Talk:Pearl Jam/Archive 1

message: I changed some info in the Riot Act paragraph.  Arc was the tribute to the nine who died in Denmark, not LBC.  Eddie only performed it nine times on tour (check on pearljam.com songs section) and will most likely never perform it again.  I was lucky enough to be at Boston 3 of that tour and see it performed.  They left it off of the recordings for the show, however, to show respect, I guess.  There are some fan recordings of Arc out there, but they are of somewhat poor quality.  It was really neat to see live though!
One question though... are there any recordings of "4/20/02" as a rememberance of Layne Staley.  I've never heard of this before.... and it seems like it could be bogus being on 4-20 and all.  Otherwise a very good article!
Sethmoski 16:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark tragedy = Arc 

message: I've changed the picture on the infobox to a more recent one. I hope you don't mind... |: Mybloodyvalentine 05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Picture

message: 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)
replies: text: It was removed and placed in a different  article. La Pizza11 18:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Pearl Jam site has a detailed cover song index. --jh51681 09:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover Songs

message: 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)
thread_title: Tragedy in Denmark

message: Dave Abbruzzese -- is this true ? Jay 22:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. There's more info here: . Jh51681 23:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dave Abbruzzese.

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed Non-Pearl Jam albums from list

message: 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)
:Mark Arm and Steve Turner were not in Mother Love Bone at all, they were in Green River with MLB & Pearl Jam members Stone and Jeff.  It doesn't matter anyway as MLB has their own page now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.206.69 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mother Love Bone redirect?

message: "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 believe that Vitalogy was released on vinyl about 3 days (maybe even a week?) before release on other formats (CD, cassette)  so the vinyl contrib is probably substantial but I don't know if it was 100% vinyl.
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)
thread_title: Vinyl album on Billboard 200.

message: 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)
thread_title: "Popularity"?

message: 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)
thread_title: Pic

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Expansion

message: Is their name a slang term for semen and if so should this be somewhere in the article?
:1st question - Yes, that is the reference though obviously the band can't just admit it, hence the other dubiously plausable explanations for the name. As for being in the article... I doubt it needs to be mentioned, but I'm surprised it isn't. 171.159.64.10 00:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think someone should put it in, but I can't think of any professional looking way to do it that wouldn't fit into what is already there. Any suggestions? Gopherbassist 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: could someone please quit changing TEN's sales number to 9,400,000
the correct number IS 12,100,000
:I'm not quite sure, but I beleive 9,400,000 is the U.S. sales and 12,100,000 is worldwide sales. Only the American sales are noted in the article. La Pizza11 20:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TEN SALES!

message: There seems to be no mention of the napster controversy that sparked the end to one of the first and most successful peer-2-peer networks.  Pearl Jam led the crusade to kill napster after they were one of the highest downloaded bands on the network.  This also led to a backlash and further labelling of the band as corporate sell-outs using grunge to make money.  I think this is important, because it was one of the key moments for the band outside of its music, and also marked the begining of the end for a major free download network. (Post traced to 03:30, 26 April 2006 Persianlor; by Cyhatch. I'm a pinn you, muff!..)
* Are you sure you don't mean Metallica? The Internet is not a reliable source of information, I know, but it has no in-the-open mention of Pearl Jam "leading the crusade to kill Napster". In fact, the few pages I found that were relevant stated otherwise. Or is this a stupid April 1st joke? --Cyhatch 15:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napster 

message: "Their name is intimately tied to the grunge movement of the early 1990s, along with Alice in Chains, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots and Soundgarden, with these names being usually considered the Big Five of grunge music"
Stone Temple Pilots isn´t grunge, in my opinion, since you have to be a Seattle band to be considered grunge. I consider them to post-grunge, and think you should delete them among the real grunge bands.
:: agreed. as much as i like stp, i have never heard them referred to as a part of the "big five"... i have only heard of a "big four of grunge" that includes nirvana, pearl jam, soundgarden, alice in chains
::: More importantly, the source  cited specifically mentions "The Big Four" being PJ, AIC, Nirvana, and Soundgarden. Unless a source can be found for "the big five" reference, it needs to be reverted. And anyway, the only google hit I found for "big five of grunge" names The Screaming Trees as #5, not STP. Blukens 02:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stone Temple Pilots 

message: Hey all, there's a deletion debate ongoing about Three fish, and I'm looking to expand the article further.  I'm not a huge PJ fan, but I figure some of you might have resources I'm not aware of to expand the article further.  Any help would be appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Fish 

