Jump to content

Talk:Pearl Jam/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Basketball buddy

"Irons passed on the invitation but gave the demo to his basketball buddy, San Diego, California singer Eddie Vedder.[10] Vedder was the lead vocalist for a San Diego band, Bad Radio, and worked part time at a gas station."

First sentence is disfigured. How about:

"Irons passed on the invitation, but gave the demo to a basketball buddy from San Diego named Eddie Vedder.[10] Vedder was the lead vocalist for a local band called Bad Radio, and worked part-time at a gas station."

What is a "basketball buddy" anyway? I assume Vedder was just a friend who Irons met while playing basketball? Cheers! theFace 10:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Your wording does make more sense. Maybe change "basketball buddy" to "a friend who played basketball" or something along those lines. Lugnuts (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph uses three refz: "9", "10", and "11". [10] is put right after the first sentence. Unfortunately, it's not online, so I can't read it. The other two make it clear that Vedder was an avid basketball player, but neither of them elaborate on the exact relationship between Vedder and Jack Irons, other than that they were befriended. I suggest we simply change it to "a friend from San Diego". Cheers, theFace 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Besides, I noticed two more things while reading [9] and [11]. [9] states this:
"Originally from Evanston, Illinois, Vedder -- better known on the San Diego music scene as "the guy who never slept" -- had brought a Midwestern work ethic to the sunny beach community. Working at hyperspeed, laboring days at a petroleum company to finance his budding career as a singer and song-writer, Vedder had befriended Jack Irons, formerly of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Irons passed along Gossard's tape."
This does not resemble the part-time job at a gas station mentioned in the article.
Also, [11] quotes Vedder as saying: "[Jack Irons] sent me three of their songs". [9] says: "Irons passed along Gossard's tape." Following on this, perhaps we should change "gave the demo" to "sent the demo". - theFace 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I made these two edits. I hope they're ok. - theFace 20:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me - nice work! Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you happen to have source #10, the Q Magazine article? Or do you know where I can get it? I would love to read it. Cheers, theFace 10:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't have it to hand - will look to see if I can find it! Lugnuts (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Clear bias, a clear comment about this debate

Pearl Jam is not the most popular band of the 90s... That's weird to put in the intro.

I've read the arguments and this is why it is wrong.

Popularity is the quality of being well-liked or generally accepted. Albums sold is not a barometer for popularity. If you use that same logic for other decades, then Celine Dion is more popular then Matallica and The Carpenters are more popular then Jimi Hendrix. Like for example, even though "The Carpenters" sold many more records then Jimi Hendrix during the 1960s, Jimi Hendrix's popular image, critical acclaim, innovation, famous live shows, and guitar skill made him a more accepted and well known figure.

And one critic for "Allmusic" isn't that credible of a source. Allmusic isn't that legitimate of a source of critique like Rolling Stone or Time might be. Also, it is not a majority opinion that Pearl Jam was the most popular band, that is a minority opinion. Putting the quote "the most popular American rock & roll band of the '90s." that is attributed to only one critic in the intro isn't very encyclopedic or objective. It is one thing if many critics have written this, but I have not seen any other critique source like Rolling Stone or Time say this. It is objective and factual that Pearl Jam sold the most albums in the 1990s and that they are one of the most influential rock bands, but you can’t really go much further than that.

I am not a Nirvana fanboy, but I think Nirvana practically overnight through MTV and radio spawning a popular musical and fashion revolution in western pop culture, recording one of the top 10 most well known recorded songs "Smells Like Teen Spirit", being constantly the center of popular culture media during the early 1990s, and the lead singer eventual media covered suicide to become a eternal rock star martyr makes them a more popular rock band. Also, overall, Nirvana has more of a popular music longevity over time then Pearl Jam and has made more money as a buisness item. Pearl Jam following Nirvana’s popularity and selling just 5 million more records doesn't make them more popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Some anon IP scum tried to remove the reference - it's been restored. How many albums and tours did Nirvana do, say after April 94? Probably not that many. Lugnuts (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
We had this discussion over 3 years ago, the thread is still at the top of this page, even. As long as it is qualified and clearly noted as an opinion, quoting a journalist in that way is fine. We're not saying they are the most popular, just that some music journalists have written about the band as such. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally inaccurate

Steve Turner left Green River years before they disbanded. And they didn't disband over "stylistic" differences. They disbanded because Mark Arm felt everyone else in the band was too concerned with getting a major label deal. They remained friends, though.

