Talk:Pearl Jam/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Display Picture

I don't know how to change it but I figured I should tell you that that picture definatly ain't Eddie Vedder. - Ross

[edit] Denmark tragedy = Arc

I changed some info in the Riot Act paragraph. Arc was the tribute to the nine who died in Denmark, not LBC. Eddie only performed it nine times on tour (check on pearljam.com songs section) and will most likely never perform it again. I was lucky enough to be at Boston 3 of that tour and see it performed. They left it off of the recordings for the show, however, to show respect, I guess. There are some fan recordings of Arc out there, but they are of somewhat poor quality. It was really neat to see live though!

One question though... are there any recordings of "4/20/02" as a rememberance of Layne Staley. I've never heard of this before.... and it seems like it could be bogus being on 4-20 and all. Otherwise a very good article!

Sethmoski 16:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Both love boat captain and Arc are tributes to the nine who died in denmark. The lost 9 friends lyrics are really blatantly obviously a reference to roskilde.

[[Jchahin] 03 oct 06] "4/20/02" is the hiden track at the end of Lost Dogs CD#2, at the end of "Bee Girl"

[edit] New Picture

I've changed the picture on the infobox to a more recent one. I hope you don't mind... |: Mybloodyvalentine 05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

...Am I missing something, or does that picture have nothing to do with Pearl Jam?

[edit] Cover Songs

Can anyone verify all the cover songs performed by Pearl Jam I listed in this article!.and delete those that cannot be verified!i couldn't verify some and a few might not be valid!--Wikipedian DOG 12:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this section still around as I can't find it?? Roadhockey 05:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It was removed and placed in a different article. La Pizza11 18:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ThanksRoadhockey 20:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Pearl Jam site has a detailed cover song index. --jh51681 09:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tragedy in Denmark

This was the worst tragedy in rock history wasn't? More info should be added to than just "live cds were released but not from Roskilde"

Technically, no (the 1999 Belarus accident and 1979 Cincinnati accident had higher death counts), but important enough to warrant some more words. I've added a paragraph. Feel free to correct/discuss it mvdhout 16:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discography.

Could someone check the years for the discography? - thanks.

-- I'm not going to remove it - yet - but do we really want to included every album Pearl Jam have contributed to? I mean, it'd be nice, and Sweet Relief is a good album and all that, but ......... I guess I'd rather we just stuck to their major releases, which Live on Two Legs is one, but the Official Bootlegs are not. I think. Any suggestions?

[edit] Kurt Cobain.

The section on the hostility by Kurt Cobain towards the band isn't accurate. I haven't got precise enough details at hand to correct it right now, but the argument arose from Kurt's friendship with Mark Arm of Mudhoney, who had been in Green River with Stone Gossard and Jeff Ament. Kurt's dislike of them arose over his view of Stone and Jeff being 'careerist', and his later friendship was with Eddie Vedder, not with the band. According to 'Come As You Are' by Michael Azzerad, Kurt befriended Eddie after both bands played at the MTV Music Awards 1992, saying he thought Eddie had passion, even if his band didn't. Jimregan 01:26 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

I remember reading something along those lines in a book. But didn't think much of it. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone said that Kurt was hostile towards Pearl Jam because they had beated them in the billboard charts and in sales, but that's just not true.

Nevermind: #1 on Billboard, $14 million worldwide Ten: #2 on Billboard, $12 million worldwode

In Utero: #1 on Billboard, $7 million worldwide Vs: #1 on Billboard, $6 million worldwide

[edit] Leaving Epic

Is it true that PJ is leaving Epic? I recently read a couple of articles saying that they will be releasing a DVD called "Live at the Garden" with Epic in November. ¬ Dori 17:56, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)

They left on June 5, 2003. Epic may still have material to release, plus they own the masters of the original music. Pearl Jam is distributing live album after live album via their web site as well as through music retailers. It's a good thing. Live PJ CD's double and triple albums for $12-17USD... =) vudu 19:54, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hey, it's great news. I am tired of having to pay upwards of $14 for their albums :) ¬ Dori 02:38, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] It's OK.

The following was a comment posted by

  1. (cur) (last) . . 14:09, Feb 5, 2004 . . 128.172.143.123
When I saw them in concert, it was the concert after the tragic accident in Denmark. They always add something to their song "Daughter". They added a song called "It's OK". This was sort of a way to express Pearl Jam's grief for the tragedy, while at the same time lettign everybody know that it is ok.

Dori | Talk 03:47, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

its a dead moon song.

[edit] Free speech.

I don't understand the inclusion of the comment about "free speech laws" re: Bushleaguer. It seems completely out of proportion. - Jeandré, 2004-04-11t12:36

I reworded it. Dori | Talk 14:26, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Abbruzzese.

Dave Abbruzzese -- is this true ? Jay 22:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. There's more info here: [1]. Jh51681 23:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Boon Kasper?

