Jump to content

Talk:Vs. (Pearl Jam album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Vs. (album))
Good articleVs. (Pearl Jam album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 10, 2008Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
September 30, 2020Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article

<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>

[edit]

Allbum Name

[edit]

Someone PLEASE explain why its called Vs.! I don't see that in the cover, spine, back, booklet, or CD. So why isn't it selftitled? Redwolf24 7 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)

It does in fact say "Vs." next to "Pearl Jam" on the jewel case spine. --Kevin McManus 20:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Don't see it. Redwolf24 11:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned a copy: Vs. case spine --Kevin McManus 21:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
This is interesting. It's not on the cover of the CD I have here, so maybe there are different versions? Straal 22:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Utero

[edit]

"Vs.'s competing album In Utero by Nirvana sold half as much as much as Vs. due to it's continous noise songs"

This sort of thing doesn't belong in any article. For a few reasons. It's inaccurate, 7 mil vs. 5 mil does not equal half as much. Why is it a competing album? This should be noted. "due to it's continuous noise songs" is without any source, completely biased, and also untrue.

Most Sold in a week

[edit]

"Pearl Jam will always hold the title for most albums sold in the first five days" - I have changed this as it reads like a prediction; changing to "still hold the record"... problem is, this may not be true. Who knows if those f*cking boy band albums sold more copies in their first five days?

Look unless someone can come up with a source that backs that they sold most album in a week it should be removed from the article. Honestly I think U2 sold over 1 million copies in their first week back in the 80s with their Joshua Tree.--70.129.55.17 08:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a nod to...

[edit]

the "Album Title" section uses the phrase "a nod to" twice in two sentences. its anoyying. go figure :)... why is this in a box ?????? im confused sorry121.217.241.224 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Vs. (Pearl Jam album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Lead
  • "Vs. is the second album" Should that be studio album?
  • "Ten (1991)" I'd be tempted to alter this to "Ten, released in 1991,"
  • "the longest duration by a Pearl Jam album" Perhaps "for" a Pearl Jam album?
Recording
Music
  • "The songs on the album tackle personal as well as social and political concerns. Topics on the album include child abuse ("Daughter"), gun culture ("Glorified G"), police racism ("W.M.A."), and the media ("Blood")." This sentence seems to sum up the rest of the paragraph. I would be tempted to put most of this in the lead, but also explain the police racism and media topics in this section.
Release
  • "first released some time in the late 1990s" very informal. If you don't know the exact date, simply put "first released during the late 1990s"
  • "Had Soundscan counted all seven days, the album would have sold more than 1,000,000 copies in its first week." Have you got a reference for this?
    • I never added this sentence, so I don't know where the editor who added this got his or her information from. This sentence was there before I really got to work on this article. I have no problem removing the unreferenced stuff if it could be a problem.-5- (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imagery
  • Do you know why they decided against naming the album "Five against one"?
    • I believe I read that they didn't want focus to be placed on any one particular song, because that line comes from the song "Animal", but I can't remember where I read this.-5- (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have references for all the differences?
Vs Tour
Outtakes
  • Do you have a ref for Whipping being cut? Do you know why it was cut?
    • I don't know why it was cut. The song was debuted on May 13, 1993, the same time as the other songs from Vs. The version of the song from the Vs. sessions can be found at gremmie.net.-5- (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chart positions
General

A bit to do, but nothing substantial, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review
  • (Lead) "Ten (1991)" I'd be tempted to alter this to "Ten, released in 1991,"
  • (Music) "The songs on the album tackle personal as well as social and political concerns. Topics on the album include child abuse ("Daughter"), gun culture ("Glorified G"), police racism ("W.M.A."), and the media ("Blood")." This sentence seems to sum up the rest of the paragraph. I would be tempted to put most of this in the lead, but also explain the police racism and media topics in this section.
  • (Release) "Had Soundscan counted all seven days, the album would have sold more than 1,000,000 copies in its first week." Have you got a reference for this?"
  • (Imagery) The differences section needs referencing.

Most of it is the points that haven't been addressed up till now. Some of the other points are fine at GA stage. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I'll pass it, but as per my comments above, I think some of the issues tackled in the songs, should be in the lead, and then more in depth analysis in the main body of the article. Maybe an idea for expansion if you wanted to take this article any further. Also could do with more images. But otherwise, looks okay. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Sun-Times review

[edit]

Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. Chicago Sun-Times (DeRogatis, Jim. 7. October 17, 1993) review of Vs. (1993):

Pearl Jam, "Vs." (Epic) (STAR) (STAR) (STAR) 1/2f11

Hot on the heels of Nirvana's "In Utero" comes another angry, uncompromising album from Seattle's second most important band. Pearl Jam's second album tries to thwart the same forces that frustrated Kurt Cobain: "Transition, leeches, media, bull - - - -," to quote the band's cryptic bio. Like Nirvana, Pearl Jam confounds rock-star expectations. Rather than duplicating the formula for "Alive" or "Evenflow," it explores aggressive new directions, but Pearl Jam isn't nearly as subversive.

