Jeff Ament comments on U2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

zoocarolina

Refugee
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
1,626
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Eddie Vedder comments on U2

Pearl Jam slamming U2?

Taken from an article on USA Today talking about their new album Riot Act.....

Ament cites the band's distaste for promotion and unwillingness to coddle pop fans as factors that hampered sales. He says a change in the public's listening habits also hurt.

"I don't know if people listen to music as albums anymore," he says. "We try so hard to make a cohesive 50-minute piece of music, and people are only looking for a song or two.

"I guess we could be like U2 and tour for two years and hit all the awards shows and go to the Super Bowl. But I don't know if (it's) worth it. I like the idea of being a small band and having balance in our lives."

.......

First off, U2 toured for 8 months and hit all of the awards shows bc they were nominated and who would turn down an invite to play in front of the world's largest audience??

I think there's some sour grapes here from their downturn in relevance and album sales over the past decade + U2 has plenty of time for balance due to Bono's activism and it's not like they release an album every year + they've got to strike while the iron is hot bc they're not youngsters anymore for godsakes!!!

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-12-05-pearl-jam_x.htm
 
... Or you can put out an album like Achtung Baby, where people like all the songs, instead of just a couple.
 
I don't think that Pearl Jam is bitter about U2, they just don't want to be U2, never have. All that they're saying is this is one path to take, and they've chosen a different one.
 
I do like Pearl Jam, but that comment is ridiculous. It is so funny to me because when Pearl Jam was one of the biggest selling bands in the world, they shunned the attention. Well, be careful what you wish for...

The other undeniable fact is that their last two albums have been quite mediocre.
 
pubcrawler and dsmith are right.

lighten up folks! that wasn't a slam against U2, or an attack, or anything.. It was merely Vedder stating that he doesn't want to have a great deal of public exposure, and that's perfectly ok.
 
----> Eddie Vedder didn't make those comments - Jeff Ament did.


I doubt Eddie has a problem so much with U2 and their promotional activities since Eddie has a habit of popping up at them. PJ opened for U2 in the 90s, and Eddie stood behind me at the Elevation Vegas show last November.
 
HelloAngel said:
I doubt Eddie has a problem so much with U2 and their promotional activities since Eddie has a habit of popping up at them. PJ opened for U2 in the 90s, and Eddie stood behind me at the Elevation Vegas show last November.

:ohmy: I knew I should've gone to that show. :banghead:

Anyhoo, it has also 'bothered' me a bit as to why U2 goes through all that commercialism when they don't need to prove anything anymore. But my take on that is U2 still and will always have that messianic mentality...that they're confident and they know that they have SO MUCH to offer and say to the world through their music. I know it sounds weird, but I think they know that there is a sort of redemption in their songs. Us fans would know how profound and full of substance their music is. Unfortunately, the rest of world doesn't and when I think of that, I realize and understand why U2 has to go too mainstream to the point of overexposure. I hate it when people ask me why I like them so much when everybody else likes them too. I wanna say, "You missing the point." I think Jeff Ament may have, too.
 
Last edited:
Dont make a mountain out of a mole hill. They arnt U2 and they dont want to be. So? They could do what U2 did and they would sell more albums. Its not a slam, actually looked at from the right perspective its a comment because what U2 set out to do is make the world know they are back, and we do.
 
dsmith2904 said:
I don't think that Pearl Jam is bitter about U2, they just don't want to be U2, never have. All that they're saying is this is one path to take, and they've chosen a different one.

I agree. U2 has always been ambitious for success. They want to be the biggest band in the world. The difference between U2 and say Creed or Aerosmith, is that U2 wanted to do it their way, without compromising their integrity. Pearl Jam, on the other hand, doesn't care as much for the publicity, and are therefore unwilling to partake in the necessary promotion that an artists needs to be hugely sucessful. All else aside, Ament is right, The listening public, especially in America, have very short attention spans. They aren't interested in music as art, they fail to see the album as a whole, they just want the hits. Look at the best selling albums, Greatest Hits,and Soundtracks dominate American charts. The collection NOW! reguarly debuts in the Billbaord Top 5. It really is a shame. Pearl Jam is a great band, and IMO, every bit as talented as U2, maybe not as visionary, but certainly as talented, and their entire body of work is uniformally excellent. Hopefully, they will be one of those bands that gets the credit and recognition they deserve at some future time.
 
first of all, Eddie didn't say a word; Ament did.
second, it's not a slam against u2, just an observation that they don't want to promote as much.
third of all, yes they are a great band overall, but their level of consistency is pretty low recently.
 
