13 Sep 09
Pearl Jam have never really been on my radar, I'll admit.
The latest album - I just let it play twice back to back - makes me think I haven't been missing much, unless this is an unrepresentative dud.
It seems very indistinct, no unexpected chords anywhere, no words that reach out and grab you.
A study in genericism and carefully callibrated mediocrity, almost?
What is the 'unique selling point' of this band?
13 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFEddie Vedder. It begins and ends with Eddie. If he isn't packing a punch then the band falls flat.
Pearl Jam have never really been on my radar, I'll admit.
The latest album - I just let it play twice back to back - makes me think I haven't been missing much, unless this is an unrepresentative dud.
It seems very indistinct, no unexpected chords anywhere, no words that reach out and grab you.
A study in genericism and carefully callibrated mediocrity, almost?
What is the 'unique selling point' of this band?
14 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFPearl Jam is about one album. The first one. 10 was and is a great album start to finish. Listening to 10, it may sound generalized but only because so many bands that came after them essentially copied their sound and song style.
Pearl Jam have never really been on my radar, I'll admit.
The latest album - I just let it play twice back to back - makes me think I haven't been missing much, unless this is an unrepresentative dud.
It seems very indistinct, no unexpected chords anywhere, no words that reach out and grab you.
A study in genericism and carefully callibrated mediocrity, almost?
What is the 'unique selling point' of this band?
Keep in mind, the mainstream radio (back when radio was relevant) at the time was not playing songs that sounded anything like the songs from 10. Soundgarden wasn't getting airplay, Smashing Pumpkins were toiling with an under-appreciated pre-siamese dream debut album called Gish and Sonic Youth was getting less air time than even Jane's Addiction. Radio was all Lennry Kravitz, Bell Biv Devo, Mariah Carey and Celine Dionne at the time. Nirvana opened the door to new sounds with Nevermind but Pearl Jam smashed it open with 10 and the song Even Flow. At the time, Even Flow sounded like something i, and most people, had never heard before.
With the exception of a handful of songs since 10 PJ haven't done anything new or interesting. The new album is no exception. But keep in mind, they broke the ground. It's up to new bands to keep pushing the limits instead of using the BS excuse of "well we are heavily influenced by this band from before so that's why we sound just like them". I say that's a cop-out. If you can't do something new, then throw your guitar away and let someone original get the spotlight.
15 Sep 09
Originally posted by uzlessYes, I was into that album when it came out.
Pearl Jam is about one album. The first one. 10 was and is a great album start to finish.
What surprises me is how many of their own live shows they release - as if they were some kind of Dead or Phish or Mr.Blotto - but when I picked up a handful and gave them a listen, I couldn't figure out what the musical-thing-going-on was supposed to be that might make someone go see them more than once (or a few times) on a tour and why anyone would want to collect shows in large numbers.
15 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFI still don't understand why Phish and Dead fans do the same.
Yes, I was into that album when it came out.
What surprises me is how many of their own live shows they release - as if they were some kind of Dead or Phish or Mr.Blotto - but when I picked up a handful and gave them a listen, I couldn't figure out what the musical-thing-going-on was supposed to be that might make someone go see them more than once (or a few times) on a tour and why anyone would want to collect shows in large numbers.
15 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI recently played an after party at the Molson Amphitheatre following the last Pearl Jam show there. I'm not a huge fan, and I've never seen them live before although I like some of their songs. We got to watch the concert for free, and I have to say that the performance/sound quality was very solid and they put on a great energetic show. I was pleasantly surprised. 🙂
Yes, I was into that album when it came out.
What surprises me is how many of their own live shows they release - as if they were some kind of Dead or Phish or Mr.Blotto - but when I picked up a handful and gave them a listen, I couldn't figure out what the musical-thing-going-on was supposed to be that might make someone go see them more than once (or a few times) on a tour and why anyone would want to collect shows in large numbers.
