Song of the Moment: Mind Your Manners

[stip]

hy•poc•ri•sy
hiˈpäkrisēSubmit
noun
1.
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

The problem with the way people misuse the word hypocrisy is that they do not account for the fact that people's views may change over time as they discover new information, have different experiences, re-contextualize the old, etc. That's called learning, changing your mind, growing up, being wrong, etc. You become a hypocrite if you continue to publicly affirm one set of values while your behavior undermines those values. Eddie doesn't become a hypocrite if you can no longer hold him to things he said 5, 10, 15 years ago. He may be more or less admirable as a result, but that's not hypocrisy.

Yes, being wrong is certainly possible. However, most grown ups who were wrong and preached one lifestyle for a long, long time and “change” would say they have in the 1000s of interviews, etc.

this is in the abstract so I'm not sure what in particular you're even referring to. What value were you expecting him to call a press conference to reveal he no longer has? Maybe someone will call him out on something so you can have your test case.

As for time, I see no mention of time in the definition of above. I certainly agree one can change. I disagree that stip decides that time and whether one does or does not live up to the definition.

thats because you didn't quote the whole thing

I'm not sure there is anything sadder than someone loling at their own work to help prove a point in an argument. But that's neither here nor there. And there probably are sadder things.

Anyway (this is speculation, but it seems reasonable to me) they left Sony because they wanted to be an independent artist and not be answerable to a larger corporation over artistic questions (what songs do you release, how often do you have to put out new music, etc). To control the terms under which their music is released. Perhaps you have confused Target with a record company or label. They do sell a lot of stuff. However, you would be incorrect. Target was a distribution point. If you want to sell your records in easily accessible public places you are probably going to have to use a corporation. Such is the world we live in.

I agree that they left Sony with intentions of “independence” of some sort. But, I disagree it was all art. I think there was a large element of greed, you are leaving out on purpose to try to make your point.

actually I had a whole bit immediately following what you just quoted talking about how they negotiated a better deal for themselves. Again, you need to read to the end of things (see also: definition of hypocrisy)

The truth is, which you’re largely ignoring, they could easily sell everything through the Ten Club.

A: raise your hand if you trust the 10c to handle the sales of hundreds of thousands of copies of an album

B: not all of the buying public potentially interested in owning this album is going to go to the 10c website

It was the late 2000s. They could have sold most of the stuff via iTunes.

And since Apple is not a corporation they could have avoided this ugly 'we have to use a corporation' mess entirely. I surrender the field to you.

Now, lets move on to step two. In order to sell your wares at this distribution point you are going to have to negotiate terms with that distributor. How many units will they buy, where will they be displayed, how will they be marketed, how much will they pay for them. Sometimes a seller (in this case, the musical group Pearl Jam) is in a place to negotiate better terms for themselves if they agree to certain conditions. I suspect every previous pearl jam album (that was also sold at target, wal-mart, k-mart, etc) involved similar negotiations, carried out under the aegis of another corporation (Sony--these corporations keep popping up all over this story). In the case of the distribution of Backspacer, if Pearl Jam agreed to only sell their record through their website, independent record stores, and Target, they got more money than if they sold their record through their website, independent record stores, Target, AND Wal-Mart. Whoever did the negotiating for the musical group Pearl Jam decided that there would be a better deal to be hard at Target.

This integrity you continue to assume doesn’t exist, in my opinion. They JUST wanted more money. It was about MONEY. No matter how much you spin it. They thought the Target deal would give THEM the most MONEY. They were sick of giving that money to Sony.

Was anyone denying this? and does anyone think less of pearl jam for wanting to not give their money to a record label? Do you want them associated with corporations or not?

Also, you seem pretty confident about their motives here. I mean, we've busted out all caps 4 times in one paragraph. Wait a second. Are YOU eddie vedder? is THAT how you are so confident about their motives? Is THAT why you keep reminding me that I'm not Eddie. Because Eddie is you and so obviously I can't be him? THis is a Dan Brown/M Night Shamalyan caliber plot twist.

This may or may not have led to the Fed's policy of QE. The current research has been inconclusive.

Not sure why this was tossed in.

It is important to reward the people who have been reading along with us from the start .

I once heard a story from Adam Duritz about Ed being a d&ck to him for using their song in a Coke commercial. I always think back about when I watched the PJ Target ads.

