Whether or not Pearl Jam is an 'experimental' band comes up fairly often, but on my way into work this morning Just Breathe, Lukin, and Come Back came up 3 in a row on my ipod (I didn't have it on a pearl jam shuffle either, so this was odd) and it occured to me that while Pearl Jam doesn't really stray that far from the 'rock' genre, that's a fairly big genre and I can't think of too many other bands that can inhabit that entire range quite like Pearl Jam can--the softer, acoustic numbers, the anthems, the blues numbers, the Tom Petty/Bruce Springsteen 'rock' songs, the searing punk stuff. And not just their own songs. The way in which they're able to inhabit their covers speaks to how comfortable they are outside their own skins (or perhaps a lack of confidence in their own identity).


Compare them to a band like R.E.M. R.E.M. is certainly a more experimental band than a group like Pearl Jam, and have a really impressive range. But at the same time most REM songs sound like REM songs and REM has a signature 'sound' they have a hard time escaping. I could pick an REM instrumental out of a lineup without hearing Michael Stipe. I'm not sure I could do that with a pearl jam song without hearing Eddie. This doesn't mean the band is less accomplished musically as much as it may just be a sign of how Pearl Jam really inhabit the totality of a genre the way few others do. I wonder how much of this is due to the fear they had of sounding like themselves in the early days.

Thoughts? Who else does this? Am I way off base?

I disagree... To make it big and have a long lasting career such as PJ, the Stones, Allman Brothers, REM, etc. you need to have an identifiable sound.....

I think both bands have this charecter, you just KNOW when you hear a guitar phrase that Mike or Stone have written. Though to your defense, what kind of blurs the lines now though is Eddie'd simplistic and generic guitar parts that make them less identifiable.

I have to say your thoughts make pretty good sense. I can only go from what we've been told about Pearl Jam, but it seems like they really tried to avoid the spotlight, tried to avoid Ten Part II, tried to do everything they could to do things their way. And it worked, for the most part. Now, nearing two decades of experience and wisdom, they've probably come to the conclusion that why try to fight the spotlight, just enjoy it like other top acts. The only thing I see is that maybe the isolation (in terms of popularity) during the vitalogy - binaural years, they set themselves back maybe 5-7 years in terms of what kind of music we'd be getting at this point. Or maybe they just needed to get into their mid forties and learn these things, who knows?

Yeah, I agree they can do everything awesome (whether I totally like the song or not) and they kill on covers.

I think certain song genres that Pearl Jam does have signature sounds that you might be able to pick out if Eddie wasn't singing. But I don't think it works like that on the whole of their catalog as it does with REM, like you mentioned above.

Don't most rock bands have this kind of genre diversity? Mandatory ballads that become hits, bluesy stuff, punchier stuff... I mean look at bands like Guns n' Roses or Aerosmith...

i think i agree and disagree. i think pearl jam has a "sound". i feel pretty confident in saying i would recognize pj w/o ed singing. i completely agree about their range though. under the umbrella known as "rock" they pretty much hit it all.

I have a hard time picturing aerosmith pulling off a punk number though, or GnR writing anything subtle

I think Mama Kin qualifies

I very much agree with this, and R.E.M. is probably the best example of a rock band that manages to branch out but still have a very expressive and identifiable sound (Radiohead is another; I do think, whether listening to Bends, KID A, or In Rainbows, I'd know them when I heard them). I definetely go back and forth on which I think is better. On one hand, hopscotching like PJ does definitely allows them a greater diversity than they'd probably have otherwise (could you imagine the band that made Ten, as great as it is, having songs like Thin Air, Grievance and Sleight of Hand on the same album? Three songs; three very different definitions of rock). On the other hand, I think it sometimes leads to the band sounding a bit derivative, like "Pearl Jam doing a punk song" or "Pearl Jam doing a country song" instead of incorporating that into their musical capabilities and expanding on it. I think it's just two different ways of doing things.

Is this the thread to make a joke about Pearl Jam's domain?

Spoiler: show

Get it?

Most of the bands I listen to are like this. Sometimes I describe it as "variety rock." Although that doesn't make it sound all that nice.

It's true that many bands no matter their genre will either step it up and slow it down for a couple of songs to mix it up. But like Stip is saying, Pearl Jam is able to dunk itself in so many different colors on any particular album, in any show, at any time really. You can pick three random songs over their 20 years or just three random songs on any record--you can get different styles, and almost different visions completely.

Whilst I think you can say Pearl Jam have a "sound" and the only identity crises I've heard from them have happened post-2000, I agree with everything else you've said, Stip. You're absolutely right that PJ inhabit pretty much every rock genre and by doing so, they show themselves to have a high regard and respect for music history. I've often called Pearl Jam 'the only band you'll ever need' because of how various their sound is.

Your points about REM is why I've never become more than a casual fan. I like most of their stuff, but if asked to comment on a song, all I can bring myself to say is 'Meh, it's REM so it's OK.'

What band doesn't have a sound?

I think Pearl jam made some some interesting endeavours in broadening their range but they never really developed it to a standard where they can go there comfortably. Aye Davanita was a direction I would have liked, or loved even, to see them explore, but little forays into it like Cant Keep and Just breathe while excellent and good respectively aren't really enough yet I do think Backspacer has helped broaden their range in a lot of ways, I don't think they're in their comfort zone in this record while by comparison they never once left it on the last record.

Hopefully they explore this idea further.

Good thread Stip.

