Always gets an instant WTF reaction when I tell people they peaked early and got boring and lame after Vitalogy. Then I tell them to name five songs after that and I prove my point every time
Hail, Hail and Red Mosquito.
But that’s only 2.
Just Breathe, Crazy Mary, World Wide Suicide, Life Wasted, I am Mine, Bushleaguer, Dance of the Clairvoyants
Really their best work is all the live concerts they’ve released off the sound boards. No two concerts are the same.
I met some rock junkies a couple years ago here in Lexington when I saw the wife was wearing an Easy Street Records shirt.
They were huge PJ fans to the point of seeing them 2-3 concerts in a row. They said PJ doesn’t do the same set every night.
Always gets an instant WTF reaction when I tell people they peaked early and got boring and lame after Vitalogy. Then I tell them to name five songs after that and I prove my point every time
I agree. Most bands peak very early, and subsequently run out of steam creatively. Grunge was similar to the protest and "Summer of Love" bands of the 60's, IMO.
Some write about common themes, love songs, torch songs, drinking songs, fantasy, horror...these two "groups" of bands were writing about current events, public (the war, society, government, revolution) and private (loss, relationships, addiction, society), specific to the time they wrote them. Once they are heard, they are passe`(pardon my French and punctuation) to the artist. A hell of a lot of great music was made in the 60's by bands that were one-hit-wonders, or on a slog to irrelevancy, if they didn't move on creatively.
Once you get paid, your perspective changes...I think it would be very difficult to write songs of angst, outrage, protest, while sitting in a waterfront estate vs. a dingy basement with bandmates for roommates, and a rattletrap van in the front yard...
The Stones made relevant music for about 20 years (morphing from blues to pop, psychedelic, roots, c&w, reggae, disco, punk, and back), The Who for 14, The Beach Boys for about 5 (no Beatles because they broke up)...CSN (and Y, when he was in the mood) came as close to a great 2nd act as there is, IMO. I'm sure there are others, but the point is that the above mentioned groups are still packing houses, and no one who pays $$ to see them wants to hear "the new album"...I think PJ is right where they should be, and they get it...
I'd say 20 (well 19 technically) is about right for the Stones. 1964 was their first LP and they made good and interesting music through 1983's Undercover (although Tattoo You is really the last essential Stones record).
There's really no other "group" that can match this although Neil Young and Paul Simon both were artistically relevant past the 20 years on mark- e.g., Ragged Glory or Graceland. @RaceBannon will, of course, say Neil Young and Crazy Horse was a "real" band.
Always gets an instant WTF reaction when I tell people they peaked early and got boring and lame after Vitalogy. Then I tell them to name five songs after that and I prove my point every time
I agree. Most bands peak very early, and subsequently run out of steam creatively. Grunge was similar to the protest and "Summer of Love" bands of the 60's, IMO.
Some write about common themes, love songs, torch songs, drinking songs, fantasy, horror...these two "groups" of bands were writing about current events, public (the war, society, government, revolution) and private (loss, relationships, addiction, society), specific to the time they wrote them. Once they are heard, they are passe`(pardon my French and punctuation) to the artist. A hell of a lot of great music was made in the 60's by bands that were one-hit-wonders, or on a slog to irrelevancy, if they didn't move on creatively.
Once you get paid, your perspective changes...I think it would be very difficult to write songs of angst, outrage, protest, while sitting in a waterfront estate vs. a dingy basement with bandmates for roommates, and a rattletrap van in the front yard...
The Stones made relevant music for about 20 years (morphing from blues to pop, psychedelic, roots, c&w, reggae, disco, punk, and back), The Who for 14, The Beach Boys for about 5 (no Beatles because they broke up)...CSN (and Y, when he was in the mood) came as close to a great 2nd act as there is, IMO. I'm sure there are others, but the point is that the above mentioned groups are still packing houses, and no one who pays $$ to see them wants to hear "the new album"...I think PJ is right where they should be, and they get it...
I'd say 20 (well 19 technically) is about right for the Stones. 1964 was their first LP and they made good and interesting music through 1983's Undercover (although Tattoo You is really the last essential Stones record).
There's really no other "group" that can match this although Neil Young and Paul Simon both were artistically relevant past the 20 years on mark- e.g., Ragged Glory or Graceland. @RaceBannon will, of course, say Neil Young and Crazy Horse was a "real" band.