Reverted 136.8.1.100's "Boon Kasper - Keyboards" addition because I couldn't find any info on this from a quick Google, Google news, pearljam.com, or the pearljam.com news page search. Please note source before putting it back. -- Jeandré, 2004-09-07t12:07z

Could be that you couldn't find anything on him because his name is Boom Gasper. Heres a link -- elykyllek 17:02, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
According to the November 11, 2003 "Pearl Jam rumor pit", he isn't an official member. See
http://www.sonymusic.com/artists/PearlJam/rumorpit/pit56.html
By the way, his name appears to be Kenneth "Boom" Gaspar. mvdhout 17:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're right about the Gaspar part, just checked the back of the New York Concert DVD and it's spelt that way on there as well. Wonder why yahoo spelt it with an "e"... -- elykyllek 18:24, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Boom plays keyboards with Pearl Jam. Eddie V. connected with him in Hawaii, Boom's home. I saw them at MSG and was photographing the Buzzcocks at the first night of the show there. I was back going through security when I discovered that Boom was touring with Pearl Jam. I had toured with Boom in 1973 in the Pacific Northwest. Were were in Blues Great, Albert Collins Band. I was playing bass and Boom was jammin' on the B-3 even then. I had no idea he was in Pearl Jam, we had not seen each other for over 30 years. It made a great concert even better. Boom is one of the greatest people I have ever jammed with. Pearl Jam, good for him! I quit playing years ago. I'm a photographer in NYC now. rickedwardsnyc 21:07, March 9, 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Extensive Editing

Ive done some extensive editing. A great deal of it was grammatical and/or spelling corrections. Alot of it was to make things sound more professional (like pages from an encyclopaedia should be). Some of it was to eliminate unnecessary detail. A very small amount was to eliminate bias and opinion. There were refferences to the quality of the music. Such comments do not belong in an encyclopaedia. I also made some additions. I cant remember all of them right now, but heres what I remember:

1. I gave more details on the mamasan trilogy. 2. I added information on the various drummers that have come and gone. 3. I got rid of the misleading statements that made "Yield" seem like an unsuccessful album, when in fact, it went gold.

[edit] Removed Non-Pearl Jam albums from list

I removed the list of Mother Love Bone and Temple of the Dog albums because I feel they do not belong on the Pearl Jam article. If we were to list every band that band members of Pearl Jam have been involved in, we would need to list Mother Love Bone, Green River, Temple of the Dog, Brad, Mad Season, Three Fish, The Green Romance Orchestra, and others. I think doing that would steer the page off course. It would be great if individual articles on all these bands could be created though. I will write one for Mother Love Bone, and perhaps Temple of the Dog.

Maybe instead of listing other band's albums, we could put the bands links under a "See Also" category (when these pages are created). TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Streaming Music

So I've got a 24/7 stream of live pearl jam shows, about 30 or 35, and I added a link to the site at the bottom of the page. Might be more appropriate in "Samples" section tho, what do you think?

The samples section is only for files that have been uploaded to Wikipedia. If it's an external link, it should be in the link section. Tuf-Kat 22:13, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Love Bone redirect?

Two very different bands, why does it redirect here? Ok, 2 of the 5 members were later in Pearl Jam, but what about the 2 that went on to form Mudhoney (Mark Arm and Steve Turner)? What about the story of Andrew Wood and how his death imipacted the Seattle music scene? Mother Love Bone is certainly noteworthy enough to warrent it's own article. Cacophony 22:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mark Arm and Steve Turner were not in Mother Love Bone at all, they were in Green River with MLB & Pearl Jam members Stone and Jeff. It doesn't matter anyway as MLB has their own page now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.206.69 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] More changes

Those were some great additions regarding discrepancies about the origin of the name Pearl Jam, and pointing out the often forgotten drummer Matt Chamberlain. Ive made some more changes.

1. I removed excessive information about Mother Love Bone. I feel that since this is a Pearl Jam article, it needs to focus on Pearl Jam rather than going off on tangents. Mother Love Bone is a great band, but the only thing we need to know about Mother Love Bone in this particular article is that it was the band Jeff and Stone came from when they decided to form Pearl Jam. I feel that the details about Andy Wood's struggle with heroin and eventual death, and of Mother Love Bone's albums detracts from this article by straying far beyond the subject.

2. I restructured the name discrepancy paragraph so that the known fact (they came up with the name at a coffee shop) comes first. Followed by the two conflicting views on the meaning of the name. I have heard Eddie tell the story of where the name came from in more than one occasion, so I removed the refference to Rolling Stone.

3. The discussion of the album "No Code" contained a great deal of personal opinion. It said it was a great album and it was as good or better than previous albums. I removed those personal opinions because this needs to be objective. I am sure there are fans who disagree and think No Code was a weak album (although I happen to agree that it is one of the best albums myself). I removed the detail about touring without ticketmaster from there because the ticketmaster thing had been mentioned in a previous paragraph, so I felt it was kind of redundant.

That was all for the major edits. Everything else was just detail.

Hi, I'm new here, too, but I've been trying to find out more the pre-1990 Seattle scene (Specifically as it relates to Pearl Jam), and came across this article which was posted on Five Horizons (great read!): http://www.fivehorizons.com/archive/articles/gm082093_2.shtml I felt it definitely relavent to the Pearl Jam article here, and I penned a quick synopsis and added a 1980s section. In my opinion, the "pre-history" of this band, including Green River, Mother Love Bone, and TotD is extremely valid and should be included here.

[edit] "Bootlegs"

I came here to learn more about them, but there's nothing here. Amazon link [2] --Wasabe3543 17:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Search for "bootleg" in the article (it's in the history section). They're too numerous to include in the discog.. — Jeandré, 2005-05-04t23:21z

I've added two sentences to the initial paragraph dealing with the subject of the group's fan base and bootleg policy, including a link the Wiki article of bootleg recordings. This seems like an extremely noteworthy topic relative to this band. Feel free to edit.

