I was speaking with my father yesterday, a long-time Who fanatic, who told me that when he attended shows after Keith Moon died, although he enjoyed the band’s music, there was this feeling that this was not the Who that had existed beforehand, the band that had made Quadrophenia and Who’s Next. We’ve heard that about many bands, although that’s probably one of the most famous examples. The Stones, Who, R.E.M. and others have faced the departure of an important member, and some wonder if they should still call themselves by that name. So what about Pearl Jam? What if, say, Jeff left an the band got a new bassist, and continued to tour and make records, would you think that it wasn’t the same band, that it wasn’t “Pearl Jam”, or do you think that some members are expendable in that sense? I think it’s a hypothetical question; if anybody was going to leave, they would have probably done so by now.

For me, I think if Matt left and Pearl Jam continued on as PJ, I’d be fine with that and consider it the same band. That’s nothing against Matt, but it’s more the fact that so many drummers have been in that chair that I don’t think any one drummer could ever claim it to the point that the band wouldn’t be the band anymore. As for the others, I’m not sure if any of them left if I could still consider it PJ. Obviously, without Eddie there is no PJ, but Stone and Jeff’s partnership laid the foundation of the band and continue to be creative contributors, and Mike’s lead lines are probably the second most identifiable aspect of the band’s sound behind Eddie’s voice. So what do you all think?

can't really see the band with anything but a different drummer. i would hope they would choose to go the zeppelin route as opposed to the who route.

It was when they lost Clemens...they just moved on without him. Won a world series.

Some drummers left too.

Well, I think even the drummer has subtle differences. I'm sure everyone on here has their favorite drummer, but we all still look at them as PJ. Anyone other member and I'm not sure. A good recent example is Alice In Chains. Just heard their new single today, while it sounds good, I can't call them Alice In Chains.

the only person that is irreplacable is Eddie. We'd date Pearl Jam as the before and after stone era, etc, but Eddie is the one guy who has to be there

Interesting, so you wouldn't say Mike, Jeff or Stone leaving the band would be as seismic as Bill leaving R.E.M., for example?

I agree with the assertion that it can only still be pearl jam if it's the drummer that leaves.

sure--but REM was still REM after Bill Berry left. It was felt in their music, and it took them a decade to finally put out a record as good as the stuff they used to do wtih him, but I never thought of it as being anything other than REM.

It's not that it wouldn't be a big deal, and I'm sure it would be felt in the music, but the bottom line is that you could take a musical part any of the other guys wrote, play it without vocals, and you'd not necessarily be able to tell whether or not it was Pearl Jam, although once you knew I'm sure you could hear some signature sounds. Eddie singing makes it Pearl Jam

I agree. It's been way too long with the 4 of them intact. If Jeff, Stone, or Mike left it would just be the Eddie show.

Why do we keep agreeing with each other, jew?

It is a little disturbing. I still hate you, though.

True, I think others may see it differently. Personally, I never thought it was not R.E.M. (maybe cause they had Berry's blessing to continue). But others would say that after Berry, or Moon, or whoever left the band it wasn't the same band and was in a way disingenuous to continue to promote it as such.

oh thank god

i don't see any of the members ever leaving barring some major conflict, and i think they've passed that point, learned democracy, learned who does what well (at least in their minds), and i think they're fairly comfortable. i could see them putting out albums less frequently (they're already doing so), maybe even touring less often, but i don't see one member leaving without the band itself breaking up. they have venues for their other stuff with solo work (Stone's been doing his fair share prior to Backspacer, and some really cool stuff that doesn't have the PJ sound, and obviously Eddie is, but his stuff is not incredibly distinct from PJ partially due to his distinct voice).

What about an unforseen disability/death to a band member? How does this change your thinking? do they break up at that point regardless of who it is?

Yes, I don't really think this is that big a possibility, but you never know what will happen. Either way, I think it's interesting to think about, at the very least.

Nah, I think they like playing with each other at this point. I think they still call themselves Pearl Jam but I think it will be different.

Anyway, now that they are all in their mid 40's it's pretty much different anyway. Though, they still know how to rock the fuck out.

OK, now you've really gone and confused me. So if any of the 4 besides Matt leave, it's no longer PJ, but if one kicks the bucket, just carry on even though it's different??

i think death is different from a band member leaving over conflict, with regards to the band moving forward. circumstances around why the member left also affect whether or not i see it as the same band.

I agree with all the people that say the band ceases to exist without any member other than Matt, and I even have a feeling that the band would fold if Matt left too, remember he's been the drummer for 10 years now, even though it dosent seem like that long. Also, the other band members seem(and this is a completely outside observation) seem to hold Matt in higher stead than they did Dave A or even Jack.