Talk:Pearl Jam

Seattle or San Diego

Where r they from?

Pearl Jam is from Seattle. Although Ed came from the San Diego music scene.-5- (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Temple of the Dog

I'm surprised that there is no mention of Temple of the Dog in the formation section since the formation of Pearl Jam was closely linked to the Temple project. Has this been included before but removed for some reason? Does anyone else agree that a brief mention should at least be included? Kristmace (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Most" Popular Band thing

I love Pearl Jam, they have great songs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wings of UK (talk • contribs) 12:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering bands like Metallica, R.E.M., Nirvana, and RHCP sold as much or even more (Metallica and R.E.M. both sold much more records the Pearl Jam did), it should be removed or at least be changed to "one of the most popular bands". --Nirvana77 (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length before. The article says "is considered to be..." and references that claim to a reputable music publication. My opinion is that this is fine. Comments? Kristmace (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In the previous discussions, the majority seemed to favor not including the phrase "most popular". Considering you just cant decide that and several bands were much more successful then Pearl Jam was. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be objective? --Nirvana77 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - I don't think the majority wanted the phrase removed, just the more vocal. I've never seen evidence that any rock band were more successful in 90's in the US. If you have some references, then site them. Kristmace (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Majority or minority doesn't override policy and guidelines though. As I said on this subject before, A single journalist who says so does not make it true, and "Most popular" is still way to subjective and a bit weaselish. As long as it is put in the context of who is saying it, i.e. "Leading music journalists call Peal Jam the most successful band of the 90's" rather than stating their editorial opinion as plain fact, I think it is fine. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Tarc, which is why I think it's fine in this case because it says

is considered to be "the most popular American rock band of the 90's"

with the main part of the sentence in quotation marks which are referenced. Kristmace (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To the fanboy statement that he havent seen any evidence any band were more popular in the United States in the 90's, Metallica sold more, and if your talking about media attention Nirvana recived much more coverage during the first half of the 90's. So how are you supposed to decide how popular a band is. On sales? On the media? Pearl Jam does not live up to the requirments of being "the most popular band" of the 90's. --Nirvana77 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, I said that I'd never seen evidence that any rock band had been more successful (which means sold more records) in the US in the 90's - that is the debated issue. Still no evidence, still no references. You can't just come on here and make unverified claims like this. And media attention is not an issue, because Nirvana were definitely more in the media spotlight - but this is a debate about success/popularity. Read the debated line in the article again. It says that Pearl Jam is considered to be "The most popular American rock band of the 90's" - with the quotation referenced. I still think this is ok. Kristmace (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And if I find and article that says Pearl Jam is "One of the worst things ever to happen to rock music" can I quote that in the opening paragraphs of the entry? Themightykhan84 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As that would be a WP:FRINGE point of view, the answer would be "no". Tarc (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you guys insist on including the "most popular" claim - which I think is absurd and only serves the "Pearl Jam is the best band" fringe - the article should state exactly who made the claim.

I have no problem with "considered one of the most influential bands of the decade" - a qualified ("condidered", "most") and referenced statement - apearing in the article, but Erlewine's claims, "biggest band in the world" ("Lost Dogs - Rarities and B Sides, Review") and "most popular American rock & roll band of the '90s" ("Pearl Jam, Biography"), are only unverifiable opiinions. (See my post under "Another comment on the 'most popular' thing".) Opinions don't generally belong here, but when they do appear they should be referenced within the text.

It should read something like, "considered one of the most influential bands of the decade, and 'the most popular American rock & roll band of the '90s' by allmusic.com's Stephen Thomas Erlewine."

Rico402 (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree, but I don't think that's very neat and tidy. The point of references is that you don't need to include the citations in the text, but that the information is very accessible by clicking the superscript which highlights the link to the reference. Kristmace (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of a citation - within the text, in footnotes, endnotes, bibliography, etc. - is to provide the reader with the source of the information contained within the text of a written work. But conveying that information in a general sense, whether by paraphrasing another's work or incorporating it into a more comprehensive thesis, is considerably different than providing a direct quote. In such cases - in journalism, academic texts, scholarly and professional papers - it is common practice to include the name of the author of the quote within the text. In this instance, as in many others, it isn't necessary to provide the entire citation, as that information appears at the end of the article.

As I said above, "Opinions don't generally belong here...", articles should objective in nature. But when they do appear, the text should reflect whose opinion it is: The "majority of music journalists" for example. In this instance, as far as I can tell, we're dealing with what many consider the dubious findings or opinions of a single journalist. That fact alone should be reflected within the text. (If we're going to retain this ill-defined phrase "the most popular band", which I STRONGLY ARGUE SHOULD BE REMOVED.)

Regarding quoted material in general, I would invite editors to consult any bound reputable encyclopedia. You'll find that direct quotes are extremely rare, and where they are used they are nearly always the words of the subject of the article. (Under "Alexander Hamilton" for example, you may find his description of Aaron Burr as "a man of irregular and insatiable ambition.") If you find an entry containing a direct quote from another, with that person not referenced within the text, I'd be interested to here of it.

Rico402 (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be removed, it's so ridiculous that it is still in the article. --Nirvana77 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You've given no evidence other than your opinion that it should be removed. Whilst I respect your opinion, you would have more joy if you show us references that other bands sold more records in America during the 90's Kristmace (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What evidence have you given to support the fact that Pearl Jam sold most records during the 90's?--Nirvana77 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Kristmace (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, couple quick points:

1) REM and Metallica are 1980's bands. The battle is really between RHCP, Pearl Jam and Nirvana. 2) RIAA, which is the standard authority for album sales in the US, shows the following for their career album sales:

  a) RHCP - 21.5 Million
  b) Nirvina - 25 Million
  c) Pearl Jam - 30 Million

Thus, the statement is not only based upon the original source, but also back by the RIAA. Therefore, you have two sources now that lead to the same conclusion. Furthermore, the statement is not they are "the" most popular but "one of the" most popular. The wording is fine and should remain, unless someone can provide a source that says otherwise. RIAA is http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=tblTopArt&action= NMBJ69 (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

3) If you are doing sales for only albums released in the 1990's, then the results per RIAA are:

• a) Pearl Jam - 26 Mil (Ten =12 Mil, Vs.=7 Mil, Vitalogy = 5 Mil, No Code = 1 Mil, Yield = 1 Mil)
• b) Nirvana - 22 Mil (Nevermind= 10 Mil, In Utero = 5 Mil, Unplugged = 5 Mil, Incesticide= 1 Mil, From The Muddy Banks = 1 Mil)
• c) Metallica - 28 Mil (Metallica = 15 Mil, Load = 5 Mil, Reload = 3 Mil Garage Inc = 5 Mil )

Thus, the statement that Pearl Jam was one of the most popular groups is still true. However, we may need to word it that they were the most popular alternative band, since Metallica was not alternative, this would make the entire statement clear and true. Thoughts? NMBJ69 (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts is that we should still remove the quote. Theres no question that Pearl Jam was one of the most popular bands but it is very debatable and unsure if they were "the" most popular band. The quote says "the most popular American rock & roll band of the '90s" not "the most popular American alternative band of the '90s". I find that the quote comes i conflict with WP:NPOV and WP:worldwide view. Why cant we just settle with something like "one of the most popular American rock band of the '90s"? --Nirvana77 (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 possibilities, and I think we should vote on it to reach consensus. They are...

