Albini was on the same UM podcast that Jeff Ament appeared on, and he reiterated his frequent ideas about music for the art vs music for commerce pretty well:

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/anewangle_podcasts/46/

It is a silly argument. Both stone/Jeff and Kurt were on sub pop and used their Indy cache to sign with a major label as soon as they could. Ignoring green river in this is pretty shoddy argumentation as this is what got them their major label contract. Hell, it’s not even like nirvana moved from bleach to never mind with the same band lineup either.

Pearl Jam definitely had a charmed birth, but it's entirely due to what MLB had done in the years prior (i.e. getting on Polygram). Eddie (and I suppose Krusen) walked into a band in a situation that's pretty unheard of; they were in on the ground floor (as opposed to joining something long-established without a chance to mold it) but they were handed a major label deal. That's grabbing the brass ring x100.

So I think it's true that PJ had advantages that few other bands had, but it's hard to divorce that from what MLB had built over the previous years.

this also only means anything if Nirvana broke big on subpop. they were on a major label by the time they mattered.

green river/MLB is to Epic

as

Bleach is to Geffen

Not only did Kurt want to be famous, he was jealous that Pearl Jam was more popular than Nirvana by the time Vs. and In Utero were released. That was the impetus for much of his criticism of PJ. He was actually a bigger fraud than what he accused PJ of being. I think Ed legitimately didn't care about mainstream success and he showed it with his actions.

That this conversation is already being dragged into the weeds of "Pearl Jam v Nirvana" and "Kurt was a total hypocrite, he wanted to sell out as much the next dude, man" is a bummer.

To be clear, this conversational detour was (I understood) centred around the following Albini statement McP quoted on the previous page: "Pearl Jam was sort of...the corporate face of the era. You know, the band was assembled from constituent parts, and then was shopped as a product. It was very much an industry creation."

I was trying (arguably failing) to riff on that for a while, because I think there's a definitely a coherent argument which supports that view, even if I don't entirely subscribe to it, or that kind of rigidity about music generally.

You don't have to get into the PJ vs. Nirvana weeds to understand what Albini is saying is utter nonsense. I find him very entertaining but the way he frames it in that interview is that of a low info dullard.

I don't know Albini well enough to know how literally to take his comments, but "very much an industry creation" is an unequivocally false statement. The band was not "created" by record labels; it was created by the five people in the band prior to any industry involvement at all, and most of the songs on their first record were written (I'm pretty sure) before they had any label attention. Their earliest demos and live performances bear remarkable resemblance to those hat were finally released on their album, which suggestss minimal meddling from the label in the actual creation and execution of their songs, apart from making them sound professional on record. Certainly they gravitated toward what in 1990 was a more established commercial sound than the bands Albini was producing, and they definitely struck gold with their label deal so early on, but being "created" by the record industry is way, way different than simply being promoted very well by it.

I like Albini and often enjoy what he has to say about recording, his experiences in the business, etc., but when he starts in with his corporate/mainstream rhetoric he just sounds so incredibly old-fashioned and archaic to me. He reminds me of how me and my friends used to talk about music when we were 18.

I thought (and may be wrong on this) that the strength of MLB (and its major label release) and the relationships they built made it a pretty sure bet that PJ would get a major label deal (if they didn't have it already). Which I'm not knocking them for in the least, and in terms of a creative endeavor it was absolutely organic. But it's an unconventional beginning.

It's particularly interesting in terms of Eddie; although he's heavily responsible for the band's popularity and longevity, he's also the luckiest guy on the planet. No lead singer for a rock band walks into a band that is still starting, but is all but guaranteed a major label push, but I think that's kind of what happened.

If that's the case, I think it's interesting that a band as unremarkable as Mother Love Bone would garner so much corporate interest that their guitarist and bassist would be automatically guaranteed a deal whenever they managed to start their new band up.

Michael Goldstone was the A&R guy for MLB at Polygram, and he took the in-development Pearl Jam with him to Epic when he transferred over there...

Their success as Pearl Jam was all but a foregone conclusion, arguably contingent on their finding a great lead singer. And as any musician who ever tried to "make it" will tell you, it's probably a lot easier to get up and tackle the goal every day if you've got an A&R guy in your corner dangling promises.

I don't think this diminishes the power of their music, nor their artistic intentions one iota. But Albini's characterization is demonstrably true.

Except for the implication that Nirvana was somehow "more organic," which is demonstrably false.

Those guys were also lucky enough to have one of the all-time great rock voices walk into their band at the right time.

MLB was OK, but I don't consider them a band that was destined for legendary status. Eddie Fucking Vedder showed up one day to sing for their band -- THAT is luck.

MLB wasn't going to hit anything big. It sucks that Andy died but he and they were a relic of where music was moving away from. Vedder took them to where it was going.

I think there's a better chance that Vedder would have emerged someway with or without Stone/Jeff than Stone/Jeff finding another lead singer and having success.

Even with the advantages Jeff/Stone had, it's still an outright miracle that they found Eddie Vedder in the way they did. He was a complete nobody that by the grace of God happened to know Jack Irons.

Albini makes it sound like Epic Records set up auditions for each position in the band. It was way more organic (and lucky) than that.

I havent listened to the Albini podcast yet, but that view is just laughable. Specially in comparison with Nirvana.

Re: Albini

Like Spenno, I think what Albini says is basically true and you guys need to stop being so butthurt.

However, such an argument is meaningless when it comes to a band being enjoyable or having artistic merit.

This dumb argument still pops up 50 years later when anybody discusses The Monkees. Tons of discussion about whether they were "manufactured" or "deserving of fame", with lots of people overlooking the fact that they made some of the 60's best pop music, so it ultimately doesn't fucking matter.

The Monkees are a legitmate "industry creation," though, put together by producers for a television series. I realize that these are probably all blurred lines to a guy with Albini's principles, but nevertheless, having an in with a label guy is not the same as being "created" by a business person in an office for the purposes of making a television program. I don't take personal offense at the idea of Pearl Jam being a commercially privileged band, I just don't think it's accurate to call a band an "industry creation" when they were not, in fact, "created" by the music industry. That's it.

And I've always liked the Monkees.