Red Mosquito

theplatypus wrote:Is something wrong? she said
Of course there is.
You're still erect, she said
oh, but do I deserve to be?

is that erection?

Because I'll stop trying to make it different,
I'm not trying to make it different,
I'll stop trying to make it different,
My Way.
Oh, let's order a Big Mac

All that's sacred
comes from youth
Dedication, naive and true
But middle-age is
richer, cow-eyed and lubed
So I sell nostalgia
Don't need nothing new
Not new

This is all for you

I seem to recognise your Facebook.

theplatypus wrote:I just like watching Stip drive himself crazy defending their every move.

Stip is a huge part of my pearl jam experience now. He makes this terrible band bearable.

Ransom paid the tailor...he whispers pleasing words...
Triumphant is the seamstress , if you like the way you look.

Spoiler: show

theplatypus wrote:Small my table, fits just 1
went to Target, bought a bigger one

that was good

BurtReynolds wrote:

theplatypus wrote:I just like watching Stip drive himself crazy defending their every move.

Stip is a huge part of my pearl jam experience now. He makes this terrible band bearable.

we all have a part to play in our happy little family

stip wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Small my table, fits just 1
went to Target, bought a bigger one

that was good

I liked that he used the number 1 the first time, then spelled it out the second, so it didn't look like he was rhyming one with one.

@SkitchP wrote:

stip wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Small my table, fits just 1
went to Target, bought a bigger one

that was good

I liked that he used the number 1 the first time, then spelled it out the second, so it didn't look like he was rhyming one with one.

Fooled me!

Thejambi wrote:I'm not outraged at this point, but I am honestly disappointed and continually surprised.

These guys were part of a band I grew up with, idolized, supported and rooted for. It wasn't just about the music; it was also about the way they conducted themselves with the whole anti-rock star/band of the fans mythology. I have no problem with a musician making money on his craft, nor should anyone. The issue with Pearl Jam is they have gone from utilizing a platform to spread a message/ideology to abandoning those principles (at least on a professional level) and becoming a large chunk of what there message spoke against. It's well beyond hypocrisy or "people change" cop-out.

What they decided to do with the liberation from Epic has just blown my mind. It is nothing how I imagined it.

It's post like this that irk me. I totally get why this whole thing raises questions. But to say that they've "abandoned their principles" is ridiculous. Have they stopped their charitable work? ALS, WM3, Indian Reservations, environmental causes, etc, etc. In fact, all of those causes get MORE support and money than they ever have. I'm game for calling out contradictions from their past statement, but only if their is a 71-page thread praising all of the charitable work they do RIGHT NOW. There is just as much hypocrisy from many of the posters on this thread as their are in the band. We're all growing older.

Thejambi wrote:"We almost didn't play at all because of all these commercials on either side of the building...let's get some lights on these advertisements.what are we..who are we...I ain't playing for Pepsi. Miller Lite, now that's a beer ... I could piss in a cup and give it to this guy and he'd like it better ..."

"I think Sheryl Crow is sponsored by Big Boy, isn't she?" - With Big Boy being previously referred to as a Didlo.


My second Pearl jam show
DTE Energy Center
6/25/2003

he said as he was playing in a building named after a corporation.

This fight is over. It was lost in a big way. I don't expect him to keep holding water for it.

a pretty sizeable chunk of my defending pearl jam inc. has less to do with any self-righteousness about the band (that's what my defense of the music is about) and more a reaction to the icky discomfort people seem to have with pearl jam selling stuff to a niche market of their fans, and an oversimplistic political worldview that hasn't progressed far beyond 'corporations=bad'. The band no doubt shared it at one point. I'm glad they moved past it, and I say that as one of the people on this board with the most radical/progressive anti-corporate set of personal politics.

Plus someone has to speak out against the RM hive mind, and it shouldn't just have to be toloumne.

And to this day I think the most obnoxious money maker thing they ever did (to inflate sales, etc) was the shit they pulled where you had to buy multiple copies of No Code to get all the liner notes. that was terrible and it was 1996.

Tuolumne wrote:

Thejambi wrote:I'm not outraged at this point, but I am honestly disappointed and continually surprised.

These guys were part of a band I grew up with, idolized, supported and rooted for. It wasn't just about the music; it was also about the way they conducted themselves with the whole anti-rock star/band of the fans mythology. I have no problem with a musician making money on his craft, nor should anyone. The issue with Pearl Jam is they have gone from utilizing a platform to spread a message/ideology to abandoning those principles (at least on a professional level) and becoming a large chunk of what there message spoke against. It's well beyond hypocrisy or "people change" cop-out.

What they decided to do with the liberation from Epic has just blown my mind. It is nothing how I imagined it.

It's post like this that irk me. I totally get why this whole thing raises questions. But to say that they've "abandoned their principles" is ridiculous. Have they stopped their charitable work? ALS, WM3, Indian Reservations, environmental causes, etc, etc. In fact, all of those causes get MORE support and money than they ever have. I'm game for calling out contradictions from their past statement, but only if their is a 71-page thread praising all of the charitable work they do RIGHT NOW. There is just as much hypocrisy from many of the posters on this thread as their are in the band. We're all growing older.