You can type out the word ‘dick’. This is a pretty progressive forum in that way.
Yes, that was a very 90s comment for him to make. I doubt he would make it today (which is why it is not hypocritical). I don't think there is a huge difference here, but if you wanted to draw it, the Target ads did not feature The Fixer playing over pictures of other products unrelated to the music that you could buy at Target (like, for instance, coke). It played in a commercial for the album the band recorded letting people know where they could buy it. The logo of the place where it could be bought featured in the commercial.

Yeh, he can’t make it today because he’d be 100% “obviously” hypocritical in saying it. Yet, that doesn’t mean he’s not a hypocrite. He is. If he apologized, said he was wrong, then I’d agree – he’s not a hypocrite. Otherwise, we’re supposed to think he somehow still lives in that way.

Please furnish a list of all statements Eddie Vedder has made in the past that you would like to see him apologize for so he can reaffirm his integrity.


This whole conversation is actually distracting us from the real hypocrisy here--his refusal to climb things anymore.

Yes, they sell dog collars and band trading cards. Anything to make a buck. Seriously.

They used to sell t-shirts and stickers. Are these things categorically different? Were the t-shirts mass produced to cover the backs of the workers harvesting grain on our collective farms? Are these dog collars laced with asbestos because it is just cheaper and damn the consequences, we need to make money? Or, are these products they thought their fans (who eat up this collectible sort of shit--didn’t those cards sell out instantly) would enjoy. Isn’t the life of the person who gets reminded of No Code just a little bit better if they are reminded of that album every time they pet their dog. Who are you to stand in the way of that happiness? If it turns out that you are someone who can and should you should please submit a list of acceptable products that can be sold to fans. If someone owns socks or a lighter let them know if they need to be returned.

Yes, t-shirts and stickers are categorically different from dog collars coming from a “ROCK BAND”.

What if my dog likes music?

It’s the job of the 10c to come up with fan stuff they think their fans are going to want to buy. Some of it is cool. Much of it isn’t, but people must like it somewhere. If you really think that they sell enough of these dog collars to keep the organization set for life and that THIS is why the band does not tour and record more frequently you’d have a stronger complaint.

I get it you defend everything that is Pearl Jam. But, seriously? The Ten Club? That place is 100% indefensible. Every argument one makes for why the Pearl Jam needs to help out the Ten Club workers, is the same argument a corporation could make to help out it’s own workers.

And if employees were serious stakeholders in a company, or that company treated them well, I'd be sympathetic.

But I'm not defending the 10c as a whole here. You only brought up one thing---the merchandise, which I think is fine. Had you complained about the membership being overpriced I'd agree. IF you complained about the server crashing fiascos from tours past I'd agree. If you complained about the way the primary message board is run I'd agree. If you complained about the time lag on the x-mas singles and the lack of newsletters I'd agree. If you said they were usually not good about communicating tour information so people can make travel plans I'd agree. However, you said none of these things, so I didn't respond to them.

I think you may be fundamentally misunderstanding how the process of communication works. No one knows what is going on inside your head but yourself. Eddie Vedder does not magically know what issues need to be raised in a video to make you happy. I don't know what you want to talk about until you bring it up.

Look, now they linked up with UPS to become more efficient... lol

I didn’t watch that little promo video, but presumably that is better than being less efficient?

They aren’t efficient now.

well good. then this deal should work out great for them.

Nader: i voted for Nader in 2000 and did not vote for him in 2004. Am I a hypocrite too?

Did you stand on a soapbox for an entire tour or three preaching about third parties and their importance, then bail on that thought completely?

Like most people who vote for a third party, I’m sure I was an insufferable self righteous prig about it for a while. And then I decided that it was more important to me to stop Bush than support Nader, and that my time would be better spent trying to make the democratic party more liberal than push for a third party that did not have a large enough mass base to do anything beyond throw an election to the party I usually despise.

You didn’t “stop Bush”, superhero. He served two terms.

actually, working in conjunction with pearl jam, I did. But then Bush offered to pay us a LOT of money if we'd let him be president anyway. I said no, but you know pearl jam and money...

Anyway, to answer my original question – NO, you didn’t stand on a soapbox for an entire tour or three preaching about third parties and their importance, then bail on it completely. You aren’t Ed.

