Talk:Pearl Jam/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Introductory sentence: "Pearl Jam is an American rock band"

Surely this should read: "Pearl Jam are an American rock band". I see this kind of thing quite regularly - perhaps it's an American thing: "U2 is touring" ("U2 are touring") Surely one would not say: "The Rolling Stones is cool" - "The Rolling Stones are cool" is cooler.
In England, in these situations, we'd say "are". And we invented, er, English. Often, Americans just seem to invent this stuff as they go along. If they want to ride roughshod over the rules, fine - but then why do they try to follow them elsewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.153.169 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is an American thing. Pearl Jam is an American group, so we use an American grammar styles. English bands like the Stones would use the English grammar. Teemu08 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. Are you saying that your grammar would change if you were referring to, say, The Beatles? You are American: respectfully, your statement implies that you adjust your grammar according to the nationality of the subject you are discussing. I'm not talking about what the Rolling Stones (for example) would say: I'm talking about what others say when referring to them. Regardless of this, my point still stands: the habit I referred to seems to be a grammatical preference of Americans. Just because it's a habit, that does not make it correct. When you say that "English bands like the Stones would use the English grammar", I think you are misunderstanding my point. Respectfully again, if someone American wrote the Wikipedia article on The Stones, they would probably still use the grammatical habit I have pointed out. Unless you are saying that they would alter their grammar because they were writing about an English subject. Which would be odd. An equivalent would be using lots of hand gestures when discussing the city of Rome. Without wishing to sound rude, I thought I'd also point out that when you say: "we use an American grammar styles", your syntax is a little out of kilter: this unfortunately has a negative effect on the perceived authority of your reply. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.153.169 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The intent is to use the grammar most closely associated with a topic. Clearly we don't all know the regional grammar rules, but that can be corrected as other users more familiar with the region bring up the issues. These things are often seen as mistakes by others. Thanks to Wikipedia, I, as an American, have become familiar with the tricky issue of collective nouns in different regions of the world. I still can't be positive I get it right, but I know enough to know that it isn't a mistake when I see it. This comes up frequently with sports teams and bands. It all depends on if the word itself is plural. So, in American English, "Pearl Jam is..." but "The Beatles are..." --Siradia (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Oddly, this still does not seem to make any sense: you both appear to be suggesting that grammar in Wikipedia has a kind of chameleon-like habit of adjusting itself according to the nationality of the subject under discussion. Respectfully, this is faintly ridiculous. An equivalent would perhaps be for an American in a bar to start lisping whilst discussing Barcelona ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceceo#Castilian_lisp ). Or for an American to use a clicking sound whilst discussing Namibia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan_languages ). If an American from Seattle meets someone from Alabama, do they immediately starting using a Southern accent? This is all a revelation to me. I thought that the rules for these things were pretty solid: you seem to suggest that they are fluid. It seems a coincidence that you both think this is correct. Respectfully, I fear that you are expressing your preference or opinion, and imagine that you will be proved to be incorrect in the near future. Grammar is grammar. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that when an American writes about a band, they will use (what they feel to be) "American English" grammar. What you are actually saying is that this (imaginary) American Wikipedia-user subtly adjusts his/her grammar according to the subject. Respectfully again, if you think about it, this is plainly absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.153.169 (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not particularly absurd because there is no one author to wikipedia. There are people from diverse backgrounds. Often people gravitate to topics more relevant to their own life and experience. So, articles about the UK are primarily edited by those in the UK. Articles about America are most often edited by those in America. There is no exclusion, of course, as anyone can edit them. People can, however, keep these things in check based on the rules of their own region. You say, "Grammar is grammar," but this is most definitely not an absolute. Even authorities within the same country cannot agree on certain rules. There is no one right way to do things. There are regional rules. In America, where this band is from, it would always be incorrect to say "Pearl Jam are an American rock band." See American and British English differences - Formal and notional agreement. There are topics that do not have a regional identity. In those cases, the rule is to be consistent within the article. See here for more info. --Siradia (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think mr unsigned is right, when i saw that first sentence i thought exactly the same.Americans need to stop using english incorrrectly just as a form of rebellion against us brits.I thought his points were well put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.190.133 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why no one has quoted an actual Wikipedia policy yet, but here it is, from the WIkipedia:Manual of style:

The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using four simple guidelines. . . . An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation.