Is it not clear that I am mostly referring to the rock star persona and corporate rock tag they seemingly fought against for better part of a decade?

stip wrote:a pretty sizeable chunk of my defending pearl jam inc. has less to do with any self-righteousness about the band (that's what my defense of the music is about) and more a reaction to the icky discomfort people seem to have with pearl jam selling stuff to a niche market of their fans, and an oversimplistic political worldview that hasn't progressed far beyond 'corporations=bad'. The band no doubt shared it at one point. I'm glad they moved past it, and I say that as one of the people on this board with the most radical/progressive anti-corporate set of personal politics.

Plus someone has to speak out against the RM hive mind, and it shouldn't just have to be toloumne.

And to this day I think the most obnoxious money maker thing they ever did (to inflate sales, etc) was the shit they pulled where you had to buy multiple copies of No Code to get all the liner notes. that was terrible and it was 1996.

I think plenty of posters have had critiques that were far more nuanced than 'corporations=bad."

Nothing about any of this is particularly bothersome, I just think trying to say that the way they do things is a maturation of the idealistic views or something is a bridge too far. They changed the way they do things; if that's not a big deal (and I agree, in the big scheme of things it's not; it's only a rock band), than let's just say that.

stip wrote:

Thejambi wrote:"We almost didn't play at all because of all these commercials on either side of the building...let's get some lights on these advertisements.what are we..who are we...I ain't playing for Pepsi. Miller Lite, now that's a beer ... I could piss in a cup and give it to this guy and he'd like it better ..."

"I think Sheryl Crow is sponsored by Big Boy, isn't she?" - With Big Boy being previously referred to as a Didlo.


My second Pearl jam show
DTE Energy Center
6/25/2003

he said as he was playing in a building named after a corporation.

This fight is over. It was lost in a big way. I don't expect him to keep holding water for it.

If that was part of what gained my fandom, he absolutely does. It's not like they slowly just shied away from it, they blatantly jumped to the other side of te fence. Whether it's Target, these corporate gigs, licensing songs out left and right or the Ten Club; Pearl Jam has essentially built themselves into a corporation. At the end of the day that's fine. If this is how they feel they need to run their careers that's their choice. I don't actively condemn them for it but when stuff like this pops up I can't help but shake my head.

digster wrote:

stip wrote:a pretty sizeable chunk of my defending pearl jam inc. has less to do with any self-righteousness about the band (that's what my defense of the music is about) and more a reaction to the icky discomfort people seem to have with pearl jam selling stuff to a niche market of their fans, and an oversimplistic political worldview that hasn't progressed far beyond 'corporations=bad'. The band no doubt shared it at one point. I'm glad they moved past it, and I say that as one of the people on this board with the most radical/progressive anti-corporate set of personal politics.

Plus someone has to speak out against the RM hive mind, and it shouldn't just have to be toloumne.

And to this day I think the most obnoxious money maker thing they ever did (to inflate sales, etc) was the shit they pulled where you had to buy multiple copies of No Code to get all the liner notes. that was terrible and it was 1996.

I think plenty of posters have had critiques that were far more nuanced than 'corporations=bad."

Nothing about any of this is particularly bothersome, I just think trying to say that the way they do things is a maturation of the idealistic views or something is a bridge too far. They changed the way they do things; if that's not a big deal (and I agree, in the big scheme of things it's not; it's only a rock band), than let's just say that.

Maybe it makes more sense to say it is letting go of an asthetic commitment that no longer make much sense while preserving the larger social and political commitments. My main objection to most of this is the way the aesthetics end up folding the social and political into it.

How do other artists confronting the same industry shifts see pearl jam? You don't hear many musicians criticizing them. That seems significant

Thejambi wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:

Thejambi wrote:I'm not outraged at this point, but I am honestly disappointed and continually surprised.

These guys were part of a band I grew up with, idolized, supported and rooted for. It wasn't just about the music; it was also about the way they conducted themselves with the whole anti-rock star/band of the fans mythology. I have no problem with a musician making money on his craft, nor should anyone. The issue with Pearl Jam is they have gone from utilizing a platform to spread a message/ideology to abandoning those principles (at least on a professional level) and becoming a large chunk of what there message spoke against. It's well beyond hypocrisy or "people change" cop-out.

What they decided to do with the liberation from Epic has just blown my mind. It is nothing how I imagined it.

It's post like this that irk me. I totally get why this whole thing raises questions. But to say that they've "abandoned their principles" is ridiculous. Have they stopped their charitable work? ALS, WM3, Indian Reservations, environmental causes, etc, etc. In fact, all of those causes get MORE support and money than they ever have. I'm game for calling out contradictions from their past statement, but only if their is a 71-page thread praising all of the charitable work they do RIGHT NOW. There is just as much hypocrisy from many of the posters on this thread as their are in the band. We're all growing older.

Is it not clear that I am mostly referring to the rock star persona and corporate rock tag they seemingly fought against for better part of a decade?

No it's not completely clear, cause you don't give them credit where they're due, it's seems like an unbalanced attack.

Again, I do see the contradictions, but to land so absolutely on one side of the equation strikes me as an extremely unsophisticated point of view. I feel Ed's own views on these matters back in the old days were very narrow-minded and unsophisticated (as were my own views) and they seems to be growing up and tackling these little conundrums in an honest way, while still trying to do good in society. They could explain all of this more eloquently, but they've never been the eloquent type in these matters in the way that the Trent Reznors and Billy Corgans of the world have been able to express themselves in interviews. It's a recalbration of their stances for sure, but in no way an "abandonment". They still serve a good purposes, and they're still trying to do the right thing, as flawed as they can be.

Damn. I've missed ten pages of this thread during my weekend absence... should be some fun reading....