message: Wow... this article is a prime example of over-linking to fan sites if I've ever seen one. I believe that the article would be improved by cutting out most of the external links entirely, using anything informative as references, such as I've done with the link to five horizons' Ticketmaster story.  
A huge block of external links to fan sites that provide the same information doesn't help provide the article with anything extra.  The external links that aren't used as references should be explicitly described as to what they provide.
Before I begin the purge, I wanted to see what the editors who have been watching this article for some time have to say about this.  Thanks.
Quoting from [[WP:EL];
Occasionally acceptable links: Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.
Links to normally avoid: In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
-- Xinit 17:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I'm not sure I follow the reasons for the "See Also" links... There are two mentions there of Victoria Williams, even though she is not mentioned anywhere else in the article.  The links to the lists of alternative rock artists and popular music performers and best selling artists seem of limited use, performing a function that would better be left to Categories.
The list of covered songs could be listed in the Discography or song list for the band or could be used as a reference in the article body.
I propose the deletion ot the See Also section.
--Xinit 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: Hello I just browsed by this article and I am wondering what happened to the infobox picture at the top of the article? can someone in charge of the article please put one in, and thanks. 
Bill102 17:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture of the band 

message: I'd like to note my opposition to the inclusion of the june 06 rolling stone cover in the section 2006 & beyond. Vedder (and the band) have made it known that they were very aggravated with this article. If you listen to the Cincinnati bootleg from their recent tour, Vedder has a lengthy diatribe about how Rolling Stone was supposed to include the entire band on the cover and how disappointed they were with the outcome.
3:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rolling stone article 

message: Please note the asterisks in the article are only there because I think AntiVandal Bot was picking it up and reverting as vandalism. It may have been because the word was misspelled with three "l"s in the middle. It should be sorted and reinstated at some point. Tyrenius 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bull****

message: This statement has a source which doesn't mention their influence. Can someone get a better source?
--FrasierC 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Influencial

message: Anyone feel like writing up a little something about Monkeywrench Radio on here? heqs 12:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkeywrench Radio 

message: pearl jam "hard rock" gets 831,000 hits on google. " "Grunge" gets 971,000. Meanwhile "alternative rock" has only 363,000. By comparison if you search for genre's that the band has done some songs in the style of like punk rock, you get 465,000, more than 100,000 hits than alternative rock, one of the genres that is listed. I don't see why this category is listed. It seems only because pearl jam came from the same place as Nirvana, and were lumped into the same category as them.
:They're listed by All Music Guide (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:6tkpu3u5an4k) under alternative rock, hard rock, and grunge. Pearl Jam was also lumped under the grunge cateogry even though a lot of people do not think that label fits. According to Wikipedia's grunge page it was a subgenre of alternative rock. Wikipedia's alternative rock page also makes mention of Pearl Jam. I think it should just be left with the three categories that AMG lists.BP322 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going simply by Google results isn't getting the whole picture.  Books and the msic press not only label Pearl Jam as alternative rock, but grunge as a subgenre of alternative rock.  You also have to analyze the sources; just because grunge shows up in Google more than alt-rock doesn't mean it's a more accurate genre label.  With grunge being a subgenre of alt-rock, it's just more specific and thus doesn't warrant an additional mention of alternative rock. By the way, if you type in "Pearl Jam alternative" (because not everyone says "alternative rock") you get 1,260,000 hits. WesleyDodds 02:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, because they were one of the least representative grunge acts.  And particularly starting around Vitalogy they started doing a lot of stuff outside of the confines of grunge, but still within the realm of alternative rock.  Plus, given their stature in the genre as a whole, it makes sense to include it.  Same reason it's on the Nirvana page. As for you counterpoints, Joy Division's style is pretty much adequately summed up with the post-punk label, and the Smiths aren't a punk band. *cues "Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now" WesleyDodds 11:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Rock?

message: They were one of the main topics of an episode of Clarissa Explains It All. 67.188.172.165 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarissa Explains It All

message: In the section about the bands history from 1991-1995, it mentions the bands "homo erotic actions" while inside hotel rooms on tour. I can't find it on the edit page, so somehow its uneditable for me... This seems like a sick and stupid form of vandalism. Can someone confirm its falsehood and remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.153.231.18 (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homo eroticness? What the heck is that? 

message: Any support for adding Boom as an "Associate member" of Pearl Jam in the infobox? -- Delsource (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox: Boom Gaspar 

message: Why was the link to my site deleted on Jan 21st? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pearl_Jam&oldid=102106359
I've read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL but obviously it can be any number of reasons? Is it possible to get a clarification as it is the most correct and comprehensive setlist information on Pearl Jam that currently exist. Thanks :-)
Armyreserve 12:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AllOrNone.org Link