Pearl Jam is an American band, and thus an American topic, so we use American English. In American English, collective nouns like this are treated as singular nouns. — Dulcem (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks

Well I stand corrected. As I said earlier, this is a revalation to me. I now know that when I see this particular grammatical usage (irritating though it is to me), it is perfectly acceptable to Americans, and therefore should be accepted by others. That is not to say that I approve of it, or that I think that this particular way of writing / speaking is, for example, plainer or clearer. On the contrary, in some scenarios it seems rather odd. Take the following examples from the article:

"Pearl Jam was outraged when, after it played a pair of shows in Chicago, it discovered that ticket vendor Ticketmaster had added a service charge to the tickets"

The idea that Pearl Jam was outraged seems weird. I (now) know that this is "correct" according to American English. But surely, in this context, it was the members of the band that were outraged. It would be plainer to read that "Pearl Jam were outraged": it would confer more responsibility on the human beings in the band.

"Considered a "blatantly great pop song" by producer Brendan O'Brien, Pearl Jam was reluctant to record it and had initially rejected it from Vs. due to its accessibility" Here again, this American English habit comes slightly unstuck: by saying that "Pearl Jam was reluctant to record" it, the writer seems to take away the individuality of the band members. Surely "Pearl Jam were reluctant to record it" offers and suggests more autonomy, choice and power to the men in the band.

"In June 2003, Pearl Jam announced it was officially leaving Epic Records following the end of its contract with the label"

Yet again, because of American English, here we have the band, like some machine, anonymously making an announcement. An important announcement by the looks of it. Yet in (correct) American English the power is drained from the "team", from the guys, by saying that "it was officially leaving". Surely by saying that "they were officially leaving Epic Records", we give them back their individuality. The American English way somehow oddly makes the band sound like a big corporate machine, by constantly not referring to the members.

"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..."
Lastly, this sentence caught my eye: "Pearl Jam has outlasted many of its contemporaries in the grunge scene like Nirvana..." Now is this not a little cruel? Apart from the fact that I seem to remember Kurt Cobain occasionally slightly looking down on Pearl Jam (I could be wrong), of course they outlasted Nirvana: Nirvana's singer, er, died. Pearl Jam "outlasted" them, in a sense, because they are still alive. Is that such an achievement? Apart from this grammatical issue, good article.

As I have said, I now accept that this collective noun habit is perfectly acceptable in American English. However, I for one think it is rather odd, and feel that just because people have this habit, this does not make it right. I will continue to believe that the English grammatical form is superior.
Thanks, and toodle pip! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.153.169 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2008

This isn't just some sort of habit, this is the correct grammar in American English, its just not what you are used to, and so doesn't read correctly. Go to a US news website and read articles there - as a Brit I find some of the sentences awkward because some of the grammar inflections are slightly different to the way we use them. This article is fine though. It uses American grammar from the start and sticks to it. Kristmace (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It uses American grammar from the start and sticks to it. It makes much more sense in the present tense... Lugnuts (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Boom Gaspar

Why isn't Boom Gaspar considered an official member, he's recieved credit on both studio and live albums, doesn't that count? Just to know, because he's being like excluded or ignored Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He's not an official member of the band. For one thing, he's not included in any of the promotional photos. Also, in the liner notes he is listed as additional personnel. He only plays on selected tracks on the studio albums and even live.User:-5--5- (User talk:-5-talk) 03:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Again the "most popular" thing

It's way too controversial that phrase, just Nirvana has sold more than 50 million albums, (and it hasn't been active for more than 12 years, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains,, super groups that are being underrated just because of that statementon Almusic, in my opinion, the author of that article in Allusic didn't mean it to be so controversial, but just to show how important Pearl Jam is. This shouldn't be discussed here, which is the band's talk page, and most of the persons that come to it are mostly Pearl Jam-fans, and the result will be the same as before. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 01:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

We;ve been through this a hundred times! There are no verifiable sources on world album sales. You say Nirvana sold 50 million albums... it can't be proved. Pearl Jam are said to have sold a similar amount - we just don't know. The fact is though that US sales data is available via Soundscan and Pearl Jam have sold more records than Nirvana in the US. Kristmace (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Band name

