Red Mosquito

I don't have time to read through this whole thing, but has Illumineddie been here yet?

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

That's an important point. And just like they do musically, they take their idols leads. What does Dylan do? What do Bruce and Neil do? Pete Townshend? Ramones? I think they pretty much have their idols' voices in their heads at all times.

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

I doubt many musicians particularly care enough to examine the minutiae. That's not to say the minutiae is or is not important, merely that Thom Yorke or whoever likely doesn't know or care that Eddie Vedder played a Salesforce gig.

They certainly got a fair amount of guff for their Target deal, if only because that's probably been the most publicized aspect in recent years.

Thejambi wrote:

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.

That's a fair point. They've gained your fandom in a certain way. But I'd argue that it's been a very gradual turn and not a blatant jump of the fence. Ed did that corporate gig for RealNetwork back in 2000 (14 frickin years ago). They licensed the song for Friends thing back in 2004 (10 whole years ago). Just 2 examples. It's never struck me as sudden. That's probably why I've sort of gone along with it. It was never a shock, it sort of just trickled bit by bit and went in parallel as I adjusted my own views, and they always coupled these shifts with very admirable and heartfelt support for certain cause and people (like Tomas Young, WM3, Steve Gleason, etc) .......

twoheadedboy wrote:

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



http://youtu.be/bAykNHwPY98

Sheesh, Oracle's biggest competitor in the CRM/SaaS front. Clearly Ed has no shame.

I spent quite a bit of energy selecting our company's CRM system a couple of years ago, either Oracle On-Demand or Salesforce.com. We ended up going with Oracle.

I never could have guessed that it would eventually be Pearl Jam-themed.

I admittedly wonder why Eddie does these shows strictly on the basis of him being a performer who says he is so dependent on the energy audiences bring to the shows. Wouldn't the crowds at these, by and large, most likely be awful?

Lament wrote:

twoheadedboy wrote:Sheesh, Oracle's biggest competitor in the CRM/SaaS front. Clearly Ed has no shame.

Wait, is that really true? I'm curious because one of the big defenses I heard for Pearl Jam playing that Oracle thing was that Ed was super tight with the founder or CEO or something like that...

Oracle obviously casts a much larger net across the business system software world, but in terms of CRM, yes, Salesforce.com and Oracle I would say are the two biggest players.

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't know, I don't get the impression anyone here is genuinely outraged, even moderately, by this kind of thing.

I presume most people are making these posts in jest - largely because, in many respects, Pearl Jam have become this kind of wryly amusing caricature of what they once were. The music may not be much chop anymore but, hey, at least we can get a chuckle out of their wacky antics from time to time, that sort of thing.

This pretty well describes how I feel about this whole money-grab thing. If I was truly angered, I wouldn't be listening to their old music and shows as much as I do. And I'll probably continue do that for decades.

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

i don't know that pearl jam is present enough in the industry anymore for other artists to have an opinion about it.

Newer bands couldn't care less about this kind of thing. Its just part of doing business.

On the other hand, new bands don't make millions on cd sales, so this sort of thing is a necessity in our post napster world. Maybe Pearl Jam should be above it by now, but those firepoles arent gonna pay for themselves!

They aren't relevant or talented enough anymore for me to even be mad about this sort of thing. Its like bands that play the county fair....or when Brett Michael's showed up at my local Pet's Mart recently. I'm not mad them, I just don't care....

stip wrote:The interesting thing about some of these posts is the way they approach an almost 'stalking my ex' level of creepy intensity.

Which, in a way, is exactly what they are.

Those who are pointing fingers and saying that “everyone is a sellout and you’d do the same thing” are missing the point. I don’t have 80 millions dollars in my bank account. Or even a million, for that matter. The more money one has, the more freedom they have to escape the clutches of a capitalist system that forces/encourages/coerces people to do things they don’t like for a buck. If Salesforce.com called me today and offered to pay me a million bucks to sing a couple of songs at their convention, I’d do it on a heartbeat. If I had 80 million bucks in the bank, I’d turn them down. Really, I would. The more money you have, the more freedom you have to “be yourself.” I think what makes me and a lot of others uncomfortable is that THIS represents Eddie Vedder at his most free? Salesforce dot com? Yuck.

That said, I’m about as far from a corporate sellout type as it gets. The career and discipline I’ve pursued (academia) doesn’t pay much money, but I don’t have to do too many things that I find distasteful. I don’t have to shill for some corporation. I’ve sacrificed a LOT of scratch for that freedom, but it’s worth it to me. And yes, I get that universities are really just corporations and blah blah blah. Indeed, if I had 80 million bucks, I’d do some things related to my job differently. We all would. Except Ed, apparently, who seems to get a little worse every time he sells another dog collar. I should also note that I've worked just about every shitty, low-wage, horrific job out there to scrape my way to where I am now. That includes retail, telemarketing, waiting tables, roofing, you name it. So please don't think that I'm some trust funder who doesn't know what an honest day's work is all about -- or what it's like to be the employee who cleans the toilets at the corporation he works for. Been there, done that. Many times.