• 1) Leave the article as it is
• 2) Make it clear that the line in question is a quote from a music journalist
• 3) Add a phrase such as "one of the most popular"

Personally, I favour number 3) and think that the line should read 'Pearl Jam has outlasted many of its contemporaries from the alternative rock breakthrough of the early 1990s, and is considered one of the most influential and popular bands of the decade.[5][6]'

Here the two references are retained as they now in reference to the whole sentence. Opinions... Kristmace (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that sounds fair. --Nirvana77 (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't vote to gain consensus on Wikipedia. You gain consensus through discussion: see WP:CONSENSUS. Say "one of" would be misrepresenting the source (and the source wouldn't match what the article text was saying). Popularity is not just record sales, and it's pretty clear it's a quote. Find another source that states what you'll saying, and then others can then consider it. CloudNine (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Or you just remove the whole ridiculous quote and just write "and is considered one of the most influential and popular bands of the decade.". It's an unnecessary and biased quote wich i think most people here feel that it should be removed. You dont have that many and long discussions about nothing. --Nirvana77 (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Is considered" is a weasly phrase, especially if we don't back it up with a source. CloudNine (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[1] - This could perhaps be used. I find the BBC more reliable then allmusic.com. --Nirvana77 (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really keen on that as a reference Nirvana77. It seems like it's been lifted from somewhere rather than being written by a journalist. Plus it goes against WP:Reliable_sources.

CouldNine, I really respect the fact that you've put a lot of effort into this fantastic featured article. Do you have any suggestions to help concensus? I'm also concerned about reference [5] which is used to back up the fact that the band are considered the most influential of the decade. The article uses that word considered, and the reference doesn't mention anything about this. Kristmace (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Does this only apply to members who are currently in the band, or members who used to be in the band? Because if it is, then we should add the Red Hot Chili Peppers to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongesquid (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed an rejected. The associated acts includes side projects and spin-offs, not other bands of former members. Kristmace (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Original demos

Wasn't sure where to put this but didn't Cameron play on their original demos? Might be worth adding to the Formation section as a kind of "full cicle" thing. 125.236.180.164 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah he did, I think this could be included as it is a point of interest. I think the forrmation section could include slightly more info on the Temple of the Dog project, as the demos were recorded during this time, which is why Cameron was on drums. Kristmace (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Album Sales Figures

There is NO agency anywhere in the world who provides certified album sales on a "worldwide" basis. That only exists on a country-by-country basis. The RIAA handles the USA; there are other agencies that handle other countries. Please don't quote any web site which gives a worldwide sales figure for any album by any band unless you note that it's an "estimated" figure as that's all it is and no one can provide a legitimate official source for such info because it doesn't exist. It doesn't disparage this artist or any other artist by using the word "estimated", as quotes such as "sold an estimated 60 million worldwide" sound just as good as "sold 60 million albums worldwide" to virtually any reader and that isn't a negative connotation, it's just a fact, but to quote that someone actually sold any figure worldwide as a hard fact is a false statement as it cannot be sourced by an official album sales tabulation agency such as RIAA and therefore is unsubstantiated and subject to removal via WP:Verifiability. BTW, I really like Pearl Jam.--Bamadude 01:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this article should just quote the RIAA/Soundscan numbers and reference them properly, ensuring that it is mentioned that these numbers just refer to the US. Kristmace 09:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

audio files

there are about 10 audio files for download here. None of them legal, right? --144.136.38.19 (talk)

Short answer, read the file info. It explains the justification for fair use. --MattWatt 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ten seems a little many for the article, and some of the songs lack sufficient criticism per the fair use criteria. CloudNine 09:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How are the "appropriate criticisms" supposed to be structured? How about a paragraph summarizing critical appraisal and commercial success along with a few other misc. facts? Tomjoad187 05:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See Pixies or Pink Floyd for how music samples are integrated into the text. CloudNine 08:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

I've removed the image sizes throughout the article to allow for users to resize the images according to their own preferences. Also, 'Album cover of' is redundant, so I removed it from each caption. CloudNine 08:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Name origin section

The name origin section is fairly big, with one huge quote, and not well-integrated with the rest of the article. What are your thoughts on either shortening it or integrating with the biography section? CloudNine 09:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I plan to remove the direct quotes (the main points are already paraphrased in the accompanying prose) and put it in the "Ten" section. WesleyDodds 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. WesleyDodds 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pearl Jam is a euphanism for sperm. I dont have any links for this.

I agree with the above statement. The MTV story was total bullshit. "Pearl Jam" is definately a reference to semen. It has the consistency of jam and is the color of pearls. Duh!

Shawn Crapo (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your opinion is about what the name means. The factual story was revealed in the 2006 Rolling Stone article about the band, and the facts are what we have to go with.-5- (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FiveHorizons.com

This site, describing itself as a "fansite," is cited twice in the references (once for the band's first concert date). I personally don't think it would be a suitable reference; information contained in fansites can be found elsewhere, and I'm sure Pearl Jam's first concert date is available somewhere else. CloudNine 11:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Five Horizons and Two Feet Thick contain unique information on the band that's unavailable elsewhere on the Web. The Concert Chronology, began on FH and continued on TFT, is the preeminent resource on the web for Pearl Jam show information. FH also has an articles archive, which has the only version of "Ten Past Ten" available online. That Spin article should be integrated somehow, but even then, those links belong. J0nas3 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur that Two Feet Thick is the best resource for the Pearl Jam concert chronology. It's pretty meticulous. Tomjoad187 08:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

pearl was eddie vedders grans name and she used to make hallucinagenic jam hence pearl jam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.86.161 (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Curtis

Right now, the band's only manager has no presence in this entry. His name was clipped from the Las Vegas show mention because he wasn't mentioned earlier in the text. He should be...he's had a large effect on the path the band has taken. Other people who could be noted: Michael Goldstone, the man who signed the band to Sony Records (and helped Stone and Jeff get out of their MLB contract with Polygram), Brendan O'Brien, who produced their 2nd through 5th albums, and contributed on their 6th, and Brett Eliason, their longtime sound engineer, who's largely responsible for the bootlegs. (J0nas3 23:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

vice

In this month's Vice (magazine), it is said that Pearl Jam was named after cum. Urban dictionary concurs. First definition, second meaning. --212.71.11.74 18:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. WesleyDodds 07:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Common misconception - plus anyone can contribute to the urban dictionary without the scrutiny that wikipedia has. Kristmace (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First show?