In the 1990s, I asked my friend, the biggest Pearl Jam fan I've ever known, what the band name meant. He said, "Think of something that is the color of pearl and has the consistency of jam..." Are there no references to the band members giving an explanation along these lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.42.233 (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The official explantion for the band's name is already in the article.User:-5--5- (User talk:-5-talk) 08:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Katrina Benefit

While I seriously doubt that it bears inclusion in a Pearl Jam article, it should be noted *somewhere* that this show was performed with Robert Plant and not only included collaborations on Zep's "Thank You" and "Little Sister" by Elvis Presley, but also the only known live performance of Zep's "Fool In The Rain," with Plant and Vedder trading verses and PJ as the band. -- lowgenius -- My Talk Page 14:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative from Vitalogy forward?

I was just wondering, why is every single song and album after Vitalogy labeled just alternative? Just because it's after '94 or something? Because some of those, like Yield and their self-titled, are just as hardcore as their earlier stuff. This site has a major problem with genre labeling, especially with 90's alternative/grunge bands. I mean, it's rediculous. Just because a band is mostly known as grunge, doesn't mean that every single song is labeled grunge. I mean, people tried to label "Polly" by NIRVANA as "alternative rock" and "grunge" on two separate occasions. What? It's a folk song! I mean...what?! Not just NIRVANA, or Pearl Jam, but all of these bands. CheezerRox4502 (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Most" Popular Band thing

I love Pearl Jam, they have great songs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wings of UK (talk • contribs) 12:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering bands like Metallica, R.E.M., Nirvana, and RHCP sold as much or even more (Metallica and R.E.M. both sold much more records the Pearl Jam did), it should be removed or at least be changed to "one of the most popular bands". --Nirvana77 (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length before. The article says "is considered to be..." and references that claim to a reputable music publication. My opinion is that this is fine. Comments? Kristmace (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In the previous discussions, the majority seemed to favor not including the phrase "most popular". Considering you just cant decide that and several bands were much more successful then Pearl Jam was. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be objective? --Nirvana77 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - I don't think the majority wanted the phrase removed, just the more vocal. I've never seen evidence that any rock band were more successful in 90's in the US. If you have some references, then site them. Kristmace (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Majority or minority doesn't override policy and guidelines though. As I said on this subject before, A single journalist who says so does not make it true, and "Most popular" is still way to subjective and a bit weaselish. As long as it is put in the context of who is saying it, i.e. "Leading music journalists call Peal Jam the most successful band of the 90's" rather than stating their editorial opinion as plain fact, I think it is fine. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Tarc, which is why I think it's fine in this case because it says

is considered to be "the most popular American rock band of the 90's"

with the main part of the sentence in quotation marks which are referenced. Kristmace (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To the fanboy statement that he havent seen any evidence any band were more popular in the United States in the 90's, Metallica sold more, and if your talking about media attention Nirvana recived much more coverage during the first half of the 90's. So how are you supposed to decide how popular a band is. On sales? On the media? Pearl Jam does not live up to the requirments of being "the most popular band" of the 90's. --Nirvana77 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, I said that I'd never seen evidence that any rock band had been more successful (which means sold more records) in the US in the 90's - that is the debated issue. Still no evidence, still no references. You can't just come on here and make unverified claims like this. And media attention is not an issue, because Nirvana were definitely more in the media spotlight - but this is a debate about success/popularity. Read the debated line in the article again. It says that Pearl Jam is considered to be "The most popular American rock band of the 90's" - with the quotation referenced. I still think this is ok. Kristmace (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And if I find and article that says Pearl Jam is "One of the worst things ever to happen to rock music" can I quote that in the opening paragraphs of the entry? Themightykhan84 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As that would be a WP:FRINGE point of view, the answer would be "no". Tarc (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you guys insist on including the "most popular" claim - which I think is absurd and only serves the "Pearl Jam is the best band" fringe - the article should state exactly who made the claim.

I have no problem with "considered one of the most influential bands of the decade" - a qualified ("condidered", "most") and referenced statement - apearing in the article, but Erlewine's claims, "biggest band in the world" ("Lost Dogs - Rarities and B Sides, Review") and "most popular American rock & roll band of the '90s" ("Pearl Jam, Biography"), are only unverifiable opiinions. (See my post under "Another comment on the 'most popular' thing".) Opinions don't generally belong here, but when they do appear they should be referenced within the text.

