Red Mosquito

surfndestroy wrote:

stip wrote:

96583UP wrote:

harmless wrote: As for the music: I happen to think that it's generally been following a downward trajectory almost simultaneously with these increasingly crass corporate decisions.

agreement

But the increasingly crass corporate decisions also pretty closely follow changes in the music industry. That's one of the reasons I don't see a connection here. Pearl Jam could have written No Code or Binaural and they would have promoted it the same way because they feel like they HAVE to promote it that way.

That's a cop out. Some of Pearl Jam's peers haven't felt the need for crass corporate decisions. Bands like Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, David Bowie, Robert Plant are doing a much better job at managing at balancing to balance their business decisions and their artistic ones. Pearl Jam are making their decisions not due to loss of agency but because these are the decisions they want to make.

Well I certainly agree there are more interesting things Pearl Jam could have done to release their music (I'm not sure robert plant counts here as a useful comparison given the size and scope of the audience, but NIN and Radiohead certainly do). But nothing they've done in terms of marketing compromises their music. Basically nothing. And that's where my principle disagreement with this stuff comes from.


Pearl Jam's music has undergone two major shifts in this period that the band has talked about

1. They're not shying away from writing a song that they think would be popular, which they had done in the past. In practice this means a return to writing catchier melodies, hooks, anthems, etc. Essentially the same kind of choices they made on Ten, Vs, much of Vitalogy, Yield, S/T, Backspacer, and Lightning Bolt. Or, alternatley, 70% of their career.


2. The real critical artistic choice they've discussed making, one that is far more influential (I suspect) but one that does not easily fit into this money grab narrative, is that they want to write songs that play well live. This may or may not be a good choice, but it is a choice that is based on how they want their art to sound and be perceived as artists. They want to write songs that they think will perform well.

Maybe the songwriting just isn't as good anymore, as McP argued. Fine. I disagree but I have no issue with that claim as a claim. As opposed to this stuff.

stip wrote: Well I certainly agree there are more interesting things Pearl Jam could have done to release their music (I'm not sure robert plant counts here as a useful comparison given the size and scope of the audience, but NIN and Radiohead certainly do). But nothing they've done in terms of marketing compromises their music. Basically nothing. And that's where my principle disagreement with this stuff comes from.

Stip, I think you seriously need to take that Pearl Jam Tiger Beat mag out of your hand and remove your Pearl Jam foam finger for a moment.... just to try to think clearly. What they've done in marketing completely contradicts past stances of theirs. We don't need to get into the 7s box set, the PJ dog collars, paying to post on their fan site, Target, etc. to know that it doesn't quite jive with the message in Corduroy and Green Disease.

stip wrote: Pearl Jam's music has undergone two major shifts in this period that the band has talked about

1. They're not shying away from writing a song that they think would be popular, which they had done in the past. In practice this means a return to writing catchier melodies, hooks, anthems, etc. Essentially the same kind of choices they made on Ten, Vs, much of Vitalogy, Yield, S/T, Backspacer, and Lightning Bolt. Or, alternatley, 70% of their career.

This is just silly. The Fixer is cheese on wheels. There's absolutely no chance you'd find that sort of shit on their early work. Ten's anthemic qualities are not equivalent to Backspacer attempts at Dad Pop-Rock. You almost seem to equate popularity (songs like Alive, Evenflow, Daughter, Corduroy) with the desire to write to be relevant (The Fixer, the inclusion of Sleeping By Myself, etc.).

Personally, I have no issue with them trying to be popular. That's certainly what they are trying to do. I just think they are naive to think this is the best way to do it. One could effectively argue they are effectively selling out their future for the present day by destroying the legacy they've built. I think capitalism is great. So, I don't care about this. But, I do see them (mostly Ed) as huge hypocrites for good reason. They (He is) are the guy in Soon Forget though now.

stip wrote: 2. The real critical artistic choice they've discussed making, one that is far more influential (I suspect) but one that does not easily fit into this money grab narrative, is that they want to write songs that play well live. This may or may not be a good choice, but it is a choice that is based on how they want their art to sound and be perceived as artists. They want to write songs that they think will perform well.