And you know this how? Any sources to back up your claim? Lugnuts (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Steve Turner did leave the band well before they disbanded. It is not a 'claim'. You can find that information on any site on the internet with a biography or history of Green River. So to say that they disbanded as a dispute between Turner and Arm and the other bandmates is mis-leading. Also, the world 'stylistic' may be used correctly here. I understand your point - that the major reason they broke up was because of Ament and Gossard being so career oriented, but this 'careerism' is displayed in their music (at least in Mark Arm's view), thereby substantiating 'stylistic difference'. The word 'stylistic' is also used in the Wiki Green River article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brasidas1980 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible Additions to the "Also Known As" Section of the Artist Infobox

In this snippet from VH1.com (20 Bizarre Facts About Pearl Jam: 10. What's In A Name? Part Two) VH1, it mentions that Pearl Jam has performed under the following monikers at certain shows and benefits: "Piss Bottle Men", "The Honking Seals" and "The David J. Gunn Band". I was wondering if this information should or could be included under the "also known as" section of the artist infobox? Any thoughts? Neuroticguru (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

FiveHorizons.com

This site, describing itself as a "fansite," is cited twice in the references (once for the band's first concert date). I personally don't think it would be a suitable reference; information contained in fansites can be found elsewhere, and I'm sure Pearl Jam's first concert date is available somewhere else. CloudNine 11:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Five Horizons and Two Feet Thick contain unique information on the band that's unavailable elsewhere on the Web. The Concert Chronology, began on FH and continued on TFT, is the preeminent resource on the web for Pearl Jam show information. FH also has an articles archive, which has the only version of "Ten Past Ten" available online. That Spin article should be integrated somehow, but even then, those links belong. J0nas3 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur that Two Feet Thick is the best resource for the Pearl Jam concert chronology. It's pretty meticulous. Tomjoad187 08:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

pearl was eddie vedders grans name and she used to make hallucinagenic jam hence pearl jam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.86.161 (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to mention here that although Pearl Jam's original story on the meaning of "Pearl Jam" had been debunked by the band itself later on, they did a heck of a job promoting the original Great Grandmother Pearl story. In the mid-90's they released a box set that was only available in Europe (from what I was told upon purchase)called "Hallucinagenic Recipe," a direct promotion of the story. Also in the mid- 90's Pearl Jam released a CD in which they talked about many of their personal views (I don't recall the name) in which the band also repeats the story of Great Grandmother Pearl (it was available at Blockbuster Music).

Speaking of "Hallucinagenic Recipe," for the curious, it is a rare 4 disc set with each disc relating to a different timeline of Pearl Jam's history (at the time). They were titled, "Eddie Vedder Singles," "Mother Love Bone," "Green River," and Pearl Jam's "Outakes" (Which included maybe the very first recorded version of "Yellow Ledbetter") It is an amazing set that even though was not released in the U.S. (as far as I know), it should be included somewhere on this page. The really amazing thing about the box set though is that included within it is an extensive "Music Tree" which includes every member of Pearl Jam's former bands, and the names of each of those bands members. It also included a small pamphlet which tells the story of Great Grandma Pearl and other personal thoughts and pictures by the band members.

Also, the August 1995 show at Soldier Field in Chicago I think should get a mention for not only how good it was, but also because it was (if I'm not mistaken) Pearl Jam's first large scale recorded live concert that came out in CD format (2 Discs).