16 Sep 09
Originally posted by darvlayWell, taste and preferences aside, the reason for listening to, say, Phish shows would be that about 30-40% of the music on any given night is a unique one-off event and relatively spontaneous material. The only way to get access to this music is to collect recordings of shows. I don't think one has to like Phish to realize that that is the case. So I trawled through Pearl Jam shows expecting something similar - mindful of that fact that they have released heaps and heaps of shows, often several consecutive nights. I am totally open minded about and interested in improvised or spontaneous music. It's the only reason I could think of for collecting live recordings. With Pearl Jam's recordings I couldn't detect any musical events or material that seemed unique or collectible. Do they even claim to be a jamband of any kind?
I still don't understand why Phish and Dead fans do the same.
16 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFThey started doing it to stay on top of bootlegs. They figured they could cash in on the market for live shows so they taped their own shows and sold the recordings, usually at a better quality than the bootlegs. They basically cut off the black market.
Well, taste and preferences aside, the reason for listening to, say, Phish shows would be that about 30-40% of the music on any given night is a unique one-off event and relatively spontaneous material. The only way to get access to this music is to collect recordings of shows. I don't think one has to like Phish to realize that that is the case. So I trawled t ...[text shortened]... material that seemed unique or collectible. Do they even claim to be a jamband of any kind?
16 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFFans will buy anything an artist releases, and there are enough Pearl Jam fans to make it worthwhile.
Well, taste and preferences aside, the reason for listening to, say, Phish shows would be that about 30-40% of the music on any given night is a unique one-off event and relatively spontaneous material. The only way to get access to this music is to collect recordings of shows. I don't think one has to like Phish to realize that that is the case. So I trawled t ...[text shortened]... material that seemed unique or collectible. Do they even claim to be a jamband of any kind?
16 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF30-40%? Dude, I used to live with a big Phish (and Dead) fan who had hundreds of bootlegs and live concerts and, besides the odd bizarre cover and the standard aimless noodling, they were generally the same. The only reason those bootlegs existed were so die-hard fans and touring bootleggers could disucss the utter minutiae of some crappy '95 version of YEM with each other and feel like some kind of secret society.
Well, taste and preferences aside, the reason for listening to, say, Phish shows would be that about 30-40% of the music on any given night is a unique one-off event and relatively spontaneous material. The only way to get access to this music is to collect recordings of shows. I don't think one has to like Phish to realize that that is the case. So I trawled t material that seemed unique or collectible. Do they even claim to be a jamband of any kind?
It's just a thing that hardcore fans do and enjoy. It's unfair to rip on Pearl Jam and their fans for doing the same.
16 Sep 09
Originally posted by darvlayYep.
30-40%? Dude, I used to live with a big Phish (and Dead) fan who had hundreds of bootlegs and live concerts and, besides the odd bizarre cover and the standard aimless noodling, they were generally the same. The only reason those bootlegs existed were so die-hard fans and touring bootleggers could disucss the utter minutiae of some crappy '95 version of YE ...[text shortened]... rdcore fans do and enjoy. It's unfair to rip on Pearl Jam and their fans for doing the same.
Is there any reasons why any band should not put out every concert they play in? There was some band/artist who did that and you could own the concert you went to. That's not a bad thing in my book.
16 Sep 09
Originally posted by darvlayAh. I see you want to change the topic to why you don't like Phish. Good for you. The point is, Pearl Jam produces very little music in a concert that is not the same as the night before. I haven't been ripping any Pearl Jam fans. Just looking for some insight into a band whose latest album is bafflingly dreary who and release so many live recordings it is as if they see themselves as an improvising band.
30-40%? Dude, I used to live with a big Phish (and Dead) fan who had hundreds of bootlegs and live concerts and, besides the odd bizarre cover and the standard aimless noodling, they were generally the same. The only reason those bootlegs existed were so die-hard fans and touring bootleggers could disucss the utter minutiae of some crappy '95 version of YE ...[text shortened]... rdcore fans do and enjoy. It's unfair to rip on Pearl Jam and their fans for doing the same.