Red Mosquito

Counterpoint: We should bring back the concept of selling out and young people today are idiots.

sweeper wrote:I don't have a lot of rules in life but one of them is if you're busting out "capitalist dystopia" within the context of selling music, you're probably just trying to sound smart.

Also, I don't think you actually know what capitalist dystopia means based off of that usage and context.

lol you’re the one who doesn’t even seem to know what you’re arguing based on the constantly moving goalposts here

But anyway tell me more about what is and isn’t capitalist dystopia, person who thinks it’s good that nobody is ashamed to “sell out” anymore

Dammit RM why are you dragging me back into my old argumentative self

Target everything is absurd given that Monkeywrench Ed fired Dave A for WAAAAAAYYYYY LESSS now we look back years later and PJ are suing charities, charging ticketmaster usury pricing and Ed is starfucking CEOs at private parties meanwhile Dave A is still just KEEPING IT MF REAL BABAAAAAAAYYYYYY DROP THE LEASH WE ARE YOUNG DROP THE LEASH WE ARE YOUNG

Jorge wrote:

sweeper wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

sweeper wrote:The Target ad is fine. It's just a clip promoting their album. Who cares.

I think you have to be brainwashed by the early '90s ethos of bands selling out by doing anything promotional to be truly bothered by it. Thankfully, the newer generations don't care about that stupid stuff at all.

That's not entirely true, it's also (even primarily) a clip promoting Target.

It's still pretty weird, I can't imagine any other credible band doing something like that.

Bad vibes all around.

What do you mean it's primarily a clip promoting Target? The entire thing was within the context of promoting where their new album could be exclusively purchased. As far as I recall too, the only Target reference was in the 30 second commercial. There wasn't a Target component to the full-length video. I think people here are misremembering that piece. This was effectively a commercial that promoted their album and where to get it. Big whoop.

The "credible band" thing is a relic of the early 90s alternative ethos. It's completely out the window now because almost no one cares about it anymore outside of 40+ year old people that lived back in that era and were told it mattered. The whole concept of "selling out" is over.

A bit of sneaky goalpost shifting here. The conversation was about "the Target ad," referring to the 30 second ad where the band is playing in front of giant Target logos on green screen and fans getting Target logos stamped on their hands (which, yes, is extremely embarrassing) -- not the full music video.

I didn't move the goalposts. I mentioned the full video because some of the discussion above (from Harmless) seemed to suggest that there were Target references in the full length video. I wanted to clarify that, to my knowledge, it was only in the 30 second commercial.

And, yeah, I don't have an issue with the commercial. They created an album that had exclusivity for Target. Exclusive album deals with one retailer (Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart) were extremely commonplace during that era across a variety of bands. The entire context of the commercial was to promote their upcoming album. I don't see any issue with that. I would have been concerned if the deal actually impacted the music, but that wasn't the case.

The fact is that Pearl Jam is/was a popular, mainstream band. This notion that they can't or shouldn't do things to promote their music or expand their reach is foolish to me.

sweeper wrote:This notion that they can't or shouldn't do things to promote their music or expand their reach

You think this is the argument?

i remember when the rolling stones debuted their album for K-Mart and no one blinked an eye

they just thought the music was good

and picked up a case of toilet paper and a pack of cigarettes alongside the album at checkout

and there was no judgement

from self-pollution radio to target commercials, what a span of personae

almost like tons of money and hollywood handling ruined a person's brain

almost

tragabigzanda wrote:We can both acknowledge the seeming practicalities of pimping for Target in 2009 vs whatever this capitalist embarrassment is that they’ve evolved to today. The world has changed so goalposts have changed.

I wasnt terribly upset in 2009 — despite the fact that they very obviously were letting the commercial opportunity drive their creative choices — but find the willingness of the fanbase today to just sort of shrug at some of the band’s recent choices to be laughably myopic.

Mostly this is because my views have changed; I think Ms Harmless was right some months back when she argued they were always a wholly capitalist enterprise. My comfort with that has evolved to something less rather than something more.

Was this ever in debate?

sweeper wrote:What do you mean it's primarily a clip promoting Target? The entire thing was within the context of promoting where their new album could be exclusively purchased.

I don't think this is very subtle:





You're being intentionally obtuse if you don't see this primarily as an ad for the retailer and I'm sure that's how the retailer understood it too.

sweeper wrote:Exclusive album deals with one retailer (Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart) were extremely commonplace during that era across a variety of bands.

I think you're overselling how commonplace it was.

It was unusual and remarkable, even at that time.

I can only bring to mind AC/DC's 2008 album that was exclusively available via Walmart.