I disagree. I think they want to play songs that are easy to play live. That's what they mean by that. And yes, it does fit in the money grab narrative if you think about it. They want to do the least amount of work possible to keep this money making train rollin'.

stip wrote: Maybe the songwriting just isn't as good anymore, as McP argued. Fine. I disagree but I have no issue with that claim as a claim. As opposed to this stuff.

Ed's voice is satisfactory to contribute to a good song. I think lyrically Ed's still got it. I mean Sirens/The End show that. I just think lyrically Ed has agendas which ends up forcing things - he seems to now write with the agenda first, IMO. Musically, the band's still talented. I also just think it's they don't write together anymore (as a band or as a few guys), pretty much at all. Look at the denigration of how they've written together from Ten through LB just on song credits. Then take into account that songwriting credits don't even tell the whole story. The truth is being together in a songwriting environment and bouncing small ideas off band members can make songs more cohesive. Nowadays, they all live far apart.... Rarely get together and, instead, send demos. Jeff, I believe, hinted at this in the interviews. They write apart (more) now. There's no intimacy in their songs anymore. In a lot of ways, the groove is gone. Which makes complete sense actually.

So, could they still write a good song? I think so. The songwriting talent's there. They just don't want to use it together. Why? Probably they hate each other, but realize they can't do this apart. I mean their side projects are all pretty much shit. Even if Ed broke out solo, I think he's seen from his small work, it won't quite work as well. He can't do it all. Monetarily, the best approach for them is without a doubt - Pearl Jam. And yes, they probably do realize that live stuff is where they'll make most of their buck. That and Ten Club dog collars.

I've read most of this thread as it has unfolded. I don't have the inclination to respond to all of it, but I would like to make one point regarding the perception that "PJ used to wave the anti-capitalist flag and now they're hypocritical sellouts."

I don't think they *ever* suggested it was a bad thing to make money off one's art, and as Stip and others have pointed out, they were a major label "commercial" rock band from the get go. My take is that the anti-capitalist stance taken in songs like Soon Forget, Grievance, Green Disease, etc. is aimed at those who are perfectly willing to throw all of their morals, kindness, etc. out the window to make a buck. A band writing songs to appeal to a mass audience, while bringing attention to worthwhile social causes, raising boatloads of money for a diverse group of charities, and making a comfortable living for themselves (and a whole lot of employees who no doubt depend on them) is not incompatible with their earlier stance.

My point being: they were always against the rich getting richer and richer and richer at the expense of everyone and everything that stood in their way. I see no reason to think that stance has changed one bit just because they're selling a bit more merchandise and being less precious about putting out some hookier material.

McParadigm wrote:I'd say it's no accident that the band leans so heavily on side-projects and solo albums, these days. It's also no accident that the one person who must know his solo work is going to be most impactful on the band's overall image has relied on non-threatening options like movie soundtrack work and gimmicked recordings for his output. They no longer perceive Pearl Jam to be a genuine creative outlet (for those conversations where similarities between Yield and the last two records have popped up, here's your key difference...Yield very much has a feeling of "this is my car, and I can drive it wherever the fuck I have the urge to go," where Backspacer has a feeling of "How can I make my car look a little bit different today?"). By definition, not perceiving it as a creative outlet has to mean that they must perceive it as something else.

I like your whole post, just this part highlights what I've thought about their album artwork:

The band began outsourcing the majority of the album art with S/T, which, you know, they had no ideas so they put an Avocado on the cover. Everything to that point was an in house effort between Ed & Jeff and a few pieces from others. Even Jeff, the self purported artist of the band, doesn't do stuff any more. Maybe they've run out of ideas, maybe they don't want to put in the effort any more, or maybe they want others to define what Pearl Jam means to them.

guitar_davey wrote:I've read most of this thread as it has unfolded. I don't have the inclination to respond to all of it, but I would like to make one point regarding the perception that "PJ used to wave the anti-capitalist flag and now they're hypocritical sellouts."

I don't think they *ever* suggested it was a bad thing to make money off one's art, and as Stip and others have pointed out, they were a major label "commercial" rock band from the get go. My take is that the anti-capitalist stance taken in songs like Soon Forget, Grievance, Green Disease, etc. is aimed at those who are perfectly willing to throw all of their morals, kindness, etc. out the window to make a buck. A band writing songs to appeal to a mass audience, while bringing attention to worthwhile social causes, raising boatloads of money for a diverse group of charities, and making a comfortable living for themselves (and a whole lot of employees who no doubt depend on them) is not incompatible with their earlier stance.

