Red Mosquito

96583UP wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

96583UP wrote:
what a fantastically deliberate act of cunty sell-out hypocritical bullshitty mungchugging

this completely validates my low opinion of Ed these days. this act tells me: no, it has not just me being a whiney bitch, it is actually just that he actually has become everything that (at least I interpreted previously that) he stood against

fuck you and your corporate gigs

this should be a fucking no brainer outrage for anyone who was in to pearl jam in the early days not only for their music but for what they supposedly stood against

i could, in the modern PJ age, at least understand a corporate gig for an electric car company, or something innovative that is clearly providing a positive benefit to society in line with lofty progressive values

but a fucking CRM software company? we've seen right behing the curtain now haven't we?

I mean, technically this product could be used to help an organic granola bar company engage in hardcore cold-calling sales... but generally its used by companies with un-progressive agendas to push good old fashioned average capitalist crap

there's no justification for this gig other than his value system has become severely dulled

pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing pathetic and embarassing

You're going to get detention if you don't be quiet!

oh shit my bad

emotive ramblings aside - for the purposes of academic comparison - is anyone here familiar with any of the following musical entities having engaged in corporate gigs? (my purist expectations may simply be severely miscalibrated)

The Ramones

Fugazi

Neil Young

Leatherhead wrote:None of Pearl Jam's moneygrabbing affects how much I like this band. They're artists, they get paid to create and perform their art, that's all.

Lament wrote:Has a student ever tried to use Ed's consolidation of power in the Vitalogy-era and the material it resulted in as an argument in favor of absolute power?

@SkitchP wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:None of Pearl Jam's moneygrabbing affects how much I like this band. They're artists, they get paid to create and perform their art, that's all.

The problem is, their moneygrabbing in a lot of cases is in direct contradiction to the content of their art.

@SkitchP wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:None of Pearl Jam's moneygrabbing affects how much I like this band. They're artists, they get paid to create and perform their art, that's all.

The problem is, their moneygrabbing in a lot of cases is in direct contradiction to the content of their art.

@SkitchP wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:None of Pearl Jam's moneygrabbing affects how much I like this band. They're artists, they get paid to create and perform their art, that's all.

The problem is, their moneygrabbing in a lot of cases is in direct contradiction to the content of their art.

Leatherhead wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:None of Pearl Jam's moneygrabbing affects how much I like this band. They're artists, they get paid to create and perform their art, that's all.

The problem is, their moneygrabbing in a lot of cases is in direct contradiction to the content of their art.

There's no crossover though, for me. Moneygrabbing is over there, art is over here. Terrible people with ridiculous beliefs/principles/practices make great art all the time. And I'm not sure anything can be in direct contradiction to sounds arranged in a certain way so that it sounds good to my ears/brain/mind.

stip wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:None of Pearl Jam's moneygrabbing affects how much I like this band. They're artists, they get paid to create and perform their art, that's all.

The problem is, their moneygrabbing in a lot of cases is in direct contradiction to the content of their art.

ohhhhh, skitch...

@SkitchP wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:None of Pearl Jam's moneygrabbing affects how much I like this band. They're artists, they get paid to create and perform their art, that's all.

The problem is, their moneygrabbing in a lot of cases is in direct contradiction to the content of their art.

There's no crossover though, for me. Moneygrabbing is over there, art is over here. Terrible people with ridiculous beliefs/principles/practices make great art all the time. And I'm not sure anything can be in direct contradiction to sounds arranged in a certain way so that it sounds good to my ears/brain/mind.

Lyrics are a big part of their "art." Words and message (regardless of how one feels about the quality of the execution of that element) are a big part of the intent of their art.

stip wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Leatherhead wrote:None of Pearl Jam's moneygrabbing affects how much I like this band. They're artists, they get paid to create and perform their art, that's all.

The problem is, their moneygrabbing in a lot of cases is in direct contradiction to the content of their art.

There's no crossover though, for me. Moneygrabbing is over there, art is over here. Terrible people with ridiculous beliefs/principles/practices make great art all the time. And I'm not sure anything can be in direct contradiction to sounds arranged in a certain way so that it sounds good to my ears/brain/mind.

Lyrics are a big part of their "art." Words and message (regardless of how one feels about the quality of the execution of that element) are a big part of the intent of their art.

okay skitch. Go ahead. pick your lyrics

stip wrote:The haves/have not distinction is an ideological one about where your sympathies lie:

A have--someone of wealth and means who feels that they exclusively created that wealth and therefore have no social obligations to those who have nots. Alternately, people who use their wealth and power as a way to close off competition and access for others, creating static class boundaries

A have not--this is probably self-explanatory.

You can have poorer people who sympathize with the haves, and richer people who sympathize with the have nots. Even Karl fucking Marx thought that there would be wealthy people helping to fund the vanguard of socialism.

FDR arguably did more for working people than any other American in history, and his blood was so blue he married his cousin.

stip wrote:he probably had some ramps put in though, which were the firepoles of the 1930s

stip wrote:he probably had some ramps put in though, which were the firepoles of the 1930s

lukin321(2) wrote:So does Ed's private performance for Salesforce's conference count?



http://youtu.be/bAykNHwPY98