The five musicians grew up with classic rock instead of punk and new wave. They retool and rev up familiar riffs from the Doors and the Who with a glossy, FM-friendly production by Brendan O'Brien (Black Crowes, Red Hot Chili Peppers). Yet Eddie Vedder's poetic lyrics and Jim Morrison vocal growl elevate the band above its wannabe-alternative peers. Vedder was born in Evanston and spent his teen years in Chicago before migrating westward. Like Cobain, he's an alienated and reluctant spokesman for the twentynothing generation - even though his words embody that group's cynicism and prevailing sense that things aren't what they seem.

On the first few listens, "Alive," the key track on Pearl Jam's smash debut "Ten," seems like a celebratory declaration. Eventually you realize it's a song about a guy contemplating incest with his mother after his father's death (which gives a new twist to Vedder's trademark evil-eye scowl). Many of the 12 songs on "Vs." are just as complex and multi-layered. The beautiful, acoustic "Daughter" revisits the neglected child of "Jeremy"; this time, it's a confused young girl. And the spare lyrics of "WMA" ("He won the lottery/When he was born") gain new meaning when you learn from the CD lyric sheet that it's a song about the white police officers in Detroit who beat Malice Green, an African-American, to death.

Vedder can be annoyingly coy (remember his "how can you judge art?" speech at the MTV Video Music Awards?), and some tunes are too preachy ("Animal" attacks wife-beating, while "Glorified G" calls for gun control). But when the pretensions get a bit thick, you can concentrate on Stone Gossard and Mike McCready's fat guitar riffs, or groove with Jeff Ament and Dave Abbruzzese's new, Chili Peppers-inspired funk rhythms. Or you can just toss the lyric sheet. Vedder's vocals are distinctive in many ways, but good diction isn't one of them. The rousing chorus of "Go!" - "Don't go on me" - sounds like "Dunk the wombat." And "Glorified version of a pellet gun" comes out, "Lost my version of a pelican." Come to think of it, I like those lines better.

— Jim DeRogatis

Dan56 (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone Album Guide review

[edit]

Four out of five star review. Transcription using Amazon.com Preview Browser:

Vs. was a far better example of what Pearl Jam could do live, and by this second album the group was already consciously unplugging from the trappings of fame by refusing to make videos and starting to battle with Ticketmaster. As a result, riff-heavy songs like "Animal," "Daughter," and "Dissident" sound large without being bombastic, perhaps because they were never in regular MTV rotation. Still, the band's songwriting skills left something to be desired: Tracks like "Rats" and "Leash" come off as arrogant experiments by a band with a fan base that can't be disappointed.

Dan56 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today review

[edit]

Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. USA Today (Gundersen, Edna. 01.D. October 15, 1993) review of Vs. (1993):

Crunching and melodic, raw and graceful, mystical and visceral, Pearl Jam's Vs. (#### out of four), due Tuesday, outscores the band's remarkable debut, Ten, and eclipses the new In Utero by sainted Seattle trio Nirvana. But Vs. is no grunge grudge match between Northwest titans. It confronts uncomfortable truths, buried pain and Generation X angst. Charismatic singer Eddie Vedder's stream-of-consciousness rants are driven by an emotional honesty and cathartic intensity absent in much of pop today. "Escape is never the safest way," he wails on Dissident. His feral slurring on Animal and sandpapery shriek on Blood improve on stock rock hollering, and his earnest snarling absolves the preachy tone on Rats (better than humans because they "don't scab, they don't fight, don't oppress an equal's given rights"). Vedder's quavery tenor is equally potent reined in, whether expressing the anguish of a little girl on Daughter (a counterpart to Jeremy), suicidal ruminations on Rearviewmirror or the calm sorrow of an Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town. Go pulsates with a menacing bass line. Funk-edged tribal rhythms propel W.M.A., an anti-racism song about a white male American who "won the lottery by being born." It's Pearl Jam vs. a cruel world. Spell that verses.

— Edna Gundersen

Dan56 (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album title is a reference to Mission of Burma?