It should read something like, "considered one of the most influential bands of the decade, and 'the most popular American rock & roll band of the '90s' by allmusic.com's Stephen Thomas Erlewine."

Rico402 (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree, but I don't think that's very neat and tidy. The point of references is that you don't need to include the citations in the text, but that the information is very accessible by clicking the superscript which highlights the link to the reference. Kristmace (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of a citation - within the text, in footnotes, endnotes, bibliography, etc. - is to provide the reader with the source of the information contained within the text of a written work. But conveying that information in a general sense, whether by paraphrasing another's work or incorporating it into a more comprehensive thesis, is considerably different than providing a direct quote. In such cases - in journalism, academic texts, scholarly and professional papers - it is common practice to include the name of the author of the quote within the text. In this instance, as in many others, it isn't necessary to provide the entire citation, as that information appears at the end of the article.

As I said above, "Opinions don't generally belong here...", articles should objective in nature. But when they do appear, the text should reflect whose opinion it is: The "majority of music journalists" for example. In this instance, as far as I can tell, we're dealing with what many consider the dubious findings or opinions of a single journalist. That fact alone should be reflected within the text. (If we're going to retain this ill-defined phrase "the most popular band", which I STRONGLY ARGUE SHOULD BE REMOVED.)

Regarding quoted material in general, I would invite editors to consult any bound reputable encyclopedia. You'll find that direct quotes are extremely rare, and where they are used they are nearly always the words of the subject of the article. (Under "Alexander Hamilton" for example, you may find his description of Aaron Burr as "a man of irregular and insatiable ambition.") If you find an entry containing a direct quote from another, with that person not referenced within the text, I'd be interested to here of it.

Rico402 (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be removed, it's so ridiculous that it is still in the article. --Nirvana77 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You've given no evidence other than your opinion that it should be removed. Whilst I respect your opinion, you would have more joy if you show us references that other bands sold more records in America during the 90's Kristmace (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What evidence have you given to support the fact that Pearl Jam sold most records during the 90's?--Nirvana77 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Kristmace (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, couple quick points:

1) REM and Metallica are 1980's bands. The battle is really between RHCP, Pearl Jam and Nirvana. 2) RIAA, which is the standard authority for album sales in the US, shows the following for their career album sales:

  a) RHCP - 21.5 Million
  b) Nirvina - 25 Million
  c) Pearl Jam - 30 Million

Thus, the statement is not only based upon the original source, but also back by the RIAA. Therefore, you have two sources now that lead to the same conclusion. Furthermore, the statement is not they are "the" most popular but "one of the" most popular. The wording is fine and should remain, unless someone can provide a source that says otherwise. RIAA is http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=tblTopArt&action= NMBJ69 (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

3) If you are doing sales for only albums released in the 1990's, then the results per RIAA are:

• a) Pearl Jam - 26 Mil (Ten =12 Mil, Vs.=7 Mil, Vitalogy = 5 Mil, No Code = 1 Mil, Yield = 1 Mil)
• b) Nirvana - 22 Mil (Nevermind= 10 Mil, In Utero = 5 Mil, Unplugged = 5 Mil, Incesticide= 1 Mil, From The Muddy Banks = 1 Mil)
• c) Metallica - 28 Mil (Metallica = 15 Mil, Load = 5 Mil, Reload = 3 Mil Garage Inc = 5 Mil )

Thus, the statement that Pearl Jam was one of the most popular groups is still true. However, we may need to word it that they were the most popular alternative band, since Metallica was not alternative, this would make the entire statement clear and true. Thoughts? NMBJ69 (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts is that we should still remove the quote. Theres no question that Pearl Jam was one of the most popular bands but it is very debatable and unsure if they were "the" most popular band. The quote says "the most popular American rock & roll band of the '90s" not "the most popular American alternative band of the '90s". I find that the quote comes i conflict with WP:NPOV and WP:worldwide view. Why cant we just settle with something like "one of the most popular American rock band of the '90s"? --Nirvana77 (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 possibilities, and I think we should vote on it to reach consensus. They are...