My point being: they were always against the rich getting richer and richer and richer at the expense of everyone and everything that stood in their way. I see no reason to think that stance has changed one bit just because they're selling a bit more merchandise and being less precious about putting out some hookier material.

I agree they never said it was bad to make money. They insinuated that selling out is horrible, however. They preached artistic integrity. They also insinuated for years about the problems with big business. They rallied against capitalist stance in music and in front of audiences at shows. They wrote a ridiculous amount of material devoted to the problems with wealth. They preached and preached about the rich...

Yet, they are the rich and have been. And they are getting richer and richer. You can continue to pretend like this isn't true, but it is. They are the equivalent of a global warming advocate with 10 planes and 50 SUVs in his garage. Telling everyone to stop AGW.

Look at the front of the f'ing band's website. They are selling every fucking thing they can. The fact that some of you are so blinded by your Pearl Jam fandom to atleast recognize they are money-grabbing, is actually quite sick and sad. Excuses for everything these days...

...well, they're only greedy, sell-outs because...

(insert excuse)

...so, it's OK.


Why not say - Yeh, they are money-grabbing and a lot of what they do now completely goes against what they've said or rallied around in the past, I'm OK with that though. That way, it's all good, but at least you acknowledge it and move on.

IlluminEddie wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:I've read most of this thread as it has unfolded. I don't have the inclination to respond to all of it, but I would like to make one point regarding the perception that "PJ used to wave the anti-capitalist flag and now they're hypocritical sellouts."

I don't think they *ever* suggested it was a bad thing to make money off one's art, and as Stip and others have pointed out, they were a major label "commercial" rock band from the get go. My take is that the anti-capitalist stance taken in songs like Soon Forget, Grievance, Green Disease, etc. is aimed at those who are perfectly willing to throw all of their morals, kindness, etc. out the window to make a buck. A band writing songs to appeal to a mass audience, while bringing attention to worthwhile social causes, raising boatloads of money for a diverse group of charities, and making a comfortable living for themselves (and a whole lot of employees who no doubt depend on them) is not incompatible with their earlier stance.

My point being: they were always against the rich getting richer and richer and richer at the expense of everyone and everything that stood in their way. I see no reason to think that stance has changed one bit just because they're selling a bit more merchandise and being less precious about putting out some hookier material.

I agree they never said it was bad to make money. They insinuated that selling out is horrible, however. They preached artistic integrity. They also insinuated for years about the problems with big business. They rallied against capitalist stance in music and in front of audiences at shows. They wrote a ridiculous amount of material devoted to the problems with wealth. They preached and preached about the rich...

Yet, they are the rich and have been. And they are getting richer and richer. You can continue to pretend like this isn't true, but it is. They are the equivalent of a global warming advocate with 10 planes and 50 SUVs in his garage. Telling everyone to stop AGW.

Look at the front of the f'ing band's website. They are selling every fucking thing they can. The fact that some of you are so blinded by your Pearl Jam fandom to atleast recognize they are money-grabbing, is actually quite sick and sad. Excuses for everything these days...

...well, they're only greedy, sell-outs because...

(insert excuse)

...so, it's OK.


Why not say - Yeh, they are money-grabbing and a lot of what they do now completely goes against what they've said or rallied around in the past, I'm OK with that though. That way, it's all good, but at least you acknowledge it and move on.

Just occasionally I read your posts and think... yeah.

guitar_davey wrote:My take is that the anti-capitalist stance taken in songs like Soon Forget, Grievance, Green Disease, etc. is aimed at those who are perfectly willing to throw all of their morals, kindness, etc. out the window to make a buck.

The problem is, those people are cartoons. They're imaginative archetypes invented to sell us the idea that being rich is bad. Not all rich people are Evil Little Goats. Some of them are very nice people. But in the real world, this doesn't exclude them from any of the charges you put against the people that Pearl Jam's songs rail against. People who rail against corporation do so because of principals, and those principals extend to ordinary people who just happen to have corporation-friendly, pro-capitalist values. Cartoon villains exploit people because it's fun and they can make a quick buck. Real people usually make a lot of money and act like hypocrites because they've convinced themselves that they're exempt from being the subject of other people's protests.