I think the strangest thing about that article is that he claims that their (the Pearl Jam members) lives are in balance
well, it's all relative I guess
 
This is about the exact statement Bono made regarding Pearl Jam in Rolling Stone just after ATYCLB... he said something about how he wishes bands like Pearl Jam and Radiohead would join them on their quest to take back rock radio, because the two of them could be just as big as U2, but they don't want to go that route, and Bono's fine with that. I think that's baisicy exactly what Jeff was saying here... they could be huge, make more radio freindly singles, but they're fine just the way they are now. They could be one of the biggest bands in the world, but they don't need to be to be happy. As Bono's said many times, the meglomania set in early with u2, they HAD to be the biggest band in the world, and right now they are. I wouldn't read too much into it.

And as for the little shot about the live cd releases... Pearl Jam's fan base, all though smaller, is just as insanely devoted as we U2 fans are. The bootleg CDs for their concert used to go for 20-25+ bucks on the "blackmarket," PJ released all the shows at soundboard quality, 2-disc collections, for the price of one normal CD. They were packaged in flimsy cardboard to keep the price down. Yeah, it made a lot of money for them, but it also saved their fans a lot of money from purchasing the less than soundquality bootlegs off the 'net.

Finally... as a fan of PJ, I wish that they would get over their complacency with just putting out solid albums that their die hards will love, and no one else will really notice. Frankly, I think all has something to do with not being Cobain. PJ and Nirvana were both equally huge when they both first broke out of Seattle, they knew each other, had a nice little rivalry between each other. Kurt and Eddie both didn't really want all the fame, Kurt obviously couldn't handle it, and PJ's been downscaling ever since. It's a shame, but what'cha gonna do. They're still a great band and one of the best live performers around. Just my $.02
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:

And as for the little shot about the live cd releases... Pearl Jam's fan base, all though smaller, is just as insanely devoted as we U2 fans are. The bootleg CDs for their concert used to go for 20-25+ bucks on the "blackmarket," PJ released all the shows at soundboard quality, 2-disc collections, for the price of one normal CD. They were packaged in flimsy cardboard to keep the price down. Yeah, it made a lot of money for them, but it also saved their fans a lot of money from purchasing the less than soundquality bootlegs off the 'net.

Thank you for bringing up the bootleg thing. I thought that was a genius idea and I really wish other bands (especially U2) would follow suit. I am getting so addicted to bootlegs but it sucks from know that from time to time the sound is going to cut out or you're going to hear the screaming/talking/off-key singing of the person next to whoever recorded the concert instead of the concert itself. It would be so amazing to get these things from the boards and have the sound be clear and balanced and all that. I think this was a brilliant move on Pearl Jam's part and earned the band a lot of warm feelings from its fan base who were, perhaps, a little upset about the lack of videos and interviews the band did, and the whole we-won't-play-anywhere-that-Ticketmaster-sells-tickets-for nightmare.

Honestly, wouldn't all of you love to have an official CD of any U2 concert you saw, good quality, maybe a picture or two? I think it would rock.
 
I justed posted this for informational purposes, just to get some discussion bc it sounded like they were anti-U2 by commenting on the fact that U2 had to do all of these things, but the more that I think about it, they're just stating that that's not the way that they'd like to do things.

But isn't the whole goal to try to make the ultimate record, sell well, gain noteriety bc otherwise you'd sell the music for free and give free concerts.

There is a business side to music as well and U2 covers both the business and music side as well as anybody.

Good discussion folks!!
 
Zooropa said:


I agree. U2 has always been ambitious for success. They want to be the biggest band in the world. The difference between U2 and say Creed or Aerosmith, is that U2 wanted to do it their way, without compromising their integrity. Pearl Jam, on the other hand, doesn't care as much for the publicity, and are therefore unwilling to partake in the necessary promotion that an artists needs to be hugely sucessful. All else aside, Ament is right, The listening public, especially in America, have very short attention spans. They aren't interested in music as art, they fail to see the album as a whole, they just want the hits. Look at the best selling albums, Greatest Hits,and Soundtracks dominate American charts. The collection NOW! reguarly debuts in the Billbaord Top 5. It really is a shame. Pearl Jam is a great band, and IMO, every bit as talented as U2, maybe not as visionary, but certainly as talented, and their entire body of work is uniformally excellent. Hopefully, they will be one of those bands that gets the credit and recognition they deserve at some future time.

WELL SAID Zooropa.
 
i dont see it as a slam at all.

radiohead and pearl jam both dont want to be big, while u2 does.

but...why? as an artist is that what you truly strive for? i mean leonard cohen writes somes of the best lyrics of all time, but its creed thats the bigger of the two...what does that even mean?

why is size such an issue?
 
