Pearl Jam - Rock and Roll's Latest "Free Agent" Band Fights On

On June 1st, Billboard.com confirmed that rock and roll stalwarts Pearl Jam will be partnering with Target Corporation for the release of their upcoming album, “Backspacer.” Pearl Jam’s alliance with Target is different than artists such as AC/DC and Bruce Springsteen, who gave uber-discounter Wal-Mart exclusive rights to album distribution. Pearl Jam will not just be selling their album through Target, but also through a variety of other outlets, both physical and via the internet. Manager Kelly Curtis stated “Target was cool enough to realize little independent record stores are not their competition,” implying Pearl Jam will still promote new material at your local record store, providing one still exists. As part of the Target deal, Pearl Jam agreed to make a commercial for the Bull’s-eye franchise, a decision that will have many music fans crying “sell-out” from a band that refused to make music videos for seven years. Given the current instability of the music industry, Pearl Jam should not be accused of “selling out” but be applauded for “selling in.”

For the better part of the 1990’s, Pearl Jam waged a one-band war against Ticketmaster, the ticket-selling giant whose monopoly on concerts continues to this day. The band paid a heavy price for their protests, as they found booking arenas difficult if not downright impossible without the consent of Ticketmaster. Many arenas had (and still have) exclusive agreements with Ticketmaster, leaving Pearl Jam essentially blackballed from many areas. In 1998, Pearl Jam conceded the battle and began selling concerts via the evil, fee-happy empire. During the same period, the band released its first music video since “Jeremy”, the iconic single from the band’s debut album “Ten.” “Do the Evolution” was an animated video directed by Spawn creator Todd McFarlane and received substantial MTV play. These changes could be interpreted as the band caving in to pressure from their record label, Sony, but for all accounts the band did not get along with them.

The best answer for Pearl Jam’s business decisions is not found in music, but in baseball. In 1969, outfielder Curt Flood became the first player to challenge Major League Baseball’s reserve clause, which contractually bound a player to the team they currently played with. A stellar player with multiple All-Star Game appearances, Flood put his professional career on the line by refusing to play the 1970 baseball season. Flood took his case all the way the U.S. Supreme Court, who ultimately ruled against him. The mental and physical strain on Curt Flood during this period was tremendous and he retired after a brief stint with the Washington Senators in 1971.

Flood’s failure to successfully overturn the reserve clause inspired two other All-Stars, Dave McNally and Andy Messersmith, to make another attempt at challenging the status quo. Both pitchers played the 1975 season without a contract, arguing that they do now “owe” their service to their current team beyond fulfillment of their contractual obligation. This time, lower courts ruled in favor of the ballplayers. Major League Baseball gave in after several attempts at appealing the decision. The demise of the reserve clause led to the free agent market, in which players can sign with any team they choose. McNally chose to retire, while Messersmith signed with Ted Turner’s Atlanta Braves for a ton of money. Like Curt Flood before him, the strain on Messersmith led to several sub-par seasons before he finally retired in 1979.

The free agent market flourished after the 1975 decision, allowing baseball teams such as the New York Yankees to stock their roster with great players and essentially “buy” world championships in 1977 and 1978. Major League ballplayers would control much of how the game was financially played until 1994, when a player’s strike ended the baseball season, canceling the World Series. In 2002, an attempt at another strike was met by fan hostility, with beers, baseballs and profanities being thrown on the field during the final games on August 30th before an agreement was reached. Fan tolerance for rich teams and players had reached a breaking point, resulting in an agreement that has made baseball universally competitive for the first time in its history.

Throughout most of the 1990’s Pearl Jam was the music industry’s Curt Flood. Their anti-corporate stance was applauded and supported by their millions of fans but their decision to refuse to make music videos and play ball with the evil empire of Ticketmaster prevented the band from gaining or even sustaining their fan base. It is understandable the band’s record label, Sony, would not spend considerable PR time and money on an artist not willing to play the industry game. In the 2000’s, a record buyer would rarely see a big promotional effort to support the band, despite loyal fan allegiance and a history which places Pearl Jam among the best rock and roll acts in history. Although their concerts are still well-attended and indeed phenomenal, Sony seemed more interested in getting behind artists who perform the typical dog and pony show. The music industry has changed rapidly during this decade, resulting in inferior but photogenic artists being pushed in an unwilling public’s ear.