[edit]

Does anyone have a reputable source which confirms/denies the name connection between this album, and the Mission of Burma album? I've always been of the understanding that the title was a reference to that seminal 1980s album.

Would be nice to get a sentence, backed by a reputable source, which confirms or denies this. Stuart mcmillen (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Vs. (Pearl Jam album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vs. (Pearl Jam album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems With Songwriting Citations

[edit]

There are serious, glaring problems with the citations used in this article, and other Pearl Jam album wikis, to claim specific band members wrote the songs on this album. In many of these cases, Wiki editors have misconstrued or exaggerated information from interviews to make unfounded claims that single band members wrote all the music of a song that is credited to the entire band.

For example: 1. This wiki claims Dave Abbruzzese wrote the entirety of the music for the song "Go." It then links as its citation to an interview where Abbruzzese describes bringing an initial version of the song to the band, who then wrote and recorded the final version together. "With "Go," I just happened to pick up the guitar at the right moment. Stone asked what I was playing and started playing it, then Jeff stared playing it, and Eddie started singing with it, and it turned into a song. That's basically how all or most of our songs come about." Wiki editors have taken their own unfounded position that Abbruzzese wrote the song without any concrete evidence, and ignored the fact that Pearl Jam officially credits the music to the band. If someone wants to add text to the "Music and Lyrics" section of this wiki that notes Abbruzzese brought the original version of the song to the band, that can be done. But falsely crediting a song to someone based on your own editorialized perception of an interview is in violation of pretty much everything that drives Wikipedia. 2. This wiki claims Stone Gossard wrote the entirety of the music for the song "Animal." It then links as its citation to an "Unofficial Pearl Jam History" fan page — not a reliable source — that nevertheless does not claim Gossard wrote the song. It merely says he, Jeff Ament, and Matt Cameron (who was in Soundgarden at the time) *recorded* — it doesn't specify who wrote it — a demo of the song prior to Pearl Jam's formation. 3. The wiki claims Gossard wrote the entirety of the music for the song "Daughter" and cites a fan newsletter that only states that Gossard used a specific guitar to write the song — the citation says nothing about whether he wrote the song by himself. 4. This wiki claims Gossard and Mike McCready wrote the music to "Glorified G" and then cites as its source an article where this claim is not made at all — in fact, McCready is quoted as saying he and Gossard wrote *parts* of the song — not the whole of it, so this is just a blatantly false reading of the source.

This goes on and on and seems to be rife throughout Pearl Jam's album wikis. These unreliable, misinterpreted and often false sources should be removed. Icanttalkaboutit (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Official Release Date

[edit]

This album was widely released on Oct 19 1993, the same day as Rush's Counterparts. Anecdotal evidence means nothing, but I was at the store on the day of release along with my friend, he for Counterparts and me for Vs. All the reviews are just days before the release date, from advance copies. None are anywhere near Oct 5th. The RIAA is being considered here all by itself as some encyclopedic source that trumps all others, when every other source including not just the band's official website but sources like Billboard (who show that on the week of release Pearl Jam and Rush came in at numbers one and two) show Oct 19th as the release date. These are trusted sources, and together they show consensus. One single source cannot trump a consensus of reliable sources. In the archive of Billboard's Nov 6th newsweekly, on page 14, there is an article about Pearl Jam and Nirvana on their music's staying power which notes that Vs. was released on Oct 19th. It also mentions on the same page in another editorial that they released the vinyl one week early (Oct 12). I trust this will end the ongoing edit war. Source: https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Billboard/90s/1993/BB-1993-11-06.pdf Dobyblue (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it over. Billboard PDF is reliable, RIAA too, but the band's official website is not. In the end, the magazine trumps the RIAA. Btw, I know that the RIAA fails many times, but it's still more reliable than most sources. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vs. footnote (or head note)

[edit]

this album Vs. was originally called "Five Against One"


A double entendre(maybe5 entendre) Five members of Pearl Jam

Five album contract (with epic records) Five fingers on a hand Five fingers to make a fist Five fists to fight the music industry Whom demanded they "fit the mold of the alternative grunge band by which they had to "look a certain way" 

which is also why there were no videos from 5/1_VS. In which the band appeared and forward from Vitology onward

This is precursor for long battle between PJ and biG brother in several manifestations.

sorry for this long entry, but I had no other way to tell you only the "5 against one" true tit

.and become a another tool for them is a very long story which most true fans will know 2601:47:100:C2C0:A591:650F:8785:C7FA (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vs._(Pearl_Jam_album)&oldid=1211559307"