I know. You are. We established that earlier. That's why I'm surprised you don't remember that 2004 election pay off.

MTV: What about it? Making videos? shit, that hypocrisy started in 1998 if that's your problem. But the no video stand was annoying if you liked videos (as a fan I was glad to see them stop, even though I had a certain silly admiration for their willingness to do it). it's also not hypocrisy. you seem to be conflating hypocrisy with changing your mind.

Actually this was also the year they ended the ticket master boycott. I didn't realize their hypocrisy peaked 15 years ago. Maybe that's why Yield is such an upbeat record.

If it was just Ticket master and MTV, I wouldn't call them hypocrites.

Don’t look at me. This was your list.

I’m not. I stand by the list.

that's because you aren't a hypocrite.

Dog Collars: then don't buy it. it's not like that dog collar was the only way you could hear cold concession. Some fans have disposable income and want to buy that shit. More power to them

I love this - "then don't buy it". Capitalism is only wrong if someone else's doing, right Ed? "If you hate something then don't you do it too" - is kinda lost here. It's a mystery to me "we have a greed, with which we have agreed. You think you want more than you need. Until you have a dog collar or PJ trading cards you won't be free".

Okay, a few things here.
I think international corporate capitalism is essentially just the process of criminal exploitation. That doesn’t mean I don’t like buying stuff or having nice things in my life. People who are opposed to capitalism, unless they are insufferable luddites, are usually opposed to the power dynamics involved in how they are made and distributed. Who reaps the benefits? Who pays the cost? Who is exploited in the process? Who has a voice?

You do? But, ummm… Target, an international corporate company, doesn’t live up to this criminal exploitation? Neither does UPS, right? Why? Because they are affiliated now with PJ? Which companies live up to your list?

Here's the thing. I am condemning the system as a whole. But I live in it and therefore am forced to use it to live the kind of life I want to live. I have to make ethical choices about what I will and will not do within the confines of that system. You live with what's around you even if you're working towards or hoping for something better.

I bet you thought it was hypocritical that occupy Wall Street had to keep the hundreds of thousands of dollars they raised in a bank. After all, men of principle would have just carried it around in a shoebox.

as far as UPS or Target I have no idea. I haven't researched this. Presumably pearl jam did. I don't know what they concluded since, as we've established I am not Eddie Vedder (full disclosure: I am no one in the band. Not even Boom). I don't much care either way. I buy things at Target when it is convenient to do so. I would have bought backspacer at wal-mart if I had to. I need these companies to live how I want to live because they control access to the things that make my life better. I support regulations regarding how companies treat their workers, consumers, environment, etc. precisely because I don't feel like making a list and tracking that shit myself.

2. Society was not a song written by Eddie. It was an appropriately chosen cover in a biographical film about an insufferable luddite. I’m sure there is a part of Eddie that is romantically attached to that idea. There is a part of me that loves the idea of living in that dilapidated mansion in Fight Club
. But then there is also the part of me that loves the framed S/T album cover in my living room.

I know it wasn’t, but that makes it even more apt. He picked it. Once again, no matter how often you sub yourself in for him in our discussions, you aren’t him.

I know, Eddie. But you keep asking me what I think and then getting mad at me when I tell you. I don't know if this relationship is that healthy.

also, remember that he picked a song that expressed the feelings of the character he was writing about. Eddie may have been sympathetic, but the soundtrack of into the wild was not about eddie vedder. It was about chris mccandles. It also wasn't about me, since i'm not him.

I think I covered this pretty well up above. But Green Disease is a song about the harm that is inflicted upon people in the pursuit of excessive wealth, and Soon Forget is about devoting your life exclusively to the pursuit of material things at the expense of people. Neither song says ‘don’t have things in your life that make you happy’

You didn’t write Green Disease or Soon Forget, so although you’re entitled to an opinion on what it is about, you don’t know. You’re not Ed.
The songs, to me, are about greed. And, I disagree, that they are telling people to buy PJ dog collars or pay for the ability to post on the internet.

What if I really am Ed? Wouldn't you feel just a little bit foolish?

[VinylGuy]

wow i left to see breaking bad and i found this thread is going to some dark and funny places.