Always gets an instant WTF reaction when I tell people they peaked early and got boring and lame after Vitalogy. Then I tell them to name five songs after that and I prove my point every time
I agree. Most bands peak very early, and subsequently run out of steam creatively. Grunge was similar to the protest and "Summer of Love" bands of the 60's, IMO.
Some write about common themes, love songs, torch songs, drinking songs, fantasy, horror...these two "groups" of bands were writing about current events, public (the war, society, government, revolution) and private (loss, relationships, addiction, society), specific to the time they wrote them. Once they are heard, they are passe`(pardon my French and punctuation) to the artist. A hell of a lot of great music was made in the 60's by bands that were one-hit-wonders, or on a slog to irrelevancy, if they didn't move on creatively.
Once you get paid, your perspective changes...I think it would be very difficult to write songs of angst, outrage, protest, while sitting in a waterfront estate vs. a dingy basement with bandmates for roommates, and a rattletrap van in the front yard...
The Stones made relevant music for about 20 years (morphing from blues to pop, psychedelic, roots, c&w, reggae, disco, punk, and back), The Who for 14, The Beach Boys for about 5 (no Beatles because they broke up)...CSN (and Y, when he was in the mood) came as close to a great 2nd act as there is, IMO. I'm sure there are others, but the point is that the above mentioned groups are still packing houses, and no one who pays $$ to see them wants to hear "the new album"...I think PJ is right where they should be, and they get it...
I'd say 20 (well 19 technically) is about right for the Stones. 1964 was their first LP and they made good and interesting music through 1983's Undercover (although Tattoo You is really the last essential Stones record).
There's really no other "group" that can match this although Neil Young and Paul Simon both were artistically relevant past the 20 years on mark- e.g., Ragged Glory or Graceland. @RaceBannon will, of course, say Neil Young and Crazy Horse was a "real" band.
I'm hearing Pearl Jam is a band for fat, middle aged white guys with beards.
I check all of those marks (but the young cuties at work still don’t think I’m fat or are lying to me), but I wasn’t a big fan of them post Ten. Vs. was meh, and they went downhill from there. Mad Season Mike McCready > anything Pearl Jam Mike McCready.
Always gets an instant WTF reaction when I tell people they peaked early and got boring and lame after Vitalogy. Then I tell them to name five songs after that and I prove my point every time
This x1000. Vs. was a big step back from Ten while Vitalogy was the worst money I spent on an album as a kid. Huge disappointment.
When I was in middle school and high school, Pearl Jam were at their peak. Not my thing (I was more into Wu-Tank, Outkast, and Busta Rhymes at the tim), but there was no avoiding listening to them a lot. At some point, because you couldn't just buy a set on Amazon for $50, a laser tag arena opened up in a strip mall in town. They charged an exorbitant amount (for a poor kid like me) to shoot lasers at people in the dark for 15 minutes while Pearl Jam's popular album played on a loop. Since I was a poor and only went there for birthday parties, I only got to experience long stints in the arena, so I could hear the album loop over and over again. It was pretty excruciating.
Always gets an instant WTF reaction when I tell people they peaked early and got boring and lame after Vitalogy. Then I tell them to name five songs after that and I prove my point every time
This x1000. Vs. was a big step back from Ten while Vitalogy was the worst money I spent on an album as a kid. Huge disappointment.
I think Vitalogy is uneven, but the high points I think are among their very best.
Comments
They were huge PJ fans to the point of seeing them 2-3 concerts in a row. They said PJ doesn’t do the same set every night.
There's really no other "group" that can match this although Neil Young and Paul Simon both were artistically relevant past the 20 years on mark- e.g., Ragged Glory or Graceland. @RaceBannon will, of course, say Neil Young and Crazy Horse was a "real" band.
I actually like PJ in a way. I just don't like their songs or his vocals much. Maybe I should check out more live stuff.
I check all of those marks (but the young cuties at work still don’t think I’m fat or are lying to me), but I wasn’t a big fan of them post Ten. Vs. was meh, and they went downhill from there. Mad Season Mike McCready > anything Pearl Jam Mike McCready.
This x1000. Vs. was a big step back from Ten while Vitalogy was the worst money I spent on an album as a kid. Huge disappointment.