Mine wrote:Lament wrote:Honestly the simplest explanation for everything is that Eddie Vedder stood for things because Pearl Jam hit the scene at a time when standing for things was good for your career. He'll probably continue to do so because it's part of his persona. The Rolling Stone article from 1996 is probably way more accurate than people want to believe.
I don't have an issue with people expressing any criticism and most are at least in part valid. But why does it have to be about Vedder alone, when he's one of the 5 people of the band. It just sounds like resentment towards him.
For instance the fact that Tim Bierman really likes to point out how his friend Jeff Ament brought him in to run the 10C to make it financially viable always brings a sarcastic expression to my face because of how cynically ironic it is. But RM ignores it because it's Ament not Vedder.
You think he's that cynical? Musicians were standing for things since forever, it's not the best career move either since you systematically turn part of your audience off by doing so - and Ed is no exception here.
Maybe people single out Ed because he's the one with the microphone who made a lot these statements that people here feel he's betrayed. Or wrote most of the lyrics that now bother some people in this thread.
I think the other four members of the band (well, let's say three since there are only four Pearl Jam-lifers) are probably not very different from Vedder. All you have to do is look at their careers before Pearl Jam. Jeff and Stone made a pretty dramatic shift in everything (sound, look) when they went from Green River to Mother Love Bone (the former a band whose break up was brought on by Ament's dogged pursuit of fame). Mike was in LA trying to play hair metal at a time when that was the most crass, debaucherous scene in music history, wasn't he?
As for risking his career by standing for things...well, some of the biggest rock stars in the world in the time leading up to and including when Pearl Jam broke were Bono, Michael Stipe, Sting, Bruce Springsteen, Peter Gabriel. So I don't buy for one second the idea that standing for things in the early 90s was not a good career move. I'd argue it was the best career move you could make. There was no quicker way to earn cred, and with the barbs being tossed at the band (and specifically Ed) coming from Seattle at the time, I don't think there's any great leap in thinking perhaps that's what drove a lot of his stances and actions.
That being said, I'm sure there are things he cared about, and cares about. But if you're asking me to guess which one of these is closest to true:
1. Ed & Pearl Jam used to stand for a lot of great and brave things but now they're just a hypocritical, cynical money-making machine.
2. Ed & Pearl Jam have just gone through normal changes in practice and have actually never done anything they really were ever against and it's just people wanting to be mad at them for one reason or another. We don't even know why they do these things they're being criticized for, it's probably to pay for all of the 10C to be able to feed their kids or to donate money to save dying orphans from being eaten by Dick Cheney.
3. Ed & Pearl Jam have probably always been more or less the same way they are now, they've just let it max out in the last ten years and stopped trying to hide it. In fact, a lot of the things they were praised by so many of us for doing back in the day came from more cynical places than we'd like to admit, and the detractors they've had along the way were probably more right than anyone would have admitted at the time. I bet they wished they could've sold Pearl Jam themed Chicago Bears jerseys at Soldier Field in 1995.
I'm going with #3 every time,
TEAM HARMLESS FOREVER...