I mean, still talking about Target? c´mon guys, that happened what, 5 years ago?
Corporations? really??



i liked the video by the way.

[malice]

This whole conversation is actually distracting us from the real hypocrisy here--his refusal to climb things anymore.

pretty much :/

[BurtReynolds]

[Lounge Lizard]

This thread has been cursed

[WtOB?]

would.

[gems and rhinestones]

The only thing this thread ended up being good for is that we now know who created the fake tracklist that featured the song "Bro".

[Jorge]

That's fucking Audrey Hepburn, dude, of course you would. We all would. Except maybe chud.

[gems and rhinestones]

That's fucking Audrey Hepburn, dude, of course you would. We all would. Except maybe chud.

When she was 60 I would have.

[harmless]

She doesn't do much for me (but I've never asked her very nicely).

[gems and rhinestones]

I think she was so lovely. I'm crushing on the singer from Chvrches right now, has that same loveliness about her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNz5_L6hXc

[IlluminEddie]

@stip

The quotes are getting old, so I’ll just type this out without them…

I’m not expecting Ed to call a press conference and admit he was wrong about this or that. I just know, he’s had plenty of opportunities to say he’s changed over the years and his thoughts have evolved on certain subjects. If he did that, and raised a few examples (of how he use to think about policy X and how he’s since changed his mind), I think he would certainly be less hypocritical. Instead, he stays quiet, and in fact, many times continues to blast “greed” and so on. I kinda feel that his shtick now. That surfing, bombs/guns/oil. I feel like he has a lot to offer though if he moves past that, so that’s why I’m still here.

I did quote the entire definition hypocrisy. Go to google. Type in the word. Look at what pops up. You’ll see the entire definition I posted. There’s no mention of time, nor is there mention of stip making the call on what time’s appropriate.

As for “negotiating a better deal” - Right, you may have mentioned that… but your thoughts on negotiating a better deal were probably buried in support of the band making liberated art. You made it sound like the art was the important thing and money came way later. I disagree. I think money came first, very much so.

On 10 club taking care of sales, I certainly don’t want them to do it. But, I also was never preaching about the evils of corporations, like Target and UPS. So, I have no reason to think that way. If the band was really concerned with supporting the Ten Club (and their employees), moving sales to their would probably help foster that. Plus, it would be quite easy for them to sell digital music on the web. It’s not complicated. As for the physical stuff, the efficiency that comes with selling a few remaining pieces of your soul to UPS should help. Right? Because 10Club are super-efficient now.

Long story short, they wouldn’t go to sales via 10club because they’d make a shit load less money. It has nothing to do with integrity or even practicality; it has to do with money.

Admittedly, iTunes was an example and probably a bad one. I’m not anti-corporation, so sometimes I screw up in thinking like someone who is. Anyway, The Ten Club could’ve handled digital sales.

Bottom line: They didn’t HAVE to go through Target. Some act like it was forced on them or Target came to them about it. I’m quite sure they went to Target. And after last go around, I’d bet Target doesn’t want to deal with them again.

“Was anyone denying they wanted more money?” I think you were implying artistic control was the major reason for the change, seemingly more so than money. Maybe I’m wrong. Anyway, I was saying they were making a break from Sony only to go to Target and what they said in the process was hypocritical. They pushed the rational as being about artistic freedom, and then went to Target and sold, perhaps their most pop-friendly album ever, and I believe even increased sales. So, the artistic control was to write “Yeah, Yeah, Yeah style lyrics”. Or was it to cash in? I’m quite sure they just wanted more money.

I’m not speaking “as a liberal” for Ed every single quote on what “I did” – so, I’m not pretending to be a proxy for Ed. We both like the band. We’re both entitled to our opinions. But, neither of us really knows what Ed thinks. I wasn’t saying all of this to be an ahole, I was saying it so you understand that when you sub yourself in (for example, “I voted Green, then Dem”) you aren’t making a point about “him” because you aren’t him. He’s rich. He has a mic at concerts. He tries to influence large concerts with his politics. You don’t have that ability and you haven’t done it in the past to fuel a discussion on your own hypocrisy. Lastly, no offense, but I don’t care if you’re a hypocrite. You don’t make music I’ve listened to since I was a kid.