IlluminEddie wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:I've read most of this thread as it has unfolded. I don't have the inclination to respond to all of it, but I would like to make one point regarding the perception that "PJ used to wave the anti-capitalist flag and now they're hypocritical sellouts."

I don't think they *ever* suggested it was a bad thing to make money off one's art, and as Stip and others have pointed out, they were a major label "commercial" rock band from the get go. My take is that the anti-capitalist stance taken in songs like Soon Forget, Grievance, Green Disease, etc. is aimed at those who are perfectly willing to throw all of their morals, kindness, etc. out the window to make a buck. A band writing songs to appeal to a mass audience, while bringing attention to worthwhile social causes, raising boatloads of money for a diverse group of charities, and making a comfortable living for themselves (and a whole lot of employees who no doubt depend on them) is not incompatible with their earlier stance.

My point being: they were always against the rich getting richer and richer and richer at the expense of everyone and everything that stood in their way. I see no reason to think that stance has changed one bit just because they're selling a bit more merchandise and being less precious about putting out some hookier material.

I agree they never said it was bad to make money. They insinuated that selling out is horrible, however. They preached artistic integrity. They also insinuated for years about the problems with big business. They rallied against capitalist stance in music and in front of audiences at shows. They wrote a ridiculous amount of material devoted to the problems with wealth. They preached and preached about the rich...

Yet, they are the rich and have been. And they are getting richer and richer. You can continue to pretend like this isn't true, but it is. They are the equivalent of a global warming advocate with 10 planes and 50 SUVs in his garage. Telling everyone to stop AGW.

Look at the front of the f'ing band's website. They are selling every fucking thing they can. The fact that some of you are so blinded by your Pearl Jam fandom to atleast recognize they are money-grabbing, is actually quite sick and sad. Excuses for everything these days...

...well, they're only greedy, sell-outs because...

(insert excuse)

...so, it's OK.


Why not say - Yeh, they are money-grabbing and a lot of what they do now completely goes against what they've said or rallied around in the past, I'm OK with that though. That way, it's all good, but at least you acknowledge it and move on.

I guess I'm not really wound up over it considering they do an awful lot of good things (more than any of us are doing in the grand scheme of things), and they're not walking over anybody to do it.

harmless wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:My take is that the anti-capitalist stance taken in songs like Soon Forget, Grievance, Green Disease, etc. is aimed at those who are perfectly willing to throw all of their morals, kindness, etc. out the window to make a buck.

The problem is, those people are cartoons. They're imaginative archetypes invented to sell us the idea that being rich is bad. Not all rich people are Evil Little Goats. Some of them are very nice people. But in the real world, this doesn't exclude them from any of the charges you put against the people that Pearl Jam's songs rail against. People who rail against corporation do so because of principals, and those principals extend to ordinary people who just happen to have corporation-friendly, pro-capitalist values. Cartoon villains exploit people because it's fun and they can make a quick buck. Real people usually make a lot of money and act like hypocrites because they've convinced themselves that they're exempt from being the subject of other people's protests.

Well, I'd argue PJ set a pretty good example for how to make a buck and still contribute a whole lot of positivity to society.

We're all hypocrites to some degree when you think about it. These guys seem to me to at least be trying to do the right thing.

I think that the apparent change in PJ's politics and it's influence on song writing is exaggerated and based on assumptions blown out of proportion.
I think the song writing in PJ has always been the product of their individual states of mind for the most mart. I don't think there ever was a pragmatic approach with a specific goal in mind.

I find this quote from 1996 by Ed interesting
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-12-22/ ... am-concert

"I guess what has happened to us with this record shows that promotion really does matter, just like everybody told us," Vedder says during the group interview. "If you don't operate in that framework, which we don't, it's obvious that you won't sell as many records. And that's fine. We expected this to happen much sooner than it has.

He doesn't credit the music for No Code's poor sells but the lack of promotion. He doesn't mention an intention to be less commercially successful he only implies they don't really care and saw it coming. I think this is a "softer" position than what the band is usually credited for. Even as far as Ticketmaster is concerned. They didn't really stick with that one for long. I mean they could have stopped touring to make a statement. And let's not be naive, tours were a way of making money for bands even when record sells were strong.

