# Talk:Pearl Jam (album)

Would you guys call this album rock or Grunge?
Rock, personally.  198.209.215.143 16:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely say rock Mylifeisought 05:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Rock. Anyone who calls it grunge must be tone-deaf. That would be like calling Bob Dyaln's Street-Legal a folk album. Mcmillancaleb
Pearl Jam were never grunge, they were just from Seattle. --Macarion 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
People keep changing it to grunge. Someone should put up a vandalism thingy.
This album should be called grunge just for wikipedia to not contradict itself, Ten is a grunge album acording to wikipedia and this is Pearl Jam's album that took them back to there musical roots so I say grunge, but I personally think its an Alt Rock/Hard Rock record.
--- No it's Grunge. There are so many articles, reviews, and blogs saying how this goes back to the older style, which was always called Grunge. It's still Alt/Hard ROck too. Grunge crosses over into other genres.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.135.215 (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 
i think hard rock should be one of the genres, as it is listed as one of the genres on the bands article, and this is one of their more hard rock oriented albums.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 

Was anyone creeped out when they pulled the cd out of the case? It sure did creep me out to see Eddie Vedder in a pyramid of severed heads. Chile 16:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
For me? Just a little. 'Cause the cover seems as boring as hell with just a blue backround and an avacado. However once you open it up that's when it gets creepy, because it has Eddie in a severed heads pyramid and the lyric booklet looks like Leatherface's mask, and has two heads that seem disfigured on the sides.-Cory pratt

Can anyone explain why the tracks from this Pearl Jam album are non-downloadable on Limewire? When a song is typed in, dozens of results appear for it but when "download" is clicked on any of them it just says "needs more sources" (meaning it can't be downloaded). -- 76df457hjkozdfg 10:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummm yeah, It's because you are trying to illeagally download a very popular music track from a heavily monitored pirating site that is full of crappy viruses and spyware.  Not to mention hundreds of phony rogue PJ files placed there by the riaa servers to track you down and give you a lawsuit once you connect and try to get the garbage files.  Hey here is an idea, why don't you freaking BUY it? Get a clue.  J Shultz 03:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets not forget Jeremy and Alive video as well.
The article states that Pearl Jam has only made video Life Wasted Do Evolution and Oceans.
This is incorrect.  Could someone please make the corrections?  I don't know why people always forget Alive and Jeremy videos?
Thanks --buzlink 16:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It said since Oceans. Alive, Jeremy, and Even Flow were made before Oceans. Howeer, Love Boat Captain and Save You had music videos, so I'll change that area. La Pizza11 22:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In the article, it says the inside art for those who pre-ordered the album is different than the one in stores. I pre-ordered, and am interested in what the store version has for inside art. If someone has that version, please add a brief description of it. La Pizza11 22:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In the pre-order paragraph it says that the version of the album with the bonus disc and different packging was available to members only. This is inaccurate as I ordered it and am not a member. It didn't say you had to be a member anywhere on the site either, you just order it like any online shop. JedEgan 17:56, 02 June 2006 (UTC)

In the article it states, "The video for "Life Wasted" premiered in May 2006, marking Pearl Jam's first video since 1998's 'Do The Evolution,' and only their 2nd video since 1992's 'Oceans.'" Maybe it's just me, but this sentence makes absolutely no sense.

It's just you. --Macarion 01:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is "Life Wasted" considered the first video for Pearl Jam since "Do The Evolution"? Why aren't the clips for "World Wide Suicide" and "I am Mine" included as music videos?
because they're not

There seems to be confusion over what a video is and what not a video is. So I'll set the record straight.
"Life Wasted" is the first official video since Yield's Do The Evolution. Videos like "I Am Mine" and "Love Boat Captain" are promos for their album "Riot Act", likewise with "World Wide Suicide". These promos are not official videos, they show the band performing and, yes, some music stations like to show these promos, but they are NOT official music videos. To my knowledge the only 'official' videos Pearl Jam has released are "Alive", "Oceans", "Jeremy", "Do The Evolution", and now, "Life Wasted".

I don't want to disagree with your characterization as to the importance of the DTE video compared to the two Riot Act videos (I only recall DTE appearing on MTV, to name one measure of visibility), but I don't really understand your use of the words "official" to make that distinction, since the opposite, "non-official," connotes some illicit nature to the "I Am Mine" video, which I don't believe is the case. They were filmed and released under the band's direction (the Chop Suey "I Am Mine" video on a DVD that I own... I think it came with my copy of Riot Act?); how much more 'official' do we need to get? Further, at [The Sky I Scrape], they seem to treat "I Am Mine" on the same level as the other previous videos, showing at least a somewhat systematic adpotion of "I Am Mine."
I'm not saying we're wrong to put "Life Wasted" in a different category than "I Am Mine," as it took a much more concerted effort towards creation than a simple live-video shoot. I think we'd be better off characterizing the album through a discussion of the overall increased emphasis on promotion, as evidenced by the SNL and Letterman appearances, their appearance on VH1 Storytellers to feature the new songs, as well as this well-crafted video. That seems to be a much more interesting direction to take in telling the story of this album.
Let me know what you think. Lanford 05:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe 'official' isn't the right word, prehaps 'made-for-MTV' is better. DTE & Life Wasted are made for MTV whereas I Am Mine, WWS, etc. are all promos. - User:mcmillancaleb

The "Pearl Jam" global album sales number is questionable . The source is bunk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.222.92.13 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