Later on you mentioned you would be sympathetic to corporations that were serious stakeholders in companies. I’d once again respond, any defense of PJ protecting the Ten Club’s employees, is similar to what a corporation could use. Their employees have families. They need their paychecks, etc. I simply don’t think one (Ed in this case) can “pick and choose” when these rationales fit… and retain integrity. In my opinion, a spade’s a spade.

As for what I brought up with the 10club, I brought up two things – merchandise and I brought up that you have to pay to post. You mentioned membership pricing, primary message board’s way it’s run and communication (to me that went with pay to post), server crashing and time lags (that went with the UPS and the efficiency stuff I discussed). I didn’t type every single thing out, but to me – saying 10club is indefensible – was short code for all these issues and more.

On the UPS deal, I’m quite sure they’ve ‘been using them’. Hence, why I said they aren’t efficient ‘now’ – implying it hasn’t helped at all.

Bush served two terms.

On capitalism, you said “you’re condemning the whole system” but you “have to make ethical choices about what I will and will not do within the confines of the system”. First, Ed has more choices at his disposal than you do because of his wealth. Second, he can make “ethical choices” within the system. I raised some examples of how he could have done that. But, he wanted more money, so he didn’t. To me, that’s hypocritical. I know you disagree, I’m simply saying… maybe, just maybe… you disagree because you’re so in love with the band and feel they can do no wrong? Not saying that to be assholey – saying it to get you to think about what exactly you WOULD NOT support that this band would do or has done. Seems like you pretty much defend everything they’ve done, do or will do.

In my opinion, Occupy Wall Street had some good intentions, but there was a lot of hypocrisy within that rally and it had little to do with where it kept the money and more to do with where the money was coming from and what the actual goals were for those players.

On Society, Ed also tried many times to link himself to Chris. In my opinion, he picked that song because he lives in a fantasy world were his split personality (which is quite self righteous) thinks he kinda lives that way and is shunning material goods.

[harmless]

Holy shit.

[Lament]

I think she was so lovely. I'm crushing on the singer from Chvrches right now, has that same loveliness about her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNz5_L6hXc

Oh man. Don't even get me started on Lauren Mayberry. If I hadn't seen her in person I would be convinced her existence was just a mean trick someone was playing on me.

[evenslow]

Anyway, The Ten Club could’ve handled digital sales.

This invalidates the rest of your argument.

[evenslow]

Also: I got carpal tunnel just scrolling through that.

[Monkey_Driven]

Anyway, The Ten Club could’ve handled digital sales.

This invalidates the rest of your argument.

[gems and rhinestones]

I think she was so lovely. I'm crushing on the singer from Chvrches right now, has that same loveliness about her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNz5_L6hXc

Oh man. Don't even get me started on Lauren Mayberry. If I hadn't seen her in person I would be convinced her existence was just a mean trick someone was playing on me.

Pearl Jam should have just put a picture of her for the artwork and I would have been just fine with it. I'm seeing her September 13th!

[Norah]

That's fucking Audrey Hepburn, dude, of course you would. We all would. Except maybe chud.

You're god damned right I would! And then I'd ask if I could borrow that cute dress.

[sward]

Anyway, The Ten Club could’ve handled digital sales.

This invalidates the rest of your argument.

I tried reading through each the arguments but man, I didnt realize how bad my attention span was until I tried. Probably should go back and re-read it before I offer ANY viewpoint. But I believe, truly believe that the band has altered the way it 'sells' things in order to compensate for the decrease in album sales/royalties and to allow themselves to maintain whatever lifestyle they earned from the beginning.

That said. There is zero wrong with that. I can't walk out the door today and decide I can take a job that pays me 40% of what it used to. Can't do it. I'll take whatever job allows me to maintain my lifestyle and hopefully one that gives back to me as well somehow.

I also believe that the band allocates number of dollars from said earnings towards various charities or foundations and would like to be able to do that as well as continue to live their lives as they have been for 20 years and with that, I am comfortable with whatever route they take to sell it. Its just as easy to see their partnership with Target as all greed since Target, on the surface is the sort of corporation they railed against early on. But you could also try to dig deeper and find out that aligning with Target allowed them to recoup their costs for the album, put some in the bank as well as have a portion go towards whatever philanthropic endeavor they choose.

All good in my books.