Talk:Pearl Jam

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)

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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hit Singles

A recent edit added some singles, but without top chart positions. Would that still make it hit singles? mvdhout 15:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What Do You Mean By Hit Singles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.136 (talk • contribs) .

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000: n. 2. A successful or popular venture: a Broadway hit.

If we list hits, what is the cut off point? What should we remove along with Glorified G?

I suggest we call it Singles, which is more encyclopedic and doesn't remove information. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-15t09:40z

Every song that charted is A hit.Pearl Jam Stopped releasing singles after Ten.So it would be inaccurate and unencyclopedia like To call It singles,but I see where you are coming from. -- 2006-01-16 CAYA

Why would it be inaccurate and unencyclopedic to call them singles? -- Jeandré, 2006-01-16t18:25z

Because many Pearl Jam hits weren't singles — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAYA (talk • contribs) 2006-01-17t07:46:20z (UTC)

A lot of Pearl Jam's hits were not singles. They were songs on which where on an album. They were not released on a cd by themselves. So they were not to be considered singles. So by saying "Hit Singles", it would be inappropriate. Maybe by saying "Popular Songs" so something along that line. Or songs that were released to radio. but "Hit Singles" would not fit what you are trying to say. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that and Sony confirms - sorry for changing it back to "Singles". -- Jeandré, 2006-01-17t22:18z

Pearl Jam certainly didn't stop releasing singles after Ten. LeftHandedGuitarist 23:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.

"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

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?

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.

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)

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

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 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)

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

"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)

New album tentative title

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

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)

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.

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

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

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)

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) .

Charts

Hi, I normally do the chart research for the Nirvana pages so I thought I'd add the Pearl Jam singles positions for the UK because they were missing. I think some may be missing from your table like "I Got ID". Heres the full list:

Position Artist Title Date

16 Pearl Jam Alive Feb 1992

27 Pearl Jam Even Flow Apr 1992

15 Pearl Jam Jeremy Sep 1992

18 Pearl Jam Daughter Jan 1994

14 Pearl Jam Dissident May 1994

10 Pearl Jam Spin The Black Circle Nov 1994

34 Pearl Jam Not For You Feb 1995

25 Pearl Jam I Got ID Dec 1995

18 Pearl Jam Who You Are Aug 1996

12 Pearl Jam Given To Fly Jan 1998

30 Pearl Jam Wishlist May 1998

22 Pearl Jam Nothing As It Seems May 2000

26 Pearl Jam I Am Mine Nov 2002

From [[3]]

You can find chart archives for countries all over Europe here [[4]] , however some of the archives for some countries will only go back to say the year 2000 and few go back to the early 90's.

When I made the chart I didn't have any info on UK chart positions.I thank you extremely -caya

On Billboard's website, in the Rewind charts, it listed the single, I GOT ID, as a top ten single. I can't remember Last Kiss reaching the top ten. I am sure that I GOT ID was the most successful Pearl Jam on Billboard's Hot 100 Singles. Please check the archived charts. The year is either 1995 or 1996- Jason

It said I Got ID reached #7 on the Hot 100 ,but Last Kiss made it to #2 in 2002.So technacially Last Kiss is Pearl Jam's most successful single.-Caya

Kurt Cobain

About the hostility above, there is an interview video going around the net of Kurt Cobain talking about Pearl Jam and his exact words are: " I think Eddie Vedder is a really nice person, I just hate their band ". That interview was in 1993.

.....................

As for this from this article: Nirvana's Kurt Cobain angrily attacked Pearl Jam in interviews because he saw them as commercial sell outs, although some believe that Cobain was motivated by jealousy that Pearl Jam had become more successful than Nirvana on the Billboard charts.

Well back then in 1993 Nirvana on Billboard:

Albums:

(1991-92)Nevermind, No.1

(1992)Bleach (re-released on major), No.89

(1992)Incesticide (rare & b-sides), No.39

(1993)In Utero, No.1

Singles:

(1991) Smells Like Teen Spirit, No. 6

(1992) Come As You Are, No. 32

(1992) Lithium, No. 64

Pearl Jam on Billboard: Albums:

(1991) Ten, No. 2

(1993) Vs. No. 1

Singles:

(1992) Jeremy, No. 75

(Note this was not including Mainstream and Modern Rock charts etc) It is fair to say Nirvana win on chart positions but also fair to say Pearl Jam out sold them on sales. However I think Nirvana may have re-overtaken with their record sales at 52m +

You will find the video of Kurt saying: " I think Eddie Vedder is a really nice person, I just hate their band ". here: [[5]]. If not just search Nirvana Pearl Jam at that site and it will be the first result.

Goodbye :)

Ten has outsold Nevermind is the U.S. by a little more than a million. Worldwide though Nevrmind has massively ousold Ten-CAYA

..... Interesting, In the US Nirvana's Unplugged in New York has outsold Nirvana's In Utero(5m US). Worldwide though In Utero has outsold Unplugged.

sales numbers

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

I Highly Doubt They Are-Caya

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

New Pearl Jam album cover

I have added an image of the 2006 May 2 release self-titled album cover.

However, I have not used a licensed image and therefore the image will be removed in 7 days. The source URL is http://www.earvolution.com/2006/03/new-pearl-jam-record-due-in-may.asp

Could somebody with more knowlege of image use on Wikipedia please correct any licensing errors I have made so that the image can become permanent.

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia and I apologise if it is inapproriate

[the site has no copyright in the image - JSD, Owner of Earvolution.com]