I'm reading a copy of Q's Nirvana and the Story of Grunge, and I looked through the Pearl Jam biography, which states (p. 95):

“ Indeed, the Seattle Times, who reviewed their first ever show - back when they were still billed as Mookie Baylock, supporting Alice in Chains at the Moore Theatre in December 1990 [...] ”

Any reasons why Q would state their first show as being in December rather than October? I think we need a third source to settle this and provide confirmation. CloudNine 10:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My Guitar World article on the making of Ten says "Calling themselves Mookie Blaylock, after the New Jersey Nets basketball player, the band debuted these songs at a gig on October 22 at the Seattle club the Off Ramp." Then again, that article cites other articles quite heavily, and the Off Ramp being the band's first gig is only implied. I'll see if i can find a direct statement from the band. WesleyDodds 12:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ten Past Ten" (reference #21 in the main article) also places the first show on Oct 22 1990. I actually have a bootleg of the Oct 22 show as well, but I don't know how to cite that... (J0nas3 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

pearljam.com lists this as their first show - plus if you listen to the show on Oct 22nd 2000 in Las Vegas - Eddie refers to the fact that it is their 10th anniversary of playing the Off Ramp. Q isn't a particularly reliable publication in my experience. Kristmace 09:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

GA passing

Okay, I'm a huge fan of the band although I haven't followed them much lately (or any other music for that matter), so I gave this a very thorough review. I was going to put this on hold, but it's GA quality now so I'm passing it with these extensive notes. To clarify since the GA criteria changed and lowered a little I feel this article is well-written, factually accurate, verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and contains appropriate images backed up by fair use ratonales where appropriate. A lot of these are just suggestions for improvement and meant to help get it up to FA status:

Note: Feel free to strike out anything that you feel is addressed. If you feel it's not valid just say so but don't strike it out. Again good work and good luck getting it to FA status. Quadzilla99 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Although this is minor, the Legacy section is mostly quotes—more prose would be nice. Also, since it is about their legacy perhaps some bands that are currently popular who have been compared to them or better yet, have listed them as influences could be mentioned. I don't know if we need more quotes though. A sentence like "Several current bands (or individual musicians) such as [x], [x], [x], [x], have listed Pearl Jam as being influential on their..." something like that.

"AllMusic's followers section can be used as a starting point. CloudNine 09:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

However, most of the bands mentioned in that section are just not notable or popular enough for mention. CloudNine 14:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I know Staind has mentioned Pearl Jam as an influcence. I remember reading an article where they mentioned in their early days they would cover Nirvana and Pearl Jam, and Pearl jam worked especially well because Aaron Lewis's vocal range matched Eddie Vedder's. That culminated in that "Black" cover Aaron Lewis did on the Family Values tour in 2001 that got radio airplay. I'll have to find that article. WesleyDodds 21:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Personally (this is my opinion) I thought No Code wasn't that good. Not sure of the reviews for it but I think it was somewaht of a disappointment, at least if I remember correctly, and Yield was mroe of a return to form which got better reviews. Also Given To Fly was (again if I remember correctly) the first song that bassist wrote and was kind of a shameless cop of that Led Zeppelin song (whose name of course I can't remember either). I guess by that time P-Diddy was around so shameless copping was in vogue if I remember correctly.

Just wanted to clarify..."Given to Fly" was written by Mike McCready, although it was one of the first songs where he was solely responsible for the music. The Zeppelin song that it sounded like was "Going to California." In the 2005 show they played with Robert Plant, Pearl Jam played "Given to Fly" in the encore and immediately thereafter Plant came out with his band and played "Going to California" (J0nas3 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

• The "Musical Style" section needs more citations, particularly towards the latter half of the first paragraph.

Okay, I'm done. Good luck with this article in the future. Quadzilla99 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Addressed concerns

• "Rolling Stone has described Pearl Jam as a band that since the late 1990s has "spent much of the past decade deliberately tearing apart their own fame."[1]" The wording could be tightened here. How about: "Rolling Stone described the band as having "spent much of the past decade deliberately tearing apart their own fame."[1]"? Or something else.
• I'm not a big fan of individual linked years, also unlink 1990s. If you insist on linking the decades and years then at least be consistent and link all of them. Right now they're half-linked.
• "Pearl Jam has outlasted many of its contemporaries from the alternative rock breakthrough of the early 1990s, and is considered one of the most influential bands of the 1990s." Saying 1990s twice that close together makes for weak prose, say "decade" the second time.
• "Through 1988 and 1989, Mother Love Bone recorded..." I think—"In 1988 and 1989, Mother Love Bone recorded..." sounds better.
• Full dates should always be wikilinked, see WP:DATE (e.g. "Off Ramp, a now-defunct Seattle club, on October 22, 1990.") also days and months together should be too (On October 22, the band played).
• "The album was slow to sell, but by the second half of 1992 it became a breakthrough success for the band, being certified gold and reaching number 2 on the Billboard charts.[12] " "for the band" is redundant here.
• "With the success of Ten, Pearl Jam became a key member of the Seattle grunge explosion" is there an article you can link "Seattle grunge explosion" to?
• "Cobain later reconciled with Vedder, and they reportedly became friends before Cobain's death in 1994." A source for this would be nice.
• I think you're supposed to change capitalization when you introduce a quote in mid-sentence: debacle, "The band has refused to release"—should be—debacle, "[t]he band has refused to release"
• "but he would not be officially announced as the band's new drummer until their 1995 Self-Pollution satellite radio broadcast." could be changed to "was not officially announced", tighter prose.
• "In the following year the cover began to be played by radio stations and was ultimately put into heavy rotation across the country." tighten this to: "The following year, the cover was put into heavy rotation across the country." or something better, the current sentence contains redundant wording.
• "Binaural would end up selling just over 700,000 copies and became the first Pearl Jam studio album to fail to reach platinum status." tighten to "Binaural sold just over 700,000 copies and became the first Pearl Jam studio album which failed to reach platinum status." or something like it.
• "On October 22, the band played the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, celebrating the tenth anniversary of their first gig as a band." Is using the word "gig" alright in music articles? I mean when you go for FA will someone complain it's informal? Maybe that should be looked into, I'm not sure personally.
• "In May of 2003 Pearl Jam extended its" remove "of".
• "That year also saw the release of a two-disc collection of rarities and b-sides, Lost Dogs, and Live at the Garden, a DVD featuring the band's July 8, 2003 concert at Madison Square Garden" Passive voice.
• "After screening an early print of the film Pearl Jam recorded the song "Man of the Hour" for Burton." put a comma after film. Also, put one after 2004 in "In 2004 Pearl Jam released..."
• "on the Vote for Change tour in October of 2004." remove "of"
• "Pearl Jam had supported Ralph Nader's presidential campaign in 2000, however in 2004 they chose to support the candidacy of John Kerry." remove had. I'm not sure of the comma usage in this This would be better I think: "Pearl Jam supported Ralph Nader's presidential campaign in 2000. However, in 2004 they chose to support the candidacy of John Kerry." or something like it.
• At this point I'm just going to point this out as there's a ton of the incorrect "Month of year" construction in there.
• "the band embarked on a Canadian cross-country tour, kicking off the tour with a fundraising concert in Missoula, Montana for Jon Tester," give a short description I know he's linked but that means I have to leave the article to find out just say "Democratic politician Jon Tester." or smoething like that.
• "The Canadian tour included stops in cities such as Saskatoon, Quebec City, St. John's, and Halifax, where they had never played before." This might flow better if you moved the had never played before to the beginning of the sentence. "The Canadian tour included stops in cities The Canadian tour included stops in cities where they had never played before, such as Saskatoon, Quebec City, St. John's, and Halifax."
• "In February 2006 media mogul Clive Davis announced that Pearl Jam had signed to his label, J Records.[46]" change to to with.
• "Pearl Jam's eighth studio album, Pearl Jam, hit stores on May 2, 2006." hit stores is kind of informal how about "was released"?
• This image probably needs a little more specific fair use rationale about its use in this article.
• "Pearl Jam headlined the Reading and Leeds festivals despite having previously vowed never to play at a festival ever again after the tragedy of Roskilde." Remove "ever"
• "In 2007 Pearl Jam recorded a cover of The Who's "Love Reign O'er Me" for" comma after 2007
• Sections headers should not be linked, see WP:MSH.
• Link Entertainment Weekly when it first appears in the refs. Link any publishers in the refs when they first appear this helps in determing reliability easily.
• "Missio, David. "Pearl Jam Plug An Acoustic Set Into Your Stereo". ChartAttack.com. June 16, 2004." This ref is supposedly written by David Missio, but the site credits the staff and never mentions Missio.

