methinks


they missed a lot of places in '95, and the '96 tour tried to cover some of ground they weren't able to in '96, though the two tours combined pale in comparison to the Yield and happily ever after album tours...

yeah, 95 was mostly west coast. 96 was mostly east coast.

but it doesn't mean i forgive them for not touring anywhere near me for No Code. and I went to both Red Rocks shows in 95.

yeah, we were pretty much in the same boat. had I been the fan I was in '95 that I was in '96, I would have been at their Austin show. when I saw the '96 dates come around, I was SO disappointed and literally tried finding excuses to visit a city they were playing. no ball, though. had to wait until '98 Dallas, which was a great first show, what with Rodman and all.

I thought the '95 tour had a completely different vibe than '96. That transition was the breaking point between old-skool and new-skool PJ.

seriously. '95 is hot, sweaty, endeavoring music, closest to punk the band may have got. '96 is more introspective, the needle not in the red zone for RPMs, but still driving fast. even the late '95 shows have a bit of that '96 element.

part of me would like to say the energy invested in the shows during the '95 tour was from the band struggling to be what they had been before, but were prevented from such lofty ambitions with Irons on the skins. '96 tour is the band recognizing this and playing within their abilities. but part of me also thinks it's the band growing up. dare I say, it's the first tour where we hear the band going through the motions. i mean, Ed no longer was pondering his maker, walking through a garden of stone. he'd resolved so much. it's hard to deliver performances of something which you no longer quite feel. and that's why so many people dig the middle-period years/shows because the band begins to weed out songs which appealed more to teenagers and frustrated early 20-somethings. this band is more mature, with music that is as timeless as the band's anthem songs, though not as anthemic or catchy

The whole 95 tour sounds awesome because it sounds like Jack is a guest drummer at each show, yanno?

there is some high-quality commentary going on in this thread here. I'll have to go listen to 95 vs 96 to see if there is a difference. I agree that 96 is when you can start to hear them pulling away and getting more mature, and who knows, maybe its Jack. I think the point about them trying to be old school and rawk-punk but not being able to because of jack is good. 95 was like he was a temp drummer as they hadnm't taken the leap of No Code yet. 95 was so punk rock for sure.

Yeah, I remember on the Hartford boot from 96 Ed has a long diatribe on one of the songs, damn, I'm gonna have to go listen.

He says something like...
Sometimes we get out here and it just seems like work
and then rambles on about life...I think it's Not For You or something, and then they just kick it.
I think it was that tour where they went through the motions on nights, but realized it and accepted it and knew what they had to do to keep it fresh, keep it spicy.

I think it's different now, one, since they're older, but also since the band is so far removed from all the crap, Matt is entrenched, not so much media attention, etc.

Also, consider the '96 defaming Rolling Stones article. It came out after No Code was released but before their US tour. And the band countered with the Spin interview in the winter of '96/'97


Before Red Rocks II, Ed had to cancel interviews because they band needed to rehearse more to get their shit together (i.e. Jack)

I kind of always thought

1) they wanted Grohl but settled for Jack and possibly fired Dave in a push to entice Grohl (ONLY SPECULATION)

2) Ed went on tour with Mike Watt while the band rehearsed in preparation of their summer tour and possibly even to get Grohl. When Ed returned, Jack hadn't progressed as much as Ed expected (consider how quickly Matt learned so many songs)

3) Jack sounds better on Mirrorball than on No Code and Yield

4) The band would have collapsed and broken up during the '98 tour if Matt hadn't taken over the US legs

5) Stone is a very savvy business man

You sure don't like Jack much, eh, Isaac?

I don't know, I think Jack was the single best thing that ever happened to Pearl Jam.

He could never play some of the heavier songs the same as Dave, something people have never forgiven him for. In the long run: what a fucking godsend. I think had Grohl or Matt joined the band (obviously the second option is unlikely given Soundgarden still being around) in 1995 then they may have skipped their most creatively fertile and interesting period, the Merkinball/No Code/Yield apex. It's kinda hard to fathom where they could've gone had they had not had Jack's influence in that period, perhaps they would've made a record a lot like Avocado, just without the politics. I just can't imagine the band creating songs like Who You Are, Long Road, Present Tense, Red Mosquito, Given To Fly or In My Tree with anybody else but Jack. It's the strongest part of their catalogue for me, where the band really came into their own as songwriters and musicians. I wouldn't have placed Pearl Jam in the league of history's greatest rock bands based on their output 1991-1994...if you include everything up to 1998, I have no such doubts.

Seeing as it was stressed in many interviews at the time that Jack became something of a "spirtual leader" in the band at the time who was key in solving, or least helping to facilitate in doing so, some of the inter-band tension at the time, it's hard to see any other way out they would've faced other than splitting up had Jack not joined. All songs pointed to impending self-destruction of the band circa 1994, it's almost more suprising that they managed to pick up the pieces and carry on so successfully.

Had the band succumbed to their almost-certain fate in '94, I don't think any single one of us would be discussing them in the same way today (would RM or TSIS even exist? I highly doubt it). They would've been Alice In Chains, in short. A good band that put out some good records, cut short in their prime due to their own self-destructiveness.

Jack changed all of that. No Jack, no future for the band.

There's an interview where Stone explains exactly why Jack was so important to them all getting along again, I wish I could find the quote right now. Basically he explains that prior to Jack being in the band, nobody would ever tell anyone else to their face if they had an issue with something or someone - the Dave A. situation being a classic example. Once Jack was in the band, if he spied even a hint of someone feeling aggrieved about something, he'd call time and make everyone sit down and have it out until the issue had been resolved. If the band hadn't learnt to openly discuss issues and problems, I have no doubt they'd have imploded a long time ago.