• 1) Leave the article as it is
• 2) Make it clear that the line in question is a quote from a music journalist
• 3) Add a phrase such as "one of the most popular"

Personally, I favour number 3) and think that the line should read '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 and popular bands of the decade.[5][6]'

Here the two references are retained as they now in reference to the whole sentence. Opinions... Kristmace (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that sounds fair. --Nirvana77 (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't vote to gain consensus on Wikipedia. You gain consensus through discussion: see WP:CONSENSUS. Say "one of" would be misrepresenting the source (and the source wouldn't match what the article text was saying). Popularity is not just record sales, and it's pretty clear it's a quote. Find another source that states what you'll saying, and then others can then consider it. CloudNine (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Or you just remove the whole ridiculous quote and just write "and is considered one of the most influential and popular bands of the decade.". It's an unnecessary and biased quote wich i think most people here feel that it should be removed. You dont have that many and long discussions about nothing. --Nirvana77 (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Is considered" is a weasly phrase, especially if we don't back it up with a source. CloudNine (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[1] - This could perhaps be used. I find the BBC more reliable then allmusic.com. --Nirvana77 (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really keen on that as a reference Nirvana77. It seems like it's been lifted from somewhere rather than being written by a journalist. Plus it goes against WP:Reliable_sources.

CouldNine, I really respect the fact that you've put a lot of effort into this fantastic featured article. Do you have any suggestions to help concensus? I'm also concerned about reference [5] which is used to back up the fact that the band are considered the most influential of the decade. The article uses that word considered, and the reference doesn't mention anything about this. Kristmace (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just the fact that there are so many arguments against why Pearl Jam are not the "most popular band of the 90s" with attached references and premises, indicates that it is disputable. If Nirvana were the most influential, does that not make them the "most popular"? That is a rhetorical question. Lots of bands have been influential and have not had big record sales, so record sales are not a straightforward indication of popularity. Why can't the article just say "one of the most popular" instead of constantly asserting something which is a mere majority (if that) opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.160.18 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone Magazine's top 500 songs includes 4 Nirvana songs, but none by Pearl Jam. Does this not call into question whether Pearl Jam are "the most popular band of the 90s"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.160.18 (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Metallica, they had began in the 80's as your generic and typical thrash metal band, Later on, they did imply some hard rock, classic 70's heavy metal sounds, alternative rock/metal (ReLoad, Load, St. Anger), and nu metal elements (St. Anger). They didn't achieve their breakthrough until you know, "The Black Album (Metallica)", in 1990. They were still underground in the early-to-mid 80's, they're a 90's band. With Metallica and their alternative influences, they're shown sparsely and sparingly, even wisely, not all the way.

For the band of the 90's who sold the most albums, besides The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nirvana and Pearl Jam: you have to add in R.E.M., Metallica, Faith No More, Fugazi, Helmet, Green Day, Deftones, Rage Against the Machine, Korn, Radiohead, Tool, Sepultura. Shall I go on?

However if you want to go off who sold more The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nirvana or Pearl Jam:

Pearl Jam > RHCP > Nirvana. That would be the exact order.

panicpack121 13:40, 2 February 2014

Most popular band

The term is way to vague. If popular means influential, then Pearl Jam is not the most popular band of the 90s. I think the expression best-selling would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.139.81 (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not vague. Most popular = most record sales. That can't be any clearer. CloudNine 07:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, most popular could mean most infuential, most known, most talked about etc (and we know which band would be talked about in those terms). Pick a dictionary and look at the definition of popular. The term is too vague again, BEST SELLING, is the right term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.139.81 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see "most influential", "most known", "most talked about" in the dictionary defintion. I see "regarded with great favour, approval, or affection by the general public." approval in this context would be selling records. Popular is not vague; a best-selling band is a popular band. It's not a POV statement. CloudNine 18:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at how much discussion the use of "most popular band" has created, there is a lot of people not comfortable with the term. I have no problem with best selling band which is true, but popular is again too vague, not precise enough. Like you said " regarded with great favor, approval, or affection by the general public", this is not quantifiable. Saying that this definition of popular=best selling artist is twisting the meaning of the term. Approval, in this context, include much more than record sales and should include coverage by the press, memorabilia etc. There is no way you can prove that the term popular here could only apply to record sale. For example, somebody could say that Kurt Cobain is the most popular artist of the 90s, since he certainly made more money than all of those bands since his death (which is a fact). However, he did not sell more records than Pearl Jam, which is also a fact, but he is still without a doubt more known by the general public than any member of Pearl Jam or the band itself is. Using record sale to determine popularity is not a good barometer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.139.81 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a definition of popular that includes "made most amount of money." Could you provide a source for "he certainly made more money than all of those bands since his death"? That's debatable. Why are record sales not a good barometer? They're fine, and several alternative music editors and Stephen Thomas Erlewine agree (Could you provide a source that says another rock band was the most popular during the 1990s?). The fact is that Pearl Jam outsold Nirvana, Soundgarden et al. during the 1990s is not debatable. CloudNine 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You said :"I don't see a definition of popular that includes "made most amount of money." Well, I don't see any definition of popular which includes "best selling artist". Popular only means accepted by the general public, which is quite vague, hence making its meaning about anything and everything you want it to be.