The propensity of downloading (legal or illegal) has resulted in several established artists to become the music equivalent of “free agents.” Radiohead’s decision to release their last album, “In Rainbows,” on a “pay what you want” basis online, surprisingly resulted in platinum physical sales. Subsequently, Trent Reznor’s latest Nine Inch Nails release, “Ghosts I-IV,” was offered for free download but record buyers were given unprecedented alternate options, including autographed copies if the purchaser was willing to pay for it. Although Pearl Jam had yet to enter this brave new world, their efforts a decade before set the stage for Radiohead’s and Nine Inch Nails’ success. Pearl Jam was the first major artist to allow and encourage bootlegging of their live concerts. The band went so far as to record every show during their 2000 tour and release the double-CD’s at a discount price. Bootleg concerts were a prime mover in the underground music industry until the advent of the internet. Three-hour Bruce Springsteen concerts would sell for sixty bucks at record shows, despite that they were made for five bucks in somebody’s basement. But access is everything, and music fans were more than willing to pay for a great show with good sound that made you feel like you were there. Pearl Jam’s release of it’s entire live tour delivered the first blow to bootleggers without a single legal action. Soon after, CD burning and internet downloading leveled these once astronomical prices. Pearl Jam’s live albums gave die-hard fans what they wanted, albeit with a little overkill.

The 21st Century has not been kind to Pearl Jam, whose fan base has dwindled further and unlike Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, have yet to gain interest from young music fans. Their partnership with Target should be seen as the band “selling in” rather than “selling out.” There is little argument Pearl Jam would have been one of the biggest acts in rock and roll history if they did not challenge the system. Unlike the late Curt Flood, Pearl Jam still has power over their destiny. If the band’s new record and commercial for Target reignites interest in the group from the public, they could experience a resurgence seldom seen in the music industry. If there is one thing to know about Pearl Jam, is they are dedicated and persistent. Don’t count them out yet.

If Pearl Jam’s gamble is even somewhat successful, they may pave the way for younger artists to break from their labels while they are still Billboard and iTunes darlings. There is yet to be a Reggie Jackson or Alex Rodriguez in the music industry, who became free agents at the peak of their careers. Imagine if Eminem, Black Eyed Peas or even the Jonas Brothers spurned record labels and took charge of their marketing and promotion. Many music critics such as Bob Leftsetz have predicted the demise of traditional music industry practices for some time. It remains to be seen when and exactly how the final blow will be delivered. When it happens, the artists who benefit from the fallout should thank artists like Pearl Jam, whose anti-corporate stance, incredible live shows and refusal to conform are more than enough qualifications to enter the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

The 2008 Christmas Video Game Buying Guide!

The First Annual Christmas Video Game Buying Guide
(Why we have to suck it up and buy “Mario”)

It’s no super secret video games are expensive. At an average of fifty dollars a game, there is little wonder most parents are reluctant to part with their Santa savings on something they may know little about. Even those of us (myself included) who grew up staring into the arcade abyss cannot claim to have thorough knowledge of the genre (I grew up and had kids – it happens). I still find time to waste a few hours a week on a handful of top titles. I’ll race anyone on MarioKart Wii and completed Burnout Revenge a few months ago. Other than playing games which appeal to my kids, I’ve little knowledge of the outside gaming world of stripper-shooting-pimp-gangstas, futuristic war chiefs or chainsaw-wielding anti-heroes. Although I’ve bought a few of these games, I rarely find time to play them (kids, writing, life, the universe, etc). Like most parents, I don’t think my 11-year-old; my 3-year-old or my 21-month old is quite ready for "Grand Theft Auto" or "Gears of War." Why is it if so many parents do not want these games in their homes, kids as young as 7 demand them from St. Nick? It can’t be rebellion (little young). A desire to conform and belong? Maybe, but kids are independent these days. The best answer, I’m afraid, is as plain as the plastic machine gun sticking out of Santa’s bag of toys: the games are good.

Kid-focused games (rated E for Everyone for those keeping score) have been getting a bad wrap for quite some time – and with good reason. With the notable exception of Nintendo’s “Mario” franchise, they stink. Go ahead, parents, ask your kids. They’ll even spell it out for you: S-T-I-N-K. They’re lame, they blow chunks, and they’re just not that fun. This shoddiness has been known for some time (like 20 years) but most parents, even those who are still gamers, try to ignore it. We’d like to think our kids would enjoy jumping around as Curious George as much as we enjoy decapitating zombies in "Resident Evil" but they don’t. In fact, the “Curious George” video game epitomizes the majority of flaws in children’s titles.

