Talk:Pearl Jam/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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)

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))

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:[1], 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))

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)

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)

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)

There needs to be a source/reference for Pearl Jam outselling Nirvana. As far as I can tell, this is only possible if Pearl Jam's albums that they released post-1999 are included.

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: [2] 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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [3] which was vandalism, soon reverted Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 22 April 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)

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)

Seattle or San Diego

Where r they from?

Pearl Jam is from Seattle. Although Ed came from the San Diego music scene.User:-5--5- (User talk:-5-talk) 21:35, 21 July 2008 (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.User:-5--5- (User talk:-5-talk) 20:21, 27 July 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.User:-5--5- (User talk:-5-talk) 23:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)