they just see an ROI on rocking the boat. So they either chickened out or made a business decision. But Pearl Jam was most definitely was not the only band at this point in time making a lot of money selling CDs. While the economics have shifted dramatically in the music industry since the mid 90s to be more reflective of your point above, I believe the revenue “big bands” of the time were generating from CD sales actually made the time ripe for a mass stand against Ticketmaster. That ship obviously though has long sailed now.

It was the heyday of bands selling music period, post vinyl pre-digital disruption tons of bands were selling records, but not nearly at the quantity and velocity out of the gate as Pearl Jam. Moreover you are lumping a lot of bands together that are crossing years of producing and releasing albums under distinctly different contractual arrangements.

There is a reason that the guys from Pearl Jam revere and adore Michele Anthony and Michael Goldstone, many bands did not have the same luxury in their relationship with labels. Not all contracts are created equal and bands like U2 and REM had meaningful equity in huge deals they signed in 1993 and 1996 respectively. It took each at least seven years before any record they released exploded as well.

Moreover, I said VERY FEW, not none. Unless bands that made their living touring at that time (ala Phish and the Grateful Dead - though they obviously had a crash with Garcia passing in 1995 before splintering into several groups and permutations) were willing to risk their earnings it was a DOA.

Pearl Jam was four years old and sold out Soldier Field, they distinctly could roll the dice. I am not saying others should not have or could not have tried, but they did not have the same footing Pearl Jam had. 1996 proved that out, despite No Code not selling nearly as well as their previous 3 albums, the demand for tickets to the 12 shows they played were sky high.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. From my perspective, there were plenty of punk-inspired, fan-oriented, DIY bands during the time period making lots of money from album sales that could have joined forces with Pearl Jam when they boycotted TM and filed their lawsuit and they would all still be sitting pretty to this day assuming they didn’t piss away their millions. The nuances associated with these bands’ contracts and related risks they would have assumed does not and won’t ever change the fact that they basically all let Pearl Jam twist in the wind. With that, it’s a footnote in musical history at this point.

If you are not actually making much money off your record sales, it is not insignificant. Selling records and making money off them are two different things.

No one ever said doing the right thing is easy.

PB11041 · November 2017

Smarter_Than_U said:

If you are not actually making much money off your record sales, it is not insignificant. Selling records and making money off them are two different things.

No one ever said doing the right thing is easy.

That is an entirely different line of discussion. I thought they were right, still do, wish I could have seen the 95 tour, wish I went to even more 96 shows and very much wanted them to keep doing what they were doing.

That nobody else stepped up doesn't surprise me in the least.

Smarter_Than_U · November 2017

PB11041 said:

Smarter_Than_U said:

If you are not actually making much money off your record sales, it is not insignificant. Selling records and making money off them are two different things.

No one ever said doing the right thing is easy.

That is an entirely different line of discussion. I thought they were right, still do, wish I could have seen the 95 tour, wish I went to even more 96 shows and very much wanted them to keep doing what they were doing.

That nobody else stepped up doesn't surprise me in the least.

Since I am surprised to this day (another point where we diverge) what would persuade me more is data you seem to have access to on their peers’ financial positions. You cite REM and U2’s contracts though those bands had most definitely sold many more units than Pearl Jam by the period in question and were well off financially. (Related aside: I once read an interview with Bono where he said they lost money on the Zoo TV tour. In addition REM didn’t tour for Automatic for the People as they had no requirement to do so and had just sold 15 million copies of Out of Time.) I find it difficult to believe that there weren’t a handful of similar-minded bands at that point in time that could have joined forces with Pearl Jam. Seeing some data to support your points would be potentially persuasive. i should also state clearly that my earlier post about “doing the right thing not being easy” was not meant to imply it was easy for Pearl Jam to take a stand; they experienced financial loss and their status also suffered. With that any credible info you have would be welcome in terms of potential “coalition” members to bolster your argument.

PB11041 · November 2017

Smarter_Than_U said:
Since I am surprised to this day (another point where we diverge) what would persuade me more is data you seem to have access to on their peers’ financial positions. You cite REM and U2’s contracts though those bands had most definitely sold many more units than Pearl Jam by the period in question and were well off financially. (Related aside: I once read an interview with Bono where he said they lost money on the Zoo TV tour. In addition REM didn’t tour for Automatic for the People as they had no requirement to do so and had just sold 15 million copies of Out of Time.) I find it difficult to believe that there weren’t a handful of similar-minded bands at that point in time that could have joined forces with Pearl Jam. Seeing some data to support your points would be potentially persuasive. i should also state clearly that my earlier post about “doing the right thing not being easy” was not meant to imply it was easy for Pearl Jam to take a stand they experienced financial loss and their status also suffered. With that any credible info you have would be welcome in terms of potential “coalition” members to bolster your argument.

A great deal to unpack here. But to begin with you sort of answer your own question in that I think it is presumptuous to consider their were "similar minded bands". It seems there wasn't, because as best I can recall no other band gave it more than passing lip service.

I cited U2 and REM because they were introduced into the discussion as examples of bands who should/could have boycotted ticketmaster.
U2 was 16 years into their career at this point, REM 14 by the time period in question 1995. I am not disputing they had made money by 1995 and easily could have I guess stood up too. But one was not touring at the time and the other was coming out of a nearly 5 year hiatus from the road. Both odd bed fellows is that regard.