It stung the band HARD when Jack quit in 1998, though he understandably had to put his mental health and his family first. I've read previously that at least Ed (of course) and Mike didn't speak to Jack for quite some time after. Time heals all wounds though, and seeing the videos of Jack on stage with Ed at Hullabaloo was just magical.

Anyway, fuck, I've rambled forever now. Jack rant over.

I can understand why you make most of the other points you've raised (even if I don't agree with all of them), but why do you think this?

I forgot to mention this in my uber-rant above...

The band seemed in a really great place, both musically and personally, in the Yield period (prior to Jack's departure, I mean). If you read the interviews from the time and watch SVT everybody seems to be really enjoying each other's company, I don't see any reason why that would change so drastically that they split mid-tour.

And the Hawaii/Australian Yield tour with Jack on the drums is absolutely fantastic...Melbourne 2 & 3 and Sydney 2 come to mind as great shows with great recordings.

the irony may be, I actually like Jack the most.

but I think assessing him and his performances must be done objectively.

his biggest contribution to the band was helping them survive each other.

the songs you mentiond, with exception of Who You Are, In my Tree, and GTF, could have been produced with any other drummer. Who You Are isn't even played anymore, In My Tree sucks regardless because of the way its been reworked, and GTF, well, I think it sounds great with Cameron playing it. All that to say, I think he contributed very little musically.

Jack was essential and necessary, relationally. But in a way, his shortcomings skill-wise, I believe to have been another source of tension in the band. With a long US tour like they had lined up in '98, I don't believe for one second Jack could have pulled that off. And had he tried, the tensions would have begun to escalate, circa '95 Bridge. With Cameron at the helm, they released their first official live cd LO2L.

also, I find it interesting the heaviest song on No Code (Habit) was written by Ed when he was on tour with Watt and Grohl.

Yield feels like the band's first "studio" album since Vs.

And, No Code was the last album the band wrote the majority of while touring, though they played very little of it live prior to its debut.... kind of a natural seque into their current format, which began during Yield.

Why don't you think that No Code feels like a "studio" album?

Great contributions in this thread. To kind of reiterate some people's thoughts and put a few things forward myself...

I personally think that Jack's musical contirbution was a big improvement to the band, and a step up from Dave A. I think Dave A was brilliant, but very one dimensional...he could hit hard and fast, and was technically great, but didn't have the same finesse as Jack. Jack made it possible for other directions. Whilst i don't agree with the list of songs someone put to support this argument...i do believe that just a general broad view of the types of songs PJ were writing from 95-98 shows that the band had more options musically, and felt more comfortable in trying these out.

I think the most important factor with the inroduction of Jack is the fact that he was a likable guy...It seems clear that Eddie felt embarassed by Dave A. The introduction of a new guy allowed for a new start, and an example of someone coming in and making a difference in the writing process, is the Beatles' Let it be album. Anyone who has seen the documentary footage will see how the introduction of a new guy coming into the studios and helping to write and jam songs and ideas, meant that the other guys had to 'pretend' to be great friends. Maybe this was partly the case with PJ. There was probably pressure to survive with the introduction of Jack, because Jack would have expectations of the band, so maybe they were collectively forced to up their game? Many of the avocado interviews (and even earlier footage such as SVT) suggest that the band had gone through difficult writing processes earlier on...i think Jack was a key part in curing this.

This is all speculation, but it's definitely plausible.

it feels like it was recorded live, it barely feels tracked, not that it was rushed, just that a lot of it doesn't feel very premeditated. It feels very collaborative, and given its recording history, I think it bears that out. Yield, Binaural, and Riot Act all felt like "sessions" of months, and for Avocado, years. No Code felt like "sessions" of weeks at most. Vitalogy feels the same way. To me, it's part of the talents of youth, to quickly create near finished products. I cannot think of a single Romantic poet who wrote good stuff after the age of 35. Somewhat of a different medium, but I think it illustrates my point, and that the later albums needed more time to be polished.

What happened regarding Bridge '95? I know they didn't play the benefit in 1995, is there a story i don't know about?

What do you think of VS.?

1) In '95, Pearl Jam was playing Bridge Show and Ed had to leave the stage after I think 7 songs, at which time Neil came out and held the fort down. Shortly thereafter, the band either broke up, or reports came out that they broke up. There tour was cancelled. I'm not sure the circumstances, but they decided to stay together or continue the tour and then rocked Milwaukee twice, then Soldier Field.

2) Ten seemed to be total collaboaration in a warehouse. Vs. seemed to be totally written in the studio in the SF hills (except for Leash). Vitalogy seemed to be recorded on the road. No Code seemed to be recorded on the road but written partly in studio. Yield - Riot Act seemed to have been written by members outside of the studio, then brought into the studio and reworked and recorded. Avocado seemed to be like the other previous albums, with a bit more work done in the studio on the songs.

[quote="Isaac Turner"]1) In '95, Pearl Jam was playing Bridge Show and Ed had to leave the stage after I think 7 songs, at which time Neil came out and held the fort down. Shortly thereafter, the band either broke up, or reports came out that they broke up. There tour was cancelled. I'm not sure the circumstances, but they decided to stay together or continue the tour and then rocked Milwaukee twice, then Soldier Field.
quote]

Ahhh, you said Bridge Show but you're talking about the famous San Francisco show where Ed left ill? I don't think it was Bridge School,just a tour show wasn't it?