Wreckage

[Ms Harmless]

I was referring more to the need to sit in a room together with your friends and make music because it's fun.

It's wild fun to make noises together, to explore new sonic territories by playing parts and turning knobs and having conversations about where things can go, then trying to explore those avenues.

And I get the strong impression this band doesn't have that need at all. They need to go on tour, because I think they love it. So they want to make the record as quickly and effectively as possible, because they seem to dislike doing that part together.

I'd take an album of Sweet Lews that felt spontaneous and live any day over an album of "We checked the boxes, we followed the roadmap, we didn't even have to use amps! We were in-and-out without a single headache."

This thing, the speed and efficiency aspect of how they think about records, it's something that feels like it's been around ever since I've been plugged into the band's album rollouts, and it's something I've never really understood. You can see it in some of the interviews they've done for this album, as with albums in the past, where they talk about the speed with which they made the record as if that in and of itself is a positive attribute of the record, in the same way saying the rhythm section or Eddie really pushed themselves hard when making an album.

Doing albums quickly could be a good thing, or it could be bad, but the mere fact that the record didn't take them long to record (even if there's a long period of time between albums) doesn't really mean anything. Maybe it's a Neil Young kind of thing, where they want to be responsive to striking while the iron is hot, but they don't really take any of Neil's other lessons when it comes to taking that kind of approach.

Exactly.

These guys seem like they want to be in Pearl Jam six weeks out of the year.

Total agreement, particularly with the bolded part. Gigaton aside, they place such emphasis on it - it's bizarre.

It's obvious to everyone outside the band this just reads as wanting to make the smallest time commitment practically possible to the creative part of making music.

this part I do agree with, but I'm just not as angry about it now as I was during Backspacer (mainly because I like the music more)

[Ms Harmless]

he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

The fact is that the Eddie that wrote Soon Forget could’ve used his current self as the reference to that song.

I always read the song as being in some respects self-directed, whether Ed consciously realised that or not.

definitely - it's almost like a self portrait of what Ed could have become and still might do

[liebzz]

I think that is mostly them saying they needed to get their heads out of their asses, but maybe they really don’t need that.

[tragabigzanda]

pearl jam sucks now

[stip]

he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

The fact is that the Eddie that wrote Soon Forget could’ve used his current self as the reference to that song.

The problem with Soon Forget is that Eddie could have used 2000s era Eddie as a reference. Already a millionaire many many many times over. It was an inauthentic song from jump. I've never really liked it. You probably helped me figure out why.

When you sell 10 million copies of your record in 1992, by 1993 you are part of the elite.

Also that song, and many of Ed's issues, were not really as simple as "you have money you're bad"

exactly

yep, everything is more complicated than that

now, I don't think you can be a good person and a Billionnaire, but Ed isn't

Mind you I disagree with that premise entirely, but what kind of mental gymnastics must you have to use where billionaire = can’t be a good person while $100 millionaire = can be a good person?

we have to draw the line somewhere, and the fact is there is a point where hoarding that much money is immoral in itself

anyway, Ed is far down the list of people I want to morally and ethically emulate; Ed isn't one of the best people in terms of his politics or practices, but he's not the worst either, and he's all the better for speaking out against the worst

Since his net worth is calculated at roughly $100 million, where would the threshold be where he should be castigated into the likes of the wealthy elites who’s money should be redistributed for the betterment of humanity? I’m genuinely curious. I don’t believe that to be a solution to solving anything, but if I did $100 million seems like it would exceed the standard of needing to be redistributed.

it's the wrong way to think about it - wealthy elite is shorthand for people use their money/power/influence to constrain the lives and opportunities of others. It's not a price tag.

[stip]

he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

The fact is that the Eddie that wrote Soon Forget could’ve used his current self as the reference to that song.

I always read the song as being in some respects self-directed, whether Ed consciously realised that or not.

that's a much more interesting read on it then what I have. I like that

[stip]

Where do you subjectively draw the line in regards to excess? Does that subjectivity change based on an individual’s perceived values/political positions/causes they donate to?

