Page 28 of 169
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:20 pm
by southp
I'm with you stip. This would've bothered me 15 years ago but as the music industry has changed I see this now as a legitimate way to have your music heard, and make money from your art. Of course there is a tasteful limit to how much is too much.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:24 pm
by stip
There probably is
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:29 pm
by stip
I've also gotten past the superficial and silly 'eww, this touched a corporation' phase, and so for me the promotional stuff is a problem if it alters the music in some way. The music placement is tricky because some associations can affect how you hear a song. But for me the line is when there is evidence that the commercial tie has affected the content. And I see basically no reason to think that has happened, despite the specious connection between the new ways pearl jam markets their music (which seem like intelligent responses to the changing nature of how we are exposed to music) and some peoples personal reaction to the music.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:30 pm
by stip
The reason to be mad at the fixer/target thing is that it just kinda sucks, not that it is a commercial for the album and the store you buy it from
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:31 pm
by harmless
stip wrote:I've also gotten past the superficial and silly 'eww, this touched a corporation' phase, and so for me the promotional stuff is a problem if it alters the music in some way.
That's the thing though, stip. It has.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:32 pm
by stip
Go on...
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:35 pm
by harmless
I'm not going to get into yet another conversation about how much Pearl Jam's music has changed to become more palatable. But that's my opinion. If you still like it (I do too, sometimes) that's all well and good, but I really see no reason to avoid the fact that the music is different anymore. Honestly, an attitude that "yeah, it's changed but that's OK because we're older" would be more admirable than outright denial that Pearl Jam have begun to make more effort to reach out to a more general and less discerning fanbase via more accessible tunes.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:36 pm
by Norah
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:37 pm
by harmless
I just see no reason for this "Go on, tell me again what it is I'm denying" thing anymore.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:41 pm
by WtOB?
harmless wrote:I just see no reason for this "Go on, tell me again what it is I'm denying" thing anymore.
yeah, we're past this.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:41 pm
by stip
harmless wrote:I'm not going to get into yet another conversation about how much Pearl Jam's music has changed to become more palatable. But that's my opinion. If you still like it (I do too, sometimes) that's all well and good, but I really see no reason to avoid the fact that the music is different anymore. Honestly, an attitude that "yeah, it's changed but that's OK because we're older" would be more admirable than outright denial that Pearl Jam have begun to make more effort to reach out to a more general and less discerning fanbase via more accessible tunes.
I'm not denying that, nor have I ever. I celebrate it. They no longer want to make obtuse, joyless music. A changed direction, or wanting more people to hear your music (which was probably more inspired by 2004 than anything else) is hardly the same thing as compromised artistic integrity, or writing songs you wouldn't write primarily for the sake of making more money off of them.
Show me how to make the leap from point a to point b.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:45 pm
by guitar_davey
stip wrote:I've also gotten past the superficial and silly 'eww, this touched a corporation' phase, and so for me the promotional stuff is a problem if it alters the music in some way. The music placement is tricky because some associations can affect how you hear a song. But for me the line is when there is evidence that the commercial tie has affected the content. And I see basically no reason to think that has happened, despite the specious connection between the new ways pearl jam markets their music (which seem like intelligent responses to the changing nature of how we are exposed to music) and some peoples personal reaction to the music.
This is the most well-thought out, rational post I have read on this subject. I agree wholeheartedly.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:47 pm
by harmless
"Obtuse, joyless."
Look, if you really feel that way, fucking enjoy it. Just acknowledge that not everyone does.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:48 pm
by stip
I do. Different albums are trying to do different things, and I'll like them more or less based on how much I like that direction.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:49 pm
by stip
I also suspect people who really love an album like binaural like it precisely because it is obtuse, and are not drawn to the songs because they are bright and cheerful. It's the most alienated and lost collection of songs they've ever released.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:51 pm
by sward
I'm probably most amazed that anyone still gives a fuck about all of this!
I'm going to agree with Harmless that PJ has moved their music in a more palatable direction..I'm also going to state that many fans were crying for this to happen while a smaller, but definitely more vocal contingent were praying it would stay on the Binaural/Riot act course. (or maybe more truly No Code). Me? I'm just glad I have some songs i like to sing along to and well...they are the more palatable ones.
As far as making money? Well...I want to make money too. A bajillion years ago, the dudes didn't have a corporation of people to employ, lifestyles to maintain (really..can you blame them?), charities clamoring to be endorsed (lets not lose sight that 'some' of the money grab goes to stuff like this and countless of other things rich people are able to have, enjoy, do (all of which when it isn't illegal I say more power to them!). The climate of making money in the biz now is....Merch and Live. They do both well...and I have a knack for not buying anything I don't want. So..kind of works in my favor.
Anyhoo..I enjoy the banter. Sometimes I feel some people want to go so far to not be a Pearl Jam apologist that they skew unnecessarily too far in the other direction.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:51 pm
by harmless
stip wrote:harmless wrote:I'm not going to get into yet another conversation about how much Pearl Jam's music has changed to become more palatable. But that's my opinion. If you still like it (I do too, sometimes) that's all well and good, but I really see no reason to avoid the fact that the music is different anymore. Honestly, an attitude that "yeah, it's changed but that's OK because we're older" would be more admirable than outright denial that Pearl Jam have begun to make more effort to reach out to a more general and less discerning fanbase via more accessible tunes.
I'm not denying that, nor have I ever. I celebrate it. They no longer want to make obtuse, joyless music.
A changed direction, or wanting more people to hear your music (which was probably more inspired by 2004 than anything else) is hardly the same thing as compromised artistic integrity, or writing songs you wouldn't write primarily for the sake of making more money off of them.
Show me how to make the leap from point a to point b.
It often is the same thing, stip. Because if you want 'more people to hear your music', and if you don't really care to define who those people are, there will necessarily be some sacrificing your personal artistic drives for that greater aim.
But I don't need to show you anything. I'm not even being disparaging about Pearl Jam at this point, and yet your flat out denial that anything has changed other than Pearl Jam 'wanting to branch out' means that my responses to you are sounding more and more hostile. It's difficult to even *like* Pearl Jam's new music at all when you're not even allowed to admit the obvious.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:54 pm
by harmless
sward wrote:lifestyles to maintain (really..can you blame them?)
Watch me
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:59 pm
by harmless
sward wrote:Anyhoo..I enjoy the banter. Sometimes I feel some people want to go so far to not be a Pearl Jam apologist that they skew unnecessarily too far in the other direction.
I only do this in response to apologists. Honestly, I find the 'Everything sucks' camp just as annoying, and most days, Pearl Jam are still my favourite band. I'm just able to say that *as well as* things are pretty disappointing sometimes, these days.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 04, 2013 7:59 pm
by Jorge
This is remarkable. Stip's steadfast refusal to admit the band could potentially be at fault for anything, coupled with Harmless's pathological need to stir up unnecessary arguments. Truly, the unstoppable force has collided with the immovable object.