Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:Also, I'm pretty sure you should all be bonerpopping a little less about whether or not this is a reasonable use of a hairplugged corporate side show and a dead heroin junkies music, and more about the fact that Pearl Jam covers are TERRIBLE.

I've never heard a Pearl Jam cover that I've liked.

McParadigm wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote: The reliance on cool, alternative music to draw people to some kind of religious event starts to raise my suspicious

Later remembered as prelude to the moment in which RM embraced the word "whippersnappers" and buying stool softeners in bulk.

The perception of these bands being cool and alternative is something I was attributing to the church, not me.

I thought that might have been self-evident, but perhaps not.

I'm really glad the "but perhaps not" bit was stricken from that line in the Declaration.

McParadigm wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote: The reliance on cool, alternative music to draw people to some kind of religious event starts to raise my suspicious

Later remembered as prelude to the moment in which RM embraced the word "whippersnappers" and buying stool softeners in bulk.

Your ageist attitude toward stool softeners is disappointing.

Birds in Hell wrote:The reliance on cool, alternative music to draw people to some kind of religious event starts to raise my suspicious immediately. Not because I'm some uber-cool douchebag who thinks it's below him (you know me well enough by now to know that I'm a gigantic dork), but because it can so easily be a backdoor route to ensnaring vulnerable people into the church

So your concern is that this could all be a ploy by the mustache-twirling schemers of the Episcopal Church to lure fragile, faithless Gen-Xers into a Christian event under the promise of angsty grunge music. Even though it's an event that's being clearly advertised as a Liturgy to feed the homeless. Come on. This is not the Catholic Church trying to appeal to kids by changing the words to "Call Me Maybe" and making them about Jesus, this is a group of guys in their 30s trying to help their community by doing something they think would be kinda cool. Hokey and cringe-inducing as they end result may (or may not) be, I think you're being too cynical about their intentions.

Birds in Hell wrote:I'm with B on this. I don't think his point was that they didn't seek permission, more that he's doubtful the artists would be pleased their work was being presented in such a manner - take the Radiohead example I posted upthread, for instance. Of course they don't need to seek permission, but that wasn't his point.

The point remains that it doesn't matter how Thom Yorke would feel about his songs placed against the backdrop of the Passion. Just like we don't need permission to play their songs, nobody needs any permission to recontextualize and resignify them. As I said, and B failed to address, we secularize religious music all the time. Songs are not objects to be sanctified and preserved indefinitely. We can jawdrop at the historical origins of songs as very personal logged experiences of the author and the artfulness of their conception and content and construction, but ultimately they are the symbiotic records of living and changing beings. We can and should treat them with respect for being participants in and contributors to the human narrative, but the very nature of performance is to resignify, to adapt and apply. Songs are designed to be interfaced with, inside and out, and the worst thing we can do to them is freeze them in time and pluck them out of the current of artistic engagement; "that's it, no more will happen to you, you have been rendered a symbol by a symbol, your sole purpose is to exist as a vessel for Eddie Vedder's anger and we thank you for your service." Rendering a song the inflexible guardian of a selective content and certain moment in history is to end its life. If they can be symbolic-- if they have any power as anything more than the annals of the songwriter's experience-- it is because they must be interacted with in order to be activated as such.

TL;DR: It doesn't fucking matter what Eddie would think, songs can and should be decontextualized and hammered into new (possibly awful and off-putting) backdrops, the very fact that we're taking issue with a charity event for the hungry makes me think perhaps RM deserves its reputation as a bunch of massive whinging cunts.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that music or art can't be recontextualized, I think they're arguing that this sounds like a shitty recontextualization.

I appreciate you clarifying exactly what we're arguing, spenno, because it doesn't seem very consistent or thought-out to me. I mean, is this event objectionable because

B wrote: I doubt most of the artists would approve of their songs being used in a religious capacity

or because

Birds in Hell wrote:this sounds like a shitty recontextualization

?

Does this suck because the church is

B wrote:co-opting others' art without permission

or because this could be a

spenno wrote:backdoor route to ensnaring vulnerable people into the church

?

Or, perhaps most likely, are we so ensconced in cynicism that we completely ignore a worthwhile cause because the event sounds lame? Where we have a guy who's literally saying "I'm putting together a show to feed the hungry in my city" and, instead of throwing out a "right on, good luck" or simply ignoring it, we offer a disdainful "ew"?

Fuck that. I roll my eyes when I read the usual post about how negative RM is, but this is some petty, small-minded bullshit.

Birds in Hell wrote:The reliance on cool, alternative music to draw people to some kind of religious event starts to raise my suspicious immediately. Not because I'm some uber-cool douchebag who thinks it's below him (you know me well enough by now to know that I'm a gigantic dork), but because it can so easily be a backdoor route to ensnaring vulnerable people into the church.

ensnaring vulnerable people into the church?




Nooooooooo!