I don't think they aren't doing all that well commercially because they don't have the ability to but because they don't really care to be doing any better. I think people assuming otherwise are wrong because there really isn't anything besides suppositions that show otherwise. Another thing to consider, Ed was difficult and hostile to everybody and everything during the PJ golden age. He is less so today and both is and was reflected in the music and how they promote it.

guitar_davey wrote:

harmless wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:My take is that the anti-capitalist stance taken in songs like Soon Forget, Grievance, Green Disease, etc. is aimed at those who are perfectly willing to throw all of their morals, kindness, etc. out the window to make a buck.

The problem is, those people are cartoons. They're imaginative archetypes invented to sell us the idea that being rich is bad. Not all rich people are Evil Little Goats. Some of them are very nice people. But in the real world, this doesn't exclude them from any of the charges you put against the people that Pearl Jam's songs rail against. People who rail against corporation do so because of principals, and those principals extend to ordinary people who just happen to have corporation-friendly, pro-capitalist values. Cartoon villains exploit people because it's fun and they can make a quick buck. Real people usually make a lot of money and act like hypocrites because they've convinced themselves that they're exempt from being the subject of other people's protests.

Well, I'd argue PJ set a pretty good example for how to make a buck and still contribute a whole lot of positivity to society.

We're all hypocrites to some degree when you think about it. These guys seem to me to at least be trying to do the right thing.

A lot of corporations (yes, even the evil villainous ones, of which Pearl Jam is not) do good things for people. For one, they provide a service, and often for people who need that service. And yes, Pearl Jam also do a lot of good things, and nobody is denying that. But no, I don't so easily shrug hypocrisy off with 'Well, can't we all be hypocrites sometimes?' Because yeah, I can be a hypocrite, but I haven't used a fame pedestal to do it, and I haven't developed an international fanbase, some of which joined the ride not just because of the music, but also because of the very values that Pearl Jam are in various ways contradicting now. Some of us, like me, are so caught up in Pearl Jam that we're still interested, but I can't lie; it would be nice if I could be interested in more than the music, as I used to be. I have a much more casual love (and yes, it's still love) of Pearl Jam now. But I consider that a necessary step, given the much more casual attitude they take to being Pearl Jam.

Mine wrote:I think that the apparent change in PJ's politics and it's influence on song writing is exaggerated and based on assumptions blown out of proportion.
I think the song writing in PJ has always been the product of their individual states of mind for the most mart. I don't think there ever was a pragmatic approach with a specific goal in mind.

I find this quote from 1996 by Ed interesting
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-12-22/ ... am-concert

"I guess what has happened to us with this record shows that promotion really does matter, just like everybody told us," Vedder says during the group interview. "If you don't operate in that framework, which we don't, it's obvious that you won't sell as many records. And that's fine. We expected this to happen much sooner than it has.

He doesn't credit the music for No Code's poor sells but the lack of promotion. He doesn't mention an intention to be less commercially successful he only implies they don't really care

I stopped reading there for a reason. Can you guess what it is?

This thread =

harmless wrote:
Just occasionally I read your posts and think... yeah.

Yup. Me too.

guitar_davey wrote:

harmless wrote:

guitar_davey wrote:My take is that the anti-capitalist stance taken in songs like Soon Forget, Grievance, Green Disease, etc. is aimed at those who are perfectly willing to throw all of their morals, kindness, etc. out the window to make a buck.

The problem is, those people are cartoons. They're imaginative archetypes invented to sell us the idea that being rich is bad. Not all rich people are Evil Little Goats. Some of them are very nice people. But in the real world, this doesn't exclude them from any of the charges you put against the people that Pearl Jam's songs rail against. People who rail against corporation do so because of principals, and those principals extend to ordinary people who just happen to have corporation-friendly, pro-capitalist values. Cartoon villains exploit people because it's fun and they can make a quick buck. Real people usually make a lot of money and act like hypocrites because they've convinced themselves that they're exempt from being the subject of other people's protests.

Well, I'd argue PJ set a pretty good example for how to make a buck and still contribute a whole lot of positivity to society.

We're all hypocrites to some degree when you think about it. These guys seem to me to at least be trying to do the right thing.

The band's very foundation was built around political issues like the evils of greed. The fact that greed is now OK with them (and some die-hard fans), doesn't seem right.