I think they simplified their comfort zone in their last record; they got into it, but that wasn't enough, and for some reason they had to reach behind it.

I think the band is very underrated in the category of doing new sounds. To the mainstream press and the casual fans, they've put out sorta samey stuff. The stuff that gets attention is the focused "stages" where a band makes a big leap, like Kid A, Automatic for the People, or Achtung Baby. With PJ, you can make some really interesting mixes and come up with something as daring as any of those albums.

For the acoustic stuff - you could do: Around the Bend, Thin Air, Small Town, All or None, Dead Man, Drifting, Parachutes, etc, etc - and you've basically got something as distinctive as REMs Automatic for the People.

For punky stuff - Brain of J, GSMF, STBC, Habit, Comatose, etc, etc - and you've got a polar opposite of the acoustic side and something totally different.

For experimental vibey stuff - You Are, Help Help, NAIS, Hitchiker, Sleight of Hand, Oceans, WMA, Stupidmop, Aye Davanita, I'm Open, Bushleaguer etc, etc

For political stuff - Grievance, Insignificance, WWS, Army Reserve, Green Disease, Marker in the Sand.

Each of the above examples, if you put these mixes together are as drastically different from each other as REM or Beck or Radiohead albums. PJ doesn't get credit for it b/c they spread it across their career.

To Stip's point, the one consistent "sound" they have is the voice of Eddie. Other band's have a specific guitar sound or something, but there is nothing like Eddie voice and the way he uses it.

Brilliant band, underrated in the same way Tom Petty was throughout his career.

It's funny because while I agree that they touch different styles within the rock genre, it doesn't take me to the same conclusion that they're the only band you need (don't worry I know you don't mean this literally). Actually I even think that one of the reasons why I rarely reach for a PJ record today (and especially most recent ones) is precisely that they are going in many directions at the same time yet they never reach any of them. I mean, if I'm in the mood for something heavy, they're not going to be heavy enough, if I'm in the mood for something quiet, same thing, they're not going to be quiet enough, etc. It's not supposed to be an attack on the band by the way, that's the way I feel about most rock bands (like I said above most popular rock bands mix things up). Regarding PJ, some albums are more guitly of that IMO, Yield and Binaural I think suffer less from that (maybe it's the production, I don't know, but they have their own flavor, like it or not), while with BS and S/T there isn't any particular feeling that I'm left with after listening, regardless of how many good/bad songs I find on these records.

So anyway... we witness the same things but the consequences are totally different

And note that I'm only talking about records, I'm sure I could make playlists with a certain mood with PJ songs that I'd enjoy.

Pilate's Dog-I'd agree with that but I don't like Pj's 2.5 songs of each element per record. I wish they'd fully explore a theme or that kind of vibe and go with it. Ok I'm not sure I want a whole record of Gonna see my friend or Lukins, but a more acoustic smoked out kinda thing would be excellent, or any of the other styles. They'll never do it though because they seem to prefer display or an array of styles on each record.
Someday maybe they will though.

I think you're on to something. An interesting comparison that most people will have some familiarity with is U2.

U2 has worked hard throughout their career to change their sound--sometimes with great success (Achtung Baby), sometimes not (Pop). And then they went back to what made them popular in the first place. The arc of their musical identity suggests to me they are a lot less comfortable with who they are as a band than is Pearl Jam. U2's experiments were wholesale changes, efforts to completely alter their identity as a band.

Pearl Jam meanwhile is broad but can be so within the context of a single album (s/t offers Parachutes, Comatose, Inside Job, Come Back, and Life Wasted and they all coexist closely enough that the album, for all its flaws, really can't be said to feel inconsistent). The same is true of their covers, which you bring up and which serve as an interesting case study. They've been playing Neil Young covers for years, but also Who covers, and Tom petty covers, and Jimi Hendrix covers, and Dead Boys covers. In 2003, they threw a Clash cover into the mix, but not because they were trying to be punk, because they also brought in an acoustic Beatles cover and a CCR cover that year.

Pearl Jam clearly thinks about their identity as a band, but not always on a musical level. They seem to simply be a "rock" band. Between the five of them they are fans of just about everything that "rock" can encompass and their catalog bears that out. A band like U2 is always trying to reinvent itself musically--and even still, no matter how overproduced and ridiculous it is, there's no doubt that Discotheque is a U2 tune. The casual listener, I think, would be quite suprised that Pearl Jam can be as broad as they are.

Not sure if it'll ever happen. I think they've expanded very cautiously. If they took a big leap and made an album as distinct as Automatics for the People (which they could), they'd get more credit for their ability to change it up.

All in all, this all feeds the live show. This is one of, if not the main reason they're an enduring live band. They can go into all of these things in different directions and pull out a great show, and keep fans coming back again and again cause they can change it up due to their catalogue. To me, they've clinched being one of the great live bands ever, I can only think of Springsteen being as one that is better, and I attribute alot of this to the diversity of their catalogue.

Totally down with this. As a result of PJ, I've dug into Neil Young, the Who, Springsteen, Ramones, Clash, REM, and on and on and on. I've heard em all and PJ inhabits all of them. Rock history wise, it wassn't okay in 1981 to like both the Ramones and ACDC, now it is, and PJ embodies that. I feel like I can delve into many other types of music (international/world, hip hop, dance, jazz, blues, etc) b/c I feel pretty secure that I've got the rock side pretty well covered with the extensiveness of the PJ catalogue.