Well, I don't have the link for the source here, but it has been reported by Forbes, I think, that Kurt Cobain is the deceased celebrity that made the most money in the past year, even beating ELVIS. NOW, I don't think anybody could say that Pearl Jam (even though they are still there) made more money than Elvis or Kurt Cobain in the past year. Furthermore, it was not based ONLY on record sales, but on their whole REVENUES which means that popularity is much more than record sales, but everything that comes with the "branding" and merchandising of a popular artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.139.81 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Then again, I have no problem with the term BEST SELLING band, since it is the truth. But, popular is not the equivalent of best selling. Popular could be accepted, but MOST POPULAR is too debatable. However, if you use the term most popular, you should say that it is according to Stephen Thomas Erlewin, at allmusic.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.139.81 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this before in the section above. Consensus says it's fine. Also, no one at the Featured Article Candidates nomination has a problem with it. Also remember: it's sayign "most popular American rock band of the 1990s". That doesn't account for further sales in the 2000s. WesleyDodds 22:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bands that have outsold Pearl Jam in the 1990s: Dave Matthews, Guns 'n Roses, Backstreet Boys. So you can't say that they are the "most popular band" of the 90's by far. You can only say they had the highest record sales in a particular demographic, for example the Seattle scene.

Also note that, Nirvana released relatively few albums compared to Pearl Jam. So fans will naturally buy more of their records, but this excludes other related merchandise of the Cobain/Nirvana legacy which outsells Pearl Jam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.54 (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if we're just going by Nirvana and Pearl Jam's first three albums, Pearl Jam still sold more. None of those musical acts you listed sold more then Pearl Jam did in the 1990s. Guns 'n Roses' most popular album came out in the 1980s. Backstreet Boys are not a rock band, so they're irrelevant to this discussion as it pertains to what's written in the article.User:-5--5- (User talk:-5-talk) 14:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am altering the comment and removing the source. My reasons for this;

a) sales do not equal popularity. If that was the case nickleback would be widely loved and reveered. And the sex pistols would be considered crap.

b) The source calls Pearl Jam the most popular alternate rock band. Popularity is a varying thing. Pearl Jam has not had nearly as much sucsess in the last decade as it did in the 90's, and are not as popular today as they would have been back then. This article is set in the present, and at present the Red Hot Chili Peppers, for example, would be more widely regarded and liked in the public. Obviously it could only really be justified by sales, which I have already condemned, but there is also a massive difference in the chart success and airplay received by the two bands ( I wouldn't put that comment on the chili peppers article. I wouldn't put it on any article).

c) The single source cannot justify such a arguable statement. If there was a supporting source from The Rolling Stone or NME it might be more acceptable, but you can't use a source from a site such as Allmusic to justify a biased comment like that.

The new comment will describe them as on of the most popular rock bands of the period as well as the most commercially successful alternate band of the 90'sHitthat (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The comment has been changed again, but I have no issue with this new version Hitthat (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Backspacer page move

Fellow Pearl Jam fans - I've started a discussion about the possibility of moving Backspacer (Pearl Jam album) to Backspacer. Please add thoughts for/against here. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

External link to concert database

Would a database of Pearl Jam's concert performances be worthy of an external link - e.g. www.songkick.com/artists/312553-pearl-jam? As I work for Songkick I can't add it myself (and the last thing I want to be is a self-promoting corporate shill) but I'm curious to hear what the community thinks (which is why I'm asking the same question across quite a few talk pages). I suspect it may qualify under point #3 of the ELYES policy, but I'm far from certain. As precedents, both Shirley Manson and Glastonbury Festival have similar links added by contributors. Michaelorland (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pearl Jam's site has a comprehensive list of all gigs they've done, with full setlists, so I wouldn't see the need myself. Lugnuts (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We've centalized the disscution about songkick.com at the External_links/Noticeboard, See this discussion. Feel free to comment on this link suitability there. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