Feeding the homeless is a worthy aim, but I hardly think that a worthy aim places any event or organisation that wishes to achieve that aim beyond criticism. Given the Radiohead example cited ealier, I think it's a crappy use of someone else's art and I'm generally suspicious of the motivations of any kind of religious organisation (big or small.)

Feeding the homeless? Great!
This event in particular? Lame.

Hopefully it goes well for you.

I like the Episcopal Church, or what I've heard of it. I'm glad that it's focussed towards social justice, equality, and full inclusion. Yeah, I'm sure that the reappropriation of Pearl Jam and Nirvana's music in a religious context could be awfully bland, but since you've been a fan for a long time, I think you'll be respectful towards it. Both bands' music is in the public domain, so this kind of use is inevitable (and has undoubtedly happened before even if RM haven't seen it -- I've seen similar).

Would the bands be happy their music was used in this way? Well, as long as your emphasis was on that social justice / equality / 99% angle, then I don't see why not. Pearl Jam and Nirvana were / are always pretty outspoken against organised religion, but not because it entailed faith and the metaphysical (both bands use notions of spirituality a great deal, as you've said). Generally, they spoke out against any power structures which seek to disenfranchise, discriminate, oppress. Since your wing of the Church stands for gender / sex / LGBT equality, and of course feeding the poor and homeless, I don't see what they'd have to object to. For many people, 'God' just stands for everything bad about power, and that's probably true of Nirvana too. If you can close the binary of secular and sacred in a vaguely Evangelical context, I'm all for it, bad grunge puns aside.

McParadigm wrote:Also, I'm pretty sure you should all be bonerpopping a little less about whether or not this is a reasonable use of a hairplugged corporate side show and a dead heroin junkies music, and more about the fact that Pearl Jam covers are TERRIBLE.

I refuse to let this point die.

McParadigm wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Also, I'm pretty sure you should all be bonerpopping a little less about whether or not this is a reasonable use of a hairplugged corporate side show and a dead heroin junkies music, and more about the fact that Pearl Jam covers are TERRIBLE.

I refuse to let this point die.

remember PJ20

B wrote:Yeah, I don't know. I doubt most of the artists would approve of their songs being used in a religious capacity. There are plenty of ways to get money for the homeless that don't require the co-opting of others' art without permission.

I wonder if you get down on Pearl Jam when they co-opt very obvious religious imagery and bible stories in songs such as Given To Fly, Pilate, and many, many more? Are you clear and consistent in your convictions?

There are plenty of ways for Pearl Jam to line their pockets with money that don't require the co-opting of others' art without permission.

Pearl Jam have been almost a cover band for a long time.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Also, I'm pretty sure you should all be bonerpopping a little less about whether or not this is a reasonable use of a hairplugged corporate side show and a dead heroin junkies music, and more about the fact that Pearl Jam covers are TERRIBLE.

I've never heard a Pearl Jam cover that I've liked.

good luck with your event

Thanks for the encouraging words. And thanks to everyone for their opinions.
I figured this was something that not everyone would be into. But I also know that other Pearl Jam fans, like me, have made the band's music part of their life journey.

Just as I respect everyone's opinion here, I'm careful to respect the artists' music when I organize one of these events. Believe me, I share many of the same concerns and criticisms of the church, especially the conservative evangelical branches, as many of you. In no way is Pearl Jam's music being used to proselytize (we don't do that in any form) nor are we attempting to somehow turn it into church music.
That's not the purpose of these events.
This is about exploring the spiritual in the secular.

As for getting the support of musicians: Although we don't have to, we frequently reach out to get their blessings. In fact, the management of Bruce Springsteen, Radiohead and Neil Young and the Woody Guthrie Foundation have given us help, support and, for certain elements, permission for these events. Springsteen has even given money to our Community Meal program and Portland's Sisters of the Road, which has a similar calling.

Live near Portland? I hope some of you can make it.

You're a good guy, Jose Phrose.

surfndestroy wrote:

B wrote:Yeah, I don't know. I doubt most of the artists would approve of their songs being used in a religious capacity. There are plenty of ways to get money for the homeless that don't require the co-opting of others' art without permission.

I wonder if you get down on Pearl Jam when they co-opt very obvious religious imagery and bible stories in songs such as Given To Fly, Pilate, and many, many more? Are you clear and consistent in your convictions?

There are plenty of ways for Pearl Jam to line their pockets with money that don't require the co-opting of others' art without permission.

Pearl Jam uses religious imagery to critique, parody, and spur discussion about the dominant culture. I suppose one could claim they're doing it to line their pockets, but I doubt many people on this board TRULY believe that.

This church is using Pearl Jam's music to draw naive Pearl Jam fans into a program who's message is likely antithetical to Pearl Jam's philosophy.

One could debate how evil/good either of those two uses are, but they are not equal.

Don't strain yourself, B.