• The site credits Missio at the bottom of the article. CloudNine 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Vedder only performed this song nine times on Pearl Jam's 2003 tour and left the track off of all released bootlegs.[39]" Shouldn't it be "The band only performed..."?
• "In 1995, Pearl Jam backed longtime idol Neil Young on his album Mirror Ball." It sounds clunky saying a band has an idol, I'm pretty sure only individual people can have idols. It would be an amazing coincidence if all 5 bandmates grew up idolizing Young.
• "Pearl Jam also played a benefit concert to raise money for Hurricane Katrina relief. The concert, which took place October 5, 2005, at the House of Blues in Chicago, Illinois, also featured Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin fame." remove fame from here as it seems informal and I'm not sure it's even encessary to mention that Plant performed there too, kind of trivial.
• "Pearl Jam stated that the group has "no interest at this time" of signing with another label and was "excited about our freedom."" I'm not sure about the use of has and was here. Also the wording could be tightened Saying Pearl Jam and the group twice in six words seems redundant. This is one of those sentence where something seems wrong but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe you could just get rid of the quotes and say "The group stated that they had no interest in signing with another label and were excited to have their freedom."
• "This marked the end of Pearl Jam's contractual agreement with Epic Records." Up to this point you've never mentioned they signed with Epic Records, as a matter of fact you just went to great lengths to point out they were now a free agent essentially.

• "With the addition of Dave Krusen on drums, the band took the name Mookie Blaylock, which was taken from former All-Star basketball player Mookie Blaylock." This sentence is probably fine, but here's one or two suggestions, feel free to ignore them if you think they don't improve the sentence:

It might flow better as: "With the addition of Dave Krusen on drums, the band took the name Mookie Blaylock, which was taken from the former All-Star basketball player of the same name." or "With the addition of Dave Krusen on drums, the band took the name Mookie Blaylock, in reference to the former All-Star basketball player." Also being a sports fan Blaylock was active during this period so maybe some slight tweak to explain that he is currently a former basketball player but was active then. Incidentally, the article could mention if the band had any contact with Blaylock or at least what his reaction to the whole naming deal was, although that might be hard to delve into without going off-topic.

• "They originally intended to release these official bootlegs only to fan club members, but their record contract prevented them from doing so." I think you can go with "them" instead of "the official bootlegs" since it's clear we're talking about the bootlegs by this time.
• "His replacement would end up being Jack Irons, a close friend of Vedder's" Not particularly happy with the would end up being construction" could be tightened to "He was replaced by Jack Irons," although that doesn't flow well with the preceding sentence. Something else might work better.
• The "Move to J Records: 2006–present" section suffers from recentism.
• "Pearl Jam decided to record each and every show on their 2000 Binaural Tour professionally after noting the desire of fans to own a copy of the shows they attended and the popularity of illegal bootleg recordings." This could use a little work it's kind of choppy. Also, the following sentence re-iterates some of the info in this sentence so maye the two could be combined somehow. Also "each and every" is redundant just say "every".
• Some portions of this article are close to proseline try to think of how to avoid that.
• There's a lot of additive terms like also, additionally, as well as, in addition, someone like Tony will pick at that if you take it to FAC.
• Citations look solid, this is borderline though in terms of rising to WP:RS:[2], also
• The citations are all going to need retrieval dates if you're going for FA and proper formatting (see WP:CITE/ES).

Vote for Change paragraph

“ Pearl Jam supported Ralph Nader's presidential campaign in 2000. However, in 2004 they chose to support the candidacy of John Kerry. Pearl Jam performed on the Vote for Change tour in October 2004. The politically-motivated concert tour, sponsored by MoveOn.org, was held in swing states. The band also appeared in Rolling Stone along with the other performers of the tour. Vedder told Rolling Stone, "I supported Ralph Nader in 2000, but it's a time of crisis. We have to get a new administration in." ”

I've removed this from the article, because I feel it's more suited to the Vote for Change article. Any thoughts? CloudNine 09:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be included. In fact, I was hoping we could find material with which to expand upon it. Pearl Jam has been very vocal about their political beliefs during their career. WesleyDodds 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok; it's just that explaining what the tour was seemed a little off-topic (and the paragraph's beginning sounded a little awkward, as it didn't follow on from the last). CloudNine 10:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Added the paragraph in; hopefully it's shorter and follows better with the rest of the text. (We didn't need to mention they supported Nader in 2000 if we quote Vedder saying it). CloudNine 15:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about creating a separate "Campaigining and activism" section, like in U2? WesleyDodds 04:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. I wasn't sure there was that much to say; I've heard about Vedder's pro-choice sentiments and their support of Vote for Change, but not much else. CloudNine 09:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a couple of things I can list off the top of my head. I have a special Guitar World issue that reprints old Pearl Jam interviews, and in one from 1992 Vedder talks about a number of things, particularly his pro-choice stance (there's also a picture of him holding a shirt that says "No Bush '92"). There's the whole Ticketmaster debacle. Mike McCready has a disease he tries to raise awareness about. They play Neil Young's Bridge School Benefit concerts. They endorsed Ralph Nader for US President in 2000, and then John Kerry with the aforementioned Vote for Change tour in 2004. There's probably more. If anyone else thinks of something, please mention it here and then we'll start constructing the section. WesleyDodds 10:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

At their MTV Unplugged show in 1992, Ed wrote "Pro-Abortion" on his arm in marker during the Porch jam. On March 9th, 1994, they played a "Rock for Choice" benefit in Pensacola, FL. Reportedly, they had gotten death threats before the show. At the end of their 1998 tour, they played a "Voters for Choice" benefit in Washington, where they were introduced by Gloria Steinem. (J0nas3 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Note that the FiveHorizons.com article archive has plenty of citeable material from magazines. A good example: "Reclamation" by Eddie Vedder is an article he wrote for Spin about pro-choice. CloudNine 18:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