Seems to me that if you believe extreme excess is bad, the difference between having a net worth of $100,000,000 or a net worth of $1,000,000,000 is inconsequential.

You can't draw a line. Money is a manifestation of power and privilege. What you do with that power and privilege is what determines your value

Making derivative art and selling it at a premium, while crowding out or flat-out not compensating other artists, definitely falls short of “valuable,” in my mind

But you could live with it if you found the art less derivative, as has been established

[tragabigzanda]

pearl jam sucks now

[mattyv1908]

he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

The fact is that the Eddie that wrote Soon Forget could’ve used his current self as the reference to that song.

The problem with Soon Forget is that Eddie could have used 2000s era Eddie as a reference. Already a millionaire many many many times over. It was an inauthentic song from jump. I've never really liked it. You probably helped me figure out why.

When you sell 10 million copies of your record in 1992, by 1993 you are part of the elite.

Also that song, and many of Ed's issues, were not really as simple as "you have money you're bad"

exactly

yep, everything is more complicated than that

now, I don't think you can be a good person and a Billionnaire, but Ed isn't

Mind you I disagree with that premise entirely, but what kind of mental gymnastics must you have to use where billionaire = can’t be a good person while $100 millionaire = can be a good person?

we have to draw the line somewhere, and the fact is there is a point where hoarding that much money is immoral in itself

anyway, Ed is far down the list of people I want to morally and ethically emulate; Ed isn't one of the best people in terms of his politics or practices, but he's not the worst either, and he's all the better for speaking out against the worst

Since his net worth is calculated at roughly $100 million, where would the threshold be where he should be castigated into the likes of the wealthy elites who’s money should be redistributed for the betterment of humanity? I’m genuinely curious. I don’t believe that to be a solution to solving anything, but if I did $100 million seems like it would exceed the standard of needing to be redistributed.

it's the wrong way to think about it - wealthy elite is shorthand for people use their money/power/influence to constrain the lives and opportunities of others. It's not a price tag.

So who is the arbiter of making that decision? Is it purely subjective? Couldn’t this same argument be made by someone with a completely different worldview than you to justify a person’s use of their amassed wealth?

This is where people who make the argument lose me. I believe it was ms harmless who started it with the you can’t be a good person and be a billionaire statement. A family making $40,000 annually can take that same logic and say a person making $500,000 a year is incapable of being a good person. If it’s subjective to the views of the person making that statement than it’s merely personal platitudes on display.

[E.H. Ruddock]

I’d be a nice billionaire. Also Bezos’ hot ex wife is a billionaire and she’s a nice person

[stip]

he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

The fact is that the Eddie that wrote Soon Forget could’ve used his current self as the reference to that song.

The problem with Soon Forget is that Eddie could have used 2000s era Eddie as a reference. Already a millionaire many many many times over. It was an inauthentic song from jump. I've never really liked it. You probably helped me figure out why.

When you sell 10 million copies of your record in 1992, by 1993 you are part of the elite.

Also that song, and many of Ed's issues, were not really as simple as "you have money you're bad"

exactly

yep, everything is more complicated than that

now, I don't think you can be a good person and a Billionnaire, but Ed isn't

Mind you I disagree with that premise entirely, but what kind of mental gymnastics must you have to use where billionaire = can’t be a good person while $100 millionaire = can be a good person?

we have to draw the line somewhere, and the fact is there is a point where hoarding that much money is immoral in itself

anyway, Ed is far down the list of people I want to morally and ethically emulate; Ed isn't one of the best people in terms of his politics or practices, but he's not the worst either, and he's all the better for speaking out against the worst

Since his net worth is calculated at roughly $100 million, where would the threshold be where he should be castigated into the likes of the wealthy elites who’s money should be redistributed for the betterment of humanity? I’m genuinely curious. I don’t believe that to be a solution to solving anything, but if I did $100 million seems like it would exceed the standard of needing to be redistributed.

it's the wrong way to think about it - wealthy elite is shorthand for people use their money/power/influence to constrain the lives and opportunities of others. It's not a price tag.

