Red Mosquito

Bettermam, Last Kiss, lowlight, wishlist, some of riot act, and the rest. Pj always wanted the hits? I dont care as long as I like most of their music.

Ah yes, the Riot Act hits. The lead single sounded like a fucking sea shanty.

verb_to_trust wrote:Ah yes, the Riot Act hits. The lead single sounded like a fucking sea shanty.

Lbc, green disease, you are, i am mine

It really should be "post vitalogy garbage lyfe"

tree_ wrote:It really should be "post vitalogy garbage lyfe"

Vitalogy had betterman. To me No Code and Binaural were their only true non money grab albums or maybe Vs should be included.

I mean life sucked since '95

Does anyone take it seriously though?

I thought it was essentially a running joke.

Kids used to literally just punch me in the face at school for nothing in late '95

Lyfes been str8 hell since

tragabigzanda wrote:I’m pretty much over this thread, and the whole PRAMG concept. Feels like a pointless way to gauge something via just the faintest idea of who these guys are and what they do with their money. Thanks guys. Seriously.

Birds in Hell wrote:Does anyone take it seriously though?

I thought it was essentially a running joke.

there is nothing running or joking about this thread

only serious scholarly study occurs here

trag is worse than prince harry and megan markle for his blashpehmous, traitorous remarks

may he rot in blind consumery misery outside the walls of this temple to the scientific method

Spoiler: show

tree_ wrote:Kids used to literally just punch me in the face at school for nothing in late '95

Did you then gnash your teeth and bite the recess ladie's breast?




Clearly I remember
Pickin' on the boy
Seemed a harmless little fuck
But we unleashed the lion
Gnashed his teeth and bit the recessed lady's breast
How could I forget
And he hit me with a surprise left
My jaw left hurting

96583UP wrote:even if for charity there is no justifying this when you are doing a climate change album

Like 6 pages of discussion on this and I'm surprised no one is making the argument for:

If the private jet company is having a private show regardless of if Eddie Vedder performs or not, what's wrong with EV playing the gig and donating all the proceeds to charity or even somehow fighting air travel directly.
You'd be taking money out of the hands of the morally wrong and ensuring it gets put in the hands of those who can do good with it.

There has to be a name for this philosophy logical argument(?).

What the thought experiment boils down to is, if the job is going to get done by someone regardless if you're personally the one to do it or not, is it best if I do the job and try to offset the action as good as anyone could?
i.e. I'm going to perform at the private jet party and donate all my proceeds to a great cause.
Isn't that the most positively consequential choice, short of miraculously convincing enough performers to boycott the party that it adds to a campaign to make the private jet company feel so bad they dismantle their environmentally destructive industry.

DWFB wrote:

tree_ wrote:Kids used to literally just punch me in the face at school for nothing in late '95

Did you then gnash your teeth and bite the recess ladie's breast?




Clearly I remember
Pickin' on the boy
Seemed a harmless little fuck
But we unleashed the lion
Gnashed his teeth and bit the recessed lady's breast
How could I forget
And he hit me with a surprise left
My jaw left hurting

Brave post.. thanks man

stip wrote:

Strat wrote:

Steve Ducka7 wrote:

Strat wrote:

Steve Ducka7 wrote:

Strat wrote:

Steve Ducka7 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

Steve Ducka7 wrote:So many false equivalencies going on here I can't keep up.

Signing with a major label to have your art distributed to as many ears as possible and going with ticketmaster so those people can go see your show and be safe etc. Is vastly different to taking private jets and playing shows for the private jet execs, especially when you're number one cause is (supposedly) the environment.

I'm still going to see them in my town, New York. And will still listen to the album. This is just weird. And I think it's a reasonable question to ask him how he squares both actions.

Do you want them to take a bike to each tour stop?

Where did I suggest that they stop taking planes?

Some of the mental gymnastics here is impressive, BUT BUT BUT charity.

I just think it's incredible that someone who has spent years talking about the environment would take a private jet. And I'm sharing that on a pearl jam message board.

So, you have a problem with him playing an event (for reasons unknown to us) for a private jet company but on the flipside you dont care that they take private jets for their tour?

Talk about mental gymanstics!

They take private jets for their tours? I did not know that. Eddie in his own plane. Jeff in his own. Stone etc.

you think they're booking tickets through expedia?

I don't get your point. I think eddie vedder taking a private plane is weird, at odds with who I thought he was, and if he is who I thought he is, it makes him a hypocrite. There's a lot worse things in the world to be. You disagree. That's cool. Like I said, I'll still enjoy the music. But really, really don't want to hear him bleat on at me and other non-multi millionaires, about changing our habits to save the environment.

I think having such a black and white view of the world is dangerous.

framing this in terms of habits misses the point that inequality, environmental collapse, etc. is systemic - and that solutions and change require systemic changes, not simply individuals changing behaviors

Yes, this is true to a point; the changes that are going to be necessary are not going to be possible without significant shifts at the institutional level, be it government or with our largest corporations. But it's a little far to say that the actions of individuals with the wealth and financial muscle of (presumably) Eddie and the rest of PJ are insignificant. Eddie and the band (or, to be more precise, the people they hire to do these kinds of things), have the ability to invest in the way they conduct their business and the damage they do; even their literal investment strategies can be part of a larger push that pushes the companies in which they invest to augment their approach.

This isn't meant to be a critique of Eddie; for all I know, they all do this already. But it's just to say that individuals with significant wealth have bigger moves available to them than deciding whether or not to bring a tote bag to the supermarket in lieu of plastic bags. The need for systemic changes doesn't let individuals, particularly of that stature, off the hook.

But also, yeah, it's not a big deal to fly first class commercial from Seattle to Miami. I'm not grabbing the pitchfork, I'm just saying.

The Town wrote:There has to be a name for this philosophy.

there is - the name is 'hypocrisy'

tree_ wrote:

DWFB wrote:

tree_ wrote:Kids used to literally just punch me in the face at school for nothing in late '95

Did you then gnash your teeth and bite the recess ladie's breast?




Clearly I remember
Pickin' on the boy
Seemed a harmless little fuck
But we unleashed the lion
Gnashed his teeth and bit the recessed lady's breast
How could I forget
And he hit me with a surprise left
My jaw left hurting

Brave post.. thanks man

I got picked on a lot too by the older crowd until high school. If i hadn't i would have probably remained skin and bones through adulthood.

96583UP wrote:

The Town wrote:There has to be a name for this philosophy.

there is - the name is 'hypocrisy'

If the end result is positive, does that make the hypocrisy ok?

Edit:
Look, maybe money grabbin' for Jesus is ok

Too bad it produced the post Riot Act albums
Just coming full circle on what this thread is about lol

The Town wrote:

96583UP wrote:

The Town wrote:There has to be a name for this philosophy.

there is - the name is 'hypocrisy'

If the end result is positive, does that make the hypocrisy ok?

not if there is a more positive alternative

96583UP wrote:

The Town wrote:

96583UP wrote:

The Town wrote:There has to be a name for this philosophy.

there is - the name is 'hypocrisy'

If the end result is positive, does that make the hypocrisy ok?

not if there is a more positive alternative

In this situation is there a more positive alternative?