They even made an ad, but it's somehow less overt than Pearl Jam's:

less overt?!?!?

they re-recorded 'Back in Black' to say 'Back in Stock' !!

it was not subtle

The conversation about Ed suing the family of a sick and dying little girl has been oddly sparse.

Birds in Hell wrote:

sweeper wrote:What do you mean it's primarily a clip promoting Target? The entire thing was within the context of promoting where their new album could be exclusively purchased.

I don't think this is very subtle:





You're being intentionally obtuse if you don't see this primarily as an ad for the retailer and I'm sure that's how the retailer understood it too.

sweeper wrote:Exclusive album deals with one retailer (Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart) were extremely commonplace during that era across a variety of bands.

I think you're overselling how commonplace it was.

It was unusual and remarkable, even at that time.

I can only bring to mind AC/DC's 2008 album that was exclusively available via Walmart.

They even made an ad, but it's somehow less overt than Pearl Jam's:

There's a pretty singular focus of the commercial: "Get the new Pearl Jam album exclusively at Target". Of course it's a promotion of Target by extension but the entire thing revolves around PJ promoting their album and how to get it. It doesn't bother me, personally.

I'm not sure if you live in the US or not but it was not unusual at all to have an exclusive with a big box retailer during that time period. It was a growing trend and PJ was actually on the backend of it. Just during that year or so, Guns N' Roses 'Chinese Democracy' had an exclusive at Best Buy (2008), Journey had an album for Walmart ('Revelation' - 2008), Kiss had a Walmart album ('Sonic Boom' - 2009), and Chris Cornell had a Walmart exclusive ('Scream' - 2009). I'm sure there were others as well. I recall Best Buy being the most common retailer for these deals.


Guns N' Roses Best Buy Commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmWM5FZWmPM
Chris Cornell "Walmart Soundcheck": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COIaE5Kkof0

.

96583UP wrote:Target everything is absurd given that Monkeywrench Ed fired Dave A for WAAAAAAYYYYY LESSS now we look back years later and PJ are suing charities, charging ticketmaster usury pricing and Ed is starfucking CEOs at private parties meanwhile Dave A is still just KEEPING IT MF REAL BABAAAAAAAYYYYYY DROP THE LEASH WE ARE YOUNG DROP THE LEASH WE ARE YOUNG

the only thing that makes him horny

sweeper wrote:

Jorge wrote:

sweeper wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

sweeper wrote:The Target ad is fine. It's just a clip promoting their album. Who cares.

I think you have to be brainwashed by the early '90s ethos of bands selling out by doing anything promotional to be truly bothered by it. Thankfully, the newer generations don't care about that stupid stuff at all.

That's not entirely true, it's also (even primarily) a clip promoting Target.

It's still pretty weird, I can't imagine any other credible band doing something like that.

Bad vibes all around.

What do you mean it's primarily a clip promoting Target? The entire thing was within the context of promoting where their new album could be exclusively purchased. As far as I recall too, the only Target reference was in the 30 second commercial. There wasn't a Target component to the full-length video. I think people here are misremembering that piece. This was effectively a commercial that promoted their album and where to get it. Big whoop.

The "credible band" thing is a relic of the early 90s alternative ethos. It's completely out the window now because almost no one cares about it anymore outside of 40+ year old people that lived back in that era and were told it mattered. The whole concept of "selling out" is over.

A bit of sneaky goalpost shifting here. The conversation was about "the Target ad," referring to the 30 second ad where the band is playing in front of giant Target logos on green screen and fans getting Target logos stamped on their hands (which, yes, is extremely embarrassing) -- not the full music video.

I didn't move the goalposts. I mentioned the full video because some of the discussion above (from Harmless) seemed to suggest that there were Target references in the full length video. I wanted to clarify that, to my knowledge, it was only in the 30 second commercial.

And, yeah, I don't have an issue with the commercial. They created an album that had exclusivity for Target. Exclusive album deals with one retailer (Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart) were extremely commonplace during that era across a variety of bands. The entire context of the commercial was to promote their upcoming album. I don't see any issue with that. I would have been concerned if the deal actually impacted the music, but that wasn't the case.

The fact is that Pearl Jam is/was a popular, mainstream band. This notion that they can't or shouldn't do things to promote their music or expand their reach is foolish to me.

not to be mean, but are you familiar with this band? i mean this isn't bad religion or someone like that, but the reason people are pointing this out is b/c it is out of character for who this band is. a partnership with easy st. records is much different than a partnership with target. the commercial was terrible and anyone who's even seen it and likes this band should be embarrassed.

warehouse wrote:

sweeper wrote:

Jorge wrote:

sweeper wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

sweeper wrote:The Target ad is fine. It's just a clip promoting their album. Who cares.