Do you think somewhere there should be a list of their actual music videos. Although there are only a few, if you do decide to include a list maybe under "Singles" please don't forget to add Pearl Jam's very first music video "Oceans." It was very rarely played and released before "Jeremy," but I have seen it. Otherwise, awesome article. (Whatmoiworry (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

I heard Pearl Jam was just a euphanism for a mans sperm. I can see what seemed funny to the band then,might not be what they want to admit too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph

I don't much care for the first paragraph of this article. The very first sentence shouldn't contain the details of where and when the group was formed; those should come in the second or third sentence. In the second sentence, "has consisted of" is wrong - it implies that the four named members have always formed the entire line-up of the group, which is obviously not the case as we go on to name their current drummer. I'm surprised these things weren't picked up during the FA discussion. --Richardrj talk email 09:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the layout of the first sentence is standard across many band articles; see Pixies, Uncle Tupelo and Tool (band) for examples. Could you perhaps suggest a better way of phrasing the band's lineup? CloudNine (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
On the first sentence, point taken. On the second sentence - well, you were the main FAC advocate last year, and if I'd brought this up when it was going through FAC, I doubt you'd have asked me to rephrase it. Maybe your overall responsibility for the article (I know, no-one "owns" WP articles, but you know what I mean) ended when it got promoted to FA, I don't know how these things work. Anyway, if I were rephrasing it, I'd probably say something like "Four of the group's five current members - A, B, C, D - have been present since the group was formed. The fifth..." Something like that, anyway. Great article, btw. --Richardrj talk email 11:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we remove the word "current" from the description of Matt Cameron in the lineup? He's been playing with the band over 14 years, is the longest serving drummer and a contributing songwriter. "Current" makes him sound quite temporary, which I doubt is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.131.220 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. Give me a second. Lugnuts And the horse 09:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, looking more closely at the first lines, it clearly points out that 4 of the band have been there since day one, and Matt joined in 1998. Maybe you could draft an alternative here first? Lugnuts And the horse 09:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Perceived bias

Regardless of what claims of record sales, popularity, and longevity can be made in favor of Pearl Jam, it really just seems to me as I read this article that the tone is overwhelmingly in Pearl Jam's favor, and gives off a vibe as if it were written by the Pearl Jam fan club. I'm certain Pearl Jam has come under intense criticism in many aspects, and if all the accolades are presented in such a pro-Pearl Jam tone, then there certainly should be an equally sufficient criticism section. Maybe it's just me but I doubt it. Quixulous (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, I really can't believe this article was featured as is. The actual historical details are very well done so congrats to everyone that helped compiling that but this really just comes off as a big Pearl Jam plug to me and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Quixulous (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, during the GAC and FACs, people made a point of complimenting the article's neutrality. Are there any particular POV statements you can give as an example? CloudNine (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, well it's not really prominent throughout the entire article most of it is just an account of the band which is very well done and certainly deserved to be featured. The Legacy section was mostly what I found a little tipsy, the comment about outlasting Nirvana and Soundgarden was almost laughable to me, because one band lost it's cornerstone in Cobain and the other just didn't adapt (sell-out) the way Pearl Jam did. It's definetly a minor issue though so no worries. Quixulous (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sell-out? They did the opposite, actually.User:-5--5- (User talk:-5-talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Soundgardens last album didn't sell as much as it predecesor Superunknown. So his right. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In the introduction you portray Pearl Jam as independent antiestablishment heroes, something they are not. In the mid 1990s they might have had some dissent with the music industry, but in the long run they have acted just like any other mainstream band. That’s precisely the main idea of the Rolling Stone editorial, which is misquoted in the article. This article points out precisely that after some rejection of conventional business practices, Pearl Jam has been willing to use them in the 2000s.--Rivet138 (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a point or are you just bitter? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
In the introduction you hold that the band refused to make music videos, but if you go to the band’s discography there are listed no less than 15 music videos between 1991 and 2010. And the boycott on Ticketmaster lasted only between 1994 and 1998. From then on they have made used of the company’s service, just like any other band. The group stated that many fans had complained of difficulties in obtaining tickets to the inevitably smaller non-Ticketmaster venues, and its decision was made to "better accommodate concert-goers." Pearl Jam/Ticketmaster--Rivet138 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Genre change

I believe that at least art rock should be included in the genres list. Also other possible genres to be included are psychedelic rock and experimental rock, as quite a number of their albums had strong influences from all of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.230.255 (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The band never intended to use the name other than temporarily. Furthermore, there was nothing mentioned in the Erlewine article about "concerns".

http://www.allmusic.com/artist/pearl-jam-mn0000037730

In the following article, Jeff Ament explains where the name came from. He also states Mr. Blaylock was "cool" with it.

http://webspace.ringling.edu/~hclark/seattle_threads/interviews_story.php

This "claim" needs to be removed.