[edit] Vandalism?

I was just reading the article when, suddenly, reaching the end of the History Section, I found this strange comment, totally out of context and explicitly aggresive:

Matt Cameron the current drummer is good but acts like a retard

I am a total newbie to wikipedia, so, could you guys solve this?

[edit] A few remarks about the first paragraph

I'd like to know why the first paragraph reads "Pearl Jam was one of the most popular bands..." instead of is, since the band is still well and active. I've changed that once before, but the changes got reverted so I decided to add it in here. Also, I think that the Green River, Temple Of The Dog and Mother Love Bone reference is mislocated.

The rest of the sentence is "of the grunge music era in the early 1990s." Feel free to incorporate the Gr, Totd, and Mlb mentions into the history section. — Jeandré, 2005-07-27t18:14z
Yes, but Pearl Jam is still one of the most popular bands of the grunge music era in the early 1990s. Althought this era has ended years ago, Pearl Jam remains popular in and outside the grunge scene.
That sentence is about the 90s.
Their album sales have slumped, so I'm not sure an additional sentence describing them as one of the most popular bands in the 2000s is valid. — Jeandré, 2005-07-29t16:00z
The sentence should be about Pearl Jam. If that's the problem i'll change it. By the way, Pearl Jam still remains one of the most popular bands of the grunge era along with others referred to also in the first paragraph, and I don't see what the sales of their latest albums have anything to do with their popularity in the early 90s. Pearl Jam is still an active band and the first paragraph gives out the wrong impression. I'll rewrite it.

I'm new here but shouldn't there be something written in the main description about Riot Act? It mentions binaural and then jumps ahead to when they split from the record company.

I'm new here too and I like the article, but it lacks a reference to something that makes them special - their continuing popularity as a live act. Their albums do not sell well (they don't care much, I think), but nevertheless they can sell out anywhere - Madison Square Garden for three or four nights running, if they wanted to. This is not normal. They are also renowned for their great live shows. Anyway, I don't really know how to write it in the correct style, but somebody should.

[edit] History section.

Hi there. This looks a reasonable article. May I point out however that the single subsection ("History") contains essentially the entire text of article, and that therefore the section title is redundant? Can we have a better title than "history"? →Encephalon | Ϟ | ζ 07:18:51, 2005-08-07 (UTC)

I edited the 2003-2005 section. Previously, it stated that PJ was voted the worst band in the world; while I disagree with that, it is certainly possible that someone somewhere in the world could produce such a poll, and if so, it's fair game to be included here. My reason for editing was that the language was VERY poorly written. If someone can cite the "worst band in the world" source and write a decent revision, that would be good. But the previous post was so poorly written that I couldn't help but revise it.

How about a "Formation" section, followed by chronological sections named after albums, which'll include other history also? — Jeandré, 2005-08-21t11:43z

[edit] Vinyl album on Billboard 200.

"Vitalogy was released first on vinyl, on November 22, 1994. It debuted at number 55 on the Billboard Top 200, the first vinyl record album to chart since the introduction of the compact disc format."

I believe that Vitalogy was released on vinyl about 3 days (maybe even a week?) before release on other formats (CD, cassette) [citation needed] so the vinyl contrib is probably substantial but I don't know if it was 100% vinyl.

I don't understand the quoted sentence, which is also in the Vitalogy article. The Billboard 200 article states that "Billboard began publishing album charts on 1945-03-24" and that "The chart was first known as Pop Albums from the mid-1950s until 1983 when it changed its name to the Billboard 200". The compact disc article states that it "reached the market in late 1982 in Asia and early the following year in other markets." Surely during the introduction of CDs, vinyl records were still the top albums, as people bought CD players? It couldn't have happened overnight. Was it the first vinyl record on the 200 since it changed its name? — Jeandré, 2005-08-21t11:43z

I would assume that casettes would have had the lead in sales during their popularity between when vinyl sales declined and cd sales increased? Rissole 08:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm still here.

I commented this out of the "Hidden tracks" section because I couldn't find a good source — some web mentions say it was only available on a promo, and not actually released in Japan. Please add a cite if returned. — Jeandré, 2005-09-11t17:46z

[edit] "Popularity"?

Is the "Popularity" section in the albums table really necessary? Its pretty non NPOV, and could potentially affect the way people perceive how good any album is. I don't think it should be there, or at least should be re-worded to sound more NPOV. Comments like "Eddie needs to quit smoking" are really unnecessary.Disembodied 16:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New album tentative title

I think it shouldn't be listed, since many people think Eddie was just kidding when he mentioned "Superunowned".

[edit] Pic

Hey, I see there are a lot of pics on this page. There's a free pic, not too well done, but at least free, available at the Commons. Tuf-Kat 03:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] end of first paragraph

"despite the band's abandonment of their early sound to favour an ever evolving one that defies categorization." <<< Defies categorization? Categorying music is clearly subjective, what one person considers grunge another person could consider punk, its not a set out defined objective system. This statement is just written by a fan of pearl jam, is subjective, and is said by most bands. Pearl jam's new music is still considered grunge by most people.

[edit] Faulty links

The link for Mookie Blaylock should be removed because the link refers the actual basketball player not the name of the band before Pearl Jam. Also, if the Riot Act link at the bottom doesn't take you to Riot Act (album), but Riot Act as a quote.