In designing a kid’s video game, the software company has two principal goals in mind: recognizability/marketing ability and affordability/profitability. Software companies want to license characters that are recognizable to kids, making the titles easy sells for stores like Wal-Mart and Target. Kids (and parents) are more likely to buy something they know than something they don’t. This is why there are eight million products featuring Elmo and about three with Eloise, Olivia or Babar. Currently, there are games starring characters from the movies “Cars, “Madagascar” and “Wall-E” on the shelves. The basic reasoning for these tie-ins is that if the movies are fun, then the games must be fun also. I bought “Cars” for my son and me because the film was his favorite for the last year. We played it for approximately two hours. I would have played it longer but driving aimlessly around the virtual Radiator Springs left me needing a mental tune-up. I purchased “Curious George” for similar reasons and quit playing it after I couldn’t guide poor George out of a construction site I had no idea why he was in to begin with.

I also bought “Cars” and “Curious George” because they were cheap. There’s quite a few $19.99 “budget” kids titles on the Target shelves. They all start at $49.99 (the Mario price) but within two months, they’ve been discounted. Software companies take this pricing into account when they develop their games, spending significantly less on game design and testing, choosing to focus their energies on long-range titles like Grand Theft Auto and Halo. If you’ve ever asked yourself why many of these games make little sense and are hard to play, this is your chance to level up. Usually the first two levels of the kids’ games are fun and then the misery begins. The first levels are known in the industry as “demo” levels, designed to appeal to electronics buyers at Wal-Mart and Target. Usually the buyer will only get those stages and will be asked to make a bulk purchasing decision based upon them.

The first level for “Cars” is a race and a fun one. Lightning McQueen is easy to control and driving in the race would appeal to kids and adults who like racing games like the NASCAR series. It is after this race, that the player wants to drive McQueen off the cliff and hopes Mater is too busy harassing combines to find him. Similarly, “Curious George” begins with an appealing level in the jungle designed to highlight George’s abilities. The player jumps, climbs and swings his way in pursuit of the Man with the Yellow Hat. After this, however, George is inexplicably placed in locations such as a marketplace rooftop and the previously mentioned construction site and cannot perform half of the abilities showcased in the first level. Can you spell “lame”, George?

Software companies bank on the idea that economically conscious parents might not care how fun a game is if it’s cheap. It is twice as affordable as “Mario” and five times cheaper than the popular rhythm game, “Guitar Hero.” After all, if kids tell Mom and Dad they want “Wall-E” for Christmas, why not get it for them if it’s cheap? Incidentally, “Wall-E” is supposed to be worse than “Cars” or “George.” Most of us can remember a time when us or our children wanted a toy so bad, got it for Christmas and put it down soon after, never to be played with again, exiled to the infamous Island of Misfit Toys. The big problem with video games is the companies know this is going to happen. Kids games (with the exception of “Mario”) are rarely tested by companies for playability and overall “fun factor” in the same fashion as titles like “Grand Theft Auto.”

Testing is conducted by all software companies to ensure games play as their designers intended (no “glitches”) and to guarantee players do not become too frustrated for the wrong reasons such as wondering around aimlessly for hours looking for something they can’t see (like a gray door on a gray wall). Testing is performed extensively on titles like “Grand Theft Auto” because the company expects the game to sell millions of copies. Every aspect of the game has to work perfectly or the game (and possibly the franchise) will tank, costing the company millions of dollars. Sales of the “Grand Theft Auto”, “Halo” and “Gears of War” franchises eclipse 20 million whereas sales of “Curious George” might not even clear 50 thousand. Sadly, most software companies just don’t care about releasing quality kids’ games and do not allocate the same time to test the games in the same fashion as the best sellers. Their desire is to merely move product into a specific demographic without attempting to appeal to a broader audience. This lack of vision for the “everyone” market has resulted in a negative perception regarding most of these titles (kinda like Big Auto).

Parents do have viable alternatives, but they are not bargains. Nintendo’s “Mario” franchise, mentioned earlier, can always be counted on for hours of family fun. For the past 25 years, Nintendo has kept close watch on the quality of its games. The racing game, “Mario Kart Wii”, may look “cartooney”, but its physics and playability make it the best racing title available on any system. Players can even go online and challenge someone anywhere in the world. “Super Smash Brothers” appeals to button-mashers everywhere. A fighting game with no violence or gore, even the youngest players (such as my son, Shane), can pick it up immediately and have hours of fun. This game is also perfect for parents who hate playing games but are egged on to play with their kids. Little learning, lots of enjoyment. Nintendo’s current “flagship” title, “Super Mario Galaxy”, succeeds where games like “Cars” and “Curious George” fail. The controls are easy to learn, the storyline plausible and is challenging but not headache inducing. It is by far the best game available this year. However, these games are not cheap, sitting at that fifty-dollar price level with little hope of downward movement. That’s ok. With these games, you will get what you pay for: happy children around the T.V. while parents relax in an easy chair, sipping Christmas Eggnog.