Seriously, though, why not?

Don't get me wrong I'm not really fussed, but I guess my thought process was more the flip of your question. ie Why? The answer to that probably depends on what additional tracks they are looking to add beyond what was already on RVM - otherwise they can just sit back and do nothing and still get Best Of royalties from RVM.

Even if it were exactly the same tracks as RVM, which I doubt, it makes commercial sense to me to have a "new" Pearl Jam compilation on CD shelves next to Lightning Bolt.

I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out. I never thought RVM was a particularly satisfying summation of their career to that point.

Yeah, you're probably right but it could still be a bit of an odd decision depending on what tracks they choose and/or have access to.

I vaguely remember some articles aroound the time of PJ nearing the finish of their Sony contract where somebody from the band or one of their reps seem to suggest the band didn't really like the idea of Greatest Hits packages (I think it was something to do with whole idea of an album being the ohesive piece of musical expression). There was speculation then that the Lost Dogs release and all the Official Bootlegs would get them off the hook from their contractual obligation to do one.

No big deal in the grand scheme of things but it looks like another slight philosophical shift in the band's commercial approach.

Really? What more would you have wanted? I thought they did an almost perfect job.

I may be wrong but i think Sony can release this things with or without the artist' permission and Sony isn't exactly shy on series of greatest hits compilations.

That's my understanding too, providing Sony own the rights to those recordings (and I'm under the impression that they do).

If they include S/T material on this, I'll be interested to see if the mastering is an improvement on the original album.

I wonder what Pj's royalties are like on something like this vs say LB, where presumably get all or most of your $11.99 or whatever it is

Nahhh, the original contract only called for one greatest hits package, they can't actually release another without the band's permission... which isn't to say that would necessarily be that hard to obtain.

I can't be arsed spending a lot of time finding a better link, but its alluded to in the Rolling Stone biography of the band and as I mentioned there was a fair bit of discussion about the contract back when fans were actually excited about PJ being independent of a major label and what that might lead to.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/pearl-jam/biography

That isn't the way it works (to the best of my knowledge). While their original contract might have called for X amount of records that simply means the band were contractually obligated to only record for Sony until they've met those conditions. So long as Sony still own the rights to that material, they can reissue and repackage it any way they see fit.

No. I'm afraid your mistaken here. The contract is fulfilled - what Pearl Jam will receive for a second Greatest Hits is dependent on another contract. It's not necessarily a big impediment but it is something that needs to be agreed.

The natural extension of what youve outlined above is that Sony could be using Pearl Jam songs for any sort of compilation or movie soundtrack albums they like. You and I both know that's simply not the case.

do they own the rights to the songs?

Sony has the rights to the recordings in the sense that Pearl Jam cannot go and release those tracks with another label without first getting agreement from Sony (and obviously compensating them). When Prince was pissed with his record label he got around this by re-recording all his old songs. Im not sure if other record contracts would have had additional protection for the labels to avoid this.

couldnt sony rerelease them then?

They can re-release the albums in the original deal, absolutely, but they dont get to chop and change the albums (which is what PJ were obliged to provide) from the form they were provided in without the banmds agreement.

At least not unless you were one of the 50's or 60's recording stars who got screwed every which way to Sunday until band representation got smarter on these things.

i cant remember back that far, but was the relationship between PJ and Sony pretty bad? is there a chance that PJ would give them some newer unreleased songs to add to this thing? i might buy it if there are different versions of some of the songs on there, but the only way i would buy it for sure was if it included songs i hadnt heard before. my guess though is that it will have a few lost dogs tracks, maybe down, sad and fatal or somehting and sony will figure most people who would need to buy a greatest hits album from a band surley wont have bought their unreleased/b sides album so they will think these are new songs.

I'm gonna buy it no matter what because, well, I'm an idiot. But if they even had something as basic as a few remixed S/T tracks I'll gladly be all over it

i dont remember, but is this definitely a sony project?
i would love some remixed S/T songs, but PJ would have to be willing to work with sony on it for it to happen.

if Sony really wanted to do it I'd probably collaborate with them if I was the band. Like Spenno said, it wouldn't be bad for a new GH to be on the shelf next to lightning bolt. If the band provides the S/T and Backspacer tracks these last few years did produce several major hits. If you throw in a few treats the regulars will buy it, and if my name is going to be on it you might as well make it worthwhile.

Yeah, it's definitely a Sony project, they have a whole bunch of these "The Essential (band/artist)" CD compilations.

J Records, who released S/T, are owned by Sony so I presume that isn't a hassle. The band essentially self-released Backspacer, I guess they could just licence The Fixer and Just Breathe (for instance) to Sony for this project if they wanted to.