I think you have to be brainwashed by the early '90s ethos of bands selling out by doing anything promotional to be truly bothered by it. Thankfully, the newer generations don't care about that stupid stuff at all.

That's not entirely true, it's also (even primarily) a clip promoting Target.

It's still pretty weird, I can't imagine any other credible band doing something like that.

Bad vibes all around.

What do you mean it's primarily a clip promoting Target? The entire thing was within the context of promoting where their new album could be exclusively purchased. As far as I recall too, the only Target reference was in the 30 second commercial. There wasn't a Target component to the full-length video. I think people here are misremembering that piece. This was effectively a commercial that promoted their album and where to get it. Big whoop.

The "credible band" thing is a relic of the early 90s alternative ethos. It's completely out the window now because almost no one cares about it anymore outside of 40+ year old people that lived back in that era and were told it mattered. The whole concept of "selling out" is over.

A bit of sneaky goalpost shifting here. The conversation was about "the Target ad," referring to the 30 second ad where the band is playing in front of giant Target logos on green screen and fans getting Target logos stamped on their hands (which, yes, is extremely embarrassing) -- not the full music video.

I didn't move the goalposts. I mentioned the full video because some of the discussion above (from Harmless) seemed to suggest that there were Target references in the full length video. I wanted to clarify that, to my knowledge, it was only in the 30 second commercial.

And, yeah, I don't have an issue with the commercial. They created an album that had exclusivity for Target. Exclusive album deals with one retailer (Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart) were extremely commonplace during that era across a variety of bands. The entire context of the commercial was to promote their upcoming album. I don't see any issue with that. I would have been concerned if the deal actually impacted the music, but that wasn't the case.

The fact is that Pearl Jam is/was a popular, mainstream band. This notion that they can't or shouldn't do things to promote their music or expand their reach is foolish to me.

not to be mean, but are you familiar with this band? i mean this isn't bad religion or someone like that, but the reason people are pointing this out is b/c it is out of character for who this band is. a partnership with easy st. records is much different than a partnership with target. the commercial was terrible and anyone who's even seen it and likes this band should be embarrassed.

I'm familiar with the band. I actually think this is more natural to who the band is than some of the stuff Ed did in the early '90s like becoming a huge fan of Fugazi, moonlighting with The Frogs, not releasing music videos, etc. Things like that actually struck me as someone pining for credibility and a need to be "alternative" in the eyes of his peers (e.g. Cobain) and critics. That may have made him and the band more "authentic" in the eyes of others but it never impressed me.

These guys are a mainstream, popular band. They play arenas and stadiums and there's no delusion to me what I'm following. They're not some mom-and-pop show. Whenever I watch something like that Zane Lowe interview at their warehouse, the thing that stands out to me is that they are a freakin' business operation. They have employees and hundreds of people that rely on them for their livelihood. It's a money-making operation with a profit motive. It may not have dawned on you but that's what it is and they're not hiding from it anymore. And I think a big part of why they're not hiding from it is because it's mostly socially okay to take that approach now vs. the early 1990s.

So, no, I'm not embarrassed by the commercial. Thanks for telling me how I should feel though, LOL.

sweeper in July 2023 wrote:It sure beats the days when he had to force himself / pretend to like bands such as Fugazi, etc just help build credibility.

sweeper in July 2023 wrote:I like Ed but there isn't a lot about Pearl Jam that is anti-establishment. At their core, they're a mainstream, popular arena rock band. Ed's influences pre-Pearl Jam are about as mainstream as it could possibly get (The Who, The Beatles, Springsteen, U2, etc).

It wasn't until he got shamed about PJ being too corporate that he started championing bands like Fugazi, The Frogs, etc that had no connection to his musical style or influences.

It's actually refreshing now that he doesn't have to pretend to dislike Taylor Swift because he's afraid of what some douchewagon like Kurt Cobain is going to think. And ironically, Cobain was only annoyed because PJ was surpassing Nirvana's popularity. Ed, albeit with good intentions, exhibited some major follower behavior by caving in to the criticism vs. just being who he is (or was).

sweeper in March 2024 wrote:I think it's Ed being pressured into pretending he loves bands like Fugazi, The Frogs, etc due to the criticism of people like Cobain about PJ's music being too corporate. The extent to which Ed had to actually sell how much he liked those bands and then giving into letting it affect PJ's music was pretty embarrassing (to me). I wish he would have just rolled more with who he/PJ actually were, especially since most of Cobain's criticism came from a spot of jealousy.

Turns out this guy really, really hates Fugazi and The Frogs.