Page 38 of 169
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Mon December 09, 2013 8:01 pm
by nomorecrackpipes
WtOB? wrote:IlluminEddie wrote:nomorecrackpipes wrote:As laughably inaccurate as the video is (especially the smiles and friendly waves from the 10C staff), it is just a promo video. I think the PJ marketing squad has realized videos are an effective way to get a point across, who wants to bother reading these days?
Look at the comments to the video. That's some great promotion! lol

i guess it's not just us then.
I saw that stupid Greek flag and stopped.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Mon December 09, 2013 8:06 pm
by Tuolumne
IlluminEddie wrote:stupidmop wrote:Can I blame eddies infatuation with Bruce Springsteen for everything? I think I want to.
[Fistshake]Spriinngssteeeennnn[/fistshake]
Does anyone know when they first played a Springsteen song or even acknowledged him in any way?
I feel, although perhaps I'm wrong, it wasn't until very late in their career (like Vote for Change time). In my opinion, Pearl Jam understands their market is sizable in Philly/NJ /NYarea... particularly in blue collar areas. The rest of the northeast is fairly decent, as is Northwest. Everywhere else, not so much. I think they understood, Springsteen made a career out of appealing to exactly where PJ's majority market lies (Northeast, particularly Philly/NJ/NY) and branching out from there. They, therefore, decided to emulate him. Which, if true, is ridiculously sad and echoes the thoughts of money grab.
But, perhaps, Ed and company were always Bruce fans even back when Ten was recorded. I think we would've heard that though.
Also, Bruce sucks.... he's terrible.
Man, I think you're way too cynical. You really think they're that calculating? Go for it .... I guess.
Btw, Ed was covering Bruce Springsteen during his Bad Radio days. Look it up. This is like 1988 or 1989. Good enough for ya? Probably not. I still love the name IlluminEddie, though.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Mon December 09, 2013 8:27 pm
by IlluminEddie
Tuolumne wrote:IlluminEddie wrote:stupidmop wrote:Can I blame eddies infatuation with Bruce Springsteen for everything? I think I want to.
[Fistshake]Spriinngssteeeennnn[/fistshake]
Does anyone know when they first played a Springsteen song or even acknowledged him in any way?
I feel, although perhaps I'm wrong, it wasn't until very late in their career (like Vote for Change time). In my opinion, Pearl Jam understands their market is sizable in Philly/NJ /NYarea... particularly in blue collar areas. The rest of the northeast is fairly decent, as is Northwest. Everywhere else, not so much. I think they understood, Springsteen made a career out of appealing to exactly where PJ's majority market lies (Northeast, particularly Philly/NJ/NY) and branching out from there. They, therefore, decided to emulate him. Which, if true, is ridiculously sad and echoes the thoughts of money grab.
But, perhaps, Ed and company were always Bruce fans even back when Ten was recorded. I think we would've heard that though.
Also, Bruce sucks.... he's terrible.
Man, I think you're way too cynical. You really think they're that calculating? Go for it .... I guess.
Btw, Ed was covering Bruce Springsteen during his Bad Radio days. Look it up. This is like 1988 or 1989. Good enough for ya? Probably not. I still love the name IlluminEddie, though.
Actually, that is good. I never heard that cover before. And it does kinda prove me wrong, in a way.
But, to get extra cynical on ya, I'd say that it's odd that Ed covered that Bruce tune with Bad Radio then in the early years of PJ (kinda forgot about Bruce, omitting him in the entirety while celebrating so many other musicians). It's almost as if he/they didn't want to be associated with The Boss (or his cheese) when Ed/PJ was in his days of preaching about selling out and so on.
So, in a sense, when Ed wasn't popular and seeking rock stardom (Bad Radio), Bruce was cool. Then when he was popular (early PJ), Bruce wasn't. Now, that he's (modern day PJ) fading in popularity again, Bruce is cool again.
Just weird is all. The entirety of this relationship seems so plastic to me and I don't mean Bruce's face. But, I agree it's a cynical take.... no doubt.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Mon December 09, 2013 8:34 pm
by Tuolumne
Man, I think the answer to your question is that Ed wanted rock stardom, just not the kind where some batshit crazy lady is driving their car into your house at 50mph.
Look at anyone who gets stardom overnight, they lose their shit. Everytime. He lost his shit, and I think he's pretty forthcoming that he did. It's calm now, he's cool with a little attention. I am cool with him being cool with it. And PJ does share the hokiness and cheesiness that Bruce has. Just nakedly earnest. I've always thought anyone who liked PJ has to sort of buy into that at the start or it just doesn't work.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Tue December 10, 2013 3:21 am
by warehouse
im pretty sure bruce springsteen has always been an influence on eddie vedder. didnt he say bruce was his first bootleg? i dont think he acknowledged him early on b/c he felt guilty from basically coming to seattle and taking over. i remember him talking about mudhoney and soundgarden alot. and bands like fugazi that didnt have as much popularity at the time, but eddie vedder probably thought he could use his fame to help spread their music to more people.
i do think there was a time later in pearl jam's career where bruce springsteen became a bigger influence, maybe more as a business/band than just as a musician. i think thats why eddie vedder brings him up more now.
how often do pearl jam reference led zeppelin as an influence?
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Tue December 10, 2013 3:23 am
by LetMeSleep
warehouse wrote:im pretty sure bruce springsteen has always been an influence on eddie vedder. didnt he say bruce was his first bootleg? i dont think he acknowledged him early on b/c he felt guilty from basically coming to seattle and taking over. i remember him talking about mudhoney and soundgarden alot. and bands like fugazi that didnt have as much popularity at the time, but eddie vedder probably thought he could use his fame to help spread their music to more people.
i do think there was a time later in pearl jam's career where bruce springsteen became a bigger influence, maybe more as a business/band than just as a musician. i think thats why eddie vedder brings him up more now.
how often do pearl jam reference led zeppelin as an influence?
I think Bruce was his first show in 78. But the 90s Ed would never have allowed that info out, he was too busy looking for alternative cred.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Tue December 10, 2013 3:28 am
by surfndestroy
One of this year's New York shows has Ed introduce Boom as "our big man" prior to Future Days.
Does this mean we get to look forward to Ed having his wife join the band and even sing a couple of songs?
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Tue December 10, 2013 3:35 am
by LetMeSleep
Morello will be guesting in 2018 then.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 11, 2013 8:42 pm
by hopethatuchoke
That is exactly how I pictured Santos facial expression to be at all hours of the day and it comes across in his work (or lack of)

Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 11, 2013 9:15 pm
by Monkey_Driven
IlluminEddie wrote:stupidmop wrote:Can I blame eddies infatuation with Bruce Springsteen for everything? I think I want to.
[Fistshake]Spriinngssteeeennnn[/fistshake]
Does anyone know when they first played a Springsteen song or even acknowledged him in any way?
I feel, although perhaps I'm wrong, it wasn't until very late in their career (like Vote for Change time). In my opinion, Pearl Jam understands their market is sizable in Philly/NJ /NYarea... particularly in blue collar areas. The rest of the northeast is fairly decent, as is Northwest. Everywhere else, not so much. I think they understood, Springsteen made a career out of appealing to exactly where PJ's majority market lies (Northeast, particularly Philly/NJ/NY) and branching out from there. They, therefore, decided to emulate him. Which, if true, is ridiculously sad and echoes the thoughts of money grab.
But, perhaps, Ed and company were always Bruce fans even back when Ten was recorded. I think we would've heard that though.
Also, Bruce sucks.... he's terrible.

Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 11, 2013 9:56 pm
by southp
Monkey_Driven wrote:IlluminEddie wrote:stupidmop wrote:Can I blame eddies infatuation with Bruce Springsteen for everything? I think I want to.
[Fistshake]Spriinngssteeeennnn[/fistshake]
Does anyone know when they first played a Springsteen song or even acknowledged him in any way?
I feel, although perhaps I'm wrong, it wasn't until very late in their career (like Vote for Change time). In my opinion, Pearl Jam understands their market is sizable in Philly/NJ /NYarea... particularly in blue collar areas. The rest of the northeast is fairly decent, as is Northwest. Everywhere else, not so much. I think they understood, Springsteen made a career out of appealing to exactly where PJ's majority market lies (Northeast, particularly Philly/NJ/NY) and branching out from there. They, therefore, decided to emulate him. Which, if true, is ridiculously sad and echoes the thoughts of money grab.
But, perhaps, Ed and company were always Bruce fans even back when Ten was recorded. I think we would've heard that though.
Also, Bruce sucks.... he's terrible.

more like...

Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Wed December 11, 2013 11:06 pm
by Monkey_Driven
southp wrote:Monkey_Driven wrote:IlluminEddie wrote:stupidmop wrote:Can I blame eddies infatuation with Bruce Springsteen for everything? I think I want to.
[Fistshake]Spriinngssteeeennnn[/fistshake]
Does anyone know when they first played a Springsteen song or even acknowledged him in any way?
I feel, although perhaps I'm wrong, it wasn't until very late in their career (like Vote for Change time). In my opinion, Pearl Jam understands their market is sizable in Philly/NJ /NYarea... particularly in blue collar areas. The rest of the northeast is fairly decent, as is Northwest. Everywhere else, not so much. I think they understood, Springsteen made a career out of appealing to exactly where PJ's majority market lies (Northeast, particularly Philly/NJ/NY) and branching out from there. They, therefore, decided to emulate him. Which, if true, is ridiculously sad and echoes the thoughts of money grab.
But, perhaps, Ed and company were always Bruce fans even back when Ten was recorded. I think we would've heard that though.
Also, Bruce sucks.... he's terrible.

more like...


Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Thu December 12, 2013 12:24 am
by southp
Monkey_Driven wrote:southp wrote:


Awesome... "death to my hometown!"
Maybe we can start our own thread where we appreciate how much Ed is trying to emulate Bruce?
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Thu December 12, 2013 12:52 am
by RemusLillian
Been chuckling along to RM for a few years now, but never felt a more appropriate time to post than this thread.
Whether or not Ed is trying to emulate Bruce, he is for sure the downfall of PJ as we once knew them. As soon as he assumed creative control it pretty much gradually started going to shit. This was notched up a rank or twelve around the riot act period when the rest of the band, especially Stone, seemed to totally cede all musical control to him.
The biggest problem with the last few albums is how many shit Ed songs there are on them. Lets take LBC-Unthought Known-Lightning Bolt for a start, they are essentially the same fucking song. And that song is shit. Gone was pretty much an updated Betterman musically. And what the fuck happened to Gossard? One contribution to LB? I would have happily taken anything off of Moonlander over some of Ed's generic power chord wank fests. Look, I'm not trying to say that Let The Records Play is a great song, far from it, but at least there is something remotely different going on to PJ as we are accustomed to. And for fucks sake, how many surfing metaphors can there be?
Live, Ed and his awful, awful guitar tone has ruined pretty much every gig since Riot Act. And thats assuming he stays sober enough to play in time with everyone else. To go back to the Bruce comparison, the man is 63 and plays 3-4 hours a night, tirelessly working a crowd until he's on his knees, whether or not you are a fan you can't deny him that. Ed will show up for his gigs in AUS next year, bumble his way through a stagnant setlist he's been playing for 6 years, constantly forgetting lyrics, aborting and restarting songs, completely underrehearsed, probably drunk, and charge you $160 for the pleasure. If the plan is to market him as a blue collar hero, then they'll run into problems, because, frankly, he's an asshole.
Oh, and don't forget your $30 Seattle Surf Co. Dog Bowl (Only $60 Shipping) on the way out the door.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Thu December 12, 2013 1:01 am
by Sgt. Crackpot
Way to make an entrance, man. Welcome to RM.

Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Thu December 12, 2013 1:03 am
by RemusLillian
Sgt. Crackpot wrote:Way to make an entrance, man. Welcome to RM.

I do my best.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Thu December 12, 2013 1:03 am
by McParadigm
It's about time Jeff Ament joined Red Mosquito.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Thu December 12, 2013 1:04 am
by Lament
No better way to be greeted than by a Sarge gif.
Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Thu December 12, 2013 1:08 am
by stip
Welcome to the board

Re: Post-Riot Act Moneygrab
Posted: Thu December 12, 2013 1:09 am
by BurtReynolds
Watch out for Evenslow, he bites.