Zoomerang96 said:
i dont see it as a slam at all.

radiohead and pearl jam both dont want to be big, while u2 does.

but...why? as an artist is that what you truly strive for? i mean leonard cohen writes somes of the best lyrics of all time, but its creed thats the bigger of the two...what does that even mean?

why is size such an issue?
However, the one major difference between Creed and Cohen, is that if Creed fell off the face of the planet tomorrow (a distinct possibility actually), no one would remember them. If Cohen stopped writing music, on the other hand, he would leave a legacy, lasting for eons. I think U2 have always striven to put the art first, but being big has always been part of the goal, simply to get that art heard by as many people as possible. As Paul McGuiness said, it would be a shame to be good at the music, but bad at the business.

I personally believe that if the art is good enough, people will eventually hear it. Take Nick Drake, for example: his album Pink Moon is one of the greatest albums of all time, and up until recently nobody knew about him (except Radiohead and The Beatles and other weary artists) - until, of course, his song 'Pink Moon' was used in a Volkswagan commercial. Now, he's been revived as the star he always should have been. If the art's good enough, it will break into the public in some way - even if it takes 4 decades! ( Tragically, Nick Drake killed himself when he was in his mid-twenties, and never got to see his own success.)
 
Sorry everyone but I've got to call "bullshit" on the guy from Pearl Jam.

Ist off its fine that they don't want to be U2 but when Bono says that he wishes Radiohead and Pearl Jam did want it I think he knows that they would produce better music overall.

Sounds to me like a big bad decision. If PJ did do all the publicity they would be accountable to 2 groups of fans

casual
devoted

This puts more pressure on any band to come through with great albums and innovation.

The other thing that PJ thinks is cool that isn't is still acting like a fucking grunge band. Could the 90's please come and collect their trash(PJ) they're still talking.

What an uninspired depressing vibe these guys give out. All the publicity they do is always " we don't want this, we don't do videos, we don't want to be rock stars" Fuck off already.

Its not their music that sucks it's their lack of ambition and poor fucking attitude.

Why is U2 so popular?

Because they represent an idea of ambition, innovation and human condition through their music.

What the fuck is Pearl Jam all about anyway? Someone get these guys a blanket and a bottle.
 
Rymx:

Though, on the face of it, it would seem that being held accountable to casual as well as devoted fans would result in better albums and innovation, I tend to disagree with that for a couple of reasons:

1. Good art is almost always the result of inspiration, not accountability. A band that is uninspired can dial up all the sexy grooves they want, all the samples they need, and all the voice overs they can muster, but in the end, if it isn't inspired it isn't good. When it comes to art, especially music I feel, inspiration has to come from within. Accountability simply serves as a reminder - and may result in a longer recording process, something that doesn't go hand in hand with inspiration.

2. There are plenty of artists that have both casual and devoted fans - and thus accountability - but their albums are terrible. Sometimes, keeping the audience in mind is the worst thing an artist can do. Music is an organic process. Anything else is pure artifice - in other words, crap. Take most of Pop radio, for example. I'd hardly describe Britney and her ilk as innovative.

3. This leads me to artists such as Nick Drake. Have you ever heard of him? Probably not, but you might have. If you haven't heard of him, it wouldn't surprise me, as he is quite unknown. His music, in other words, doesn't have much of a casual devotion. However, his music is also, primarily, amazing. His album Pink Moon is one of the best of all time. If his music hadn't been used in a car commercial recently, many people would not even know about him. There's someone who had little accountability (according to your definition anyway), but who was highly innovative, creavtive, and made incredble music and albums.

Conclusion: at the end of the day, accountability is important - but it's really only important if it's with yourself. If you can't be held accountable to yourself, no matter who else you are held accountable to, the music will suffer. Self-accountability is the key, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Excellent and interesting post Griffiths and I will check out Nick Drake. Gives me another perspective as far as art and musicians go.

I'm just tired of hearing the same story from PJ in the press over and over and over again.
 
And still, at the end of the day Pearl Jam, or at least a few members of Pearl Jam are still fans of U2 and respect them. Eddie attendended an Elevation show, it was actually talked about here, complete with pictures. Ament has always liked U2. I don't see any problem with his comment. After, it's a comment with U2 used as an example. He's basically saying they don't want to do what U2 did, that is all. I don't see how it's really putting down U2.
 
david said:
And still, at the end of the day Pearl Jam, or at least a few members of Pearl Jam are still fans of U2 and respect them. Eddie attendended an Elevation show, it was actually talked about here, complete with pictures. Ament has always liked U2. I don't see any problem with his comment. After, it's a comment with U2 used as an example. He's basically saying they don't want to do what U2 did, that is all. I don't see how it's really putting down U2.

I was at the Elevation show where Eddie was, he stood behind me the whole time and wept like a baby at times.

Personally, I could care less what people say about U2. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, and I will never understand why people take so much flack whether they are misinterpreted or not - especially about music or film, or where the arts are concerned.