MP3/FLAC

Do we need to know what format the bootlegs were released in? It's an article about Pearl Jam, rather than the formats Pearl Jam releases its bootlegs in. (that sort of information can go in the respective tour articles, don't you think?) CloudNine 09:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that exact format really isn't important, but there's a marked difference between commercially releasing all of them initially (breaking Billboard records in the process) and the whole "if you buy a ticket you can order a copy and get MP3s too" thing they have now (I'm not sure if it still works that way exactly; when I got my bootleg in 2003 I got both the CD in the mail and MP3s I could download). I don't know. It's up to you. WesleyDodds 10:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left the first MP3 reference, but mentioning the bootlegs were released in MP3 and FLAC form the second time seemed a little redundant and trivial, so I removed that. CloudNine 10:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I do think that the band offering the bootlegs in FLAC form was significant. In 2000, they released CDs from whole tours at one time, albeit months after the shows happened. In 2003 you could still get CDs, and you got them less than a week after the shows, with low-quality MP3s sent in the meantime. In 2005 you couldn't get CDs anymore, and the quality of the mp3s sold were not near as high as they could be. At this time you could get mp3s and FLACs of Primus and many other bands' shows, so it was disappointing to me that Pearl Jam couldn't do what these other bands had done. Finally in 2006 they got around to it. That's what I was trying to show in the entry, but admittedly it may not be as significant to others as it was to me. (J0nas3 18:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Most popular band of the 90's?

I really don't think we can consider this a fact. Just because it includes a link to some guy who also thinks so doesn't mean it's true. Should that sentence be removed?

The fact that a reputed source said it is reliable and verifiable. And yes, they did outsell most other bands during the 1990s, including Nirvana. WesleyDodds 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

dave matthews band sold more. i think it should be removed

Where's a reference for that? CloudNine 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dave Matthews Band didn't start selling in large amounts until the 2000s. WesleyDodds 09:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Right but just because it's a reliable source doesn't mean it's necessarily true, it's still an opinion either way, and can't be written as a fact. I also don't think number of records sold can be the only criteria for gauging how "good" a band is.

Good and popular are different things. Number of record sales is a fine metric for deciding how popular a band is. CloudNine 09:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A good band? Not at all (opinion!). A popular band as per record sales? Yes (fact!). :) NSR77 ^T_C 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence could be change to refer to the fact that they are considered to be the most popular band of the 90's - then cite the source. Kristmace 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Pearl Jam is not the biggest band of the 90s

Pearl Jam is not the biggest band of the 90s. just because some cirtic says do does not mean we can take it and run with it. If that was the case we can get a billion sources for Nirvana 71.117.255.142 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Biggest?" The term used in the article is "most popular". From above: Good and popular are different things. Number of record sales is a fine metric for deciding how popular a band is. Although if you do have a billion sources for Nirvana being a more popular band, I'd like to see them. CloudNine 10:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, biggest and popular are the same thing. And Nirvana is widely accepted to be THE biggest band of the 1990s, shit, do you want me to call Rolling Stone magazine and ask what they think about this? I thought no, now I'm off to remove that claime. Brownstone999 23:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"biggest" and "popular" mean most records sold. I don't think you can reliably source a phone call, but I'm waiting to see a reliable source that says Nirvana sold more records throughout the 1990s than Pearl Jam. CloudNine 07:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Nirvana isn't "widely accepted to be THE biggest band of the 1990s". Most important or influential? You would have something there. Most popular? No. There's a number of sources that establish Pearl Jam far outsold Nirvana, at least two of which are cited in this article. WesleyDodds 08:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And here's a sales comparison by USA Today done this year using SoundScan numbers, the most accurate sales figures available. Even when only counting what both groups released while Nirvana was active, Pearl Jam still outsold Nirvana: [3] WesleyDodds 08:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Pearl Jam is great. The leading rock movement in the 90's was the seattle grunge movement and Pearl Jam and Nirvana where deffinantly the two most popular bands in that. I say Pearl Jam is better but it is an opinion so you can't say it like a fact. I think Pearl Jam is the biggest band of the 90's hands down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.206.116 (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Most popular band

The term is way to vague. If popular means influential, then Pearl Jam is not the most popular band of the 90s. I think the expression best-selling would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.139.81 (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not vague. Most popular = most record sales. That can't be any clearer. CloudNine 07:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, most popular could mean most infuential, most known, most talked about etc (and we know which band would be talked about in those terms). Pick a dictionary and look at the definition of popular. The term is too vague again, BEST SELLING, is the right term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.139.81 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see "most influential", "most known", "most talked about" in the dictionary defintion. I see "regarded with great favour, approval, or affection by the general public." approval in this context would be selling records. Popular is not vague; a best-selling band is a popular band. It's not a POV statement. CloudNine 18:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bobby was here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.228.118 (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, look at how much discussion the use of "most popular band" has created, there is a lot of people not comfortable with the term. I have no problem with best selling band which is true, but popular is again too vague, not precise enough. Like you said " regarded with great favor, approval, or affection by the general public", this is not quantifiable. Saying that this definition of popular=best selling artist is twisting the meaning of the term. Approval, in this context, include much more than record sales and should include coverage by the press, memorabilia etc. There is no way you can prove that the term popular here could only apply to record sale. For example, somebody could say that Kurt Cobain is the most popular artist of the 90s, since he certainly made more money than all of those bands since his death (which is a fact). However, he did not sell more records than Pearl Jam, which is also a fact, but he is still without a doubt more known by the general public than any member of Pearl Jam or the band itself is. Using record sale to determine popularity is not a good barometer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.139.81 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a definition of popular that includes "made most amount of money." Could you provide a source for "he certainly made more money than all of those bands since his death"? That's debatable. Why are record sales not a good barometer? They're fine, and several alternative music editors and Stephen Thomas Erlewine agree (Could you provide a source that says another rock band was the most popular during the 1990s?). The fact is that Pearl Jam outsold Nirvana, Soundgarden et al. during the 1990s is not debatable. CloudNine 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You said :"I don't see a definition of popular that includes "made most amount of money." Well, I don't see any definition of popular which includes "best selling artist". Popular only means accepted by the general public, which is quite vague, hence making its meaning about anything and everything you want it to be.

