to make records?

I can't stomach U2 any more. Pearl Jam haven't jumped into the category of embarrassment to me just yet. Why I would accept Avocado or Backspacer when I've found every U2 release since Zooropa practically unlistenable I can't say. No accounting for taste. The biggest issue with both these bands is that the pathos so many fans connected to in their relative youth doesn't age well. Listening back to a U2 song like Bad that I thought was top drawer amazing is not quite so amazing these days. I have a similar experience with some Pearl Jam music although because I was more of a Pearl Jam enthusiast there is usually a twinge of feeling when the bombast hits my ears.

I happened upon "New Years Day" on the radio the other day and had that visceral "this is a GREAT song" moment before I even remembered it was U2. And then I thought about U2 today and got sad the way the high school stud who shows up at the 20-year reunion bald and gone to seed is sad. Hopefully Pearl Jam can either find a meaningful midlife groove or gracefully ride off into the sunset "riding on top a black horse".

As far as I'm concerned, any act who stops making records and just becomes an ongoing touring presence is opting to adopt nostalgia over creation, and I think far less of them than those people who churn out shitty, but well-intentioned, records.

U2. I don't think that PJ's going to be remembered for any albums besides Ten, so crappy albums aren't really going to hurt how they're viewed.

That being said, I still think Bad is a pretty great song.

It really depends on how you measure "ruined." You may not like U2's recent albums, but both All That You Can't Leave Behind and How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb outsold Zooropa. If you're a band, it's hard to say that you're not successful.

Pearl Jam's sales were on more of a decline (although I think they went up a little with Backspacer), but they still went gold and charted at #1, so I think they're still pretty far from shitting on their legacy like, say ... the Eagles.

I like U2 and have pretty much enjoyed all their albums. The last one was a little sketchy but there were a couple good songs. I wouldn't think it really hurt their legacy. They were major players for over three decades. I get that Bono is annoying but he's always been annoying. I wouldn't mind another U2 album.

This notion that nobody remembers PJ after Ten is overstated, no? To begin with, the albums after Ten sold tons of records and a few of the songs were in heavy radio rotation: Betterman, Daughter. It was No Code where the band slammed the door. In any case, the average person on the street doesn't care about Pearl Jam or U2 to begin with so neither legacy can be ruined for someone who couldn't care less either way. Only a fan is concerned with legacy.

I'm definitely not referring to either band's commercial viability. U2 is a marketing machine and as long as they want to fart out an album there will be an audience. This is true for Pearl Jam at a smaller scale.

I meant more in terms of the band that made New Year's Day hobbling out with some half-baked retread songs with Bono gasping on vocals while wrapping dated not-so-coolguy sunglasses around his fat head.

Laughing all the way to the bank. I know.

A band's 'legacy' is a measure of validation of the fan's choice to be a die-hard fan, so of course they care... but I think it's more the projection of unrealistic expectations of the fans (Eddie hasn't changed a lick since 1998 and they can play a 3+ show will new songs without compromising the ability to play obscure b-sides) that have people questioning Pearl Jam's legacy after the last 10 years.

both bands continue to sell well and enjoy a positive critical reception of their work. They are middle aged bands that people expect to produce solid music that no longer reinvents the wheel. I don't think either band is hurting their legacy

I used to be really concerned with this business of a "legacy" (which in the end, can be as much of a business as staying in tact and collecting tour money). But I've now seen too many bands (like, pretty much all of them) end up reuniting anyway. The Who, The Police, The Pixies, [insert band here] .... they all reunite, all of them .... except for The Smiths (so far). The mere success of these reunions is one of the biggest reasons for the existence of festivals like Coachella. If John Lennon was still alive, The Beatles would have reunited.

The lesson is that every band that "nobly" breaks up and has this big legacy ends up cashing in on it because the lure is too strong. The nobility of the whole thing gets trashed eventually. So, I'd prefer a band just stay together, the end result is a stronger 'legacy' than a band that broke up and got back together. If PJ broke up around Vitalogy, or around Yield, the lure would be huge for them to cash in and tour. They most likely would have done it and found themselves regretting not really having an intact fanbase that actively grew with them.

I believe REM might actually stay broken up, b/c they didn't go out on a peak. I think they were smarter than the others and learned the lessons of rock history. They could have broken up when Bill Berry left but they soldiered on (hurting their legacy in their fans eyes). But breaking up when they were in their late 30s/early40s they surely would have come back less than 10 years later. Instead, they delivered several records and broke up when their so-called legacy was already lower than it had been 15 years prior. I'd rather have a band with several more records in their catalogue (with some worthwhile stuff even if it wasn't their best) than a band that left at their "peak" and came back to cash in on a tour. Oviously, the best thing for a legacy is to do the Smiths thing and stay broken up but 99% of bands don't do that.

I appreciate more bands like REM and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, who kept going after their peak commercial success. In the short run it may have brought their legacy down some, but in the long run they had a decent (though not great) later career to speak for, as opposed to no career and lots of tour money (and staying together they got the same tour money they would have gotten if they broke up and did that one big nostalgia tour). So, for me personally, I prefer PJ staying together and soldiering on versus breaking up and coming back 10 years later, which is what most likely would happen. Plus, I personally think that if they've dropped off, it's not really that much, they still make good records for my tastes.

Dont really care about legacies.

Yet here you are!

I've made this argument before...Pearl Jam's run of quality, artistry, and relevance for the 15 years from 1992 - 2006 is unparalleled in popular music. As great as U2 is/was, they were really only infallible from 1986 - 1992, and even that period had "Rattle and Hum". I love War and their early 2k work but it is not without flaws...Pearl Jam, minus a filler track here and there, a ham-handed way of handling band member and related party exits (Dave A and Beth) and sticking to commitments (Arc on 2k3 bootlegs; releasing extra tracks from album sessions post-Lost Dogs, Ticketmaster) has been pretty much perfect.

Pearl Jam really needs to hit a home run with this next album...their post-Yield material has either been spotty or subpar, commercially irrelevant, or both. They need to find a way to engage their fans AND shift units at the same time...they are not Radiohead, who can do whatever they want and commercial interests come second; they are not AC/DC who can put out the same album over and over again and that's ok. Pearl Jam has a wider scope than either band and to live up to that, they have to straddle a line that has been challenging for them over the past 15 years.

yet here I am...not caring.

The only thing they could do is improve their legacy with a knockout album. As other have said they are pretty cemented in from 90-94.

*whoosh*

These two statements don't seem to jive. At best they had 6 or 7 years. More realistically it was 3 or 4.

Binaural was artistically accomplished but a commercial failure. Riot Act was similarly bad commercially, and not as consistent artistically. Avocado went in a different direction and was probably equal (though different) to Riot Act artistically, but also bad commercially. Backspacer was the least accomplished artistically yet but the most commercially successful album since Yield.

I'm saying that Binaural - Avocado, while lacking in certain ways, still add to the legacy of the band, while Backspacer detracts. There's also a clear delineation with post-2007 live material as well...especially 2008 - 2010.

People remember Michael Jordan as the greatest basketball player in history. They've already forgotten about the last years in Washington when idiot sportswriters were whining about protecting his legacy. And in a hundred years, no one will remember Michael Jordan at all.

Do what you want. Don't worry about legacy. Or kill yourself. that seems to do wonders for legacies.

I enjoyed this post.

That's fine but then they haven't met the criteria you list for an unparalleled 15 years.