D.S.Davies (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)D.S.Davies 4/27/2013

Glam metal?

Should not Pearl Jam be considered glam metal rather than grunge? --Oddeivind (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Not in the any way, shape or form, no. The band that several Pearl Jam members were previously in (Mother Love Bone) had elements of glam in their style and songs, but none of that sound made its way into this band. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to add something to the infobox, you need reliable sources to back you up. Since I strongly doubt there is one reliable source out there that lists them as glam metal (which would then call into question the reliability of said source), then that would not be advisable. Johnny338 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Pearl Jam started out as "grunge", but now they are simply "rock". Never were they glam metal at all. Pearljambandaid (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not grunge

Pearl Jam just simply is not grunge. And I know there are reliable sources for it and all that, but it still doesn't make it true. It seems like just about every rock band from Seattle in the late 80s and early 90s were labeled grunge. I think that hard rock and alternative rock covers their genre well. But they are not grunge on any level. I know that people will debate it though, but I think it's best to put genres that everyone agrees on, and I know that at least alternative rock is one that I'm sure we could agree on. They have almost no musical elements of grunge. They were simply called grunge because they were involved with the scene. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. Just..no. Green River dissolved in late '87 over the direction the members were drifting; "let's make music and be famous" vs. "let's make music what we like to hear". The former eventually became Pearl Jam, the latter, Mudhoney. Grunge was never a precise music genre or a definitive sound, it was more of an ethos. Nirvana took what was prevalent at the time, the Melvins-style punk, and added melody. Alice in Chains went metal, Soundgarden a more classic rock progression, while Pearl Jam went a bit radio friendly hard/alt rock (though arguably they lived up to the ethos more than the other big names when they fought Ticketmaster and went DIY ethic for several years. So yes, Pearl Jam is indeed a "grunge band", just like the others. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Many of the points listed at Grunge#Characteristics would tick boxes on plenty of PJ songs. And have a listen to Garden from The Gorge in '06 too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

eddie veddor playing rhythm

how many songs does eddie play a second rhythm guitar on, is there a list? cause id like to know — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICommandeth (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

vedder didn't play a rhythm guitar until vs. I keep trying to change the timeline so eddie plays rhythm starting in 1993 but someone keeps changing it back, STOP, I have ten and it says eddie only does vocals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.101.125 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, Vedder was always the second rhythm guitarist (and it should be represented as such), he just didn't use it until later. That doesn't mean that you can just date it back until that point in time. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources modified on Pearl Jam

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Pearl Jam. I managed to add archive links to 2 sources, out of the total 2 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Temple of the Dog

I'm surprised that there is no mention of Temple of the Dog in the formation section since the formation of Pearl Jam was closely linked to the Temple project. Has this been included before but removed for some reason? Does anyone else agree that a brief mention should at least be included? Kristmace (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Temple of the Dog already has its own article and is listed accordingly under "Associated Acts" on the right-hand side of the page. Amanda94102 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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 04:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Pearl Jam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pearl Jam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Pearl Jam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pearl Jam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Album sales

I don't believe this change cites a reliable source for total album sales. It seems unlikely that it would jump by 25 million from the previous cited source. I invite the user to discuss this change. Until this is confirmed as a WP:RS, I'll return it to the status quo. Also, as a side note, that inflated figure would include the band on this list, but by searching the resources there (Recording Industry Association of America, etc), brings the figure no where near the 85 million total. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"Traditional" Music Industry Practices