There’s no confirmation of any sort that this was a charity, gig, by the way. Is there any evidence of that? And for those saying that if this was for charity, it’s okay, I say that Eddie Vedder can go out and raise almost any amount of money for charity he wants. Because of his fortune and fame, he can raise a million bucks for his charity of choice tomorrow. Salesforce dot com is just one way to do it. So let’s say he is being charitable. This is the way he chooses to do it, with the freedom he has? Again, yuck.

Finally, I don’t think I’m an obsessed Vedder stalker, as Stip insinuated. I read the music-related parts of this board and post here on occasion when something so inspires me. In part that’s because I was banned from the old board and kicked out of the Ten Club by Tim B for posting something about how reprehensible I thought the dog collars were. I only posted there once in a while, too, and joined up because I (wrongly) thought doing so would give me front row tix to every PJ show that came to town. I know, I know – I got suckered. I’m not sure I’d even count PJ as one of my top ten favorite bands. In fact, I’m sure of it. But I’ve seen them live a bunch of times and they’re one of the few bands left from the early ‘90s still around. That in and of itself makes them marginally interesting.

Some might say (not me, of course) that maintaining a separate web site dedicated to discussing PJ, posting here thousands and thousands of times and being Superinvolved in all things Ed/PJ is closer to the stalker-y thing Stip was getting at. I disagree, but since Stip is casting stones about obsessive behavior, a look in the mirror might not hurt.

Anyway, enough yacking. Back to work for me.

PryTo wrote:

stip wrote:The interesting thing about some of these posts is the way they approach an almost 'stalking my ex' level of creepy intensity.

Which, in a way, is exactly what they are.

Those who are pointing fingers and saying that “everyone is a sellout and you’d do the same thing” are missing the point. I don’t have 80 millions dollars in my bank account. Or even a million, for that matter. The more money one has, the more freedom they have to escape the clutches of a capitalist system that forces/encourages/coerces people to do things they don’t like for a buck. If Salesforce.com called me today and offered to pay me a million bucks to sing a couple of songs at their convention, I’d do it on a heartbeat. If I had 80 million bucks in the bank, I’d turn them down. Really, I would. The more money you have, the more freedom you have to “be yourself.” I think what makes me and a lot of others uncomfortable is that THIS represents Eddie Vedder at his most free? Salesforce dot com? Yuck.

I'm the same way. If I was Eddie I'd laugh in their faces. Why would I waste my time with this shit? more money!? why?

eh, its just something I'll never understand about being rich, which is probably why I'm not rich.

BurtReynolds wrote:Newer bands couldn't care less about this kind of thing. Its just part of doing business.

*nods*

Maybe he just wanted to play in front of an audience that didnt act like fucking idiots for a change?

salesforce wouldn't be my first choice for people not acting like idiots...

malice wrote:salesforce wouldn't be my first choice for people not acting like idiots...

I picture a lot of people standing around asking "who is Eddie Vedder?".

BurtReynolds wrote:I'm the same way. If I was Eddie I'd laugh in their faces. Why would I waste my time with this shit? more money!? why?

eh, its just something I'll never understand about being rich, which is probably why I'm not rich.

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons.

What I don't get is how people read into these things as if they know the details of the situation. I mean, I probably fall into the same category as you: I wouldn't bother with it if money were no issue for me. But if a good friend was involved and asked me to play? Maybe I would consider it. If the company was going to make a substantial donation to a charity I support? Why the hell not? There are so many things that could be happening here that we simply don't know. Of course, it could be the exact opposite and they just offered him a whole bunch of money and he jumped at the opportunity. It just seems a little ridiculous to simply assume that's the case and immediately pass judgement and claim "MONEYGRAB MONEYGRAB MONEYGRAB!"

BurtReynolds wrote:

malice wrote:salesforce wouldn't be my first choice for people not acting like idiots...

I picture a lot of people standing around asking "who is Eddie Vedder?".

*and can we sell him a list of business contacts?

philpritchard wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I'm the same way. If I was Eddie I'd laugh in their faces. Why would I waste my time with this shit? more money!? why?

eh, its just something I'll never understand about being rich, which is probably why I'm not rich.

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons.

What I don't get is how people read into these things as if they know the details of the situation. I mean, I probably fall into the same category as you: I wouldn't bother with it if money were no issue for me. But if a good friend was involved and asked me to play? Maybe I would consider it. If the company was going to make a substantial donation to a charity I support? Why the hell not? There are so many things that could be happening here that we simply don't know. Of course, it could be the exact opposite and they just offered him a whole bunch of money and he jumped at the opportunity. It just seems a little ridiculous to simply assume that's the case and immediately pass judgement and claim "MONEYGRAB MONEYGRAB MONEYGRAB!"

Going "Well, there are so many possible scenarios so let's assume the best and move on" is really no less of a logical leap than going "Well, there are so many possible scenarios so let's assume the worst and laugh about it."

Although one is substantially more fun.