2010 Tour

I have just recieved dates on when Pearl Jam are confirmed to play in Europe for their tour next year (2010):

22 June: Dublin, Ireland 02 Arena
23 June: Belfast, Ireland Odyssey Arena
25 June: London, England Hard Rock Calling Hyde Park
27 June: TBD
30 June: Berlin, Germany Wuhlheide
1 July: TBD
3 July: Arras, France Main Square Festival
4 July: Werchter, Belgium Rock Werchter Festival
6 July: TBD
9 July: TBD
10 July: Oeiras, Portugal Optimus Alive Festival

Unfortunately considering this is the ONLY information I have recieved and havent heard anything else, it is not currently enough information to produce a new article. So it is here for future reference so please don't delete this until a new 2010 Pearl Jam tour article is started.

tsunamishadow (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Once the other TBD are known, there should be enough info. And dates closer to home this time - roll on June! Lugnuts (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Associated acts

According to Template:Infobox Musical artist, associated acts can include the following:

Associated_acts This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career.

"This field can include, for example, any of the following:

1. For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
2. Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
3. Groups which have spun off from this group
4. A group from which this group has spun off"

Therefore, Neil Young qualifies as an associated act simply because of the Mirrorball album and "Neil Jam" European tour that followed. KitHutch (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally only bands are listed. The guideline need to be updated. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Until they are, Neil Young should be listed as an associated act of Pearl Jam because he qualifies under the current guidelines. KitHutch (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about this, take your issue to Template talk:Infobox Musical artist and get a definitive answer.User:-5--5- (User talk:-5-talk) 16:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

-5- is correct. Young does not fit intom the intended purpose for the field. It is not worth using IP sockpuppets to edit war and try and get it added back in. That will just result in a block. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the associated acts part of the Template:Infobox Musical artist, does it say that that category is not for individual artists? KitHutch (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oy, this is becoming a pain. The description does read "This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands...", so the "other musicians" phrases does not seem to limit the field usage to just bands. I'd be in support of changing this to just bands though, but that will have to come via discussion over there.

However, the tripping point is "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together". I read that "multiple occasions" phrase as applying to all of the possibilities there; i.e. multiple albums collaborated or multiple instances of a "single collaboration act playing together". Here, they went on one tour and released one collaborative album. I don't see that one-off collaboration and tour as qualifying. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I will diagree with you here. I think that the "multiple occasions" phrase is satisfied with the album and tour. Anyway, the Passengers is listed as an associated act of U2 and that group produced only one album and did not tour. KitHutch (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? The powers-that-be decided that Neil Young is not an associated act? That is so wrong. Not only was there Mirror Ball and the tour, but a Pearl Jam EP called Merkin Ball that Neil played on, the numerous appearances of Pearl Jam at Bridge School Benefit, plus Neil's surprise appearance in 95 at a Pearl Jam concert in Golden Gate Park (SF) where Neil took over for a sick and vomiting Vedder, Neil playing with PJ at the MTV Awards in '93, Neil and PJ playing a show in Seattle in 95, Neil and Eddie playing together at the 9/11 Tribute concert. COME ON. DFS (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just Breathe

why did u guys move this song into the other charted songs section? It's their 2nd single. I gave u proof by sources like FMQB and AllAccess. And another thing, the song peaked at #14 on the Alternative Songs chart. So keep it in the singles section, please.76.110.128.158 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I stopped following the Pearl Jam articles months ago, so I don't know what's going on, but it should be listed as the second single. In fact, the article should be titled Just Breathe/Got Some, since it was a split single.User:-5--5- (User talk:-5-talk) 01:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Amongst The Waves

it's been confirmed as the third single. I put the source to prove it, but u guys don't think it's enough. I think it's enough. and if u look at the song's charts, it's currently charting so it's the third single. I suggest you put it back in the singles section. u guys act like the song charted, even if isn't a single, but I got news for u: those days are gone. so please put it back so I don't have to do an edit war with JD554.174.61.35.159 (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

band name

pearl jam, the same thing pearl necklaces are made of! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.123.72.11 (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)