The introduction segment refers to the bands refusal to adhere to "traditional" music industry practices. Surely, considering the diversity and ever-changing nature of music as an art form and the changing nature of the music industry itself (e.g. as new media forms are introduced and the industry changes to reflect these media, such as the advent of CDs, replacing cassettes, and the mp3, which threatens to wipe out compact disc technology), this should be referred to as "contemporary" music industry practices and not "traditional" music industry practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upmeath (talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I began a discussion recently suggesting that bands should only have members subpages if they have had large numbers of line-up changes. I don't believe that having a members subpage for this band is necessary, as there are only two former members, a lot of the information there can already be found at the main article, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The touring members can simply be listed in the band members section, and there's then no arguing over where the timeline should belong. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Pearl Jam is one of the greatest band ever

Well i have been trying to give some of very vintage and legendary bands the respect they deserve by contributing to wikipedia for some days as i have pretty good knowledge about this field. But some people's are interfering these, reverting my edits even though i give all the necessary proofs(citations). So i ask for your opinions as well as support on this matter. Chandra Shekher Mishra (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"Greatest band ever" is a very subjective claim and would need a very strong citation. Your statement says "many" believe it to be the "greatest". Who are the many? What sort of study has found these many? Your citation, which btw does not support "greatest" or "many" anyway, is an opinion piece. Corey Taylor may love the band but many believe it to be the greatest band ever does not follow from that. My suggestion is that your read some of Wikipedia's policies to get a feel for what sort of information an encyclopedia should contain (WP:5P and WP:HOW are good places to start). Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 14:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the claim as well. I suggest you first seek consensus if you think it should be added to the article. --regentspark (comment) 14:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree with RegentsPark. See also WP:WEASEL. In my mind, they ARE the greatest band in the world. But having a few of their peers say this, doesn't make it so. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Associated acts

Hey, I just had a conversation over in Talk:Linkin Park that brought some things to light. Evidently, the guidelines in Template:Infobox musical artist state that we should avoid adding bands in the ‘associated acts’ which only featured one-member of subject. Being that that is the case, should we remove Soundgarden, Skin Yard, Brad, Three Fish, Wellwater Conspiracy, Mad Season, and RNDM from the list of associated acts for not following this rule, and instead make mention of them elsewhere in the article? NightmareSnake (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ranked 93rd

WP:DENY--regentspark (comment) 16:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An anon IP. keeps (re)adding the "fact" to the article's lead that Pearl Jam were ranked 93rd on VH1's 100 Greatest artists of all time list. I don't think this belongs in the article, let alone the lead. What do others think? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Every article related to music and rock bands has somekind of rankings on top of it. Further Mr. Lugnuts statement that being at 93rd isn't noticeable is wrong assumption. They are ranked 93rd on the list of greatest artists of all time in all genres not just rock. Bands like CCR, Grateful dead and Iron Maiden are not even in the rankings. If i find a better ranking i will replace it but until we don't get it we should hang onto it. Regards 117.225.21.123 (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I was brought here by this edit on Chester Bennington's page. I do not think that 'top-100' deserve a mention in the lead, but perhaps in the legacy section with proper context, especially if it is from a well-known. It is somewhat trivial, but this has been done in FA-tier articles like Pink Floyd and Slayer. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks StarScream1007. I think any band in a top ten of a list like this would deserve a mention, but I'm not sure about other placings. I see that both Pink Floyd and Slayer are listed in the top 50, so that adds a bid more credibility to the ranking. But 93rd? And using that plus the statement from the anon. editor of "well X band didn't even make the top 100!" seems a weak arguement to include it here. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
IP editor confirms they are someone else (Special:diff/889213103), who was indef'd for abusing multiple accounts

Lugnuts Just shut your mouth. You have said what you should have so just shut your mouth. And You are no one to decide if 93rd rank is good or not. It should atleast be in Legacy section. For me who is not a glory hunter, it means a lot. If you by yourself, go and ask Eddie, mike, jeff or anyone they will say that it is a pleasure. Because we know the world outside. I understand your conservation that Pearl Jam should be higher up on that list, i too agree but saying that 93rd is bad and not significant is a huge disrespect to those who are even below that or not even there. Try to understand the simple thing Lugnuts, i still have some faith on you somewhere in my heart. Just don't make me mad. Edit: I am a sock. Wow so interesting. I didn't even knew that. So what will you do about it? Let me tell you what you can - Shut your mouth and watch my edit being placed in the article through this consensus.