Thanks for pointing them out La Pizza11 - I've fixed 'em. Feel free to fix or add things yourself, and if you have any questions, like how to get to that Riot Act link (it's in a template), you can ask on my talk page. — Jeandré, 2005-11-12t08:38z

[edit] Change of Wording

The statement in talking about the rift between Pearl Jam and Kurt Cobain says it was "partially due to Pearl Jam being higher on the Billboard." That comment can be hardly substantiated, and im going to change it to say it was a possibility, but could somone look up whether this comment has any use whatsoever? -PlasticMan

Its untrue they both did similarily well-CAYA

[edit] Expansion

In an effort to make this article a possible features candidate i'm calling on fan and admirerers to help clean this up and cite sources and find specific references to make this article eligible to become a featured one. Thethinredline 12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this article through the recent changes list. The article is okay, and I'm sure I'll offend some rabid Pearl Jam fans and some of the regular editors of this page, but the whole thing reads like a overly melodramatic biography written by a bunch of fanboys. Lines like Eddie was all alone, except for music and Pearl Jam's early acts were already tumultuous, with the band walking onstage and hiting peak intensity within 30 seconds of the opening song and with Dave trashing away his drum kit. Ament was viking-like, thumping around the stage with his bass guitar and Gossard and McCready seemed like they wanted to break their guitar strings, shuch was the venom with which they attacked each song strike me as being very unencylcopedic. There is also an interesting tendency to enclose quotes with << >> rather than " ". I think this is due to a string of recent edits by User:Rui Bento. Obviously said user has a lot of knowledge to contribute, but this version reads like his orginal research and a personal essay of sorts. I am going to revert this page to a state prior to the current overly dramatic and non encyclopedic entry. If I'm totally out of place, let me know.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 07:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal Of Unnecessary Info.

The "List Of Songs Covered By Pearl Jam" section doesn't need to be on the page. There already is an article which contains a list. I suggest we get rid of the list on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by La Pizza11 (talk • contribs) .


[edit] sales numbers

Are the sales numbers for Yield, Binaural, and Riot Act up to date?

I Highly Doubt They Are-Caya

[edit] Featured Music Project evaluation

Pearl Jam has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.

The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Lead - Comprehensiveness - Pictures - Audio - References - Discography - Format/Style
The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.
  • Lead: Too short
  • Comprehensiveness: More on musical style, influences and legacy
  • Pictures: Needs fair use rationales, move covers from discography
  • Audio: Needs more, integrate into article
  • References: More, scholarly and print sources
  • Discography: Too complex, simplify, remove album covers
  • Format/Style: Remove trivia, copyedit

Yes. Also for Rearviewmirror and Lost Dogs, the sales numbers don't seem accurate. According to the RIAA the former was certfied platinum and the latter gold. Yet, the sales numbers here are 250k and 500k, respectively.


[edit] Formative Years

I felt the formative period of the band was not discussed in enough detail. I have added a "pre-history" 1980s section, with information from the following article: http://www.fivehorizons.com/archive/articles/gm082093.shtml. The recent fan club magazine interview with Steve Turner of Mudhoney got me thinking about how all the members came together, and I felt this topic warranted an expanded description in this article.

[edit] Discography

I've changed the discography to fit in a gallery-type frame. I think it's better looking and all the other band articles use it too, I hope you don't mind.. :) Mybloodyvalentine 10:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I think the sales numbers were noteworthy, anyone think it should go back? -- Jeandré, 2006-03-21t18:12z
Yes, they should. The noticeable decline in record sales is an important part of the article itself, and can be displayed indirectly through the sales numbers. La Pizza11 22:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to have the sales numbers of each album, that is only if they are up to date.

[edit] Name

Is their name a slang term for semen and if so should this be somewhere in the article?

1st question - Yes, that is the reference though obviously the band can't just admit it, hence the other dubiously plausable explanations for the name. As for being in the article... I doubt it needs to be mentioned, but I'm surprised it isn't. 171.159.64.10 00:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I think someone should put it in, but I can't think of any professional looking way to do it that wouldn't fit into what is already there. Any suggestions? Gopherbassist 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Shoaf.

The recent addition of (and removal) of David Scaife reminded me off an article I read a little while ago. The link is here. It mentions Jimmy Shoaf (then drummer Dave Abbruzzese's drum tech) playing drums on Satan's Bed on Vitalogy. In the linear notes, it does say Jimmy, Drums on Satan's Bed's linear notes. I'll add him to former members, seeing as his drumming made an album. La Pizza11 00:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Session musician, not member. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-09t06:31z

[edit] Punctuation

I corrected a couple of punctuation errors.

Keep on rockin' in the free world

[edit] TEN SALES!

could someone please quit changing TEN's sales number to 9,400,000 the correct number IS 12,100,000

I'm not quite sure, but I beleive 9,400,000 is the U.S. sales and 12,100,000 is worldwide sales. Only the American sales are noted in the article. La Pizza11 20:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who believes 9,400,000 is the U.S. sales of Ten may find the correct number in "The Rolling Stone" magazine (Top 500 list). 12,000,000*

Proof sales are 12,100,000 not 9,400,000

-Ten has outsold Nevermind by a little more than a million Nermind's sales are 10,600,000

-Ten was certified diamond(10,000,000)in 1999

-only 2 sources verify that sales are 9,400,000

-17 sources confirm it to be 11 to 12 million

please do not just trust 1 source

Why don't you just check the OFFICIAL SOURCE? go search www.riaa.com Gold & Platinum Database and You'll see: Ten has been certified 12x Multiplatinum since 09/11/03... If they've sold, so far, 12.1 or 12.2 million copies is more difficult to know, but AT LEAST 12 million copies is a number confirmed by the Recording Industry Association of America!!!!!