The Article says that "Inside Job" is the first song written by "Mike McCready", but "Present Tense" is  written by Mike too in colaboration by Eddie Vedder. I think that the autor refers that "Come Back" is written by Mike alone. (A. Thompson 02:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC))
"Inside Job" is the first song for which McCready wrote the lyrics. He only collaboarated on the music for "Present Tense" and "Come Back".-5- 08:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there a song from Lost Dogs that Mike wrote bot the music and lyrics?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.46.140.149 (talk) 23:21, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:PearlJam1.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 ensure 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) 14:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pearl Jam (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Idiotchalk (talk · contribs) 11:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Overall, this is a fairly decent article, however, there are a few problems that need to be addressed before it can be passed as a good article.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
When nominated, the prose had some very minor issues which were edited.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The article doesn't seem to contain any original research and it cites references where appropriate, although there are some issues with the references (see below) (fixed as of January 2, 2012)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article covers all aspects of the album without getting off-topic or unfocused.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
No bias at all.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No evidence of edit wars.
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): 
The article features two artwork covers and differentiates between both, and suitable image in Tour section.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
The problems listed below were addressed and the article is now suitable for a pass, as of January 2, 2012 (22:10, GMT)


### Issues in the article
Lead section
"sometimes referred to as The Avocado Album", reference 18 could be used here to verify the claim.
It was... but since it's usually "reference the whole lead" or "don't reference at all", I picked that instead of a sole ref.
Another paragraph could be added to describe the musical style, as the lead should read as an overview of the whole article.
"Pearl Jam was well-received critically, and was a commercial success", although it is mentioned in detail later in the article, this could use an overall reference.
Recording
"For the album, Pearl Jam worked again with producer Adam Kasper." What previous album did Kasper produce?
"The resulting material was more up-tempo compared with the band's last few albums. Vedder attributed this to the band writing a lot of material that kept getting pared down, with the band leaving behind mid-tempo songs, while Ament suggested that it was because of the band balancing recording and touring which resulted in "physicality ... from being out on the road." This would be more fitting in Music and lyrics section.
"As Pearl Jam's contract with Epic Records had ended in 2003 [...] Backspacer three years later." This would be more fitting in the Release and reception section.
Music and lyrics
"leaving everything behind to start again" could use better, and less vague, wording.
Packaging
"Fernando Apodaca handled the liner notes art as well as the music video for "Life Wasted." Is there any need to mention the "Life Wasted" video?
"Those who pre-ordered the album through Pearl Jam's official website..." could use better wording. For example: "Copies of the album were made available for pre-order through Pearl Jam's official website with different CD art and packaging than the retail version."
"this fan club pre-order version resembles a book and has the liner notes bound inside it", needs reference.
Release and reception
"The lead single "World Wide Suicide" (backed with B-side "Unemployable", also from the album), was made available through online music stores." This could use a reference and there is no need to mention that "Unemployable" is from the album, as it's mentioned in Track listing.
""World Wide Suicide" entered the Billboard Hot 100 at number 41, reached number two on the Mainstream Rock charts, and spent a total of three weeks at number one on the Modern Rock charts." The last statement needs a reference.
Tour
"which was the first concert the new material was played at", statement needs a reference.
Outtakes
This entire section can be merged with Recording.
Personnel
This section should have a reference, possibly from the album's liner notes?
Accolades
No need for this section, as it's already mentioned in Release and reception.
References
2. This article does not exist.<
4. The page number of CD booklet should be mentioned.
6. The URL cites the wrong page of the article (should be page 1, not page 2).
9. The link doesn't work.
The article is there. The problem is that archive.org has a problem with playing mp3...
14. The article mentions alcohol abuse, not drug use.
17, 22 and 40. These need fixing. If they are from the web, please add a URL. If it's from a magazine/journal, the author and issue/page number would be helpful.
One has a totally dead (not even on Archive.org!) link. The other two don't even have that. But expanded with cite journal/news.
21. The site does not mention that there is only one pressing.
41 and 55. These references, although reliable, should perhaps use Billboard, as it's a direct source?
Replaced the latter (the former has a problem: Billboard is currently not opening the "Chart History" tab of band pages...).
43. This could use a more reliable source, perhaps an online article?
50. The link mentions downloads are/were available, but doesn't mention what was available.
54. There doesn't seem to be any mention of the album charting at #12 on Belgian Album Chart (WA).
74. The certification is Platinum, not Gold, according to source.
There are also some general issues with the references, such as:

Templates like (cite web, cite news and cite journal) should be used although there are a lot of references that don't use them.
Some titles are missing (for example, reference 5 is "Q&A with Eddie Vedder" not just "Eddie Vedder").
Some references only use the year (e.g. reference 5) when the date is mentioned in the article.
The work/publisher is missing in some cases (e.g. reference 37).
Some of the dates should be formatted. Either change all to YYYY-MM-DD format or Month Day, Year format.
Direct quotes in the article note who said them, however the references don't.
Can you give an example of this? (standardized the rest, though you can appoint mistakes)
Other
The languages templates need fixing.
I'd be more than happy to help you with some of these issues, but for now the nomination has been put on hold to await improvements. Idiotchalk (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Did as much as I could of those requests. igordebraga ≠ 05:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

All the issues here have been addressed and the article is now passed. Well done! Idiotchalk (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/ej/2006/07/20/pearl_jam_s_jeff_ament_speaks
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mr0Evm3j to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C25274950-5006024%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115071152/http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/amplifier/grading-pearl-jams-album-covers.html to http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/amplifier/grading-pearl-jams-album-covers.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218010646/http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparada/index.php?hitp=P to http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparada/index.php?hitp=P
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002123017/http://top20.dk/searchresult.php?lang=en&styp=1 to http://top20.dk/searchresult.php?lang=en&styp=1
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
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) 11:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)