stip wrote:harmless wrote:Stip, you and I both admit to being somewhere on the Socialist spectrum politically. One of the big things, I guess, is that while we agree that some of Pearl Jam's music is still very enjoyable, we probably ultimately disagree on how much they've abandoned their prior anti-capitalist values. These were values that they were not overt about in the first few years of their career, granted. But when we (or I, anyway) once so proudly sang "It's evolution, baby!" it was at least in part due to the progression they'd taken in their stances. In their middle period, their desire to hold to their ethics and values in more than rhetoric was reflected in their artistic aesthetic, which you say is boring. I say it was intelligent and unassuming. I say that all the bombast and crowd-pleasing they did in their early career was thought of as early-career posturing for a reason. It was pretty dumb. I guess I'm lucky to think that the music from Vitalogy to Riot Act was the best they ever did, and maybe I would find it easier to adjust to the rest if that wasn't my feeling. If I genuinely thought that Pearl Jam's current music is artistically stronger than then. But I don't.
pearl jam's evolution on this (if we can claim to know what they're thinking) has largely paralleled my own, but that's just coincidental. The old pearl jam anti-corporate/capitalist objection was often aesthetic. Not always (the ticketmaster stuff was great), but usually. They were on a major label, and sold their albums through corporate record stores, relied on major corporations to promote them. The anti corporate/capitalist ethos (which was always more targeted against greed than capitalism per se) was largely just talk. It was image. Even in the fabled middle period. And I was really into the image stuff.
You're mostly appealing to Pearl Jam's early years here, because you know I can't disagree. But there was no genuine anti-Capitalism early on (and sorry, but to me Capitalism is greed, that's where we disagree). But there was in the middle years, and as I've said, the art followed that aesthetic, by becoming more unassuming and ambiguous (you say 'joyless and obtuse') and less likely to be bought by corporations wishing to make money off it, or allow Pearl Jam to form alliances with such corporations. As I've said before, I really couldn't give a shit if the music hadn't followed a general trajectory of becoming more palatable for a general audience *precisely because* such changes allow the music to be used in this way. And yes, I really do think that is (one of) the reason(s) for all the changes. You might say "Well that's just the way they have to sell music", and I'd say OK, but it is still why I'm not as interested as I once was.
stip wrote:But today I care a lot less about it. I like it, and I would prefer if pearl jam was, say, Ani Difranco. But today ideas interest me insofar as they are attached to vehicles that can actually challenge the status quo or make life tangibly better for people. Nothing about their changing practices undermines that commitment (they're still very active in the causes they support, etc). The rest is just window dressing, and if the spending less money on the window dressing positions you to do more good for people (which is a serious argument you can make) than I'd prefer that.
This is why Bono's posturing doesn't bother me. He can act like a diva if he's actually doing good for people. That's much more impressive to me than someone who acts humble and does less.
See, I care a lot more about it today than I used to. Rich people's posturing pisses me off now more than ever. So again, that might be another difference between us. You've grown with Pearl Jam into their "Well, we're grown ups now, we can do what we like" phase, and I've grown into a more anti-corporate socialist adult than I ever was when I listened to early Pearl Jam. During the middle period, I was under the impression that my favourite band of all time was growing with me. They were... but then they stopped. But such is life.