From my POV, everything has really changed with this band. Although I disagreed with Ed (PJ) over the years in areas politics, I've always had a respect for Ed and his (for the most part) dissenting opinion. Not because I agreed with him, but because he stood for "something". At least he cared and through the middle years "seemed" adhere to what he claimed in one way or another. Over the last five/ten years the violations that occurred (in the multitude of ways we've discussed ad nauseam) seem to straight-up dupe fans, like myself, and the respect I had for him (them). I disagreed with him politically and he's moving towards me politically, right... so that's good? No. Actually, if he admitted he was moving towards my viewpoint (capitalism is fine, it's OK to profit, etc) it would be good, because I could then say, OK he's just changed. But, he's not doing that. I believe (because I can see) he's sticking with his socialism rules logic. Because of that, he's a hypocrite.

At the end of the day, I wasn't the guy standing on stage preaching about this in a one direction discussion to fans, who for the most part, were muted to respond. Now, when this same guy is contradicting himself years later, we (as those muted fans) are still not allowed to point out these obvious contradictions... on a forum... about that band... that we registered for, because we may have done something hypocritical once or twice in our lives? Seriously? We don't have the access to the soapbox that Ed does. Our hypocrisy doesn't affect this community the way his does.

I think some die-hards seriously signed some oath that they can not question the infallible Vedder and his papacy.

IlluminEddie wrote: At the end of the day, I wasn't the guy standing on stage preaching about this in a one direction discussion to fans, who for the most part, were muted to respond. Now, when this same guy is contradicting himself years later, we (as those muted fans) are still not allowed to point out these obvious contradictions... on a forum... about that band... that we registered for, because we may have done something hypocritical once or twice in our lives? Seriously? We don't have the access to the soapbox that Ed does. Our hypocrisy doesn't affect this community the way his does.

I think some die-hards seriously signed some oath that they can not question the infallible Vedder and his papacy.

I think you've been successfully doing just that here, though... have you been censored?

and while I'm of similar opinion about where the band stands these days (or ed, specifically), even I understand that other people here will disagree with me when I voice that opinion (and they do).

malice wrote:
I think you've been successfully doing just that here, though... have you been censored?

No, I haven't been censored. At concerts, the point is, we can't talk back to the guy on a soapbox and involve ourselves in a real discussion. What we can do is listen and continue to listen and discuss issues with fellow fans. I've listened to him... for decades. It was clear how Ed felt about wealth, taxes, greed, big business, etc.

So, the point was a response to this:

We're all hypocrites to some degree when you think about it.

... once again, I wasn't on stage involving myself in one-way discussions on these issues. My hypocrisy has nothing to do with the subject, nor does anyone's here. We're talking about the band and Ed's hypocrisy which is relevant to what the band's message is.

malice wrote: and while I'm of similar opinion about where the band stands these days (or ed, specifically), even I understand that other people here will disagree with me when I voice that opinion (and they do).

Of course I understand that some here (the super duper die-hards) will always align with the band. I just expect a bit less idolatry here than at the 10 club, perhaps incorrectly. It's sincerely my opinion, that anyone who has a good understanding of PJ history and is looking at this issue objectively HAS to side w/ our opinion. Because it's mathematical - they said XYZ here, than did ABC 10 years later.

Those, here, who disagree, clearly have a good understanding of PJ history, so that leaves one potential explanation.... a lack of an objective viewpoint.

Hold it right there. Nobody has an 'objective' viewpoint. No such thing. A viewpoint is subjective by its very nature.

harmless wrote:Hold it right there. Nobody has an 'objective' viewpoint. No such thing. A viewpoint is subjective by its very nature.

This is getting into the weeds. What I meant is the ability to look at a subject and tell it like it is, regardless of consequences.

Let me give you an example, let's say your brother is a great guy, and of course you love him. One of your friends says, let's steer clear of introducing your brother at a wedding to girl X because they are both hot heads. This friend clearly didn't mean harm to your brother but was sincere in saying let's not have drama at this wedding. You can either get defensive (since you love your brother and you think deep down he's great), or acknowledge the fact that your brother does blow-up on people 9 times out of 10, and heed the advice. In other words, you can look at the facts, or you can choose not to.