So who is the arbiter of making that decision? Is it purely subjective? Couldn’t this same argument be made by someone with a completely different worldview than you to justify a person’s use of their amassed wealth?

This is where people who make the argument lose me. I believe it was ms harmless who started it with the you can’t be a good person and be a billionaire statement. A family making $40,000 annually can take that same logic and say a person making $500,000 a year is incapable of being a good person. If it’s subjective to the views of the person making that statement than it’s merely personal platitudes on display.

it can be philosophically consistent without an actual metaphysical/ontological grounding. this has been a phlosophic dilemna (or variations if) since at least Plato’s Crito dialogue. is there a way to demonstrate that something is objectively right or wront, or will it always come down to subjectivity. the question you are asking applies to 100% of all moral frameworks. its no more or less invalidating here.

at the core of pearl jam’s philosophy/values (i think) is the idea that people thrive in communities that care about the people within them and supports its members as they figure out who they are and who they might become. Public policy, wealth, power, etc is good or bad based on how people use them (measured against those ideas i just referenced), not how much of it they have

you can argue that the more you have the greater the temptation for abuse and the more likely you are to not even be aware of the sweeping consequences of your actions. I think that is consistent with the band’s philosophy and the proper grounds for criticizing certain moves like the poster artist thing within the bands own values framework. But every act is also measured against the sum total of all that person does


pearl jam doesnt have one song that lays all this out- but when you look at the catalog as an evolutionary text this is where, i think, it leads you

[stip]

i hate typing long posts on the phone

[E.H. Ruddock]

Just use talk to text

[Fattie_Vedder]

I’d really love to get into a nuanced discussion about the dangers of billionaires and why capitalism will be the death of us all, but I am too exhausted after a long day and need to eat some of my feelings first. It doesn’t help that I mostly post here from my phone.

So instead here is a couple of oldies but goodies:

Billionaire philanthropy scam
https://youtu.be/KWNQuzkSqSM?si=[yt]RRKUhh0ReebOn0bS[/yt]

John Oliver on wealth inequality
https://youtu.be/LfgSEwjAeno?si=[yt]jFgA1zJv0eVyGJKT[/yt]

[E.H. Ruddock]

I hope stip typed out his part of the book on his phone

[stip]

I hope stip typed out his part of the book on his phone

i employed ghost writers, each of whom recieves four copies of the book they can sell on the secondary market

[Fattie_Vedder]

Speaking of which, what’s this nonsense about the book delivery being delayed until October 2024?

[Fattie_Vedder]

Finally listened to the clip a few times. I totally hear what people are saying about hearing Fast Car in this, particularly the main riff in the verse.

It’s already in my head. I think this is going to be great.

The drums don’t bother me on these first listens. Will see if that changes.

[stip]

Speaking of which, what’s this nonsense about the book delivery being delayed until October 2024?

still july - when they updated they have to push out for a further date then expected just in case there are delays. once the printing is confirmed the date will change

things you learn

[Birds in Hell]

So, with the production, I had another question.

Do you remember when Ed inducted Neil into the HOF and he was talking about the analog sound vs. the digital? I think he was talking about putting out records, still, and how important that was.

So, pearl jam still puts out records, as they seem to feel that "sound" is still important.

But, why would they allow Dark Matter (the album) to be recorded in this compressed manner? Is it to stay with current trends? Is it cheaper to record this way? Do they just not care as much about how it sounds in the end?

Ed’s love of vinyl has always been rooted in nostalgia and fascination with records as an object, not sound quality. Neil’s commitment to high quality digital audio (Pono etc) is much more sincere in that respect.

Some Pearl Jam albums sound pretty good but I suspect that’s more by accident than design. They’ve never been a band of audiophiles.