I guess your right 12,000,000 probably would be the most accurate-CAYA

Yeah. All changes to 9,400,000 will be reverted from now on. La Pizza11 00:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that there are 2.6 million units unsold, available right at this moment at the US Stores. I would be convinced if 500,000 or so was the difference between these two polemic numbers. By the way, I didn't know RIAA certified the SHIPPED units, although it makes sense. Anyway, the correct number should be somewhere between 9.4 and 12 millions units.

BGC please quit your waisting our time YOUR WRONG -CAYA

Here is the site for the certification of Ten...http://www.riaa.com/gp/database/default.asp also it says that Lost Dogs is certified Gold.

could someone help BGC keeps changing Ten's sales to 9.4 million although proved wrong.

http://www.rockonthenet.com/artists-p/pearljam_main.htm, ten was certified 12x platinum. in september 2003

CAYA has provided more sources than BGC has (3 to 1). I belief this proves that CAYA is correct about Ten's sale numbers, and any changes from 12,100,000 to 9,400,000 will be reverted. La Pizza11 21:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried explaining to all involved repeatedly that the RIAA has Ten certified for 12 million units SHIPPED, but it has sold 9.4 million according to Soundscan, which actually counts the units sold over the counter. An extra 2.6 million units in the stores may seem high, but it's not for an album that continues to sell well as a back catalog item.

Billboard always quotes the Soundscan figures and not the certs in their articles, and those figures are correct. To say an album has "been certified 12 X platinum" sounds better than to say "it has sold 9.4 million copies". Sorry, but facts are facts.

Any article that shows Ten as having "sold" 12 million units is wrong. I'm not disputing the figure. It has shipped 12 million, but not sold it.

Agreed any changes from 12 million to 9.4 will be reverted from now on.-CAYA

All you have to do is read the Billboard article [3] to see it for yourself.

The figure of 9.4 M SOLD is correct. Any further attempts to change it to 12 will be seen as vandalism and I will have to get an admin involved, so that they can validate my claim.

BGC 17:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if you are right, 12M is a more accurate number because the band and the label already benefited (as in getting paid or making money) by having the certain amount of albums shipped.

Agreed all changes to 9.4 million will from now on be reverted-CAYA

maybe if we put the RIAA certification instead of album sales because none of the sales numbers a exact but RIAA certifications cannot be proved wrong.either way both of you have broke the 3 revert rule and need to quit reverting(the language needs to quit also). -Pjluver723 6/6/06

I agree with putting the RIAA certification numbers instead of Album sales but could anyone tell me how come there are still 2.6 million units available in the stores? Don’t be naïve guys. Don’t believe in everything media said!

Iam Ok with RIAA certification numbers.-CAYA

This arguement is continuing on between SOADLuver and I over on the Pearl Jam discography article, just as a head's up. I've tried to reason with this kid on an explanation of why SoundScan's figures are more acceptable than the RIAA's and he just gets all bent out of shape about it. Just a head's up. -MattWatt 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

that's to bad because Soundscan support's my claim and says Ten sold 9.4 million.It's the other way around.You didn't even know why Soundscan figures were more accurate before I told you.I've already told this kid to give up I'm hoping he listens this time or I'll have to bring in an admin.This conversation is over.If anyone else disagree's and thinks that Soundscans figures are not correct then you need to grow up. SOADLuver 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Napster

There seems to be no mention of the napster controversy that sparked the end to one of the first and most successful peer-2-peer networks. Pearl Jam led the crusade to kill napster after they were one of the highest downloaded bands on the network. This also led to a backlash and further labelling of the band as corporate sell-outs using grunge to make money. I think this is important, because it was one of the key moments for the band outside of its music, and also marked the begining of the end for a major free download network. (Post traced to 03:30, 26 April 2006 Persianlor; by Cyhatch. I'm a pinn you, muff!..)

  • Are you sure you don't mean Metallica? The Internet is not a reliable source of information, I know, but it has no in-the-open mention of Pearl Jam "leading the crusade to kill Napster". In fact, the few pages I found that were relevant stated otherwise. Or is this a stupid April 1st joke? --Cyhatch 15:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stone Temple Pilots

"Their name is intimately tied to the grunge movement of the early 1990s, along with Alice in Chains, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots and Soundgarden, with these names being usually considered the Big Five of grunge music"

Stone Temple Pilots isn´t grunge, in my opinion, since you have to be a Seattle band to be considered grunge. I consider them to post-grunge, and think you should delete them among the real grunge bands.

agreed. as much as i like stp, i have never heard them referred to as a part of the "big five"... i have only heard of a "big four of grunge" that includes nirvana, pearl jam, soundgarden, alice in chains
More importantly, the source [4] cited specifically mentions "The Big Four" being PJ, AIC, Nirvana, and Soundgarden. Unless a source can be found for "the big five" reference, it needs to be reverted. And anyway, the only google hit I found for "big five of grunge" names The Screaming Trees as #5, not STP. Blukens 02:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Fish

Hey all, there's a deletion debate ongoing about Three fish, and I'm looking to expand the article further. I'm not a huge PJ fan, but I figure some of you might have resources I'm not aware of to expand the article further. Any help would be appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CC

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/attention-all-pearl-jam-fans.html

Speaks of "Life Wasted" being released on Google Video for free and it being released under a CC license.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

[edit] External links

Wow... this article is a prime example of over-linking to fan sites if I've ever seen one. I believe that the article would be improved by cutting out most of the external links entirely, using anything informative as references, such as I've done with the link to five horizons' Ticketmaster story.