PJ want their success one way, and want to be represented one way, and that representation is different than how U2 presents themselves. So be it. Years ago, I tired of PJ's cowering from the spotlight and their seeming beliefs about how validity and savvy public relations cannot go hand in hand. Somehow, to truly be an artist, you cannot enjoy your success, or publicly promote your work. I disagree with that belief, but PJ will always have their built-in fan base whether they want to step up to the main stage or not.
 
It's gotta be a slow news day in U2Land if we're actually giving a fuck over what Jeff Ament allegedly said about U2. U2 went their way and PJ went theirs. Can't we just leave it at that? When Kurt Cobain died, that kinda really fucked up PJ because they were somewhat ambivilent about fame like Kurt was. No coincidence that PJ cut back on a lot of shit after Cobain died. Yes, they did stop making videos before Cobain's death, but they did cut back on a lot of other promotional work after his death as well. Then there was all the shit with TM. PJ was trying to help their fans as well as all consumers by showing the government how deeply TM was fucking those said fans/consumers. Alas, nobody else fuckin' cared and we continue to get sodimized by TM to this day. When I think of PJ, I think of a consistantly solid Rock and Roll band. They usually release an album every 2 years and then tour for that album. I really like their new album Riot Act. It's definitely better than 2000's Bianural, which was OK.
 
Last edited:
I understand that PJ wants to go a certain way and might not measure success the same way U2 does and I realize that Ament was using U2 as an example, but the first couple of times I read it, I got the feeling that he was putting the boys down for what they do as if it's a bad thing to be the biggest band in the world. It would have been different if we would have said something after or before the statement like there's nothing wrong with what they do or something along those lines.

I think I am overanalyzing a bit and it is a slow news time, this would be so much easier if it was an interview clip bc you can see the facial expressions and tone, but personally, I could give a crap less bc it doesn't matter how much U2 gets bad press or even talked about it bc most of us could agree, our liking is at a personal level.

Good discussion folks, in deep dark places I think PJ would like to be on top, and who wouldn't. I think the laissez faire approach they're taking is sort of a copout to their lack of recent success, which makes it look like this is "the plan" who knows?
 
I don't think Pearl Jam not wanting to be huge and super-famous is a cop out or a sign of laziness. For a while they were so big and the world was dissecting everything they said and did (particularly with Eddie), their lives were gone through, it was horrible. That may or may not be the price of fame, I'm not sure, but somehow Pearl Jam has found away around that, they are able to make money from touring and recording without having to be all over magazines and television shows and lose their privacy. Good for them. But if that reluctance to be interviewed by Diane Sawyer or have McG direct their videos means that Pearl Jam won't top the Forbes list or Billboard, that's the choice they've made.

I also think that just because someone doesn't want to be or isn't super-famous, that doesn't mean they're not working hard. I know that their are thousands (probably more, probably some on this board) of struggling musicians playing gigs every night, loading their own gear, traveling from city to city in crappy vans and killing themselves to do what they love. They're not as famous or well-paid as Britney or Justin or even Bono, but they work just as hard as those people do. Unfortunately hard work and success don't always go hand in hand.
 
I love PJ, think they make great records, in no way think they were taking a shot at U2 with this one, but whatever. I understand they don't want to be like U2, to be huge and all over every magazine and newspaper in the world. Not caring about that is fine. Frankly I don't think U2 even cares about that... you hear it all the time from them that it's not about the sales the record makes, it's about staying relevant. U2 just happens to be able to make great music, the music they want to make, and still sell tons of CDs. My only hope for PJ is that they stop trying so hard to NOT be a huge commercial success. I think they should just try to make the best damn record they can make. If that ends up including a few "radio friendly" songs that become huge hits, so be it. Ten, Vitalogy and Vs. had these kind of songs and were big hits... Yield had a great rocker in Do The Evolution (which amazingly had a video), but that was really about it as far as "radio friendly" songs went. Given to Fly and Wishlist were good songs, just not ones that you'd expect to get played on modern radio. Last Kiss was a hit by accident. It was originaly just a token gift that they released only to their fan club at Christmas time, but it was such a good cover that it started getting radio play, and by the summer it was even on Top40 right next to Britney and Justin. Binural was the same as Yield, a few really good songs, but none that you hear and go Bam, that's a single. Riot Act is a little better... I Am Mine's probably their most radio friendly song since Last Kiss. They've got a few other potential hits there, Love Boat Captain (about the incident in Denmark two years ago) and Thumbing My Way all have that "single" sound, and Save You, the next single off the album according to the PJ fan sites, is even rumored to have a video. The band played a 2 night stand on Letterman, and are ready to go on tour next summer with Audioslave as the rumored opener. So who knows... Ament makes these comments, not a shot but just stating the reality of the situation, but at the same time they seem to be putting forth more of an effort commercialy than they have in the past. Whatever happens with 'em... I just can't wait to see the probable tour of PJ w/ Chris Cornell and the remains of Rage. Yahtzee!
 
Back
Top Bottom