Well, I don't have the link for the source here, but it has been reported by Forbes, I think, that Kurt Cobain is the deceased celebrity that made the most money in the past year, even beating ELVIS. NOW, I don't think anybody could say that Pearl Jam (even though they are still there) made more money than Elvis or Kurt Cobain in the past year. Furthermore, it was not based ONLY on record sales, but on their whole REVENUES which means that popularity is much more than record sales, but everything that comes with the "branding" and merchandising of a popular artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.139.81 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Then again, I have no problem with the term BEST SELLING band, since it is the truth. But, popular is not the equivalent of best selling. Popular could be accepted, but MOST POPULAR is too debatable. However, if you use the term most popular, you should say that it is according to Stephen Thomas Erlewin, at allmusic.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.139.81 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this before in the section above. Consensus says it's fine. Also, no one at the Featured Article Candidates nomination has a problem with it. Also remember: it's sayign "most popular American rock band of the 1990s". That doesn't account for further sales in the 2000s. WesleyDodds 22:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Another comment on the "most popular" thing

how bout you just say "one of the most popular bands" instead of "most popular". that way you are not making a direct claim, but instead a generalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Devil (talk • contribs) 09:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't match up with what the source says though. "Pearl Jam rose from the ashes of Mother Love Bone to become the most popular American rock & roll band of the '90s." It's also verified by independent sales data. CloudNine 12:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A single journalist who says so does not make it true, though, "Most popular" is still way to subjective and a bit weaselish. Put it in the context of who's saying it, i.e. "Leading music journalists call Peal Jam the most successful band of the 90's" rater than stating their editorial opinion as plain fact, as it appears now. Tarc 16:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I cant believe most editors on this topic are agreeing to this statement. yes, Pearl Jam is awesome, but we cannot go by what one critic says. Heck, i should just start an online magazine and say that the sun is made of water. apparently if its sourced, then that must make it true.the juggreserection 14:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the magazine you would create would qualify as a reliable source. Also, popularity is linked to record sales, not some abstract concept of how "awesome" a band is. I'm fine with the compromise however. CloudNine 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the statement that "most popular" equates just with sales. Other factors play a role as well. I do believe the statement should read something to the effect that "Pearl Jam was one of the highest selling rock bands of the 1990's in the USA". I say one of the highest because Metallica has the honor of highest sales during the 1990's for a rock band according to the RIAA...and yes this includes sales just from 1990 to 2000. Also, it is important to include in the USA, as bands such as Nirvana and Metallica had higher sales worldwide than Pearl Jam...this can be proven with organizations that are the counter parts to Soundscan and the RIAA that exist in other countries, such as CRIA in Canada. Finally, the statement should include 1990's, especially when comparing to Nirvana. Catalog sales of Nirvana have outsold Pearl Jam in the 21st century. For example, Nevermind has outsold Ten every year of the 21st century according to Soundscan. In 2006 this was 143,000 to 87,000. Does this mean Nirvana is the current most popular band when looking just at these two? Numbers can be a tricky game. Allaplgies (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)allaplgies

Lose the quote, "the most popular American rock band of the 1990s". It's such an unflatteringly audacious claim, and an artist's or band's "popularity" is too ill-defined to make such a definitive statement, as Erlewine does in his biography on allmusic.com, the source for this claim. Regardless of sales figures, radio requests and airplay, and concert attendance, "popularity" is still a subjective attribute. I suspect even the band would find the "most popular" label rather absurd.

It should read: "... is considered one of the most popular and influential American rock bands of the 1990s." (No citation required, so lose Erlewine's biography as a source.)

Rico402 (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Associated Acts and the Chili Peppers

I removed the Chili Peppers from the associated acts infobox line. This was meant to connect spin-offs, side projects, and predecessors. Not link one band to another because they have a common band member, i.e. Jack Irons. Tarc 22:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean other side projects should be added? (e.g. Brad for Stone Gossard, Three Fish for Jeff Ament) (J0nas3 00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

"Traditional" Music Industry Practices

The introduction segment refers to the bands refusal to adhere to "traditional" music industry practices. Surely, considering the diversity and ever-changing nature of music as an art form and the changing nature of the music industry itself (e.g. as new media forms are introduced and the industry changes to reflect these media, such as the advent of CDs, replacing cassettes, and the mp3, which threatens to wipe out compact disc technology), this should be referred to as "contemporary" music industry practices and not "traditional" music industry practices.

Controversy

Years ago, the Stone Temple Pilots were often accused of ripping off Pearl Jam. This controversy should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.168.18 (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a sentence about it in the Legacy section. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1101931025 400.jpg

Image:1101931025 400.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In this one history text book...

that i had in my freshman year, i remember there being a mention of Pearl Jam in a little aside about rock and roll. I cant remember the name of the book but im gonna try to figure it out.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Introductory sentence: "Pearl Jam is an American rock band"

Surely this should read: "Pearl Jam are an American rock band". I see this kind of thing quite regularly - perhaps it's an American thing: "U2 is touring" ("U2 are touring") Surely one would not say: "The Rolling Stones is cool" - "The Rolling Stones are cool" is cooler.
In England, in these situations, we'd say "are". And we invented, er, English. Often, Americans just seem to invent this stuff as they go along. If they want to ride roughshod over the rules, fine - but then why do they try to follow them elsewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.153.169 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is an American thing. Pearl Jam is an American group, so we use an American grammar styles. English bands like the Stones would use the English grammar. Teemu08 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. Are you saying that your grammar would change if you were referring to, say, The Beatles? You are American: respectfully, your statement implies that you adjust your grammar according to the nationality of the subject you are discussing. I'm not talking about what the Rolling Stones (for example) would say: I'm talking about what others say when referring to them. Regardless of this, my point still stands: the habit I referred to seems to be a grammatical preference of Americans. Just because it's a habit, that does not make it correct. When you say that "English bands like the Stones would use the English grammar", I think you are misunderstanding my point. Respectfully again, if someone American wrote the Wikipedia article on The Stones, they would probably still use the grammatical habit I have pointed out. Unless you are saying that they would alter their grammar because they were writing about an English subject. Which would be odd. An equivalent would be using lots of hand gestures when discussing the city of Rome. Without wishing to sound rude, I thought I'd also point out that when you say: "we use an American grammar styles", your syntax is a little out of kilter: this unfortunately has a negative effect on the perceived authority of your reply. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.153.169 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The intent is to use the grammar most closely associated with a topic. Clearly we don't all know the regional grammar rules, but that can be corrected as other users more familiar with the region bring up the issues. These things are often seen as mistakes by others. Thanks to Wikipedia, I, as an American, have become familiar with the tricky issue of collective nouns in different regions of the world. I still can't be positive I get it right, but I know enough to know that it isn't a mistake when I see it. This comes up frequently with sports teams and bands. It all depends on if the word itself is plural. So, in American English, "Pearl Jam is..." but "The Beatles are..." --Siradia (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Oddly, this still does not seem to make any sense: you both appear to be suggesting that grammar in Wikipedia has a kind of chameleon-like habit of adjusting itself according to the nationality of the subject under discussion. Respectfully, this is faintly ridiculous. An equivalent would perhaps be for an American in a bar to start lisping whilst discussing Barcelona ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceceo#Castilian_lisp ). Or for an American to use a clicking sound whilst discussing Namibia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan_languages ). If an American from Seattle meets someone from Alabama, do they immediately starting using a Southern accent? This is all a revelation to me. I thought that the rules for these things were pretty solid: you seem to suggest that they are fluid. It seems a coincidence that you both think this is correct. Respectfully, I fear that you are expressing your preference or opinion, and imagine that you will be proved to be incorrect in the near future. Grammar is grammar. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that when an American writes about a band, they will use (what they feel to be) "American English" grammar. What you are actually saying is that this (imaginary) American Wikipedia-user subtly adjusts his/her grammar according to the subject. Respectfully again, if you think about it, this is plainly absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.153.169 (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not particularly absurd because there is no one author to wikipedia. There are people from diverse backgrounds. Often people gravitate to topics more relevant to their own life and experience. So, articles about the UK are primarily edited by those in the UK. Articles about America are most often edited by those in America. There is no exclusion, of course, as anyone can edit them. People can, however, keep these things in check based on the rules of their own region. You say, "Grammar is grammar," but this is most definitely not an absolute. Even authorities within the same country cannot agree on certain rules. There is no one right way to do things. There are regional rules. In America, where this band is from, it would always be incorrect to say "Pearl Jam are an American rock band." See American and British English differences - Formal and notional agreement. There are topics that do not have a regional identity. In those cases, the rule is to be consistent within the article. See here for more info. --Siradia (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think mr unsigned is right, when i saw that first sentence i thought exactly the same.Americans need to stop using english incorrrectly just as a form of rebellion against us brits.I thought his points were well put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.190.133 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why no one has quoted an actual Wikipedia policy yet, but here it is, from the WIkipedia:Manual of style:

The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using four simple guidelines. . . . An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation.

Pearl Jam is an American band, and thus an American topic, so we use American English. In American English, collective nouns like this are treated as singular nouns. — Dulcem (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks

Well I stand corrected. As I said earlier, this is a revalation to me. I now know that when I see this particular grammatical usage (irritating though it is to me), it is perfectly acceptable to Americans, and therefore should be accepted by others. That is not to say that I approve of it, or that I think that this particular way of writing / speaking is, for example, plainer or clearer. On the contrary, in some scenarios it seems rather odd. Take the following examples from the article:

"Pearl Jam was outraged when, after it played a pair of shows in Chicago, it discovered that ticket vendor Ticketmaster had added a service charge to the tickets"

The idea that Pearl Jam was outraged seems weird. I (now) know that this is "correct" according to American English. But surely, in this context, it was the members of the band that were outraged. It would be plainer to read that "Pearl Jam were outraged": it would confer more responsibility on the human beings in the band.

"Considered a "blatantly great pop song" by producer Brendan O'Brien, Pearl Jam was reluctant to record it and had initially rejected it from Vs. due to its accessibility" Here again, this American English habit comes slightly unstuck: by saying that "Pearl Jam was reluctant to record" it, the writer seems to take away the individuality of the band members. Surely "Pearl Jam were reluctant to record it" offers and suggests more autonomy, choice and power to the men in the band.

"In June 2003, Pearl Jam announced it was officially leaving Epic Records following the end of its contract with the label"

Yet again, because of American English, here we have the band, like some machine, anonymously making an announcement. An important announcement by the looks of it. Yet in (correct) American English the power is drained from the "team", from the guys, by saying that "it was officially leaving". Surely by saying that "they were officially leaving Epic Records", we give them back their individuality. The American English way somehow oddly makes the band sound like a big corporate machine, by constantly not referring to the members.

"Pearl Jam has been described as "modern rock radio's most influential stylists...""

This simply does not scan. Surely if we have "...influential stylists" at the end of the sentence, then at the beginning we should have "HAVE been described as..."
Lastly, this sentence caught my eye: "Pearl Jam has outlasted many of its contemporaries in the grunge scene like Nirvana..." Now is this not a little cruel? Apart from the fact that I seem to remember Kurt Cobain occasionally slightly looking down on Pearl Jam (I could be wrong), of course they outlasted Nirvana: Nirvana's singer, er, died. Pearl Jam "outlasted" them, in a sense, because they are still alive. Is that such an achievement? Apart from this grammatical issue, good article.

As I have said, I now accept that this collective noun habit is perfectly acceptable in American English. However, I for one think it is rather odd, and feel that just because people have this habit, this does not make it right. I will continue to believe that the English grammatical form is superior.
Thanks, and toodle pip! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.153.169 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2008

This isn't just some sort of habit, this is the correct grammar in American English, its just not what you are used to, and so doesn't read correctly. Go to a US news website and read articles there - as a Brit I find some of the sentences awkward because some of the grammar inflections are slightly different to the way we use them. This article is fine though. It uses American grammar from the start and sticks to it. Kristmace (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It uses American grammar from the start and sticks to it. It makes much more sense in the present tense... Lugnuts (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perceived bias

Regardless of what claims of record sales, popularity, and longevity can be made in favor of Pearl Jam, it really just seems to me as I read this article that the tone is overwhelmingly in Pearl Jam's favor, and gives off a vibe as if it were written by the Pearl Jam fan club. I'm certain Pearl Jam has come under intense criticism in many aspects, and if all the accolades are presented in such a pro-Pearl Jam tone, then there certainly should be an equally sufficient criticism section. Maybe it's just me but I doubt it. Quixulous (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, I really can't believe this article was featured as is. The actual historical details are very well done so congrats to everyone that helped compiling that but this really just comes off as a big Pearl Jam plug to me and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Quixulous (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, during the GAC and FACs, people made a point of complimenting the article's neutrality. Are there any particular POV statements you can give as an example? CloudNine (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, well it's not really prominent throughout the entire article most of it is just an account of the band which is very well done and certainly deserved to be featured. The Legacy section was mostly what I found a little tipsy, the comment about outlasting Nirvana and Soundgarden was almost laughable to me, because one band lost it's cornerstone in Cobain and the other just didn't adapt (sell-out) the way Pearl Jam did. It's definetly a minor issue though so no worries. Quixulous (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sell-out? They did the opposite, actually.-5- (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Soundgardens last album didn't sell as much as it predecesor Superunknown. So his right. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

I don't much care for the first paragraph of this article. The very first sentence shouldn't contain the details of where and when the group was formed; those should come in the second or third sentence. In the second sentence, "has consisted of" is wrong - it implies that the four named members have always formed the entire line-up of the group, which is obviously not the case as we go on to name their current drummer. I'm surprised these things weren't picked up during the FA discussion. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the layout of the first sentence is standard across many band articles; see Pixies, Uncle Tupelo and Tool (band) for examples. Could you perhaps suggest a better way of phrasing the band's lineup? CloudNine (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On the first sentence, point taken. On the second sentence - well, you were the main FAC advocate last year, and if I'd brought this up when it was going through FAC, I doubt you'd have asked me to rephrase it. Maybe your overall responsibility for the article (I know, no-one "owns" WP articles, but you know what I mean) ended when it got promoted to FA, I don't know how these things work. Anyway, if I were rephrasing it, I'd probably say something like "Four of the group's five current members - A, B, C, D - have been present since the group was formed. The fifth..." Something like that, anyway. Great article, btw. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo

And while I'm on, the infobox photo is pretty poor IMHO - fuzzy and indistinct. Is there no better one available? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've searched, but there's no better one available. CloudNine (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream

From WP:Main Page/Errors Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the band breaking in to the mainstream with its debut album. Surely, this just means that they are a mainstream band, no? I mean whence did they come? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.105.162.97 (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I copied this here for consideration by editors of this article. It would be helpful if any new wording is reached a note of it be made in WP:Main Page/Errors Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Homosexual?

