Would it have been better if Pearl Jam had not gotten so HUGE?

mcgruff10 said:

eeriepadave said:

mcgruff10 said:

 I wonder why pearl jam got so big again.  2003-2011 you could easily get tickets to pretty much every show no problem.  No I'm not saying that you could get front row but outside the big markets shows didn't really sell out.  Even in 2013 both philly shows were not sold out.  Then all of a sudden, wham!  PJ gets huge again for some reason.  Selling out wrigley and safeco....mind boggling.

Both Philly 2013 show not sold out? then explain this?

They definitely were not sold out.  There were uppers available for both shows on their ticket site.

There were empties because flippers were buying tickets and attempting to sell them for ridiculous prices. The market has dramatically changed when the tickets are in the 75+ range, there is an upward limit people are willing to spend. I would never spend a cent over face value for a concert at an arena unless I was in the first 20 rows on the floor now. 

mcgruff10 said:

bootlegger10 said:

2010 St. Louis upper deck had portions closed off opposite the stage.  2014 St. Louis was even behind the stage.  There was a big change.  More press for Lightning Bolt and a better economy probably played a large role.

Great example.  the 2010 mid west portion of the tour sold pretty bad, Cleveland had huge sections closed off as well.  That st. louis show in 2014 was fun as hell (but damn it was cold out!).

2010 Columbus had tickets available in the backs of the upper level...like most of entire sections. I went on and bought my 10C ticket with ultimate ease. Of course, everyone and their brother's cousin "needed" NYC tickets.

Remember that the band had the curtain behind the stage in 2010. Because of this, tickets behind the stage may not have been even made available for many shows that year. I know this was the case for Columbus. Seating was somewhere between 180 and 270 degrees.

Lost In Ohio said:

Say there's a situation where a company buys 1,500 tickets out of 18,000 for distribution to customers and clients. If only 500 of those tseats are filled on event day, it's still "sold out" because the tickets were sold.

This. I used to think sold out means sold out and it's game over.  Then I got introduced to people who are pretty high up the chain at MSG and learned that no show or event is really ever "sold out".  At least not one at an arena or bigger.  Scalpers aside, there are always loosies sprinkled around the arena the day of.  Then there are seats that the venue and its partners hold that a lot of times don't get filled.  After that was explained to me, I've always looked at the phrase "sold out" as somewhat a hype phrase.

I wasn’t even alive for most of those, but man Jimi must have been great. 

For the diehards it might be better but theres already only like five rock bands left who could headline a festival.  I wouldnt want to lose one.  

igotid88 said:

Do you wish Ten wasn't as big or only that be their big album? Most of us older fans got into them in 1992. They could have been even huger had they not stop making videos releasing singles for Better Man. Even changing their sound on each album. They tried to slow things down. And succeeded to a point of not being too big. 

That’s a good point. They intentionally avoided much of the commercial success they could have had. It still happened because they’re that good, but they could have blown up to a different level if they chose to. I’m personally glad they didn’t. 

I can see both sides, but I can't make up my mind on which I prefer.

It's clear that PJ headed away from the mainstream as much as they could in the 90s (no music videos, no big commercial singles etc) - they could arguably be a lot bigger than they are today if they'd just become 'radio friendly unit shifters'. For the longest time, mentioning Pearl Jam would be met by the same "are the still together" response. I always kind of liked having a band that was mine when my friends had moved on to other interests. That being said, PJ are the only band I have travelled internationally to see, and that may not have happened if they had been smaller shows.

As for the point about PJ staying hungry, I think it's fair to say that the side projects that the guys have been involved with over the years have shown more hunger than the last 2 PJ records...

When I think of someone from the same scene who has managed longevity whilst always following his muse, my first thought is Mark Lanegan. I love that Mark is still putting out top quality albums without compromise, and he's been doing it since the mid-80s with Screaming Trees. He is respected enough to be a coveted collaborator across many genres, but also 'under the radar' enough that tickets, vinyl etc aren't too insane to get hold of. To me, his shows can sometimes feel a bit like a best kept secret. You know you are in the room with people that genuinely want to be there for the music, and not industry types or famous faces.

Of the PJ guys, Mike is probably the closest to Mark, followed by Jeff. They both seem to enjoy collaborating with other musicians for the love of the music. Ed will always be someone that other artists want to collaborate with, but it will always attract more attention than the others.