A huge block of external links to fan sites that provide the same information doesn't help provide the article with anything extra. The external links that aren't used as references should be explicitly described as to what they provide.

Before I begin the purge, I wanted to see what the editors who have been watching this article for some time have to say about this. Thanks.

Quoting from [[WP:EL];

Occasionally acceptable links: Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.

Links to normally avoid: In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.

-- Xinit 17:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

I'm not sure I follow the reasons for the "See Also" links... There are two mentions there of Victoria Williams, even though she is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. The links to the lists of alternative rock artists and popular music performers and best selling artists seem of limited use, performing a function that would better be left to Categories.

The list of covered songs could be listed in the Discography or song list for the band or could be used as a reference in the article body.

I propose the deletion ot the See Also section.

--Xinit 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] picture of the band

Hello I just browsed by this article and I am wondering what happened to the infobox picture at the top of the article? can someone in charge of the article please put one in, and thanks. Bill102 17:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Done-SOADLuver

[edit] rolling stone article

I'd like to note my opposition to the inclusion of the june 06 rolling stone cover in the section 2006 & beyond. Vedder (and the band) have made it known that they were very aggravated with this article. If you listen to the Cincinnati bootleg from their recent tour, Vedder has a lengthy diatribe about how Rolling Stone was supposed to include the entire band on the cover and how disappointed they were with the outcome.

3:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding this article's first paragraph:

Firstly the opening statment makes little or no sense:

"Pearl Jam (formed in 1990 in Seattle, Washington) is a rock band considered one of the worst and ugliest singers of their decade."

This line is missing some conjunctions or such.

Also I don't believe that this paragraph portrays a neutral view, it is obviously very anti-Pearl Jam and Grunge in general.

[edit] Bull****

Please note the asterisks in the article are only there because I think AntiVandal Bot was picking it up and reverting as vandalism. It may have been because the word was misspelled with three "l"s in the middle. It should be sorted and reinstated at some point. Tyrenius 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro-Paragraph Wording

"Although they are grouped into the grunge genre, their sound mirrors classic rock of the 1970s, strongly showing their biggest influences, which include Neil Young, The Who, and Ramones." Sorry, but I have to take issue with calling The Ramones classic 70s rock. I've never heard anyone refer to The Ramones as "classic rock", they did write "classics" but they would be deemed "classic punk rock," not "classic rock" although as punk rock is a subgenre of rock and you have written it in lower case... but yeah. well ok. maybe the ramones are classic rock, that just sounds bad but oh well.. well if you have another way of saying it i would think it might be more helpful. Moreover, The Ramones dont fit to well with The Who and Neil Young, what specifically was the influence of The Ramones on Pearl Jam?? Does PJ specifically site them? Did they cover their songs? I could be wrong, but i dont hear too much "Blitzkreig Bop" in "Jeremy"... Maybe the sentence should be referenced. Xsxex 18:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

They've mentioned punk rock in general as an influence many times, and Eddie Vedder inducted the Ramones into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. With an insane 20-minute speech. WesleyDodds 22:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Eddie was close personal friends with both Joey and Johnny Ramone...he was present at Johnny's deathbed J0nas3 23:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
They regularly cover I Believe In Miracles as well as having played on occassion The KKK Took My Baby Away, Blitzkrieg Bop, Daytime Dillema, I Just Want To Have Something To Do, and more. livid478

[edit] Most Influencial

This statement has a source which doesn't mention their influence. Can someone get a better source?

--FrasierC 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monkeywrench Radio

Anyone feel like writing up a little something about Monkeywrench Radio on here? heqs 12:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] genre.

"Founded in 1990, Pearl Jam is one of the "Big Four" bands of the grunge movement,[2] alongside Nirvana, Alice in Chains and Soundgarden, and is one of the few bands to lead the breakthrough of alternative rock in the early 1990s and remain active today."