Why does that line have to be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.27.247 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to this [4] which was vandalism, soon reverted Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

last sentence in the intro

This sentence seems a bit POV to me. Anyone else think so? 209.171.47.7 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that too. It's a bit too fanboy for my liking. Lugnuts (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Any specific sentences? CloudNine (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and influences

Earlier up this page I had a light rant about American English: a few Wikipedia users were kind enough to reply and explain American collective noun usage. However, nobody replied to my last points about how this usage does not always lead to clarity: perhaps there are other place to discuss this, but I felt that perhaps nobody replied because it would be difficult to argue against the points I made. Specifically the following:

" "Pearl Jam has been described as "modern rock radio's most influential stylists..."" This simply does not scan. Surely if we have "...influential stylists" at the end of the sentence, then at the beginning we should have "HAVE been described as..." "

Now I still think that this (small) grammatical issue needs to be changed in the article: after all, "stylists" is plural, so the preceding transitive verb should be "have". Another thing: the Nirvana point I mentioned has yet to be discussed. Of course Pearl Jam survived Nirvana. As I said above: "Nirvana's singer, er, died. Pearl Jam "outlasted" them, in a sense, because they are still alive" And another point: in the article, it says that: "The band inspired and influenced a number of bands, ranging from Silverchair to Puddle of Mudd and The Strokes" Now I have no idea where the writer got this, but Pearl Jam are nothing like The Strokes. Think about this for more than a second, and you'll surely agree. I don't care if some journalist somewhere has once said this: it's just wrong. Although both bands most likely have a love of early punk / rebel guitar music, Pearl Jam have a more bombastic and loose / fluid musical style: The Strokes are more jagged, sharp and fast. The Strokes are more like The Buzzcocks / Television / The Velvets, even Blondie: they are spiky. Pearl jam are perhaps more conservative in one kind of 70's long-haired rock way (I do not mean this pejoratively). If a member of The Strokes has perhaps said that they are a fan of Pearl Jam, it does not follow that The Strokes are like them. Perhaps one can infer from the reference to The Strokes that the writer is such a fan of Pearl Jam that they want to see - in the article - a reference to them influencing a modern band: they subsequently shoe-horn The Strokes in there. Whoever originally said it is just wrong. It simply doesn't fit.
I have to admit to being slightly surprised that the article (good, though it is) is considered important enough to have that little star above it: I'm not the first to point out that it comes across as a bit of a love-letter to the band, and is slightly wanting in objectivity. It would of course follow that a fan of the band would probably be the best (or most obvious) person to commit their time to writing the Wikipedia article on them: however, as others have also said, the enthusiasm of the writer/'s has perhaps been unleashed and needs to be reigned in a little.
Thanks, and toodle pip!

Well, it was complimented for its neutrality (see above), and if it was a "love letter" to the band, surely someone would have spotted in the in-depth and thorough WP:FAC process. I'm not actually that much of a fan of the band really, although I was the person that brought it to FA status. "Influenced and inspired" does not mean the two bands are similar, it's just an acknowledgement of a certain influence on their style. One example: the Pixies were influenced by the Beatles, yet they sound little like them. (If you could shorten your replies, that would be great. It makes it a lot easier to read and reply to if you do). CloudNine (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

1992 unplugged

pearl jam did an unplugged in 1992 but i cant seem to get a copy of the tape/dvd. Any ideas how i can? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.243.56 (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's heavily bootlegged. Being the taper-friendly band they are, I'm sure someone on their messageboard can help over at pearljam.com. Lugnuts (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.243.56 (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the pearljam.com website and they said they do not sell pearl jam unplugged, any other ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.243.56 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Go to forums.pearljam.com, and ask if anyone has it for download.-5- (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Boom Gaspar

Why isn't Boom Gaspar considered an official member, he's recieved credit on both studio and live albums, doesn't that count? Just to know, because he's being like excluded or ignored Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He's not an official member of the band. For one thing, he's not included in any of the promotional photos. Also, in the liner notes he is listed as additional personnel. He only plays on selected tracks on the studio albums and even live.-5- (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Again the "most popular" thing

It's way too controversial that phrase, just Nirvana has sold more than 50 million albums, (and it hasn't been active for more than 12 years, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains,, super groups that are being underrated just because of that statementon Almusic, in my opinion, the author of that article in Allusic didn't mean it to be so controversial, but just to show how important Pearl Jam is. This shouldn't be discussed here, which is the band's talk page, and most of the persons that come to it are mostly Pearl Jam-fans, and the result will be the same as before. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 01:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

We;ve been through this a hundred times! There are no verifiable sources on world album sales. You say Nirvana sold 50 million albums... it can't be proved. Pearl Jam are said to have sold a similar amount - we just don't know. The fact is though that US sales data is available via Soundscan and Pearl Jam have sold more records than Nirvana in the US. Kristmace (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative from Vitalogy forward?

I was just wondering, why is every single song and album after Vitalogy labeled just alternative? Just because it's after '94 or something? Because some of those, like Yield and their self-titled, are just as hardcore as their earlier stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezer Rox (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Associated acts

According to Template:Infobox Musical artist, associated acts can include the following:

Associated_acts This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career.

"This field can include, for example, any of the following:

1. For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
2. Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
3. Groups which have spun off from this group
4. A group from which this group has spun off"

Therefore, Neil Young qualifies as an associated act simply because of the Mirrorball album and "Neil Jam" European tour that followed. KitHutch (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally only bands are listed. The guideline need to be updated. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Until they are, Neil Young should be listed as an associated act of Pearl Jam because he qualifies under the current guidelines. KitHutch (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about this, take your issue to Template talk:Infobox Musical artist and get a definitive answer.-5- (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

-5- is correct. Young does not fit intom the intended purpose for the field. It is not worth using IP sockpuppets to edit war and try and get it added back in. That will just result in a block. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the associated acts part of the Template:Infobox Musical artist, does it say that that category is not for individual artists? KitHutch (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oy, this is becoming a pain. The description does read "This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands...", so the "other musicians" phrases does not seem to limit the field usage to just bands. I'd be in support of changing this to just bands though, but that will have to come via discussion over there.

However, the tripping point is "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together". I read that "multiple occasions" phrase as applying to all of the possibilities there; i.e. multiple albums collaborated or multiple instances of a "single collaboration act playing together". Here, they went on one tour and released one collaborative album. I don't see that one-off collaboration and tour as qualifying. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I will diagree with you here. I think that the "multiple occasions" phrase is satisfied with the album and tour. Anyway, the Passengers is listed as an associated act of U2 and that group produced only one album and did not tour. KitHutch (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Band name

In the 1990s, I asked my friend, the biggest Pearl Jam fan I've ever known, what the band name meant. He said, "Think of something that is the color of pearl and has the consistency of jam..." Are there no references to the band members giving an explanation along these lines?