As you pointed out, some other bands were selling good volume of records, but I don't think any felt the financial stability to rock the boat or cared to risk it.

There are some rough around the edges figures on what a band makes in record sales here - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml

There are of course variables involved for each individual band. I need to attempt to reach out to an old classmate who actually manages bands and a label, he has good information on this because he is still adamantly fighting upstream against TM live nation, mostly because of how even more pronounced the weight on touring leans today and issues with bots and ticket-scalping being the bigger issue than fees today.

There is also some information in the pj20 book I think, but I may be distorting my memory on that.

Smarter_Than_U · November 2017

PB11041 said:

Smarter_Than_U said:
Since I am surprised to this day (another point where we diverge) what would persuade me more is data you seem to have access to on their peers’ financial positions. You cite REM and U2’s contracts though those bands had most definitely sold many more units than Pearl Jam by the period in question and were well off financially. (Related aside: I once read an interview with Bono where he said they lost money on the Zoo TV tour. In addition REM didn’t tour for Automatic for the People as they had no requirement to do so and had just sold 15 million copies of Out of Time.) I find it difficult to believe that there weren’t a handful of similar-minded bands at that point in time that could have joined forces with Pearl Jam. Seeing some data to support your points would be potentially persuasive. i should also state clearly that my earlier post about “doing the right thing not being easy” was not meant to imply it was easy for Pearl Jam to take a stand they experienced financial loss and their status also suffered. With that any credible info you have would be welcome in terms of potential “coalition” members to bolster your argument.

A great deal to unpack here. But to begin with you sort of answer your own question in that I think it is presumptuous to consider their were "similar minded bands". It seems there wasn't, because as best I can recall no other band gave it more than passing lip service.

I cited U2 and REM because they were introduced into the discussion as examples of bands who should/could have boycotted ticketmaster.
U2 was 16 years into their career at this point, REM 14 by the time period in question 1995. I am not disputing they had made money by 1995 and easily could have I guess stood up too. But one was not touring at the time and the other was coming out of a nearly 5 year hiatus from the road. Both odd bed fellows is that regard.

As you pointed out, some other bands were selling good volume of records, but I don't think any felt the financial stability to rock the boat or cared to risk it.

There are some rough around the edges figures on what a band makes in record sales here - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml

There are of course variables involved for each individual band. I need to attempt to reach out to an old classmate who actually manages bands and a label, he has good information on this because he is still adamantly fighting upstream against TM live nation, mostly because of how even more pronounced the weight on touring leans today and issues with bots and ticket-scalping being the bigger issue than fees today.

There is also some information in the pj20 book I think, but I may be distorting my memory on that.

Thanks for sharing that article definitely compelling and helps make your point! Also quite depressing. Seriously, if it's true--why do bands even bother making records! Love to hear what your former classmate can share.

I am obviously biased as a PJ fan but I do think this topic and a moment in time that is a rich for discussion that I don't think has been covered as sufficiently as it deserves.

lolobugg · November 2017

The Record Labels are basically overseers of indentured servants(artists).

I have a friend that played in a band that was signed to a big Indie label and told me that he never saw a penny from album royalties. When they tried to get a straight answer, the label told them that they were still in debt to the label due to promotional expenses. He said it came down to the label paying a large retailer for endcap space for the all the label's artists. So my friends band didn't reap any benefit from the promotional "efforts"

I am glad that most major record labels have gone belly up or been consolidated into some huge corporation.

they are still working on ideas from the 1960s.

PB11041 · December 2017

Smarter_Than_U said:

Thanks for sharing that article definitely compelling and helps make your point! Also quite depressing. Seriously, if it's true--why do bands even bother making records! Love to hear what your former classmate can share.

I am obviously biased as a PJ fan but I do think this topic and a moment in time that is a rich for discussion that I don't think has been covered as sufficiently as it deserves.

Certainly for most bands it is true, to varying degrees is the nuance that is not easy to parse always, but for many the record is the means of promoting their existence and live shows, that being said there are also tiers in terms of record sales, and certainly selling a million is more beneficial than 500K, and so on. So at peak industry from the late 1980s through the late 1990s when the CD age boomed convenience, quality (this is heavily debatable as CDs have their limits in true dynamics) were easier for labels to manufacture, coupled with a booming US economy, bands sold well.

So I do think you are correct that bands selling 1-4x platinum and greater were definitely making money or at the potential of such. However it does really depend on what the particulars are of their respective deal.

Hopefully I get some additional insight to share, because I am definitely curious, by no means is my assertion fact, it just always hit me that it was odd nobody else jumped in the ring to say, especially their more clear contemporaries that were just beginning their careers.

Smarter_Than_U · December 2017

PB11041 said:

Hopefully I get some additional insight to share, because I am definitely curious, by no means do is my assertion fact, it just always hit me that it was odd nobody else jumped in the ring to say, especially their more clear contemporaries that were just beginning their careers.

Agree -- this would be great. I think it's a Rolling Stone article waiting to happen.

Shyner · December 2017

The music

mcgruff10 · December 2017

my favorite boots of all time are from '95.

Reasons why YOU think the 1995 tour was amazing..

Comments

Categories