Please, let's not use hard rock as a umbrella term in this article. pearl jam isn't areosmith or Motley Crue. Pearl Jam might have a few hard rock type songs, but Nirvana had some metal sounding songs as well. Its not due to a hard rock influence, its due to its punk rock influence. If this continues, i will be forced to have this article fully protected from all edits until we can get this stupid arguement settled. dposse 15:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean fully protected from anyone who disagrees with you? You've got this harsh attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you. Pearl Jam is not ONLY grunge. Grunge is all but dead. Yes that statement is accurate, they were pioneers of the grunge movement, but the grunge movement is over. All of the other bands are gone, Pearl Jam remains, and they've evolved quite a lot since then. Grunge is no longer an applicable title for their most recent music. I would not label Aerosmith a strictly Hard Rock band anymore, nor Motley Crue (Metal). Zepplin was Hard Rock in their day. In fact take a look at the Zepplin article, it lists many genres for them as well. Pearl Jam does have a Hard Rock influence to many of their songs, as well as Punk Rock. Please don't come in here and start a war on something that most of the other contributers feel is acceptable. MattWatt 18:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Also I suggest you read the Hard Rock wiki article to understand what is/isn't Hard Rock. MattWatt 18:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
That is your opinion that grunge is dead. It doesn't matter if you think that grunge is dead, the fact is that pearl jam is still grunge. Can you site one source that says that its "hard rock"? or are you pulling this all out of your opinion that grunge has "died"? And no, fully protecting this article would be a measure to try to resolve this ussue without a revert war. It would give all parties a chance to talk things out. Also, would you mind being civil please? thanks. dposse 14:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I do remember someone being quite forceful with their reverts, where as I gave an explanation in my summary, and did not shout with all caps. You're right, I'm the one that is being hostile here. *rollseyes* I did not say that "grunge was dead" I said "all but dead". In fact, here ya go again, straight from wikipedia:

"The year of 1996 proved to be the last year in which grunge musicians were considerably active. During this year, many "lasts" had occurred. Pearl Jam released their last album that topped the charts, No Code. Alice in Chains gave their final performances with their ailing estranged lead singer, Layne Staley. Soundgarden and The Screaming Trees released their final studio albums, Down on the Upside and Dust, respectively. And Nirvana released the live album From the Muddy Banks of the Wishkah"

"Mark Arm, the vocalist for the Seattle band Green River (and later Mudhoney), is widely credited for being the first to use the term "grunge" to describe the style. However, Arm used the term pejoratively; he called the band's style "pure grunge, pure shit". This was not seen as being negative by the media, and the term was subsequently applied to all music that sounded similar to Green River's style.[4] It is likely that the term was seen as appropriate because of the "dirty" guitar sound that grunge is known for (the word grunge itself means "dirt") and the unkempt appearance of most bands of the genre which was in direct contradiction to the relatively polished look of glam metal bands of the late 1980s." - Grunge Music

Grunge is not a term readily applied to many new bands, or any that I know about. Grunge was a term given to a fast rising movement which had no name and accounts for a wide variety of different genre influences. Grunge was the clothing that the people wore, it was their attitude, it was a "movement", not just a sound. It's the same way in which Hip-Hop is commonly misused when refering to "Rap". Hip-Hop wasn't just a sound, it was a cultural movement. Anyhow, I digress. Nirvana, Soundgarden, Alice and Chains, and Pearl Jam, the big 4, all named Grunge, but if you really listen to the music, they all have seperate major influences. Nirvana was more Punk Rock, Soundgarden and AIC were more metal (although very much different metal influences), and Pearl Jam seemed to fall somewhere between Hard Rock, Punk Rock, and Stadium Rock. They were all called "Grunge", but they all had very distinct sounds.(Record Label execs would disagree) Grunge is not a term very much used anymore because most bands now are recognized by their variety of genre influences. I cannot even think of any new band now making "Grunge" music that sounded like the late 80s, early 90s Seattle sound. Think of all of the bands that Pearl Jam has been compared to by critics and fans. Aerosmith, Zepplin, The Who, etc. and those are all notable "Hard Rock" bands who pioneered the genre. So how can a band who has admitted to so many "Hard Rock" influences, and who obviously has a "Hard Rock" sound, not be considered "Hard Rock"?
"Hard rock is a variation of rock and roll and is strongly influenced by blues music.." (To me it's pretty obvious the blues influence in Pearl Jam's music), "It is typified by a heavy use of distorted electric guitar, bass guitar and drums.", "The predominant instruments in hard rock are the electric guitar, bass, and drums. Virtuoso guitarists are very prevalent in hard rock" (ahem, Mike McCreedy?), "Bassists are also very important in the structure of hard rock music, as the bass line outlines the harmony of the music being performed whilst simultaneously indicating the rhythmic pulse." (sounds like Jeff Ament to me), "Drums are also a basis of hard rock because they sustain the rhythm of the music, and create an energetic drive which keeps the music flowing." (hmmm would most people call Pearl Jam's drumming "driving"? I do recall Dave Abruzzee being quite the hard hitter, and being known for it). "Singers are also a very important part of any hard rock band. They define the band as a whole and give it its overall image and sound." (I don't think I need to say much here) God I feel like I'm reading the "Hard Rock" article for you... are you picking up any of this? I didn't even go into the examples they have, which Pearl Jam members have been likened to on occassion. In fact Pearl Jam is named in the 3rd Era of Hard Rock, right there on the same page. I guess you had better get to editing all of wikipedia.
Ok so maybe you need some outside references. Well here ya go:
  • "However you define grunge music, Pearl Jam didn't play it. They were, from jump street, a classic rock band, building their bawl with iron-guitar bones and an arena-vocal lust that came right from Zeppelin, early-Seventies Who and mid-Eighties U2 (with distortion instead of the Edge's glass-guitar harmonics)." - David Fricke, Rolling Stone [5]
  • "Nearly 15 years after Ten, Pearl Jam finally returned to the strengths of their debut with 2006's Pearl Jam, a sharply focused set of impassioned hard rock." - All Music Guide [6]
  • In most music stores, online stores, Pearl Jam's albums are listed under "Hard Rock". Why is that?
Do you read wikipedia? Do you fully understand the things you claim to? It really doesn't seem like it. I mean I seriously am aww at how ridiculous it is that I'm even having to justify this. Did you just discover Grunge music recently? I was in high school when Grunge was exploding, I was there. I'm sure now you'll certainly feel like I'm beating up on you, which I'm not trying to. I wasn't mean in reverting your changes, and I justified them. You immediately came here with attitude, which has raised mine, because I see it to be the only way to get through to you. Perhaps you have learned something from this history lesson. -MattWatt 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I completely forgot to mention that the only Grammy that they've won was for Best Hard Rock Performance in '96 for Spin The Black Circle. -MattWatt 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is that Allmusic.com lists them under hard rock in addition to alternative rock and grunge, unlike, say Nirvana, who's only listed under the last two. The longer answer is that out of all the grunge bands, Pearl Jam have largely been the band closest to traditional rock, drawing explicit influence from The Who, Jimi Hendrix, and Led Zeppelin. Punk has been a nominal influence on the band, despite how much they talk about the Ramones and Fugazi and play Dead Boys covers in concert. Because of such traits they were often accused of being bandwagon jumpers early on. Yes, hard rock is largley a descriptive umbrella term, but in certain contexts its use as a genre term is beneficial when others don't completely apply (such as with Aerosmith, AC/DC, etc.) WesleyDodds 07:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Mike McCready from an Entertainment Weekly feature:

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Is grunge still a bad word?

[Laughs] Yeah. But it's used so much. So I don't have the reaction I used to have to it. I used to be like, "NO. WE ARE A ROCK & ROLL BAND. WE PLAY ROCK. WE PLAY HEAVY ROCK. WE'RE A HARD-ROCK BAND." And I don't feel like I have to counter it with that anymore. It still seems weird to me when I hear the word, but I don't know. S---. It's a label. We all have labels.

Link: http://www.ew.com/ew/pearljam -5- 04:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Links

I suggest adding a link to http://www.allornone.org/. I'll be completely honest and say it's my own site :-) but fact is that it has the most complete concert information in addition to statistics and a lot more PJ goodies.

Also I suggest adding http://www.pjcollectors.com/ of which I have no affiliation. It's the most comprehensive site regarding the discography of Pearl Jam.

Thanks for considering the links.

On a sidenote the UGO link is not especially interesting.

[edit] Alternative Rock?

pearl jam "hard rock" gets 831,000 hits on google. " "Grunge" gets 971,000. Meanwhile "alternative rock" has only 363,000. By comparison if you search for genre's that the band has done some songs in the style of like punk rock, you get 465,000, more than 100,000 hits than alternative rock, one of the genres that is listed. I don't see why this category is listed. It seems only because pearl jam came from the same place as Nirvana, and were lumped into the same category as them.

They're listed by All Music Guide (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:6tkpu3u5an4k) under alternative rock, hard rock, and grunge. Pearl Jam was also lumped under the grunge cateogry even though a lot of people do not think that label fits. According to Wikipedia's grunge page it was a subgenre of alternative rock. Wikipedia's alternative rock page also makes mention of Pearl Jam. I think it should just be left with the three categories that AMG lists.BP322 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Going simply by Google results isn't getting the whole picture. Books and the msic press not only label Pearl Jam as alternative rock, but grunge as a subgenre of alternative rock. You also have to analyze the sources; just because grunge shows up in Google more than alt-rock doesn't mean it's a more accurate genre label. With grunge being a subgenre of alt-rock, it's just more specific and thus doesn't warrant an additional mention of alternative rock. By the way, if you type in "Pearl Jam alternative" (because not everyone says "alternative rock") you get 1,260,000 hits. WesleyDodds 02:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But if grunge is a subgenre of alternative rock then why list alternative rock? Wikipedia lists post-punk as a sub genre of punk, but bands like Joy Division and The Smiths are certainly not listed as punk.

Based on this I believe we should just list Hard Rock and Grunge. Do you agree?

Nope, because they were one of the least representative grunge acts. And particularly starting around Vitalogy they started doing a lot of stuff outside of the confines of grunge, but still within the realm of alternative rock. Plus, given their stature in the genre as a whole, it makes sense to include it. Same reason it's on the Nirvana page. As for you counterpoints, Joy Division's style is pretty much adequately summed up with the post-punk label, and the Smiths aren't a punk band. *cues "Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now" WesleyDodds 11:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarissa Explains It All

They were one of the main topics of an episode of Clarissa Explains It All. 67.188.172.165 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homo eroticness? What the heck is that?

In the section about the bands history from 1991-1995, it mentions the bands "homo erotic actions" while inside hotel rooms on tour. I can't find it on the edit page, so somehow its uneditable for me... This seems like a sick and stupid form of vandalism. Can someone confirm its falsehood and remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.153.231.18 (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Infobox: Boom Gaspar

Any support for adding Boom as an "Associate member" of Pearl Jam in the infobox? -- Delsource (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AllOrNone.org Link

Why was the link to my site deleted on Jan 21st?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pearl_Jam&oldid=102106359

I've read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL but obviously it can be any number of reasons? Is it possible to get a clarification as it is the most correct and comprehensive setlist information on Pearl Jam that currently exist. Thanks :-)

Armyreserve 12:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)