Lugnuts, I suppose that is a fair counter-argument, but VH1 is still somewhat of a popular source. I feel 93rd place perhaps not worth mentioning by itself, but perhaps with other similar mentions? I'm not very familiar with Pearl Jam's history, but perhaps they have other songs, albums, or music videos that made an impact on pop-culture top lists? Maybe these could be added to a Legacy section for context on the band's view from Pop culture. Thanks! --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  13:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
They aren't a pop band man. What the heck's going on. Can someone call a rock music expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.234.5.60 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacy & Influences

I was interested in reading up about how Pearl Jam was cited as influence in bands such as the Strokes and was sad to find that the first citation is a dead link (with no archived article in easy reach) [1] and the second citation had no content that backed up the statement that "The band inspired and influenced a number of bands, ranging from Silverchair to Puddle of Mudd and The Strokes." Instead, the article simply detailed that The Strokes performed a song with Eddie Vedder and Josh Homme.[2] If other citations can't be found to substantiate these claims, it might be worth removing mentions to specific bands like the current reading does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.206.132 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/19/tem_ae19pearljam.html
  2. ^ http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/58184/mercy-strokes-cover-gaye-with-vedder-homme

Associated acts

Per the recent edits these instructions on the infobox states:

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

  • Groups with only one member in common

So as only Mike was a member of Mad Season, MS should not be added to the infobox, per the link above. Correct? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I myself made the original edit to this a while back, but Skin Yard, Brad, RNDM, Mad Season, and Soundgarden all do not count as associated acts because they shared one member each, and the rule is at least two. NightmareSnake (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Snakey! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

MTV unplugged reception

I re-added this claim "Their 1992 MTV Unplugged performance is considered to be one of the greatest rock performances of all time and was ranked on no.2 in Rolling Stone's list of The 15 best performances in Unplugged history." I checked the citation given and the Rolling Stone ranking is verified there. However, my edit was reverted in its entirety by Lugnuts with the rationale, "this is an edit by a banned user, WP policy is to deny them, etc". I am not a banned editor, and think the claim is worth including, albeit without "one of the greatest rock performances of all time" which is POV. What are everyone else's thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you're not the banned editor (duh), but the IP-jumping, multiple-account creating editor is. Don't try and WP:GAME the system. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: This is not the way you should talk to a wikipedian who is an administrator as well as one of the most respected wikipedians right now. Accusing Ritchie333 of gaming the system is ultimate disrespect and a thing which no one would expect from you. You are saying that just because his perception of the particular rule is different than yours? Being Dogmatic won't help the case so i hope you are going to ensure that your conduct from now on is a bit more sensible.

Now coming onto the point, i agree with Ritchie. I'm not accusing you of gaming either but you definitely are enforcing you POV on what is the actual fact. The sentence cited by Ritchie on his talk page states "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand.", which is very well the exact same quote written about the same policy. So here, You are probably ruling out the policy's own wording in favour of your comprehension which is not acceptable. I have many more points which i may include in future on this discussion. But for now, My pick on this is Ritchie333.

Martinevans123, Gareth Griffith-Jones and Gerda Arendt are invited to join the discussion as they are familiar with Ritchie.

And you just happen to register one hour ago, and come straight to this discussion. Most respected wikipedians right now? Yeah, sure. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I hoped that you would advance first to correct your conduct but i think you are in a mood of trash talk. Anyways, i'm not going to engage but just say that it's been 13 years not 1 hour. Have a good day checking the no.4 in the list of most no. of edits by wikipedian on the article Pearl Jam. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So, do we have a consensus to re-add "Their 1992 MTV Unplugged performance was ranked on no.2 in Rolling Stone's list of The 15 best performances in Unplugged history." with the Rolling Stone citation? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: It's already done. The consensus is achieved which probably marks the end of the debate. Thank you for being so attentive. Have a great day. Pesticide1110 (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I've fixed it. Obviously you and Ritchie read both sources thoroughly. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I did say that "one of the greatest rock performances of all time" was POV (as well as being not in the citations given). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Gigaton page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pearl_Jam/Archive_4&oldid=1137075834"